new tougher rules for mobile phone users

Fat_Walt

unforeseen wrote: »

So you consider the figures given in the spreadsheets at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras50-contributory-factors are inaccurate but have no proof

How can they be accurate if all the phones aren't examined?

unforeseen

So how inaccurate do you think they are. A few deaths not attributed? 10s? 100s?

You must have some idea.

2015 will be the first full year where figures will take this into account (decision was made mid 2014 to check mobiles in all accidents). So are we going to see a massive rise? I doubt it. It was probably standard even in 2014 to check mobile phones in fatal accidents.

The 2015 figures should be appearing fairly shortly, based on the publication date of the 2014 figures so we shall see.

My prediction is that any change will be within the normal year on year variation that is expected.

arcon5

1886 wrote: »

I think there should also be a law for people not being allowed to use their phones when they go out to a restaurant.

I was on holiday in Cornwall recently and happened to look around a really nice restaurant we were in and on three of the other four tables people were using their phones instead of enjoying the company of the people they are with.

It's very, very sad

Maybe they was enjoying each other's company from the comforts of Facebook messenger

arcon5

As a serial mobile phone user I'll think twice in future - I'll do a double take instead to make sure no police cars are around.
Although fortunately the odds are forever in my favor

Mercdriver

arcon5 wrote: »

As a serial mobile phone user I'll think twice in future - I'll do a double take instead to make sure no police cars are around.
Although fortunately the odds are forever in my favor

Why does the prospect of distraction causing an accident scare you less than getting caught?

You really should hand in your keys if that's your attitude. You shouldn't be on the road.

Joe_Horner

The problem with the statistics is that they can "demonstrate" pretty much whatever the party presenting them wants. That's not some sort of conspiracy theory, or even particularly cynical, it's just a natural consequence of the fact that most of the population are statistically illiterate.

As a very simple example, in the post earlier, it was stated that "the biggest cause" of deaths involving distractions was mobile phone use - 17 out of 88 deaths.

Now, aside from the fact that there were almost certainly more than 88 fatals caused by distraction (of some sort) in that year, 17 out of 88 simply isn't "the biggest cause".

It may, or may not, be the biggest single cause but that depends how you break down the various causes.

Note that they've included "texting, tweeting and taking calls" as a single "cause". But have they done similar to other distractions?

Have they included (for example) use of satnav, radio and media players on combined units as a "single" cause, or split them into 3 different?

Have they counted distraction by a front seat passenger as the same, or different from, distraction by a child in the back?

Conversely, if they split the various mobile uses into "different" causes - as they likely have with the other "related" ones above - would we find that answering calls contributed none of those deaths, texting accounted for 15 of them and tweeting for 2? Or that they were all down to calls and texting had no effect?

Without a lot of analysis of the raw data, which most of us aren't qualified to do, we simply don't - and can't - know. But we can - and should - be wary of any message that appears to be backed by incontrovertible statistics.

None of that detracts from the fact that mobile phone use is an entirely avoidable cause of death and injury on the road but, if it was "a factor" (ie: not necessarily even the root cause) for 17 out of the 1800 or so deaths each year then there are surely far more productive areas to focus on!

consumers_revenge

People will still use phones - police enforcement just doesn't happen.


I see about 1 in 12 drivers on their phones ( not handsfree ) when driving my motorbike EVERY SINGLE DAY and I only do 11 miles a day.


Always fun to slow down, make an obvious check off their number plates and wait for them to register I'm checking their number plates then the phone goes away straight away. I am in a high viz police type jacket ( actually a builders jacket ), once glance and the phone goes away.


Drivers know there are no police about so don't care.

Joe_Horner

consumers_revenge wrote: »

People will still use phones - police enforcement just doesn't happen.


I see about 1 in 12 drivers on their phones ( not handsfree ) when driving my motorbike EVERY SINGLE DAY and I only do 11 miles a day.


Always fun to slow down, make an obvious check off their number plates and wait for them to register I'm checking their number plates then the phone goes away straight away. I am in a high viz police type jacket ( actually a builders jacket ), once glance and the phone goes away.


Drivers know there are no police about so don't care.

The thing is, at least anecdotally, that sort of observed prevalence leading to 17 fatalities - where the use of the phone is "a factor" but may not have been the primary cause - really does suggest that it's not as much of a risk as it's portrayed to be.

If 1 in 12 drivers are using them during any given journey on any one day but only 17 of those millions of drivers are having serious accidents in a year as a result then the actual risk factor is really very small indeed.

I'm not excusing or trying to justify their use because, except in exceptional circumstances, their use is entirely avoidable so any risk they create is an unnecessary risk. But I do find it depressing that people allow attention to be distracted from generally bad driving standards by such low-hanging fruit.

arcon5

Mercdriver wrote: »

Why does the prospect of distraction causing an accident scare you less than getting caught?

You really should hand in your keys if that's your attitude. You shouldn't be on the road.

Bearing in mind were not talking about something daft like reading and sending texts whilst driving or posting on forums whilst driving etc.... But what makes having a phone to your ear any more dangerous than people that use their sat nav whilst driving? Or listening to loud music? Or entertaining kids in the back seat? Or smoking a fag?

Speaking on the phone will distract your attention if you let it. You can control where your attention lies in the same way as if a kid was screaming and fighting in the back you can control how much of your attention it takes.

Then there's parents with those mirrors that mean they can see a rear facing baby seat, you will have your eyes off the road longer focusing on the child than you would accepting a call.

As someone not proud of the fact I seem to use my phone regularly behind the wheel, hitting me in the wallet is more likely to have an affect.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

arcon5 wrote: »

Bearing in mind were not talking about something daft like reading and sending texts whilst driving or posting on forums whilst driving etc.... But what makes having a phone to your ear any more dangerous than people that use their sat nav whilst driving? Or listening to loud music? Or entertaining kids in the back seat? Or smoking a fag?

Speaking on the phone will distract your attention if you let it. You can control where your attention lies in the same way as if a kid was screaming and fighting in the back you can control how much of your attention it takes.

Then there's parents with those mirrors that mean they can see a rear facing baby seat, you will have your eyes off the road longer focusing on the child than you would accepting a call.

As someone not proud of the fact I seem to use my phone regularly behind the wheel, hitting me in the wallet is more likely to have an affect.

your full of rubbish.


Actually you come across as being extremely proud you flout the law.