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 Pages<12
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
AcornsConsult  
#41 Posted : 15 August 2019 07:24:51(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
AcornsConsult

Originally Posted by: biker1 Go to Quoted Post
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.
Don’t think that presumption can be drawn. There are usually more than 1 cause, not just using a phone. Far easier to review and find that the phone is contributory rather than causative. May be contributory, but so could weather, street lights, road surface etc etc. In this context, being hand held versus hands free may also be a significant differentiator rather than just the use of a phone. Let’s remember, stopping hands free as an extension of the current regs will not deal wth texting etc, which again may be with those stats for “using mobile phone” Simply creating laws and fines has very little effect- consider the 40+ year old drink/drugs driving laws. As a forum tending towards businesses, we could/ should be moree proactive in dealing with work related road risk like mobiles- more than just an RA and policy.
biker1  
#42 Posted : 15 August 2019 08:13:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

I find myself getting increasingly frustrated with some of the arguments being put forward in defence of using phones whilst driving, not using the law, the futility of policies etc etc.

To me, it's a no-brainer. Using a phone whilst driving is a distraction, both physically and mentally, along with a lot of other things that drivers do, instead of concentrating on driving the car, which is what they should be doing. When you are driving a car, you are in charge of a killing machine, and have the responsibility to drive properly and carefully. Anything that distracts from this is an accident waiting to happen.

Moving on now.................

thanks 4 users thanked biker1 for this useful post.
mihai_qa on 15/08/2019(UTC), Natasha.Graham on 15/08/2019(UTC), jwk on 20/08/2019(UTC), Yossarian on 21/08/2019(UTC)
achrn  
#43 Posted : 15 August 2019 13:36:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: WatsonD Go to Quoted Post

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

Third post of the thread: "Mobile phones are an essential part of life these days, especially for those who use the phone for business purposes."

RayRapp  
#44 Posted : 15 August 2019 14:50:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Originally Posted by: achrn Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: WatsonD Go to Quoted Post

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

Third post of the thread: "Mobile phones are an essential part of life these days, especially for those who use the phone for business purposes."

Just a touch of reality. I did also mention that a ban is problematical - from an enforcement perspective.

Roundtuit  
#45 Posted : 15 August 2019 15:42:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

achrn out of interest do the office do anything other than hang up if they realise the person called is driving?
achrn  
#46 Posted : 15 August 2019 21:22:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: RayRapp Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: achrn Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: WatsonD Go to Quoted Post

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

Third post of the thread: "Mobile phones are an essential part of life these days, especially for those who use the phone for business purposes."

Just a touch of reality. I did also mention that a ban is problematical - from an enforcement perspective.

In the 70's / 80's it was 'reality' that it's necesary to drink and drive if you're meeting clients or suppliers.  It was also reality that seat belts weren't necesary for the 90% of people who knew themselves to be better than average drivers.

The reality  is that it's not necesary to talk on the telephone while you're driving.  I don't.  I know most of my other directors don't (because sometimes I get an answerphone when I call them, and then they call back later).  I don't recall catching any of the directors phoning and driving in about a decade, though it did take two or three years to get the message through some of their skulls.  My company has not gone bust.

thanks 1 user thanked achrn for this useful post.
jwk on 20/08/2019(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#47 Posted : 15 August 2019 22:05:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

I am not asking about HIV status just "how" these supposedly enlightened companies avoid mobile distraction whilst driving as it appears a good idea and ahead of this purported legislative curve. So far I have pure vitriol from BigMac1 questioning my site practices and complete ignorance from achrn From this I am left to conclude, and to paraphrase these posters "It is a no Brainer" that an effective well controlled and auditible no mobiles whilst driving is a policy as achievable as rocking horse or unicorn......(you had your chance). Society perceives no benefit in depleting the donor pool - pity our elected representatives who once again choose to focus on a Social Media campaign rather than representing the WHOLE of society
Terry556  
#48 Posted : 16 August 2019 06:31:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Terry556

I don’t see a problem with hands free, as modern cars have them built in to the systems, and voice activated, as long as they are used correctly and don’t distract you from driving. Handy on the motorway if you see an accident on the opposite side to call the emergency services. If they ban phones are they going to ban car radios, Sat Navs, passengers as they are all distractions.

thanks 1 user thanked Terry556 for this useful post.
flysafe on 16/08/2019(UTC)
stevedm  
#49 Posted : 16 August 2019 06:33:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

Roundtuit...as a gentle point your posts are somewhat agressive in thier tone in all subjects...  please don't shout at me :)

Like I said earlier it is really because technology companies want to sell detection equipment so they are lobbying for a change in the legislation...

I have been fortuate eneough to have introduced a total ban on the use of mobile phones, hand frees devices and electronic communication devices whilst driving...that actually worked and yes when the company was being taken over and the HR Director rang into a conference from his car on the move we did hang up..and he no longer works for the company..apparently his decision.  Not sure I could introduce that ban in an ambulance trust tho... :)

With regards to the stats...Stats 19 depends on the officer on the scene and yes Chris Speed is a major factor in nearly all road collisions...so lies damn lies and statistics...

You are not focusing on the route cause here...human behaviour..until you get a handle on that it is really pointless...just look at brexit!

johnmurray  
#50 Posted : 16 August 2019 07:18:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
johnmurray

I swipe up on my mobile phone screen, touch the car icon (which turns blue from grey) and the phone then inactivates itself while the car is moving. If a text is received the phone replies "user is driving". Sending "urgent" gets it displayed on the mobile. Sorted. In any case: The govt (worldwide) are considering mandating call blockers in cars. If you think you phone-call is more important than your life, or others lives, you're truly sad.
thanks 1 user thanked johnmurray for this useful post.
biker1 on 16/08/2019(UTC)
RayRapp  
#51 Posted : 16 August 2019 07:21:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Originally Posted by: achrn Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: RayRapp Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: achrn Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: WatsonD Go to Quoted Post

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

Third post of the thread: "Mobile phones are an essential part of life these days, especially for those who use the phone for business purposes."

Just a touch of reality. I did also mention that a ban is problematical - from an enforcement perspective.

In the 70's / 80's it was 'reality' that it's necesary to drink and drive if you're meeting clients or suppliers.  It was also reality that seat belts weren't necesary for the 90% of people who knew themselves to be better than average drivers.

The reality  is that it's not necesary to talk on the telephone while you're driving.  I don't.  I know most of my other directors don't (because sometimes I get an answerphone when I call them, and then they call back later).  I don't recall catching any of the directors phoning and driving in about a decade, though it did take two or three years to get the message through some of their skulls.  My company has not gone bust.

Yes but times have changed my friend. Peoples' expectations have changed. The world of communications has meant that a mobile phone is an 'essential' part of life for many people. Long hours spent on our congested roads mean people use the time to communicate either for social or work purposes. 

I don't condone the use of mobiles whilst driving and if they were prohibited then so be it. The reality is it is unenforceable. Personally, I have no issue with using a hands-free phone in my car because as a sensible adult I can take a call, tell the caller I will call back shortly, or anything in between dependant on the road dynamics.   

thanks 1 user thanked RayRapp for this useful post.
webstar on 16/08/2019(UTC)
WatsonD  
#52 Posted : 16 August 2019 07:23:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
WatsonD

Originally Posted by: achrn Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: WatsonD Go to Quoted Post

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

Third post of the thread: "Mobile phones are an essential part of life these days, especially for those who use the phone for business purposes."

A nice bit of cherry picking there. Well done.

thanks 1 user thanked WatsonD for this useful post.
RayRapp on 16/08/2019(UTC)
achrn  
#53 Posted : 16 August 2019 10:54:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

Originally Posted by: RayRapp Go to Quoted Post

I don't condone the use of mobiles whilst driving and if they were prohibited then so be it. The reality is it is unenforceable.

I don't believe it is any more unenforceable than any of a number of other policies the company has.  We have policies about people wearing PPE, for example, should I throw them out because I can't monitor every person on site 100% of the time?  In my business, I basically treat the employees as grown-ups.  We trust them to understand the policies, and to follow the policies, and remind them when they don't.  We encourage everyone to look out for their co-workers and remind each other if they spot someone doing something unsafe or not in accordance with policy.

I simply do not believe that making or taking phone calls while driving is necesary.  I agree lots of people have a cavalier attitude to it, and consequently it is a policy that needs working at and needs reminders for a long time before it becomes ingrained and part of 'what we do'.  However, I do not believe that 'I can't guarantee 100% compliance 100% of the time' is a valid reason for not doing anything.  After several years of working on the message, I believe we have good compliance with this policy, and I belive it's worth the effort - my incident and near miss statistics show driving to site is many times more dangerous than being on site (in the construction industry, but we don't have anyone that's full time site-based) so something that mitigates that is worth doing.

Originally Posted by: WatsonD Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: achrn Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: WatsonD Go to Quoted Post

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

Third post of the thread: "Mobile phones are an essential part of life these days, especially for those who use the phone for business purposes."

A nice bit of cherry picking there. Well done.

If you say "at no point has anyone" I only need to pick one cherry to prove that it was not true. 

WatsonD  
#54 Posted : 16 August 2019 11:23:26(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
WatsonD

Originally Posted by: WatsonD Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: achrn Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: WatsonD Go to Quoted Post

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

Third post of the thread: "Mobile phones are an essential part of life these days, especially for those who use the phone for business purposes."

A nice bit of cherry picking there. Well done.

If you say "at no point has anyone" I only need to pick one cherry to prove that it was not true. 

The actual purpose of my post was to ask for people on both sides (I myself have not given a view either way on this subject) to stop polarising the debate and respect all views as being worthy of equal consideration. I believe that in order for real change people need to have grown-up conversations. Instead of cheap shots and mud-slinging

Unfortuntely, this has clearly been lost on you.

True, I missed an earlier comment by Ray. You spotted it though - well done; and the process proved my point about selective bias on the forum. Have a lovely weekend.

mike52  
#55 Posted : 19 August 2019 09:25:55(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
mike52

While I can see the reasoning behind banning hands free mobiles. I an also see a reason for not banning them. The police will tell you a growing number of drink drivers are caught due to the public calling in about emetic or dangerous driving. If mobileso are banned how many drink drivers will get away with it, or accadets that could have easily been avoided. IIMO a ban is not the answer , but better education on when they can be used. Mike
CptBeaky  
#56 Posted : 19 August 2019 09:46:31(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
CptBeaky

There is no good reason not to ban them. We can point out flaws in the enforcement etc, but this just kicks the can down the road. If the technology was available tomorrow, then would more people would support it? It is like the arguments against veganism. It is all just noise because it would inconvienience too many people, but when it is all said and done we know what is the right thing to do. If there isn't a good time to do something, then you might as well do it now.

We just need to give our enforcement agencies the means to checks whether a phone was active or not recently. Then it is not a case of pulling someone over if you see their mouth moving, only if you seen them driving in an erratic manner. After all we don't pull over drivers willy nilly to breathalyze (sp?) them, only if there is sufficient reason to doubt their sobriety.

I appreciate that phones are now an important part of our life, but that doesn't mean we are helpless without them.

Roundtuit  
#57 Posted : 19 August 2019 10:27:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Just wondering what kind of detection system will differentiate between an active call being made by the driver and the signal from the EU mandated emergency call system being fitted to all new cars?
AcornsConsult  
#58 Posted : 19 August 2019 11:13:22(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
AcornsConsult

We know that legally, it is not permitted to smoke in a vehicle when their are juvenille passengers onboard.  It was hailed as a great piece of preventative legislation and a benefit to the long term health of the children.  I see the proposal on handsfree in a similar vein.  It may make me feel good that there are laws out there to assist and protect me and society but the complete reverse feelings come when we see that it is a toothless unenforcable piece of legislation.   I wonder how many companies would sack a driver who accrued too many endorsements - quite a few, but I also wonder how many would take positive action to drivers (dismissal) who use their mobile phone (Hands free or otherwise) contrary to company policy?  work related driving does not include ALL dirvers, but a significant ercentage none the less.  As businesses, are we not avoiding the task of taking positive action andrather we are sitting back to pass legislation and add another burden onto police to try to achieve the unachievable?  The only time police can check phone records is as part of an investigation - such as fatal / serious driving allegations AFTER the event which is not a pro-active and preventaive approach.  Until someone comes up with a pracrtical and manageable way to enforce this idea, I fail to see how creating wasteful legislaton will help make roads safer.  

thanks 1 user thanked AcornsConsult for this useful post.
webstar on 19/08/2019(UTC)
stevedm  
#59 Posted : 20 August 2019 06:41:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

https://www.westcotec.co.uk/westcotec-launches-new-mobile-phone-detection-warning-system/

Detection systems have been around for a long time in military and security services use...one example here was lauched commercially at this years TISPOL conference in Manchester...mmmm  proposed change in the law launch of new product oh what a coincidence!...they happen to be the same supplier of the trial in Norfolk...

Roundtuit  
#60 Posted : 20 August 2019 09:38:25(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Interesting the trialled device is blind only picking up and acting upon signals eminating from a vehicle and is unable to differentiate how many human users may be involved (driver, passenger, vehicle itself).
stevedm  
#61 Posted : 20 August 2019 12:24:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

there is a hand held version available but it needs to be linked to video/image capture as I haven't seen one yet but should be developed along the same lines as the hand held speed detector...

jwk  
#62 Posted : 20 August 2019 14:28:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Originally Posted by: chris.packham Go to Quoted Post

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.

Mmm, just had a man from ROSPA in to talk to us, and he came up with a question to ask anybody who advocates the use of phones while driving: 'When you are using your phone, do you know what speed you are driving at?'. Maybe the phone use was implicated in the excessive speed?

John

jwk  
#63 Posted : 20 August 2019 14:32:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Originally Posted by: stevedm Go to Quoted Post

Not sure I could introduce that ban in an ambulance trust tho... :)

Ambulances are double-crewed: its the mate who takes the calls, the driver drives, at least that's how they did it at my last place,

John

stevedm  
#64 Posted : 21 August 2019 08:27:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

John...not always and as I spend most of my days in an RRV - on my own you it is unwise to make such a bullish statment...  :)

jwk  
#65 Posted : 21 August 2019 08:31:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Ah, yes, fair comment RRVs are single crewed its true. Our ambulances were always double-crewed, but RRVs are different. However Steve necessary calls about life or death just aren't in the same league as talk about sales figures or the forthcoming product launch. It's about balancing risk,

John

stevedm  
#66 Posted : 21 August 2019 13:06:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
stevedm

doh...of course 

AcornsConsult  
#67 Posted : 21 August 2019 14:38:14(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
AcornsConsult

Originally Posted by: jwk Go to Quoted Post
That argument, IMHO relies upon 2 activities - phone use and speed.  The legislation only deals with the phone use regardless of being stationery or speeding- so it would be as clear cut as a single word response or just listening to a conversation on the traditional otherwise clear road with no surrounding hazards, would result in a conviction with the associated consequences.  Having stopped more than a few drivers for excess speed, virtually none were on the phone at the time, in the main it was absolute denial or accepting they were thinking of almost anything else.  I'm sure that if we did the same research upon drivers engaged in smoking, chatting to the passenger or turned to see rear passengers we could achieve similar results.   On another forum the debate is whether police will get an exemption, and that overlaps to the ambulance etc as above.  If the evidence is such that ANY driver can or IS distracted by having a mobile phone call  including hands free, there is no sound reason why the emer services should be exempt or are we saying they are also exempt from distraction.  In a previous life and using handsfree under emer conditions, I could prioritise driving over any other conversation when needed, but the ability to make a 3-4 word comment can be critical - however current legislation for emer services exemptions is ever increasing beyond the traditional 3- do we end up with some being exempt from some rules but not others- again highly confusing and difficult to enforce.  We know that police/emer services are currently using the equivalent of 2 way radios (exempt activity due to the frequencies used), but under the new system, supposedly, the 'radios/comms' will be used within the frequencies that will bring them into this legislation.  IMHO, if the evidence of the danger / risk is so clear, they could not and should not be exempt.

Edited by user 21 August 2019 14:39:04(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

jwk  
#68 Posted : 21 August 2019 15:14:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jwk

Interestingly I had a driving assessment last week; the person who assessed me is doing a masters into the psychology of driving. All the evidence is that phone calls are uniquely distracting, more so than listening to the radio, eating an apple, filling your pipe or chatting to passengers. It seems that some (not all) drivers are psychologically transported during a call, and in cognitive terms are no longer in their car or engaged in driving. The effects (in terms of cognitive load) of a phone call persist for about ten minutes after replacing the handset/switching off the bluetooth - and that's for non-challenging calls: imagine the impact of a stressful call with your boss.

Emergency services, well, its a different matter, as I said in my last response to Steve, its about balancing risk. Emergency services drivers have a really good reason to talk while driving: someone's life might depend on it. Retail area managers, finance analysts, safety advisers, freelance beauty consultants, accountants, tax officers and MPs have no such reason.

If a ban will save lives (and the evidence is that it will) then what's the downside?

John

Roundtuit  
#69 Posted : 21 August 2019 15:34:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

the cost to the tax payer to deliver, the burden on the courts as someone argues removing their licence will infringe their human rights, and possibly double the casualties as more donors are removed from the pool. You are too late to tame this tiger - Jaguar Land Rover are now investigating a 3D display under the guise it is safer for the driver as it gains more attention. Manufacturers should be removing idiot aids from vehicles rather than adding more (then hiding behind small print in the manual, or advertisement pushing the blame to the user - see current Citroen connected app advertisement)
AcornsConsult  
#70 Posted : 22 August 2019 11:01:40(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
AcornsConsult

Originally Posted by: jwk Go to Quoted Post

Interestingly I had a driving assessment last week; the person who assessed me is doing a masters into the psychology of driving. All the evidence is that phone calls are uniquely distracting, more so than listening to the radio, eating an apple, filling your pipe or chatting to passengers. It seems that some (not all) drivers are psychologically transported during a call, and in cognitive terms are no longer in their car or engaged in driving. The effects (in terms of cognitive load) of a phone call persist for about ten minutes after replacing the handset/switching off the bluetooth - and that's for non-challenging calls: imagine the impact of a stressful call with your boss.

Emergency services, well, its a different matter, as I said in my last response to Steve, its about balancing risk. Emergency services drivers have a really good reason to talk while driving: someone's life might depend on it. Retail area managers, finance analysts, safety advisers, freelance beauty consultants, accountants, tax officers and MPs have no such reason.     John

I know what is suggested about the emer services but it may equally if not be more applicable to them - that congnitive 'transportation' to looking ahead to the incident they are attending or dealing with.  So again, I'd see the emer servcies being, potentially, more suseptable to being 'distratcedly transported'.   I'm sure you are already aware that phrase of Emer services to some means police/fire/ambo, yet to others it extends tothe legislated exemptions such as moutnain rescue, blood transport, Custims & Excise etc etc.  There are already bits where some have exemptions for one aspect that others do not have - so some can use blue lights but not exceed the speed limit for example!!!!!  The stressful calls with the client/boss is more our avenue (professional H&S in the workplace) to deal with - managing how calls are made between drivers and non-drivers to stop that conflict occurring - lets be honest, the current legislation is not preventing it, how will more laws stop it.  

Its something that could be solved almost overnight if it was addressed within the workplace RIGHT NOW.

Users browsing this topic
2 Pages<12
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.