Mobile phones

[Rolyan]

I'm arguing that if someone says that we don't need laws around mobile use simply because drivers can make a safe decision, then that should apply to other laws as well. We shouldn't need them either because drivers can make a safe decision.

Actually I would go with that logic - and I think our lawmakers do start at that point, and then look at the stats to decide where humans are not very good at making those decisions and pop in a law to help create boundaries...

Alasdair

I agree with you. Which is why I'm not convinced by those that say mobile phones don't require laws because drivers can make a decision about when to use them safely. Some drivers using them safely cannot be the justification for not having a law. It simply doesn't make sense.

Firstly, the principle is wrong, as it should apply to all or to none. Secondly the details are wrong, as some drivers clearly cant decide where to use them safely, hence the laws are required to create boundaries.

[akirk]

I'm arguing that if someone says that we don't need laws around mobile use simply because drivers can make a safe decision, then that should apply to other laws as well. We shouldn't need them either because drivers can make a safe decision.

Actually I would go with that logic - and I think our lawmakers do start at that point, and then look at the stats to decide where humans are not very good at making those decisions and pop in a law to help create boundaries...

Alasdair

I agree with you. Which is why I'm not convinced by those that say mobile phones don't require laws because drivers can make a decision about when to use them safely. Some drivers using them safely cannot be the justification for not having a law. It simply doesn't make sense.

Firstly, the principle is wrong, as it should apply to all or to none. Secondly the details are wrong, as some drivers clearly cant decide where to use them safely, hence the laws are required to create boundaries.

but you need to separate the two things:
- physically using a mobile hand-held - law considers that inappropriate
- having a phone conversation - law considers that to be fine

as AD we acknowledge that sometimes the conversational element might not be appropriate (and sometimes it is), so as drivers we make that judgement call - that has nothing to do with there being a law - there is no law over the conversational bit and that is what is being referred to... not suggesting that we should also make judgement calls on the hand holding of the phone - that is illegal, end of.

Alasdair

[ancient]

You've also missed my point.

I'm arguing that if someone says that we don't need laws around mobile use simply because drivers can make a safe decision, then that should apply to other laws as well. We shouldn't need them either because drivers can make a safe decision.

It does apply to other laws in exactly the areas you mention:

Solid white lines; you accept being told that you cannot cross them, absolute, rather than you being allowed to make a safe decision.

Not true, you can (when safe and necessary) cross solid white lines to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less. Within those restrictions it is entirely up to the discretion of the driver whether it is safe - i.e. to "make a safe decision".

Speed, you accept being told what the maximum speed is, absolute, rather than you being allowed to make a safe decision.

Again, not true. On the hill a short distance away, the law says I can drive at 60mph. The maximum safe speed on those bends is considerably less, the law leaves that decision up to the driver, within the constraint of the legal limit. If I drove around the bend into a dog walker because I was unable to stop, I would be driving too fast for the road and conditions, not too fast for the road's legal limit. The speed drivers use on that road is, under the law, left to the driver's judgement of what is safe.

U-turns, you accept being told where you can't make them, absolute, rather than you being allowed to make a safe decision. Etc etc etc.

Again not true. U-turns are not banned everywhere, only in limited circumstances. At all other times the law leaves it to the driver's judgement whether the place they want to turn is safe for a U-turn

But when someone suggests that the use of mobiles should be banned, you support the principle that it is not necessary because you should be allowed to make a safe decision.

You clearly support motirists being told what they can and can't do, despite the fact that they can make a safe decision. But then you don't support that when it's about mobiles. I'm just trying to understand why.

In the same way, the law sets an absolute limit on the use of hand-held phones (they cannot be used): This is comparable to the speed limit. The law allows drivers to use judgement on when hands-free phones are safe and when they are not (just like when the judgement has to be made as to when the speed limit is not safe, or when a U-turn is not safe despite being legal). All these are currently left to the judgement of the driver.

[Rolyan]

Solid white lines; you accept being told that you cannot cross them, absolute, rather than you being allowed to make a safe decision.

Not true, you can (when safe and necessary) cross solid white lines to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less. Within those restrictions it is entirely up to the discretion of the driver whether it is safe - i.e. to "make a safe decision".

No, unfortunately you've misunderstood. The law is very clear that you cannot cross the white line apart from the circumstances which you've quoted (which everyone on this forum is fully aware of). They say that you cannot cross the white line outside of these circumstances, absolute, you can be prosecuted, regardless of whether or not you think its safe. You are not given the discretion to make that judgement. So my comment is still valid.

Speed, you accept being told what the maximum speed is, absolute, rather than you being allowed to make a safe decision.

Again, not true. On the hill a short distance away, the law says I can drive at 60mph. The maximum safe speed on those bends is considerably less, the law leaves that decision up to the driver, within the constraint of the legal limit. If I drove around the bend into a dog walker because I was unable to stop, I would be driving too fast for the road and conditions, not too fast for the road's legal limit. The speed drivers use on that road is, under the law, left to the driver's judgement of what is safe.

Unfortunately you've misunderstood. There is an absolute maximum speed limit, which is the point I made when I said "you accept being told what the maximum speed limit is....". It's an absolute. You can be prosecuted for driving over that limit, regardless of whether or not it is safe. They have not given you the discretion to break the maximum speed limit if you believe it is safe. So again, my point is valid.

U-turns, you accept being told where you can't make them, absolute, rather than you being allowed to make a safe decision. Etc etc etc.

Again not true. U-turns are not banned everywhere, only in limited circumstances. At all other times the law leaves it to the driver's judgement whether the place they want to turn is safe for a U-turn

Once again, unfortunately, you've misunderstood the point. Obviously U turns are not banned everywhere , no one has suggested they are, which is why I phrased it carefully as "you accept being told where you can't make them...". But where they are banned, it is an absolute. You can be prosecuted for performing a u-turn, regardless of whether or not it is safe. You have not been given the discretion to make that decision.

But when someone suggests that the use of mobiles should be banned, you support the principle that it is not necessary because you should be allowed to make a safe decision.

You clearly support motorists being told what they can and can't do, despite the fact that they can make a safe decision. But then you don't support that when it's about mobiles. I'm just trying to understand why.

In the same way, the law sets an absolute limit on the use of hand-held phones (they cannot be used): This is comparable to the speed limit. The law allows drivers to use judgement on when hands-free phones are safe and when they are not (just like when the judgement has to be made as to when the speed limit is not safe, or when a U-turn is not safe despite being legal). All these are currently left to the judgement of the driver.

You've still missed the point entirely.

There are some who say that laws are not required regarding the use of mobiles, and give as a reason that the driver can and should be trusted to make a safe decision. Yet they appear to support the use of laws in other areas, presumably because they think that drivers cannot be trusted to make a safe decision.

So which is it. Can and should we trust drivers to make safe decisions, in which case we don't need absolute laws. Or do we say that we cannot and should not always trust drivers to make a safe decision, in which case we do need some absolute laws. You cant have it both ways.

[Rolyan]

I'm arguing that if someone says that we don't need laws around mobile use simply because drivers can make a safe decision, then that should apply to other laws as well. We shouldn't need them either because drivers can make a safe decision.

Actually I would go with that logic - and I think our lawmakers do start at that point, and then look at the stats to decide where humans are not very good at making those decisions and pop in a law to help create boundaries...

Alasdair

I agree with you. Which is why I'm not convinced by those that say mobile phones don't require laws because drivers can make a decision about when to use them safely. Some drivers using them safely cannot be the justification for not having a law. It simply doesn't make sense.

Firstly, the principle is wrong, as it should apply to all or to none. Secondly the details are wrong, as some drivers clearly cant decide where to use them safely, hence the laws are required to create boundaries.

but you need to separate the two things:
- physically using a mobile hand-held - law considers that inappropriate
- having a phone conversation - law considers that to be fine

as AD we acknowledge that sometimes the conversational element might not be appropriate (and sometimes it is), so as drivers we make that judgement call - that has nothing to do with there being a law - there is no law over the conversational bit and that is what is being referred to... not suggesting that we should also make judgement calls on the hand holding of the phone - that is illegal, end of.

Alasdair

I'm not trying to decide if something should or shouldn't be illegal. I'm not seeking clarification over the law.

I'm just trying to understand how someone thinks that the principle of the driver being able to make safe decisions (and therefore laws are not required) applies to mobiles but not to other road issues.

[akirk]

I'm just trying to understand how someone thinks that the principle of the driver being able to make safe decisions (and therefore laws are not required) applies to mobiles but not to other road issues.

To be honest I think there is some confusion here...

No one is saying that there should be more discretion in making decisions over safety with mobile phones than other areas such as speed / white lines /u-turns etc.

All that is being said is that the law sets down some markers as to what is legal and what is not.
Within what is legal the driver must still make safety decisions...

So on the matter of phones - it is 100% legal to make a phone call / receive a phone call / speak on the phone - as long as it is not operated as a hand-held device.

Within that legal position there is still an opportunity (and arguably a requirement) for the driver to further make a choice on safety...

Perhaps you are coming from the perspective that all use of a phone should be illegal and therefore no choice should be given to the driver - however that is not the law, or the decision of the law makers.

So your statement I have quoted is totally wrong because that is not the point being made.
The point is simple:
1 - start with an understanding of the legal framework
2 - comply with the law
3 - within that compliance / legal action - make further choices of judgement as a driver based on safety...

the same applies to speed (plenty of illustrations above, but to fit these points):
1 - the law says drive at a speed below the posted limit - the limit past the school in my village is 30mph
2 - so drive under 30mph
3 - within that compliance I may choose as I did 30 minutes ago as I passed and the children were playing out in their lunch break - to voluntarily choose on the grounds of safety to actually drive at c. 15mph

phones:
1 - the law says no to hand held and yes to hands free
2 - on my journey back from Hertfordshire this morning my phone was plugged into and connected via bluetooth to the car system
3 - when a phone call came in I made a judgement based on safety as to whether I would take the call and how I would conduct the call - I was on the motorway in light traffic on a dry and clear day - I took the call and told the caller my eta back in the office and said I would speak later

So in both scenarios the driver starts by understanding and complying with the law and then within the framework of the law makes a decision based on safety which may or may not alter their actions... for the speed example - had it been a day in the summer holiday with no children at school I might not have chosen so substantial a slow down and continued at a safe speed of c. 25-27mph - still within the law, but a different choice. With the phone, had it been night time / busy traffic / raining / or had I been tired, I might have chosen to not take the call.

Within the law the driver still makes choices over safety.
No-one is saying that no law should apply to phone use - the law is already there and exists - we are debating how a resonsible driver chooses to act within that legal framework.

Alasdair

[Rolyan]

Alasdair - there is certainly some confusion here.

The following is what started it all off.

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.

[akirk]

Fair point - but I understood that to be within the context of using handsfree - i.e. within the legal options...
in which case it makes sense

I didn't read it as being regardless of law...

if people actually answered questions on a forum we would have very little discussion

Alasdair

[ChristianAB]

It is more complicated than that.

Research the 'share space' initiative, and you will realise that removing the laws makes drivers more able to drive without laws and more able to make sound decisions, whereas introducing more and more laws has the opposite effect, drivers tend to become less and less able to use sound judgment on their own.
Even more specifically, it also depends on how drivers are trained in the first place. Currently, drivers are not initially properly trained in the use of speed or indeed phones when driving.

Taking those three elements into account, one could produce a sweet spot where the law, critical judgment and training all combine for best effect. This would be a minimal requirement in my eyes. If I were to design a driving framework, I would account for even more dimensions but that's another matter.

However, so far, I have seen very little in the way of training people to adequately use their phones whilst driving. I have seen even less suggestions on how to make sound judgments in the face of often conflicting priorities on the road but I have seen plenty of suggestions on how to make the law more forceful, despite strong evidence that we are already beyond the sweet spot in terms of how heavy the law can get on these issues.

Now, in the above debate, the starting point that if the law says something, we are constrained to apply our judgment only within those boundaries is completely wrong. Unless you are the type of people who would compromise their own safety if the law tells them to do so. As citizens, it is also our duty to ignore the law when it flies in the face of higher moral principles. That is why we tend to admire people such as Gandhi or Mandela: they displayed great moral courage.

In fact, a look at what actually happens reveal that people will usually make a decision about whether to abide by the law, based on their own priorities, beliefs, needs and values as well as a subjective risk-assessment accounting for the risk of being caught and the severity of the likely punishment if caught. Even lawmakers know that.

So no, the law is not an absolute imperative. Never was, never will be. In and out of itself, a law holds no morality. However, there are sound laws, stupid laws, pointless laws, unenforceable laws, misguided laws, and so on...depending on your disposition. Behind this is a war of ideologies, fuelled by the fact that we all have to share to same roads. So let's call a cat a cat.

With that said, I believe I have tried to have the facts on my side so far. Although I will admit that that appears to be a disadvantage, since I cannot 'fabricate' dubious studies to further my cause: facts are such cruel bastards!

[jont-]

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