Originally Posted by: WatsonD

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."

Originally Posted by: RayRapp

Originally Posted by: achrn

Originally Posted by: WatsonD

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.

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!

Originally Posted by: achrn

Originally Posted by: RayRapp

Originally Posted by: achrn

Originally Posted by: WatsonD

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.   

Originally Posted by: RayRapp

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

Originally Posted by: achrn

Originally Posted by: WatsonD

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. 

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.  

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...

Originally Posted by: stevedm

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

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

Originally Posted by: 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.     John

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