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
Stuart Smiles  
#1 Posted : 13 August 2019 09:25:34(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Stuart Smiles

Any views on banning mobiles outright or further tightening with alternative options? Discussed on today programme by transport select committee, this morning, as bad as drink driving limit, and attempt to make as unnacceptable as drink driving is. Thanks Stuart
O'Donnell54548  
#2 Posted : 13 August 2019 09:50:13(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
O'Donnell54548

Without the necessary resources to enforce any changes I see little point, other than trying to look like your doing something, in tightening the current requirements.    

RayRapp  
#3 Posted : 13 August 2019 10:00:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

I don't disagree that using hands-free phones can inhibit a driver's performance through distraction. Yet, somehow I am not comfortable with banning hands-free altogether. Mobile phones are an essential part of life these days, especially for those who use the phone for business purposes. The notion you can just ban the use of hands-free mobiles whilst driving is problematic.

I would have thought with knife and gun crime, car thefts, burglaries, assaults, drug abuse and dare I say Brexit...the government would have better things to be concerned with. Just saying.  

thanks 4 users thanked RayRapp for this useful post.
SJP on 13/08/2019(UTC), Connor35037 on 13/08/2019(UTC), SteveForrest on 15/08/2019(UTC), flysafe on 16/08/2019(UTC)
chris.packham  
#4 Posted : 13 August 2019 10:24:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

Firstly I would agree with Ray. How will the police enforce such a ban when they don't have sufficient resources to ban hand-held use? As a general principle any new law that is not properly enforceable is a bad law. It encourages people to disregard one law. Having done this the inhibition about ignoring the law is largely reduced. Is this what we really want to achieve? What investment will be needed to equip all police cars with the equipment to monitor whether sitting in my car I am actually having a conversation on the phone or talking to myself - or possibly to a passenger?

Secondly, I have yet to see a properly conducted, sufficiently extensive survey that demonstrates that having a conversation (argument?) with a person on a hands-free phone is more distracting that having a similar argument with a passenger. Indeed with the phone conversation if road conditions demand I can terminate the conversation by cuttin the other person off. Not so easy to stop that person in the seat next to me.

thanks 3 users thanked chris.packham for this useful post.
webstar on 13/08/2019(UTC), SJP on 13/08/2019(UTC), stuie on 17/08/2019(UTC)
AcornsConsult  
#5 Posted : 13 August 2019 11:09:33(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
AcornsConsult

So far, as above, a lot more could or should be done to manage the hand-held let alone trying to deal with hands-free.  How could you enforce it? and Wh?  All the enforcement agency would see is a person moving their lips- unaware if they are handsfree,singing or talking to their passengers. If we go this route because of the distraction, why not nuge a bit further in the research.  I'm always amazed we have not addressed the idea of waving a lighted flame in our face then fumbling around to dispose of the ash and butt for smokers?  I wonder, if asked, how many have had actual or near miss events due to the sequences involved in smoking!  Mmmm perhaps that is a too hard a question.   The chat about dangerous driving is going way beyiond this proposal and is, in my view, just smoke and mirrors trying to elevate the issue.  This proposal is about using the handsfree per se.   It also raises the questuion as to whether the current exemption that allows the use of radio comms should be brought into the debate.   Lets get the current rules tidied up, get businesses to get their house in order and stop employees using hanhand (let alone handsfree) whilst at work - a huge proportion of the motoring population. There are other options rthat are more likely to work -   

Bigmac1  
#6 Posted : 13 August 2019 12:45:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bigmac1

As an organisation, we have banned hands free. If a call is important you pull over, simples!

Roundtuit  
#7 Posted : 13 August 2019 13:04:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

If you banned hands free how does the driver know if the call is important? Do you conduct random audits of those you know will be driving? And discipline those who answer? It is one thing to have a corporate aspiration but something entirely different to have an effective corporate policy.
Bigmac1  
#8 Posted : 13 August 2019 13:09:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bigmac1

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post
If you banned hands free how does the driver know if the call is important? Do you conduct random audits of those you know will be driving? And discipline those who answer? It is one thing to have a corporate aspiration but something entirely different to have an effective corporate policy.

You pull over and call them back.

Theres no rocket science involved. If you know people are driving and its not important then you dont call them.

Roundtuit  
#9 Posted : 13 August 2019 13:17:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

So if there are no hands free, and obviously you have removed the temptation of a hand held device within easy reach how does the driver know who is calling to determine if it is a call that warrants pulling over? You may know the employee is driving - their bank, doctor, family member etc.. will not
Bigmac1  
#10 Posted : 13 August 2019 13:34:55(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bigmac1

Whats difficult to comprehend about the concept of pulling over?

Roundtuit  
#11 Posted : 13 August 2019 13:48:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Why can't you explain HOW the driver knows to pull over? They don't have hands free, they should not be touching the handset Or is yours one of those wooly policies that has drivers fretting that a switched on phone is ringing but to answer they must pull over just in case it is a company audit
Bigmac1  
#12 Posted : 13 August 2019 13:57:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bigmac1

If your phone rings in the glove compartment, you have 2 choices, 1. Ignore it and carry on with your journey. 2. Pull over and see who rang. Take 30 seconds and may add 2 minutes to your journey if you decide to ring them back.

Or the alternative is that drivers keep phoning people due to boredem on long journeys and before they realise it they cant remember being even on that road. Its called distraction and hands free is proven to to distract. Get real man, no phone call is worth the death of a fellow road user or even yourself and the stretch behind bars. Simply pull over and make your short call before carrying on with your journey.

jwk  
#13 Posted : 13 August 2019 13:58:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Ban them. How do you enforce it at work, as an employer? Simple, refuse to talk to anybody who is driving. That's what we did at my last place. And as to phones beoing essential, as I pointed out only last week on this forum the retail chain at my last place evaluated the business impact of an enforced ban over a year. No impact whatsoever.

Sainsbury's, M&S, BAe, Barclay's, Tesco, Ford, Toyota. All companies built as behemoths without a single mobile phone call being made. They are not necessary for business, and in cars they kill people. Ban them,

John

Edited by user 13 August 2019 13:59:36(UTC)  | Reason: This thing has a keyboard

thanks 1 user thanked jwk for this useful post.
biker1 on 13/08/2019(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#14 Posted : 13 August 2019 14:02:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Thank you for explaining your policy is switched on in the glove box and that to determine the call priority the driver needs to pull over in all circumstances. Not quite you initial one liner
Bigmac1  
#15 Posted : 13 August 2019 14:11:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bigmac1

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post
Thank you for explaining your policy is switched on in the glove box and that to determine the call priority the driver needs to pull over in all circumstances. Not quite you initial one liner

Roundtuit, I never said it was policy to have them switched on in the glove box lol. I said if it was in the glovebox and you heard it ring.

The policy is that you do not use a mobile phone while driving, not hand held and not hands free. Period. As jwk says, it kills people. Your approach seems so bias in that if its risky so what do it anyway, is that your approach to all risk, I would not want to be on your site. No edge protection, people will die, oh its ok Roundtuit says its fine he hasnt died doing it this way yet.!!!!! Get a grip. Ban hands free, ban it - oh no sorry you will ban it when someone in your organisation dies while using it!!!!1 

chris.packham  
#16 Posted : 13 August 2019 14:20:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

So my phone rings and I need to pull over. But I was on a busy main road with no parking spaces. It took 10 minutes before I found somewhere and I was having to drive slowly so as to not have to brake too sharply in order to be able to stop in the available space. This was much to the frustration of the queue building up behind me. My own frustration too. I wonder how well the drivers I had been holding up drove after I had let them free! Fortunately not an emergency this time unlike the one a few weeks ago where I had to retrace my steps as someone near and dear had been taken ill.

Hypothetical case of course, but for me it illustrates that simply saying pull over isn't the complete answer.

thanks 3 users thanked chris.packham for this useful post.
webstar on 13/08/2019(UTC), mihai_qa on 14/08/2019(UTC), Ekaji Trust on 14/08/2019(UTC)
Bigmac1  
#17 Posted : 13 August 2019 14:28:43(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bigmac1

Originally Posted by: chris.packham Go to Quoted Post

So my phone rings and I need to pull over. But I was on a busy main road with no parking spaces. It took 10 minutes before I found somewhere and I was having to drive slowly so as to not have to brake too sharply in order to be able to stop in the available space. This was much to the frustration of the queue building up behind me. My own frustration too. I wonder how well the drivers I had been holding up drove after I had let them free! Fortunately not an emergency this time unlike the one a few weeks ago where I had to retrace my steps as someone near and dear had been taken ill.

Hypothetical case of course, but for me it illustrates that simply saying pull over isn't the complete answer.

If your stuck in traffic on a busy road, it dont matter if its an emergency or not, you aint going anywhere fast are you.

We need to get away from this over reliability on a phone while driving!!!! Does people dying not bother you guys? If people were dying due to falls, being struck by vehicles, in confined spaces or a collapsed excavation you would be shouting it from the roof tops.

All of you who think that it is acceptable to use a mobile phone while driving are call yourselves safety professionals should seek alternative employment!!!!!!!!!! 

Roundtuit  
#18 Posted : 13 August 2019 14:31:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Bigmac your last response is completely out of order You stated your company policy was to ban hands free I wanted to understand how you implemented this to see if it was something we could introduce within my organisation. Please explain where I have in this post expressed any view one way or another that attracted such a personal vitriolic attack about edge protection etc.?
Bigmac1  
#19 Posted : 13 August 2019 14:36:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Bigmac1

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post
Bigmac your last response is completely out of order You stated your company policy was to ban hands free I wanted to understand how you implemented this to see if it was something we could introduce within my organisation. Please explain where I have in this post expressed any view one way or another that attracted such a personal vitriolic attack about edge protection etc.?

Its implemented by everyone having been communicated that you DONT do it, you read and agree the risk assessment that everyone has to complete electronically before every journey and putting trust in people. Yes you may face disciplinary action if caught, but management do not actively phone someone to catch them out as that would be just stupid calling someone who is driving wouldnt it?

johnmurray  
#20 Posted : 13 August 2019 14:54:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
johnmurray

https://trl.co.uk/sites/default/files/PPR592_secure.pdf

My personal observation is that an organisation dealing in safety and welfare, having an argument that effectively implies that distractions while driving are not that bad, is a bit unseemly.....if you look for the research, you will find it.

In any case, being prosecuted for use of a handheld device while driving will land you with a £200 fine and 6 points, at the least. If you kill someone while driving, and the proven cause is distraction due to use of a mobile, you are almost certain to be locked-up (and banned, the period of the ban starts from your release date)

thanks 1 user thanked johnmurray for this useful post.
Bigmac1 on 13/08/2019(UTC)
biker1  
#21 Posted : 13 August 2019 15:14:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Fortunately, or unfortunately, I am old enough to remember the days before mobile phones. We seemed to get along just fine, although you didn't miss what you never had.

There is a school of thought that talking on a hands free is no worse than talking to a passenger. However, all but the stupidest of passengers would know not to distract you during a tricky driving task or where there were lots of hazards to be aware of; in fact, most would be able to assist you with an extra pair of eyes. Someone on the other end of a phone would not see/be aware of this, and most of us are too polite to just tell them to shut up.

We seem to be in an age where mobile phones have become so much a part of the national psyche that we can't imagine being without them for a second. As jwk points out, this is an illusion.

If the standard of driving was much better, there might be a justification to allow limited use of hands free; unfortunately, this is not the case, and the standard is just getting worse. So many people seem to struggle with just driving; they don't have the ability to cope with anything else, or the common sense to realise they can't.

We wouldn't countenance this level of distraction in any other tasks that have such safety consequences, why is it permissible when driving, or is this part of the double standard we have as a society when it comes to killing people with a vehicle or by any other means?

thanks 2 users thanked biker1 for this useful post.
jwk on 14/08/2019(UTC), SJP on 14/08/2019(UTC)
George_Young  
#22 Posted : 13 August 2019 18:14:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
George_Young

I think if you ban handsfree, there is likely going to increase in people using the phone.

What about other distractions such as retuning the radio, smoking, and having kids in the car. will these be banned next?

thanks 1 user thanked George_Young for this useful post.
SJP on 14/08/2019(UTC)
RayRapp  
#23 Posted : 13 August 2019 19:49:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

This topic was discussed on this forum in the past with similar polarised views. Not getting into the passenger talking, smoking, eating, or picking your nose distraction argument - it's futile. The fact remains that a hand-held mobile is both a physical and psychological distraction and hands-free essentially a psychological one. Moreover, banning hands-free will tempt some people to use hand-held phones which is even more of a distraction.

There are still too many drivers using hand-held phones despite the tougher penalties. Empirical evidence suggests these are mostly commercial drivers but not exclusively. Enforcing any ban is difficult even with hand-held. Unless vehicle manufacturers fit a signal blocker I can't see how any hands-free can be banned. The choice is simple ban or educate drivers to use the hands-free mobile responsibly. As safety professionals we know about human behaviours, better to manage it rather than pretend we can prevent it. After all, nothing is without some risk. 

Finally, as an example, I worked for a company who 'banned' the use of hands-free whilst driving. However, no one asked for my hands-free kit to be returned and I know for a fact senior managers were ignoring the ban. Now, who is going to reprimand the CEO, CFO, etc?       

thanks 1 user thanked RayRapp for this useful post.
jwk on 14/08/2019(UTC)
achrn  
#24 Posted : 13 August 2019 21:29:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

My company policy is no calls when driving.

I know some people on this group apparently cannot believe it's possible to switch a mobile phone off, and refuse to accept that it's permitted by any company to not answer calls during working hours, but it is.  When I'm driving, my phone is switched off - if I happen to forget and it rings, then it rings for a bit, then it stops.  It's really not very difficult.

And yes, it is in our policy documents that if any person calling from the office discovers that the person they are talking to is driving, they should terminate the call -- why wouldn't it be?  Our policy is no calls when driving, so surely it's a no-brainer that that would be in there?

One thing that perplexes me - all these people that think it's impossible to ignore a phone, or that a delay of ten minutes before checking what the call was about is probably cataclysmic - what do you do when you go to the swimming pool?  I ask, because I never see people clutching their mobile as they do their lengths.

If I'm in a meeting with clients, I switch it off or silent - my work phone was off for the six hours I was in a meeting today.  If anyone called me from the office, they would have left a message, I would have responded to it after my meeting finished.  Had they phoned me while driving, I expect they would have left a message, and I would have responded to it after I finished driving.  It really is that simple.

thanks 4 users thanked achrn for this useful post.
Bigmac1 on 14/08/2019(UTC), jwk on 14/08/2019(UTC), SJP on 14/08/2019(UTC), Natasha.Graham on 14/08/2019(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#25 Posted : 13 August 2019 21:55:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Regardless of company policies any attempt to prevent an individual from using a mobile phone whilst driving will only work if either we have a police officer sat next to each driver OR the phone companies use technology to disable phones whilst travelling - one costs society the other costs business and neither will happen in a capitalist society. So to all the SM outraged rage on to your elected representative whose next salary cheque decides (Nick Clegg now works for a company that needs you to receive constant notification)
Dave5705  
#26 Posted : 14 August 2019 00:52:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Dave5705

Ignoring the policing of this (by the er.. police) what exactly as H&S people and employers are we able to do? Surely only what we can under reasonable practicability? So we tell our employees to switch them off before driving, and if they forget then to ignore them. That is all we can do. It isn't reasonably practicable to tell everyone in the company that Joe has got in his car and will be unavailable to speak for 2 and 3/4 hours so don't ring him. (I don't even agree about putting them in the glove box and stopping to ring back after pulling over. It's amazing how much importance young people place upon being able to respond to a phone call or text, like their life depends on it! I think some erratic and dangerous driving would take place.

It isn't reasonably practicable to be absolutely sure Joe won't forget to switch it off or not answer it. We can only educate and raise awareness, even reassure that the company policy allows for phones not to be answered. 

Being honest, I am quite happy to ignore my phone. I am much more likely to get wound up by idiotic news programmes and commentators on radio. And I talk to myself all the time ( I don't know why, I don't listen) so I am quite likely to get pulled over!

If they were banned altogether personally I would have no issue with that. Maybe technology will get on top of the problem and stop phones working when moving. Trains would be a lot quieter! I liked the old days when if you didn't answer it meant you weren't there!

thanks 2 users thanked Dave5705 for this useful post.
SJP on 14/08/2019(UTC), A Kurdziel on 14/08/2019(UTC)
Messey  
#27 Posted : 14 August 2019 04:06:13(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Messey

There's two arguments here. A law banning the use of hands free and company policy.

Company policy? Any employer can do what they wish to reduce risk, but a law? Frankly, its excessive and unenforceable 

I was singing (loudly) to Dire Straits and Ian Dury whilst alone on the M40 in my car yesterday.  Some would argue that my singing voice should be a criminal offence - personally I think I have the voice of an angel- but how is a Police Constable or Highway Agency Traffic Officer going to prove I was on the phone and not simply exercising my lungs.

I am sure any Police Officer will be completing a PNC check before s/he stops me.... probably using a hand held radio or hands free phone. The irony!!!!

thanks 2 users thanked Messey for this useful post.
SJP on 14/08/2019(UTC), webstar on 14/08/2019(UTC)
mihai_qa  
#28 Posted : 14 August 2019 07:23:47(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
mihai_qa

This seems like trying a policy/program to control fatigue (anyone claiming to have found a solution for fatigue is delusional and I have measured this claim carefully). If in 2019 someone thinks they can control human behavior through punitive and restrictive means, it usually means they're not readily connected with the present.

I'll use the example of seatbelts. They're not just good practice, they're also a legal mandate and yet you can still see seatbelt bypass harnesses or, my favourite, the seatbelt fastened all the time to stop the "nuissance" noise. 

If you're thinking about the company policy, a long, repetitive, impactful program might bring about some changes with regards to mobile phone use. This would probably work better in the long term as you could possibly develop habit rather than fear compliance.

There's no off the shelf quick solution for a problem that's been plaguing society for recent years. Graphic and visual campaigns were proven to do more harm than good, restrictions also usually bring out the natural instinct of revolt and quite frankly, such "policies" do more harm than good when you look at the H&S profession and further contribute to the image of stuckup and rigid professionals.

Long term programs are expensive, exhausting and quite unpredictable but they're still better than pointing to a document and expect compliance.

thanks 1 user thanked mihai_qa for this useful post.
SJP on 14/08/2019(UTC)
stevedm  
#29 Posted : 14 August 2019 07:42:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

guys it is a little more straight forward...yes there is always a huge debate about the use of mobile phones...but this has come about as the technology companies who trialled detection in March this year want to push the technology therefore to increase sales they are lobbying for a change in the legislation...

AcornsConsult  
#30 Posted : 14 August 2019 07:50:30(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
AcornsConsult

Originally Posted by: johnmurray Go to Quoted Post
https://trl.co.uk/sites/default/files/PPR592_secure.pdf My personal observation is that an organisation dealing in safety and welfare, having an argument that effectively implies that distractions while driving are not that bad, is a bit unseemly.....if you look for the research, you will find it. In any case, being prosecuted for use of a handheld device while driving will land you with a £200 fine and 6 points, at the least. If you kill someone while driving, and the proven cause is distraction due to use of a mobile, you are almost certain to be locked-up (and banned, the period of the ban starts from your release date)
I’ll go out on a limb here and say the final argument is flawed and a red herring on the issue - the EXACT same argument given about use of mobile and having a serious incident applies equally to other distraction such as setting Satnav, smoking, packing a pipe, ref-filling a gap, reading a paper, etc, etc could result in a not in proper control/ due care or dang driving offence. Not so easy to prove but that is another debate. On a slightly different note and looking at those with a no see company policy- what is the consequence for breaching that policy?any takers on if that is included in the policy?
jwk  
#31 Posted : 14 August 2019 08:14:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Acorns,

It's not an argument, its data: using a phone is a high level protracted distraction, the evidence shows it, it should be subject to a complete ban. So that's the legal bit. From a company enforcement perspective, we do what's reasonably practicable. It is reasonably practicable to implement a ban on mobile phone use; just how my employer would be able to stop me packing a pipe (though I don't actually smoke) while driving is open to question,

John

thanks 1 user thanked jwk for this useful post.
mihai_qa on 14/08/2019(UTC)
biker1  
#32 Posted : 14 August 2019 08:46:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Originally Posted by: AcornsConsult Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: johnmurray Go to Quoted Post
https://trl.co.uk/sites/default/files/PPR592_secure.pdf My personal observation is that an organisation dealing in safety and welfare, having an argument that effectively implies that distractions while driving are not that bad, is a bit unseemly.....if you look for the research, you will find it. In any case, being prosecuted for use of a handheld device while driving will land you with a £200 fine and 6 points, at the least. If you kill someone while driving, and the proven cause is distraction due to use of a mobile, you are almost certain to be locked-up (and banned, the period of the ban starts from your release date)

I’ll go out on a limb here and say the final argument is flawed and a red herring on the issue - the EXACT same argument given about use of mobile and having a serious incident applies equally to other distraction such as setting Satnav, smoking, packing a pipe, ref-filling a gap, reading a paper, etc, etc could result in a not in proper control/ due care or dang driving offence. Not so easy to prove but that is another debate. On a slightly different note and looking at those with a no see company policy- what is the consequence for breaching that policy?any takers on if that is included in the policy?

I'm afraid the argument here is flawed. It is true that drivers engage in all sorts of other distractions, so why pick on the use of phones? The answer is that all of these other things should also be discouraged; several wrongs don't make a right. In the days when I drove south regularly, when the traffic slowed on the M1 somewhere near Watford, out would come the Financial Times in many cars around me. Are they really going to stop reading an article just because the traffic has started moving again?

Perhaps I have a different perspective than most. On a motorcycle, you don't generally have the option to engage in such distracting activities, the majority of them are simply not available, or practicable to try. Yes, there are headsets to use inside a helmet that enable you to converse with others, but the wind noise and interference from other sources renders these unusable most of the time. You can only focus on riding the bike, and need to every second, which is how it should be. Cars have become too easy to drive, allowing people's attention to wander and providing the temptation to do other things at the same time.

Perhaps it is about educating drivers, but if there was a will to do this, the IAM and RoSPA would be getting a lot more customers for advanced driving courses (which I think should be made mandatory at an early stage of driving activities).

We could use the law to try and stop it, but as we all know, there aren't the police resources to enforce it. However, legislation is a blunt instrument, but sometimes it plays a part.

Perhaps the govenment should target the phone companies, where technology could be used or developed to control the issue, but then money talks, as does vested interest.

Increasing the penalties for causing death by dangerous/careless driving would be a start, if only to satisfy the demands of justice.

thanks 1 user thanked biker1 for this useful post.
jwk on 14/08/2019(UTC)
Dave5705  
#33 Posted : 14 August 2019 10:35:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Dave5705

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post
Perhaps it is about educating drivers, but if there was a will to do this, the IAM and RoSPA would be getting a lot more customers for advanced driving courses (which I think should be made mandatory at an early stage of driving activities).

Couldn't agree more. In fact, I would go one further and say that potential drivers should have to pass an exhaustive intelligence application test before being allowed to start lessons, and a further one as part of their driving tests. Not anything they can learn to pass parrot-fashion from a book or code, genuine dilemmas that drivers have to face every day like "my mate is driving towards me, I want to stop and talk to him, is it OK to stop in the middle of the road to do that?" How about, "I have never bothered to learn to reverse properly but I want to use a single track road with blind bends, can I just ignore the fact that I can't go backwards because the man coming the other way with a double articulated trailer will go backwards instead?" We all have our favourites. Just ironing out plain stupidity would make the roads a lot safer.

thanks 1 user thanked Dave5705 for this useful post.
jwk on 14/08/2019(UTC)
WatsonD  
#34 Posted : 14 August 2019 10:52:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
WatsonD

It is typical of this forum that people with different views are not allowed to express them rationally without being accused of all sorts of dark arts.

From what I can see there are two opinions:

  1. Ban them outight, or;
  2. simply banning with no enforcement strategy will not stop people using them.Therfore the ban in itself is not enough.

At no point has anyone suggested not banning because we cant live without them. They have suggested that it wont work.

Its good that some companies have policies stating staff should not use their phones in the car. This will prevent them feeling they need to answer any business calls. Personal calls however, are another matter entirely.

AcornsConsult  
#35 Posted : 14 August 2019 11:20:58(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
AcornsConsult

Originally Posted by: jwk Go to Quoted Post

Acorns,It's not an argument, its data: using a phone is a high level protracted distraction, the evidence shows it, it should be subject to a complete ban. So that's the legal bit. From a company enforcement perspective, we do what's reasonably practicable. It is reasonably practicable to implement a ban on mobile phone use; just how my employer would be able to stop me packing a pipe (though I don't actually smoke) while driving is open to question,John

I'm agreeing about the potential problems with the use of mobiles whilst driving - what I raised is the unnecessary and distracting (for most occasions) compounding of one driving behaviour with another - use of phone and dang driving.  Each can and is usually dealt with on their own merits. The proposal deals soley with the mobiles and not other offences.  

I asked about how comapnies manage the No phones policy to understand if the relatively stringent policy (goes beyond the legal requirement) is broken, how do they deal with it - if they don't take any action, is it really of any more value than not having it and its really more like a paper excercise!   In truth many polices have been created for this and never a moment was given as to dealing with breaches.  I favour no phone use as a policy.  I use handsfree on occasion - my driving controls my phone use and not the other way around, so its always short, non-complex and interrupted in favour of any changes to the driving circs.  I would rather take a brief call  (an exposure to risk) that says a meeting  is cancelled than drive x miles / hrs to arrive and then be told its cancelled (Still an avoidable exposure to risk).  Given the choice, I encourage the use of a phone code - office rings and hangs up twice in quick succession - tells the recipient that they should look to stop to return the call.  Solves both issues. If the government were serious on this issue, it would and they may well bem, to include those devices such as radios etc  which currently fall outside of the mobile phone frequencies (the reason the radios are exempt). I'm also opposed to introducing legislation which currently is fundamentally unenforcable.

Edited by user 14 August 2019 11:26:25(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Alan Haynes  
#36 Posted : 14 August 2019 11:39:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Alan Haynes

The law does need tightening up - you cannot make a phone call on a hand held phone, but you can take videos whist driving.

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1161044/phone-driving-law-case-recording-video-UK

Brian Hagyard  
#37 Posted : 14 August 2019 12:46:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Brian Hagyard

Please don’t get me wrong I am in no way condoning the use of mobile phones while driving – but according to Government figures in 2017 there were 787 people killed in car accidents (Drivers and passengers) of which 43 were using mobile phones (5.5% roughly) and I can only see a report of 1 person using a hand free kit (which happened to be a senior police officer) – so what about the other 94.5% are we concentrating on the real hazard here? How many were “distracted” by talking to a passenger or changing a CD or drinking a cup of coffee, putting on makeup etc. I don’t think we should view phone use on its own, we need the full picture.

biker1  
#38 Posted : 14 August 2019 14:30:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

Originally Posted by: Brian Hagyard Go to Quoted Post

Please don’t get me wrong I am in no way condoning the use of mobile phones while driving – but according to Government figures in 2017 there were 787 people killed in car accidents (Drivers and passengers) of which 43 were using mobile phones (5.5% roughly) and I can only see a report of 1 person using a hand free kit (which happened to be a senior police officer) – so what about the other 94.5% are we concentrating on the real hazard here? How many were “distracted” by talking to a passenger or changing a CD or drinking a cup of coffee, putting on makeup etc. I don’t think we should view phone use on its own, we need the full picture.

And indeed we should tackle all the other causes of fatal accidents as well, chief amongst them being the standard of driving these days. However, even on the figures you quote, that presumably means 43 people who wouldn't have been killed if they weren't using a phone.
chris.packham  
#39 Posted : 14 August 2019 15:11:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

Are we not being preumptive by assuming that all the fatal accidents were due to a person using a mobile phone? Could there not have been other more contributory factors? I was passed on the motorway recently by someone driving in a large 4x4 at a speed well in excess of the official limit despitne inclement weather conditions and using a mobile phone. Had they had an accident could this not have been due, at least in part, to the excess speed relative to the weather conditions? Statistics often need careful consideration in order to ensure that we are not overlooking contributory factors.

A Kurdziel  
#40 Posted : 14 August 2019 15:43:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Speaking of the resistance to more action on road related deaths, let’s look at the statistics:

Number of people killed in terrorism related incidents- 42 (2017)

Number of homicides (2018) -726

Number of work related deaths due to accidents- 147

Number of road related deaths 1,713

 

This would indicate that if we as a society are serious about reducing the number of preventable deaths we should perhaps be focusing more energy on these areas where most of these deaths occur. For example it might make more sense to give higher priority to things like road safety and perhaps look in more focussed way at the resources being committed against terrorism.

Perhaps we need more police and better equipped police on our roads and motorways. 

thanks 2 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
biker1 on 15/08/2019(UTC), jwk on 20/08/2019(UTC)
Users browsing this topic
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.