Reply With QuoteRead the research I posted if you think it's personal incredulity. It's correct and it's factual.Originally Posted by Holsterman
Let me run through some scenarios with you....the first.
I get in to my car which is always paired to the vehicles Bluetooth. It's set up so calls are prioritised over media. The phones rings, I have some options. One being to press a green button to answer the call which is actually safer than leaning across to put the radio on because it's on the steering wheel or waiting for 3 rings so that it answers automatically, I have my conversation and the call then ends automatically.
Throughout all of this my hands are on the wheel and eyes havent left the road.
Ive also got a 1970s Austin Allegro which unfortunately has none of the latest tech....I could obviously have a parrot fitted but hey.....it's a frigging Allegro. The phone is in my pocket and I'm merrily driving down the road when the phone rings. I firstly pull the phone out of my pocket whilst wiggling my arse out of the seat which will undoubtably mean that my feet lose some connection with the pedals.
Once out of my pocket I avert my gaze to the phone , see who's calling.....oh shit it's the missus better answer it. So I press the green button whilst one handledly holding the phone to my ear obviously leaving one hand on the steering wheel. A round about comes up so I have to trap the phone between my shoulder and my ear whilst negotiation the manoeuvre. Thankfully it's a quick call and the missus just wants to tell me some rubbish and ends the call.
2 scenarios for which you are saying hold the same level of distraction. Tell me how both these scenarios can command the same level of distraction without pointing us to some anecdotal website?
Read the research I posted if you think it's personal incredulity. It's correct and it's factual.
It's just a matter of time...
The fact is that the risk is the same for hands-free and hand-held calls. You might not be able to believe that, but that's your problem.
Of course I'm a better than average driver/rider - it's my hobby. I live somewhere unrestricted by speed limits, where you can enjoy a car or motorbike every day of the year. I've raced, done multiple track days and try to improve my skills all the time.
Regardless of that... My personal opinion remains, if you can't drive a car to an acceptable standard and answer a call on hand free, then you really shouldn't be driving on the roads - god only knows what other factors may limit your safe driving.
It's just a matter of time...
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile...driving_safetyDriving while using a hands-free device is not safer than using a handheld phone to conduct calls, as concluded by case-crossover studies,[1][2] epidemiological,[3][4] simulation,[5] and meta-analysis.[6][7]
Explain that to me then.....go on. 2 scenarios. I bet you can't.
You are purposefully disregarding the point in your answer, and the available research on the subject matter, that shows that you are sadly mistaken.
It's just a matter of time...
Oh well, you are clearly an internet driving god, have special status and are immune from this distraction, so none of this applies to you.
<ahem>
What are you on about? You have the facts in front of you. No difference has been found.
What point, and please post a link to the research to which you refer?
LOL you can't can you....that isn't an answer.
I can't what?
I nearly crashed reading that
Respect the past, live the present, protect the future
What facts like this on the wiki you link to...
"A key finding was that: "No studies were found that directly address and resolve the issue of whether a causal relation exists between cellular telephone use while operating a motor vehicle and motor vehicle collisions." "
It's just a matter of time...
The data shows equivalence. What other explanation do you need?
And you had the audacity the other day to ask me if my previous question was serious.
How can the 2 scenarios command the same levels of distraction
Sure, correlation is not causation. But experimental data support the idea that phones are distracting - in all their forms. It seems reasonable to ban hand-held phones, but when shown evidence that hands-free are no better, there's a problem.
- - - Updated - - -
What do you mean by "how"?
Summary, or look it up on Virginia Tech:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0207173255.htm
It's just a matter of time...
FFS lol....jeez.
Playing dumb for the sake of it generally negates the necessity of an answer but it doesn't cut it on here.
As I've already had a couple of great laps around the TT course today, one while having a conversation (albeit I was a little silent at times when required - because human beings are capable of making decisions), I'm going to look at some conversations about watches :)
It's just a matter of time...
Interesting, but seems to be an outlier?
I'm not playing dumb. Here's one potential answer to your "how" question:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distraction
Outlier? Not to the point I was making - if you actually read my posts, and also relevant to the points FFF was clearly trying to clarify.
It's just a matter of time...
Cant you just answer the simple question of how they can carry the same level of distraction although one means you have to take your eyes off the road whilst the other doesn't?
I think holsterman must be a Parrott. He’s harping the same thing over and over.
To argue against FFF’s point above of physically picking up a phone, looking at it, answering it, holding it etc and then claiming that’s it’s NOT more distracting than simply pressing a button on a steering wheel is ridiculous.
It’s a case of “oh it’s here in a report, it must be right’
There was a report done by a German think tank recently regarding the real green footprint of diesel v EV’s and that turned out to be a completely biased report, but I guess if you are holsterman it’s a case of, it’s a report on the internet so it must be 100% factual.
Jeez get a grip man and leave that bone go.
It's what most of the data shows, apart from the VT paper. If you are looking for a mechanism, I can't help you.
And now, based on the actual evidence, the legislators have realised that it was a spurious distinction. Hence why they are now - quite correctly - looking to change the legislation in order to ban the (dangerous) act of talking on a handsfree telephone in the same way that they currently ban the (equally dangerous) act of talking on a handheld telephone.
Which is what started this thread.
It's a bunch of reports, not one. It's known as "evidence".
Why has 'is hands-free less distracting' even become the argument? Whether it's a distraction is what's important.
Data shymater.
I know. Those bleeding experts stopped us driving drunk as well. The cheek.
Surlely because it's the basis of this thread...handsfree is as distracting as handheld where clearly it isn't.
- - - Updated - - -
Sorry but you're a dick.....end of.
FTFY
Charmed I'm sure.
There is a (statistically insignificant) difference between the degree of distraction that the two activities involve.
There are many things which a driver does during which they momentarily take their eyes off the road or their hands off the wheel (looking at road signs, turning on the radio, changing gear, scratching themself, etc, etc). These are low level distractions, and any qualified driver will tend to minimise the risk involved (e.g. you wouldn't normally choose the point when you are merging into fast-flowing traffic to change the radio station, or look at your watch to see the time).
A telephone call (regardless of whether it's handheld or handsfree) involves a cognitive distraction - the person at the other end of the phone has no idea of what the driver is doing at any given moment, due to the absence of any non-verbal cues (unlike with a conversation with a passenger). It's this distraction to the driver's brain (assuming that they have one!) which is the overwhelming issue, and explains why both types of telephone conversation are equally distracting, are equally dangerous, and should equally be banned.
Understand now?
No
Can't see that mentioned in the opening post or link therein.
It was in the link the OP posted.....https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49320473
Then you are clearly far too stupid to be on a watch forum, let alone actually get behind the wheel of a car.
Did you miss the bit that says:
Joshua Harris, of road safety charity Brake, said research showed using a hands-free phone "can impair a driver in the same way as a hand-held device and so it makes sense that the law treats these acts equally".
Without linking anything, tell my why the 2 scenarios I listed earlier command the same level of distraction. It's really a simple question for which Holsterman as yet anyway hasn't answered also.
Oh and whilst we're on the subject....why do you type in blue? It's smacks a little bit of "look at me?
I think that the above will probably be just as accurate!
fit a CB radio like the good old days of communication 10/10 till we do it again.
Why is it incumbent on me to provide any explanation of mechanisms behind the data?
Read this from the WHO:
https://www.who.int/violence_injury_...ng_en.pdf?ua=1Using hands-free phones while driving has been shown to lead to reduced visual monitoring of instruments in the car and the general traffic situation, and negatively impacts on vehicle control(59). This evidence suggests that hands-free phones are not safer to use than hand-held phones in terms of driving performance (12,13,47,60-62). Although this may seem counterintuitive, evidence showing that it is the cognitive distraction that has the most impact upon driving performance may explain why using a hands-free mobile phone may be as likely to cause a crash as using a hand-held mobile phone (12,13,51,60,63-65). These conclusions are derived from epidemiological studies, meta-analyses, simulator studies and reviews of the literature(12,13,45,47,51,60,63,66,67)
Page 26.
Scenario 1: wibble, wibble, wiibble, followed by phone call which impairs your driving.
Scenario 2: wibble, wibble, wibble with a tiny bit more distraction, followed by phone call which impairs your driving to exactly the same extent.
If the first scenario is 1000 distraction points, then the second scenario is 1001 distraction points - to all practical intents and purposes, they are the same in terms of driving impairment.
You seem hung up on the physical aspects of answering/handling the phone. That's not the issue - it's no different to changing gear, turning on the radio, etc. It has only a tiny (statistically insignificant) impact on the impairment of your driving. It's the inability of your poor little brain to handle a phone call and drive safely at the same time which is the problem.
Let me try to give you two scenarios, as you seem to prefer these:
1) Driver holding a (switched off) phone up to their ear. Otherwise driving normally.
2) Same driver, same car, same road, but this time has both hands on the wheel and is participating in a handsfree telephone conversation.
A child suddenly and unexpectedly run out from behind a parked car. Which driver will react most quickly? All the evidence (and it some ways it's counter-intuitive, which may explain why so many people don't seem to understand) shows that Driver 1 will be less likely to hit said child. That's because the level of distraction that the phone call causes Driver 2 is much greater than the level of impairment caused to Driver 1 by having one hand held up to his ear. (And yes, Driver 3, who has both hands on the wheel and is also not participating in a telephone conversation, will obviously be safer again).
Ive never heard such rubbish in all my days......Firstly you negate to mention the fact that the phone was picked up and put to his ear in the first place. Secondly why would anyone have a SWITCHED OFF phone to their ear......you may aswell have used a banana in your scenario lol?
Your two scenarios are ridiculous as the thing stuck to his head is just an arbitrary object. Now let's use your 2 scenarios bit but this time he's bending down to pick up his phone, pressing the buttons to answer and operate the controls whilst swerving to miss the child....see the difference ?
Yes, and what if the phone is on the rear parcel shelf, and he has to climb back there to answer it? That's even worse, isn't it?
What I’m struggling to understand is why, if the level of distraction is the same as at the drink drive limit, they’re seeking to ban (or indeed have banned) either.
Surely a level of distraction for a few minutes is far less dangerous than the same level of distraction for a prolonged period ie. driving at the legal alcohol limit which is legal?
80mg/dl is/was the equivalence drawn - legal at the time of the article, but now illegal. It's down to 50.
Ahh, the light is slowly dawning, is it?
Exactly - the object could be a phone, a banana, or any other object. The whole point is that IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER. The issue is with the cognitive load and resulting distraction of the phone call, not the object that the driver is holding.
As for the distraction involved in initially locating/answering the phone - it's not ideal for a driver to have such a distraction, but it the overall scheme of things it's a tiny issue relative to the distraction caused by the phone call.
WTF are you talking about about. Nothing has dawned on me other than the fact you're as thick as mince
Posting Permissions