Posted By Eddie Newall Driving while using a mobile phone, including hands-free devices, quadruples the chance of having a crash, a new report has claimed. http://www.netdoctor.co....=2005&m=7&d=12&id=119725

Posted By Ron Hunter Didn't the 'powers that be' consider banning the use of hands-free, but dropped it only because of impracticality of enforcing? I passed someone only yesterday with one hand holding a mobile and the other hand gesticulating and holding a cigarette - scary, but slightly less so than the guy last Sunday coming towards me in a big 4x4 whilst he rummaged around in the back seat looking for something! Good website for those in Occ. Health/wellbeing.

Posted By J Knight Anybody see that BBC3 programme about the fact that drunk drivers are still c**p for three hours after they've sobered up, pretty scarey stuff. 'Strue about this research being nothing new. My employer had banned hands-free even before I came on board, and that was nearly two years ago now, John

Posted By David A Jones D Thomas - are you serious about not knowing the difference - suggest you do a search for papers ont he subject and read the facts!

Posted By David A Jones Eric, When you start your posting with 'Dave' did you mean me? As clearly my previous posting indicates that I do believe there to be a significant difference and that the various papers on the subject will back that up

Posted By D Thomas Should have read phone.

Posted By J Knight D Thomas I think really illustrates this probem; a couple of people have posted links which fully explain the difference between talking to passengers and talking on the phone, and his response is 'what's the difference'? No wonder we have difficulty geting the message across about safe driving, John

Posted By garyh What about having a conversation with a passenger? Does this increase the "crash risk"? What's the difference between talking to someone over a phone and in person as regards it's effect on driving concentration? And what about smoking (and even worse lighting up) whilst driving? Why does the media (sad to say abetted by our profession) look at things in isolation and not the bigger picture?

Posted By Robert K Lewis I have to say I am with Mr Thomas on this. Let me know the number of hands free calls made in a day in the UK and the number of accidents per day caused by such behaviour and then I will start to consider the evidence. That provided by recent research was artificially induced with the driver being forced to use the phone when other factors would predicate against its use. The driver has to take responsibility to commence or terminate a conversation just as I will do when conditions dictate. Most people drive agressively far too often. I lose count of the number of cars I count on a motorway journey who overtake a vehicle that is already overtaking another. Where is the escape route. Perhaps also the real killer is the driver who believes that a right indicator signal gives absolute right of way to change lanes. For me our driving behaviour is the key to most accidents not the mere use of a hands free accessory and conversation Bob

Posted By Jay Joshi The netdoctor website report referred to a research article in the British Medical Journal. Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: a case-crossover study An abstract from the article and the full article can be accessed at:- http://bmj.bmjjournals.c...ct/bmj.38537.397512.55v1 http://bmj.bmjjournals.c...df/bmj.38537.397512.55v1

Posted By Carol Slater At the end of the day, whether you are on hands free or smoking, singing, putting on your lipstick and you have an accident, the first thing that the Police will look at (apart from the breathalyser result) is your mobile phone bill. They will use this in evidence against you for driving without due care or reckless driving. Even if the accident was not your fault! The question I ask is, can we not exist without communication from the office, friends, family etc for the length of a car journey if it means the possible avoidance of an accident and/or conviction/fine/disqualification and more importantly maiming or the death of someone?

Posted By D Thomas Eddie that goes back to my original response regards how you drive and what you would prioritise. check out this link on other driving issues published today by Norwich Union http://www.nu-riskservic...626291212694732960_1.htm

Posted By J Knight John One of the rapid responses stated that only 2% of crashes were influenced by the use of mobile phones. Put that on one side for the minute. Why is it so important to be able to make phone calls while driving? Ten years ago such an idea was pure SF, but as I recall we had a reasonably functioning economy. There is no need to talk on the phone while driving; there may be a need to carry passengers and there are probably good reasons for being able to talk to them. There is arguably even a need for satellite navigation; there is absolutely no need to make or answer a phone call while driving. I work for a widely dispersed organisation, and my job takes me from Aberdeen to Somerset; I do not answer or use the phone while I am driving, ever. If it rings I find somewhere to stop. Maximum delay is about 15 minutes; what cannot wait 15 minutes? In H&S? Back to the mere 2% of crashes. Of course it is a small percentage of the total, otherwise there would have been no accidents prior to the introduction of mobiles (Duh!). So what does this mean in terms of lives lost? There are about 115,000 RTAs in the UK every year. 2% of 115,000 is 2,300. There were 3,200 RTA deaths last year, 2% of that is about 60. That's 60 people we could save for the price of a minor inconvenience. Maybe 1,000 of that total were at work. 2% of that figure is 20. Is there any other simple single factor which could reduce worker deaths by that figure? And BTW, the 2% is in any event a total red herring. What proportion of those on the phone crashed? That's the bit that matters, since most drivers do not use hands free most of the time, it would be expected that most accidents are not caused by hands free kits. Man in the pubbery (or in the case of the 2% figure, it would appear to be woman in the pub), John

Posted By J Knight Thanks Nigel! Driving is dangerous, and the more people who understand that the better! And another thing; this latest piece of research is only the latest in a string of similar bits of work which all point to the idea that hands-free is not safe. People are very poor at judging risk (which is what behavioural safety is all about), especially when the hazards are familiar. It is important to consider that however good we feel we are as drivers, we have no personal means of judging the relative importance of hazards. These things can only be assessed by actuarial means, and I suggest that the current assessment is that mobile phones add to the risks of driving, John

Posted By Jon Bradburn I have not read the report so leave myself wide open to all who have. How many accidents have a single well defined cause? Use of mobile phones (hands free or otherwise) is but one factor to be taken into account. Driving too close, speed, weather, poorly maintained car, drink, drugs, tiredness - the list goes on. Very few accidents are likely to have a single cause. I would agree that there is a risk and we are in the business of reducing that risk. There may also be an increased risk from business users ie reps who probably use their phones more anyway. But ! Can anyone say this risk is significant? If as a post states phones caused about 2% of RTA- Has this been proved as Caused or is it a factor in? If only a factor the accident may still have occurred I have as many more of you have been caught on camera, and like many escaped a conviction by attending a speed seminar. I am still not perfect but the course has had an effect on the way I drive. The seminar amongst other things sought to re-educate us, as well as act as a PR event - Cameras are not bad, are not money making schemes etc) Speed is bad, it is a factor in a high (cant remember how high) proportion of accidents. Money making or accident prevention? ‘The government’ allegedly knew before introducing the ban on hand held phones that there was little difference between hand held and hands free, so why make the distinction? Existing laws provided for driving without due care and attention. After all we see the occasional report of a fine for drinking whilst stationary in a traffic jam - wrong? - while doing 70 on the motorway - definitely wrong. You can see someone hold a phone to the ear - an easy catch, should the police then stop everyone seen ‘mouthing’ in their car and check their phone to see if they were using it? If the report is to be believe all these people are driving without due care. Yes I’d say its unenforceable What if the driver has done an advanced driving course or is even an off duty police officer? Would they be exempt from prosecution - how do the police use their radio whilst driving? Why is there an increase in chase related accidents? 1 death or even injury is too many but as everyone is so keen to point out our society is never going to be risk free. If it was my child hurt I would want the ^&*%$£( who did it hung out to dry. But to view it coldly, who has never done something which given just a small change in circumstances may have resulted in harm to themselves or others? - Luck / fate? I dont know. I rarely use my mobile in car or otherwise (cos i’m tight or a billy no mates!) I do wonder if this is another case of ‘theres a risk’ lets ban everthing. Now beat, castigate, chastise, flog and otherwise abuse me please. Regards all Jon

Posted By Robert K Lewis John To be strictly accurate the study showed that 2% of the accidents involved people who had used the phone in the 10 min. previous to the accident. Inaapropriate use of phones will certainly increase the risks but so does most of the aggressive driving on our roads. For instance when you come down a motorway slip road to join the motorway do you put your right indicator on? If so, and here goes the shouts, you are driving aggressively. The defensive rule is look for the space, adjust your speed and enter the gap. If you are driving defensively the indicator becomes superfluous, after all the gap must be large enough to not hinder the vehicle approaching already on the motorway if yuou are actually being defensive.. Think of the mindset - I am going to enter this motorway NOW and NOT recognise the highway code requirement to give way. Yes I know about the junction snarl ups and the problems - but most of this is from lane changers because someone is possibly going toi slow them down. Zip joining if followed eliminates the problem but no-one wants to do it. Driving is a high risk task and we all need to approach it with more care and thought Bob

Posted By John Webster Whilst I do not agree with driving whilst using a mobile, and indeed introduced such a policy at work, I do not see how the Australian data as presented in this thread can mean anything. So, 2% of accident victims had used a mobile within the preceding 10 minutes. Given that 70% of us now carry a mobile (apparently), and if we all used it at least once a week, then would it be fair to report that 70% of accident victims had used their mobile in the preceding week? What would this mean?

Posted By Brett Day In the study by commissioned by Direct Line one of the things pointed too in comparing a driver having a discussion with a passenger and having a discussion via phone is that a passenger is more easily understood (tone of voice etc) and that in the test conducted passengers often stopped talking when the driver was approaching and negotiating junctions where as the mobile phone caller is unaware of the drivers taskloading and road conditions. I use a headset as some of the installed kits I've used are not of the best sound quality as oppossed to a headset which I find a lot clearer and far less distracting (I don't have to concentrate to make out voices over road noise in the car. As for holding a phone whilst driving not even Jeremy Clarkson does that !!!!! I tend to use the phone only for directions when visiting an unfamilier site and even then only spareingly. As for speed the official stats are an amalgam of stats that have, if any a very tenuous connection to speed - Example an accident that occured by travelling to close to the vehicle in front is classed as speed related, yet according to the insurance companies (whom the DfT quote as being the best source of these stats) most rear end shunts occour within the posted speed limit of the road travelled on and often at speeds of 0- 10 mph. How can speed cameras reduce those.