Mobile phones

Anything that doesn't fit elsewhere - doesn't have to be AD related.
User avatar
ChristianAB
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Mobile phones

Postby ChristianAB » Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:42 pm

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


As one of the guy commenting put it:
"What is this magic technology that the DfT has discovered that can tell the difference between the phone belonging to the driver of a car as opposed to one belonging to a passenger in a car?"

User avatar
Strangely Brown
Posts: 1018
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:06 pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Mobile phones

Postby Strangely Brown » Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:45 pm

akirk wrote:
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...


Where does it distinguish? The picture may be of hand-held use but the article only speaks of "phone use". That covers both.

akirk wrote:
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


Again, where does it distinguish? It is a catch-all for all mobile use.


akirk wrote:typical bad news / silly government idea...


Yes. Tap that knee and see what happens. You can't solve a human problem with technology.
Last edited by Strangely Brown on Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.

gannet
Posts: 184
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 10:23 am

Re: Mobile phones

Postby gannet » Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:27 pm

The software would make mobiles virtually useless by disabling any function that requires internet access or connection to a telephone network.

block anything that uses data... music streaming is hardly distracting but uses mobile data, they want me to stop listening to music while I drive now?

They really haven't thought that through or understand how MANY of the applications work... TomTom Traffic for example also uses mobile data...

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

Re: Mobile phones

Postby jont- » Tue Dec 20, 2016 2:29 pm

They haven't understood the [lack of] mobile phone network coverage around much of the country either.
Now, can we have a ban on touchscreens next :twisted:

User avatar
Strangely Brown
Posts: 1018
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:06 pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Mobile phones

Postby Strangely Brown » Tue Dec 20, 2016 3:07 pm

jont- wrote:Now, can we have a ban on touchscreens next :twisted:


Additionally, can we have a ban on satnavs attached to the windscreen too? Since most people don't seem to be capable of placing them in a sensible location out of their direct line of sight the only option must be to ban them altogether.

Silk
Posts: 386
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2015 9:24 pm
Location: South Glos.

Re: Mobile phones

Postby Silk » Wed Dec 21, 2016 12:47 pm

Strangely Brown wrote:
jont- wrote:Now, can we have a ban on touchscreens next :twisted:


Additionally, can we have a ban on satnavs attached to the windscreen too? Since most people don't seem to be capable of placing them in a sensible location out of their direct line of sight the only option must be to ban them altogether.


We could also ban people called Mark. No particular reason, just that fewer drivers equals safer roads and you have to start somewhere. ;)

P.S. I agree regarding sat-navs.

Rolyan
Posts: 660
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 5:45 pm

Re: Mobile phones

Postby Rolyan » Wed Dec 21, 2016 12:53 pm

akirk wrote:
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 ;)

Alasdair


It does appear strange that the official line is that something is safe and legal, but that they also want to ban it.

In its current form, the proposal hasn't a cat in hells chance of coming in.

martine
Posts: 1016
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 8:26 am
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: Mobile phones

Postby martine » Wed Dec 21, 2016 1:46 pm

Rolyan wrote:t does appear strange that the official line is that something is safe and legal, but that they also want to ban it...
Hmmm, that's stretching it a bit. Just because the current law hasn't caught up with recent research doesn't mean 'the official line is it's safe and legal'.

Like Rolyan, I also can't seen how a complete block could be implemented without effecting passengers use of phones - which wouldn't be fair or reasonable.
Martin - Bristol Advanced Motorists: IMI National Observer, Group Secretary, Masters (dist), DSA: ADI, Fleet, RoSPA (Dip)

User avatar
Horse
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:20 am

Re: Mobile phones

Postby Horse » Wed Dec 21, 2016 1:51 pm

Silk wrote:
Strangely Brown wrote: Additionally, can we have a ban on satnavs attached to the windscreen too? Since most people don't seem to be capable of placing them in a sensible location out of their direct line of sight the only option must be to ban them altogether.


We could also ban people called Mark. No particular reason, just that fewer drivers equals safer roads


Hmmm :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smeed's_law

Smeed's Law, named after R. J. Smeed, who first proposed the relationship in 1949, is an empirical rule relating traffic fatalities to traffic congestion as measured by the proxy of motor vehicle registrations and country population. Thus, increasing traffic volume leads to an increase in fatalities per capita, but a decrease in fatalities per vehicle.

The validity of Smeed's "Law" is a matter of debate:

Powles (Oxford Textbook of Public Health) notes that the Australian state of Victoria which experienced deaths in excess of the Smeed formula until about 1970, subsequently adopted a range of interventions which took it from being a poor performer in terms of road safety to one of the best. Deaths fell in absolute terms from a peak of 1000 in 1970 to below 300 in 2009, despite strong growth in population and the number of vehicles.

Critics observe that fatality rates per vehicle are now decreasing faster than the formula would suggest, and that, in many cases, fatality rates per person are also falling, directly contrary to Smeed's prediction. They attribute this improvement to effective safety interventions. (see Andreassen,[4] Broughton,[5] Oppe,[6] and Ameen & Naji[7])

However, John Adams of University College London argues that Smeed's law linking deaths, vehicle-miles and population was still valid for a variety of countries over time, claiming that the relationship held for 62 countries in a paper published in 1995.[8] He noted an enormous difference in fatality rates across different parts of the world in spite of safety interventions, and suggested that Smeed's Law was still useful in establish general trends, especially when using a very long time period. Variations from the trend were normally better explained through economics, rather than claimed safety interventions. However, Adams found that Smeed's calculation of estimated deaths from vehicles per population was less successful than the calculation for vehicle-miles.


That said, just having fewer vehicles on the roads could make life easier.

Silk wrote:P.S. I agree regarding sat-navs.


I agree too :oops: It really must be the season of good cheer :lol:
Your 'standard' is how you drive alone, not how you drive during a test.

sussex2
Posts: 732
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 11:43 am

Re: Mobile phones

Postby sussex2 » Wed Dec 21, 2016 4:34 pm

jont- wrote:They haven't understood the [lack of] mobile phone network coverage around much of the country either.
Now, can we have a ban on touchscreens next :twisted:


Those curiously well kept phone boxes in Cornwall are there for a reason; the mobile phone coverage/wifi and data coverage throughout much of the county (and Devon as well) is lamentable.
I take your point.


Return to “General Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests