This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Today I was driving along a busy dual carriage-way at about 65-70mph with traffic on my off-side when a car joined at considerable speed from a slip road. I was obliged to brake sharply because a) the car joining the carriage way was showing no sign of adjusting speed to join the road and b) I was unable to pull into the off-side lane due to the volume of traffic.
About half a minute later the "offending" vehicle started decelerating and, with enough of a gap in the off side lane, I overtook. As I did so it became pretty obvious that the driver was using their mobile and, I suspect, had been doing so when joining from the slip road.
About five minutes later the same car overtook me and, glancing across, I could see that the driver was still using the phone.
OK, the government are increasing the penalty to £200/six points. Big deal. If the penalty went up to £1000 with a ban I'm sure people would still offend simply because offenders are NOT being nicked and people know they've got a fair chance of getting away with it.
I do wonder what the(serious) answer is.
Post edited at 19:52
19
In reply to FesteringSore:
The answer to almost any "how do we deal with" question on driving is increasigly in my view "self driving cars".
Once human driving is optional and most cars are monitoring all driving around then all the time, there will be no reason not to ban from driving any human who doesn't meet a consistently high standard of driving.
However, pedestrians and cyclists raised in this robotic utopia will die the first time they go to a country with all human drivers.
The answer to almost any "how do we deal with" question on driving is increasigly in my view "self driving cars".
Once human driving is optional and most cars are monitoring all driving around then all the time, there will be no reason not to ban from driving any human who doesn't meet a consistently high standard of driving.
However, pedestrians and cyclists raised in this robotic utopia will die the first time they go to a country with all human drivers.
Post edited at 19:53
8
In reply to wintertree:
Autonomous car might be a solution in the long term but I believe the problem needs to be dealt with more urgently.
One view I have is that if somebody can afford a mobile then they can easily afford a hands free. That said, I feel they also can be sufficiently distracting as to be dangerous.
Autonomous car might be a solution in the long term but I believe the problem needs to be dealt with more urgently.
One view I have is that if somebody can afford a mobile then they can easily afford a hands free. That said, I feel they also can be sufficiently distracting as to be dangerous.
5
5
1
In reply to FesteringSore:
Same way we deal with people who exceed the speed limit, tailgate, drive aggressively... I've no idea but it happens every day
Same way we deal with people who exceed the speed limit, tailgate, drive aggressively... I've no idea but it happens every day
2
One thing I was considering was whether, if an offending driver was clearly seen on somebody else's dashcam to be using a phone whether the police would accept the footage to bring a prosecution.(or any other offence)
No doubt there are probably problems that would arise
Post edited at 20:12
2
In reply to FesteringSore:
The evidence suggests that the UKs roads are becoming ever safer, so it may not support your belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great_Britain#/media...
As well as (not so) far off autonomy, increased driver aids are filtering down from top end cars right now.
As for what can be down now, enforcing the existing law would be a good start...
> Autonomous car might be a solution in the long term but I believe the problem needs to be dealt with more urgently.
The evidence suggests that the UKs roads are becoming ever safer, so it may not support your belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great_Britain#/media...
As well as (not so) far off autonomy, increased driver aids are filtering down from top end cars right now.
As for what can be down now, enforcing the existing law would be a good start...
1
In reply to FesteringSore:
You bring the offence in line with other more serious offences like dangerous driving, drunk driving etc and punish accordingly.
At the very least such punishment should include a minimum of a year's driving ban together with the necessity to take a re-test following attending a course similar to the Speed Awareness Courses, but tailored to deal with the dangers associated with using a phone when driving.
These selfish individuals don't accept that the Law applies to them as well as everyone else and the offence needs to be stigmatised in the same way that drink driving is.
You bring the offence in line with other more serious offences like dangerous driving, drunk driving etc and punish accordingly.
At the very least such punishment should include a minimum of a year's driving ban together with the necessity to take a re-test following attending a course similar to the Speed Awareness Courses, but tailored to deal with the dangers associated with using a phone when driving.
These selfish individuals don't accept that the Law applies to them as well as everyone else and the offence needs to be stigmatised in the same way that drink driving is.
9
1
In reply to Trangia:
Agreed but much of the problem lies with the lack of enforcement.
> You bring the offence in line with other more serious offences like dangerous driving, drunk driving etc and punish accordingly.
> At the very least such punishment should include a minimum of a year's driving ban together with the necessity to take a re-test following attending a course similar to the Speed Awareness Courses, but tailored to deal with the dangers associated with using a phone when driving.
> These selfish individuals don't accept that the Law applies to them as well as everyone else and the offence needs to be stigmatised in the same way that drink driving is.
Agreed but much of the problem lies with the lack of enforcement.
4
5
3
In reply to Dave the Rave:
Yes, and ridiculously harsh penalties have worked so well as a deterrent for other offences too, so it's bound to work.
> Lifetime driving bans if caught? You would only have to do a few?
Yes, and ridiculously harsh penalties have worked so well as a deterrent for other offences too, so it's bound to work.
12
In reply to FesteringSore:
Round 'em up, put 'em in a field and bomb the bastards.
youtube.com/watch?v=xGMWZJlA0QA&
Round 'em up, put 'em in a field and bomb the bastards.
youtube.com/watch?v=xGMWZJlA0QA&
1
10
In reply to john arran:
Where's your logic? If they're banned for life then they can't endanger others again by this means.
> Yes, and ridiculously harsh penalties have worked so well as a deterrent for other offences too, so it's bound to work.
Where's your logic? If they're banned for life then they can't endanger others again by this means.
3
4
In reply to Dave the Rave:
I'm presuming the main objective is to stop people offending in the first place and not just to stop the few you've banned for life from doing so again. Lock 'em up and throw away the key policies have a very poor record of effectiveness as prevention measures.
I'm presuming the main objective is to stop people offending in the first place and not just to stop the few you've banned for life from doing so again. Lock 'em up and throw away the key policies have a very poor record of effectiveness as prevention measures.
14
4
In reply to FesteringSore:
"If human beings don't keep exercising their lips, their brains start working.”
"If human beings don't keep exercising their lips, their brains start working.”
3
1
In reply to john arran:
Again, I just don't get your logic. You've banned a few for life so the others don't offend in the f i r s t p l a c e. D e r r!
> I'm presuming the main objective is to stop people offending in the first place and not just to stop the few you've banned for life from doing so again. Lock 'em up and throw away the key policies have a very poor record of effectiveness as prevention measures.
Again, I just don't get your logic. You've banned a few for life so the others don't offend in the f i r s t p l a c e. D e r r!
2
18
In reply to FesteringSore:
I suspect that the answer lies not with the courts, but with the changing view of society in general, in the same way that drink-driving went from being the norm to being socially unacceptable.
By this I mean that very few of us would consider getting into a mate's car when they're drunk, and would most likely give them a tongue-lashing into the bargain. Once we start doing this to mates who use their phone at the wheel, attitudes will begin to change.
I get the feeling at the moment that the tide is beginning to change, and that the acceptance of using the phone at the wheel is becoming more strained. The truck incident on the A34 seems to have concentrated a few minds...
I suspect that the answer lies not with the courts, but with the changing view of society in general, in the same way that drink-driving went from being the norm to being socially unacceptable.
By this I mean that very few of us would consider getting into a mate's car when they're drunk, and would most likely give them a tongue-lashing into the bargain. Once we start doing this to mates who use their phone at the wheel, attitudes will begin to change.
I get the feeling at the moment that the tide is beginning to change, and that the acceptance of using the phone at the wheel is becoming more strained. The truck incident on the A34 seems to have concentrated a few minds...
4
In reply to Dave the Rave:
why not just go straight for the organ banks?
> Again, I just don't get your logic. You've banned a few for life so the others don't offend in the f i r s t p l a c e. D e r r!
why not just go straight for the organ banks?
1
In reply to FesteringSore:
There are virtually no traffic cops any more, that's why nothing gets done. The money went on PCSO'S who do f=ck all and the highways officers who also do f=ck all day long.
There are virtually no traffic cops any more, that's why nothing gets done. The money went on PCSO'S who do f=ck all and the highways officers who also do f=ck all day long.
9
2
In reply to Jim 1003:
Couldn't agree more. The lack of visible traffic police makes this sort of thing inevitable. Some of the worst driving is by young people on inner city roads; yet who is there to stop them? Traffic police in cars would have a field day if they could be bothered. Maybe it's too hard, I really don't know.
Couldn't agree more. The lack of visible traffic police makes this sort of thing inevitable. Some of the worst driving is by young people on inner city roads; yet who is there to stop them? Traffic police in cars would have a field day if they could be bothered. Maybe it's too hard, I really don't know.
1
In reply to Jim 1003:
There is a benefit of the HATOs - they are non-judgmental and exist only to get everyone safe and traffic moving again.
I do agree with the principle, though - cameras are near enough the only method of enforcement, and as of yet a camera can't detect someone using their phone. We need more actual police out there pulling people over. The cost of that should be borne by fines - if it isn't, increase them.
> There are virtually no traffic cops any more, that's why nothing gets done. The money went on PCSO'S who do f=ck all and the highways officers who also do f=ck all day long.
There is a benefit of the HATOs - they are non-judgmental and exist only to get everyone safe and traffic moving again.
I do agree with the principle, though - cameras are near enough the only method of enforcement, and as of yet a camera can't detect someone using their phone. We need more actual police out there pulling people over. The cost of that should be borne by fines - if it isn't, increase them.
4
In reply to FesteringSore:
The recent week long focus by the police charged 8000 people for using a phone while driving and due to success they are doing another one soon. Along with the upgrade of penalty that's hit a fair few people.
But things like that and other campaigns to raise awareness will work, just not overnight. It comes down to society thinking it as wrong. That takes time.
It's also like many driving issues, the public hate being controlled.speed cameras are despised but they're their to slow people down and make them pay attention. Go suggest cars have the speed limited to 70 and you'll get told to f off. Sensors in the car that beep if you're tailgating? Screw you nanny state.
And due to how unpopular it is no government want to crack Down too hard.
Hopefully another will change over the next say decade as another generation of "in my day" drivers get offt he Road and the newer drivers who've grown up and learned differently become the norm
(I sure now there'll be response of how all young people are irresponsible boy/girl racers but it's not true)
The recent week long focus by the police charged 8000 people for using a phone while driving and due to success they are doing another one soon. Along with the upgrade of penalty that's hit a fair few people.
But things like that and other campaigns to raise awareness will work, just not overnight. It comes down to society thinking it as wrong. That takes time.
It's also like many driving issues, the public hate being controlled.speed cameras are despised but they're their to slow people down and make them pay attention. Go suggest cars have the speed limited to 70 and you'll get told to f off. Sensors in the car that beep if you're tailgating? Screw you nanny state.
And due to how unpopular it is no government want to crack Down too hard.
Hopefully another will change over the next say decade as another generation of "in my day" drivers get offt he Road and the newer drivers who've grown up and learned differently become the norm
(I sure now there'll be response of how all young people are irresponsible boy/girl racers but it's not true)
6
In reply to FesteringSore:
More police officers, agreed about this PCSO crap. Police are too tangled up in red tape and paperwork to meet quotas to be out and actually do some work.
Harsher punishments. Driving while using a mobile phone doesn't need a seperate law, it's driving without due care and attention.
And proper road safety adverts, non of this mild, wet lettuce "think" crap.
Show them a few mangled, burnt bodies in wrecks, kids smeared across Tarmac, and show them the aftermath.
The whole driving system is flawed and broken. Get a proper test sorted. Get limitations on engine size to experience, have a proper test. Have a first aid test, and a realities of driving lecture.
Make no illusion to the fact that consequences could be death. Target the "won't happen to me" attitude.
More police officers, agreed about this PCSO crap. Police are too tangled up in red tape and paperwork to meet quotas to be out and actually do some work.
Harsher punishments. Driving while using a mobile phone doesn't need a seperate law, it's driving without due care and attention.
And proper road safety adverts, non of this mild, wet lettuce "think" crap.
Show them a few mangled, burnt bodies in wrecks, kids smeared across Tarmac, and show them the aftermath.
The whole driving system is flawed and broken. Get a proper test sorted. Get limitations on engine size to experience, have a proper test. Have a first aid test, and a realities of driving lecture.
Make no illusion to the fact that consequences could be death. Target the "won't happen to me" attitude.
Post edited at 07:14
6
1
In reply to Dave the Rave:
Which part of "Lock 'em up and throw away the key policies have a very poor record of effectiveness as prevention measures" did you find logically difficult to follow?
> Again, I just don't get your logic. You've banned a few for life so the others don't offend in the f i r s t p l a c e. D e r r!
Which part of "Lock 'em up and throw away the key policies have a very poor record of effectiveness as prevention measures" did you find logically difficult to follow?
12
In reply to FesteringSore:
I would suggest by naming and shaming. Pictures in the local paper and on advertising hoardings, paid for by the offenders. If possible on their route to work. I would suggest that many of the people who use mobile phones whilst driving would actually agree with this idea, whilst not actually making the connection that they are part of the problem.
I would suggest by naming and shaming. Pictures in the local paper and on advertising hoardings, paid for by the offenders. If possible on their route to work. I would suggest that many of the people who use mobile phones whilst driving would actually agree with this idea, whilst not actually making the connection that they are part of the problem.
3
In reply to john arran:
The other problem with extremely harsh penalties is that it has an effect on their families. Loss of job means they will need to be supported by public money. It's not a good idea. More education would work better.
In Norway if you get caught drink driving the penalty is 1 months salary and 28 days in prison. You can choose when you serve the prison term (within a certain time) so it doesn't lead to job loss.
Easy option would be to have every car fitted with a device to prevent phones from working unless through the hands free but that would also be a bit broad if you have passengers.
The other problem with extremely harsh penalties is that it has an effect on their families. Loss of job means they will need to be supported by public money. It's not a good idea. More education would work better.
In Norway if you get caught drink driving the penalty is 1 months salary and 28 days in prison. You can choose when you serve the prison term (within a certain time) so it doesn't lead to job loss.
Easy option would be to have every car fitted with a device to prevent phones from working unless through the hands free but that would also be a bit broad if you have passengers.
2
1
In reply to FesteringSore:
Software that disables the phone whilst moving at more than walking speed.
People will say what about passengers, sorry tough you will have to wait till journeys end.
People will say what about hands free, sorry they are almost as bad. (I often miss my turnoff whilst on hands free)
People will say I need my phone for my business, right now you do yes because business has got used to and expect instant communication but if that is removed business will get used to that too.
Anyone found driving with a mobile after circumventing the software gets a year's ban and £1000 fine.
Software that disables the phone whilst moving at more than walking speed.
People will say what about passengers, sorry tough you will have to wait till journeys end.
People will say what about hands free, sorry they are almost as bad. (I often miss my turnoff whilst on hands free)
People will say I need my phone for my business, right now you do yes because business has got used to and expect instant communication but if that is removed business will get used to that too.
Anyone found driving with a mobile after circumventing the software gets a year's ban and £1000 fine.
4
5
In reply to Dax H:
Good points except for the prevention of passengers using a mobile.(I wonder if there is some way in which the use of a mobile can be restricted to the occupants of rear seats)
> Software that disables the phone whilst moving at more than walking speed.
> People will say what about passengers, sorry tough you will have to wait till journeys end.
> People will say what about hands free, sorry they are almost as bad. (I often miss my turnoff whilst on hands free)
> People will say I need my phone for my business, right now you do yes because business has got used to and expect instant communication but if that is removed business will get used to that too.
> Anyone found driving with a mobile after circumventing the software gets a year's ban and £1000 fine.
Good points except for the prevention of passengers using a mobile.(I wonder if there is some way in which the use of a mobile can be restricted to the occupants of rear seats)
Post edited at 08:49
In reply to FesteringSore:
I think the improved safety, after all it's potentially lives we are talking about, greatly outweighs this minor inconvenience. If a passenger needs to use their phone what's the problem with stopping? After all we managed perfectly well without them before phones came along. You can't use your phone on a plane either, or when in areas of poor reception in the mountains, yet we still manage........
> Good points except for the prevention of passengers using a mobile.
I think the improved safety, after all it's potentially lives we are talking about, greatly outweighs this minor inconvenience. If a passenger needs to use their phone what's the problem with stopping? After all we managed perfectly well without them before phones came along. You can't use your phone on a plane either, or when in areas of poor reception in the mountains, yet we still manage........
4
4
In reply to Dave the Rave:
The problem isn't the sentence, it's the sentencing. If every driver knew that they would be nailed 100%, without a doubt, for offending, you'd only have to set the fine at 100 £ and a few points and that would be enough.
Personally, though, I tend to agree with you. Sentences should be absolute and life-long and criplingly severe for these "optional" offenses that are committed purely by brazen choice. This is not like speeding where you might have missed a sign or an unusual limit or had to accellerate to avoid a hazard. Picking up your phone while driving is entirely optional - there is no circumstance I can think of in which one is forced to do so or in which one might do so "accidentally".
The problem isn't the sentence, it's the sentencing. If every driver knew that they would be nailed 100%, without a doubt, for offending, you'd only have to set the fine at 100 £ and a few points and that would be enough.
Personally, though, I tend to agree with you. Sentences should be absolute and life-long and criplingly severe for these "optional" offenses that are committed purely by brazen choice. This is not like speeding where you might have missed a sign or an unusual limit or had to accellerate to avoid a hazard. Picking up your phone while driving is entirely optional - there is no circumstance I can think of in which one is forced to do so or in which one might do so "accidentally".
4
In reply to Lenin:
Catching, naming and shaming. Fine plus Weekend prison so you can explain to your workmates how you spent it!
Shaming in the community - weekend work gangs with phone labels or perhaps even sitting out in the stocks for public ridicule.
Catching, naming and shaming. Fine plus Weekend prison so you can explain to your workmates how you spent it!
Shaming in the community - weekend work gangs with phone labels or perhaps even sitting out in the stocks for public ridicule.
3
In reply to FesteringSore:
I heard recently that the technology has long existed that could block phone signal in the drivers seat (but nowhere else), but car manufacturers think no-one would buy a car with it in. Maybe if this was made compulsory? I am not too up on tech, but I presume there should be a way to make it possible to block calls and texts but still have functional GPS if people use their phones for this function.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/mobile-phones-cars...
I heard recently that the technology has long existed that could block phone signal in the drivers seat (but nowhere else), but car manufacturers think no-one would buy a car with it in. Maybe if this was made compulsory? I am not too up on tech, but I presume there should be a way to make it possible to block calls and texts but still have functional GPS if people use their phones for this function.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/mobile-phones-cars...
Post edited at 09:30
1
In reply to girlymonkey:
I never understand why cars are allowed to be sold in the UK that can exceed the speed limit by loads while we're mentioning technology limiting things in cars.
I never understand why cars are allowed to be sold in the UK that can exceed the speed limit by loads while we're mentioning technology limiting things in cars.
2
1
In reply to FesteringSore:
Is it that big a problem though? 1,750 deaths and 20,000 serious injuries from driving. A small proportion of these will be from mobile phones. Apparently there's been 67 mobile phone driving deaths in three years up to 2015 - 22 a year. In a country of close to 70 million. I expect a public campaign can bring that down as well.
For comparison. Drink driving deaths in 2014 was about 250.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great_Britain
(Having said all that I support the bigger penalty, and I'd support a ban, which I think would make a difference. You might be unlikely to get caught but would be a high cost if you do.)
Is it that big a problem though? 1,750 deaths and 20,000 serious injuries from driving. A small proportion of these will be from mobile phones. Apparently there's been 67 mobile phone driving deaths in three years up to 2015 - 22 a year. In a country of close to 70 million. I expect a public campaign can bring that down as well.
For comparison. Drink driving deaths in 2014 was about 250.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great_Britain
(Having said all that I support the bigger penalty, and I'd support a ban, which I think would make a difference. You might be unlikely to get caught but would be a high cost if you do.)
4
In reply to FesteringSore:
There can be no easy solution. It is symptomatic of the psychology of the human in a car. There seems to be a delusion of invincibility combined with a lack of basic consideration for others. A trip to a trauma call for an RTA at a local hospital might be enlightening for some.
Perhaps an addition to the penalty of confiscation plus/minus destruction of the phone might help? Cars can be impounded without insurance etc.
There can be no easy solution. It is symptomatic of the psychology of the human in a car. There seems to be a delusion of invincibility combined with a lack of basic consideration for others. A trip to a trauma call for an RTA at a local hospital might be enlightening for some.
Perhaps an addition to the penalty of confiscation plus/minus destruction of the phone might help? Cars can be impounded without insurance etc.
1
In reply to tanssop:
Confiscation of phone on the spot! Great idea. It'll never happen but great idea!
Confiscation of phone on the spot! Great idea. It'll never happen but great idea!
1
In reply to FesteringSore:
We could impose a technical solution. Or we could adopt a similar approach to the one which dramatically reduced drink driving, to stigmatise it. Or we could accept that our roads are getting safer and that something like the current level of policing, sanction and rate of offending is appropriate/tolerable. Frankly I don't much care which if any we go for, we have more pressing cultural and technical problems to address.
jk
We could impose a technical solution. Or we could adopt a similar approach to the one which dramatically reduced drink driving, to stigmatise it. Or we could accept that our roads are getting safer and that something like the current level of policing, sanction and rate of offending is appropriate/tolerable. Frankly I don't much care which if any we go for, we have more pressing cultural and technical problems to address.
jk
2
In reply to FesteringSore:
Using a phone whilst driving is the only mistake which cannot be done by accident. All other driving offences can be, you can forget to put on seat belt, accidentally speed, or even be accidentally over the drink drive limit the next day but you cannot accidentally answer the phone and for that reason it should be an instant ban.
Using a phone whilst driving is the only mistake which cannot be done by accident. All other driving offences can be, you can forget to put on seat belt, accidentally speed, or even be accidentally over the drink drive limit the next day but you cannot accidentally answer the phone and for that reason it should be an instant ban.
3
3
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:
Another argument for bans is that there are too many cars on the road, anyway. Instead of opting for silly systems like the odd/even-numberplate schemes (used in France, I believe), why not simply raise the bar for behaviour and driving ability? Thin the numbers of cars by permanently removing people who use their phones, dramatically exceed the speed limit, harass (or outright kill) cyclists, or drive while drunk?
Another argument for bans is that there are too many cars on the road, anyway. Instead of opting for silly systems like the odd/even-numberplate schemes (used in France, I believe), why not simply raise the bar for behaviour and driving ability? Thin the numbers of cars by permanently removing people who use their phones, dramatically exceed the speed limit, harass (or outright kill) cyclists, or drive while drunk?
2
In reply to Andypeak:
Accidentally drive while over the limit? Really? Please tell that to either of the two people I know, personally, who live on as victims of drunk drivers and have had their lives permanently changed (and not for the better) by their injuries.
Accidentally drive while over the limit? Really? Please tell that to either of the two people I know, personally, who live on as victims of drunk drivers and have had their lives permanently changed (and not for the better) by their injuries.
4
1
In reply to FesteringSore:
The answer is treat bad driving as bad driving regardless of the cause. Phones are just one cause, there are many many others.
So any penalty should be based on the effect rather than the cause.
DC
> I do wonder what the(serious) answer is.
The answer is treat bad driving as bad driving regardless of the cause. Phones are just one cause, there are many many others.
So any penalty should be based on the effect rather than the cause.
DC
2
In reply to FesteringSore:
first offence gets a hefty fine, points on your licence and compulsory attendance at an education lecture about dangerous driving which the offender has to pay for. 2nd offence a ten year ban.
should do the job I imagine.
first offence gets a hefty fine, points on your licence and compulsory attendance at an education lecture about dangerous driving which the offender has to pay for. 2nd offence a ten year ban.
should do the job I imagine.
1
In reply to Dave the Rave:
...and chopping the hands off shop lifters.
> Again, I just don't get your logic. You've banned a few for life so the others don't offend in the f i r s t p l a c e. D e r r!
...and chopping the hands off shop lifters.
1
In reply to Bootrock:
There is a fair amount of evidence pointing towards diminishing returns in the shock factor. People react by simply tuning it out and discarding it.
> And proper road safety adverts, non of this mild, wet lettuce "think" crap.
> Show them a few mangled, burnt bodies in wrecks, kids smeared across Tarmac, and show them the aftermath.
There is a fair amount of evidence pointing towards diminishing returns in the shock factor. People react by simply tuning it out and discarding it.
1
In reply to girlymonkey:
I would be bloody surprised if it did exist. What you can do, and is partially done i believe, is when a phone is paired with a car it can have features disabled. Since that will most likely be the drivers phone it will sort of work.
However the obvious work around is not to pair. Lose some functionality like streaming but get to drive like a tw*t texting away.
> I heard recently that the technology has long existed that could block phone signal in the drivers seat (but nowhere else), but car manufacturers think no-one would buy a car with it in.
I would be bloody surprised if it did exist. What you can do, and is partially done i believe, is when a phone is paired with a car it can have features disabled. Since that will most likely be the drivers phone it will sort of work.
However the obvious work around is not to pair. Lose some functionality like streaming but get to drive like a tw*t texting away.
In reply to Scott K:
That was the reason Christopher Gard was still driving, after multiple convictions for using his phone, when he killed Lee Martin.
If you dont learn before you hit 12 points that its wrong then education is rather unlikely to work.
> The other problem with extremely harsh penalties is that it has an effect on their families. Loss of job means they will need to be supported by public money. It's not a good idea.
That was the reason Christopher Gard was still driving, after multiple convictions for using his phone, when he killed Lee Martin.
If you dont learn before you hit 12 points that its wrong then education is rather unlikely to work.
6
In reply to KevinD:
Did you read the link? It doesn't explain how it works, but doesn't sound like it's driver operated.
Did you read the link? It doesn't explain how it works, but doesn't sound like it's driver operated.
In reply to girlymonkey:
I did. There wasnt enough information in it to be useful. The problem though is it will need the phone users cooperation. How is it going to decide where you are? Bearing in mind the ease of disabling sensors?
Whilst there are a couple of possible ways they would be rather intrusive and almost certainly give lots of false positives (possibly the only one which wouldnt would be a camera continually monitoring the driver).
> Did you read the link? It doesn't explain how it works, but doesn't sound like it's driver operated.
I did. There wasnt enough information in it to be useful. The problem though is it will need the phone users cooperation. How is it going to decide where you are? Bearing in mind the ease of disabling sensors?
Whilst there are a couple of possible ways they would be rather intrusive and almost certainly give lots of false positives (possibly the only one which wouldnt would be a camera continually monitoring the driver).
In reply to KevinD:
I'm afraid I don't know enough about technology to understand the limitations - I feel like we are entering a sci-fi age where machines can just do things! Lol.
I can't remember where I heard that this system has been possible for a long time, but that manufacturers didn't want to install it. Even if it does require driver co-operation, maybe this will still help some people?
I'm interested to see where it goes
I'm afraid I don't know enough about technology to understand the limitations - I feel like we are entering a sci-fi age where machines can just do things! Lol.
I can't remember where I heard that this system has been possible for a long time, but that manufacturers didn't want to install it. Even if it does require driver co-operation, maybe this will still help some people?
I'm interested to see where it goes
In reply to KevinD:
I used to help out at a youth event that helped to combat young deaths on the roads, and I can assure you the reaction from the kids there was not one of tuning out.
I echo the comment above about taking offenders on a shout with the Emergency services to an RTC and let them see the aftermath.
> There is a fair amount of evidence pointing towards diminishing returns in the shock factor. People react by simply tuning it out and discarding it.
I used to help out at a youth event that helped to combat young deaths on the roads, and I can assure you the reaction from the kids there was not one of tuning out.
I echo the comment above about taking offenders on a shout with the Emergency services to an RTC and let them see the aftermath.
1
1
In reply to sebastian dangerfield:
It's about proving it was using a mobile phone. Think about how many incidents that happened where someone got away with using their phone, the police have to have proof of a phone being used, video evidence or in the event of a death, going through phone records.
To pick up a phone is to actively diminish your attention to driving. If you kill someone while on the phone and driving, that's manslaughter as far as I am concerned.
> Is it that big a problem though? 1,750 deaths and 20,000 serious injuries from driving. A small proportion of these will be from mobile phones. Apparently there's been 67 mobile phone driving deaths in three years up to 2015 - 22 a year. In a country of close to 70 million. I expect a public campaign can bring that down as well.
It's about proving it was using a mobile phone. Think about how many incidents that happened where someone got away with using their phone, the police have to have proof of a phone being used, video evidence or in the event of a death, going through phone records.
To pick up a phone is to actively diminish your attention to driving. If you kill someone while on the phone and driving, that's manslaughter as far as I am concerned.
3
1
In reply to Dax H:
It's not about moving. It's about being in charge of a vehicle. You need to have attention at all times of being in charge of that vehicle.
Traffic lights, junctions, traffic, crossings, regardless of speed require attention.
Bit silly really.
It's not about hands free. It's not a radio to transfer information in a set procedure with training. You are putting your concentration into your conversation about tonight's dinner and not on the small child stepping out from behind the parked car.
> Software that disables the phone whilst moving at more than walking speed.
It's not about moving. It's about being in charge of a vehicle. You need to have attention at all times of being in charge of that vehicle.
Traffic lights, junctions, traffic, crossings, regardless of speed require attention.
> People will say what about passengers, sorry tough you will have to wait till journeys end.
Bit silly really.
> People will say what about hands free, sorry they are almost as bad. (I often miss my turnoff whilst on hands free)
It's not about hands free. It's not a radio to transfer information in a set procedure with training. You are putting your concentration into your conversation about tonight's dinner and not on the small child stepping out from behind the parked car.
1
In reply to girlymonkey:
The practical technical option is to restrict the functionality of any phone handset which is traveling at or above a certain speed. There are scenarios in which this is not going to be technically possible but they are the exception, not the norm. This would most easily be accomplished with a handset firmware update but could potentially also be implemented at the cell masts. It's expensive, draconian and excessive but anything much more nuanced is impractical (differentiating road and rail travel would be possible for GPS enabled handsets were the limitations imposed by the handset rather than the masts).
jk
> Did you read the link? It doesn't explain how it works, but doesn't sound like it's driver operated.
The practical technical option is to restrict the functionality of any phone handset which is traveling at or above a certain speed. There are scenarios in which this is not going to be technically possible but they are the exception, not the norm. This would most easily be accomplished with a handset firmware update but could potentially also be implemented at the cell masts. It's expensive, draconian and excessive but anything much more nuanced is impractical (differentiating road and rail travel would be possible for GPS enabled handsets were the limitations imposed by the handset rather than the masts).
jk
Post edited at 12:14
In reply to john arran:
Murder - life sentence, doesn't happen all that much.
Driving on phone - small fine & a few points, happens all the time.
> Which part of "Lock 'em up and throw away the key policies have a very poor record of effectiveness as prevention measures" did you find logically difficult to follow?
Murder - life sentence, doesn't happen all that much.
Driving on phone - small fine & a few points, happens all the time.
1
4
In reply to FesteringSore:
I was walking through the village the other day and a driver was cleaning their teeth with no hands on the wheel as they changed gear ... I reported them to the police via email including registration number and car make/model & colour. I don't know if anything did happen but they did respond and thank me and confirm it was forwarded to the local police team for appropriate action, whether anything was done by them I have no idea but at least I felt I had done my bit as a responsible citizen.
> Today I was driving along a busy dual carriage-way at about 65-70mph with traffic on my off-side when a car joined at considerable speed from a slip road. I was obliged to brake sharply because a) the car joining the carriage way was showing no sign of adjusting speed to join the road and b) I was unable to pull into the off-side lane due to the volume of traffic.
> About half a minute later the "offending" vehicle started decelerating and, with enough of a gap in the off side lane, I overtook. As I did so it became pretty obvious that the driver was using their mobile and, I suspect, had been doing so when joining from the slip road.
> About five minutes later the same car overtook me and, glancing across, I could see that the driver was still using the phone.
> OK, the government are increasing the penalty to £200/six points. Big deal. If the penalty went up to £1000 with a ban I'm sure people would still offend simply because offenders are NOT being nicked and people know they've got a fair chance of getting away with it.
> I do wonder what the(serious) answer is.
I was walking through the village the other day and a driver was cleaning their teeth with no hands on the wheel as they changed gear ... I reported them to the police via email including registration number and car make/model & colour. I don't know if anything did happen but they did respond and thank me and confirm it was forwarded to the local police team for appropriate action, whether anything was done by them I have no idea but at least I felt I had done my bit as a responsible citizen.
3
In reply to Dave the Rave:
It has been shown pretty conclusively that the best way to stop people offending is increase the likelihood that they will be caught.
The problem with phones is there have been relatively few studies that prove that driving while on the phone is dangerous. Compared to the studies done and outcomes of people who drink drive.
You then have to decide whether the relatively few accidents warrant having police patrolling the roads in large numbers looking for bad drivers when a lot of drivers will just become alienated against the police who "have nothing better to do and should be put catching real criminals".
Red light jumping in London was tackled by having a month long clampdown on motorists and cyclists.
Hertfordshire are doing the same at the moment for people caught using their phones while driving.
It has been shown pretty conclusively that the best way to stop people offending is increase the likelihood that they will be caught.
The problem with phones is there have been relatively few studies that prove that driving while on the phone is dangerous. Compared to the studies done and outcomes of people who drink drive.
You then have to decide whether the relatively few accidents warrant having police patrolling the roads in large numbers looking for bad drivers when a lot of drivers will just become alienated against the police who "have nothing better to do and should be put catching real criminals".
Red light jumping in London was tackled by having a month long clampdown on motorists and cyclists.
Hertfordshire are doing the same at the moment for people caught using their phones while driving.
2
In reply to FesteringSore:
I disagree. People managed to travel before Mobile phones and if it's genuinely an important communication then the driver can pull over.
I'm my experience most non business communications are pointless drivel that can wait anyway and once business gets used to not having the current level of instant communication that they currently do things will be all good.
> Good points except for the prevention of passengers using a mobile.(I wonder if there is some way in which the use of a mobile can be restricted to the occupants of rear seats)
I disagree. People managed to travel before Mobile phones and if it's genuinely an important communication then the driver can pull over.
I'm my experience most non business communications are pointless drivel that can wait anyway and once business gets used to not having the current level of instant communication that they currently do things will be all good.
3
1
In reply to Dax H:
Accident rates were higher too
> I disagree. People managed to travel before Mobile phones and if it's genuinely an important communication then the driver can pull over.
Accident rates were higher too
In reply to Bootrock:
Yes it's about being in charge but until we can differentiate between people driving and people moving fast and not driving what is your alternative?
Why? What is wrong with a passenger not being able to text and use Facebook whilst in a moving car? It's only recently with the advent of affordable smart phones that people seem to think they need to be connected at all times.
I don't get your point here, I said I don't agree with hands free kits because they are distracting, I even stated that I miss junctions sometimes because I am on a hands free kit.
At the moment I have no choice about hands free, if my customers can't get hold of me 24/7 then they will get hold of my competition but if hands free were banned then business and customers would adapt to the loss of 24 hour response and everyone would be on an equal footing like we were before Mobile phones.
> It's not about moving. It's about being in charge of a vehicle. You need to have attention at all times of being in charge of that vehicle.
> Traffic lights, junctions, traffic, crossings, regardless of speed require attention.
Yes it's about being in charge but until we can differentiate between people driving and people moving fast and not driving what is your alternative?
> Bit silly really.
Why? What is wrong with a passenger not being able to text and use Facebook whilst in a moving car? It's only recently with the advent of affordable smart phones that people seem to think they need to be connected at all times.
> It's not about hands free. It's not a radio to transfer information in a set procedure with training. You are putting your concentration into your conversation about tonight's dinner and not on the small child stepping out from behind the parked car.
I don't get your point here, I said I don't agree with hands free kits because they are distracting, I even stated that I miss junctions sometimes because I am on a hands free kit.
At the moment I have no choice about hands free, if my customers can't get hold of me 24/7 then they will get hold of my competition but if hands free were banned then business and customers would adapt to the loss of 24 hour response and everyone would be on an equal footing like we were before Mobile phones.
3
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Not enough time during the day.
I start at 7 and head to my first site, the phone normally starts at 8 and doesn't stop until 4.
A typical day is 30 or so calls, worse day on record was 137 calls but that was exceptional circumstances.
Whilst dealing with the calls on my Bluetooth headset I am also servicing machinery and traveling between sites.
It's the pressure's of modern day business.
Not enough time during the day.
I start at 7 and head to my first site, the phone normally starts at 8 and doesn't stop until 4.
A typical day is 30 or so calls, worse day on record was 137 calls but that was exceptional circumstances.
Whilst dealing with the calls on my Bluetooth headset I am also servicing machinery and traveling between sites.
It's the pressure's of modern day business.
1
1
In reply to FesteringSore:
Mobiles while driving are definitely the most dangerous of a range of common distractions that routinely cause accidents.
This has to be attacked in the same way that drink driving and seat belt use have been tackled. Draconian penalties out of all proportion just p1ss people off and mean they have no respect for the law so it gets nowhere.
Unfortunately, the government and others are making it worse rather than better.
Take the example of a certain defence base not far from here. They recently changed the speed limit from 30 down to 20 on most of the roads on the base. It wasn't long before one could easily see that pretty much everybody under thirty, and a good proportion of us older folks, was phoning or texting or checking email as soon as they were in a 20 area. It was ridiculous. And that's in a place where there is an extra level of discipline over and above the normal driving regulations. It's only a matter of time before some runner or cyclist gets killed.
Higher speed limits aren't a magic cure for driving distractions but lower speed limits make it worse.
And if you thought the Trump administration invented 'alternative facts' then think again. The UK Government has been playing this game with driving statistics for years in order to get away with the cheapest 'instant' solution for everything instead of fixing problems properly. This is why the reduction in road deaths has flattened out and is stuck at 1700 per year.
Mobiles while driving are definitely the most dangerous of a range of common distractions that routinely cause accidents.
This has to be attacked in the same way that drink driving and seat belt use have been tackled. Draconian penalties out of all proportion just p1ss people off and mean they have no respect for the law so it gets nowhere.
Unfortunately, the government and others are making it worse rather than better.
Take the example of a certain defence base not far from here. They recently changed the speed limit from 30 down to 20 on most of the roads on the base. It wasn't long before one could easily see that pretty much everybody under thirty, and a good proportion of us older folks, was phoning or texting or checking email as soon as they were in a 20 area. It was ridiculous. And that's in a place where there is an extra level of discipline over and above the normal driving regulations. It's only a matter of time before some runner or cyclist gets killed.
Higher speed limits aren't a magic cure for driving distractions but lower speed limits make it worse.
And if you thought the Trump administration invented 'alternative facts' then think again. The UK Government has been playing this game with driving statistics for years in order to get away with the cheapest 'instant' solution for everything instead of fixing problems properly. This is why the reduction in road deaths has flattened out and is stuck at 1700 per year.
Post edited at 19:52
1
1
In reply to john arran:
Are you daft? If you're banned for life for a first time offence, then you can't do it again.
> Which part of "Lock 'em up and throw away the key policies have a very poor record of effectiveness as prevention measures" did you find logically difficult to follow?
Are you daft? If you're banned for life for a first time offence, then you can't do it again.
5
In reply to Xharlie:
I am by no means justifying the actions of people who drink drive, I am simply stating that it is possible to be over the limit the next day and not realise where as it is impossible to accidently be on the phone
I am by no means justifying the actions of people who drink drive, I am simply stating that it is possible to be over the limit the next day and not realise where as it is impossible to accidently be on the phone
3
In reply to jkarran: the software already exists to stop you using a phone in a moving car - try playing PokemonGo in a car
1
2
In reply to Dave the Rave:
First you have to catch people.
Then you have to monitor them to make sure they're complying.
Harsher penalties do not work. Otherwise people wouldn't drink and drive or murder people. It's not the penalty that stops people offending it's the risk of getting caught. Really you should try reading some books on criminology.
> Are you daft? If you're banned for life for a first time offence, then you can't do it again.
First you have to catch people.
Then you have to monitor them to make sure they're complying.
Harsher penalties do not work. Otherwise people wouldn't drink and drive or murder people. It's not the penalty that stops people offending it's the risk of getting caught. Really you should try reading some books on criminology.
3
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:
Calling them shoplifters trivialises the crime of theft. We all pay for theft by a premium added to our shopping. Last I heard it was about 3.5%. On everything, food, clothes, everything. That is a lot of money each over a year, just so some scrote can get their next fix or whatever!
Calling them shoplifters trivialises the crime of theft. We all pay for theft by a premium added to our shopping. Last I heard it was about 3.5%. On everything, food, clothes, everything. That is a lot of money each over a year, just so some scrote can get their next fix or whatever!
In reply to Dax H:
It doesn't matter on your speed. If you are in charge of the vehicle then it shouldn't happen. Our current laws already cover that, parked with the engine off.
That doesn't mean pull over in a dangerous place and bang on the hazard lights, seen that done a few times by arseholes.
It's not about being connected at all times. As a passenger I am not in charge of a vehicle why shouldn't I be allowed to do my own thing? What's next, no magazines and you have to be a co pilot to watch for dangers?
Misread, we agree then.
Can't get hold of you 24/7 in your car and go to your competition? You a drug dealer like?
If you need to make a business call, then pull over in a safe place.
> Yes it's about being in charge but until we can differentiate between people driving and people moving fast and not driving what is your alternative?
It doesn't matter on your speed. If you are in charge of the vehicle then it shouldn't happen. Our current laws already cover that, parked with the engine off.
That doesn't mean pull over in a dangerous place and bang on the hazard lights, seen that done a few times by arseholes.
> Why? What is wrong with a passenger not being able to text and use Facebook whilst in a moving car? It's only recently with the advent of affordable smart phones that people seem to think they need to be connected at all times.
It's not about being connected at all times. As a passenger I am not in charge of a vehicle why shouldn't I be allowed to do my own thing? What's next, no magazines and you have to be a co pilot to watch for dangers?
> I don't get your point here, I said I don't agree with hands free kits because they are distracting, I even stated that I miss junctions sometimes because I am on a hands free kit.
Misread, we agree then.
> At the moment I have no choice about hands free, if my customers can't get hold of me 24/7 then they will get hold of my competition but if hands free were banned then business and customers would adapt to the loss of 24 hour response and everyone would be on an equal footing like we were before Mobile phones.
Can't get hold of you 24/7 in your car and go to your competition? You a drug dealer like?
If you need to make a business call, then pull over in a safe place.
In reply to Bootrock:
No not a drug dealer, I am a service engineer specialising in the water treatment industry.
As a result of that my company is contracted to a 2 hour response time.
I deal with 10 areas, each area has a manager, a couple of sub managers, a couple of technical support, a couple of optimisers, a couple of planners and around 20 operational staff, that is on the operational side of things then there are roughly the same amount of people from the maintenance side then a new bunch of people from asset integrity.
All of these people ring me very often either to sort out breakdowns or for advice on how to prevent breakdowns or to talk an electrician through some fault finding on a bit of kit.
In the situation of a pollution incident the fines can be massive, last year a pollution cost a million quid in fines just on one site.
If I bit of my kit is faulty and going to cause a pollution and I don't respond what do you think they will do? Just sit and wait until I ring back at my convenience?
Back in 1996 when I started in this field there were 9 different companies doing this job for this water company, now there is just mine. The level of service I have given ensures all the work comes to me but the other 8 are still there and if I drop the ball even once it opens the door to them again.
> Can't get hold of you 24/7 in your car and go to your competition? You a drug dealer like?
> If you need to make a business call, then pull over in a safe place.
No not a drug dealer, I am a service engineer specialising in the water treatment industry.
As a result of that my company is contracted to a 2 hour response time.
I deal with 10 areas, each area has a manager, a couple of sub managers, a couple of technical support, a couple of optimisers, a couple of planners and around 20 operational staff, that is on the operational side of things then there are roughly the same amount of people from the maintenance side then a new bunch of people from asset integrity.
All of these people ring me very often either to sort out breakdowns or for advice on how to prevent breakdowns or to talk an electrician through some fault finding on a bit of kit.
In the situation of a pollution incident the fines can be massive, last year a pollution cost a million quid in fines just on one site.
If I bit of my kit is faulty and going to cause a pollution and I don't respond what do you think they will do? Just sit and wait until I ring back at my convenience?
Back in 1996 when I started in this field there were 9 different companies doing this job for this water company, now there is just mine. The level of service I have given ensures all the work comes to me but the other 8 are still there and if I drop the ball even once it opens the door to them again.
2
1
In reply to FesteringSore:
A few years ago, to be seen to be "doing their bit" and covering themselves against possible legal action, my company stopped fitting hands-free mobile kits in to our company cars, told those with them already fitted that they weren't allowed to use them any more and changed the policy for anyone travelling on company business that they weren't permitted to use a mobile phone while driving.
That policy is largely undermined now by pretty much every new car these days coming with Bluetooth as standard. Not sure what the current policy is (I don't have a company car and nearly all my business travel is by train or plane), but my boss regularly conducts calls from his car while travelling between sites!
Keep hearing daft comments like the Government saying car manufactuers should do more to combat the problem, but about the only thing they can do would be to stop installing Bluetooth, which is now expected basic functionality and could lose a sale if not there. Even if they did that, you can take your pick of after market BT kits.
Oddly, it seems that vans and lorries are the only vehicles that don't have Bluetooth installed as standard - judging by what I see most days.
As a general rule, if I phone anyone and they're clearly driving, I'll end the call saying something like "call me about X when you're not driving".
A few years ago, to be seen to be "doing their bit" and covering themselves against possible legal action, my company stopped fitting hands-free mobile kits in to our company cars, told those with them already fitted that they weren't allowed to use them any more and changed the policy for anyone travelling on company business that they weren't permitted to use a mobile phone while driving.
That policy is largely undermined now by pretty much every new car these days coming with Bluetooth as standard. Not sure what the current policy is (I don't have a company car and nearly all my business travel is by train or plane), but my boss regularly conducts calls from his car while travelling between sites!
Keep hearing daft comments like the Government saying car manufactuers should do more to combat the problem, but about the only thing they can do would be to stop installing Bluetooth, which is now expected basic functionality and could lose a sale if not there. Even if they did that, you can take your pick of after market BT kits.
Oddly, it seems that vans and lorries are the only vehicles that don't have Bluetooth installed as standard - judging by what I see most days.
As a general rule, if I phone anyone and they're clearly driving, I'll end the call saying something like "call me about X when you're not driving".
In reply to Bootrock:
Your advice on a new model will be greatly appreciated.
> As someone said above, you need to reassess your business model.
Your advice on a new model will be greatly appreciated.
1
In reply to Dax H:
If you are as good as you think you are: You call your boss and tell him you are doing the job of two people and that you need to come off the tools and work on telephone support.
We have/have had engineers like you who think the world will stop turning if they're not doing several things at once.
What happens when you are on holiday? If your kit is so vital why is there no redundancy built in.
Continue like this you will have an accident or burn out. I've seen it too many times on my industry. Don't believe the hype.
.
If you are as good as you think you are: You call your boss and tell him you are doing the job of two people and that you need to come off the tools and work on telephone support.
We have/have had engineers like you who think the world will stop turning if they're not doing several things at once.
What happens when you are on holiday? If your kit is so vital why is there no redundancy built in.
Continue like this you will have an accident or burn out. I've seen it too many times on my industry. Don't believe the hype.
.
Post edited at 14:10
2
1
In reply to Dax H:
Here's an idea.
If your operations guys on site need a telephone back up technical helpline (i.e. what they are ringing you for) either change you role so that you are office based and available legally and safely on the phone, or set up a technical help line for them managed by people who are office based (and free up your time).
Or you could train your field staff so that they know what they are doing and don't constantly have to phone for assistance
All of the above will be much better than risking using a phone when driving.
Have you though of how your company would cope should you have a massive shunt and be laid up incommunicado for a while? Your current business model seems to indicate that as a result you'd go bust and put 200 employees out of a job too... and what do they do when you are on holiday?
Here's an idea.
If your operations guys on site need a telephone back up technical helpline (i.e. what they are ringing you for) either change you role so that you are office based and available legally and safely on the phone, or set up a technical help line for them managed by people who are office based (and free up your time).
Or you could train your field staff so that they know what they are doing and don't constantly have to phone for assistance
All of the above will be much better than risking using a phone when driving.
Have you though of how your company would cope should you have a massive shunt and be laid up incommunicado for a while? Your current business model seems to indicate that as a result you'd go bust and put 200 employees out of a job too... and what do they do when you are on holiday?
2
In reply to wbo:
Try compelling a large group of powerful companies to develop and force those updates upon their customers, customers with established and reasonable expectations of service, customers with a very diverse range of hardware and firmware, customers who believe they have control of their devices.
Not all phones have location services and Doppler measurement to approximate speed only works reliably where multiple masts are 'visible'.
It's not impossible to implement *something* to restrict phone use in motion but it isn't without costs both economic and political. Do the benefits outweigh the costs? To date nobody with the power appears to have believed so and I'm inclined to agree.
jk
> the software already exists to stop you using a phone in a moving car - try playing PokemonGo in a car
Try compelling a large group of powerful companies to develop and force those updates upon their customers, customers with established and reasonable expectations of service, customers with a very diverse range of hardware and firmware, customers who believe they have control of their devices.
Not all phones have location services and Doppler measurement to approximate speed only works reliably where multiple masts are 'visible'.
It's not impossible to implement *something* to restrict phone use in motion but it isn't without costs both economic and political. Do the benefits outweigh the costs? To date nobody with the power appears to have believed so and I'm inclined to agree.
jk
1
1) The Technological Solution
Won't work. software can be defeated. That's why we have re-map companies. a quick chat on Pistonheads and you can find someone who can activate and deactivate all sorts of functions on a typical car - hook up VAG Com and you can mess around with any Audi, Seat, Skoda or VW .
2) Bluetooth
For many people travel comprises a massive part of their working day. It's sadly not possible to pull over or turn off the handsfree everytime. Personally, i try to group call backs and calls and find a service station, but it's not always possible. I can easily do 8 hours in the car a day, and pulling over (tricky on the M40 etc ) is not always practicable
3) Societal Pressure
I think this is the answer. Seat belts are now considered without a thought. most people wear one, except those who seems to put their trust in a higher being. Likewise drink driving is very much taboo. Even the cycling community has self outlawed jumping red lights - watching another cyclist jump a red light while I am on my bike really boils my piss.
Making using a mobile and driving the same is really the only way
After all, we have f*ck all chance of the government actually spending any money on an already stretched police service .
5
1
In reply to Lusk:
He said he was servicing kit in the field while talking on the phone.
> He IS The Boss!
He said he was servicing kit in the field while talking on the phone.
1
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
There is the alternative technological enforcement idea of video surveilance along with video recognition SW of people using a phone. Also possibly coupled with a detection of transmission from the car (although this is fraught with difficulty, especially since it could be construed as eavesdropping).
There is the alternative technological enforcement idea of video surveilance along with video recognition SW of people using a phone. Also possibly coupled with a detection of transmission from the car (although this is fraught with difficulty, especially since it could be construed as eavesdropping).
In reply to DancingOnRock:
And don't bosses go out in to the field?
My skills lay in being out in the field and I pay other people to do the office work.
The down side to this is doing a lot of the management whilst out and about everyday.
It's a great idea setting up a technical support line but mine is a very complex business, 50% of the problems are not with the equipment I work on, they are on the processes that the equipment feeds in to and unless you are out in the field every day working on the stuff and having an overview of every problem you don't have a snowballs chance of diagnosing the problem, I could come off the tools and do the support but if I employed someone to replace me and you factor in tea breaks, lunch break, working hours etc I would need to pay my own wage and 2 more wages and I can't afford that.
With regard to built in redundancy in the customer's system, forget it. Due to massive cutbacks in staffing and maintenance there is little to no redundancy on the sites anymore.
What happens when I go on holiday?, simple I don't. I do a few long weekends and maybe a week each year but my phone is never off, emails and phone calls typically take up a few hours each day on holiday, as I am growing the business it is getting easier to take a bit more time off but it's not at the point YET where I can down tools and go.
Will I burn out, maybe. I have been doing this with this level of pressure for 10 years though and I'm doing fine so far, I thrive on the pressure and its a means to an end.
Things would be far easier now and I would have more of a back seat roll but my Co director came down with parkinsons, we have dealt with that for the last 8 years and I was forced to cover a lot of his work load until he retired last year.
What happens if I smash myself up?
2 years ago the business would have folded, now due to the extra people on board and the training they have I reckon it's a 50/50 chance.
In maybe another 4 or 5 years time things would carry on as normal.
As it stands though as I said way above here unless there is a total ban on hands free to force customers to adapt I and my competitors can't afford the lack of communication whilst traveling, if I stop my competition won't and I will go out of business.
And don't bosses go out in to the field?
My skills lay in being out in the field and I pay other people to do the office work.
The down side to this is doing a lot of the management whilst out and about everyday.
It's a great idea setting up a technical support line but mine is a very complex business, 50% of the problems are not with the equipment I work on, they are on the processes that the equipment feeds in to and unless you are out in the field every day working on the stuff and having an overview of every problem you don't have a snowballs chance of diagnosing the problem, I could come off the tools and do the support but if I employed someone to replace me and you factor in tea breaks, lunch break, working hours etc I would need to pay my own wage and 2 more wages and I can't afford that.
With regard to built in redundancy in the customer's system, forget it. Due to massive cutbacks in staffing and maintenance there is little to no redundancy on the sites anymore.
What happens when I go on holiday?, simple I don't. I do a few long weekends and maybe a week each year but my phone is never off, emails and phone calls typically take up a few hours each day on holiday, as I am growing the business it is getting easier to take a bit more time off but it's not at the point YET where I can down tools and go.
Will I burn out, maybe. I have been doing this with this level of pressure for 10 years though and I'm doing fine so far, I thrive on the pressure and its a means to an end.
Things would be far easier now and I would have more of a back seat roll but my Co director came down with parkinsons, we have dealt with that for the last 8 years and I was forced to cover a lot of his work load until he retired last year.
What happens if I smash myself up?
2 years ago the business would have folded, now due to the extra people on board and the training they have I reckon it's a 50/50 chance.
In maybe another 4 or 5 years time things would carry on as normal.
As it stands though as I said way above here unless there is a total ban on hands free to force customers to adapt I and my competitors can't afford the lack of communication whilst traveling, if I stop my competition won't and I will go out of business.
In reply to Dax H:
The issue is wider than that. By your actions all your service engineers will follow what you do and use the mobile when driving. you need to assess personally as to whether your actions may lead to an accident or death on the road by you or one of your employees. I assume you are not blind to the risk of using mobiles this way.
Do what other business people do. Turn the thing off in the car. It's just not worth it.
The issue is wider than that. By your actions all your service engineers will follow what you do and use the mobile when driving. you need to assess personally as to whether your actions may lead to an accident or death on the road by you or one of your employees. I assume you are not blind to the risk of using mobiles this way.
Do what other business people do. Turn the thing off in the car. It's just not worth it.
In reply to FesteringSore:
A technological answer (easier than a self drive car) is a speakerphone. My friend has one in his car and it seems great. He can have a phone conversation as easily as chatting to another passenger in the car. Not sure how much they cost but the technology is pretty basic.
If you wanted to combine that with a penalty, then anyone caught using a regular handset while driving, could be forced to buy and install a speakerphone in their cars. A bit less extreme than the ban for life idea, and probably pretty acceptable to most people.
A technological answer (easier than a self drive car) is a speakerphone. My friend has one in his car and it seems great. He can have a phone conversation as easily as chatting to another passenger in the car. Not sure how much they cost but the technology is pretty basic.
If you wanted to combine that with a penalty, then anyone caught using a regular handset while driving, could be forced to buy and install a speakerphone in their cars. A bit less extreme than the ban for life idea, and probably pretty acceptable to most people.
1
1
In reply to neilh: & Dax - Apologies my original post was probably a touch aggressive
We have large number of field engineers in my co. and one of the things they do is field research around the circumstances of road accidents and how it correlates to damage among other things. We are a large corporate insurance co and as such have perhaps more risk aversion than most when it comes to health and safety issues...
We had a case of one of our engineers receiving a call whilst out on the road having a thankfully minor shunt a few years ago. The union became involved as he was given a warning (all co.vehicles have blue-tooth and were expected to use it if they have to take a call - he hadn't) as a result working with the union we've made further changes to guidelines, put dashcams (with driver cam) in all vehicles, updated all our field engineer contracts with specific terms and conditions relating to phone use (i.e. they should not make or receive calls on the road except in emergencies) and adjusted travel allowed in a day to allow for phone call stops on the road.
We have large number of field engineers in my co. and one of the things they do is field research around the circumstances of road accidents and how it correlates to damage among other things. We are a large corporate insurance co and as such have perhaps more risk aversion than most when it comes to health and safety issues...
We had a case of one of our engineers receiving a call whilst out on the road having a thankfully minor shunt a few years ago. The union became involved as he was given a warning (all co.vehicles have blue-tooth and were expected to use it if they have to take a call - he hadn't) as a result working with the union we've made further changes to guidelines, put dashcams (with driver cam) in all vehicles, updated all our field engineer contracts with specific terms and conditions relating to phone use (i.e. they should not make or receive calls on the road except in emergencies) and adjusted travel allowed in a day to allow for phone call stops on the road.
In reply to stp:
To some extent I agree that modern through speaker hands free bluetooth is relatively safe (at least compared to a hand held)
However part of me thinks that cars should be built in such a way that you can't have a conversation with a passenger - they are too distracting - especially kids
The fundamental problem is that multitasking isn't really good enough when you are driving - it requires all your concentration to do it properly safely.
I admit I use my phone occasionally on my bluetooth hands free, however I am acutely aware that it takes some of my attention away from driving, i will never make a call, and prob only take a call if i'm on a motorway/a road... I know I have a habit of saying to the person on the end of the phone... hang on just need to concentrate, and other friends I know do this to me when the roles are reversed...
I am however horrified by the interface on my new car's entertainment system for selecting music... I'm amazed it's allowed quite frankly. It also has a (non voice activated) function for texting (complete with touch keyboard) which should also be outlawed.
It's not the only car like it... just look in any modern "luxury" spec model.... some cars are even advertised on the basis you can send texts from them.... this obsession with being online is almost out of control
I think it's time that car companies were put under pressure to make their designs safer.... e.g. Disco 3 satnav can only be programmed when stationary - can't think why this isn't a mandatory feature.
I honestly think we need to drop all of these mobile phone use laws and fines and go back to the basics. Driving without due care and attention/dangerous driving are the charges that should be used, regardless of the reason for your distraction - be it a baby crying, texting, using your in car entertainment, using a phone, eating.
The biggest problem though is just not enough enforcement of basic traffic regulations, and it's not just phones. Behaviour on the roads is a lot worse than it was in the 90s which I think was the last time I was pulled over (random breath test)
And my final peeve - how often do you sit in traffic at rush hour and see cars with shit stuck all over the windscreen - sat nav, phone etc normally clearly obscuring large parts of the driver's view invariably with screens large enough you can read them from the car behind... do these people not know their way home? are they that bad at concentrating on what they are supposed to be they need a voice to remind them to turn into their road??
To some extent I agree that modern through speaker hands free bluetooth is relatively safe (at least compared to a hand held)
However part of me thinks that cars should be built in such a way that you can't have a conversation with a passenger - they are too distracting - especially kids
The fundamental problem is that multitasking isn't really good enough when you are driving - it requires all your concentration to do it properly safely.
I admit I use my phone occasionally on my bluetooth hands free, however I am acutely aware that it takes some of my attention away from driving, i will never make a call, and prob only take a call if i'm on a motorway/a road... I know I have a habit of saying to the person on the end of the phone... hang on just need to concentrate, and other friends I know do this to me when the roles are reversed...
I am however horrified by the interface on my new car's entertainment system for selecting music... I'm amazed it's allowed quite frankly. It also has a (non voice activated) function for texting (complete with touch keyboard) which should also be outlawed.
It's not the only car like it... just look in any modern "luxury" spec model.... some cars are even advertised on the basis you can send texts from them.... this obsession with being online is almost out of control
I think it's time that car companies were put under pressure to make their designs safer.... e.g. Disco 3 satnav can only be programmed when stationary - can't think why this isn't a mandatory feature.
I honestly think we need to drop all of these mobile phone use laws and fines and go back to the basics. Driving without due care and attention/dangerous driving are the charges that should be used, regardless of the reason for your distraction - be it a baby crying, texting, using your in car entertainment, using a phone, eating.
The biggest problem though is just not enough enforcement of basic traffic regulations, and it's not just phones. Behaviour on the roads is a lot worse than it was in the 90s which I think was the last time I was pulled over (random breath test)
And my final peeve - how often do you sit in traffic at rush hour and see cars with shit stuck all over the windscreen - sat nav, phone etc normally clearly obscuring large parts of the driver's view invariably with screens large enough you can read them from the car behind... do these people not know their way home? are they that bad at concentrating on what they are supposed to be they need a voice to remind them to turn into their road??
1
In reply to balmybaldwin:
I don't know about you, but if all 'distractions' were removed from me whilst driving I'd probably be asleep within 20 minutes of hitting a motorway.
> However part of me thinks that cars should be built in such a way that you can't have a conversation with a passenger - they are too distracting - especially kids
I don't know about you, but if all 'distractions' were removed from me whilst driving I'd probably be asleep within 20 minutes of hitting a motorway.
1
In reply to balmybaldwin:
I followed a "Powered by Fairy Dust" Ford Ka the other night, along the A49 which is a dark and winding road in Shropshire.
I couldn't figure out what the very bright light inside was.
As I over took, (it was driving all over the place, speed going up and down), i noticed it was a full size I pad, set in the middle of the windscreen!!
FFS - the thing was blinding me, never mind the daft tw*t that was driving it.
I followed a "Powered by Fairy Dust" Ford Ka the other night, along the A49 which is a dark and winding road in Shropshire.
I couldn't figure out what the very bright light inside was.
As I over took, (it was driving all over the place, speed going up and down), i noticed it was a full size I pad, set in the middle of the windscreen!!
FFS - the thing was blinding me, never mind the daft tw*t that was driving it.
1
In reply to balmybaldwin:
But there are serious problems with the Due Care and Dangerous Driving laws. There's no defined benchmark of how a careful and competent driver behaves, so the jury are able to make it up, based on their own experience which includes (more likely than not) willfully ignoring rules of the road.
For example, after a quite terrifying and obviously deliberate incident which occurred to me whilst cycling, a police officer told me the driver was not even guilty of careless driving. In other words, the officer was saying that the driving was to an acceptable standard. This despite being shown clear evidence of a close pass that was dangerous, deliberate and aggressive.
There's also the fact of mobile phone use being a willful distraction. In that sense it seems different to, for instance, simply getting bored and zoning out on a long motorway journey.
> I honestly think we need to drop all of these mobile phone use laws and fines and go back to the basics. Driving without due care and attention/dangerous driving are the charges that should be used, regardless of the reason for your distraction - be it a baby crying, texting, using your in car entertainment, using a phone, eating.
But there are serious problems with the Due Care and Dangerous Driving laws. There's no defined benchmark of how a careful and competent driver behaves, so the jury are able to make it up, based on their own experience which includes (more likely than not) willfully ignoring rules of the road.
For example, after a quite terrifying and obviously deliberate incident which occurred to me whilst cycling, a police officer told me the driver was not even guilty of careless driving. In other words, the officer was saying that the driving was to an acceptable standard. This despite being shown clear evidence of a close pass that was dangerous, deliberate and aggressive.
There's also the fact of mobile phone use being a willful distraction. In that sense it seems different to, for instance, simply getting bored and zoning out on a long motorway journey.
1
1
In reply to neilh:
It would be interesting to know how many businesses have a no hands free phone rule.
To the best of my knowledge only one of my customers do and that is ignored by most of their staff and management.
Ban hands free kits, disable mobiles whilst driving for all but 999 calls and impose very large fines for anyone circumventing the rules then we are all playing on a level playing field.
> Do what other business people do. Turn the thing off in the car. It's just not worth it.
It would be interesting to know how many businesses have a no hands free phone rule.
To the best of my knowledge only one of my customers do and that is ignored by most of their staff and management.
Ban hands free kits, disable mobiles whilst driving for all but 999 calls and impose very large fines for anyone circumventing the rules then we are all playing on a level playing field.
In reply to Dave the Rave:
Well that's utter rubbish. You regularly hear of people who have been picked up again for breaking their driving ban. One I saw recently was for the sixth or seventh time.
If you have draconian measures in place then people cease to have any respect the law and all goes badly wrong.
> Are you daft? If you're banned for life for a first time offence, then you can't do it again.
Well that's utter rubbish. You regularly hear of people who have been picked up again for breaking their driving ban. One I saw recently was for the sixth or seventh time.
If you have draconian measures in place then people cease to have any respect the law and all goes badly wrong.
2
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
Yeah tablet PCs are the modern replacement for satnavs and you can mount them on or near the dash - which is safer than on the seat as you don't have to peer down to look at it. In the dark of course there's the problem of the bright light. The software I've got senses how dark it is and switches into a nighttime mode around dusk. I think there's definitely a danger of distraction with them but if you compare them with trying to read a road atlas while driving they're much safer. They can be used where the PC just reads out directions to you so no need to look at anything. Just turn L or R when you're told.
> i noticed it was a full size I pad, set in the middle of the windscreen!!
Yeah tablet PCs are the modern replacement for satnavs and you can mount them on or near the dash - which is safer than on the seat as you don't have to peer down to look at it. In the dark of course there's the problem of the bright light. The software I've got senses how dark it is and switches into a nighttime mode around dusk. I think there's definitely a danger of distraction with them but if you compare them with trying to read a road atlas while driving they're much safer. They can be used where the PC just reads out directions to you so no need to look at anything. Just turn L or R when you're told.
In reply to Lusk:
Many replies have mentioned the unlikelihood of detection as government are unwilling/unable to fund appropriate personnel.
Perhaps it would actually be possible to create a dedicated force that could at least cover all its costs by fines, not just for this offence but for lack of insurance/licence etc. Perhaps use temporary or permanent confiscation (resale if unlicensed?) of vehicles to ensure this. Use of cameras, national vehicle database, on spot fines possible.
This could even be farmed out though this would be best avoided (well known injustices of private car clamping etc).
Many replies have mentioned the unlikelihood of detection as government are unwilling/unable to fund appropriate personnel.
Perhaps it would actually be possible to create a dedicated force that could at least cover all its costs by fines, not just for this offence but for lack of insurance/licence etc. Perhaps use temporary or permanent confiscation (resale if unlicensed?) of vehicles to ensure this. Use of cameras, national vehicle database, on spot fines possible.
This could even be farmed out though this would be best avoided (well known injustices of private car clamping etc).
In reply to Dax H:
If you get a call. Stop safely and return it.
To be honest though, I couldn't give a toss about your business, or your competition. What I do care about are the innocent people you could plough into, killing or maiming or the knock on effect of your stupidity.
Kindly think next time you answer your phone. Other people don't need to suffer just because you're a jobsworth.
youtube.com/watch?v=TfPXGAsiaPg&
youtube.com/watch?v=7U931XJEDm4&
> Your advice on a new model will be greatly appreciated.
If you get a call. Stop safely and return it.
To be honest though, I couldn't give a toss about your business, or your competition. What I do care about are the innocent people you could plough into, killing or maiming or the knock on effect of your stupidity.
Kindly think next time you answer your phone. Other people don't need to suffer just because you're a jobsworth.
youtube.com/watch?v=TfPXGAsiaPg&
youtube.com/watch?v=7U931XJEDm4&
1
2
In reply to oldie:
Why?
If it was a serious problem that required more police attention then the police will give it more attention.
The death statistics are falling. They may not be falling as fast as they were, but how do we know whether in the past they haven't dropped rapidly due to mechanical safety and training advances rather than outright driver behaviour?
Why?
If it was a serious problem that required more police attention then the police will give it more attention.
The death statistics are falling. They may not be falling as fast as they were, but how do we know whether in the past they haven't dropped rapidly due to mechanical safety and training advances rather than outright driver behaviour?
In reply to Bootrock:
Currently hands free kits are legal and I and hundreds of thousands of people will carry on using one.
Should they be banned (I would like to see them banned) I will stop using one.
It's as simple as that really.
Currently hands free kits are legal and I and hundreds of thousands of people will carry on using one.
Should they be banned (I would like to see them banned) I will stop using one.
It's as simple as that really.
1
In reply to FesteringSore:
Hows this for a technological solution?
Driver Cams in all cars (all new cars?). Footage stored locally in 'black box' for some sensible period of time before being overwritten. If you're involved in an incident it can be requisitioned in order to ascertain how you were behaving at the time/in the run up. Failure to provide the footage to be an offence of similar magnitude to driving offences (only defence being it being destroyed in the incident).
Uses the social pressure of 'what would my peers think' and the behavioural psychology of 'likelihood of getting caught' to pressure people in to making safe decisions.
Hows this for a technological solution?
Driver Cams in all cars (all new cars?). Footage stored locally in 'black box' for some sensible period of time before being overwritten. If you're involved in an incident it can be requisitioned in order to ascertain how you were behaving at the time/in the run up. Failure to provide the footage to be an offence of similar magnitude to driving offences (only defence being it being destroyed in the incident).
Uses the social pressure of 'what would my peers think' and the behavioural psychology of 'likelihood of getting caught' to pressure people in to making safe decisions.
"> Why?
> If it was a serious problem that required more police attention then the police will give it more attention.
> The death statistics are falling. They may not be falling as fast as they were, but how do we know whether in the past they haven't dropped rapidly due to mechanical safety and training advances rather than outright driver behaviour?"
> The death statistics are falling. They may not be falling as fast as they were, but how do we know whether in the past they haven't dropped rapidly due to mechanical safety and training advances rather than outright driver behaviour?"
The police have to prioritize and concentrate on the most serious matters but are surely unable to deal with everything of importance. Injuries/deaths caused by mobile phone users or uninsured drivers etc "might" be of less overall importance but they have a huge effect on the victims. The whole point of the suggestion was that the system would be self funding, reduce police time spent on driving offences, and require less training of personnel. I admit its probably pie-in-the sky.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...