Mobile phones

Anything that doesn't fit elsewhere - doesn't have to be AD related.
Matt1962
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2015 9:36 am

Re: Mobile phones

Postby Matt1962 » Thu Jan 05, 2017 2:06 pm

Strangely Brown wrote:
Matt1962 wrote:I also think that a ban at this stage would be politically and practically impossible [...]


I agree. That's why the legislation doesn't cover hands-free (the practicality anyway).

Matt1962 wrote:[...] so a code of best practice would be the most logical route to go down.


It already exists. You choose to ignore it.

http://think.direct.gov.uk/mobile-phones.html


It is too draconian, poorly thought out and doesn't really address the realities of the latest technology so it will be ignored. Some examples:

'Using ANY mobile phone when driving is dangerous' - really? what about when it is connected as a music player? It then goes on to suggest that you shouldn't 'use' a satnav whilst driving :? .

'Switch off before you drive off' - This precludes use as a music player, and even if it just means disconnect from the network, it would not allow you to use the feature that shows you on the console screen that someone is trying to contact you (and who that person is).

User avatar
Strangely Brown
Posts: 562
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:06 pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Mobile phones

Postby Strangely Brown » Thu Jan 05, 2017 2:27 pm

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.

crr003
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 5:32 pm

Re: Mobile phones

Postby crr003 » Thu Jan 05, 2017 3:29 pm

Horse wrote:Talking (sic) of 'distraction', I just happened across this . . .
...
...
http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/26045/

Have you read it?
The commentary training seemed to be confined to:
"Training consisted of watching a 30 minute video of commentary provided by an Approved Driving Instructor while driving around Nottingham."
The result being that people with this training performed poorly on their hazard perception test compared to people who didn't try and do commentary?
No shit Sherlock.

Still, any research that says:
"Where the assumption of sphericity was violated Greenhouse-Geisser adjustments were used."
is worthy of grant money in my book.

Matt1962
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2015 9:36 am

Re: Mobile phones

Postby Matt1962 » Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:29 pm

Strangely Brown wrote:Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.


Well, maybe, but you have to admit that it reads more like a BRAKE press release than (for example) the Highway Code.

Although I answer very few calls whilst moving, I do appreciate knowing that someone is trying to call me and who they are - and I can't see that this represents much increase in risk (just a quick glance at the instrument panel in my car).

I suppose when they are talking about satnav they mean that you shouldn't put an address in whilst driving, but even this is not black and white. My built-in system lets me select 'home' with one button - so no more hazardous than opening a window or changing the radio channel.

ancient
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:03 pm

Re: Mobile phones

Postby ancient » Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:38 pm

Rolyan wrote:
Matt1962 wrote:I have no idea why ....(hands free) mobile phones are seen as such a potent distraction that they need to be banned? Why not try to improve understanding of all possible driving distractions and encourage best practice?

Really? You have no idea why?

Perhaps a more accurate way of phrasing it would be that you understand perfectly why some see it as a distraction that should be banned, but you happen to disagree with them. That's fair enough, both sides can have an opinion; but I'm surprised to hear you say that you have no idea why others disagree with your opinion.

It's fairly clear that there are two basic positions.

One is that hands free mobile phones are a distraction, as proven by independent studies and/or empirical knowledge, and that as the risk outweighs the likelihood of all drivers being willing or able to manage the situation, then it should be banned.

The other is that hands free mobile phones are not a distraction and that the studies are not robust, and that as the risk is small and all drivers can be trusted to manage the situation, then it should not be banned.

Both those positions are valid and very easy to understand. The difficulty is trying to get everyone to put aside our own beliefs and try to get independent studies accepted that give robust, stable and predictable results that we can all agree on and use to formulate legislation. But that takes a lot of effort and a willingness to accept that how we see the world may not be 'correct'. That, I suspect, is almost impossible, which is why this has gone on for 48 pages!

Or is it you that is being obtuse?
No-one on this thread (that I can see) has said that mobile phones are not a distraction. What has been said is that the degree of distraction varies depending on how they are used and that the studies at best, force a particular type of use which is distracting. Studies also show that visualisation is a major part of the distraction. But there are other in-car activities* which also require visualisation which are not similarly demonised, despite their potential to equally distract.

*Following an interesting play, listening (and bopping along to :lol: ) involving music, planning the meal to be prepared on arriving home ...

User avatar
Horse
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:20 am

Re: Mobile phones

Postby Horse » Thu Jan 05, 2017 5:23 pm

crr003 wrote: Have you read it?


Only found the abstract this morning and it seemed relevant to the 'distraction discussion', so no.

crr003 wrote: "Training consisted of watching a 30 minute video of commentary provided by an Approved Driving Instructor while driving around Nottingham."

The result being that people with this training performed poorly on their hazard perception test compared to people who didn't try and do commentary?


Is it the 'ADI' or '30 minutes' you have an issue with? If it's the 'ADI' aspect, Martine might wish to comment :)

FWIW, though, this:
https://trl.co.uk/reports/PPR615
Involved approx. one hour Powerpoint and video presentation, in group format.

Development of a video measure of hazard perception skill and a group discussion based hazard perception training package for motorcyclists

S Helman, M Palmer, E Delmonte, S Buttress


. . . Despite the great deal of work in hazard perception generally, there has been very little looking at this skill specifically in motorcyclists. This project sought to develop a measure of hazard perception skill and a training package to address this gap. The measure was based on the speed choice method used by McKenna, Horswill and Alexander (2006) and the training package based on having small groups of either experienced or novice motorcyclists engage in commentary and discussion using video clips filmed from a motorcycle. Results showed that both experienced and novice groups showed a sensitivity to the hazards in the test (through choosing lower speeds in those clips with hazards than in those without), but that experienced riders were more sensitive to the presence of hazards than novices were. The training intervention made novice riders reduce their speed choice but did not have any impact on those of experienced riders. . . .

If you don't want to download the full report, have a look at slide 13 for the main results graph:
http://www.cieca.eu/sites/default/files ... %20TRL.pdf
My own views. For better or worse :)

User avatar
Strangely Brown
Posts: 562
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 8:06 pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Mobile phones

Postby Strangely Brown » Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:12 pm

Matt1962 wrote:
Strangely Brown wrote:Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.


Well, maybe, but you have to admit that it reads more like a BRAKE press release than (for example) the Highway Code.


Not really. It is pretty clear to me that it is talking about using the phone as a phone and not a sat nav or music player. Some of it is a bit on the preachy side but the message is quite clear. Don't make/receive phone calls while driving. Texting/bookfacing etc is really a different discussion as it takes a very special kind of stupid to think that is OK.

Matt1962 wrote:Although I answer very few calls whilst moving, I do appreciate knowing that someone is trying to call me and who they are - and I can't see that this represents much increase in risk (just a quick glance at the instrument panel in my car).


I have no problem with that and would equate it to something like having a warning message appear on the instrument display. The problem, as we keep saying, is the conversation. Knowing that someone is trying to call you and who they are could very well be important. At that point you should find a safe place to make or receive the call.

Matt1962 wrote:I suppose when they are talking about satnav they mean that you shouldn't put an address in whilst driving, but even this is not black and white. My built-in system lets me select 'home' with one button - so no more hazardous than opening a window or changing the radio channel.


I have no real concern with that either. Using one button to "go home" or one button to select "next track" is really not a problem.

Rolyan
Posts: 587
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 5:45 pm

Re: Mobile phones

Postby Rolyan » Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:17 pm

ancient wrote:
Rolyan wrote:
Matt1962 wrote:I have no idea why ....(hands free) mobile phones are seen as such a potent distraction that they need to be banned? Why not try to improve understanding of all possible driving distractions and encourage best practice?

Really? You have no idea why?

Perhaps a more accurate way of phrasing it would be that you understand perfectly why some see it as a distraction that should be banned, but you happen to disagree with them. That's fair enough, both sides can have an opinion; but I'm surprised to hear you say that you have no idea why others disagree with your opinion.

It's fairly clear that there are two basic positions.

One is that hands free mobile phones are a distraction, as proven by independent studies and/or empirical knowledge, and that as the risk outweighs the likelihood of all drivers being willing or able to manage the situation, then it should be banned.

The other is that hands free mobile phones are not a distraction and that the studies are not robust, and that as the risk is small and all drivers can be trusted to manage the situation, then it should not be banned.

Both those positions are valid and very easy to understand. The difficulty is trying to get everyone to put aside our own beliefs and try to get independent studies accepted that give robust, stable and predictable results that we can all agree on and use to formulate legislation. But that takes a lot of effort and a willingness to accept that how we see the world may not be 'correct'. That, I suspect, is almost impossible, which is why this has gone on for 48 pages!

Or is it you that is being obtuse?
No-one on this thread (that I can see) has said that mobile phones are not a distraction. What has been said is that the degree of distraction varies depending on how they are used and that the studies at best, force a particular type of use which is distracting. Studies also show that visualisation is a major part of the distraction. But there are other in-car activities* which also require visualisation which are not similarly demonised, despite their potential to equally distract.

*Following an interesting play, listening (and bopping along to :lol: ) involving music, planning the meal to be prepared on arriving home ...

No, I don't think I was being obtuse, although I fear you are now being deliberately puerile.

It was clear that I was generalising 2 basic camps. Those who believe that it is dangerous to use a hands free mobile and the use should be banned, and those who don't. Both sides have reasons for believing that. Both opinions have some validity.

Matt understood entirely the clear and simple point I was making. I suspect you did also. You just reacted differently, and I'm sure you had your reasons.

ancient
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 4:03 pm

Re: Mobile phones

Postby ancient » Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:14 am

Rolyan wrote:No, I don't think I was being obtuse, although I fear you are now being deliberately puerile.

It was clear that I was generalising 2 basic camps. Those who believe that it is dangerous to use a hands free mobile and the use should be banned, and those who don't. Both sides have reasons for believing that. Both opinions have some validity.

Matt understood entirely the clear and simple point I was making. I suspect you did also. You just reacted differently, and I'm sure you had your reasons.

You generalised the discussion as 2 basic camps and then misrepresented the one with which you are arguing against:
Rolyan wrote:It's fairly clear that there are two basic positions.

One is that hands free mobile phones are a distraction, as proven by independent studies and/or empirical knowledge, and that as the risk outweighs the likelihood of all drivers being willing or able to manage the situation, then it should be banned.

The other is that hands free mobile phones are not a distraction and that the studies are not robust, and that as the risk is small and all drivers can be trusted to manage the situation, then it should not be banned.

Both those positions are valid and very easy to understand

This is clearly a straw-man argument, unless you are unable to see the distinction (as I pointed out).
ancient wrote:No-one on this thread (that I can see) has said that mobile phones are not a distraction. What has been said is that the degree of distraction varies depending on how they are used and that the studies at best, force a particular type of use which is distracting. Studies also show that visualisation is a major part of the distraction. But there are other in-car activities* which also require visualisation which are not similarly demonised, despite their potential to equally distract.

*Following an interesting play, listening (and bopping along to :lol: ) involving music, planning the meal to be prepared on arriving home ...

That you react with insult instead of addressing the difference between your statement (that people are taking the position that hands-free mobiles do not distract) and the mine (that the distraction is recognised but not confined to mobile phones) tells me much about your attitude to disagreement.

User avatar
ChristianAB
Posts: 267
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: Mobile phones

Postby ChristianAB » Fri Jan 06, 2017 4:30 pm

wow...it's gotten hot in here since the last time I checked...and yet...

I read somewhere that 4% of the population can multitask whilst driving without issues. I've also read that the best Tetris player can handle up to 3 items per second. So I am convinced that with better training/research/education using phones on the go would be a non-issue. The brain is a wonderful thing, if time is invested in using its potential. Now if better research could be done (not the many methodological jokes that have plagued this thread...) and education and training based on it used, then I don't see why the end result wouldn't be superior to the status-quo, and certainly far superior to the dead end that a ban would be.

Now, why one would want to produce an un-enforceable ban on hands-free use of phone in cars in the first place, I have no idea. Why even waste time on a useless piece of legislation? A law that has no hope of being properly enforced simply discredits the rule of law as a whole, as the proportion of people disrespecting stupid 20mph zones already illustrate.

Since we are talking about laws and bans and all that... Have some of you stopped for a second and thought about what makes a law FIT FOR PURPOSE? Do so and you will eventually see for instance, that the ethics of using the greater good in terms of how many lives could be saved right now vs doing nothing are actually pretty weak. Let me explain:
Banning driving for fun would save way more lives but no one is looking at that particular white elephant. When I crashed my Z, the insurance claim was £19k. I was out driving for fun at the time. No useful aim other than my own selfish fun. However, do you know how many hungry Ethiopian kids could be saved from a horrible and slow death due to malnutrition with £19k? Hundreds? But no, I'd rather have my own selfish fun, right?
Multiply that by the number of claims on similarly pointless fun-related trips and...well, the case for a ban of pointless fun-driving becomes hard to resist, doesn't it? Ethics can be bitchy like that.
The lack of sophistication on these deeper ramifications on this thread so far has been unnerving. If even so-called advanced drivers can be so simplistic on such a sensitive and shaded and multidimensional driving issue, what hope is there for the common (wo)men?

Why mobile phones in particular? I am currently looking at research about the impact of interacting with unruly passengers (say, small kids in the back of your car, being their usual nasty selves). Guess what? Very distracting too, and in the worst possible way, in that the distractions can spike at the worst of times, yet no one even gets within 100 light-years of suggesting that small noisy kids should be banned from the back of cars? At the very least, I suggest that we gag them: a necessary evil for the greater good; think about how many mums on the school run will be saved that way. How many innocent families on their vacation trip will be avoided a brutal and unscheduled encounter with the grim reaper? Case closed, let's ban or gag those silly kids, I say.

The ban that has been advocated here is the lowest (un)common denominator. That it actually doesn't solve anything is just a cruel irony exhibited by many bad ideas: they were never intended to solve the underlying issue, but instead their sole real discernible use is often to placate a cheap fix on the insecurities/ignorance/inadequacy of those who push for them. I agree that it's hard to look at the real underlying issues beneath all the noise and bullshit and that it's even harder to grind meaningful solutions out of them. But that's no excuse to used flawed data to promote a flawed ban which cannot be enforced and would not have the desired effect, and never mind deleterious unintended consequences. Sheer absurdity.

pfff...


Return to “General Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest