Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Geoff Burt
In the last four days it has been said on Radio 5 Live that 120,000 people die each year from smoke related diseases, 100,000 die each year from alcohol related diseases and 4 people a year die from mobile phone related road accidents.
Does it, or does it not, put it all in perspective?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stuart Nagle
Geoff.
With devil's advocate hat on....
yes it does:
a) there is still no evidence to support the claim that passive smoking kills. If it takes 35/40 years on average for a smoker to suffer cancer from smoking 20 to 40 cigerettes a day - how long for a person who claims to have been affected by passive smoking to be affected the same way (with respect to the minority who suffer such disease earlier in life).
b) there are less smokers in the UK now than at any other time - they are very much a very small minority. How then are deaths from lung cancer (and other cancers i.e. liver, colon, throat etc) are increasing dramatically? surely placing the blame on smokers per se is no longer a viable argument.
c) who would you rather spend the night with in a garage.... a smoker or a car with the engine running!!
d) more fines and arrests are now made for speeding than drink driving.
e) motorists now spend more time looking for speed cameras than concentrating on their driving
f) speed cameras only reduce speed 100 metres before a camera and 200 metres after a camera
g) there are more near misses at speed cameras than any other location on roads due to motorists slowing down at them
h) drug and alcohol testing of employees has produced no significant abuse figures
i) office workers drink more than factory workers - including during working hours there is no evidence that drinking yourself to death is work related
j) mobile phones cause more slow moving 'shunt' type accidents that go unreported to police and therefore are not recorded statistically
k) how many of the 120000 deaths by smoking related diseases were smokers - former smokers - or persons who had never smoked?
l) how many alcohol related deaths were alcoholics - alcoholic poisoning - related to alcohol only as a result of having been drunk (i.e driving or operating machinery at home/work) - dying as a result of injuries suffered from a person who was drunk (e.g. stabbed or otherwise mortally wounded - run over or had been drinking and walked into traffic etc).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Keith Archer.
Hi Geoff,
Smoking has been around since the days of Sir Walter Raliegh. Alcholol dates back to the days before the Monks. Mobile phones from the last couple of decades so really the statistics cannot be compared.
I would be interested to know if a study has been carried out on the effects (because smoking bans)on absenteesm due people who have to now stand outside in all kinds of weather for a cigarette. There is also the thought of whether people are binge drinking after work owing to zero tolarence (lunch time breaks)on alcholol in the workplace.
Although I agree that these measures have been (rightly)made to improve the conditions and safety of people (should areas for smokers be provided). I believe that the lessons learnt from smoking and alcholol restrictions should be used to make people aware of the hazards associated with the use of mobile phones in the workplace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nigel Singleton BSc
If your logic holds out: 220,004 people may have died because they were smoking and /or drinking whilst using a mobile phone whilst driving.
No seriously I agree that the figures do not seem to put up a good case for the 'intense' government activity; however I think the point that should be considered is that when smoking or drinking kills, it is their choice, whereas when a mobile phone kills, it is usually someone else who was not using a phone.
How many times have we been irritated by a driver in front not driving correclty whilst on the phone? Does this put us at more risk than sitting in a pub with smoke in the air.
It would seem to me that it is the old H&S chestnut of long term affects compared to crash bang wallop, which usually provokes a bigger response in any health & safety issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Geoff Burt
Well ... actually got some considered responses!
Nigel. you said - 'however I think the point that should be considered is that when smoking or drinking kills, it is their choice, whereas when a mobile phone kills' - not sure I agree with that one as there a number of innocent people killed on the roads by drunk driving.
I'm not sure why you can't compare statistics?
Like Stuart I am also not convinced about the dangers of passive smoking - at least not the (inflated?) figures bandied about.
The point is, shouldn't we be concentrating ie using resources on the areas most in need. Cutting down 4 fatalities a year from using mobiles from the 3500 a year on the roads is barely significant.
But of course spotting people using a mobile phone is an easy target and the performance figures eg prosecutions, is easily measureable - so government and the police can be seen doing their bit to reducing accidents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Allan St.John Holt
Let's get the phone thing right, at least.
There is good evidence from research (from several sources) that any use of a mobile phone while driving downgrades the driver's performance as measured in reaction times, ability to judge distance from the vehicle in front and ability to maintain a constant course. Most of us have seen examples of all of these. The most cogent argument is that in general terms use of a mobile phone downgrades performance at least as much as driving at the UK legal blood/alcohol limit.
The effects can be seen easily as noted above. So, if you know (as you do) that there is an enhanced risk from an activity, in my view failure to do something about it -to control the risk - is culpable on the part of the employer. The Government recognises this by putting in a control that goes part of the way, and the Highway Code recommends going all the way and not using a phone of any kind while driving.
This measure is clearly related to risk levels. There are few of us who could not modify their own behaviour in relation to the use of phones while driving.
So let's have less of the 'nanny State' arguments from H&S professionals who should know better.
Happy Christmas - stay alive to enjoy it.
Allan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Geoff Burt
Hi Allan - nice to hear from you again despite not agreeing with all you said.
You used the words 'nanny state'. Although I don't understand your comment on this (what should I know better?), at least we do agree there is one.
However, that wasn't my point. I'm putting forward the proposition that resources would be better used on higher risk activities, and I quoted some figures to support that view.
I take it then, you don't think the figures put the whole thing into perspective?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
I have enormous difficulties in believing anyone who says that passive smoking kills.
The difference in concentration between the smoker who inhales and the person sitting close to them, and the statistiques on how many smokers actually get cancer tells me that it is all a bit ridiculous.
On the use of mobile phones while driving - from personal experience it is extremely dangerous. Soon after getting a mobile phone I had a call while I was on an interconnection between two motorways. foolishly I took the phone and started talking to the person who had called me. The resulting difficulty in negotiating the up-coming bends one handed while trying to hold a conversation nearly killed me. Nowadays I do not respond to the call but wait for the eventual beep that tells me that there is a message. Then I find a safe place to stop, take the message and decide if I want to call them back.
Someone mentioned radars. I had an interesting experience last week. The French government has just started installing automatic radars - 5% over the limit and you are "flashed", and the fine is in the post before you get home. £60 if you pay within two weeks, £90 within the month and £180 after that. Just south of Paris there is a well sign-posted radar. The posted limit is 110 km/hr. Going past the radar people were driving at no more than 90 km/hr. Over the past month I have driven something like 3 000 miles on french motorways which have a maximum limit of 130 km/hr. The average speed used to be about 140, with some cars going at an estimated 180-190. Last week, most were going at 125, with only the foreigners (belgians, swiss and english) going over the limit. Behavioural safety theory says that "repression only works if it is consistently and constantly applied". Too right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stuart Nagle
OK... Lets get to the hub here... an alternative agument....
Smokers contribute a lot of revenue in tax on the smokes they buy. Less and less smokers means less and less revenue - It could be argued that smokers contribute more (and if they drink as well even more) to the revenue than non-smokers and as such should not be considered as second class citizens when, for instance, it comes to getting treatment just because they do or have smoked!! (how do you tell someone who has given up smoking from a person claiming to suffer the effects of passive smoking if the difference would mean getting treatment sooner if you were a 'victim' of a smoker?)
Drinkers contribute to the revenue also, and likewise, less and less people drink nowadays as much as did, and a lot buy abroad and so less revenue is raised....
So where are the 'poor' revenue men to get the ackers from - YES!! you've got it, lets get the motorist (again). a captive on the roads - a lot of the time standing still in traffic - they are the easiest 'criminal' target the enforcing agencies have ever had of are likely to have....
Speed cameras, ever escalating road fund licence (a tax by another name), not forgeting of course the tax on the car insurance!! - road pricing - tolls - Petrol increases (most of the cost of the fuel is again of course tax - like booze and smokes), and now on the spot fines for using hand held mobile phones (even if the vehicle is stationary).... so to be fines and possible imprisonment...
If of course these things are put under the heading of 'Road Safety' few people shall have any cause to complain, as who of course could, and all those who espouse to such good causes will defend to the hilt the rightness of it all.
Should then all cars then be automatic to avoid the need to change gears meaning one hand only on the steering wheel, should radios be removed from vehicles where no controls are on the steering column - or should these also be removed as their use also means drivers look at the console to see the right radio station etc is selected. What about cigerette lighters in the dash, surely these must go also, along with smoking in cars and manually operated dash heater grills on the car heater system. Perhaps there should be 'head-up displays for all readouts on the console, like fighter aircraft, so you don't have to look down at them.... could be fun when driving along unlit country lanes at night!!
'Nanny state' - no.... Rip Off state would be far more apt. How far down the road (oh a pun) can we go with these.....
more food for thought....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
Well, I certainly ban smoking and drinking in my car, Geoff - but then you would expect that from me. The other week, when driving round a bend in the road, I was confronted by a large lorry coming towards me being driven by a clown with a mobile phone clutched to his ear - and only just managed to get out of his way. Somehow the thought that it might be better to ignore this practice in favour of preventing more smoking deaths did not seem to occur at the time! The point is that, if people are so selfish as to insist on putting the lives or health of others at risk, society needs to take action to deter them from doing so - whether by smoking, drinking or irresponsible and unsafe driving. There are places and circumstances where people can smoke, drink and use their phones without the risks to others. If they have a concern for the health and safety of others, that's where they should be engaging in those activities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Geoff Burt
You're missing the point Ken - in my humble opinion!.
Where should greatest resources go - surely you must agree it should be to those areas of greatest risk!
The resources put into mobile phone use are completely out of proportion to the risk, and my argument is the figures clearly show it. Hency my statement about perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jack
Geoff, isn't the logical extension of this 'why bother with occupational safety' after all only a few hundred deaths a year; a drop in the ocean when compared with the figures you quote for booze & fags (ok I know Occ Health figures higher but you get my drift). Perhaps we should all concentrate on road safety - that always seems to have about 10 times as many deaths.
Stuart, I would agree if you said there was no proof re passive smoking but I think there is some evidence (probably also some the other way too)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Webster
The fatality data are only the small tip of a very much larger iceberg. For every road death there are around 100 reported casualties with varying degree of injury.
Significantly, whilst the total numbers of road related deaths and injuries have steadily fallen over the past 10 years (child pedestrian and cyclist fatalities & serious injuries have halved), casualties amongst car drivers and their passengers have risen from 179,383 in 1991 to 202,802 in 2001.
Put simply, uniquely amongst road users car drivers are having more accidents, but, possibly because of improved vehicle safety and/or reduced road speeds, these accidents are less likely to result in a fatality.
Mobile phone useage is still a relatively new phenomenon, and attributing accidents to mobile phone useage is similarly a new practice which will not produce statistically significant returns for a few years yet.
However, research proves that loss of concentration - generally measured by deterioraton in reaction time, ability to maintain speed and direction etc. - whilst using a phone is at least as severe as that experienced by drivers over the alcohol limit. Few people would advocate a return to tolerance of drinking and driving. Given the risks, it is surely prudent to apply control measures before the explosion in mobile phone useage makes for grim statistical reading. This is what we all would do with a new risk in the workplace, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
I'm not really missing your point Geoff - just not entirely agreeing with it for the sort of reasons that Jack has put. There are, in fact, more fatalities and other injuries in the home than on the road but that doesn't stop me being interested in road safety as well as occupational safety as well as health issues, etc. Government also needs to look at all areas of injury causation and take appropriate action at the right time and in an effective way. The time for stopping idiots driving cars with a phone in one hand has come - as has the need to protect non-consenting people from the tobacco smoke of others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Neil Pearson
I cautiously agree with Geoff, but only because the objective evidence for the mobile phone danger sounds weak. Subjectively, like others above, it seems incredibly dangerous. But does this justify the legislation? I'm really not sure, I just think this is an interesting debate!
Allan - your argument highlights the obvious subjective risk, but how does this weigh against the cost of controlling it? Again, I'm unconvinced either way.
What I am sure of is this. It seems hard to justify anything on the basis of H&S if it costs resources that could instead be used to provide more HSE guidance and enforcement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Geoff Burt
Agree with you this time Ken (including the bit about non consenting smokers!) but we already had legislation in place that would deal with careless driving.
You use the word 'effective', and that's my whole point of putting up this thread.
Effective in my book means putting what resources you have to best use.
I'd be interested in the figures for home fatalities due to accidents - as a comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
Geoff,
It is estimated that in the UK over 4,000 die in accidents in the home and garden annually and nearly 3 million are injured to the extent of requiring A&E attendance (Source: RoSPA). The figures are based upon the former Home Accident Surveillance System operated by the DTI which has recently been closed down by the Government as a cost-saving exercise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steven John Nelson
Yes, but the government don't make millions from taxing our use of mobile phones....not that I'm aware of anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Breeze
Geoff,
Out of interest, do we know where Radio 5 Live got their smoking & traffic statistics from?
Are they national or worldwide stats? (They seem to by orders of magnitude different from the RoSPA fatality stats given by Ken for home & garden)
Picking up what Keith said, do we know whether the low phone death stats are because no one has been recording them or because it is a safer activity?
Also Nigel pointed out that the figures do not include combination factors.
Sorry to harp on, but I just don't think these factors have been suitably addressed yet.
Any discussion cannot reach a valid conclusion without addressing these issues.
But then I could be missing the point, maybe you just wanted a bun fight.
;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jay Joshi
I do not dispute the experimental evidence that there is loss of concentration when using a mobile phone, but I doubt that there is a significant cost in enforcing the new law. No doubt some mobile phone users have had to procure the hand free kits. So, it is a cost to the users and profits for companies that sell them.
The new law simply provides the authorities with a means of pro-actively enforcing the law. Previously, they had to prove that the driver was driving without due care and attention!!The new proposals have not prohibited the use of hands free systems, although most employers would have explicitly prohibited its use when driving.
I wonder if there are reliable figures on number of accidents where the main cause is attributed to the use of mobile phones ??
This discussion about merits etc of smoking, drinking & mobile phones and its effects has 2 mains points. The first one is that some activities do not affect "others" -except the immediate family, such as DIY, Gardening or even smoking, drinking at home etc -except that it is the taxpayer who picks up the cost of treatment.
The second one is that for too long we have been depending upon slack enforcement, but spend significant amopunts of money in alternative enforcement schemes, that in the long run may be detrimental not only to health( back-pain etc) such as speed bumps, but additional costs in car maintenanace. If a speed limit is 30 mph, and we knew that we will get a fine if we do 35 mph, I am sure most of those who ignore it will change their behaviour.
In my view, the driving habits of those who tailgate at high speeds, cut into lanes, etc are worse and need to be "caught" in comparision to the use of mobile phones.
Unfortunately, unless there is serious personal injury, the police do not want to get involved, even if the potential for a fatality is greater in such car accident cases!! It is all a mteer of resources and how they are utilised.
An idea for the future is to have cars fitted with black boxes and record speed data and other significant parameters in relation to speed limits--that are checked annually and penalties charged proportionately!!
Personally, I would prefer that to the speed bumps that are everywhere in residential areas that cause havoc to our backs and car-suspensions, not to mention the slowing down of emergency vehicles.
The voluntary approach such as the "highway code" was okay when we did not have the current number of vehicles and the roads were not congested. We need innovative enforcement measures now, using technology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bryn Maidment http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/...d/manchester/3300877.stmThats why we need a stringent approach to mobile phone useage!! Manslaughter, give me a break! The guy knowingly uses his phone, ignores / doesn't see / doesn't register 15 signs, drives dangerously and then kills someone. That's 'intent' in my book and should have been murder. It's a simple risk management approach, stop all the near misses and you'll stop casualties. The sad thing about this case apart from the dead motorcyclist is the guy has 6 kids! From a Darwinian point of view this is scary. Hope he meets some Hell's Angels inside.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stuart Nagle
Some interesting comments....
So where is the evidence Ken? - well quite frankly as you rightly state there is not a lot it there!! Has a scientist sat a person down in a room with a smoker for 20 years to see if they contract smoking related diseases? The only evidence is conjecture and 'educated guesses'. As far I am aware, studies relate only to disease and 'presumed causes' because the symptoms are like that of those of smokers. Exposre and disease in this context is and must be random. As I stated above, more people contract cancer of the lung and other organs who have not smoked than those who smoke (persons who smoke are getting less and less). They can't all be passive smokers surely!
On the subject of speed cameras. fines and the like I would direct those of you who want to research this a little further to the Durham Police Chief and an article in the Telegraph concerning Durham Police Constabulary refusing to introduce speed cameras (actually there is 1 fixed camera in the whole of County Durham), as it seem that the Police Chief Constable is not of the opinion that 'safety cameras' (as the government prefers to call them) are 'safe' at all!! Police Officers in County Durham use handheld cameras or mobile cameras where they are needed - in accident black spots. This is coupled with a road safety campaing run by the Police in Durham - a very sensible attitude me thinks....
After all we don't prevent accidents at work by taking pictures of people, we train them and introduce preventative measures. 'Safety cameras' don't train or introduce preventative measures they simply add to problems and create distain for authority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Geoff Burt
The question was 'Does it, or does it not, put it all in perspective?'.
It does for me, and I can see it does for some others.
My feeling is some of us tend to rely on statements such as ' ... research says ...' when we would be better looking at hard statistics.
I know these can be misleading. For example, a person has alcohol related dementia but dies from bronchial pnumonia. On the death certificate the cause of death is the latter. I also take the point that RTA statistics may also suffer from errors.
But these figures are still far more reliable than some of the research we see. I would especially question research by some of the larger organisations mentioned on this and other threads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
There seems to be a suggestion around that lung cancer is the only (and possibly wrongly attributed) health risk from passive smoking and that one has to wait 20 years or so to find out. I would point out, therefore, that the products of smoked tobacco are also linked by medical authorities to coronary heart disease, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, other circulatory and respiratory diseases, acute irritant effects on eyes, throat and respiratory tract and the aggravation of asthma. As uncaring smokers still seem prepared to submit non-smokers to their foul emissions, the Government has now turned to using children to see whether any degree of compassion can be found for them if not adults. It will be interesting to see whether this has any effect - particularly among health and safety practitioners. You may recall that this approach was tried with regard to the risk to children in cars from not wearing seat-belts. Eventually legislation was required in order to have any appreciable effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Eric Burt
Geoff
Taking your arguement further......... if your stats are right....... 4 people a year die from using a mobile while driving.......
no-one dies from noise-induced hearing loss...... no-one dies from a poorly set up DSE workstation..... etc etc so lets forget all about DSE assessments ( YIPPEE!) not bother with noise monitoring and just concentrate on drivers using mobile phones!!
Incidentally, has anyone noticed the subtle change in the advertisers blub re hands-free kits. They used to say "stay safe - use a hands-free" now they appear to be saying "stay legal, use a hands-free".
Just a quick reminder that any employer issuing hands-free kits will be in breach of Management Regs 99, which require employers to REDUCE risks. Using a hands-free while driving INCREASES the risk. (Unless the employer issues an instruction to say that they can only be used if the vehicle is stopped etc).
Geoff - use the old RISK v COST arguement with mobile phones while driving and see what you come up with.
Merry Christmas everyone
Regards,
Eric
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Abbott
Geoff,
Great topic - and some very good responses too.. I won't bother with my original observations, because they have all be said. Most of this discussion has been about the serious implications or effectiveness of doing an act - like "answering a phone call" - or "Smoking a cigarette in a confined space" etc.
Unfortunate we DO have to rely on published statistical information as a basis for reporting matters, but given the numbers quoted - and not having a basis for comparison myself, It does, in my mind, put it all into perspective.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By peter gotch
Geoff
If the stats you quote are based on information on death certificates then 120k + 100k does not equal 220k as many may indicate that smoking and alcohol contributed to death.
Conversely, any stats re use of mobile phones whilst driving are likely to underestimate their significance as the documentation will probably indicate the immediate cause, eg drove through red light.
You only have to look at the HSE enforcement stats to see how contributory factors are often not adequately recorded, eg re an HSWA Section 2(1)case, the following entry
"Failure to comply with the provisions of the law led to a fatal accident"
I happen to know that this related to a site investigation drilling rig but imagine that unguarded machinery was not the only contributory factor. The deceased may possibly have been distracted by use of his mobile phone (I speculate!)
My office is in one of the busiest streets in Glasgow, running from an offramp of the M8 Kingston Bridge.
I do not need to do statistical research to prove that most of the drivers who go through the red light where I cross the road
(1) drive sports cars or 4 by 4s and/or
(2) aren't wearing seatbelts and/or
(3) are on their mobile phone
The uninitiated pedestrian at this junction may well see the "green man" and start to cross the road. I don't until I am convinced that all the drivers are going to stop!
I am all in favour of the ban except that it doesn't go far enough!
Regards, Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Waterton
Once again I am amazed at how much of a response this type of tongue in cheek question gets from H&S PROFESSIONALS?????
As a relatively new member to the FOLD should I be worried? is this my future?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Geoff Burt
Peter - you wrote
'I do not need to do statistical research to prove that most of the drivers who go through the red light where I cross the road
(1) drive sports cars or 4 by 4s and/or
(2) aren't wearing seatbelts and/or
(3) are on their mobile phone '
You have just proved my point. Without measurement you couldn't prove this point. What you have done is make a subjective assessment - which is what a lot of researchers do, and which is where they go astray.
We should be operating on hard facts, not peoples opinions.
We must all surely agree that research can be biased - depending on who has commissioned it.
David - It certainly isn't tongue in cheek on my part.
If you explain what you mean perhaps we could help you out (that was tongue in cheek)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By peter gotch
Geoff,
There is plenty of statistical information to indicate that driving through red lights is a major cause of road traffic accidents.
I can observe on an almost daily basis that I need to beware of those whose type of car, and attitude to seat belts and use of phones are most likely to run me down.
My daily risk assessment doesn't even need the back of a fag packet, let alone thorough quantitative analysis.
Mobiles and drivers don't mix!
Have a good weekend.
I've still got to cross Bothwell Street one more time before getting to the weekend.
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Keep this going!
You can stop smoking, dont go in smoky places and even give up alcohol!
How do you get out of the way of a 40ton lorry doing 50mph only 2 seconds away from making your nose bleed as the driver is on the phone!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.