Originally Posted by: Stern

Originally Posted by: Xavier123

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.

Agreed. The question nobody seems to want to answer though is why demonise handsfree (which has numerous business and financial benefits) when other things such as car radios (which don't) present a similar distraction risk? If people are that concerned, taking a car stereo out of a new car is alot quicker and easier than removing an integreated handsfree kit! 

For that, I would return to my thinking about work-relatedness.  Work can control work phonecalls.  Work phonecalls arise out of work.  Listening to the car stereo is an everyday risk that also happens to occur external to work.  It takes on a different dimension.  One can only control what one can reasonably be expected to control.  I doubt anyone's ever given it too much thought - its just an acceptance of risk by society as they have familiarity with it.

Drinking alcohol is generally banned at work but clearly undertaken at people's homes (park benches, bus shelters etc.)....and is a horrific health hazard.  Society is weird.

I remember listening to Tim Marsh at a conference, when he said that the best you can hope for is that people concentrate 95% of the time. For the other 5%, they are away with the fairies and functioning on auto pilot. Quite a frightening thought (depending on how good their auto pilot is), but I agree that we have all probably done journeys but can't consciously remember parts of it, which seems to confirm his ideas.

I didn't think the complaint about the advert was over-reacting. Car adverts, amongst others these days, seem to be selling a lifestyle and image, rather than telling us anything much about the car. They also seem to suggest that if we buy one of their cars, we can drive them on empty roads; I just wish they would tell us where these roads are. As such, they can easily influence behaviour by creating social norms, so something that depicts irresponsible and dangerous driving surely needs challenging.

Originally Posted by: Stern

Originally Posted by: Invictus

Originally Posted by: Stern

Originally Posted by: Invictus

Originally Posted by: RayRapp

I have said before switching off is not always a practical option for some. Whether a phone call is important depends on the individual's own perception of 'important'. I know I once did not answer my phone immediately when I was on-call and driving from Swansea to London. My line manger called me to ask why I had not answered my phone when on-call!

I was driving and there was nowhere safe to pull over!

I have the same presures as everyone else but I will still not put myself or others at risk by answering a phone and that is why I turn it off.

I agree also with the statement in later posts about the radio, I have found myself bopping along to music when it is too loud and it also increases speed if not careful.

How many of us have driven to find ourselves some miles later not realising how we got there 'driving on auto pilot'

You say "putting people at risk" as if you are playing a game of Russian roulette every time your phone rings! Literally billions of calls are made and recieved on handsfree every year and how many deaths does this cause? A handful? Not even that. 

If people are that concerned then maybe they should be using public transport rather than driving. Or maybe we should all just lock the doors, draw the curtains and stay at home.

Sorry didn't you notice the (I) in that statement?

I'm sorry Invictus you've lost me? What are you implying?

You also say "I agree also with the statement in later posts about the radio, I have found myself bopping along to music when it is too loud and it also increases speed if not careful." Does that mean that you always have your radio switched off whilst driving now and that you don't allow them at work? And if not, why not?

No I don't have my phone on and I don't really care who tells me I should, I will pull over sometimes if I am on a long journey and check it.

I wasn't really into the radio so quite often I wouldn't have it on lately I use CD's so I will have it on more and yes I will change the CD as I am driving although I have a 6 CD holder radio now so not as bad. I still sinalong to the tunes and if there real singalong queen etc. still singalong even more. I still get lost in my own thoughts and end up miles down the road without realising. But I will still not have my phone on in the car work or private, my choice my car, my phone and our phone policy states that the phone must be switched off when driving.

If anyone needs me they will phone back or leave a message. I take on board this doesn't or wouldn't work for everyone and most of the time it's because they want to feel they are important. I also worked for a company who told me that I needed to take my phone on holiday just in case they needed me I told them were to stick it and it wasn't in my suitcase.

Keep debating chaps - nearly at the hundred mark!! :-)

Sorry chaps, dozed off while reading this thread on the laptop wedged on the stearing wheel but managed to stop the car at Bristol when it ran out of petrol.  Note to self.. when drinking and driving, switch the phone off as it wakes me up.  

:-)

[quote=Xavier123;762234

Drinking alcohol is generally banned at work but clearly undertaken at people's homes (park benches, bus shelters etc.)....and is a horrific health hazard.  Society is weird.

Yes, it is weird.

I admit I’m also slightly perplexed by the strong feeling to this particular distraction. A few years ago, the Gov at the time had the perfect opportunity when brining in laws on smoking for instance to have made that illegal also, but they didn’t. They just said it was illegal if other work colleagues would be or could be in the vehicle (or under 18s). I know our Policy where I worked at the time (and I bet others still do) reflected the law exactly, so did not ban lone users of company vehicles from smoking and driving. So, this also ends up under “without due care and attention” legislation, same as Hands free or Vaping or anything else. 

Don’t get me wrong I’m not a fan of mobile phones full stop (bad invention, which you can’t uninvent). However, with the point made earlier, about millions upon millions of journeys where hands free is used and only a very small proportion resulting in accidents, and then only a proportion of those being serious. If I was doing a risk assessment for an activity, where millions of people were carrying out an activity without incident, however a very small proportion of the time it could result in multiple fatalities, doesn’t automatically mean it should be banned. Possibly controlled in some way, but banned I’m having a hard time accepting. We don’t really need studies, it’s happening on our roads now, and I’m not hearing stories of multiple fatalities from hands free use on a regular basis.

All the other arguments I considered someone could make, I think I have counter arguments / options for, but this issue above has me stumped. If I do a risk assessment as normal (likelihood against severity), I don’t end up with high as an outcome for the activity. There are many things in life that have a similar level of risk / outcome yet as a society we accept. Otherwise we would never make it out of our homes / bed. I would love for someone to detail how they get to High, without the “well of course it is” type hollow argument, but real working out. Convince me don’t just appeal to my sense of morality.

I think the lack of including it in legislation which would have made this clear for everyone is a cop out, as it is enforceable. You have an accident they check your phone records -enforceable. Yes, you can’t see someone doing it beforehand, but neither do you know their car is road worthy (Mot being only good for the time it was done).

Still undecided on where I sit on this one, but as I can’t reconcile it being high, I guess I’m in the control camp. So short duration non-complex discussions and allow employees to be adults and decide when they can and cannot talk.

View at the moment.

Edited by user 26 April 2017 10:46:25(UTC)  | Reason: It missed the original quote despite it being their in edit!

Some excellent points Chris42 and essentially what i have been saying all along; that the level of risk presented by hands free does not warrant a ban. Anybody who feels differently should, in my opinion, also be looking to ban radios, passengers, CD players and the myriad of other distractions which have also been shown to cause a similar (tiny) number of accidents.

On a slightly different note, it would be interesting to see people's opinions on this subject in relaton to age? I would imagine that the younger generation (say up to 30's or 40's) who have grown up with mobile phones would be more in favour of handsfree use than the, ahem, slightly "older" generation who have perhaps worked alot of their lives without them. Would be interesting to see...

Originally Posted by: biker1

Originally Posted by: Stern

Originally Posted by: biker1

I remember listening to Tim Marsh at a conference, when he said that the best you can hope for is that people concentrate 95% of the time. For the other 5%, they are away with the fairies and functioning on auto pilot. Quite a frightening thought (depending on how good their auto pilot is), but I agree that we have all probably done journeys but can't consciously remember parts of it, which seems to confirm his ideas.

I didn't think the complaint about the advert was over-reacting. Car adverts, amongst others these days, seem to be selling a lifestyle and image, rather than telling us anything much about the car. They also seem to suggest that if we buy one of their cars, we can drive them on empty roads; I just wish they would tell us where these roads are. As such, they can easily influence behaviour by creating social norms, so something that depicts irresponsible and dangerous driving surely needs challenging.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one becuase for me, to suggest that a grown adult will go out and buy said car and then proceed to drive it down the road dancing and with their eyes closed because of an advert is, to me, ludicrous. 

I've spotted examples of working at height non-compliance and poor excavation practice on episodes of Bob the Builder but never once felt inclinded to complain to OFCOM. 

I think there is a world of difference between what cartoon characters get up to, and real people in the real world. If we emulated behaviour from Tom and Jerry, there would be carnage, but of course we wouldn't. I have also seen a current advert for a biscuit maker which shows poor examples of manual handling and work at height, but I wouldn't for one minute consider making biscuits like that. When it comes to advertising for the real world, agencies spend a huge amount of time and money subtly, or sometimes not so subtly, depicting lifestyle choices and behaviour to influence what people buy and what they do with it. If the advert doesn't appeal to you or influence you, it wasn't aimed at you, but it was certainly aimed at some people, otherwise they wouldn't have spent money making it. The agencies are being paid vast amounts of money to come up with ways of influencing people, so it clearly works for a proportion of the population.

And if we emulated everything we saw actors do on TV there would also be carnage. I saw an advert for a Lexus recently where two people are racing up a hill. One takes the road whilst the other (in a 4x4) pulls off the road and drives cross country. I didn't rush out and do it myself. And i'm sure we all remember the Landrover advert where they drove (well, winched) a Defender up a dam. Not something i've ever seen emulated in real life either.

Of course advertising agencies are very good at influencing people, that's their job. I recently purchased an electric toothbrush after seeing an advert on TV for one. However, unlike the lady on the advert, i don't feel the need to smile like a lunatic when i'm using it, nor do i walk round licking my teeth all day after i've finished brushing them becuase i, just like every adult i know, am perfectly able to separate what is on the TV from reality.

For you to suggest that people will start drving down the street with their eyes closed becase an actor in an advert did is, again, ludicrous. As a safety professional i would be embarassed to tell the people i work with (the ones i'm trying to get to buy into the world of health and safety) that i had gone out of my way to have an advert removed from the TV on those grounds. 

A lot of people i encounter daily are becoming more and more disilusioned with health & safety (myself included at times) and with all due respect, those kinds of over the top attitudes will only make things worse.