Reply With QuoteMore revenue is generated from eating and drinking than from smoking...Originally Posted by Huertecilla
Sent from my calculator using a lawnmower.
This is technically possible but (a) unlawful (no use of inhibitors is permitted) and (b) it is impossible to prevent the inhibition barrage from leaking out of the vehicle, causing 15 shades of disaster with all manner of radio systems around the vehicle.
Why add a technical “solution” to peoples’ inability to comply with the law?
Sent from my calculator using a lawnmower.
More revenue is generated from eating and drinking than from smoking...
Sent from my calculator using a lawnmower.
Ah well, tant pis.
Again; Peltzman effect.
And yes, a twice as heavy car has twice as much potential for damage. Those who don´t get that should not be driving.
Ditto those who do not undersatnd that modern driving aids do not increase the grip of the same four tyres.
Last edited by Huertecilla; 16th August 2019 at 16:17.
Actually, a vehicle with twice the mass has four times the kinetic energy so I would imagine that the potential for damage is likely more than doubled.
Sent from my calculator using a lawnmower.
4 x?
ke = 0.5 x m x v2
Double mass is only double the kinetic energy, same for momentum.
This makes the racing steering wheel ´safer´:
This makes you drive more prudently:
The latter is by fár safer for the other users of the public space.
Bottom line is that this thread illustrates how low the bar lies for getting driving permission...
What does the research say on use of radio's such as those used by police and emergency services?
Are they more distracting than:
a physical conversation?
A hand held call?
A hand free call?
Sent from my moto e5 using Tapatalk
AFAIK prosections aren't yet based on a roadside breathalyser - if just over value may drop before further test at 'station.
Whether they are or not, such calls are no doubt deemed essential, ours aren't.
Maybe you can get fully comfortable by saying it's essential, I can see a potentially different angle and I'm trying hard to frame this question correctly.
If it's dangerous and puts undue risk onto those expected to do it in their chosen line of business does it leave the employer liable in the event of an accident.
Or will the individual be hung out to dry for not using judgement?
Is it a case of 1 rule for us and another for you lot. if so that's fine.
If it's a safety argument then Surely it applies to all road users?
What happens for example if a police officer causes an accident through speed at the moment?
Sent from my moto e5 using Tapatalk
If you can't understand what "distracting" means, perhaps you shouldn't be typing. An old friend of mine was hit head-on, and killed, by a van driver talking on his phone.
Hands free or hand held?
Of course I understand what that means, what's your point?
I’m curious how it would be enforced?!
Passively, I guess. If you are involved in an accident serious enough to involve the police, then they will look at your phone. That's how they got the van driver, i.e. too late.
I don't know, but either is equally dangerous, so they say.
Is that a serious question?
Whose 'they'?
You asked me me if I understood what distraction meant, I confirmed that I did. I then asked you what was your point. So I'll go back to my point and say if you can't hold a conversation inside a vehicle without having a crash then you shouldn't be driving. Now back to your thing about distraction......what's your point?
So youre saying that holding a phone to your ear and operating a mobile phone is as dangerous as having an auto answering phone on handsfree, and you're asking me if I understand what the word distraction means.
Gah, I had a feeling I had misremembered that equation!
I stand corrected.
Nonetheless, using anything which distracts when driving is bad.
Sent from my calculator using a lawnmower.
It certainly doesn't help when watching porn
...
BUBI 0_0
The point I have made several times is that driving and having a phone call at the same time is dangerous. I can only assume that you are pretending to fail to understand this very straightforward information.
"A substantial body of research shows that using a hand-held or hands-free mobile phone while driving is a significant distraction, and substantially increases the risk of the driver crashing."
https://www.rospa.com/road-safety/ad...on/fact-sheet/
You know, "they". Experts and stuff.
https://www.rospa.com/road-safety/ad...on/fact-sheet/
Yes, absolutely - that's what all the peer-reviewed evidence shows.
The level of distraction has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the phone is being hand held at the time - it's the cognitive load on the driver which causes the distraction, especially in the absence of any non-verbal cues (which is why it's totally different to talking to a passenger).
As has been mentioned, the level of distraction is equivalent to driving at the drink/drive level.
Can you post a link to the peer reviewed evidence, I'd be interested to read it.
I've read the RoSPA document and all it really does is list 'potential distractions' nothing specific on mobile phones.
No no, apart from this -
As for the other bit, do your own research.Mobile phones and driving
A substantial body of research shows that using a hand-held or hands-free mobile phone while driving is a significant distraction, and substantially increases the risk of the driver crashing.
The distraction of hands-free calls has been known about for many years, and is important because it's potentially deadly. I stopped taking calls while driving years ago, when the research was first reported (I first heard about it on the Today prog, R4) and would recommend it. The ban is long overdue, if it's ever introduced.
I agree; never understood why when the problem became evident it was fudged into handsfree allowed.
Yes, it will create issues for several types of services.
Next navigation screens.
It proves ziltch other than what I already knew......some people are distracted when talking some aren't.
If you are you shouldn't be driving.
From Rospa website as you linked.....
Despite the fact that there is much evidence supporting the idea that phone conversations lead to a deficit indriving performance, it is not known whether conversation results in a disruption to our actual cognitivemechanisms (Cognitive Disruption hypothesis), or just a delay in response due to limited cognitive resources(Cognitive Delay hypothesis). A recent study by Gunnell et al., (2019), asked participants to identify visualstimuli whilst having a conversation across various conditions whilst their response time was being recorded.The study investigated spatial learning and time-based selection. Spatial learning is the part of our memoryresponsible for navigating through a space, and time-based selection is how we prioritise new information infavour of old information. The study used two cognitive search tasks (mechanisms of our visual system):
Then goes in to say.........
- The results from this study support the Cognitive Delay hypothesis – meaning having a phone conversationdoes not affect the actual ability to drive, but it results in a robust and consistent delay in response times.When the conversation is taking place, it is likely that the individual “switches tasks”, reallocating attentionbetween the conversation and the activity they are carrying out. This reallocation of attention is likely whatcauses a delay in response times.
So in a nutshell any any form of conversation is bad not just one when using a mobile phone., Along with everything else we do in a car from farting, picking your nose, sneezing, talking to the wife, changing radio stations etc.
All you're doing is removing one thing whilst ignoring everything else which could possible distract you.
So we shouldn't remove any distraction whilst people can still pick their nose?
And do you think that everyone who is distracted recognises that they are? Rather like a drunk thinking they can still drive.
That's not what it says at all. I suggest you re-read what you have quoted, as it all specifically refer to a phone conversation.
The differentiating factor between a phone conversation and a face-to-face conversation is the total lack of non-verbal cues in the former.
Yes, there are lots of things which can cause distraction [*] to a driver, but only phone calls have been shown to affect driving ability to the same level as consuming alcohol to the drink/driving limit. Hence a ban is a sensible move (unless, perhaps, you believe that the drink/drive alcohol limit is too low and should be increased?)
[*] A low level of distraction can be a good thing - tests show that students sitting an exam with a low level of background noise actually perform better than those taking the same exam in absolute silence.
I'll cheat and quote from WIkipedia - if the links are broken, you can find them on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile...driving_safety
Driving while using a handsfree cellular device is not safer than using a hand held cell phone, as concluded by case-crossover studies,[1][2] epidemiological,[3][4] simulation,[5] and meta-analysis.[6][7] The increased cognitive workload involved in holding a conversation, not the use of hands, causes the increased risk.[27][28][29] For example, a Carnegie Mellon University study found that merely listening to somebody speak on a phone caused a 37% drop in activity in the parietal lobe, where spatial tasks are managed.[30] The consistency of increased crash risk between hands-free and hand held cell phone use is at odds with legislation in many locations that prohibits hand held cell phone use but allows hands-free.
Although strictly not related, I found this quite interesting, around multi tasking. https://www.bbc.com/ideas/videos/can...nswer/p07jstyl
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using TZ-UK mobile app
This is what's known as a false dichotomy. Solving one problem does not prevent further research into other areas of road safety.
Your attitude to this issue reminds me of the people who objected to mandatory seat belts.
Last edited by Holsterman; 17th August 2019 at 16:39.
There's a bunch of references in this 2015 document, at the end. One of the references was published in 2005 (BMJ). None of this is news.
https://research.qut.edu.au/carrsq/w...tion-email.pdf
Last edited by Holsterman; 17th August 2019 at 17:08.
How does the proposal deal with the passengers operating the phone?
Sent from my calculator using a lawnmower.
Clearly three passengers all on the phone chattering away isn’t distracting
That’s true but I meant if the passenger is holding the phone and talking handsfree; clearly the driver is listening and can join in...
Sent from my calculator using a lawnmower.
I find it distracting already when the passenger relates the satnav instruction to me. By Jove how confusing are feminine interpretatins of instructions aimed at those without sense of direction. It´s like solving a rapidly fired string of riddles.
The solution is to look before leaving.
If needed I will stop and have another look but not a squeek from either the satnav or the passenger about the directions please. The please because it´s polite, but it is not a request.
Beats me why ralley navigator/road book instructions are cristal clear to me and satnav/female ditto so confusing.
No doubt it´s me but so be it.
Last edited by Huertecilla; 18th August 2019 at 09:56.
This is basically the point.....Ulsterman, why would you assume the link between seat bets and this, very strange. Since introduced they've saved millions of lives. As has ABS, airbags and a whole host of proactive safety equipment on vehicles.
I assume you mean me! I'm not from Norn Iron.
The introduction of compulsory seat belts triggered the usual wailing from libertarians, if you remember? Banning phone calls in cars will save lives, maybe even yours, but for some reason you don't like it.
1 Irrelevant.
2 Buy a two-seat sports car?
I'm all for banning things that are reasonably legitimate.....this isn't.
Using a phone increases your chance of crashing badly enough to be taken to hospital by a factor of four. Similar to driving at the legal alcohol limit.
Why is stopping that not legitimate?
Listen we won't agree on this, it's pointless. I also won't agree that holding-using and texting with a handheld phone is as distracting as having an auto answering phone on handsfree/Bluetooth and holding a conversation.....it's total bo**oc*.
Enforce the law more stringently with regards to normal handheld calls, eating and drinking and not banning something which is essentially as proved by your ROSPA website less distracting than sat nav and other in car tech.
Just some more politico’s talking rubbish if they cannot mange to police drivers on phones held to the ear how will they police hands free? cars are full of distractions and that’s a fact.I read recently they are also talking about banning driving in high heels so guys if your having that “ special” night out leave the phone in the glove box and careful in those heels
I FEEL LIKE I'M DIAGONALLY PARKED IN A PARALLEL UNIVERSE
1. Evidence?
2. The ROSPA website isn't mine and proves no such thing.
They are not talking rubbish. Driving in heels isn't recommended because control is impaired, so it makes sense to ban that.Just some more politico’s talking rubbish if they cannot mange to police drivers on phones held to the ear how will they police hands free? cars are full of distractions and that’s a fact.I read recently they are also talking about banning driving in high heels so guys if your having that “ special” night out leave the phone in the glove box and careful in those heels
Evidence for what? That holding and actually using a phone which includes texting, calling etc is more distracting that having a phone connected on handsfree, having the call autoconnect and all you have to do is talk?
- - - Updated - - -
You're right, it's not rubbish.....it's total pap
Posting Permissions
