Mobile phones

Anything that doesn't fit elsewhere - doesn't have to be AD related.
mainbeam
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:32 am

Re: Mobile phones

Postby mainbeam » Thu Dec 29, 2016 8:37 pm

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.


I think it is quite possible for the demands of driving to be sufficiently low for a driver to manage holding a phone at the same time. The same applies to using a hands-free phone. Apart from not contravening the prohibition, using a hands-free phone simply provides more opportunities to use the phone safely. I'm surprised that having put so much effort into defending the capacity of drivers to manage risk using hands-free that you dismiss that possibility so readily for hand-held use.

mainbeam
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:32 am

Re: Mobile phones

Postby mainbeam » Thu Dec 29, 2016 8:40 pm

Strangely Brown wrote:It's a simple matter of what is or is not policeable. Neither are "safe" to use on the move. Hand-held use is obvious. Hands-free use is not. I believe it is that simple.


T'is so. I'm sure you've taken the time to read this link from earlier.


http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... si1717.pdf

P3 para 12.

'"Hands-free phones
12. The consultation explained that while the Department considers that drivers should not use hands-
free phones, it was not proposed to include these within the scope of the new regulation due to
enforcement difficulties. Although some respondents considered that further action was needed
against hands-free use, the Department does not consider that hands-free phones should be prohibited
unless they are being held during use."

mainbeam
Posts: 162
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 12:32 am

Re: Mobile phones

Postby mainbeam » Thu Dec 29, 2016 8:42 pm

akirk wrote:.
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...


Does the phone need to be hand-held? Legislation defines "hand-held" simply as "held". I think that is crucial.

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

Re: Mobile phones

Postby Strangely Brown » Thu Dec 29, 2016 9:47 pm

mainbeam wrote:
Strangely Brown wrote:It's a simple matter of what is or is not policeable. Neither are "safe" to use on the move. Hand-held use is obvious. Hands-free use is not. I believe it is that simple.


T'is so. I'm sure you've taken the time to read this link from earlier.


http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... si1717.pdf

P3 para 12.


I had not actually seen that document - must have missed the earlier link - but I was aware that the primary reason for hands-free use not being included in the legislation was one of enforcement ability... of lack thereof. Thanks for the documented confirmation.

The problem with mobile phone use is, and always has been, the conversation itself. The studies have shown repeatedly that a hands-free conversation is a serious impediment to driving safely yet there will always remain those who think that they are somehow different.

User avatar
Horse
Posts: 3557
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:20 am

Re: Mobile phones

Postby Horse » Fri Dec 30, 2016 9:16 am

mainbeam wrote:
akirk wrote:.
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...


Does the phone need to be hand-held? Legislation defines "hand-held" simply as "held". I think that is crucial.



Some clever Dick was bound to mention that :)
Your 'standard' is how you drive alone, not how you drive during a test.

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

Re: Mobile phones

Postby akirk » Fri Dec 30, 2016 9:44 am

mainbeam wrote:
akirk wrote:.
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...


Does the phone need to be hand-held? Legislation defines "hand-held" simply as "held". I think that is crucial.


and what is the definition of held?
- you could hold a baby with your arms?
- can someone disabled and without hands hold something?
- is something that is worn (e.g. watch) held or worn

I am sure there is enough grey area for lawyers to make money!

Alasdair

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

Re: Mobile phones

Postby waremark » Fri Dec 30, 2016 12:08 pm

It would be difficult to enforce a ban on use of a watch, whether or not it is caught by the law.

I am finding (not when driving ) that answering incoming calls via the watch works well and if in a quiet environment is much easier than fiddling in my poctet to get out the phone. I am not sure if the speaker would be loud enough for a car environment. Outgoing calls can be initiated by voice ('Call home') but I don't expect the process to be reliable enough to be used without substantial distraction.

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

Re: Mobile phones

Postby Strangely Brown » Mon Jan 02, 2017 10:08 am

I expect this one has been posted before, and I fully expect it to be dismissed like all of the others, but here it is anyway...

http://sciencenetlinks.com/science-news/science-updates/talking-driving/

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

Re: Mobile phones

Postby waremark » Mon Jan 02, 2017 11:34 am

Strangely Brown wrote:I expect this one has been posted before, and I fully expect it to be dismissed like all of the others, but here it is anyway...

http://sciencenetlinks.com/science-news/science-updates/talking-driving/

Yes, it has precisely the weaknesses of other studies which have been criticised here. It found that observation only reduced when participants were asked to answer riddles and brainteasers over the phone. None of us think it is either a good idea or normal to answer riddles and brainteasers over the phone.

And it distinguished talking on hands free from talking to passengers by suggesting that passengers keep quiet when the driver needs to concentrate. They don't. It is up to the driver to concentrate when he needs to whether talking to someone in the car or over a phone.

For me, this thread has clarified why studies showing hands free phone use to be dangerous are in conflict with my personal experience.

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

Re: Mobile phones

Postby akirk » Mon Jan 02, 2017 11:43 am

I think I wouldn't dismiss that study, but I think it is important how generalisations are drawn from what it says...
It says that the both are as distracting - but it doesn't explore where the differences may be - once you are into the conversational element of the call, then of course the conversation is the same and the method of having got to that conversation is presumably irrelevant - so if you only see the call as the conversation then there is no reason to distinguish between them and yes hands-free would be as safe / dangerous as hand-held...

However, they are not the same and the method of getting to the call is in my opinion more dangerous with hand-held, and that is the bit that legislation seems to be tackling...

so, if the conversation is the same on both then the study doesn't really enlighten us at all... and the question really comes down to whether a driver can or can't drive safely while making that conversation - some of us believe that in certain circumstances that is possible - others don't... That could be that one or the other party is wrong, or it could be that some drivers can and others can't, or it could be that different people have different types of conversations!

A study like this is far too shallow to explore those issues, so can't draw firm conclusions...

Alasdair


Return to “General Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests