Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Francis E S Hone I got this answer when i asked about the latest developments on driving whilst using a mobile hands free kit. We have a policy on the use of mobile phones which covers the situation -- the use of hands free systems is permitted and unless legislation changes I see no reason to amend our policy. What should we be doing my advice is find a safe place pull over and deal with the call whilst stationary. am i right or wrong for more info go to http://www.guardian.co.u...00.html#article_continue
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian_P
I think you're right, legally you are allowed to use hands free kits however best practice is to turn off the phone and deal with phone calls when you have completed your journey. If this is not possible (although it almost always is) then, as you say, pull over to a safe place and take the call.
We are currently changing our policy to this effect but, as it sounds with your case, it is not easy pursuading people - especailly directors!!
The reason I am changing our policy is that the police have said (can't find the quote at the moment, will look) that in the event of an accident they will look into phone records. If it is found that someone was using a phone - even with a hands free kit - this could be regarded as a contributory, distractive factor and the person could be held liable.
Advise of road safety groups such as brake etc. is not to use hands free kits, and put phones onto voice mail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Lee Mac
Yes there is nothing in current legislation re: handsfree.
Ian if you can get your hands on that info re police tracing calls registers would you pass it on as I find this interesting.
I have concerns re this though, if the Police are going to use this as a way of proving contributory neg, are the Police then going to take the same view if passengers are on board- amounting to the same-conversation= distraction??
Lee
Just a
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian_P
...the reason given by the police is that using the phone (even if hands free) can be a caused for "driving without due care" or even dangerous driving.
Quote from the new highway code:
"Using hands-free equipment is also likely to distract your attention from the road. It is far safer not to use any telephone while you are driving or riding - find a safe place to stop first or use the voicemail facility and listen to messages later."
Although guidance, and not law, the highway code can be cited as to what is generaly accepted as driving with due care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By FJ
Is there a way you can show them the research from universities both in Scandinavia (where mobiles are even more common than here) and Australia(?) which show that the accident rates are identical for each- if we have a duty of care and are aware of something which increases by 4 times the likelihood of an accident don't we have an obligation to at least point it out. Do you know the cost of motor accidents for your firm- Is the proven increase something they'd like to save?
No our "advice" is not always popular but that does not mean we can stop giving it- maybe we need to look at how we present the info/fit it in with what people can relate to/understand...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Lee Mac
Thanks Ian,
Food for thought!!
Much Appreciated,
Lee
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Duell
I'm in the middle of enforcing a new "no mobiles while driving even if handsfree" policy at the moment. Without going into detail about where I work, most of the calls our people take are pretty distressing stuff about nasty things happening to people - not just run-of-the-mill arranging meetings or whatever.
The people concerned have already flagged up that they believe that occupational driving is their biggest risk area, and that the phone calls they take require a high degree of concentration. Yet they STILL insist that "no mobiles" is totally unworkable.
Sorry, not a very practical post, just having a Tuesday-morning gripe!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Colin Reeves
At the risk of getting my wrist slapped over AUG 1, this thread brings up a number of questions. Essentially are the following causes of contributory factors in driving without due care:
1. use of mobile phones, non-hands free (illegal)
2. Use of mobile phones, hands-free (legal)
3. Talking to a passenger (legal)
4. Lighting a cigarette (legal in non-company cars, whether driving for business or not)
5. Eating
6. Drinking, soft drinks of course!
7. Retuning the radio
8. Putting in a CD or cassette (some of us cannot afford these new fangled CD thingies!)
9. Changing gear ......
10. Getting change out of pocket for toll-bridge
etc
...... discuss!
Colin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Francis E S Hone
Thanks all for your veiws interesting stuff i can only advise if that advice is not taken Who will be responsible if an accident does occur
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
Just a thought for all you family men!
What can be more distracting than bored children in the back of the car on a long journey? When they start to argue, scream or fight, do we immediately pull over on to the hard shoulder on the motorway to resolve the problem? Should we be fitting sound-proof screens so that what happens on the back seat does not distract us?
What about that extremely noisy sound system that can be heard several car lengths away. How will the police know if this could have contributed to an accident?
I find that being able to contact my client to say that I am stationary in a traffic jam on the motorway and will be late for the appointment actually reduces the stress and probably therefore makes me a safer driver. If I have a stroppy person on the other end of the phone I can always terminate the call - something I cannot usually do with a stroppy passenger next to me.
I think it would help if we could keep a sense of proportion in this debate, something that I find is often missing when it comes to mobile phones.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David J Jones
To add to Colin's list -
Let's ban people from driving if they are prone to sneezing - those with hay fever or similar allergies, those who are suffering a cold and so forth - why?
Try sneezing and keeping your eyes open at the same time! Doesn't work as a sneeze causes a reflex closing of the eyes, great at 60 mph on a motorway (or any road come to that!). In two seconds you will have travelled 288 metres totally blind!
So yes, I agree with Chris, a sense of proportion needs to be kept.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alison Wright Reid The Department for Transport's advice is at http://www.thinkroadsafe.../advice/mobilephones.htm It includes the bit about checking phone records "If you drive badly and a police officer suspects you have been using your phone he can stop you and seek a reason for the poor driving. If it goes to court, your phone records can be checked to determine whether you were using your phone." The simple fact is that driving while using any type of mobile phone is more dangerous than driving drunk - this is because the brain focuses on the call and ignores sensory input from the eyes. In the simulator studies, the drunks wandered around the road, but reacted in time to the movement of other vehicles. The drivers yacking on the phone just drove into other road users without seeing them. The guidance leaflet makes the point that an employer can be prosecuted if he requires employees to make or receive calls while driving. We have changed our rule to forbid driving while using any mobile phone. Staff are allowed to drive with the phone on, but must park before checking or returning missed calls. I suggest this is a workable system, and one that can be made more workable by simple governance checks - eg phoning staff. Alison
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Bannister
For most of us driving is the most dangerous activity we do, even if we are scaffolders, offshore workers or quarrymen and we are more likely to hurt or die through use of our cars than through exposure to other workplace hazards. Look at the statistics on road deaths compared to RIDDOR deaths.
Anything that distracts us from the driving task increases the danger. Just because we all do it every day does not mean it is easy to do well. Whilst unwrapping a sweetie, scratching our anatomy or tuning the radio can be done with a small part of our brain, those activities that need greater concentration eg telephone conversation will reduce our attention on the danger, thus increasing the risk to ourselves and others.
When driving, stick to driving! If any business insists that it is essential for employees to communicate whilst driving then in my opinion they are wrong and should change their work methods. I believe the courts would take a very dim view of this.
Just for the record, I consider myself an average driver, certainly no saint but better than significant numbers. I first used a car phone in 1992 and felt uneasy about using it whilst on the move, but my employer felt that the clients would need to have me constantly available - nonsense of course!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Lilian McCartney
With regard to drinking while driving.
Wasn't there a case where someone was at traffic lights and drank from a water bottle and they were charged? (last year sometime??)
Lilian
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Colin Reeves
Yes, and another chomping on an apple.
From recollection they were fixed penalty notices rather than court cases and, again if I recall correctly, quashed.
Colin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
On the basis of what has been posted, presumably a police officer on his own in a motor vehicle would not be able to use his communications systems, even if they were hands-free, unless his vehicle was stationary!
Whilst on the subject of electronic systems and distraction, why is all the emphasis on mobile phones? They are just one item. What about satellite navigtation systems? You often see them mounted on the dashboard with the screen on. Presumably the user will consult the screen, thus diverting his eyes from the road, something he or she will not need to do in a phone conversation. I haven't read anything about these in the media recently, or have I been missing something?
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Colin Reeves
Ahhh, but the Police do not have to obey normal rules viz occurences of parking on double yellow lines for speed cameras, using disabled bays etc.
Colin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
Colin
Not about parking on double yellow lines etc. but when the vehicle is in motion. Would a police officer be prosecuted in the event of an accident for using his hands-free system when driving (of course excluding when he is on an emergency)? If not, then why not, since it could be argued that, like the rest of us, he was driving without due care and attention?
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Bannister
Chris, without any evidence other than my perceptions, police drivers seem to be involved in many motoring accidents. Why?
SatNav systems are distracting, but not nearly as much as having a telephone conversation. The lovely lady in my satnav does not expect a sensible answer and even corrects me when I make an error in navigation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
I wasn't concerned about the lady in your SatNav. My lady in my TrafficMaster doesn't distract me either. What concerns me is the screen that is often placed either on the dashboard or attached to the windscreen. I feel that this must be a distraction to the driver. If he or she doesn't look at the screen why have it on at all? If they do, are that then also looking at the road ahead?
If I were to consult a map whilst driving I would certainly be committing an offence, so why should consulting an electronic map be any different?
Incidentally I have had a mobile phone in my car - always hands-free - from the mid 1980s and have never felt that a conversation on the phone has distracted me from my driving. But two young children arguing in the back certainly did.
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Having watched the laboratory tests that were used to determine if hands free was dangerous I am not surprised that they achieved the results given. Highly complex questions were posed and the driver was not permitted to ignore the information no matter what road conditions were presented in the simulator.
It is often called devising the experiment to achieve the result desired. It told me that unrealistic testing is used to justify pre determined ideas and certainly makes me highly sceptical about the claims. If it was so dangerous why do the police, as pointed out above, continue to use hands free themselves.
There is an onus on both drivers to terminate calls if necessary and also on the caller to ensure that it is appropriate information to the driver realising that driving is taking place. If the driver refuses to answer then that is the decision that is necessary at that time.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Murgatroyd
If you are using your hands on the satnav gear, that is covered by the same legislation.
Further, you do N O T have to have the map on....you can either turn the display off and go by the audio directions or turn the thing around so you cannot see it......it's the simple things that make life easy. I just set mine so the display switches off when the speed gets higher than 5 mph....and the audio guides me...and tells me when speed cam locations are near....
How hard do you have to make life ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andrew Lochlyn Ure
Quite right John ... and when we're(excuse the play on words) talking 'handsfree' is that the same as a car configured for a GSM telephone as in plug it into the centre consol and control through the steering wheel? And if you have a car that will respond to a voice control system, if you bark at it loud enough, and thus control SatNav, CD and telephone then where does that leave us with this argument? I can't believe that you can buy a vast number of cars with a built-in telephone that responds through the sound system in the vehicle for it to be illegal. Perhaps a friendly cop (and I know a very high-ranking occifer wiv just a set up in his large SUV) oblige?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Murgatroyd
At the end of the day, it's about safety. If you have to take your hands off the steering wheel to answer the phone, press DONE on the satnav or press GET LOST on the trafficmaster then your driving safety will suffer.
With the proliferation of roadside furniture, and the surety that it wil become more dense as time goes by (almost as dense as the local-gov deskjockeys that think it matters), you just cannot afford anything that takes your attention away from things that DO matter. Connecting to the front of an oncoming hgv because you HAVE to answer the phone IS going to ruin your day.
Are you driving ?
Turn the phone off.
If you kill someone because your phone is important to you, you will have many years [in prison] to consider the meaning of: IMPORTANT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete48
The DOT webpage mentioned above has the following at para 9
"The requirement for an employer to assess risks applies to employees driving at-work. Employers therefore need to consider the risks associated with using a phone while driving. They should not ask their staff to make or receive calls while driving. Employers could be liable to prosecution if they require or allow employees to use a mobile phone while driving for work. Remember that all phones affect concentration. Using one could put employees driving at-work, and others, at risk."
Allowing yourself to be distracted by anything whilst driving could result in a prosecution for not having proper control.
The "askthepolice" website also clearly includes the use of handsfree phones as one possible source of distraction. You could face either a fixed penalty and/or more serious prosecution. Remember it is only because of enforcement issues that it was not made illegal to use hands free. If there is an accident, the police will consider it as evidence of distraction.
Does this really need any further discussion?
Preferably phone off/voice mail on. But if you really cannot live without being "in touch", then voice mail/text on. Stop when safe to do so and check the message. In my experince it is rare not to be able to stop safely within a couple of minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sean Fraser
the argument often put forward about squabbling children is always poor.
Firstly, you don't NEED to take the call. In fact, you don't NEED to have teh thing on at all. You can always check messages at your scheduled rest breaks.
Secondly, if you are using the phone in your hand you do not have total control of the vehilce. Unless you are strangling the little tykes at the time, you don't need to have your hands off the wheel. Granted, if you are turning round to shout at them then you have eyes off the road, but an intelligent person would pull over before adminsitering a bit of verbal discipline.
Lastly, if you plan your journey right, you should be travelling in the evening and at night. slightly more risk due to lack of natural light, but easier to compensate for. This reduces the amount of time they have to get bored and kick off.
All of which are simple ways to reduce or even eliminate the potency of the hazard.
It's all to do with risk. If you can't see that, then how good a job can you be doing for your employer or client?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Francis E S Hone
Thanks all for your response's kicked off a bit of a debate I think. So I will stick with my original advice and add a little (turn off for the journey) and find a safe place to stop and check your messages if necessary
Thanks guys
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.