Mobile phones

[waremark]

How far are you willing to stretch credibility in an effort to justify phone use. WG's statement above is correct. You do not NEED to communicate while driving. You choose to do it because it is a convenience for you and you are prepared to accept the added risk. Why not just say that instead of the increasingly bizarre analogies.

Stretch credibility?

I thought Alasdair was just pointing out that most of us choose to accept some slight level of non essential increased risk while driving. In using a phone in what he or I would regard as a moderately sensible way we are not choosing to take a particularly different level of risk from that inherent in many other permitted activities.

BTW, perhaps the most significant way in which I accept non essential increased risk while driving is by driving non essential miles in pursuit of a driving hobby. Is that frivolous and irresponsible, as you probably consider use of a mobile phone to be?

Anyway, I think we thoroughly understand the range of views on this.

[Strangely Brown]

BTW, perhaps the most significant way in which I accept non essential increased risk while driving is by driving non essential miles in pursuit of a driving hobby. Is that frivolous and irresponsible, as you probably consider use of a mobile phone to be?

I consider an activity where your levels of focus, attention and concentration on the task in hand are much higher than pretty much everyone around you to be somewhat less irresponsible than a non-essential activity where those same levels of attention are, by definition, quite the opposite.

Anyway, you're right. We have pretty much exhausted the discussion. Those who recognise the problem will refrain from using a phone in the car while those who think they are different will carry on regardless.

Alasdair: BTW, yes, I agree. A hands-free conversation is considerably less dangerous than what'sapping, bookfacing or bleating on the move. I would have no objections at all if all of the enforcement attention turned that way.

[Astraist]

however I don't think that anyone is arguing to allow mobile phones other than hands-free
and (without knowing the stats) presumably there are not overwhelming stats to show that hands-free use is causing accidents / killing people - even if it is not optimal...

I am sure that we all agree that optimal conditions in the car include no distractions - but, while I might go out for a drive with others from here and have that level of focus, the reality of real life is far from ideal...

There are evidence. The distraction is caused by talking over the phone, rather than by taking one hand off of the wheel to hold it. A lot of people take a hand off of the wheel with no adverse consequences, so that isn't the reason why using a phone is dangerous.

Or talk to your passengers
Or listen to the radio
Or think about / plan / go over conversations or issues at work
Or be angry / tired / frustrated / excited / etc.
Or have low blood pressure through not having eaten recently
Or eat while driving to avoid low blood pressure
Or eat a sweet or anything above functional fuel
Or smoke
Or drink (fluids)
Or drive for more than xxx (insert optimal time per person) in one stage
Or be conscious of needing the loo
Or driving with a cold / under the weather
Or...

Talking to passengers is wholly different than talking on the phone. Empirically, most researches don't make it out to be very noteworthy in terms of causing collisions. Explanations include the fact that the passenger is aware of the road, so the flow of the conversation is governed by the hazards that the passenger is also aware of.

Also, if the passenger is visible to the driver even out of the corner of the eye, than it's quite different to when the discussion is being made purely over the phone where you are only conversing with a voice, and the other gestures involved with speech are imagined by the mind. Hence, the distracting effect of talking on the phone persists for a few minutes after the phone is hung up.

It's not too bad. If the driver simply slows down a bit, he or she can compensate for the prolonged reaction time. In situations that demand particularly high levels of concentration, it's best to cut off the flow of the conversation ("just a moment"). I wouldn't opt to make it illegal.

As for the other conditions you mentioned - some of them are also problematic. Drinking while driving, for instance, is quite perilous. Not only is it immensely distracting to stabilize the bottle while the car is moving (depending on how winding or bumpy the road is - a passenger might not even succeed in doing it), but if anything even remotely surprising happens - the driver will aspirate and choke.

Driving more than a fixed number of hours - concentration does deteriorate quite rapidly over time. Think about a tough class back at school - did it never happen that your attention was exhausted after as little as 40-50 minutes?

Driving with a cold is extremely perilous. It is equally as dangerous as driving well above the legal drink-drive limit.

[exportmanuk]

Not only is it immensely distracting to stabilize the bottle while the car is moving (depending on how winding or bumpy the road is - a passenger might not even succeed in doing it),

Try riding a motorbike. Not only do we have to control the vehicle. We have to balance it, be very conscious of the levels of grip available and as every other road user is out to kill you try to avoid them too.

As for drinking from a bottle as its in front of your face you cant see where you are going. Use a straw. Bloody cagers

[Triquet]

Now does giving a commentary increase or decrease risk ....

[angus]

Now does giving a commentary increase or decrease risk ....

Doesn't it depend on who's giving it? In my experience, most associates, when they start giving commentaries drive slower, but I've found I can generally make better progress on an unfamiliar road if I give a commentary

[Horse]

Now does giving a commentary increase or decrease risk ....

There was research done at Cranwell looking at this issue (I can't find it online); IIRC it had an adverse effect on overall performance.

[Silk]

Try riding a motorbike. Not only do we have to control the vehicle. We have to balance it, be very conscious of the levels of grip available and as every other road user is out to kill you try to avoid them too.

Indeed. Some very good arguments for banning motorcycles.

[Horse]

Try riding a motorbike. Not only do we have to control the vehicle. We have to balance it, be very conscious of the levels of grip available and as every other road user is out to kill you try to avoid them too.

Indeed. Some very good arguments for banning motorcycles.

Banning demonstration of skill? Are you a BRAKE member/supporter?

[Rolyan]

What hope is there on any sensible consensus out in the real world when the members of an advanced driving forum can't agree what is, and isn't acceptable use?

The bottom line is: It DOES distract you, to varying degrees. There are arguments for occasional use. The great unwashed can't be trusted to make sensible choices, so a blanket ban is the only answer ... even if some (including on here) won't like it.

The problem is that a) we haven't got all the facts and b) many would choose to ignore the facts even if we had them.

I've certainly read research that satisfies me that using a phone, even hands free, is more distracting than most if not all other in-car activities (radio, conversations, adjusting controls etc). More than one study has shown this. Those same studies have also shown that not only it it more distracting, it is to a degree that increases the risk significantly.

The problem is twofold. Firstly, I can't remember what the studies were or where they were published. Secondly, even if I could, I'm sure many would dismiss the findings as they don't match their own beliefs. While that's perfectly normal, it gets in the way of any rational discussion. Hence the positions on here where everyone thinks they are definitely in the right, and everyone else is simply failing to understand the situation.

I would much rather we had widely available studies that were available for all to read, and then some honesty along the lines of "I accept that there is a proven increased risk of XXX, but I will carry on because I believe that the increased risk is worth it to allow me to do the activity".

Without access to more data, and a willingness to put personal bias to one side, we are all doomed to be ruled to the lowest common denominator i.e. the average driver and bikers.