Re: Mobile phones
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2016 5:18 pm
'Like'
A central point for Advanced Driving
https://www.advanceddrivinghub.com/forum/
https://www.advanceddrivinghub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=459
Rolyan wrote:The official line from the government is that hands free mobiles are legal to use in a vehicle, because they are safe to use.
waremark wrote:Rolyan wrote:Silk wrote:We could also ban people called Mark. No particular reason, just that fewer drivers equals safer roads and you have to start somewhere. .
No way. The only driver I know called Mark is an excellent driver, officially tested to a very high standard.
There again I once saw him at an IAM meeting and his fashion sense left a lot to be desired, so perhaps we can ban the use of satnavs when wearing a tie with a worsted jacket.
Would this be about anyone I know?
Strangely Brown wrote:akirk wrote:Strangely Brown wrote:akirk wrote:I don't think we are necessarily saying legal=safe
Perhaps you missed this bit:Rolyan wrote:The official line from the government is that hands free mobiles are legal to use in a vehicle, because they are safe to use.
Sounds like he is saying exactly that.
surely that is saying as it is safe it is legal
not
as it is legal, it is safe
2 totally different things
You are correct, my mistake <slaps self>. They are, of course, two different things. However...
The reason that they are legal is not "because they are safe" - studies so far show the opposite to be true - but almost certainly because to make them illegal would be impossible to police. You would only ever "catch someone" after there was cause to check the call logs or carrier records.
Astraist wrote:Also, the law isn't quite so dynamic and flexible as to accommodate for every piece of up-to-date research.
Rolyan wrote:Which means that you believe that the Government believes that hands free mobiles are unsafe to use, but they have made it legal to use them. That's illogical, and certainly not supported by their other action of making hand held mobiles illegal to use because they are unsafe.
Rolyan wrote:Remember, we are not talking about what is and isn't safe, just what the Government believes. Logic, common sense and current legislation all suggests that the Government believe hands free is safe to use, and I really can't see why you would disagree with that.
Strangely Brown wrote:Rolyan wrote:Which means that you believe that the Government believes that hands free mobiles are unsafe to use, but they have made it legal to use them. That's illogical, and certainly not supported by their other action of making hand held mobiles illegal to use because they are unsafe.
The Government have not "made it legal to use [hands-free phones]". They have simply not made it illegal to use them and that is not the same thing. Pretty much everything is "legal" to do until legislation is passed to make it not.Rolyan wrote:Remember, we are not talking about what is and isn't safe, just what the Government believes. Logic, common sense and current legislation all suggests that the Government believe hands free is safe to use, and I really can't see why you would disagree with that.
But we *are* talking about what is and isn't safe. Other than the lack of legislation to make hands-free use illegal there is no evidence to suggest that the Government believes that such use is safe. In fact, if you read the official mobile phone advice you will see that the opposite is more likely true. If they believed that hands-free use was "safe" then they would say so. The overall official advice is to not use a mobile phone while driving. The detail refers to the law.
As Horse posted previously:
http://think.direct.gov.uk/mobile-phones.html
Nothing in there suggests to me that "the Government believe hands free is safe to use".
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?