Hands-free Mobile Whilst Driving

[waremark]

I have come late to this. I tend to agree with most of what Steve/Silk has said. Many things distract from the driving task, and our level of skill has to be sufficient to cope with a certain level of distraction while maintaining adequate safety. Our level of responsibility should be sufficient to avoid excessive distraction and to focus distracting activities on less hazard rich driving environments. In my opinion and experience, hands-free phone use while distracting is no more so than other activities I carry out in the car, and can be carried out while driving to a good level of safety.

[Horse]

I view inappropriate speed as a safety issue in the same way I view inappropriate distractions as a safety issue.

I suppose you could argue that it's not absolutely necessary to use a mobile phone whilst driving, but then the same thing could be said about going faster, especially if going faster is for no other reason than having fun.[/quote]

Actually, I often do argue against the 'need' (however justified) to go faster, in particular the 'progress imperative' as required to pass advanced tests.

Don't forget, my phone use during this million miles is negligible.

I think that was a point I made regarding your expectation of a vast increas in phone-related crashes!

I've driven well over a million miles, during which time . . . How many millions of simulated miles do you think I'd need to cover before a problem presented itself, and how would you prove it was down to using the phone?

Two points there, one I've actually already asked you: what evidence would you accept?

The other is, perhaps, in two parts two:
First, are people actually aware of the 'average' chance of dying on the roads? Probably not.
Second: more miles = greater exposure; doesn't that put you at higher risk? We'll probably need Ancient to answer that!

[Horse]

. . . our level of skill has to be sufficient to cope with a certain level of distraction . . . Our level of responsibility should be sufficient to avoid excessive distraction and to focus distracting activities on less hazard rich driving environments.

We have 'lowest common denominator' laws. 'Ours' [as above] might be sufficient; what about 'most' - or even the 'relatively few'?

[Silk]

I view inappropriate speed as a safety issue in the same way I view inappropriate distractions as a safety issue.

I suppose you could argue that it's not absolutely necessary to use a mobile phone whilst driving, but then the same thing could be said about going faster, especially if going faster is for no other reason than having fun.

Actually, I often do argue against the 'need' (however justified) to go faster, in particular the 'progress imperative' as required to pass advanced tests.

I can see both sides of that particular argument.

Don't forget, my phone use during this million miles is negligible.

I think that was a point I made regarding your expectation of a vast increas in phone-related crashes!

The amount of "incidents" an average driver has is also negligible. It's whether or not you believe the two events coincide.

I've driven well over a million miles, during which time . . . How many millions of simulated miles do you think I'd need to cover before a problem presented itself, and how would you prove it was down to using the phone?

Two points there, one I've actually already asked you: what evidence would you accept?

The other is, perhaps, in two parts two:
First, are people actually aware of the 'average' chance of dying on the roads? Probably not.
Second: more miles = greater exposure; doesn't that put you at higher risk? We'll probably need Ancient to answer that!

I would argue that typical mobile phone use whilst driving is just one of many distractions that could result in a collision. If they were the demon they're made out to be, then we should expect to see them have more of an effect on accident statistics - we don't. Perhaps drivers only have so many distractions in any one journey and using a mobile phone simply takes the place of something else.

I'm well aware that the very high mileages I do make my job one of the most statistically dangerous there is, but I accept that and "ration" my concentration, prioritising those time and places where it's more importand and allow my brain to relax a bit when things are not so taxing. I believe that driving aids such as sat-nav and hands-free phones take some of the stress out of driving. If driving is less stressful, you're less likely to take risks.

I remember when I didn't have a sat nav and had to drive in London with an AtoZ on my knee, having to pull over frequently in order to get my bearings and try to remember the next sequence of turnings. Glancing at a sat-nav screen occasionally is a whole lot less stressful.

I also remember being stuck in traffic with no way of calling home to let someone know I was going to be late, unless I could find a layby with a phone box that was working. All very stressful. A quick hands-free call, and the stress is gone.

Less stress, more safety.

[TripleS]

.

[Horse]

....are people actually aware of the 'average' chance of dying on the roads? Probably not.

I'm just looking at that first bit, and thinking about the "four times more likely to crash" (or whatever the wording was) if you use a mobile phone while driving.

Even if that "four times" is right, if our normal level of risk is exceedingly low, then increasing it by a factor of four still leaves us very safe indeed, in which case I wouldn't worry about the 'problem' of mobile phone use.

To be honest, at no time in my 55 years of driving have I ever felt that the level of safety was worryingly low, and that I have been exposed to undue risk.

What I was thinking of when posting was a statistic I heard recently, that the 'average' person has a 1 in 200 chance of death from a traffic crash, whether as a pedestrian, cyclist, rider, driver or passenger.

The euqivalent figure for motorcyclists is somewhat worse . . .

[TripleS]

.

[michael769]

Hell, 1 in 200?

Lifetime risks of death by specific causes are very high at first glance. But perhaps less surprising when you consider that you have a 100% chance of dying from something.

While the risk of dying in a road accident in any year in the UK approaches 1 in 20,000, the lifetime risk is 1 in 240.

http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/ ... rtpop.html

It makes me wonder if I oughtn't to stay at home and keep me 'ead down!

I'd not be too sure of that more people die in bed than in any other location.....

Sleep tight tonight.

[Horse]

Hell, 1 in 200?

Lifetime risks of death by specific causes are very high at first glance. But perhaps less surprising when you consider that you have a 100% chance of dying from something.

While the risk of dying in a road accident in any year in the UK approaches 1 in 20,000, the lifetime risk is 1 in 240.

http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/ ... rtpop.html

It makes me wonder if I oughtn't to stay at home and keep me 'ead down!

I'd not be too sure of that more people die in bed than in any other location.....

Sleep tight tonight.

One of my pet hates in when the medicos bring in a new treatment, and "Save X number of lives!"

No, they just delay it . . .