Posted By Bill Elliott Yes - new policy is in the process of consultation but the emphasis is on "ban". Have also included a reference that indicates where a road traffic accident has occured - mobile phone records will be checked.

Posted By Michael Webb This is something that our company is currently looking at. The issue of 'hands-free' would appear confusing. As i understand it, for a device to be hands free, it has to be able to be activated without the driver significantly altering the position of their hands on the wheel, therefore the 'normal' earpiece, whereby you have to physically activate the phone, would appear to be illegal?? Thoughts anyone?? Given the anticipated costs of providing 'legal' devices, we may be forced down a total ban route!

Posted By Karen Newman Yes, we are a large public services organisation our Policy introduced in 2000 states 'staff must not use their mobile phone to make or receive calls whilst driving'

Posted By john ridley Let us take a step back here. I have heard a lot of opinion about the effect on safety promoted usually from H&S stakeholders but have seen no objective evidence that this is any more dangeous than other activities such as listening to the radio, smoking , changing a cd/tape, eating or drinking the results of which are, therefore, not having both hands on the wheel and not being in "full control of your vehicle". It is pointless having a policy unless it can be policed and can acted upon and presumably this will be another safety measure that will have very little effect and a cost implication.

Posted By Nigel Hammond John My daughter was born two months prematurely thanks to a driver who was lighting-up a cigarette who crashed into the side of my then-pregant wife's car. Fortunately my wife, son and daughter survived the crash - although not without long-term health problems. I'm sure you have heard the statistics - 10 people are killed on the road a day. In my view anything that helps cut the death toll is a good thing. Most of the examples of other distractions you gave are examples of driving without due care and attention. Any decent driving policy should require its staff to drive with due care and attention. Enforcement of mobile phone ban would be difficult - but not impossible - the employer usually pays for the hands free kit which instantly means they are endorsing the use of hands free. They also tend to pay for the phone and phone bills.

Posted By Jim Walker A while ago I saw some "research" that suggested that mobiles (hands free or not) was actually worse than being over the limit. Can anyone remind me of the web site? I need the info to justify a ban I want implimenting. If my memory serves me correctly didn't "they" lay down guidlines that means in the event of a fatal accident, if you were using the phone (easily provable) than it will mean at least ten years in jail?

Posted By Steve Holliday With reference to John Ridleys posting, I had a conversation recently with a friend whose company was bringing in a total ban. He (and I) accepted that you were likely to be distracted when talking hands free, but was this any less distracting than talking to a passenger. This would be particularly so if talking to a passenger in the rear seats where the voice would be as disassociated with a person as talking on hands free. The question then raised would naturally be, do you ban passengers from cars? How then would this affect the push towards car sharing and the valid environmental benefits this creates? Also to be taken into account is the fact that mobile phones are now a way of life and some industries, such as logistics, would now find it difficult to operate without them. A total ban would force people to stop to use their phones and I am sure we have all seen people stopped on hard shoulders and swerving across traffic to stop to answer phones. Only yesterday returning to work from an IOSH branch meeting the car two in front of mine slowed suddenly on a downramp to a motorway, stopped on the side of the road just before entering the motorway and I clearly saw the driver pick up his phone turn his hazards on and was talking as I went past. Is the use of correctly installed hands free units more of a risk than this? Please do not take the contents of this posting the wrong way. There is no question that the use of hand held mobiles should be banned. I am all in favour of any risk reducing measures, if I wasn’t I would be in the wrong job, but a little perspective is required before jumping in with both feet. A previous thread discusses public perception of H&S and when well intentioned new initiatives such as this are placed before the public and are so easily put into question, as shown in the narrative above, are we in the safety profession really helping ourselves? For all the talk of risk assessment, has one been done here that takes into account all the possible outcomes and ramifications? Your comments would truly be appreciated.

Posted By John D Crosby Gary Some years ago when mobiles were not that common the company I worked for had hands free fitted to all company cars as it was thought that this was relatively safe e.g. same as talking to a passenger. This meant that you were available to talk at anytime. This seemed to work well until the day I got into a long technical discussion with my boss and suddenly noticed that my speed had dropped to 40mph and I was in the third lane of a four lane motorway. From then onwards the rule was you could answer a call to say yes or no to a single question. If a discussion was needed you left the motorway and rang the caller back having found a safe place to stop. If not on a motorway then you pulled over into a safe place. This required discipline on the part of the driver and also on the part of the caller.As everyone 'signed' up to this it worked well. Nowadays with emergence of voicemail as standard there is no need to answer the call immediately. In the event of you being wanted in an emergency then the call could be made several times to your voicemail which rings on the handset first - thus giving you a warning that it was urgent. But if people are likely to be regularly called in an emergency whats wrong with a bleep that has tones only. On receipt of bleep you could then go to a safe place and make a call. John C