Banning hands free in cars

[mart broad]

They are not talking rubbish. Driving in heels isn't recommended because control is impaired, so it makes sense to ban that.

You really need to take a chill pill

[sundial]

Solution …

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6Wpc9s35ZY

dunk

[Holsterman]

You really need to take a chill pill

I really don't.

[Holsterman]

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?


You're right, it's not rubbish.....it's total pap

Yes, evidence for that. Because the available evidence shows you are wrong.

You should re-read the Highway Code about footwear, and this.

https://www.themotoringlaw.uk/driving-in-heels/

[Mick P]

Yes, evidence for that. Because the available evidence shows you are wrong.

You should re-read the Highway Code about footwear, and this.

https://www.themotoringlaw.uk/driving-in-heels/

Holsterman.

You are wasting your time, you can take a horse to water blah blah blah but his mind is totally made up.

[Franky Four Fingers]

Yes, evidence for that. Because the available evidence shows you are wrong.

You should re-read the Highway Code about footwear, and this.

https://www.themotoringlaw.uk/driving-in-heels/

I don't drive in heels and didn't bring that up but thanks I will bear that in mind.

I couldnt give a rats arse about the evidence....you can make stats and evidence match anything you wish driven by any given agenda. If you just thought about what appears to be hitching your pants up for one second. Operation a mobile phone in your hands, using the keyboard, texting, social media is more distracting than talking on an auto answering handsfree call. The fact you can't get that is quite staggering. In fact id say it's bewildering why you don't get that.

[Holsterman]

I couldnt give a rats arse about the evidence....you can make stats and evidence match anything you wish driven by any given agenda. If you just thought about what appears to be hitching your pants up for one second. Operation a mobile phone in your hands, using the keyboard, texting, social media is more distracting than talking on an auto answering handsfree call. The fact you can't get that is quite staggering. In fact id say it's bewildering why you don't get that.

So you admit that you are ignoring the research evidence, and you are backing up your position using an amalgam of the Argument from Personal Incredulity, and the Argument from Ignorance. Great.

[Franky Four Fingers]

So you admit that you are ignoring the research evidence, and you are backing up your position using an amalgam of the Argument from Personal Incredulity, and the Argument from Ignorance. Great.

Yes we'll done, that's exactly what I'm doing.

[Holsterman]

Yes we'll done, that's exactly what I'm doing.

Your argument is invalid.

[PhilipK]

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*.

So instead of believing the evidence which has been gathered by people who actually know what they are talking about, you're sticking your fingers in your ears and going "La la la I'm not listening".

I don't know which is more staggering - that you are so totally pig ignorant, or that you're actually willing to admit it in public! Whichever, I just hope that I'm never driving on the same section of road as you.

[Franky Four Fingers]

So instead of believing the evidence which has been gathered by people who actually know what they are talking about, you're sticking your fingers in your ears and going "La la la I'm not listening".

I don't know which is more staggering - that you are so totally pig ignorant, or that you're actually willing to admit it in public! Whichever, I just hope that I'm never driving on the same section of road as you.

Oh please, drive down the road texting and using social media and then press one button and have a chat
Tell me what’s more distracting.

[Holsterman]

Oh please, drive down the road texting and using social media and then press one button and have a chat
Tell me what’s more distracting.

OK, so now you are trying to twist the argument into "texting and using social media" vs hands-free calls. That is a straw-man argument, as the data pertains to phone calls only, i.e. hands-free vs hand-held.

You are really very good at fallacious arguments. Driving, not so much.

[Franky Four Fingers]

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.

OK, so now you are trying to twist the argument into "texting and using social media" vs hands-free calls. That is a straw-man argument, as the data pertains to phone calls only, i.e. hands-free vs hand-held.

You are really very good at fallacious arguments. Driving, not so much.

Well unless Im missing something using a mobile phone isn’t exclusively for making calls. I’ve said more than once in this thread ‘using’ a mobile phone and mentioned texting several times.

[PhilipK]

Oh please, drive down the road texting and using social media and then press one button and have a chat
Tell me what’s more distracting.

I don't know, because I've not seen any comparative studies comparing these two activities. Have you (and if so, can please provide a reference)? I don't dispute that they are both dangerous, and that no responsible or safe driver would engage in either activity.

What's absolutely irrefutable is that a handsfree phone conversation is just as distracting and dangerous as a handsheld phone conversation, and both are as dangerous as driving at the drink/driving level - which is the issue under discussion.

[number2]

Was there just as much rubbish bandied about when seat belts became compulsory?
Try for the briefest of moments to consider how you might feel if a loved one died due to someone being distracted by a phone / text.

[Franky Four Fingers]

I don't know, because I've not seen any comparative studies comparing these two activities. Have you (and if so, can please provide a reference)? I don't dispute that they are both dangerous, and that no responsible or safe driver would engage in either activity.

What's absolutely irrefutable is that a handsfree phone conversation is just as distracting and dangerous as a handsheld phone conversation, and both are as dangerous as driving at the drink/driving level - which is the issue under discussion.

Umm no- I’m looking on the rospa website that’s been quoted here. The definition of a hand-held mobile phoneThe Regulation includes any “device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data”.
It states that a “mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other “interactive communication function”. "Interactive communication function" includes:
(i) sending or receiving oral or written messages; (ii) sending or receiving facsimile documents;
(iii) sending or receiving still or moving images; and (iv) providing access to the internet
There are two exemptions:
 2- way “press to talk” radios, such as used by the emergency services and taxi drivers
 Using a hand-held phone for a genuine emergency call to 999 or 112 if it would be unsafe for the driver to stop.

So yeh what’s your point?

[Holsterman]

Well unless Im missing something using a mobile phone isn’t exclusively for making calls. I’ve said more than once in this thread ‘using’ a mobile phone and mentioned texting several times.

Yes you are missing something. The distraction caused by taking a phone call when driving is not reduced by using hands-free apparatus. It's a cognitive distraction.

This is really super-easy to understand, why are you having so much difficulty with it?

[Holsterman]

Was there just as much rubbish bandied about when seat belts became compulsory?

The reactionaries of the time were whining about loss of personal liberty, or somesuch nonsense. Nothing changes.

[Franky Four Fingers]

Yes you are missing something. The distraction caused by taking a phone call when driving is not reduced by using hands-free apparatus. It's a cognitive distraction.

This is really super-easy to understand, why are you having so much difficulty with it?

Then whybquote a website which includes using texts and accessing the net.... I can categorise your response as as must try harder

[Carlton-Browne]

I would encourage anybody who regularly has calls while driving to reflect, immediately after their call, how much of the previous few minutes driving they can actually recall. I'd suggest it will be either minimal or zero.

[Holsterman]

Then whybquote a website which includes using texts and accessing the net....

Why not? I expected you to be capable of sifting out what was relevant.

[PhilipK]

Umm no- I’m looking on the rospa website that’s been quoted here. The definition of a hand-held mobile phoneThe Regulation includes any “device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data”.
It states that a “mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other “interactive communication function”. "Interactive communication function" includes:
(i) sending or receiving oral or written messages; (ii) sending or receiving facsimile documents;
(iii) sending or receiving still or moving images; and (iv) providing access to the internet
There are two exemptions:
 2- way “press to talk” radios, such as used by the emergency services and taxi drivers
 Using a hand-held phone for a genuine emergency call to 999 or 112 if it would be unsafe for the driver to stop.

So yeh what’s your point?

If you want to carry on a discussion, then perhaps you might quote something which is actually relevant to that discussion - a definition of the "regulation" certainly ain't that. You appear to either be too stupid or too obtuse to understand that.

Once again: a handsfree phone conversation is just as distracting and dangerous as a handsheld phone conversation, and both are as dangerous as driving at the drink/driving level. I'll leave it there.

[Omegamanic]

Don't worry about it FFF - I think they are taking absolute nonsense!

Of course handheld is more distracting - you have to engage, look at the screen, lose the use of one hand etc. Compared to actually continuing to do what you're doing. It's just a ridiculous argument.

I wouldn't trust a number of people posting to be able to "walk and chew gum" at the same time though - so maybe the lowest common denominator law making we see all the time will prevail to save us all from ourselves.

You only need to look at how they treat these things. Hmmm. Let me see, I'll put people in the same car, one that most of the subjects aren't familiar with, and then I'll call them and see if it affects them. I'd like proper parameters, proper testing etc. What was the call about? How much thought we they required to give the conversation / were they required to carry out mental tasks, or just talk with a friend. Most us could take a call and would tell a friend or a company they couldn't work something out just yet as we are driving - but could still hold a simple conversation. I'd also suggest that people that deal with calls all the time while driving are generally pretty damn good at doing both.

[Holsterman]

You only need to look at how they treat these things. Hmmm. Let me see, I'll put people in the same car, one that most of the subjects aren't familiar with, and then I'll call them and see if it affects them. I'd like proper parameters, proper testing etc. What was the call about? How much thought we they required to give the conversation / were they required to carry out mental tasks, or just talk with a friend. Most us could take a call and would tell a friend or a company they couldn't work something out just yet as we are driving - but could still hold a simple conversation. I'd also suggest that people that deal with calls all the time while driving are generally pretty damn good at doing both.

You are just making stuff up, and the research shows you are plain wrong.

[PhilipK]

Of course handheld is more distracting - you have to engage, look at the screen, lose the use of one hand etc. Compared to actually continuing to do what you're doing. It's just a ridiculous argument.

I suppose you also believe in unicorns, Santa Claus, a flat earth, and the Loch Ness Monster? After all, they are also examples of belief flying in the face of all available evidence.

[Omegamanic]

You are just making stuff up, and the research shows you are plain wrong.

Cool! "Whatever you say Bob"

You need to read the research better, and learn to interpret words a hell of a lot better.

You are entitled to your own opinion... blah blah blah

[Omegamanic]

I suppose you also believe in unicorns, Santa Claus, a flat earth, and the Loch Ness Monster? After all, they are also examples of belief flying in the face of all available evidence.

Lol so funny. & You are also not reading the full research, and purposefully missing the point!

The actual conversation, may well prove to be as distracting - hmmm let me think about that, you don't say - of course it is they are both conversations!

However, one also requires you to remove elements of your attention over and above the other. How you can argue that there isn't an additional distraction in that is totally beyond me.

The other point which the research misses is use and familiarity - a new driver is distracted by many things, whereas an experience driver is not.

[Holsterman]

However, one also requires you to remove elements of your attention over and above the other. How you can argue that there isn't an additional distraction in that is totally beyond me.

Here we go again, the Argument from Personal Incredulity. 100% fallacious.

[PhilipK]

However, one also requires you to remove elements of your attention over and above the other. How you can argue that there isn't an additional distraction in that is totally beyond me.

The other point which the research misses is use and familiarity - a new driver is distracted by many things, whereas an experience driver is not.

I'm not arguing it - the actual evidence (unlike your mistaken belief) shows it. The additional distraction involved by using hands-held is tiny and does not have a statistically meaningful difference to the distraction level (and, by extension, to the danger inherent in making a telephone call while trying to drive).

Your second sentence is laughable and proves that you haven't actually read any of the primary research (which, naturally, corrected for length of driving experience).

[Omegamanic]

No. You are missing the point again.

I wasn't taking about driving experience. I was taking about driving while using a bloody phone experience - two very different things, and not one that I noted was specifically covered.

Ok my dad's bigger than your dad GTFO!



"Summary:New research suggests that drivers who use hands-free electronic devices, as opposed to handheld ones, are less likely to get into a crash."

[Omegamanic]

Anyone that doesn't understand that you can improve, and will improve - doesn't remember learning a new skill.

[Holsterman]

No. You are missing the point again.

I wasn't taking about driving experience. I was taking about driving while using a bloody phone experience - two very different things, and not one that I noted was specifically covered.

............



"Summary:New research suggests that drivers who use hands-free electronic devices, as opposed to handheld ones, are less likely to get into a crash."

1. You appear to be claiming that it's possible to somehow train yourself to not be distracted. Evidence?

2. Incorrect yet again.

[Omegamanic]

Here we go again, the Argument from Personal Incredulity. 100% fallacious.

Really...

""VTTI's research has shown consistently that activities requiring a driver to take his or her eyes off of the forward roadway, such as texting or dialing on a handheld phone, pose the greatest risk."

[Omegamanic]

1. You appear to be claiming that it's possible to somehow train yourself to not be distracted. Evidence?

2. Incorrect yet again.

Oh wake up.

You are trying to argue a point that was not covered by the research you are referring to.

I'll let you look up the research about training yourself to be less distracted - because there is far too much of it out there. You really can't be serious on that one. It's called concentrating if that helps.

[Suds]

TBF, you can train yourself to switch off when someone's talking - just ask any wife about husbands

[Franky Four Fingers]

I'm not arguing it - the actual evidence (unlike your mistaken belief) shows it. The additional distraction involved by using hands-held is tiny and does not have a statistically meaningful difference to the distraction level (and, by extension, to the danger inherent in making a telephone call while trying to drive).

Your second sentence is laughable and proves that you haven't actually read any of the primary research (which, naturally, corrected for length of driving experience).

Here we go again, the Argument from Personal Incredulity. 100% fallacious.

Whats laughable is your inability to see what’s actually being discussed here.

[Holsterman]

Really...

"VTTI's research has shown consistently that activities requiring a driver to take his or her eyes off of the forward roadway, such as texting or dialing on a handheld phone, pose the greatest risk."

Anaother fallacious argument, this time the Straw Man.

[Holsterman]

Oh wake up.

You are trying to argue a point that was not covered by the research you are referring to.

I'll let you look up the research about training yourself to be less distracted - because there is far too much of it out there. You really can't be serious on that one. It's called concentrating if that helps.

If you concentrate on one thing (driving or talking) the other activity will suffer. There is no way round that I'm afraid.

Why try to multitask when you are in charge of a car, and don't need to?

[Omegamanic]

Anaother fallacious argument, this time the Straw Man.

Re-read my posts. You are either yet again misreading them, or just trolling the point.

Straw Man - I've provided you with evidence of research that backs up my opinion. You are just typing crap. Who is made of straw / it's not the Wizard of Oz, if that helps.

[Omegamanic]

If you concentrate on one thing (driving or talking) the other activity will suffer. There is no way round that I'm afraid.

Why try to multitask when you are in charge of a car, and don't need to?

Did I argue against that?

Do I care if a casual phone conversation suffers at the expense of me concentrating more on driving?

Your point is useless to me. It's a MOFBO statement.

[Holsterman]

Re-read my posts. You are either yet again misreading them, or just trolling the point.

Straw Man - I've provided you with evidence of research that backs up my opinion. You are just typing crap. Who is made of straw / it's not the Wizard of Oz, if that helps.

The relevant research shows that hands-free phone calls are as distracting as hand-held calls.

You are talking about "activities requiring a driver to take his or her eyes off of the forward roadway, such as texting or dialing on a handheld phone". It's not relevant, and is a Straw Man argument.

[Omegamanic]

The relevant research shows that hands-free phone calls are as distracting as hand-held calls.

You are talking about "activities requiring a driver to take his or her eyes off of the forward roadway, such as texting or dialing on a handheld phone". It's not relevant, and is a Straw Man argument.

No. If you read "my" posts - you'll realise that's the only point I've been making, I've also stated that the actual distraction from just the conversations from both would be the same (which seems to be the main point of your referred research). But... rather than see that, you've jumped to your own defence and start calling StrawMan etc. Quite frankly imo it's ridiculous.

Research backs up the point I'm making - you are trying to expand the research you referred to, to areas it just did not cover, and took issue with the point FFF was making - which was actually factually correct!

[Holsterman]

No. If you read "my" posts - you'll realise that's the only point I've been making, I've also stated that the actual distraction from just the conversations from both would be the same (which seems to be the main point of your referred research). But... rather than see that, you've jumped to your own defence and start calling StrawMan etc. Quite frankly imo it's ridiculous.

Research backs up the point I'm making - you are trying to expand the research you referred to, to areas it just did not cover, and took issue with the point FFF was making - which was actually factually correct!

ISTM that it's you who has brought texting etc. into the discussion. That's a separate subject, hence a Straw Man.

[Saint-Just]

Sorry but I am struggling a bit.
If you’re only talking about the talking bit, the distraction is the same whether you speak to a mike near the rear view mirror or a hand held. Basically, you’re talking. The advantage compared to a discussion with a passenger is that you’re not tempted to make eye contact, as you usually do when interacting with human beings.
However a hand held, as the name suggests, also mobilises a hand, or force your head to lean against your shoulder, which both involve an added distraction not related to the actual conversation.
So much so that the later was banned and the former isn’t.

[Omegamanic]

Even a car driver would IMHO benefit from Keith Codes Twist of the Wrist, which explains concentration on things which become automatic when you do them all the time.

"A Twist of the Wrist," you'll learn all about corners — decreasing-radius ... of the Wrist" is Keith Code's famous "$10 worth of concentration "

Who would have thought you could drive a car with manual gears, without the actual distraction of changing gears becoming such a danger.

Of course, I like the way Keith explains it - but there is lots of research that proves the point too.

[Holsterman]

However a hand held, as the name suggests, also mobilises a hand, or force your head to lean against your shoulder, which both involve an added distraction not related to the actual conversation.
So much so that the later was banned and the former isn’t.

You might think that's true, but the research shows it isn't. Both are equally distracting.

[Omegamanic]

ISTM that it's you who has brought texting etc. into the discussion. That's a separate subject, hence a Straw Man.

It doesn't have to be texting. Just picking up the F'n phone and looking at it to unlock the screen and pressing to answer the call is enough.

Anyway, you are either purposefully continuing to argue for the sake of it, or just don't get it.

[Holsterman]

Even a car driver would IMHO benefit from Keith Codes Twist of the Wrist, which explains concentration on things which become automatic when you do them all the time.

"A Twist of the Wrist," you'll learn all about corners — decreasing-radius ... of the Wrist" is Keith Code's famous "$10 worth of concentration "

Who would have thought you could drive a car with manual gears, without the actual distraction of changing gears becoming such a danger.

Of course, I like the way Keith explains it - but there is lots of research that proves the point too.

Why are there never any average or below-average drivers on the internet? It's only ever the road gods who post. ;-)

[Holsterman]

It doesn't have to be texting. Just picking up the F'n phone and looking at it to unlock the screen and pressing to answer the call is enough.

Anyway, you are either purposefully continuing to argue for the sake of it, or just don't get it.

Once again it's the good old Argument from Personal Incredulity. The facts are different.

[Omegamanic]

You might think that's true, but the research shows it isn't. Both are equally distracting.

No it does not! It shows that the distraction "from the conversation" was the same or similar.