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.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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

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.

Posted By Brett Day

PS, not a constable but am a Police Class 1 driver, so I know a few things about driving.

Posted By Brett Day

Tony

I nearly choked on my coffee when I read your post.

You're a bad man !!

Posted By GSP
i would much rather rest a conventional map between my knees and the steering wheel any day of the week

Posted By Tony Brunskill
Brett,

Hope that coffee was cool. Am I liable?

Regards

Tony

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

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.

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).

Posted By peter gotch
The findings of Privilege Insurance assessment are readily found via Google search.

Regards, Peter

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.