Mobile phones

Anything that doesn't fit elsewhere - doesn't have to be AD related.
martine
Posts: 716
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:26 am

Re: Mobile phones

Postby martine » Sat Dec 17, 2016 11:14 am

jont- wrote:Adding to Christians point above, the problem we have now is that law breaking is so endemic, there's no possibility of enforcing it. So drivers know that in the main, they can do what they like, and yet feel they don't have to take responsibility for their actions (as if compliance with the law actually mattered, there would have to be some enforcement)

Add in our culture that is increasingly risk averse (and poorly educated about understanding statistics) and there's very little hope of improvement :(

I agree with your sentiment but don't forget the KSI stats are but a fraction of what there were and the UK consistently ranks in the top 3 worldwide for road safety.

There is an argument (not one I subscribe to) that since we are relatively good, the police resources should focus on other things (terrorism, drugs etc).
Martin - Bristol IAM: IMI National Observer, Group Secretary, Masters (dist), DSA: ADI, Fleet, RoSPA (Dip)

User avatar
jont-
Posts: 963
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:12 am
Location: Flatlands

Re: Mobile phones

Postby jont- » Sat Dec 17, 2016 11:30 am

martine wrote:
jont- wrote:Adding to Christians point above, the problem we have now is that law breaking is so endemic, there's no possibility of enforcing it. So drivers know that in the main, they can do what they like, and yet feel they don't have to take responsibility for their actions (as if compliance with the law actually mattered, there would have to be some enforcement)

Add in our culture that is increasingly risk averse (and poorly educated about understanding statistics) and there's very little hope of improvement :(

I agree with your sentiment but don't forget the KSI stats are but a fraction of what there were and the UK consistently ranks in the top 3 worldwide for road safety.

There is an argument (not one I subscribe to) that since we are relatively good, the police resources should focus on other things (terrorism, drugs etc).

How much of the KSI reduction is technological, rather than law based? And imagine how much less congestion we might have if you got the bottom 20% of drivers off the roads? And terrorism? Really? I think road KSI still come significantly higher than lives lost to terrorism (and yet that's another area where fear is being used to take away our freedoms too).

martine
Posts: 716
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:26 am

Re: Mobile phones

Postby martine » Sat Dec 17, 2016 11:45 am

jont- wrote:How much of the KSI reduction is technological, rather than law based? And imagine how much less congestion we might have if you got the bottom 20% of drivers off the roads? And terrorism? Really? I think road KSI still come significantly higher than lives lost to terrorism (and yet that's another area where fear is being used to take away our freedoms too).

Yes sure, car tech and road design has played a huge part but for whatever reason, the UK has a good record so if you were chief of police where would you put your limited resources?

Congestion? Yes indeed - it's frustrating when a few selfish drivers cause massive inconvenience to thousands when they block a road by causing an RTC.

Terrorism is a real problem isn't it? It's the indiscriminate and random threat to all of death/injury that puts it high up the priorities.
Martin - Bristol IAM: IMI National Observer, Group Secretary, Masters (dist), DSA: ADI, Fleet, RoSPA (Dip)

Astraist
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 10:41 pm

Re: Mobile phones

Postby Astraist » Sat Dec 17, 2016 5:47 pm

As one who knows Terrorism from pretty close up, I am still advocating for more road safety. Even in an eventfull year like when we fought with Hamas (got me a medal and everything), no more than fifty people died from terrorist acts, missile attacks or fighting in the Gaza Strip.

In most years, when its quiet, it's well under twenty people, while nearly 300 people die here from crashes each year, and it's not like our roads are particularly deadly in a global outlook.

The only cause of death that is ahead of car collisions is heart disease, and it's actually a lesser reason of concern here than in the U.K or US, with obesity being a far lesser issue and people being surprisingly unstressed.

ancient
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:03 pm

Re: Mobile phones

Postby ancient » Mon Dec 19, 2016 12:20 pm

Rolyan wrote:Alasdair - there is certainly some confusion here.

The following is what started it all off.

Rolyan wrote:
sussex2 wrote:It is a deliberate choice answer or make a call. It is up to the driver to make sure it is done in safety or not do it at all.

I assume you do not support any speed limits then.


Sussex2 appeared to suggest (to me) that the laws under discussion were not required (existing or new) as it is up to the driver to make sure it is done safely or not do it at all. I therefore asked him if he did not support speed limits either, as it could also be said that speed limits are not required, it is up to the driver to make sure that they set a safe speed.

It was a simple question, based on my understanding on a written post. Unfortunately, Sussex2 was unable or unwilling to clarify (probably wise knowing what forums are like). I confess to finding it amusing to see how various posters have explained the law, commented on where it applies, explained signage etc; all jolly interesting but nothing whatsoever to do with my question.

As I've said repeatedly, if he (and others) think that laws on mobiles are not required as the driver should be expected to make safe decisions, then to me, that same principle must apply to other laws. But I also said that if someone didn't think that, then fine. Simply say so. There will always be occasional misunderstandings of what's been posted; all that was required was a simple clarification.

I have no reason to believe that sussex2 was suggesting anything outside the law and his statement is true within the law. So I read that as per my post, the ban on hand-held 'phones is absolute and hands-free phones are not compulsory; their use is left to the judgement of the driver. Unfortunately the demonisation of the object leaves no room for educating people in the actual risks and giving them a sound basis for that judgement.

sussex2
Posts: 527
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 11:43 am

Re: Mobile phones

Postby sussex2 » Tue Dec 20, 2016 8:57 am

ancient wrote:
Rolyan wrote:Alasdair - there is certainly some confusion here.

The following is what started it all off.

Rolyan wrote:
sussex2 wrote:It is a deliberate choice answer or make a call. It is up to the driver to make sure it is done in safety or not do it at all.

I assume you do not support any speed limits then.


Sussex2 appeared to suggest (to me) that the laws under discussion were not required (existing or new) as it is up to the driver to make sure it is done safely or not do it at all. I therefore asked him if he did not support speed limits either, as it could also be said that speed limits are not required, it is up to the driver to make sure that they set a safe speed.

It was a simple question, based on my understanding on a written post. Unfortunately, Sussex2 was unable or unwilling to clarify (probably wise knowing what forums are like). I confess to finding it amusing to see how various posters have explained the law, commented on where it applies, explained signage etc; all jolly interesting but nothing whatsoever to do with my question.

As I've said repeatedly, if he (and others) think that laws on mobiles are not required as the driver should be expected to make safe decisions, then to me, that same principle must apply to other laws. But I also said that if someone didn't think that, then fine. Simply say so. There will always be occasional misunderstandings of what's been posted; all that was required was a simple clarification.

I have no reason to believe that sussex2 was suggesting anything outside the law and his statement is true within the law. So I read that as per my post, the ban on hand-held 'phones is absolute and hands-free phones are not compulsory; their use is left to the judgement of the driver. Unfortunately the demonisation of the object leaves no room for educating people in the actual risks and giving them a sound basis for that judgement.



That pretty much clears it up :)

Silk
Posts: 385
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2015 9:24 pm
Location: South Glos.

Re: Mobile phones

Postby Silk » Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:44 am

sussex2 wrote:That pretty much clears it up :)


I doubt it. This one is looking like it will be carried over well into 2017. There are too many WRONG people for it to stop here. :nono:

crr003
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:32 pm

Re: Mobile phones

Postby crr003 » Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:11 pm

Not to worry; the government's on it:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 83871.html

User avatar
akirk
Posts: 1464
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 6:58 pm
Location: Cotswolds

Re: Mobile phones

Postby akirk » Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:36 pm

crr003 wrote:Not to worry; the government's on it:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 83871.html


I think that article is misleading ;)

A DfT spokesman said: “We are determined to crack down on mobile phone use at the wheel..."


That refers to use of a handset (hand-held) - they are not saying they wish to crack down on having phone conversations...

Mobile phones could be set to automatically stop working in moving cars, making it impossible for drivers to text, call, or send emails at the wheel.


That is very different - hand-held use again

I can't see this working, or car manufacturers being at all interested, and if the ministers are really going to meet with them then this will die a death:
- many modern cars now come with comms built in (for satnav or hotspots)
- how do you block the driver's phone, but not block the phones for all the passengers?!
- how do we think that sales of phones will go if a car won't allow you to stream spotify / let the kids make calls / etc.
- will we see drivers pulling over on the motorway to make a call / send a text to say they are running late - when currently they could ask their partner / child to do it for them?
- are they building a faraday cage / lead lining the car? mmm, great business opportunity there - magnetic aerial on roof, receiver in the car - bet they would be on sale within about a week of anything like this going live!
- alternatively, the driver could just open the window...
- how would it work with a soft-top?

typical bad news / silly government idea...

Alasdair

User avatar
Strangely Brown
Posts: 566
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:06 pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Mobile phones

Postby Strangely Brown » Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:38 pm

crr003 wrote:Not to worry; the government's on it:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 83871.html


At least this article gives a nod to the downsides of any "Drive Safe" type app.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/19/drivers-could-blocked-using-mobile-phones-wheel-bid-curb-road/

There is no way to distinguish between someone in a vehicle (car, bus, train, whatever) who is driving or is a passenger. Until that is possible, any such app can only ever be optional.
Last edited by Strangely Brown on Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “General Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest