Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Ian Mycroft
I am currently making myself very popular (not) by going through the mobile phones and driving debate.
My stand is a total ban and I feel that I would be professionally and morally compromised to recommend any other course of action. I think it would help if I had a list of other organisations that have gone through this process and arrived at a total ban, if anyone would like to help in this way, I would really appreciate an email from you.
Thanks in anticipation,
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sean Fraser
Ian,
Our organisation promotes the total ban message, as the risk is not the holding of the phone but the distraction of the conversation - there is persuasive research to prove this risk exists.
We have applied this principle to conversations with clients and suppliers - there is nothing that is so urgent they cannot call / be called back after they have found a safe place to stop or arrived at their destination.
The problem, as in all things, is enforcement, but then this a matter of safety culture isn't it? People should want to comply and it should be easier to do so than not. I believe that this is one policy that only management can take the lead on - after all, they're most likely to be the offenders, n'est pas?
I'll e-mail you directly with our company name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Neil Cooper
So, are you going to ban the use of car radios and discussions with passengers too.
There are some jobs where hands free systems are essential such as contacting doctors, district nursing staff etc. Not only to arrange appointments as they travel around but also enabling them to give advice to junior staff who may need their immediate assistance.
What is wrong with doing case by case risk assessments?
Applying the sergeant major big stick approach will not only make you unpopular,
it will also not improve safety culture in any shape, manner or form. It just gives everybody in the safety world bad press and another opportunity for Jeremy Clarkson to make us all look stupid.
I thought dinosaurs were extinct, obviously not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Geoff Burt
A bit harsh Neil, they'll be picking on smoking next!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jack
Sean, my gut reaction is to go along with your view about phone conversations being distractions in themselves and I can see they could be more distracting than listening to the radio. From observation people seem less able to 'switch off' from a phone conversation than from the radio or even an in car conversation. However, the new law will accept hands free.
I am therefore interested in your 'persuasive research'; any chance of citing some sources, please?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sean Fraser Sources - certainly. Actually, most of my sources were taken from the previous discussion on this forum, namely: http://www.iosh.co.uk/in...rum=1&thread=4701&page=1The most compelling report was from RoSPA, entitled "The Risk of USing Mobile Phones While Driving". This cites the research carried out and demonstrates the significant risks of all mobile phone use, not just that of hand held units. This addresses the common counter of listening to radios or holding in car conversations with others - I will leave you to come to your own conclusions on that one, but hopefully you will understnad why the phone poses the greater risk. However, I would also point out that a lack of concentration while driving does not need an external contributory factor - familiarity with the route, fatigue or intoxication impairment, general glaiketness can all put the driver and other road users at risk. If you want to go down the ban route then perhaps we should be more choosy on who we give licenses to. This links in neatly with the recent discussion on speed cameras - how measures that are ostensibly to protect safety can criticised and sometimes ridiculed. The law that came out was to protect people - there was research evidence to justify it. Unfortunately it didn't actually address the whole issue and so it now promotes the message that use of mobiles in cars is OK as long as you aren't holding it - and this isn't where the danger lies! It is half-hearted measures like these that make our jobs more difficult and detracts from the overall message we put out. In many ways, a law such as this makes the situation worse, not better. Still, from a practical point of view it is easier to enforce the hand-held law than a total ban. Mind you, if some were hauled over and it turned out they were talking to themselves, not to a phone, who knows what else the police might find? Anyway, now my rant is over I hope you find the report useful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Look at it this way, from the 1st dec it will be a criminal offence to use a mobile phone whilst driving.
Now do you have a section in your H&S policy that says you must not speed in your company car, or you must not drive without undue care and attention or you must not drink and drive.
A sensible approach is that management should decide
1. Is the mobile needed?
2. Does this person have a company Car?
3. Is it essential that they are contactable when on the road?
4. They then need a 'fitted' hands free.
Employees should be made aware that if they use a phone whilst driving they can get Fined and points and the Manager needs to realise this, so that this phone should switched off when driving and a policy decision should be based on that.
Problems with different phone types, pool cars, hands free kit types, occasional use etc etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nigel Hammond
Hi Ian
Coming back to your question. I gather that ROSPA and Vodaphone have a complete ban on use of mobile phones for their drivers -including hands-free - Which says alot.
You might like to check that this is correct with them before you quote me. I've only heard this through the grapevine.
One other thought. I was on the a recent IOSH course on behavioural safety. They used seatbelt laws as an example. When the law on seatbelts was introduced, people huffed and they puffed - "unenforceable!", "infringement of my rights", etc etc. Now most people would not drive without a seatbelt - even if the law was removed - at least not in the short term. I think this relates to other new bans etc - that people get all precious about laws or inhouse rules - like not driving with mobile phones and speed cameras. Give it a couple of years, they will find something else to moan about!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jack
Thanks Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Eric Burt
The Government hasn't helped our cause with their ban on hand-held only. They say it is because they can't enforce hands-free which is a feeble excuse, especially when you consider that a Police Officer can't tell whether you are insured ot your car is MOT'd either just by looking at it.
Hence hands-free is being sold as the safe option.
Have a look at the research done by the Road Transport Research Laboratory - they are a well respected body and they have concluded that hands-free is just as bad as hand-held.
They have also done the comparison research with talking to passengers, eating apples etc so we have got facts and figures to counter that one as well.
As Health and Safety Practitioners, surely our job is to put our own thoughts and prejudices to one side, look at the research then recommend the safest course of action.
And to argue that we shouldn't do it because it will make us unpopular is no proper arguement at all.
I am going through this very process at the moment, and yes, it is difficult when telling colleagues that they cannot do something that they perceive to be safe.
Stick to your guns, let the research do the talking for you and don't lose too much sleep if you don't get too many Christmas cards this Christmas.
I've got a whole bucketful of reaearch if anyone wants some.
Regards,
Eric
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Geoff Burt
Eric
Out of interest and as you've got the facts and figures at your fingertips, so to speak, I'd be interested in knowing how many fatalities on the road per year are attributed to people speaking on mobile phones, and then split into hands free and hand held.
Intuitively, I feel I'd need to have some better background knowledge before even thinking about passing an opinion on this topic.
Mmm, don't why I said that, it hasn't stopped me before!
Geoff
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tracey Docking
I've done exactly the same Ian, proposed total ban to our Board and have given them the evidence from ROSPA and Dept of Transport reports. Just waiting for them to let me know the final decision as our Director of the salesforce is reluctant to go further than the letter of the law because reps make appointments during journeys. I've reminded them that they coped before mobile phones were invented, we can't control people talking to passengers/changing radio stations etc and if our policy states a total ban telling them to switch off and make stops to use mobile phone then that is also encouraging them to decrease journey times/take short breaks which is another safe practice to prevent fatigue leading to an accident. It also prevents us having to pay for hands-free equipment and installation. The insurers of one of our sister companies has also insisted on total ban of use of mobile phones whilst driving (hands-free and non hands-free). I've asked our Board if they are prepared for the Police to knock on their door to tell them a rep has died whilst "at work" on the road and they need to inform the relatives or even worse stand and defend their decision in court! Will keep you posted on the decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Geoff Burt
I have to say this all sounds rather Draconian to me. How it would be enforced, goodness knows. Especially as the total ban could include emergency personal calls from family.
I'd like to see some facts and accident statistics (as distinct from research which we all know can be biased or contradictory. A recent example is the one about red wine. One says a glass a day is beneficial, another shows a link between red wine and breast cancer) to see what we are really dealing with.
But for those advocating a total ban I'd like to ask one question.
Have you provided advanced driver training for all your drivers as the first step to reducing accidents?
If not, shouldn't that be the first step?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sean Fraser
Geoff,
Agree with you regarding the advanced driver training - better hazard awareness will put the use of mobile phones into perspective and drivers would then voluntarily find a safe place to stop and make/take calls. we have put out staff on a defensive driving course and the feedback was positive, with the most frequent comment being that they hadn't considered just how their own habits made the road a little more dangerous for all concerned. Lead by example. And remember, the advice is not to use the phone while driving, not about stopping use of mobiles in vehicles altogether. The danger is one based on concentration.
The position at the moment is that we only have research findings because accident statistics do not require a detailed record of what the driver was doing immediately prior to an accident. In fact, at the moment they don't even determine why the driver was out at the time either, so we can only guestimate the number that involve people carrying out work activities. Same goes for fatigue and drivers who fell asleep immediately prior to an accident - but few of us would suggest that we find out how many accidents actually involve sleeping drivers before tackling the dangers of fatigue, would we?
I am content to use the research findings to support the message of not using mobile phones while driving - I don't see the lack of definitive accident statistics as a detractor. I prefer to support the message that an avoidable risk has been identified and we can tackle it now, before actual data of people killed and injured needs to be used to make people sit up and take notice.
After all, would we prefer to see traffic lights installed on a dangerous road before or after someone is killed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Eric Burt
Sean has hit the nail on the head with his reply - there just aren't enough stats, however we do have stats regarding the number of fatalities including hand-held, hands-free and texting where these have led to fatalities. You can get more info from Brake (www.brake.org.uk)
The new Police Road-Death Investigation Manual will go a long way to improving the whole area of data collection.
In terms of driver training, yes we do provide driver assessments with training for those drivers who need it. We also target our younger employees who are statistically more at risk.
Tracey has also made some good points in her reply which I agree with.
Regards,
Eric
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Walker
If I may go away from the main point of this thread;
I'm not sure if I've got this right, but I believe post December that "hands free" means a proper in car system. Not just an
ear piece and wire to your mobile. Can anyone confirm this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nick House
The 'Hands Free' rule applies to all hands free kits - not just fited kits. The legislation only applies to persons 'holding the handset during at least part of the call'. I can see this as being a grey area until precedent has been set, as if a driver is using a portable hands free (PHF) kit - the ones that fit into the ear -, then generally, the user will need to hold the handset to answer/ end the call (including checking the number on the display to see whether they want to take the call or not).
Regards
Nick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.