Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages12>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 20 November 2006 09:46:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jez Corfield Discussion: A group of our 'mobile' staff have come together to ask for sat nav, and are using the H&S Committee to do it. We've done a corporate risk assessment, conclusion: sat nav is comforting and very convenient, but its also distracting, the counterpoint to this is that a map on the knee is also distracting, the risk assessment is inconclusive. My investigation into the subject confirms there is no research and even bodies like ROSPA, and the RAC are currently sitting on the fence. What are your professional (rather than personal) feelings on sat nav? Are you aware of any research or hard facts? I look forward to reading your views! Jez
Admin  
#2 Posted : 20 November 2006 09:49:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Will Pool We use trackers with satnav built in. It has reduced the amount of traffic collisions and also has the added bono track lone us of us being able to track lone workers, as part of the LW RA.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 20 November 2006 10:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Paul Duell I think you'd work pretty hard to make an H&S case for satnav, although it's definitely true that it's easier to use than balancing a map on your knee.If you've employees who need some means of routefinding, satnav is probably the least distracting. But as Will says above, if you combine them with a tracker, there are definite advantages in monitoring lone workers. Our lorry fleet has a combined tracker / handsfree mobile phone system - the mobile doesn't have a dial, it just has a red button that the driver presses and it dials a pre-programmed number, in our case the distribution office.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 20 November 2006 10:18:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By J Knight Hi Folks, I think it depends on the type of driving people are doing. If they are going to well-signposted locations on the edge of urban areas or in well connected rural areas, such as Industrial Estates, they probably don't need them. Likewise, if they have a regular patch they probably don't need one. If they will be visiting unfamiliar places in remote rural areas or in the middle of large built-up areas then a sat-nav will be very helpful. I find it impossible to map-read while hurtling down an inner ring-road in a strange city, and the roadside route indicators are often less than helpful. I know sat-navs can be dodgy in urban areas, but they are improving, and they are much better than nothing. They may be a distraction, but less distracting than trying to work out in advance which lane of a busy roundabout might go where, or, as often happens, trying to decide which way to go at a junction where all the route indication has mysteriously disappeared, John
Admin  
#5 Posted : 20 November 2006 10:39:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter I feel your risk assessment process may be flawed. What is the hazard you are assessing? In the event of an accident,whether the driver is distracted by a map or a SatNav system, the conclusion would most likely be the same- driving without due care and attention. It is unfortunate that so many professional bodies are sitting on the fence, however you could compare your risk assessment with that for mobile 'phone use. RoSPA and others conclude that that even hands free kits are sufficiently distracting to cause accidents, and their advice is to pull over at a safe place before taking or making a call. It would seem logical to apply this same control measure to satnav. On a more personal note, having recently followed a weaving 4x4 for several miles along an A class road whilst the driver spent more time looking at the SatNav screen than the road ( presumably looking for an exit prompt), I think they should be banned altogether.Controversial!
Admin  
#6 Posted : 20 November 2006 12:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Paul Duell While satnav can be distracting, it's no worse than a car stereo or a nagging passenger! Assuming the hazard we're guarding against is "driver not concentrating on driving because thinking about route finding", we then consider the controls available: 1) Tell drivers to pull over whenever they need to check the map/directions (and then enforce the rule!) 2) Allow drivers to use route atlas or whatever while driving. 3) Provide a navigator 4) Provide satnav. If I was assessing the risk, I'd discount (1) because I don't think drivers would comply, and I'd discount (3) on the grounds of cost (there are cheaper, equally good solutions). Maybe I'm biased - I've been a keen user of satnav in its various forms since long before the current user-friendly units were available. But to me, if drivers are routinely having to find their way in unfamiliar areas, I'd consider satnav the most reasonably practicable means of reducing driver distraction caused by navigation.
Admin  
#7 Posted : 20 November 2006 12:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Paul Duell I think I've just disproved my own statement in the earlier post, "I think you'd work hard to make an H&S case for satnav"!
Admin  
#8 Posted : 20 November 2006 12:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By J Knight Hi Paul, I agree, and further to your post; control measure 1 is often impossible. Try pulling over to map-read at the approach to a busy roundabout on an inner-ring road; decisions in such places have to be made very quickly, and there is often insufficient or misleading road-side signage, John
Admin  
#9 Posted : 20 November 2006 12:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Tony Brunskill Ron, Why is the risk assessment flawed? Having identified a risk of collision with ? associated with drivers navigating is it not reasonable to look at the process, assess whether navigation is critical, determine the options for mitigating the risk and decide on a measure that is practicable and cost efficient. Substitution or minimising exposure - acceptable. On the basis that the accident has happened and you are in front of the judge I think you would have a case for a "reasonably practicable" defense. If you assume you should prevent the accident - walk and be hit by the mobile phone user, or distracted mother trying to keep her kids in their seats, or individual changing the CD or sales rep driving in their usual fashion.
Admin  
#10 Posted : 20 November 2006 12:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By David Bannister Interesting thread that reflects discussions I have had with friends. Sat Nav cannot be compared with mobile phones: it is only a 1 way information transfer whilst phone use requires thought to compose replies. When I yell at the Sat Nav I am not doing it after thinking about it, it is a pre-programmed response to the stupid woman who's given me duff info! Overall my feeling is that it improves road safety by avoiding the need to study a paper map, is very useful in route planning and probably saves time for me. The downside is that on the second visit to the same place I still need its assistance whereas with a map I used to remember the route.
Admin  
#11 Posted : 20 November 2006 12:40:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Barrie M Dexter Found this article today RoSPA advises on in-vehicle gadgetry The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) has published Driving for Work: Vehicle Technology, a document advising on the safety implications of using technology in company vehicles. The technology covers such things as satellite navigation systems, speed warning devices, adaptive cruise control, blind-spot information systems, electronic braking and stability systems, and black boxes. The guidance, produced with the support of the Department for Transport, will, RoSPA says, 'help employers and line managers implement policies so that: the benefits and risks of providing technology in company vehicles are properly assessed; staff are trained in its correct use; and the effects of its introduction are monitored'. Comment: “Technology used correctly can reduce the risk of drivers crashing, but if it is used incorrectly it can increase the risk. Sat-Navs, for instance, are supposed to help drivers to make earlier and better decisions, but people must still pay attention to their route to ensure the system does not recommend an unsuitable manoeuvre. Drivers must also obey road signs and markings irrespective of what the Sat-Nav tells them to do. Speed warning devices can inform people of dangerous stretches of road and alert them if they are exceeding the limit. Managers need to ensure they are used to improve safety and not to enable speeding by using them to dodge cameras. Over-reliance on technology such as a fatigue warning device could lead to someone driving when they are too tired, and too many different devices could also prove distracting.” - RoSPA Head of Road Safety.
Admin  
#12 Posted : 20 November 2006 13:14:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter Tony, I was thinking more that it should be perfectly feasible to plan and familiarise a route before setting out on the journey, and that this would involve a lesser risk than using a SatNav, which others concur is at least distracting and certainly not wholly reliable. (Witness the TopGear program in Oxford?). A 'flawed' risk assessment, then because, (a) it draws comparison with what I wold consider to be an illegal act (reading a map whilst driving), and (b) not all possible control measures (inc. "Brain Mk1") are being equally considered?
Admin  
#13 Posted : 20 November 2006 13:19:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Eric Taylor I have not used one for work, but have used one 4/5 times in the last year to go on long journeys to parts of the UK I have not been to before. Programmed the address of the hotel in Bath, left Perth with it switched on, and drove straight to the door. Took me through rush hour traffic in Bath no problem. Reduction in stress level let alone anything else was worth it. Went to an obscure address in a housing estate in Staines, same deal, straight to it, no fuss, no cutting up other folk at roundabouts, changing lane or looking at maps when I should be driving. Obviously if you are daft enough to push buttons and not pay attention to the driving, then you will get what you deserve. A glance at the sat nav display is no more distracting than a look at the instruments. Reduction in stress because you know you are going to get there. Reduction in stress because even if you do go still go wrong, it automatically plots your route back. Reduction in cutting folk up in traffic and possibly causing an accident. What's the problem?
Admin  
#14 Posted : 20 November 2006 13:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By J Knight Hi Ron, The problem with using Brain MkI is that it's just not possible. For example, earlier this year I had to drive to rural Oxfordshire; easy because I know the route well. I then had to navigate through Reading, and later that same day, Bath, both cities with which I am utterly unfamiliar. I have a good memory, and can read maps like a book (or, is that books like a map?), but I would not have been able to learn both routes in the necessary detail. Yes, I knew which roads to follow in and out of both cities, but not the bits in between which tend to be signposted 'all traffic'. And as a practical illustration; in Reading I was following signs for M4, until I came to a junction with three lanes of traffic at lights and no indication at all which of the three lanes went towards the M4. Using Brain MkI would have meant getting a detailed route plan of Reading and Bath's inner ring roads, learning the route and then following it. Can't be done, at least, not by me, John
Admin  
#15 Posted : 20 November 2006 14:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter Fair points John, and don't necessarily disagree. On the basis of relative risk though, trials of SatNav, particularly in City Centres, have proven that the systems are by no means infallible. As others have posted, over-reliance and potential to miss other visual signals can be a problem. I also agree that City & town planners could do more. Too often, routes are marked only by arrows on the road surface - obviously obscured at peak traffic flows. Constant tinkering with route and road design are obvious problems. Maybe one day we'll have full autopilot on vehicles to resolve these problems. No, wait a minute - that's called taking the train! lol
Admin  
#16 Posted : 20 November 2006 14:14:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Chris Knagg I spend a substantial amount of time visiting remote site in locations all over the country. Since I have bought my SAT NAV (Who I call Tom for conversational reasons) I have found the following advantages from this digital technology compared to the analogue 'driving by the force method'. 1) I pre-plan and programme my sat nav before I get in the car saves time and effort later 2) I have saved time in finding my destination 90% of the time, effectively saving money which i believe over the time I have owned 'Tom', 18 months would have paid for at least two more. 3) I have reduced my stress levels when driving in unfamiliar surroundings miles from home looking for locations and being at meetings on time. 4) I have found alternative shorter routes to locations I regularly visit saving time and money. 5) Postcodes provided by people are not always accurate and its worthwhile double checking. 6) Tom can be programmed to alert you of services, fuel and nourishment. I drive a significant amount of mileage every year as part of my job. My least favourite journey is into London. Previously finding sites in London with an A-Z even with an element of pre-planning was very stressful and time consuming. I am a Lancashire Lad with an affinity for the countryside. When I make the journey into London with Tom, no problem! No stress no road rage no time or fuel wasted keep turning around. Traffic jams however are a different matter, although Tom has the capability to dial out for traffic info and re-plan your route, but that does not always work. My professional view is that it is a very useful piece of work equipment that if provided to company drivers along with some training, acceptable use guidelines which is part of an overall driver training package the pros will out weigh the cons and the efficiencies they bring will more than pay for it. There is the human factor though, like minded positive people who see the equipment as a positive. Absolutely essential all programming is done whilst vehicle parked safely, otherwise I would imagine its just as unsafe as using a mobile phone.
Admin  
#17 Posted : 20 November 2006 14:39:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By J Knight Ron, Coudn't agree more about the road signs and markings; the DoT themselves recently concluded that direction signs were often less than helpful. My favourite is a roundabout at the end of a fast, busy dual carriageway heading for J4 M18 in Doncaster. About half a mile from the roundabout the signs say 'get in lane'; its not until 100m from the roundabout that there is any indication of which lane goes where; very useful, John
Admin  
#18 Posted : 20 November 2006 14:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jez Corfield Many thanks folks Ron, firstly I dont believe my risk assessment process is flawed, the overall activity I am assessing is driving for work, the hazards identified are RTA's, lone working type issues and crime etc. Like you I am concerned that the risk of RTA's might be increased whilst using sat nav, but there is a fundamental 'cause and effect' type query here, are the people who have an accident using satnav also the people who would have had an accident whilst looking at a map anyway? If so the sat nav isnt at fault, its the drivers fault, some people just dont concentrate and are easily distracted, be-it maps, sat-nav or bacon butties. I think there may be an issue with people over-using it whilst on the move, but if it can be programmed in advance, and gives verbal instructions also, then it could be argued that sat nav might be safer than MK1 map, in theory no buttons would need to be pressed, and the visual distraction minimised. I am minded to give this one the thumbs up, but attach a shed-load of guidance and conditions for its safe use. Added to that I might make reference to the ongoing DfT review of safety, and put in a review date (so I may be flogging 50 sat nav units in about a year...) Thanks again Jez
Admin  
#19 Posted : 20 November 2006 15:27:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Brett Day The biggest problem with satnav is the idiot using it. Take a good, well trained driver and they will know that fiddling with buttons is a no-no, take an idiot then they will play with buttons to change voices, alter the view etc. If the company supplies satnav, then there should be some form of familierisation. Don't do what one of my clients did and expect the drivers to learn in thier own time, what actually happened is that they learnt out on the road whilst driving. Part of this familierisation should also stress that the satnav is NOT infallible, the most up to date mapping is from the OS who have a major update every 4 years. yet many drivers take the view that they are or should be infallible despite being prepared to accept that the same £100-300 pounds worth of maps in the boot are out of date and don't show all roads. Hence these drivers who naively follow up dirt tracks etc. It also displays a huge lack of judgement on the part of the driver. Another thing I'd throw in having gone from maps to sat nav is that getting one with a traffic feature is very, very good at helping avoid jams and makes life a lot less stressful Like any driver aid the sat nav if used properly is an excellent tool, it is neither good or bad. Personal preference of using maps vs sat nav would be the sat nav, I haven't got to balance it on my knee, pull over to read it, it gives me better traffic info than the radio and one touch on the screen give me a route around it and if I do make a goof it will automatically re-route, thus reducing my workload and giving more capacity than concentrate on the road. Oh and as a PS, when installed they need to be installed so they do not interfere with vision, if necessary a dash mounting system is often more appropriate, companies such as Garmin and Brodit do them. I've seem 'professional' installs including from a national automotive accessory company that have put units in and created an additional blind spot.
Admin  
#20 Posted : 20 November 2006 15:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By J Knight Agree with the need for instruction and training. A former colleague of mine uses one of the dial-up systems. It has no screen, she rings the call-centre, tells them where she is and where she wants to go, and they send the route to the little doobry in her dashboard. There are advantages to this. First of all, the route is updated every fifteen minutes, and she claims that since having it installed two years ago she's been caught in a traffic jam once, when the 'incident' had time to develop into a major jam between updates. You also get a very configurable service, and somebody knows where she started from, and where she should be going, so if she doesn't get there somebdoy will know where to start looking, John
Admin  
#21 Posted : 20 November 2006 18:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Raymond Rapp Strange, I was only thinking about this subject a few days ago. I have a Tom, Tom 1 provided by my company. Like most things used correctly and it is probably quite safe. However, there is a temptation not to use it safely and there are inherent safety issues associated with using satnav not unlike the mobile phone. I dare say a major accident will happen in due course and all sorts of issues will be flagged up. Notwithstanding one should consider the risks of other means of navigation against those posed by a satnav. The powers that be will probably not though. Ray
Admin  
#22 Posted : 20 November 2006 19:49:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Phil McC I have not looked at the IOSH forums for some considerable time (too busy working), but it is disheartening to return and be confronted by this type of thread. It is no wonder that some curly haired journalists have the opinion that we are interfering busybodies without a life when they read Boy's Own stuff like this. Most of these responses just seek to justify a personal opinion on the efficacy of sat navs. Look, the law - I don't know which one but I'm sure some constable will fill us in on it - says that there should be no obstructions to the front windscreen except for your tax disc. So rule one is find a vehicle where this big piece of plastic idiot controlling device can sit where it does not obscure your view. Then you have to go back eons to the first few responses to this thread when someone said "What is the hazard you are trying to control?". Remember 5 Steps to R.A. If you are using a machine, no matter how familiar the process, anything which distracts your attention away from using that machine is a risk. O.K. Then you go through Elimination-separation- ... come on guys, if this lands on your desk you cannot condone it however much of a good toy it is. Even if you sent people on a training course to teach them only to operate it or look at the display when they were 'not in control of the vehicle' i.e. parked and switched off, you still could not enforce that rule or review its use. Best bet is to tell your company not to supply them in company cars but give all the staff one as a Christmas present.
Admin  
#23 Posted : 20 November 2006 21:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Brett Day With all due respect Phil, what on earth are you going on about ? A driver juggling maps/a multimap printout or looking at the map rather than the road is just as much a danger as an idiot using a sat nav. Assuming that the original posters drivers are using maps then what is the safer alternative? As for the company giving sat navs as presents - bit of a slight of hand in bucking the duty of care ? It is an offence to obscure any part of the screen that the wiper blades clear OR any other part of the screen that a driver requires to have clear forward vision. As for legislative requirements we have the the Road Traffic Act, it also comes under the MoT test standard.
Admin  
#24 Posted : 20 November 2006 21:33:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Brett Day PS, not a constable but am a Police Class 1 driver, so I know a few things about driving.
Admin  
#25 Posted : 20 November 2006 22:59:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Tony Brunskill Perhaps we should stop Pilots using them as well. Back to dead reckoning..... They are efficient when compared to maps. They are less obtrusive than a rear view mirror when fitted correctly. They reduce the likelihood of stopping and causing another risk to other road users. They are no more distracting than having a passenger tell you where to go. AND they are right most of the time unlike my wife with a map!! Anyway at 70 mph on the M1 I should not be typing this into my PDA. Regards Tony
Admin  
#26 Posted : 21 November 2006 02:41:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Brett Day Tony I nearly choked on my coffee when I read your post. You're a bad man !!
Admin  
#27 Posted : 21 November 2006 14:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jez Corfield Phil McC Judging by the number of well reasoned responses generated, this thread is perfectly reasonable, and not 'boys-own' stuff as you describe, and if you dont like the subject matter, well, you always have the choice of taking your 'criticism' elsewhere... However, my thoughts, initially, would mirror yours though, its a distraction, the best way to prevent that distraction is to just not have it, however the world isnt as simple a place as you seem to think. Sometimes we have to pick the lesser of two evils - I know our staff will read maps off their knees, I cant stop them from doing this (can you?), but I can reduce the risk by replacing the map with something more suitable and safer, I am now of the belief that a well managed sat-nav system is better than fumbling around for a road atlas stuck under the passenger seat, or 3 print-outs from multimap taped to the dashboard. Jez
Admin  
#28 Posted : 21 November 2006 15:17:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By GSP i would much rather rest a conventional map between my knees and the steering wheel any day of the week
Admin  
#29 Posted : 21 November 2006 15:29:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By David Bannister GSP - what then do I do with my BigMac&Fries&Coke? Phil McC - chill out, it's for chat!
Admin  
#30 Posted : 21 November 2006 16:00:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Tony Brunskill Brett, Hope that coffee was cool. Am I liable? Regards Tony
Admin  
#31 Posted : 21 November 2006 16:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Brian John Abbs I recently read an article in the MCN about the development of the "A pillar" in cars and how it creates a massive blind spot. http://www.nu-riskservic...594874212694732327_1.htm Think how big the blind spot gets if you place a sat nav screen on the dashboard next to it. When we discuss "safe" in respect of vehicles we don't just mean for the occupants. As a motorcyclist I've had many a discussion with car drivers who describe bikes as dangerous, yet can't get their heads around the fact that cars kill many more people than bikes. The same type of thinking is doen by Chelsea tractor drivers whom (wrongly) assume that the occupants are well protected, and that the safety of other road users (including pedestrians) is not part of the equation. Looking at the classic H+S risk formula of P*S=R for the use of Sat navs v. maps, how does one calculate the P value for sat nav or maps? Are Sat navs more distracting than maps? Are either designed to be operated while moving. Does one create a blind spot larger than the other? Can either fit into the line of site of the driver without them taking their eyes of the road or causing move their head to an excessive degree? That's just four factors, an in depth analysis will raise a lot more. This requires the work of a better safety engineer than I. As I've made a start does anyone else care to add?
Admin  
#32 Posted : 21 November 2006 16:36:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Richie Jez, You may be able to find this research, by enquiry, from Privilege insurance. It might prove worth your while asking anyway. Privilege have definitely undertaken research into safety aspects of Sat-Nav systems, and have drawn conclusions arising from their research findings. They conclude these systems are a distraction. I read the story in a motoring magazine, however I cannot remember which one! Richie
Admin  
#33 Posted : 21 November 2006 19:35:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Brett Day In California it is an offence full stop to mount a sat nav on the windscreen, that is why many US specced units come with a disk to attach to the dash, likewise if an officer is of the opinion that it is in the way of the drivers view it is also an offence. My mounting point is just below my speedo (which is centrally mounted) so no interference of vision there (though did spend half an hour playing about with it) I tend to listen to the voice rather than read it, at most it gets a quick glance when I do an 'instrument check'. Though am worried that these units are not sited properly hence my previous comments about if the company issues them they should look at how they are being used. As for SMIDSY's (Sorry Mate I Didn't See You) 'accidents' What Car also did a few good articles on the relationship between the improvements in crash worthiness of cars and obstruction of vision by the 'A' Pillar. This would tie in with the latest report from the DfT that the biggest accident cause based on the 2005 stats was "Failed to look properly" (32%). If we have cars that whilst strong and crash worthy are impeding vision to the extent that it is a contributory factor and we then have the driver adding sat navs and phones to the mix. it can only reduce vision. Moral, site the thing properly so it DOESN'T obscure vision. As an aside Volvo played around with a concept car with two 'mini' roll bars with a transparent section between them to solve the balance of crash worthiness and vision reduction.
Admin  
#34 Posted : 21 November 2006 19:38:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Brett Day Tony Coffee was straight out of the perculator, will be seeking legal advice, the 'Stella' claim is in the post !! LOL.
Admin  
#35 Posted : 22 November 2006 09:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By J Knight Brian, You've made a good start, but you have to factor in drivers using neither in fast moving, unfamiliar and therefore stressful situations. I don't try and look at a map while driving, as its so obviously dangerous, so am forced to rely on road-side signage. This creates stress and diminished concentration which is a hazard (as I've already gone into ad nauseam above). I envisage using GPS as a voice only prompt, as Brett describes; trying to use one as a surrogate map probably wouldn't be that safe, John
Admin  
#36 Posted : 22 November 2006 13:18:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Tabs Am I missing something? Where are people putting these things to obscure useful vision? I drive a large car with a large satnav on the dashboard, and the only thing it significantly obstructs is the view of my left washer nozzle and some bonnet. Anyone doubting the satnav's contribution to road safety should go and try finding somewhere in Leicester city centre (the worst city for signage and lane changes in the world I think)(unless they changed it recently). Then see where your eyes are... satnav allows more concentration on driving in my opinion (ex-motorcyle advanced instructor).
Admin  
#37 Posted : 22 November 2006 13:24:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By J Knight Tabs, People stick 'em on the windscreen, or on the dashboard with a high mount so they sit in front of yer winder, John
Admin  
#38 Posted : 22 November 2006 13:41:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By peter gotch The findings of Privilege Insurance assessment are readily found via Google search. Regards, Peter
Admin  
#39 Posted : 22 November 2006 14:08:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Merv Newman Ive been a regular long-distance driver for about 20 years. And have said many times that the most stressful and dangerous part of the job is finding your hotel and then the site you are visiting. There are just so many distractions on that last mile or two of the journey that, even though there has never been an accident, I am certain that I have given one or two other road users a heart attack. Sunday I went to a city I had never visited before. The PDA was programmed with the hotel's postal address. Straight there. Next morning plugged in the site address. Straight there. No worries, no stress, no distractions. And I don't think I upset anyone else by erratic driving. Came back this morning. Got our home location from the memory, closed my eyes and let it go (bit exaggerated that) The thing (called "daft bat" for conversational purposes) sits to one side of the steering wheel, does not obscure the windscreen and gives great voice. A one second glance can show the shape of the road coming up or the time-on-target. I think they are great and, if used properly, will improve safety and reduce accidents. Merv
Admin  
#40 Posted : 22 November 2006 14:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Brett Day Ok so what does the survey prove, it would seem to me that it proves that a map is a greater potential distraction - 1 in 4 looking at the map rather than the road as opposed to 1 in 10 looking at the sat nav rather than the road. Again it come back to what I said in an earlier post, the idiot behind the wheel. The Privilege report talks about pre journey planning before driving off, it's second nature to me. I always look at the sat nav the night before or call it up on multimap just to get a 'feel' for the route again bearing in mind that neither maps nor sat nav are 100% accurate. I would also like to see the question set that was used to generate these stats, what was the control, the weighting, were maps covered as much as sat nav. I think are sat navs good or bad is misleading, I would go with can they be used safely? Do they introduce any additional hazards? Is there a requirement for specialist fitting to negate hazards? Is there a requirement for training on it's use. Had a chat with my Class 1 instructor about sat nav, he now has a module to teach on the use of sat nav systems to the pursuit and arv drivers he trains he also runs this module for the local ambulance service. So it would seem that emergency services feel there is a benefit to these systems when used correctly.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (3)
2 Pages12>
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.