Mobile phones

[Silk]

My point is that using a phone is a problem and it matters not whether you do it hand-held or hands-free; the mental distraction is the same. The fact that one is legal and the other not does not change how much attention the conversation requires.

Well that's us told!

[Rolyan]

Alasdair - You've missed my point entirely.

There are those who say that mobiles do not need a special law BECAUSE drivers can decide what's safe. Solely that. They are not saying it's safe, or unsafe, or illegal. Simply that we don't need rules and laws about phones as the driver can decide if and when it's safe to use the phone.

My argument is that if they truly believe that, then they should apply it to all scenarios e.g.
1) the speed we drive at
2) where we can cross the solid line
3) minimum speeds
4) where we can park
5) where we can do a u turn.
Etc etc etc.

Drivers are capable of making all those decisions, yet they are controlled by law and many support those laws. Yet I don't see any difference between those and using a phone, hand held or otherwise IF you/they truly believe this principle that we don't need a law because a driver can decide when it's safe.

If that's not your argument then fine. But if it is, then it's nonsensical to apply it to some driving situations but not others.

[waremark]

I expect that the ban covers only the use of hand helds because that is both easier to enforce and easier for the general public to comprehend. Also, there is a viable and marginally safer alternative - no, I don't mean waiting until you are parked, I mean use of hands free.

As it happens, if it wasn't banned I probably would use a hand held from time to time. But I don't particularly object to the ban. I would be annoyed if hands free phones were banned.

[Gareth]

Are there any studies looking at the distraction of using two-way radio while driving? Given it's legal to use hand-held two-way radios while driving, (no requirement for hands-free), is this part of the legislation fact-based?

[Matt1962]

Are there any studies looking at the distraction of using two-way radio while driving? Given it's legal to use hand-held two-way radios while driving, (no requirement for hands-free), is this part of the legislation fact-based?

One button, physically connected to the vehicle (doesn't matter if transmitter is dropped), uncomplicated; so I think much closer to a hands free mobile than a hand held one.

[Matt1962]

Alasdair - You've missed my point entirely.

There are those who say that mobiles do not need a special law BECAUSE drivers can decide what's safe. Solely that. They are not saying it's safe, or unsafe, or illegal. Simply that we don't need rules and laws about phones as the driver can decide if and when it's safe to use the phone.

My argument is that if they truly believe that, then they should apply it to all scenarios e.g.
1) the speed we drive at
2) where we can cross the solid line
3) minimum speeds
4) where we can park
5) where we can do a u turn.
Etc etc etc.

Drivers are capable of making all those decisions, yet they are controlled by law and many support those laws. Yet I don't see any difference between those and using a phone, hand held or otherwise IF you/they truly believe this principle that we don't need a law because a driver can decide when it's safe.

If that's not your argument then fine. But if it is, then it's nonsensical to apply it to some driving situations but not others.

All the things you list are down to driver discretion up to a point where 'hard' laws apply:

Speed - obvious
White lines - broken/hazard gives driver discretion, solid is where the hard law kicks in.
Parking - Yellow lines, crossings etc. = hard law, otherwise driver discretion.
U turns - driver discretion except where prevented by signs.

Mobile phones - driver discretion except when hand held, then they are controlled by law.

[Rolyan]

Alasdair - You've missed my point entirely.

There are those who say that mobiles do not need a special law BECAUSE drivers can decide what's safe. Solely that. They are not saying it's safe, or unsafe, or illegal. Simply that we don't need rules and laws about phones as the driver can decide if and when it's safe to use the phone.

My argument is that if they truly believe that, then they should apply it to all scenarios e.g.
1) the speed we drive at
2) where we can cross the solid line
3) minimum speeds
4) where we can park
5) where we can do a u turn.
Etc etc etc.

Drivers are capable of making all those decisions, yet they are controlled by law and many support those laws. Yet I don't see any difference between those and using a phone, hand held or otherwise IF you/they truly believe this principle that we don't need a law because a driver can decide when it's safe.

If that's not your argument then fine. But if it is, then it's nonsensical to apply it to some driving situations but not others.

All the things you list are down to driver discretion up to a point where 'hard' laws apply:

Speed - obvious
White lines - broken/hazard gives driver discretion, solid is where the hard law kicks in.
Parking - Yellow lines, crossings etc. = hard law, otherwise driver discretion.
U turns - driver discretion except where prevented by signs.

Mobile phones - driver discretion except when hand held, then they are controlled by law.

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.

Solid white lines; you accept being told that you cannot cross them, absolute, rather than you being allowed 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. 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.

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.

[Gareth]

Are there any studies looking at the distraction of using two-way radio while driving? Given it's legal to use hand-held two-way radios while driving, (no requirement for hands-free), is this part of the legislation fact-based?

One button, physically connected to the vehicle (doesn't matter if transmitter is dropped), uncomplicated; so I think much closer to a hands free mobile than a hand held one.

There's no requirement for that; it isn't illegal to use hand-held two-way radios such as CB, PMR (licence-free 446 MHz, or Tetra), ham, and so on.

[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...

so speed...

start with context that any speed is fine and driver makes judgement...
then work on the basis that some choices are not ideal, so put in an upper cap, but within that cap still allow the driver to make choices...

so phones...

start with the context that any use is fine and driver makes judgement
then work on the basis that actually the hand-held choice has issues, so put in a law to ban that, but still allow the driver to make choices with hands-free as to whether to take a call or not...

If all drivers were perfect then we wouldn't need to have those laws, and the aim should be minimum law for the competence level of the drivers we have...

Alasdair

[jont-]

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...

If only they looked at the stats. They look at the meedja and make populist knee-jerk reactions. Most of them wouldn't recognise statistics if they were beaten round the head with them, never mind how to interpret/challenge them.