[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by Wills2

Agreed it's utterly laughable, managing distraction is an integral part of everyday life unfortunately we need saving from ourselves as we can't be trusted to do that for ourselves.

I've come to the conclusion, as I've got older, that many folks do need saving from themselves.

Changing the subject slightly, but take (as an example) many of the mum's on the school/shopping run. Their driving is often atrocious, car full of kids and they clearly are not giving one thought to the safety of the children. They speed, they tailgate, many are clearly running late and trying to get the car in front to speed up. Brake at the last second... remember they are loaded with their, (or friends) 'precious' kids. You can also imagine the mayhem inside the vehicle. Now add a mobile phone, even hands free. Recipe for a few near misses and possibly worse.

How would you suggest they manage 'their' distractions? I suggest they kill the phone as a start to distraction management.

[RobUK]

Originally Posted by Tengocity

Interesting idea... I'd say it's worth one death, because it's equally likely that somewhere in the uk on any given day there's a phone call in a car that's saved someone's life.

"The use of the mobile phone to call the emergency services on 999 is permitted under the regulations, if you are acting in response to a real emergency and it is not safe or practical for you to stop to make the call."

I see what you're saying, and yes calling the emergency services while driving is the one permitted use if it's not safe to stop. Don't know what the stats are for how many such calls save lives each year compared to mobile calls causing death or injury. I was thinking more of the 'illegal' calls and what do people consider an acceptable risk when basically 99.9% of the time such calls are just for the driver's convenience.

I'd say most people would consider the risk acceptable because at the time of taking the risk they really don't think it's going to impact them directly. It's only when it does that people look back in regret and say "I wish I hadn't done that".

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by JNW1

And your comment illustrates the problem rather neatly. All the evidence shows the distraction with talking on a mobile phone whilst driving comes from the conversation and not from holding the handset; therefore, to advocate higher penalties for hand-held use whilst at the same time condoning hands-free use makes no sense whatsoever.

I accept using a phone hand-held to text and e-mail whilst driving is on another level again but that doesn't alter the fact that talking hands-free is a distraction (and an unnecessary and avoidable one in my view).

I drive up and down the motorway a lot and every single time I see someone swerving in and out of their lane they have a phone in their hands or in their lap. They're looking at something else.

I accept that once you're on a call then the act of talking is the same as on hands free, other than one hand is probably tied up. But, if you're dialling out, it's what you do before you make that call that's dangerous. Looking at your phone directory etc. Drive past plenty of people who are obviously looking down at their phones and they're always all over the place.

Never noticed anyone swerving all over on hands free, just they occasionally slow down a little to the same speed as the lorries they're behind. Not dangerous in my opinion, people slow down for lots of reasons that we can't ban.

I still remember a Top Gear episode where Clarkson said something like, "I don't know what all the fuss is about, driving isn't hard, I can do loads of other things while I'm driving and be just fine".

Whilst I don't agree with that entirely, there are loads of things that are equally or more distracting than hands free, eating, drinking, smoking, looking at a touch screen system. All worse than hands free in my opinion, so I think this one should be left alone.

[RobUK]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

I still remember a Top Gear episode where Clarkson said something like, "I don't know what all the fuss is about, driving isn't hard, I can do loads of other things while I'm driving and be just fine".

But then isn't Clarkson the stereotypical self-righteous person who reckoned he could do anything and still be a perfect motorist?

I remember back in the 90's some motoring program set up shop at a motorway service station and asked motorists a series of questions. The first question was "How do you rate yourself as a motorist?" to which some 80-85% of people answered "Above average". They then went on to ask a series of questions that clearly demonstrated that these people were in fact far from good motorists.

The big issue with car drivers is that they will always rate their skills and abilities way above what they actually are.

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by RobUK

But then isn't Clarkson the stereotypical self-righteous person who reckoned he could do anything and still be a perfect motorist?

I remember back in the 90's some motoring program set up shop at a motorway service station and asked motorists a series of questions. The first question was "How do you rate yourself as a motorist?" to which some 80-85% of people answered "Above average". They then went on to ask a series of questions that clearly demonstrated that these people were in fact far from good motorists.

The big issue with car drivers is that they will always rate their skills and abilities way above what they actually are.

I agree, the Clarkson part of my post was the least important in my mind, just thrown in for a bit of fun.

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

Never noticed anyone swerving all over on hands free,

Just because you haven't noticed anyone swerving around as a result of being distracted by a hands-free call doesn't mean it doesn't happen though; a quick Google finds a number of examples, some with fatal consequences such as the unfortunate incident reported in the article below:

https://thelincolnite.co.uk/2017/12/...-phone-jailed/

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

...there are loads of things that are equally or more distracting than hands free, eating, drinking, smoking, looking at a touch screen system. All worse than hands free in my opinion, so I think this one should be left alone.

I generally wouldn't do any of the activities you mention whilst driving but I don't agree that something like drinking from a water bottle takes more mental effort and concentration than holding a telephone conversation. I do however agree that touch screens aren't terribly easy to use on the move and by choice I'd probably avoid a car that needs you to use one extensively.

Leaving all the above aside, though, the reality is the evidence shows hands-free mobile use to be a distraction whilst driving and little better than the hands-held use so many are keen to jump on. Moreover, work done by the Transport Research Laboratory some years ago concluded that driving while holding a phone conversation was actually worse than driving with the legal limit of alcohol in the blood stream (i.e. people who are borderline getting done for drink/driving are still more attentive than someone holding a phone conversation).

So the fact other activities are also distracting - and arguably more so depending on your point of view - doesn't seem to me to be a terribly good defence for hands-free. To my mind the only thing that makes legislation undesirable is that it would be almost impossible to enforce...

[Goneinsixtyseconds]

Originally Posted by JNW1

Just because you haven't noticed anyone swerving around as a result of being distracted by a hands-free call doesn't mean it doesn't happen though; a quick Google finds a number of examples, some with fatal consequences such as the unfortunate incident reported in the article below:

https://thelincolnite.co.uk/2017/12/...-phone-jailed/



I generally wouldn't do any of the activities you mention whilst driving but I don't agree that something like drinking from a water bottle takes more mental effort and concentration than holding a telephone conversation. I do however agree that touch screens aren't terribly easy to use on the move and by choice I'd probably avoid a car that needs you to use one extensively.

Leaving all the above aside, though, the reality is the evidence shows hands-free mobile use to be a distraction whilst driving and little better than the hands-held use so many are keen to jump on. Moreover, work done by the Transport Research Laboratory some years ago concluded that driving while holding a phone conversation was actually worse than driving with the legal limit of alcohol in the blood stream (i.e. people who are borderline getting done for drink/driving are still more attentive than someone holding a phone conversation).

So the fact other activities are also distracting - and arguably more so depending on your point of view - doesn't seem to me to be a terribly good defence for hands-free. To my mind the only thing that makes legislation undesirable is that it would be almost impossible to enforce...

I didn't say you had to agree with me. That is just my opinion and experience.

Every single person, without fail, that I have seen swerving across lanes, when I get to pass them is looking away from the road at something inside the vehicle. Usually their lap where there is presumably a phone.

I don't doubt the research, I just think it's flawed. Forget what they're doing during a conversation, just look at what they need to do to get to a phone call. Pick up the phone, unlock it, get to a call directory, find the number, then call it, all while driving one handed, or no hands when unlocking etc.

Im pretty certain that is not the same as me clicking the voice buttion and saying "call Simon" and then having a conversation.

Are you also calling for the drinking limits to be lowered? The post above would suggest that? That one I don't have a problem with. I can definitely tell the difference after one drink, especially if it's a quick pint in the afternoon for example. I never have more than one, so don't know how much worse being on the the limit is.

[RobUK]

How ironic - I've just received an invite to take part in a trial of Amazon's Echo Auto which amongst other things allows hands-free calling

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

I didn't say you had to agree with me. That is just my opinion and experience.

Every single person, without fail, that I have seen swerving across lanes, when I get to pass them is looking away from the road at something inside the vehicle. Usually their lap where there is presumably a phone.

I was just pointing out your experience - genuine and extensive though I'm sure it is - doesn't cover every eventuality on our roads; just because you've never seen people talking hands-free cause an accident or a near miss doesn't mean it doesn't happen (as the example I linked illustrated).

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

I don't doubt the research, I just think it's flawed. Forget what they're doing during a conversation, just look at what they need to do to get to a phone call. Pick up the phone, unlock it, get to a call directory, find the number, then call it, all while driving one handed, or no hands when unlocking etc.

Im pretty certain that is not the same as me clicking the voice buttion and saying "call Simon" and then having a conversation.

I don't dispute that initiating a call from a hand-held device is potentially more involved than doing so hands-free but a) not all calls are out-going and b) more of the time (and distraction) is almost certainly associated with the conversation itself (and in that respect there's little or no difference between hands-held and hands-free).

Originally Posted by Goneinsixtyseconds

Are you also calling for the drinking limits to be lowered? The post above would suggest that? That one I don't have a problem with. I can definitely tell the difference after one drink, especially if it's a quick pint in the afternoon for example. I never have more than one, so don't know how much worse being on the the limit is.

No, I wasn't calling for a reduced drink/drive limit (that's another debate entirely!), the point I was making was that someone at the current limit is apparently still more attentive than someone talking on a phone. That being the case it would probably be fair to assume that someone who was only marginally over the limit would also be at least as attentive as someone on a hands-free mobile; however, if they're caught it's a one year ban while we're happy to let the hands-free users drive around legally. From a safety perspective doesn't that strike you as a bit strange?

[Hooded]

Originally Posted by JNW1

I don't dispute that initiating a call from a hand-held device is potentially more involved than doing so hands-free but a) not all calls are out-going and b) more of the time (and distraction) is almost certainly associated with the conversation itself (and in that respect there's little or no difference between hands-held and hands-free).

However, I don't see how talking on the phone hands free is any more distracting than talking to a passenger though. Yes I understand the reason for the ban on hand held phones whilst driving, picking up your phone, looking at it and reading a text etc is a recipe for disaster whilst driving, ..but ... I don't see how talking to the Mrs about what we are having for dinner hands free over the phone is any different to having the same conversation if she is sitting next to me in the passenger seat.

I really think the politicians should concentrate more on how they are going to reverse the growing crime problem in the country at the moment instead.

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by Hooded

However, I don't see how talking on the phone hands free is any more distracting than talking to a passenger though. Yes I understand the reason for the ban on hand held phones whilst driving, picking up your phone, looking at it and reading a text etc is a recipe for disaster whilst driving, ..but ... I don't see how talking to the Mrs about what we are having for dinner hands free over the phone is any different to having the same conversation if she is sitting next to me in the passenger seat.

Research studies show phone vs. 'face to face' conversations are not the same, that is the issue. For example...

Regulating conversation during driving: a problem for mobile telephones?
Abstract
Why are hands-free mobile telephones linked to driver distraction and increased involvement in accidents? We suggest that during normal in-car conversation, both the driver and passenger will suppress conversation when the demands of the road become too great. However, a remote speaker on a mobile telephone has no access to the same visual input as the driver, and will be less likely to pace the conversation according to roadway demands. To test this hypothesis pairs of naïve participants drove a circuit of roads including dual carriageways, rural, urban and suburban roads in Nottinghamshire, UK. One of the participants in each pair was the driver, while the other was the conversational partner. Across three laps of the circuit the partner engaged in a verbal task with the driver while sat in the same car (with or without a blindfold), or via a hands-free mobile (cellular) telephone. The number of utterances, words, and questions were analysed for both drivers and passengers across the different types of road. The results demonstrated that the normal in-car conversations were suppressed during the most demanding urban roads. The mobile telephone condition prevented suppression from taking place in the passengers’ conversations, and even encouraged drivers to make more utterances that they would normally do with a normal in-car conversation. The results demonstrate a potential problem when using hands-free mobile telephones while driving.

Passenger and Cell Phone Conversations in Simulated Driving

This study examines how conversing with passengers in a vehicle differs from conversing on a cell phone while driving. We compared how well drivers were able to deal with the demands of driving when conversing on a cell phone, conversing with a passenger, and when driving without any distraction. In the conversation conditions, participants were instructed to converse with a friend about past experiences in which their life was threatened. The results show that the number of driving errors was highest in the cell phone condition; in passenger conversations more references were made to traffic, and the production rate of the driver and the complexity of speech of both interlocutors dropped in response to an increase in the demand of the traffic. The results indicate that passenger conversations differ from cell phone conversations because the surrounding traffic not only becomes a topic of the conversation, helping driver and passenger to share situation awareness, but the driving condition also has a direct influence on the complexity of the conversation, thereby mitigating the potential negative effects of a conversation on driving.

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by HighlandPete

Research studies show phone vs. 'face to face' conversations are not the same, that is the issue. For example...

And again people needsaving from themselves. If I am having a conversation and driving,one is clearly more important than the other and comes first. If you need that explaining you probably shouldn’t have a licence...

I once did a driver awareness course (not one of those -paid for by my employer as I did a lot of business driving. One of tasks was to hold a mobile, answer a call (we were on private land!) whilst negotiating a course laid out with cones and then reverse park. I was just as good with phone in my hand as not, because I focused on the driving first...

Why they are messing around talking about an unenforceable law when there are idiots out there who don’t care about much more enforceable laws - like carrying knives - is beyond me. Prioritise!

[JNW1]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

And again people needsaving from themselves. If I am having a conversation and driving,one is clearly more important than the other and comes first. If you need that explaining you probably shouldn’t have a licence...

Yes, from what I see there are probably a lot of people on our roads who shouldn't have a licence!

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

I once did a driver awareness course (not one of those -paid for by my employer as I did a lot of business driving. One of tasks was to hold a mobile, answer a call (we were on private land!) whilst negotiating a course laid out with cones and then reverse park. I was just as good with phone in my hand as not, because I focused on the driving first...

Out of interest was this the same for everyone else doing the course? Presumably the purpose of the exercise was to try to demonstrate the distraction of using a mobile whilst driving so if everyone was the same as you it presumably fell a bit flat with the organisers?!

I guess it also depends on how you achieved your result; if you answered the call, said "hang on a minute", put the phone on the passenger seat, completed the course and once you'd reversed parked picked the phone up and said "right I'm with you now" then I can see why there'd be no difference. However, if it was a car with a manual gearbox I'd have thought it was quite tricky to negotiate the sort of obstacle course you describe just as effectively with one hand instead of two; not impossible of course but I'd certainly find it easier with two hands!

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

Why are they messing around talking about an unenforceable law when there are idiots out there who don’t care about much more enforceable laws - like carrying knives - is beyond me. Prioritise!

I do agree with this and in reality I'm sure the subject will be quietly forgotten as far as legislation is concerned.

[isleaiw1]

Originally Posted by JNW1

Yes, from what I see there are probably a lot of people on our roads who shouldn't have a licence!



Out of interest was this the same for everyone else doing the course? Presumably the purpose of the exercise was to try to demonstrate the distraction of using a mobile whilst driving so if everyone was the same as you it presumably fell a bit flat with the organisers?!

I guess it also depends on how you achieved your result; if you answered the call, said "hang on a minute", put the phone on the passenger seat, completed the course and once you'd reversed parked picked the phone up and said "right I'm with you now" then I can see why there'd be no difference. However, if it was a car with a manual gearbox I'd have thought it was quite tricky to negotiate the sort of obstacle course you describe just as effectively with one hand instead of two; not impossible of course but I'd certainly find it easier with two hands!



I do agree with this and in reality I'm sure the subject will be quietly forgotten as far as legislation is concerned.

No, I was special - some better than others but no one quite as good as me. I think I might have had some practice on private land before 😉

But the point is that they say people in the car know to keep quiet at times when you need to concentrate. I often ring my mum from car - as I am otherwise a bad son and don’t ring enough. But I always tell her when it’s a difficult area and I am concentrating on driving not her. Not hard really...

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by isleaiw1

But the point is that they say people in the car know to keep quiet at times when you need to concentrate. I often ring my mum from car - as I am otherwise a bad son and don’t ring enough. But I always tell her when it’s a difficult area and I am concentrating on driving not her. Not hard really...

This is the key part of the discussion, passengers (unless really dumb) do tend to interact with a driver, in what is going on. Plus they are aware of why a driver may not respond in conversation, when the driving demand increases.

I'm sure more drivers would control phone use, if they thought about it a bit more. Choose times to call out (if essential) to times when driving demand is at its lowest. Biggest problem as I see it, is receiving calls when the caller has no idea what is going on for the driver.

[ipilcher]

Originally Posted by Blacktemplar

Does that mean we also have to ban all cars with touchscreen-only controls, like Tesla, Audi etc?

I'm distracted enough by physical controls for things like aircon, seat heating and so on, let alone having to take my eyes off the road to stab at a touch screen.....

I'd support a hands-free ban, if it came with a touch-screen ban.

[zofinger]

For reasons already explained, I'm convinced telephone convervations are more distracting than in-car interations with passengers. Hands-free or not.

Can it be legislated/enforced - well I'd imagine if it were illegal many people would obey not least the ramifications if investigations into an accident were to show either driver was using a mobile.

[RobUK]

Originally Posted by ipilcher

I'd support a hands-free ban, if it came with a touch-screen ban.

Fair point. Turning on your heated seat in a 'normal' car would be pressing one physical button that you can probably find using muscle memory. In a Tesla (according to a video I watched) it's press the whirly icon at the bottom of the screen then press the heat icon, then press the seat you want to warm up, all the while looking at the screen and dangling your hand in mid air.

I'm not a fan of touchscreens in cars. Seems like manufacturers put it there because they could not because they should.

[ian332isport]

Originally Posted by RobUK

Seems like manufacturers put it there because they could not because they should.

They do it because it's cheap.

Think how many small individual components are required to build a traditional control panel with buttons and knobs etc. Each and every part will need some sort of tooling to be made before they can produce the parts. It's not just the obvious parts either. Each switch or knob will have all the electrical contacts, springs and other parts it needs to function. You've then got to pay to have it all assembled.

Move everything to a cheap touch screen display, and you can suddenly replace everything with software.

I hired a Peugeot 208 about a year ago, and everything was on the single touch screen. Media, Climate controls, Nav, Phone and probably other stuff I don't care to remember. It was possibly the most dangerous thing iv'e ever driven.

I'll take my chances with the hands free phone over a touch screen any day.

[evdok]

Yet they continue to fit cup holders

[doncarlyon]

I'm still offended

[agentorange]

Back in the day before cell phones and touchscreens I had passengers get antsy because I would stop talking to them when traffic got busy or I found myself on a twisty unfamiliar road. Now they load up cars with all manner of distractions. Touchscreens are the worst closely followed by cellphones.