Originally Posted by: RayRapp

There was something which was missed - the last sentence copied and pasted below does not quantify whether the driving performance is impaired more using a hand-held or hands-free phone or both. I would take an educated guess at hand-held.

' It is concluded that driving behaviour is impaired more during a phone conversation than by having a blood alcohol level at the UK legal limit (80mg / 100ml). (A)' 

Ray,

It essentially said that people using handsfree drive better than those using handheld and that people who are drunk drive better than both. The problem with this is that:

a) They weren't drunk. They'd had the equivalent of a glass of wine

b) Many studies and reports have shown that small amounts of alcohol (like say, a glass of wine) can improve concentration, focus and problem solving skills.

c) It was in a simulator, not the real world.

d) It involved only 20 people.

I'm still to see a solid argument for banning handsfree.

Edited by user 19 April 2017 12:50:14(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Perhaps to put this issue in context, herein is my list of things that some drivers do whilst driving that either are, or have the real potential to be, distracting:

Holding an intense conversation with a passenger, usually with short periods of looking at them

Putting on make-up (I kid you not)

Consulting a road atlas for directions

Eating breakfast/lunch/dinner/snack

Programming a satnav

Reading a newspaper/magazine

Talking to and looking at rear seat passengers

Retrieving something from the passenger footwell or behind the seat

Programming the radio or changing CDs in the stereo

Searching for something in the glove compartment

Looking at or sending/receiving message on a laptop or tablet

Sending or looking at received text messages

Talking on a mobile phone, either held or hands free

Irrespective of what the law says or does not say, or what research can or cannot be trawled and under what conditions such research was carried out, I would consider it self-evident that the above activities, which are often carried out whilst driving, are a real or potential distraction, and should not be done if driving is to be carried out with a reliable degree of safety. That some people do them is no defence. That they do not result in an actual accident every time they are carried out is no justification (more luck than judgment?). That some people regard them as 'common practice' is no defence. That some people will seek to justify such activities because it fits in with their lifestyle is no defence. Safety professionals will apply such considerations in the workplace, but some seem to think these principles don't apply out in the wide world. I do find this curious.

To ask for conclusive research to say if something is dangerous is missing the point. Most of us were born with common sense, but some people seem to have lost touch with it.

Originally Posted by: biker1

Perhaps to put this issue in context, herein is my list of things that some drivers do whilst driving that either are, or have the real potential to be, distracting:

Holding an intense conversation with a passenger, usually with short periods of looking at them

Putting on make-up (I kid you not)

Consulting a road atlas for directions

Eating breakfast/lunch/dinner/snack

Programming a satnav

Reading a newspaper/magazine

Talking to and looking at rear seat passengers

Retrieving something from the passenger footwell or behind the seat

Programming the radio or changing CDs in the stereo

Searching for something in the glove compartment

Looking at or sending/receiving message on a laptop or tablet

Sending or looking at received text messages

Talking on a mobile phone, either held or hands free

Irrespective of what the law says or does not say, or what research can or cannot be trawled and under what conditions such research was carried out, I would consider it self-evident that the above activities, which are often carried out whilst driving, are a real or potential distraction, and should not be done if driving is to be carried out with a reliable degree of safety. That some people do them is no defence. That they do not result in an actual accident every time they are carried out is no justification (more luck than judgment?). That some people regard them as 'common practice' is no defence. That some people will seek to justify such activities because it fits in with their lifestyle is no defence. Safety professionals will apply such considerations in the workplace, but some seem to think these principles don't apply out in the wide world. I do find this curious.

To ask for conclusive research to say if something is dangerous is missing the point. Most of us were born with common sense, but some people seem to have lost touch with it.

I think you may have sliughtly missed the point of what i was saying. To clarify, i do not feel that the use of handsfree presents such a level of risk that they should be banned in the workplace. I have come to this conclusion based on the following:

- The tiny number of accidents directly attributed to handsfree use when compared to the number of times it is used. Handsfree is used literally BILLIONS of times a year with what, one serious accident per year directly linked to it? What else in the workplace has that sort of safety performance?

- The number of cars on the road (and therefore the number of handsfree kits) is increasing year on year whilst the number of accidents is decreasing year on year. If handsfree kits did indeed make you 4x more likely to crash, given the sheer number of them out there and the billions of calls made every year, surely this should translate into increasing accident rates?

- The only in-depth, large scale, real world study that anyboy has managed to provide (link provided on an earlier post) conclusively found that talking handsfree did NOT result in more accidents occuring. Every other report which has been put forward on this thread (and the last) has been undertaken on tiny groups of people using simulators or has been a link to a ROSPA/AA/RAC website cherry picking quotes and stats from these simulated reports.

I'm not asking "for conclusive research to say if something is dangerous" and i'm certainly not "missing the point". What i am asking for is conclusive proof, or even some half decent evidence to support people's stance that handsfree use is dangerous becuase so far, all the stats and studies (proper studies) show it to be safe.

Trying to deduce whether something is safe or not from accident statistics can be fraught with problems. If the number of near misses could be brought into the equation, we might have a clearer picture. At work, we can record these; on the road, they are never recorded, so all the close escapes encountered on a day to day basis remain an unquantified factor, and we have to fall back on anecdotal evidence on a personal basis. As safety professionals, we appreciate the links between accidents and near misses, but this cannot be shown for driving for the reasons above, so simply citing low accident rates is misleading (not that I am convinced they are falling either).

If all the drivers on the road were highly trained and highly skilled, then the argument for allowing distractions such as mobiles might look better, but unfortunately this is not the case and driving standards are deteriorating, not helped by the lack of enforcement due to cutbacks in police resources. I don't think car manuafacturers would invest huge sums of money into developing and installing the myriad of safety features in modern cars were this not the case. Why would they spend so much on protecting drivers if accident rates were falling?  Insurance companies now increase premiums on an annual basis, making no claims discounts somewhat pointless, why would this be? (the answer of course is the increasing costs of personal injury claims).

I note that Stern cherry picks which of my points he addresses, and seems fixated on defending something that common sense would surely suggest is not the best of ideas, continually demanding proof from research or accident statistics. Whilst using a mobile phone is the subject matter of this thread, all the other distractions I listed are also relevant to driving standards, and we are in danger of focusing on one issue and ignoring all the others. I would repeat my point from earlier that there are too many distractions available to drivers, and a contrast can be drawn with riding a motorcycle (or bicycle), when such distractions are not available and more focus is therefore on actually riding. Whilst it would seem over the top and oppressive to insist on removing all gadgets from cars, including mobile phones, there is an argument for doing so until such time as the training and skill levels of drivers are vastly improved (and I'm not holding my breath on that one).

Edited by user 20 April 2017 10:20:47(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Originally Posted by: jwk

Increasing insurance premiums suggest that the number of accidents per car is either not changing much, or is increasing, or the insurance companies are fleecing us ;-).

It was noted on breakfast TV the other day that average car insurance has been going up and stands at about £700, but will soon be over £1,000. This was because of all the fancy gadgets / sensors etc in the cars that get written off so cost of repairs / replacement vehicles has increased.

So not necessarily due to increasing or decreasing numbers of accidents.

Originally Posted by: biker1

Trying to deduce whether something is safe or not from accident statistics can be fraught with problems. If the number of near misses could be brought into the equation, we might have a clearer picture. At work, we can record these; on the road, they are never recorded, so all the close escapes encountered on a day to day basis remain an unquantified factor, and we have to fall back on anecdotal evidence on a personal basis. As safety professionals, we appreciate the links between accidents and near misses, but this cannot be shown for driving for the reasons above, so simply citing low accident rates is misleading (not that I am convinced they are falling either).

If all the drivers on the road were highly trained and highly skilled, then the argument for allowing distractions such as mobiles might look better, but unfortunately this is not the case and driving standards are deteriorating, not helped by the lack of enforcement due to cutbacks in police resources. I don't think car manuafacturers would invest huge sums of money into developing and installing the myriad of safety features in modern cars were this not the case. Why would they spend so much on protecting drivers if accident rates were falling?  Insurance companies now increase premiums on an annual basis, making no claims discounts somewhat pointless, why would this be? (the answer of course is the increasing costs of personal injury claims).

I note that Stern cherry picks which of my points he addresses, and seems fixated on defending something that common sense would surely suggest is not the best of ideas, continually demanding proof from research or accident statistics. Whilst using a mobile phone is the subject matter of this thread, all the other distractions I listed are also relevant to driving standards, and we are in danger of focusing on one issue and ignoring all the others. I would repeat my point from earlier that there are too many distractions available to drivers, and a contrast can be drawn with riding a motorcycle (or bicycle), when such distractions are not available and more focus is therefore on actually riding. Whilst it would seem over the top and oppressive to insist on removing all gadgets from cars, including mobile phones, there is an argument for doing so until such time as the training and skill levels of drivers are vastly improved (and I'm not holding my breath on that one).

Biker1,

You say i am cherry picking? What exactly do you feel i haven't addressed? As i've said on my previous posts, handling a phone whilst driving (fiddling with the nav, texting, opening up an address book and all the other things you can do with a phone) is obviusly dangerous. This is, as you say, "common sense" and is something which the study i posted identified as being dangerous. A

Talking to passengers, adjusting the radio and other distractions have also been shown (albiet in small scale simulated studies) have also shown to be as, or more, distracting than using handsfree. This is something i've also talked about so again, what do you feel i haven't addressed?

I also find it odd that you turn your nose up at me for turning to such novelties as facts, statistics and in-depth studies when deciding on company policy, rather than just relying on what you would consider to be common sense. As a H&S professional it's not my job to just ban everything which may cause an accident. It's my job to research the area and to use the information acquired to introduce sensible control measures to reduce the level of risk to as low as reasonably practicable.

Edited by user 20 April 2017 16:42:19(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Biker1 - maybe not the motorcyclists as much but pedal cyclists round my parts can often be seen "hands free" of their handlbars whilst updating their status on social media.. "I am riding to town, on the high street, lamp post coming up.. call me an ambulance".

They aren't in a flow of traffic and ideally could dismount for those absolutely essential feeds instead if you to try and extend their gene pool by pointing out the error of their ways you could end up waiting to have their foot print removed from the cars door panel.

We just have switch your phone off in the car, there is nothing so important that could kill you or someone else. It is hard to monitor but if they are in an accident and proven they are on the phone they are also disnissed from the job.

I have also always switched my private phone off even when I am not working to set a good example for my kids.

Originally Posted by: biker1

Stern - I suggest you read my posts again. I don't intend to keep repeating myself. I know from reading your posts how annoying this can be.

Chris42 - yes, you can certainly get radio intercoms to use on motorbikes. However, they are almost unusable in practice. Poor reception, interference from local taxi firms, and inaudible at anything over 30mph due to wind noise unless the volume is turned up to deafening levels. And, dare I say it, an unwelcome distraction.

Roundtuit - I liked your description of the cyclist's commentary. Yes, this does unfortunately happen sometimes. One young guy went past me on a cycle recently obviously transfixed by his phone, and crossed a car park entrance totally oblivious to anyone else. The riding gear needed would make this impossible for a motorbike. I do find the modern fixation with mobiles extremely annoying, it seems that so many people can't exist without fiddling with their phones constantly, rather than engaging with the real world, which I think is part of the problem with mobiles regarding distractions, but moving on.........

HaHa yes as well as taxi companies, when having to do my CBT (after riding a motorbike on the road for 5 years on my car licence) and after the initial, prove I can drive around cones and pull up without falling off the bike (one very short young lady couldn’t – hysterical to watch). When we went out I found interference from baby monitors were the worst. “please take the next turning on the googoo” eh?

Originally Posted by: Bob Hansler

For information folks.

If anyone hurts any of my family whilst on the phone, hands-free or otherwise I for one will act.  Risk Assess that!  And  I won't be worried about who thinks what either.  

Would you feel just as strongly if the driver was having a conversation or adjusting the radio? 

Hey, sorry to wade in.

But Stern, that real world study you've been quoting also says more than you've been saying.  In the abstract alone:

'Visual-manual (VM) subtasks performed on an HH cell phone, however, were associated with an increased SCE risk. HH cell phone use in general was thus found to be associated with an increased SCE risk. In contrast, PHF and IHF cell phone use, absent of any VM HH cell phone subtasks, were not found to be associated with an increased SCE risk. However, VM HH cell phone subtasks were frequently observed during hands-free cell phone use.'

In more detail, it says that actions involved with using a phone made its overall use 1.73 times more risky.  

On both hand held and integrated hands-free equipment there will inevitably be times when they cause eyes off the road.  In point of fact, they quantify it - hands-free and in-vehicle hands-free cell phone use was found to involve visual-manual tasks at least 50 percent of the time.

So whilst the talking bit didn't statistically increase risk, other associated actions did.

Does that mean a ban?  Possibly not.  But the study you quote DOES show a real world increase in risk. Insert your definition of reasonably practicable here.

In the interests of balance, here are some recent incidents whichinvolved distractions from radios, CD players and similar...

20 year old passenger killed by speeding driver changing radio station

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2313348/Teenage-drink-driver-Joseph-Salah-Eldin-killed-friend-Norfolk-crash-played-stereo.html

Driver kills three people whilst changing radio station

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/death-crash-driver-was-tuning-1024709

Four people killed by lorry driver changing music on phone

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3889596/Polish-lorry-driver-30-killed-mother-three-children-scrolling-mobile-phone-change-music-jailed-ten-years.html

Those are all page one on Google. So again, why no calls to ban radios/music players in cars? 

Edited by user 24 April 2017 10:22:20(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Originally Posted by: Xavier123

Was aiming for rhetorical reasonably practicable insertion as opposed to laying down a challenge. ;)

For some, the demonstrable increase in risk from non-talking hands-free may be too much.  For others, not so much.

Tis a mildly curious policy.  On one hand, accepting hands-free is acceptable. On the other, suggesting you could be prosecuted if you use it post accident, and finding as many ways of reducing its use as possible.

I'm not saying I've got a better one of course...just that there is a seeming contradiction.  I personally think there is a valid point made around other equivalent distraction events whilst driving so such a contradiction is probably unavoidable given the variety of opinion demonstrated here alone combined with the lack of clear guidance/steer from our overlords.  You probably don't have an equivalent policy making passengers responsible for changing radio stations...no-one does!

Just musing to myself, there is a legal point here though is there not?  If taking a personal call or turning on the radio, then this is not a work-related activity.  Nor part of a business' undertaking.  If taking a work call etc., then it is.  Work activities will be responsible for the distraction, regardless of the level or impact of that distraction.

So whilst some distractions may be equal in impact...their origin may not be, legally speaking, if examined after an incident.  The 'incident' probably won't be great either way for all involved...

I don't think our policy is contradictory or curious at all. In fact, thinking back to the original thread which was closed, others had very similar policies. It is a policy which i have inherited and which i also worked under at my previous emplpoyer so not that uncommon.

We are not "sugegesting" to our staff that they could be prosecuted for using handsfree, we are telling our staff that you could. We all know that if a court of law deems you were distracted when you crashed then you could be prosecuted for careless or dangerous driving. This distraction could be anything from talking to a passenger, changing the radio station, adjusting the AC or using handsfree. All perfectly legal on their own but, if they were found to be the cause of an accident, then they would be used against you.

My point is, and always has been, that why is handsfree being singled out when it is, in reality, extremely safe and useful when there are other distractions out there which present a similar degree of risk yet offer no benefit to a business, such as car radios and CD players?

Originally Posted by: Bob Hansler

To whom it may concern:

As I said... but will add... re Stern... is it involves driving without due care an attention the answer is yes.

I'm not sorry if that offends.  It is what it is.

Bob, if anyone hurt my family i would feel exactly the same way, as would most people i'm sure. Not sure why anyone would be offended by your comment.

I was just wondering if you would feel as upset with someone if they crashed whilst adjusting the radio as you would if they were talking on their handsfree? Just seems like to many people handsfree is the devil whilst other similarly hazardous distractions, such as chaning the radio station, seem almost socially acceptable to many people.

David

Thanks for the link which confirms what most people already know - talking on a mobile phone can be a distraction. Interesting to note the comparison with a conversation with a passenger which is a bit of a generalisation. There are of course many other distractions including a car radio. On the Richter scale I wonder how distracting a car radio is given the cognitive process?

Originally Posted by: DavidGault

You may find this link useful http://www.sussex.ac.uk/broadcast/read/35831 It talks about how hands free phones are pretty much as dangerous as handheld devices.

Another study undertaken in a simulator it should be noted....

The study Stern linked to is pretty comprehensive and he's right to flag the lack of equivalence to small simulator studies.  The only real lack of comparability is that its US and not UK but we all still drive cars in the Western world.  The study was pretty full on - 4 video cameras in each car, log of phone calls/messages, assessment by third party of footage during calls, records of accelerometers, reaction times etc.  Pretty good.

However, as before, hands free use for many will inevitably lead to some eyes off road time and increase risk.  The study makes that clear.  Therefore use of hands free will likely increase risk for many.

Originally Posted by: Stern

Originally Posted by: stonecold

Originally Posted by: Stern

Originally Posted by: Xavier123

Was aiming for rhetorical reasonably practicable insertion as opposed to laying down a challenge. ;)For some, the demonstrable increase in risk from non-talking hands-free may be too much. For others, not so much.Tis a mildly curious policy. On one hand, accepting hands-free is acceptable. On the other, suggesting you could be prosecuted if you use it post accident, and finding as many ways of reducing its use as possible.I'm not saying I've got a better one of course...just that there is a seeming contradiction. I personally think there is a valid point made around other equivalent distraction events whilst driving so such a contradiction is probably unavoidable given the variety of opinion demonstrated here alone combined with the lack of clear guidance/steer from our overlords. You probably don't have an equivalent policy making passengers responsible for changing radio stations...no-one does! Just musing to myself, there is a legal point here though is there not? If taking a personal call or turning on the radio, then this is not a work-related activity. Nor part of a business' undertaking. If taking a work call etc., then it is. Work activities will be responsible for the distraction, regardless of the level or impact of that distraction.So whilst some distractions may be equal in impact...theirorigin may not be, legally speaking, if examined after an incident. The 'incident' probably won't be great either way for all involved...

I don't think our policy is contradictory or curious at all. In fact, thinking back to the original thread which was closed, others had very similar policies. It is a policy which i have inherited and which i also worked under at my previous emplpoyer so not that uncommon. We are not "sugegesting" to our staff that they could be prosecuted for using handsfree, we are telling our staff that you could. We all know that ifa court of law deems you were distracted when you crashed then you could be prosecutedfor careless or dangerous driving. This distraction could be anything from talking to a passenger, changing the radio station, adjusting the AC or using handsfree. All perfectly legal on their own but, if they were found to be the cause of an accident, then they would be used against you.My point is, and always has been, that why is handsfree being singled out when it is, in reality, extremely safe and useful when there are other distractions out there which present a similar degree of risk yetoffer no benefit to a business, such as car radios and CD players?

Having a two way conversation is a lot different to twiddling a nob on a cd player. Cant really compare the two. The thought process is totally different and holding down a conversation has more of a potential to be dangerously distracting.Also I beleive your policy is very contradictory. On one hand, throughout these postings you say handsfree is safe, but on the other hand you have a control measure in your policy advising a reductionin hands free use?If you truly beleive it to be safe surely you wouldnt require such a control measure/ recommendation as the risk would be considered trivial?

I've never once said that using handsfree is completely safe. Nor is changing the radio station, altering the AC or adjusting your seat whilst driving. What i have said is that talking on an integrated handsfree system which does not require the user to remove their hands from the wheel or take their eyes off the road does not pose enough of a risk to warrant a full ban in the workplace (a decision based on real world studies and accident statistics). Instead, we ensure that our staff have access to integrated handsfree (not third party aftermarket bolt-on types which require much more manual input to operate), that they only use them for essential business calls and that they are fully aware of the laws surrounding their use. Personally i think that approach is sensible given the level of risk and not at all contradictory."Having a two way conversation is a lot different to twiddling a nob on a cd player. Cant really compare the two. The thought process is totally different and holding down a conversation has more of a potential to be dangerously distracting." I agree. Although a quick google search throws up just as many examples of crashes cuased by people changing the radio than using handsfree. And in reality, whilst it's easy to prove someone was on the phone after an accident (phone records rarely lie). it's very difficult to prove that someone was changing the radio station when they crashed so the number of radio related crashes is, i'm sure, much higher than the stats suggest.People are calling for a ban on hands free becuase a person has been killed by someone using it. Now i'm not trying to trivialise this as any loss of life is tragic. However, i have posted links to stories of eight people who have been recently been killed by people fiddling with radios/music players at the wheel yet this seems acceptable?

Edited by user 24 April 2017 17:56:11(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Stonecold,

Apologies, you're right i did use the term "safe" in an earlier but i think i may have worded it poorly. To confirm my stance...

Having a conversation over a handsfree kit presents little or no increase in the risk of accidents, as demonstrated by the study i posted (still the ONLY real world, large scale study anyone has posted - the rest are small scale simulator tests). Hence my saying that simply talking on handsfree is safe. Completely safe? Probably not, but what is? The Department of Trade and Industry estimates that every year 6,000 people end up in casulaty as a result of accidents from putting their trousers on but i would still describe trousers as safe, wouldn't you?

The same handsfree study, as well as common sense, says that handling your phone (unlocking it, opening up your contacts, dialling a number etc) whilst driving does increase the chance of a crash. Given that handling the phone (visual manual) is the dangerous part, the core part of our policy seeks to eliminate this by providing integreated handsfree, voice operated where possible, in all company vehicles to reduce, and in many cases eliminate, the need to touch, or even look at, the phone. In my car the phone is in the glove box. I press a button on my steering wheel and say "call office" and it calls the office. My eyes never leave the road and my hands never leave the wheel. This would be very different if it was an aftermarket handsfree kit which usually require the user to touch the phone numerous times to make a call, which is obviously dangerous.

At this point i do feel that the risk level has been brought to a very low (maybe trivial) level and would not deem it necessary to invest too much more time or money introducing further controls. However, simply providing information to staff on handsfree law, restricting the use to essential business calls only and encuraging the use of passengers to make/take calls where present take almost no effort (or cost) to add into the policy and will have no negative effect on the business. And if these extra "bolt ons" help improve things by even an extra 0.1% then that seems a good investment to me! 

Edited by user 25 April 2017 07:50:10(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified