akirk wrote:If I have to change something on the screen in the car - e.g. satnav - responding to it pinging up a message saying traffic ahead, new route found - then my eyes will be off the road for some time, potentially reading what it is saying, looking at both routes, making a decision, choosing another route etc. that is clearly dangerous, but it is not specifically legislated against...
or a phone call can come in, I can answer it without taking my eyes off the road ahead, I can easily reply briefly and finish the call - clearly that is an added distraction over not having a call, no doubt about that - but... how do you judge that against the distraction above? I would say it is less dangerous - and that is why hands-free calling is legal
now the same scenario, but I have to find the phone in my pocket / cubby hole, pick it up, use my fingerprint or password to get in / answer the call etc. - understandably legislated against as it would be eyes off the road and distracting - but how do you compare that against the legally acceptable satnav use described above?
I agree, you want to minimise any form of distraction, but driving without distraction just doesn't happen, yet normally it doesn't lead to chaos / mayhem / destruction - that tends to come from more intense distractions - so we need to not assume that the correct goal is to aim for no distraction, but to aim to minimise it / avoid it, and legislate at a boundary where above that level is clearly, demonstrably not acceptable - currently though we legislate by what is easy to prosecute, not by what is most / least distracting...
Alasdair
Its not black and white and never will be. It's not a case of removing all distractions, or accepting all distractions. Its also not a case of "it can't be that distracting as we haven't seen chaos".
It's as simple as assessing risk. There have been studies that show that having a telephone conversation, hands free, significantly increases the risk due to the process. Obviously everyone can give examples in this thread of "my wife asks me to pick her up" or "my colleague told me about a meeting"; but those are as irrelevant as the examples where its a really complicated conversation involving in depth discussions, emotions, and processing etc. Unfortunately I cant remember where all the studies are; Martin gave 2 examples on here but there are more.
The studies DO show increased risk caused by the distractions resulting from the processing involved in a conversation with somebody not in the vehicle. I'm disappointed (although no longer surprised) when so many are prepared to dismiss the findings, without even reading them. This is not directed at you specifically, just a general comment.
What we need is an open discussion of published studies, and then decisions based on risk assessment. But that's not going to happen as it takes too much work and makes people challenge their own perceptions.