🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1g4kdic.1aofmch5k5s0rN%this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.co.uk>,
David Horne <this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>There seems to be so much research that confirms that the conversation
>itself is distracting,

Did the research differentiate between conversation with
someone who is present in the car, and someone remote who
exists in the "mind's eye"? My personal impression is that
talking to someone on a mobile takes a big chunk of one's
attention "elsewhere" compared to talking to someone in
the passenger's seat. Maybe it isn't the same for everyone
and it can be overcome with practice - I haven't done it
often enough.

> I don't understand why hands-free calls have been
>exempted. Maybe it's too difficult to enforce?

I would guess so. However, if someone is involved in an
accident, I think the fact the driver was on any mobile
should be taken into account.

Francis

Simon Gardner wrote:
>    The message coincides with a new advertising campaign to
>    remind motorists of the new offence to hold a mobile phone.
>    National radio adverts reminding people of the imminent ban
>    start today.

And if you heard that advert on the radio while driving you'd probably
crash your car anyway.

<666_@hack.powernet> wrote:

>    DfT News Release 2003/0142:
>    17 November 2003
[]
>    Notes to editors
>
>    1. Research has demonstrated that if you drive and use a
>    mobile phone you are four times more likely to have an
>    accident. Hands-free calls are also distracting and drivers
>    should be aware that they still risk prosecution for failing
>    to have proper control of their vehicle, for careless or
>    even dangerous driving if use of a phone affects their
>    driving in this way.

There seems to be so much research that confirms that the conversation
itself is distracting, I don't understand why hands-free calls have been
exempted. Maybe it's too difficult to enforce?

David

--
David Horne- website under re-construction
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Handsfree kits in The Link shops- £29.99 (Just a bit less than the fixed
penalty)
DaveK.

David Horne wrote:
> There seems to be so much research that confirms that the conversation
> itself is distracting, I don't understand why hands-free calls have
> been exempted. Maybe it's too difficult to enforce?

Perhaps because if they did -that- they'd have to ban children in cars.
Which wouldn't actually be a bad thing, but there ya go.

G

"David Horne" <this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1g4kdic.1aofmch5k5s0rN%this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.co.uk...
> <666_@hack.powernet> wrote:
>
> >    DfT News Release 2003/0142:
> >    17 November 2003
> []
> >    Notes to editors
> >
> >    1. Research has demonstrated that if you drive and use a
> >    mobile phone you are four times more likely to have an
> >    accident. Hands-free calls are also distracting and drivers
> >    should be aware that they still risk prosecution for failing
> >    to have proper control of their vehicle, for careless or
> >    even dangerous driving if use of a phone affects their
> >    driving in this way.
>
> There seems to be so much research that confirms that the conversation
> itself is distracting, I don't understand why hands-free calls have been
> exempted. Maybe it's too difficult to enforce?

I would imagine especially telephone conversation rather than conversation
with a passanger (its unclear but it appears you mean hands free)), as a
passanger
is an extra pair of eyes and is unlikely to distract the driver at a
critical moment
>
> David
>
> --
> David Horne- website under re-construction
> davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

In article <7nrhrv4rt7k4di4h270021ogkarf639csj@4ax.com>,
 <hairydog@despammed.com> wrote:
>What about talking to somone who is in the back seat? I've seen
>drivers turn round to look at the other person!

There's an argument for some kind of car "flight recorder" which
records continuously, and saves the last few seconds leading up
to an impact. It could record the time, speed, revs, brake state -
all of which are currently signalled - plus wide-angle cctv forward
and interior views. That would catch drivers who caused accidents
by turning round, or preening. While such a box would make cars
more expensive, the savings in terms of reduced accidents would
offset that to some extent (because it would discourage dangerous
practices).

Francis

Francis Burton <fburton@nyx10.nyx.net> wrote:

> In article <1g4kdic.1aofmch5k5s0rN%this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.co.uk>,
> David Horne <this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >There seems to be so much research that confirms that the conversation
> >itself is distracting,
>
> Did the research differentiate between conversation with
> someone who is present in the car, and someone remote who
> exists in the "mind's eye"?

Yes.

> My personal impression is that
> talking to someone on a mobile takes a big chunk of one's
> attention "elsewhere" compared to talking to someone in
> the passenger's seat.

IIRC, that was the conclusion of some of the studies I was thinking
about.

> I would guess so. However, if someone is involved in an
> accident, I think the fact the driver was on any mobile
> should be taken into account.

Well, it would be already, in the UK.

David

--
David Horne- website under re-construction
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

"Simon Gardner" <666_@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
news:BBDE3FAF9668E8B27A@lagu.powernet.co.uk...
>    DfT News Release 2003/0142:
>    17 November 2003
>
>    THE FINAL COUNTDOWN - LAST CALL FOR DRIVERS HOLDING A MOBILE
>    PHONE

Funny thing is, smoking at the wheel is perfectly legal, but I find
answering a quick phone call much easier, and in theory safer, than lighting
a cigarette whilst driving? Find the packet of fags, take one out, find
lighter, light it.... Or pick up phone and press one button whilst still
looking at the road?

The logic astounds me. Does anyone else think that there are much more
dangerous things that people do at the wheel than talking on a phone? I talk
to people in the car anyway, what difference does it make if I'm on the
phone?

Nick
--
www.mobile-unlocking.org.uk
Unlocking all models starting from £5

"Francis Burton" <fburton@nyx10.nyx.net> wrote in message
news:1069067723.193222@irys.nyx.net...
> In article <1g4kdic.1aofmch5k5s0rN%this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.co.uk>,
> David Horne <this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >There seems to be so much research that confirms that the conversation
> >itself is distracting,
>
> Did the research differentiate between conversation with
> someone who is present in the car, and someone remote who
> exists in the "mind's eye"? My personal impression is that
> talking to someone on a mobile takes a big chunk of one's
> attention "elsewhere" compared to talking to someone in
> the passenger's seat. Maybe it isn't the same for everyone
> and it can be overcome with practice - I haven't done it
> often enough.

I've used a full integrated hands-free kit for some time, and I also have a
technical type of job - I find that I cannot and will not have any kind of
technical conversation when driving because I cannot concentrate on the
technicalities when driving. If someone wants to talk technical, then I'll
call later. My calls then become mundane stuff, like "I'm on my way home".
I've also found that if something on the road requires my special attention
or extra concentration, I just stop talking.

But as you say - it probably isn't the same for everyone.

Peter.

"Nick" <nick@mobile-unlocking.org.uk> wrote in message
news:bpahrt$1mt5b1$1@ID-180927.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Simon Gardner" <666_@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> news:BBDE3FAF9668E8B27A@lagu.powernet.co.uk...
> >    DfT News Release 2003/0142:
> >    17 November 2003
> >
> >    THE FINAL COUNTDOWN - LAST CALL FOR DRIVERS HOLDING A MOBILE
> >    PHONE
>
> Funny thing is, smoking at the wheel is perfectly legal, but I find
> answering a quick phone call much easier, and in theory safer, than
lighting
> a cigarette whilst driving? Find the packet of fags, take one out, find
> lighter, light it.... Or pick up phone and press one button whilst still
> looking at the road?
>
> The logic astounds me. Does anyone else think that there are much more
> dangerous things that people do at the wheel than talking on a phone? I
talk
> to people in the car anyway, what difference does it make if I'm on the
> phone?

A huge difference, a person in the car is an extra pair of eyes, a voice
in the ear is an unwanted distraction. A passanger would immediately notice
if you were not watching the road.
Also a passanger is unlikely to have anything  distracting to say, if he had
anything
really important to say he would have told you before the journey started.
On the other hand a phone call will almost certaintly be something which
requires a lot of attention by its very nature.
A telepphone caller will never say "Watch out for that lorry pulling out".
Also listening is more attention grabbing and you will not both be listening
in a car.
>
> Nick
> --
> www.mobile-unlocking.org.uk
> Unlocking all models starting from £5
>
>

"Nick" <nick@mobile-unlocking.org.uk> wrote in message
news:bpahrt$1mt5b1$1@ID-180927.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Simon Gardner" <666_@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> news:BBDE3FAF9668E8B27A@lagu.powernet.co.uk...
> >    DfT News Release 2003/0142:
> >    17 November 2003
> >
> >    THE FINAL COUNTDOWN - LAST CALL FOR DRIVERS HOLDING A MOBILE
> >    PHONE
>
> Funny thing is, smoking at the wheel is perfectly legal, but I find
> answering a quick phone call much easier, and in theory safer, than
lighting
> a cigarette whilst driving? Find the packet of fags, take one out, find
> lighter, light it.... Or pick up phone and press one button whilst still
> looking at the road?
>
> The logic astounds me. Does anyone else think that there are much more
> dangerous things that people do at the wheel than talking on a phone? I
talk
> to people in the car anyway, what difference does it make if I'm on the
> phone?

Exactly. There are a million and one things that can distract a driver. When
are we going to ban the following:

Arguing with your wife
Shouting at the kids in the back seat
Tuning in the radio
Inserting a new tape or CD
Lighting a cigarette
Leering at pretty girls walking along the pavement
Opening a packet of mints

Where do we stop? We already have perfectly good laws to protect us,
careless driving, driving without due care and attention, etc, which cover
mobile phones as well.

This new law is a waste of paper, and will just give the police a further
excuse to harrass motorists and gain more easy convictions.

"Anon." <none@noone.com> wrote in message
news:bpakbl$1ljbgv$1@ID-89516.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Nick" <nick@mobile-unlocking.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:bpahrt$1mt5b1$1@ID-180927.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Simon Gardner" <666_@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> > news:BBDE3FAF9668E8B27A@lagu.powernet.co.uk...
> > >    DfT News Release 2003/0142:
> > >    17 November 2003

>
> This new law is a waste of paper, and will just give the police a further
> excuse to harrass motorists and gain more easy convictions.
>
>

I understand the police did not want the law as they feel they have enough
power under the dangerous driving rules.

Steve
"The UK SpeedTrap Guide" @ http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk
"The UK Weather Guide" @ http://www.ukstorms.com

"Anon." <none@noone.com> wrote in message
news:bpakbl$1ljbgv$1@ID-89516.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Nick" <nick@mobile-unlocking.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:bpahrt$1mt5b1$1@ID-180927.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Simon Gardner" <666_@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
> > news:BBDE3FAF9668E8B27A@lagu.powernet.co.uk...
> > >    DfT News Release 2003/0142:
> > >    17 November 2003
> > >
> > >    THE FINAL COUNTDOWN - LAST CALL FOR DRIVERS HOLDING A MOBILE
> > >    PHONE
> >
> > Funny thing is, smoking at the wheel is perfectly legal, but I find
> > answering a quick phone call much easier, and in theory safer, than
> lighting
> > a cigarette whilst driving? Find the packet of fags, take one out, find
> > lighter, light it.... Or pick up phone and press one button whilst still
> > looking at the road?
> >
> > The logic astounds me. Does anyone else think that there are much more
> > dangerous things that people do at the wheel than talking on a phone? I
> talk
> > to people in the car anyway, what difference does it make if I'm on the
> > phone?
>
> Exactly. There are a million and one things that can distract a driver.
When
> are we going to ban the following:
>
> Arguing with your wife
> Shouting at the kids in the back seat
> Tuning in the radio
> Inserting a new tape or CD
> Lighting a cigarette
> Leering at pretty girls walking along the pavement
> Opening a packet of mints
>
> Where do we stop? We already have perfectly good laws to protect us,
> careless driving, driving without due care and attention, etc, which cover
> mobile phones as well.
>
> This new law is a waste of paper, and will just give the police a further
> excuse to harrass motorists and gain more easy convictions.

I agree, and it's a scientifically proven fact that often wives/partners
will pick the car as a great place to kick off an argument as the subject is
at their mercy, unable to devote full concentration to the subject, and
unable to escape:)

- Michael

Simon Gardner wrote:
>    DfT News Release 2003/0142:
>    17 November 2003
>
>    THE FINAL COUNTDOWN - LAST CALL FOR DRIVERS HOLDING A MOBILE
>    PHONE
>
I really can't see the point of this legislation.  We already have laws to
deal with the use of a mobile at the wheel.  All that will happen now is
that using a phone in stationary traffic will be criminalised for no good
reason.  When will this government learn that passing new laws solves
nothing if you are not prepared to use the laws you already have.

On 17 Nov 2003 04:15:23 -0700, fburton@nyx10.nyx.net (Francis Burton)
wrote:

>My personal impression is that
>talking to someone on a mobile takes a big chunk of one's
>attention "elsewhere" compared to talking to someone in
>the passenger's seat

What about talking to somone who is in the back seat? I've seen
drivers turn round to look at the other person!


--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:45:29 -0000, "DaveK" <davek@fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>Handsfree kits in The Link shops- £29.99 (Just a bit less than the fixed
>penalty)
>DaveK.
>
Hands free kits in the Pound shop - £3.99. Runs off the cig lighter.

"Alan G" <me@privacy.com> wrote in message
news:eqihrvkpa6sov8tkvuo3qpp54qeg2u0n7i@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:45:29 -0000, "DaveK" <davek@fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Handsfree kits in The Link shops- £29.99 (Just a bit less than the fixed
> >penalty)
> >DaveK.
> >
> Hands free kits in the Pound shop - £3.99. Runs off the cig lighter.

You cab get 48 AAA batterys for a quid too, which beats paying
Duracell £50 (50 times the price) fot the same amount.
How do Duraacell manage to make a profit on such small margins.

In article <3fb8d929$0$105$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net>, MichaelJP wrote:
> > Where do we stop? We already have perfectly good laws to protect us,
> > careless driving, driving without due care and attention, etc, which cover
> > mobile phones as well.
> >
> > This new law is a waste of paper, and will just give the police a further
> > excuse to harrass motorists and gain more easy convictions.
>
> I agree, and it's a scientifically proven fact that often wives/partners
> will pick the car as a great place to kick off an argument as the subject is
> at their mercy, unable to devote full concentration to the subject, and
> unable to escape:)
>

I don't. All the other distractions listed in this thread are of a momentary
nature, and generally allow the driver to resume concentrating / operating if
he needs to, and choose a 'safe' point when to indulge the distraction.  For
me, the issue is that people on mobile phones hold them to their ear, and
don't think quickly enough to drop them or operate controls etc whilst using
them, effectively leaving themselves one-armed.  This may be subconscious
concern at the value of what they are holding, or social conditioning that
won't allow them to suddenly stop a conversation...whatever. Worse, the
decision on when to use the phone is frequently not the users...

I ride a motorcycle 10,000+ miles a year.  Perhaps because I ride a bike, I am
very consciously alert of the dangers ahead of and around me.  Drivers using
mobiles are an absolute menace, in a way that drivers talking to their
passengers, smoking or eating aren't.  Any biker will tell you this.

I have been involved in one accident that was undoubtedly down to mobile use,
and I have directly observed 2 others.  We need to develop a culture of not
driving and phoning just as we have for driving and drinking.  The new
legislation may be not be much enforced, the police may not prosecute often,
but it sends a clear message about the unacceptability of the practice.  I,
for one, applaud it.
 --

F

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:48:50 +0000, Alan G <me@privacy.com> wrote:

>Hands free kits in the Pound shop - £3.99. Runs off the cig lighter.

Yew woz robbed. Ask for your £2.99 refund!



--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:53:09 -0000, "half_pint" <esboella@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>"Nick" <nick@mobile-unlocking.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:bpahrt$1mt5b1$1@ID-180927.news.uni-berlin.de...

>> The logic astounds me. Does anyone else think that there are much more
>> dangerous things that people do at the wheel than talking on a phone? I
>talk
>> to people in the car anyway, what difference does it make if I'm on the
>> phone?

>A huge difference, a person in the car is an extra pair of eyes, a voice
>in the ear is an unwanted distraction. A passanger would immediately notice
>if you were not watching the road.

Having been rear-ended on the M1 a few weeks ago, I'm not at all sure
that talking to a passenger is less distracting than talking on a
phone.

The person who drove into me was talking to a front-seat passenger.
For the 4-5 seconds between traffic starting to slow and hitting me,
the driver of the car behind had her head turned to the left, looking
at her passenger.  The first she, or her passenger, knew that there
was a problem was when she drove into me.

Mike.

<hairydog@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:7nrhrv4rt7k4di4h270021ogkarf639csj@4ax.com...
> On 17 Nov 2003 04:15:23 -0700, fburton@nyx10.nyx.net (Francis Burton)
> wrote:
>
> >My personal impression is that
> >talking to someone on a mobile takes a big chunk of one's
> >attention "elsewhere" compared to talking to someone in
> >the passenger's seat
>
> What about talking to somone who is in the back seat? I've seen
> drivers turn round to look at the other person!

I knewsomeone  who used to turn his face at 90 degrees to the passanger
seat whilst driving to talk to the passanger (He seemed to lilke to see who
he
was  tallking to, I fell much happier  when he was actually
looking where the car was going.

Certainitly careless driving.
>
>
> --
>
> Iain
> the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
> http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
> Browse now while stocks last!

"Snowman" <snowman@anISP.com> wrote:


>I've used a full integrated hands-free kit for some time, and I also have a
>technical type of job - I find that I cannot and will not have any kind of
>technical conversation when driving because I cannot concentrate on the
>technicalities when driving. If someone wants to talk technical, then I'll
>call later. My calls then become mundane stuff, like "I'm on my way home".
>I've also found that if something on the road requires my special attention
>or extra concentration, I just stop talking.

>But as you say - it probably isn't the same for everyone.

Yeah the ones that don't pay any attention to their driving in the first
place hardly notice when they pay attention to phone calls.

When this legislation takes away their phones they will be just as much of
a liability.

"Ferger" <nospam@fergernospam.com> wrote in message
news:VA.00000014.62d1fefc@fergernospam.com...
> ... All the other distractions listed in this thread are of a
momentary
> nature, and generally allow the driver to resume concentrating /
operating if
> he needs to, and choose a 'safe' point when to indulge the
distraction.  For
> me, the issue is that people on mobile phones hold them to their
ear, and
> don't think quickly enough to drop them or operate controls etc
whilst using
> them, effectively leaving themselves one-armed.  This may be
subconscious
> concern at the value of what they are holding, or social
conditioning that
> won't allow them to suddenly stop a conversation...whatever. Worse,
the
> decision on when to use the phone is frequently not the users...
>
> ...  We need to develop a culture of not
> driving and phoning just as we have for driving and drinking.  The
new
> legislation may be not be much enforced, the police may not
prosecute often,
> but it sends a clear message about the unacceptability of the
practice.  I,
> for one, applaud it.

Good post! I agree with you 100% and this is pretty much the view of
the Institute of Advanced Motorists ( www.iam.org.uk )

Stuart
http://www.radox.freeserve.co.uk/driving.htm

On 17 Nov 2003 11:27:12 -0700, fburton@nyx10.nyx.net (Francis Burton)
wrote:

>In article <7nrhrv4rt7k4di4h270021ogkarf639csj@4ax.com>,
> <hairydog@despammed.com> wrote:
>>What about talking to somone who is in the back seat? I've seen
>>drivers turn round to look at the other person!
>
>There's an argument for some kind of car "flight recorder" which
>records continuously, and saves the last few seconds leading up
>to an impact. It could record the time, speed, revs, brake state -
>all of which are currently signalled - plus wide-angle cctv forward
>and interior views. That would catch drivers who caused accidents
>by turning round, or preening. While such a box would make cars
>more expensive, the savings in terms of reduced accidents would
>offset that to some extent (because it would discourage dangerous
>practices).
>
>Francis

ISTR that the airbag computer records a lot of the parameters you
outline above and evidence from them have been used in the US or
Canada to prosecute drivers....
--

ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø
           Please reply to the group
     Replies to this address will bounce!
ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø

In article <YE5ub.1205418$Of.178415@news.easynews.com>, Harry the Horse
wrote:
> I really can't see the point of this legislation.  We already have laws to
> deal with the use of a mobile at the wheel.
>

 But they don't have the resonance with the public that specifically banning
mobile use does.  The fact that the police can already prosecute for
careless / dangerous driving is probably not known by a large majority of
the population.  Legislating against mobile use sends an unequivocal
message....

 > All that will happen now is
> that using a phone in stationary traffic will be criminalised for no good
> reason.
>

You expect people to end phone calls when the traffic starts moving a as
matter of course then?  I don't think so.

 --

F

<SNIP>
> I would imagine especially telephone conversation rather than conversation
> with a passanger (its unclear but it appears you mean hands free)), as a
> passanger
> is an extra pair of eyes and is unlikely to distract the driver at a
> critical moment
> >
> > David
> >
Hah! You Sir have never given my mother-in-law a lift.......

simon

In article <sj3irvog2km295d4umc12nd6cm882ptac5@news.kempston.net>, Mike
Mann wrote:
> I'm not at all sure
> that talking to a passenger is less distracting than talking on a
> phone.
>

Neither am I (although I have an opinion).  But legislating against
talking to a passenger is a non-starter, however desirable it might or
might not be.  Legislating against mobile use is possible, hence
worthwhile.  Both would probably save lives, but only one is remotely
viable.

 --

F

Ferger <nospam@fergernospam.com> wrote:

>I don't. All the other distractions listed in this thread are of a momentary
>nature, and generally allow the driver to resume concentrating / operating if
>he needs to, and choose a 'safe' point when to indulge the distraction.  For
>me, the issue is that people on mobile phones hold them to their ear, and
>don't think quickly enough to drop them or operate controls etc whilst using
>them, effectively leaving themselves one-armed.

So are one armed drivers 4 times more likely to crash than two armed
drivers?

The problem has very little to do with the mechanics of holding a phone.

This legislation is almost worthless except to those that manufacture/sell
hands free equipment.

David Horne wrote:
> There seems to be so much research that confirms that the conversation
> itself is distracting, I don't understand why hands-free calls have been
> exempted. Maybe it's too difficult to enforce?

It was exactly that.  It came up over and over again during the
consultation.

--
Dave Roberts

In article <bpb6r5$1mpbaq$2@ID-74662.news.uni-berlin.de>, Stuart Dalby
wrote:
> Good post! I agree with you 100% and this is pretty much the view of
> the Institute of Advanced Motorists ( www.iam.org.uk )
>

Well I'm very pleased to know I'm in such illustrious company :-)  The
IAMotorcyclists don't have a position to my knowledge, but bikers don't
have such a personal issue with the removal of the privilege....
 --

F

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:bt7irv80gcbi516ii31l30t6q2itb6p10u@4ax.com...
> Ferger <nospam@fergernospam.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't. All the other distractions listed in this thread are of a
momentary
> >nature, and generally allow the driver to resume concentrating /
operating if
> >he needs to, and choose a 'safe' point when to indulge the distraction.
For
> >me, the issue is that people on mobile phones hold them to their ear, and
> >don't think quickly enough to drop them or operate controls etc whilst
using
> >them, effectively leaving themselves one-armed.
>
> So are one armed drivers 4 times more likely to crash than two armed
> drivers?
>
> The problem has very little to do with the mechanics of holding a phone.
>
> This legislation is almost worthless except to those that manufacture/sell
> hands free equipment.
>
That is just plain stupid. Does a one armed driver drive a car with a manual
gear change, so that he removes his hand off the wheel to change gear?
Surely he has an adapted car. The (two armed) driver with a mobile phone in
his hand is struggling to change gear/indicate/etc. with one hand whilst
holding the phone to his ear with the other.

> The message coincides with a new advertising campaign to
> remind motorists of the new offence to hold a mobile phone.

This is silly - obviously the best way to prevent accidents when people are
using mobile phones is to install more speed cameras.

Ferger wrote:

> In article <3fb8d929$0$105$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net>, MichaelJP wrote:
>>I agree, and it's a scientifically proven fact that often wives/partners
>>will pick the car as a great place to kick off an argument as the subject is
>>at their mercy, unable to devote full concentration to the subject, and
>>unable to escape:)
>>
>
>
> I don't. All the other distractions listed in this thread are of a momentary
> nature, and generally allow the driver to resume concentrating / operating if
> he needs to, and choose a 'safe' point when to indulge the distraction.

Agreed, the short term distractions have tiny effects compared to the phone.

> For
> me, the issue is that people on mobile phones hold them to their ear, and
> don't think quickly enough to drop them or operate controls etc whilst using
> them, effectively leaving themselves one-armed.  This may be subconscious
> concern at the value of what they are holding, or social conditioning that
> won't allow them to suddenly stop a conversation...whatever. Worse, the
> decision on when to use the phone is frequently not the users...

It's not just this mechanical effect that is important.  If it were,
then hand held mobiles would be a worse problem than hands free.  It's
the conversation that is the problem.  It has been shown that having a
phone conversation gives you tunnel vision - not a good idea when
driving.  Your brain shuts down some functions to allow you to
concentrate on what you are saying.

As they said on the news there are many safety groups that think the new
rules do more damage than good.  Hands free should be banned too.
However, the police seem happy to tackle these case with a DWDCA or the
like.  ISTR that they didn't really want to bother with new laws.



--
Dave Roberts

Mike Mann wrote:
> The person who drove into me was talking to a front-seat passenger.
> For the 4-5 seconds between traffic starting to slow and hitting me,
> the driver of the car behind had her head turned to the left, looking
> at her passenger.  The first she, or her passenger, knew that there
> was a problem was when she drove into me.

It's not that talking to passengers is not a problem (which is why I
rarely talk to mine).  It's that they are less distracting.  If you
suddenly shut up they understand, unlike a phone caller.


--
Dave Roberts

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:04:06 -0000, "Snowman" <snowman@anISP.com>
wrote:

>That is just plain stupid. Does a one armed driver drive a car with a manual
>gear change, so that he removes his hand off the wheel to change gear?

When I took my car driving test, it included a section where you had
to use hand signals instead of the indicators.

It wasn't deemed dangerous to only have one arm avsilable to steer
then: in fact, you were tested on your ability to cope in such a
situation.

When was that bit of the driving test dropped?


--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:26:13 +0000, Dave Roberts
<Magpie5212@yahoo.com> wrote:

>It's that they are less distracting.  If you
>suddenly shut up they understand, unlike a phone caller.

That's the opposite of my experience. Non-driver passengers (IYSWIM)
are more of a distraction, and don't shut up.

People on the phone need less attention, and can be told "hang on a
moment" where necessary.


--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!

"Francis Burton" <fburton@nyx10.nyx.net> wrote in message
news:1069093632.483860@irys.nyx.net...
> In article <7nrhrv4rt7k4di4h270021ogkarf639csj@4ax.com>,
>  <hairydog@despammed.com> wrote:
> >What about talking to somone who is in the back seat? I've seen
> >drivers turn round to look at the other person!
>
> There's an argument for some kind of car "flight recorder" which
> records continuously, and saves the last few seconds leading up
> to an impact. It could record the time, speed, revs, brake state -
> all of which are currently signalled - plus wide-angle cctv forward
> and interior views. That would catch drivers who caused accidents
> by turning round, or preening. While such a box would make cars
> more expensive, the savings in terms of reduced accidents would
> offset that to some extent (because it would discourage dangerous
> practices).

LOL.

(Er, you *were* joking, weren't you??)

"Ferger" <nospam@fergernospam.com> wrote in message
news:VA.00000015.63146ecc@fergernospam.com...
> In article <YE5ub.1205418$Of.178415@news.easynews.com>, Harry the Horse
> wrote:
> > I really can't see the point of this legislation.  We already have laws
to
> > deal with the use of a mobile at the wheel.
> >
>
>  But they don't have the resonance with the public that specifically
banning
> mobile use does.  The fact that the police can already prosecute for
> careless / dangerous driving is probably not known by a large majority of
> the population.  Legislating against mobile use sends an unequivocal
> message....

The message being that the police have given up on solving *real* crime and
have decided that life is easier and more profitable for them if they just
persecute motorists.....

In article <sj3irvog2km295d4umc12nd6cm882ptac5@news.kempston.net>,
mike@kempston.net, a.k.a Mike Mann says...


> The person who drove into me was talking to a front-seat passenger.
> For the 4-5 seconds between traffic starting to slow and hitting me,
> the driver of the car behind had her head turned to the left, looking
> at her passenger.  The first she, or her passenger, knew that there
> was a problem was when she drove into me.


Smokers can also be careless while driving; reaching for a fag out of a
packet, lighting it, rubbing their eye when smoke goes in them and drive
one handed whilst sucking on their cancer stick.

Wouldn't it be great ... ban smoking whilst driving *as well as* smoking
in public places.

"Geoff Winkless" <geoff-at-farmline-dot-com@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:3fb8aa95$0$263$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net...
> David Horne wrote:
> > There seems to be so much research that confirms that the conversation
> > itself is distracting, I don't understand why hands-free calls have
> > been exempted. Maybe it's too difficult to enforce?
>
> Perhaps because if they did -that- they'd have to ban children in cars.
> Which wouldn't actually be a bad thing, but there ya go.
>

NO NO NO....!!!!!!!!!!!

If you ban kids in cars that means they'll all get on my bus
AAAAAARRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH.....!!!!!!

Tell you what driving a double decker with 80 screaming kids on is a hell of
a lot more distracting than any phone call...!!

Ivor

In article <bt7irv80gcbi516ii31l30t6q2itb6p10u@4ax.com>, Nospam wrote:
> So are one armed drivers 4 times more likely to crash than two armed
> drivers?
>
> The problem has very little to do with the mechanics of holding a phone.
>

You may think so.  In the three accidents I cited (included the one in
which I was rear-ended), in every case the cause was a driver turning at a
roundabout and not signalling because he was steering with his only free
hand.

Cars for one armed drivers are adapted (I know one personally as it
happens).

 --

F

"Tx2" <tx2newscollection-invalid-@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a23514188e6ac69897e7@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
<snip>
> Wouldn't it be great ... ban smoking whilst driving *as well as* smoking
> in public places.
>
I know this is getting OT, but I can't really resist this one.

If you're going to ban smoking, then get on and ban it completely (and
before anyone starts, I'm a smoker).

Every time the budget comes around, we're told that smoking drinking and
driving cars is the next worst crime to murder........ So they want to tax
it more.........

The first government (or party) that's honest enough to admit that without
us ciggy smoking, beer guzzling car drivers the country would go broke in a
week due to loss of taxation revenue will get my vote.

Like a politician being honest is ever going to happen!!!

--
>>>    Unlock Your Phones Potential   <<<
>>> http://www.thephonelocker.co.uk <<<
>>>    http://www.uselessinfo.org.uk    <<<

"Snowman" <snowman@anISP.com> wrote in message
news:VQ9ub.1761$4Y6.1296@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
>
> "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:bt7irv80gcbi516ii31l30t6q2itb6p10u@4ax.com...
> > Ferger <nospam@fergernospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I don't. All the other distractions listed in this thread are of a
> momentary
> > >nature, and generally allow the driver to resume concentrating /
> operating if
> > >he needs to, and choose a 'safe' point when to indulge the distraction.
> For
> > >me, the issue is that people on mobile phones hold them to their ear,
and
> > >don't think quickly enough to drop them or operate controls etc whilst
> using
> > >them, effectively leaving themselves one-armed.
> >
> > So are one armed drivers 4 times more likely to crash than two armed
> > drivers?
> >
> > The problem has very little to do with the mechanics of holding a phone.
> >
> > This legislation is almost worthless except to those that
manufacture/sell
> > hands free equipment.
> >
> That is just plain stupid. Does a one armed driver drive a car with a
manual
> gear change, so that he removes his hand off the wheel to change gear?
> Surely he has an adapted car. The (two armed) driver with a mobile phone
in
> his hand is struggling to change gear/indicate/etc. with one hand whilst
> holding the phone to his ear with the other.

And would your view be any different in the said driver was driving an
automatic?

--
>>>    Unlock Your Phones Potential   <<<
>>> http://www.thephonelocker.co.uk <<<
>>>    http://www.uselessinfo.org.uk    <<<

In article <w8aub.9617$lm1.67710@wards.force9.net>, Dave Roberts wrote:
> It has been shown that having a
> phone conversation gives you tunnel vision - not a good idea when
> driving.  Your brain shuts down some functions to allow you to
> concentrate on what you are saying.
>
I have no doubt this is also true.

I ride a bike, mentioned it before.  Bikers, in general, are far more
aware of potential dangers on the road than car drivers (supposition,
but entirely reasonable I think, we risk our lives in even small
accidents and are trained to think that way by all modern versions of
the test).  As a result, we spend a lot more time observing and
anticipating hazards and inevitably see patterns in them that allow us
to identify risk and react appropriately.

I have had to contend with mobile-using drivers
 for 10 years odd now,
and they are undoubtedly top of my list - I am immediately planning to
avoid proximity the moment I spot one.  There is nothing rational about
this response, it's simply borne from experience, seeing people on
phones in cars, day after day, doing the stupidest things and causing
accidents, or very near misses.  The reaction is entirely instinctive,
and that's why I trust my rationalisation, which reaches the same
conclusion.


 --

In article <bpbelt$1n67pv$1@ID-89516.news.uni-berlin.de>, Anon. wrote:
> The message being that the police have given up on solving *real* crime and
> have decided that life is easier and more profitable for them if they just
> persecute motorists.....
>

They've always been able to anyway for exactly this behaviour ie your
argument holds zero water...

 --

F

"Richard Colton" <webmaster@NOSPAMPLEASEuselessinfo.org.uk> wrote in message
news:Wzbub.3097$0O5.27888692@news-text.cableinet.net...
> "Snowman" <snowman@anISP.com> wrote in message

> > That is just plain stupid. Does a one armed driver drive a car with a
> manual
> > gear change, so that he removes his hand off the wheel to change gear?
> > Surely he has an adapted car. The (two armed) driver with a mobile phone
> in
> > his hand is struggling to change gear/indicate/etc. with one hand whilst
> > holding the phone to his ear with the other.
>
> And would your view be any different in the said driver was driving an
> automatic?
>
No - you don't need to use two hands just for the gearstick, as I said
above, there's also indicators, handbrake, headlights, wipers, washers.

Ferger wrote:
> In article <YE5ub.1205418$Of.178415@news.easynews.com>, Harry the
> Horse wrote:
>> I really can't see the point of this legislation.  We already have
>> laws to deal with the use of a mobile at the wheel.
>>
>
>  But they don't have the resonance with the public that specifically
> banning mobile use does.  The fact that the police can already
> prosecute for careless / dangerous driving is probably not known by a
> large majority of the population.  Legislating against mobile use
> sends an unequivocal message....
>
The message being sent is that we cannot be bothered to enforce the laws we
already have so let's invent a new law not to enforce.

>  > All that will happen now is
>> that using a phone in stationary traffic will be criminalised for no
>> good reason.
>>
>
> You expect people to end phone calls when the traffic starts moving a
> as matter of course then?  I don't think so.
>
What I expect is that we prosecute people for behaviour that is in fact
dangerous.

Waiting for the law that says it is illegal to eat sandwiches while
driving... After all, it's not covered explicitly by any other law.

Then there will be one about not reading a map at the wheel of a moving
car... that's not covered explicitly either.

Then there will be one about not drinking coffee at the wheel... that's
not covered explicitly...

etc etc...

What a waste of public money...

--
Vartan

In article <Wzbub.3097$0O5.27888692@news-text.cableinet.net>, Richard
Colton wrote:
> And would your view be any different in the said driver was driving an
> automatic?
>

Not a lot.  The controls that normally seem to defeat mobile-users are
the signals, not the gears (never the gears in my experience).  And it's
only a small part of the argument for steering well clear of them
anyway.

 --

F