Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Given we have idiots seeking to disable runlocks on dash mounted TV's we cannot deny that there are some who lack the basic common sense that we may have?
Surely that's one of the most blatantly obvious symptoms of a nanny state: Some people can't be trusted to do something safely, therefore ban everyone from doing it
As for the aforementioned research. A cynical person might think that they'd started out with a conclusion that they wanted to prove and then devised an experiment that would do so _________________ TomTom GO700
Renault Carminat TomTom
TrafficMaster YQ2 (now forcibly retired, and sadly missed.)
The TRRL research may appear flawed but those who argue so vehemently in favour of in-car use of phones are often those who use the car as a mobile office.
I agree that short'n'simple calls are not necessarily the problem here. However, driving is not the place for complex business calls that require a high level of mental cognisance and so how do you legislate to prohibit one and not the other?
Given we have idiots seeking to disable runlocks on dash mounted TV's we cannot deny that there are some who lack the basic common sense that we may have?
It doesn't follow that those arguing for mobile phones are those using the car as a mobile office - some do but I'm arguing for the mobile phone for short and simple calls. and No, you cant legislate to prevent one and not the other unless you set a time limit and examine call log data.
But the answer does not lie in banning them altogether any more than the answer to speeding lies in banning cars.
Some people will use them responsibly, some idiots will abuse them and also try to disable runlocks on dash TVs, but why should those of us who use technology sensible be denied it because there are idiots who will misuse it?
The morons who attempt to disable the runlocks wont be concentrating on their driving anyway - THEY ARE LOOKING FOR A DISTRACTION, they do not have the attitude to give priority to their driving, and will find something to play with or fill their minds.
For me I use the phone occasionally if necessary, the sat nav a great deal to avoid the distraction of worrying about the route and watching out for speed cameras (I use the voice that announces the limit too), I turn the Radio or CD off when the road is very busy, and would resent this being taken away because others fill their distraction needs with sat nav or phone.
There are two questions here really, is there a strong safety case? and is legislation the answer?
I don't believe there's a strong safety case, though I don't deny that there would be any overall safety benefit at all.
But this isn't about people driving while on the phone. It's about the current British mentality towards safety that goes something along the lines of this:
1) Is this something that could pose, even theoretically, the most infinitesimally small risk to myself or people I care about?
2) Would losing the ability to do this thing affect me personally in any negative way whatsoever?
Answer 'Yes' to question one and 'No' to question two, and the knee-jerk response is "Ban it! Ban it now!" Of course if the answer is 'Yes' to both questions, the whole outlook changes
Legislation (banning all mobile phone use while driving) will simply disincentivise people from buying hands-free devices and using the phones as safely as possible. There are already plenty of people ignoring the current law and driving with a mobile clasped to their ear, so who in their right mind would think that banning mobile calls while driving would actually prevent people from using them at the wheel?
Hopefully it won't come to that anyway. We've just got rid of possibly the most anti-liberal government in modern day British history, and the current bunch are already making noises about undoing some of their more Orwellian plans. ID cards are out. Biometric passports are going with them. The Digital Economy Bill is threatened with repeal. At this rate, we may even get back the right to remain silent (and not to incriminate ourselves) in legal proceedings against us. (Fill in the NIP or be found guilty of another offence. Sound familiar?)[/b] _________________ TomTom GO700
Renault Carminat TomTom
TrafficMaster YQ2 (now forcibly retired, and sadly missed.)
Joined: 11/07/2002 14:36:40 Posts: 23848 Location: Hampshire, UK
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 11:02 am Post subject:
Horatio wrote:
But this isn't about people driving while on the phone. It's about the current British mentality towards safety that goes something along the lines of this:
1) Is this something that could pose, even theoretically, the most infinitesimally small risk to myself or people I care about?
2) Would losing the ability to do this thing affect me personally in any negative way whatsoever?
Answer 'Yes' to question one and 'No' to question two, and the knee-jerk response is "Ban it! Ban it now!" Of course if the answer is 'Yes' to both questions, the whole outlook changes
Well said!
I admit that, whilst I dislike the use of phones in-car, I have a much higher dislike for the attitude that we must legislate on every little issue rather than use existing laws where needed.
If someone is seen driving carelessly then there is existing legislation that covers any possible cause of the carelessness, so why add yet another law to the statute books? _________________ Darren Griffin
Joined: Sep 06, 2006 Posts: 1618 Location: East Hertfordshire
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 11:19 am Post subject:
I think there is certainly a strong safety case against some uses. As for legislation, the 'nanny state' (a term used to indicate disagreement with the topic ) it IS needed for people who behave like children (like a person seen locally driving while using a handheld mobile phone, with a baby in the front seat with no safety belt/harness - another nanny invention for some when they were introduced).
As for those (most of us) who behave more sensibly, they would be unaffected by a 'safety' law anyway. And the law is only as effective as its enforcement - surely the point is not less law but more conviction.
Anyway, the laws on communication devices in the vehicle are not an example of a blanket 'nanny' approach, as can be seen in the different treatment in radio communication devices (including satnavs at the moment) and the hand-held mobile.
As for satnavs themselves, the subject of interest for mender28 , they seem potentially more dangerous than mobiles in the hands of the unwise. With a phone, mental distraction is the greatest threat, but with a satnav you can add physical distraction as well when a driver is keying in a new destination, or something similar. At least with a phone there is a bit of 'unconscious' awareness of the surroundings because they are still in view, which they are not when peering at a small screen while driving at high speed with one hand.
So the introduction of effective voice control has to be one big safety improvement in satnavs. With that becoming more generally available, it seems very sensible to me to ban the worst excesses of the 'up-everyone-elses' brigade. The 'nanny' state is not to protect them from themselves, but too protect the rest of us from them.
Having said all that (for anyone still around ) the police have general powers anyway which they can use in extreme situations. Legislation just makes their job easier, and the court process less costly and more effective to the taxpayer/citizen. _________________ David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360)
Commercial considerations are that Safety concerns don't sell more Satnavs, and may sell less, so the manufacturers are not prepared to spend money finding out the truth. No enough people are dying and being maimed at present for Satnavs to be on the political radar. So right now, we are at the mercy of the guy in the next car, if not ourselves.
However, a couple of (poorly funded?) research studies have been done, my understanding is the results are fairly consistant.
a) A driver in familiar teritory is less safe when the satnav is turned on
b) A driver in unfamilar teritory is safer using the sat nav.
The reason is obvious, a distracted driver is more dangerous, and getting lost, or the concern about getting lost, is more distracting than a satnav.
Another issue is often discussed is "looking at the screen". This is less dangerous than reliying on voice instructions alone. This intially seems counter intuative, until you undertstand how listening works in the brain.
A person concentraiting on listening transfers a significant amount of cognitive loading to the audible task, neglecting all other tasks. A satnav starts to issue the tasks at a significantly the same time as the driver needs to be concentraing of the road - approaching intersections etc. The instructions take seconds, and cannot be delayed or sped up, and lack detail even when accurate.
Contrast this to a look at the screen. Like checking the rear vision mirror, typically a driver chooses to do this at a time that is relatively safe. They then look for a short time - typically a few tenths of a second, before returning attention to the road. The picture conveys 1000 times more detail than "Turn Left in 200 feet"
Therefore the difference between spoken instructions and looking at the screen is a long time, choosen by the satav, with high congnitve load vs a short time with 100% cognitve load chosen at a time that suits the driver.
Neither is ideal. It is clear to me that the looking at the screen is required to allow the driver to choose to ignore the spoken instruction if conditions demand attention is not diverted, knowing that the information is readily avalible when driving conditions allow a distraction.
What does all this mean for drivers.
1) Don;t use your satnav unless you need it.
2) If you need it, stop before programming it (Obvious)
3) Learn when to "tune out" the voice instructions and when to not look at the screen.
Driver discretion and postioning are key. I also think Sat Navs are far less distracting than trying to read a map or badly signposted roads whilst driving!
Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 2543 Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
Posted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 4:10 pm Post subject:
I've been thinking.... there's a novelty.
Are Sat Navs a Distraction? Personally I would say no and have found travelling to unfamiliar areas much more relaxing. Having said that I can see they could be distracting to some people, the ones who have speed limits showing, POI's, buildings, lane lines and all the other 'goodies' appearing on newer gadgets. especially 3-D terrain which although looks good, and quite safe in simulation mode, could draw the eyes from the road because it's 'pretty'.
Maybe TT, Teleatlas, Navteq etc should concentrate on accuracy of the maps, evidently TA still have, as well as the new layout, the old entrance and exit on the Eastbound M2 at J2 to/from A228 on their 2010 maps. It would also help if they matched the voice instruction to ALL turns along route.
Just using the basic map and voice instructions is no more distracting, in my opinion less so, than looking out for road signs and/or listening to my wife saying 'You've got to turn right along here'. AND No more arguements. _________________ Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar.
Personaly I dont feel generally that they are a distraction with the odd exception when perhaps the processor is not adequate and causes lag particularly on multiple junctions or islands when directions follow after you have passed the junctions, it means that your concentrating more on looking at the screen, As delorean says buildings etc doesnt help, perhaps the manufactures could do more by using something more than a just adequate processor, I also make sure I use a fast memory card which helps. _________________ Moto G5s Plus, Sygic 17.4.8
Posted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 4:37 pm Post subject: Re: mobile phones in cars
No you can't just pull over and answer the call, or call them back in 20 minutes - country roads you can a go for miles looking for somewhere to pull over and you are a nuisance to following cars as you slow down by every farm gate etc to see if you can get in there - I know we have had to do it often enough when kids need the loo - likewise town - no stopping on many roads - the only exception is the motorway when you can be reasonably sure you can pull of into a service station in about 20 - 30 mins[/quote]
Yep and sometimes you will still get in trouble.
I was driving to my brothers house in Leeds and was on the M/A62 ring road stopped in traffic down a hill phone rings did not have my blue tooth headset then, so I pulled over onto the grass verge to answer the phone thus letting all other traffic pass.
Third car to go passed was a police car who promptly pulled into a garage thee hundred mtrs down the road. and he pulled me over when I got there.
He said he stopped me as he saw me swerve onto the grass verge to answer my phone, Long conversation you've all had em and he told me not to do it again and let me go.
Moral of story If you goner get pulled you will, even when you try to get it right. Since getting my blue tooth head set I have never had to stop been distracted or stopped by uncle bill, so I think there great just like kellogs.
Joined: May 12, 2008 Posts: 36 Location: Northwest England
Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 9:49 am Post subject:
Are Sat Navs distracting ? Depends on the driver really.
The first time we went on holiday to Edinburgh the Sat Nag was an absoulte boon. It meant that driving around the city looking for car parks, attractions, etc was simple and easy, leaving me free to concentrate on the job of driving in an unfamiliar environment, instead of peering at road names, trying to read a street map, "what did that sign say" etc etc
All the places that we thought we'd need to drive to were google mapped beforehand and the actual car park entrance slips identified and then stored as POI's.
There are far more distracting things in cars. I've only ever tripped two Gatso cameras, and on both occasions I was distracted by children in the car. (Didn't get a ticket though, hah !).
They have to be the number one distraction because of their inbuilt capability to time their distractive behaviour to the exact instant that you just don't need it !
Well that's my two penn'th
Cheers _________________ If it ain't broke, yer not 'ittin it 'ard enough....
Joined: Jul 15, 2010 Posts: 1 Location: In your dreams
Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 2:35 pm Post subject: Distracting Sat Nav's or Distracted Drivers!
Really it's down to the driver to be responsible and it's clear in most cases that companies do offer a disclaimer in mosts products these days.
Maybe it could be written into the software for Sat Nav's that the menu screens are locked should the car be traveling more than 3 mph for more than 5 seconds (or some clever time/speed statistic) therefore only allowing changes at less lethal speeds. Maybe only certain options should be available whilst traveling over 10mph such as redirect and these menu options made less complex and configurable in the least amount of steps.
This would of course need to be an opt in/opt out option in the software as choice is paramount, but ultimately safety comes down to the behaviour of the driver behind the wheel.
Give an uneducated being a hammer and they'll smash things, teach them responsibility and respect for the tool in hand and it's likely they'll use the hammer correctly.
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
) it IS needed for people who behave like children (like a person seen locally driving while using a handheld mobile phone, with a baby in the front seat with no safety belt/harness - another nanny invention for some when they were introduced).
, they seem potentially more dangerous than mobiles in the hands of the unwise. With a phone, mental distraction is the greatest threat, but with a satnav you can add physical distraction as well when a driver is keying in a new destination, or something similar. At least with a phone there is a bit of 'unconscious' awareness of the surroundings because they are still in view, which they are not when peering at a small screen while driving at high speed with one hand.
