Hands-free Mobile Whilst Driving

[Silk]

And that statement from someone who is distracted enough by normal in-car conversation that he misses junctions . . .

Woah! Hold it right there. I think we need to take the heat out of this.

I don't believe there's anyone out there who hasn't missed a turning or momentarily forgotten where they are because they've been engrossed in a conversation with their passenger.

It usually happens to me when I'm approaching the turning to the mother-in-law's, for some reason.

[Horse]

I realise I may not have addressed all of your points in the manner you expected and I can be a little argumentative, but the accusation of trolling seems a bit strong.

No matter, I've been called called worse.

Alright, I'll carry on playing along

If mobile phones were as dangerous as we're told, we would expect to see a massive and very obvious increase in road casualties. The reality is, road deaths have actually fallen over the last 20 years. At least in the UK.

Serious question, as this is the third time you've used this argument, but do you understand the difference between a correlation and a causal link? Or are you choosing to ignore this to suit your (flawed) argument?

I've simply phrased it differently in reply to different people. As I haven't been counting, I'll take your word for it that it's three times.

So far, I haven't really had a satisfactory answer to the question as to why we haven't seen an exponential increase in mobile phone related crashes to match the exponential rise in mobile phone ownership. Believe me, if we had, we wouldn't need any statistical mumbo-jumbo to see it.

Well, I tried one or two explanations. I'll list some here, in detail, you knock 'em down one by one:

1. Non-injury, damage only, accidents; do claimants 'shop themselves' to their insurer? If not, how else would these crashes be 'found out' as phone-related?

2. Police-investigated; I'd guess - and I'm happy for any forum trafpols to detail procedures - that phones and phone records are only examined in the worst cases. And there have definately been reported cases of those types of crashes. So if many/most of the drivers causing these crashes aren't found out, then that fact won't make it into STATS19, which is the form used by police when summarising contributary factors, and so into the UK accident stats.

3. Mobile phones have been available to the masses (ie not the old 'car phones'), and even then with almost ubiquitous ownership, for a few years (like I pointed out, exactly 20 years for SMS txt this week). However - and this is a major point - drivers (well, the majority) aren't ALL useing their phones while driving, and those that do rarely (I presume) use their phone constantly whilst driving. So you're seeing a sub-set of drivers using phones some of the time. But . . . why shouldn't phone-involved crashes be increasing at a similar rate to phone ownership amongst those drivers who are [more] likely to be crash-involved?

4. What leads you to believe their hasn't been an exponential increase? What are you basing that belief on that would provide a true, factual account of how such crashes are increasong (or otherwise)?

5. Why 'exponential'? Wouldn't it be more likely, as I suggested in '3' that the rate would be linked more closely (correlation, though, not cause) to phone ownership amongst 'riskier' drivers?


PS Why do you mistrust a link between research and real-World?

[trashbat]

Mobile phone adoption hasn't shown exponential growth for a very long time, at least ten years.

http://www.csu.nisra.gov.uk/Mobile_phon ... _Trend.htm

SMS volumes are still following something akin to an exponential pattern, although it may have been broken in the last couple of years. Call volumes are approximately flat.

[Horse]

Mobile phone adoption hasn't shown exponential growth for a very long time, at least ten years.

http://www.csu.nisra.gov.uk/Mobile_phon ... _Trend.htm

SMS volumes are still following something akin to an exponential pattern, although it may have been broken in the last couple of years. Call volumes are approximately flat.

Although, as has been pointed out, texting and use of mobile internet is different to 'just' making calls, there's likely to have been a fairly dramatic increase in that sort of use due to the rise of the 'smart' phone etc.

It's quite noticeable in queues how often you see the top of drivers' heads in stop-start traffic as they check on emails etc.

[Fignon]

Can someone tell me which chapter of Roadcraft mentions using mobile phones? I must have missed that one.

Drive your car, don't play with gadgets.

[Horse]

Can someone tell me which chapter of Roadcraft mentions using mobile phones? I must have missed that one.

Operational training

[Silk]

Alright, I'll carry on playing along

Life's far too short to be serious but, being serious for a while, I've taken all you've said on board (although I've snipped it from the reply for brevity). All I can say is, I remain unconvinced that using driving aids such as sat-nav and hands-free mobile phones are as dangerous as some people say - and I'm more than a little concerned about the demonisation of mobile phones, especially from people who are more than happy to routinely exceed the speed limit (a little hypocritical when you consider that using a hands-free phone whilst driving remains legal) I'd argue that boredom is more dangerous. Keeping the brain above a certain level of stimulation is probably a good thing. Of course, I have no stats to back it up, only plenty of experience (over 30 years and over a million miles).

[Silk]

Drive your car, don't play with gadgets.

Is changing gear playing with a gadget? Or using an indicator? Should we pull over to the side of the road to turn our lights on before continuing our journey?

[fungus]

I'm more than a little concerned about the demonisation of mobile phones, especially from people who are more than happy to routinely exceed the speed limit (a little hypocritical when you consider that using a hands-free phone whilst driving remains legal)

Being safe, and being legal, are two totally different things.

[jameslb101]

I'd argue that boredom is more dangerous. Keeping the brain above a certain level of stimulation is probably a good thing...

In that case, probably no need to be disparaging about...

...people who are more than happy to routinely exceed the speed limit...

[Horse]

Life's far too short to be serious but,

Go on, humour me. I took the time, made time as it were, to give you a full answer.

, I've taken all you've said on board (although I've snipped it from the reply for brevity). All I can say is, I remain unconvinced that using driving aids such as sat-nav and hands-free mobile phones are as dangerous as some people say -

What would it take to convince you?

I have no stats to back it up, only plenty of experience (over 30 years and over a million miles).

Well, I trump you there; been on the road since '76 (albeit not continuously, have to sleep y'know).

[Silk]

I'd argue that boredom is more dangerous. Keeping the brain above a certain level of stimulation is probably a good thing...

In that case, probably no need to be disparaging about...

...people who are more than happy to routinely exceed the speed limit...

I'm not being disparaging. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

For some people, it's acceptable to use "judgement" when it comes to exceeding the speed limit, but not when it comes to using a hands-free mobile phone whilst driving? That seems a bit odd, don't you think?

[jameslb101]

For some people, it's acceptable to use "judgement" when it comes to exceeding the speed limit, but not when it comes to using a hands-free mobile phone whilst driving? That seems a bit odd, don't you think?

For some people, it's acceptable to use "judgement" when it comes to using a hands-free mobile phone whilst driving, but not when exceeding the speed limits? That seems a bit odd, don't you think?

Right back at ya

I'd argue that going 1mph over a number on a stick is unlikely to decrease your concentration (in fact if by some margin quite the opposite, allegedly), whereas using a phone while driving can't do anything but.

Anyway, we don't want this getting into another speed discussion so let's get back on track.

[Fignon]

Slightly side issue that annoys me, there are lots of others.

People who place big satnav displays next to the door pillar (A-Pillar). Must lose a lot of visibility, can't be good.

[Ancient]

I'd argue that going 1mph over a number on a stick is unlikely to decrease your concentration (in fact if by some margin quite the opposite, allegedly), whereas using a phone while driving can't do anything but.

Anyway, we don't want this getting into another speed discussion so let's get back on track.

"I'm on the A40, it's dry and clear, good visibility with light traffic..... I'll probably be about an hour and a half unless the traffic worsens. There appears to be a queue ahead, better make that two hours"

"We're on an A road, dry, clear, traffic flowing, red car coming up behind is moving to outside lane. Looks like a queue ahead, ease off the throttle to reduce closing speed; this might slow the journey somewhat."

One said on a mobile 'phone and the other to an (imaginary?) companion. Which is decreasing the driver's concentration?