Mobile phones

Anything that doesn't fit elsewhere - doesn't have to be AD related.
TripleS
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 5:39 pm
Location: Briggswath

Re: Mobile phones

Postby TripleS » Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:44 am

jont- wrote:
Astraist wrote:Also, the law isn't quite so dynamic and flexible as to accommodate for every piece of up-to-date research.

Or indeed technology. That's why I come back to keep it simple - police for and prosecute for DWDCA. Why do you need anything else?


You don't need anything else; I agree with you.

The politicians are far too busy making rules that in many cases make no sense, and the mobile phones/driving law is an example of that. The distinction between hand-held and hands-free phone usage by drivers is quite illogical, but I don't suppose they will bother to amend it to a more sensible form.

Matt1962
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2015 9:36 am

Re: Mobile phones

Postby Matt1962 » Mon Dec 26, 2016 5:44 pm

TripleS wrote:
jont- wrote:
Astraist wrote:Also, the law isn't quite so dynamic and flexible as to accommodate for every piece of up-to-date research.

Or indeed technology. That's why I come back to keep it simple - police for and prosecute for DWDCA. Why do you need anything else?


You don't need anything else; I agree with you.

The politicians are far too busy making rules that in many cases make no sense, and the mobile phones/driving law is an example of that. The distinction between hand-held and hands-free phone usage by drivers is quite illogical, but I don't suppose they will bother to amend it to a more sensible form.


I don't really understand why the distinction is 'illogical'? Holding and operating a device is by definition always going to impair a driver to a significant degree, whereas a device operating through the car systems may or may not be distracting the driver (the choice is that of the driver).

Astraist
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 10:41 pm

Re: Mobile phones

Postby Astraist » Mon Dec 26, 2016 5:49 pm

It definitely more hazardous to hold the phone, but the difference in risk level compared to hands free isn't necessarily as pronounced as one might assume.

Matt1962
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2015 9:36 am

Re: Mobile phones

Postby Matt1962 » Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:23 pm

Astraist wrote:It definitely more hazardous to hold the phone, but the difference in risk level compared to hands free isn't necessarily as pronounced as one might assume.


Maybe, but the crucial distinction is: holding a phone and operating it involves inevitable driving impairment; having a hands free phone connected doesn't. It is of course possible to be distracted from driving when actually communicating on a hands free phone and this possibility might be relevant to a prosecution for other driving offences.

waremark
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 9:23 am

Re: Mobile phones

Postby waremark » Tue Dec 27, 2016 1:25 am

What does the law make of a new fangled smart watch? I am the lucky recipient of such a device as a Christmas present from a generous son. Through it among numerous other things I can make and receive phone calls while my phone remains in my pocket (to call it a watch is as accurate as calling a smart phone a phone). In that respect it is a hands free device. Does the fact I wear it on my wrist make it also a hand held device?

P'S If you are interested it is a Samsung S3 Gear. I love it.

User avatar
EasyShifter
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 9:25 pm
Location: Leicestershire

Re: Mobile phones

Postby EasyShifter » Tue Dec 27, 2016 8:21 am

waremark wrote:What does the law make of a new fangled smart watch? I am the lucky recipient of such a device as a Christmas present from a generous son. Through it among numerous other things I can make and receive phone calls while my phone remains in my pocket (to call it a watch is as accurate as calling a smart phone a phone). In that respect it is a hands free device. Does the fact I wear it on my wrist make it also a hand held device?

P'S If you are interested it is a Samsung S3 Gear. I love it.

Not sure about the Samsung, but on the Apple watch, connect with the call you'd need to raise your wrist to look at the dial and use the other hand to tap the appropriate icon - so one hand completely off the wheel and one multitasking as well as eyes off the road. So I'd say it counts as very much 'hand-held'.
Michael

User avatar
EasyShifter
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 9:25 pm
Location: Leicestershire

Re: Mobile phones

Postby EasyShifter » Tue Dec 27, 2016 8:25 am

Matt1962 wrote:
Astraist wrote:It definitely more hazardous to hold the phone, but the difference in risk level compared to hands free isn't necessarily as pronounced as one might assume.


Maybe, but the crucial distinction is: holding a phone and operating it involves inevitable driving impairment; having a hands free phone connected doesn't. It is of course possible to be distracted from driving when actually communicating on a hands free phone and this possibility might be relevant to a prosecution for other driving offences.

During a time of impaired sleep patterns I've found myself watching one of those fly-on-the-wall police documentaries - in this case from New Zealand - and it's not unusual to see police drivers on that programme responding to emergencies in heavy traffic while communicating with their base using a hand-held microphone. One of them recently was doing that while engaged in a high-speed pursuit, in heavy traffic, palming the steering wheel round when cornering!
I have to say it gave me an attack of the heeby-jeebies! :o
Michael

User avatar
akirk
Posts: 1659
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 6:58 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: Mobile phones

Postby akirk » Tue Dec 27, 2016 8:57 am

There is an interesting RoSPA page here:
http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice ... le-phones/
The law is here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2695/made

The law covers phones or similar so would include the watches described...
However there is at least one lawyer claiming that watches are not automatically covered as they are not hand-held but worn on the wrist...

The law prohibits use of any device in a handheld fashion which interactively communicates by transmitting data... sending or receiving oral / written messages / documents / video or images / connecting to the internet

You can do any of those if not hand held, e.g. in a cradle or built into the car - including texting / browsing the web etc. So potentially could do them if the watch is on your wrist which is legally not hand-held...

You can also under that law use your phone hand-held for any non communication purposes:
- edit a video
- write a novel
- play a downloaded game
- watch a downloaded film
- etc

However there would be sufficient other law to convict you, you simply wouldn't be convicted under the specific mobile phone law...

Alasdair

TripleS
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 5:39 pm
Location: Briggswath

Re: Mobile phones

Postby TripleS » Tue Dec 27, 2016 4:50 pm

Matt1962 wrote:
TripleS wrote:
jont- wrote:
Astraist wrote:Also, the law isn't quite so dynamic and flexible as to accommodate for every piece of up-to-date research.

Or indeed technology. That's why I come back to keep it simple - police for and prosecute for DWDCA. Why do you need anything else?


You don't need anything else; I agree with you.

The politicians are far too busy making rules that in many cases make no sense, and the mobile phones/driving law is an example of that. The distinction between hand-held and hands-free phone usage by drivers is quite illogical, but I don't suppose they will bother to amend it to a more sensible form.


I don't really understand why the distinction is 'illogical'? Holding and operating a device is by definition always going to impair a driver to a significant degree, whereas a device operating through the car systems may or may not be distracting the driver (the choice is that of the driver).


Well my impression was this:

First the criticism was that the use of hand held phones by drivers meant that only one hand was available for controlling the vehicle, i.e. principally steering and making gear changes etc.; and this was felt to be unsatisfactory hence the ban on the use of hand-held phones. I don't believe the problem here was as great as officialdom deemed it to be, but the ban was introduced and that was that.

Then some research emerged that purported to show that the principal danger created by the use of mobile phones by drivers was actually the distracting effect of carrying on a conversation with some remote person, i.e. somebody other than a passenger. To my mind this factor could be significant, and yet hands-free phone usage remains lawful and hand-held phone usage is not. That's what I feel to be illogical.

Quite frankly I think they should have left the whole issue alone, and simply used the existing laws relating to 'not being in proper control' of a vehicle, whenever a driver is clearly seen to be failing to meet his obligations in that respect.

As things stand at the moment we have lots of drivers being prosecuted for contravening the law, when in fact they are not creating any problem whatsoever.

User avatar
jont-
Posts: 1522
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:12 am
Location: Herefordshire

Re: Mobile phones

Postby jont- » Tue Dec 27, 2016 7:14 pm

Well, your last sentiment is at least consistent with the other main thrust of road safety policy :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:


Return to “General Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests