Advanced Driving Hub

ancient wrote:

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 ) 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.

I didn't insult you and I thought I had adressed your comments.

I generalised 2 basic positions. Your pedantic attention to semantic details did not alter that. But I'll try again.

There are two basic positions. Those that think it's not dangerous enough to be banned. Those that think it is. People in both camps believe they are correct and that the others are wrong. As I said very clearly, thats understandable, we always think our opinions are correct and by implication, those with differing opinions are incorrect. If those opinions continue to be based on nothing more than our own interpretation of reality, based on our own distorted, biased perceptions, then we will continue with another 49 pages.

I've repeatedly said that the only way to move this forward is to get independent research into the safety aspect. Otherwise everyone will continue to fall back on the belief that their opinion is the correct one.

So that's really clear, as I say Matt understood my position immediately and it was adressed to him. Obviously you can continue to make more of it than the simple comment that it was. But if you do, it may say more about you than you realise.

Rolyan wrote:

ancient wrote:

Rolyan wrote:

. If those opinions continue to be based on nothing more than our own interpretation of reality, based on our own distorted, biased perceptions, then we will continue with another 49 pages.

ChristianAB wrote:no one even gets within 100 light-years of suggesting that small noisy kids should be banned from the back of cars?

The kind of ear-piercing shriek that demands instant attention from an adult, normally the driver.

When my step-daughter was learning to drive I was pleased to help her practise with her two small children in the back, since I reckoned if she could survive the stress of learning while managing to ignore the infernal noises they made, it'd stand her in good stead.


A couple of days ago I was thinking about how much of what we do, whether driving or not, is automatic-subconscious. I think most of it is, maybe virtually all of it, with the conscious part of our minds kind-of standing guard, not actually doing whatever it is, but keeping a rough check on the parameters within which our automatic selves are operating.

Thinking specifically about driving, and how people learn from scratch. You mostly see them thinking about everything, whether it's important or not. And it gets in the way of actual driving - no flow, not able to grasp traffic flows at a busy roundabout, watching circulating vehicles instead of looking for gaps, or patterns that will lead to gaps. Over time most of that becomes automatic, along with a rudimentary yet mostly effective filtering out of the unimportant.

I don't think it's bad that it's automatic, providing we notice when we're surprised and try to do something about it.

ChristianAB wrote:...
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. ..

What do you believe is the purpose of the legislation? I have thought about it's purpose and yet do not follow your assertion that it has anything to do with "the greater good".

mainbeam wrote:

ChristianAB wrote:...
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. ..

What do you believe is the purpose of the legislation? I have thought about it's purpose and yet do not follow your assertion that it has anything to do with "the greater good".

My point is that using the 'greater good' as a justification for a law is actually pretty hard to do once you look at it closely. in this particular instance, I certainly doubt that a law about banning hands-free use of phone in cars could be justified with the 'greater good' principle.

Rolyan wrote: Your pedantic attention to semantic details did not alter that. But I'll try again.

I'll not debate whether "deliberately puerile" is an insult with someone who believes the meaning of words should not be debated "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, ..., 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' "

Rolyan wrote:There are two basic positions.

and you are still showing that you misunderstand those two basic positions. Still, if the meaning of sentences is not worthy of attention, that doesn't matter .

ancient wrote:

Rolyan wrote: Your pedantic attention to semantic details did not alter that. But I'll try again.

I'll not debate whether "deliberately puerile" is an insult with someone who believes the meaning of words should not be debated "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, ..., 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' "

Rolyan wrote:There are two basic positions.

and you are still showing that you misunderstand those two basic positions. Still, if the meaning of sentences is not worthy of attention, that doesn't matter .

You really need to let it go.

Have a nice day.

ChristianAB wrote:

mainbeam wrote:

ChristianAB wrote:...
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. ..

What do you believe is the purpose of the legislation? I have thought about it's purpose and yet do not follow your assertion that it has anything to do with "the greater good".

My point is that using the 'greater good' as a justification for a law is actually pretty hard to do once you look at it closely. in this particular instance, I certainly doubt that a law about banning hands-free use of phone in cars could be justified with the 'greater good' principle.

It certainly could, if it was proven to be 'dangerous' (i.e. risk based on severity and likelihood).

If the use of hands free was shown to be unacceptable, then even though some could claim to use it safely, it would be reasonable to ban it based on the principle of greater good. Same as all other road traffic laws, including banning the use of hand held mobiles.

Rolyan wrote:

ChristianAB wrote:

mainbeam wrote:

ChristianAB wrote:...
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. ..

What do you believe is the purpose of the legislation? I have thought about it's purpose and yet do not follow your assertion that it has anything to do with "the greater good".

My point is that using the 'greater good' as a justification for a law is actually pretty hard to do once you look at it closely. in this particular instance, I certainly doubt that a law about banning hands-free use of phone in cars could be justified with the 'greater good' principle.

It certainly could, if it was proven to be 'dangerous' (i.e. risk based on severity and likelihood).

If the use of hands free was shown to be unacceptable, then even though some could claim to use it safely, it would be reasonable to ban it based on the principle of greater good. Same as all other road traffic laws, including banning the use of hand held mobiles.

Not at all: my point was precisely to show that the 'principle of greater good' has serious limitations and hence it is usually not that 'reasonable' to use it for motivating traffic laws in most practical situations. Which is to say 'if proven to be dangerous' or 'if shown to be unacceptable' is like running in circles: if I am right to think this way, then my thinking can be rightly used to do x or y...

I will agree that in a few instances, the principle of greater good can be used wth mostly good results to motivate a law, such as for the use of seatbelts. However, for most of the road traffic laws, it is not clear to me that they result in a 'greater good' in any way. Research 'shared space road design' for an example of why.

Another point is that usually no one is truly interested in the greater good, which is to say that if applied rigorously the principle of greater good would be a political dead end (as some of my examples above tried to show).

I suppose a lot depends on how we interpret the phrase 'for greater good'. To me, most laws fall into that category, including road traffic laws.

I accept them for the greater good, as in benefitting the majority, even though a) it may cause me some inconvenience and b) I may personally be able to handle an individual circumstance but I accept that others may not.

Obviously a different interpretation of for the greater good may result in a different reaction to all laws.