|
Fourteen?
|
|
I'll post the answer at the end of the afternoon today, should have said that earlier.
|
I'll guess 25.
Although my new pet rant is for people tapping things into their SatNavs, positioned right in the middle of the windscreen.....
|
|
|
|
One would be too many!
...especially when there's 60 squid and 3 points involved!
What amazes me is that ..
1) with modern technology handsfree kits are cheap and easy to use
2) that people CHOOSE not only to answer the phone, but then to have a long-winded conversation as opposed to just saying "I'm in the car, will call you later"
Now, how soon will unlucky drivers be getting little pictures and accompanying literature through the post, taken from CCTV footage, showing them rabbiting on the phone? Or would that be a breach of human rights?
|
|
12 women and 6 men
|
|
I'd guess 37. Does the winner get an Alan Partridge headset?
|
|
What amazes me is that .. 1) with modern technology handsfree kits are cheap and easy to use
Still more dangerous than driving when over the drink-drive limit.
2) that people CHOOSE not only to answer the phone, but then to have a long-winded conversation as opposed to just saying "I'm in the car, will call you later"
Quite.
|
|
10%
|
Actually talking on the phone -- either hands-free or conventionally -- is no more distracting than having passengers in the car, or changing radio stations, or lifting a drink container to your mouth.
The problem is when people start texting or searching thru their phone books.
It's the same as with smoking. There will always be people who want to roll their own while driving, rather than waiting a little while.
And as said earlier in this thread, I've seen several drivers very nearly out of control trying to programme their pratnavs.
|
Actually talking on the phone -- either hands-free or conventionally -- is no more distracting than having passengers in the car, or changing radio stations, or lifting a drink container to your mouth.
Actually, it is very significantly more distracting. Worse than driving when over
the drink-drive limit.
|
|
|
" Actually talking on the phone -- either hands-free or conventionally -- is no more distracting than having passengers in the car, or changing radio stations, or lifting a drink container to your mouth."
There is plenty of evidence that conversations on mobiles are very different from conversations with passengers. Passengers tend to pause as you arrive at a hazard. They can see it as well as you, and they stop talking (can't remember where I read this research, sorry). People on the phone don't know and carry on yapping.
As for whether it's more or less distracting than changing radio stations or lifting a drink container, I don't know either way.
V
|
|
|
|
|
There is an absolute classic soundclip doing the rounds via email in this country. It translates something like this...
hello
Hello, Mr Smith
Yes...
My name is xxxxxx, and i'n calling from xyz bank
Sorry, i'm driving right now, so can you call back later?
Yes sir, i'm just calling to advise you that you have qualified for...
I said i'm driving... call me later, please
Yes sir, but you have qualified for...
Oh damn, it's a cop... I've just been pulled over... hold on the line.
(sounds of mutered conversation for 2 minutes)
Excuse me, is this call being recorded?
Yes, all our calls are recorded for...
GOOD, YOU ABSOLUTE ****. NOW LISTEN CAREFULLY YOU ******** IDIOT... WHAT PART OF 'SORRY, I'M DRIVING RIGHT NOW' DON'T YOU COMPREHEND? WHAT PART OF 'CALL ME BACK LATER' ARE YOU TOO PIG THICK TO GRASP? NOW **** OFF, AND GET YOUR SUPERVISER TO CALL ME AND EXP;LAIN WHAT HE'S GOING TO DO ABOUT PAYING THE FINE I JUST GOT BECAUSE OF YOU BEING TOO ******* STUPID TO UNDERSTAND!
|
There is an absolute classic soundclip doing the rounds via email in this country. It translates something like this... >> FINE I JUST GOT BECAUSE OF YOU BEING TOO ******* STUPID TO UNDERSTAND!
Intended to be humorous, yes, ok, I got that bit; but why not just hang up?
Press the little red telephone symbol thing?
|
"but why not just hang up?"
Or more to the point - why answer it in the first place?
|
|
|
|
>> What amazes me is that .. >> 1) with modern technology handsfree kits are cheap and easy to >> use Still more dangerous than driving when over the drink-drive limit.
That's a very emotive statement. Do you have the background for that claim? Would be interesting to see how they've defined various parts of the test.
|
That's a very emotive statement. Do you have the background for that claim? Would be interesting to see how they've defined various parts of the test.
The TRL report is available off the "Direct Line" website. There are quite a few others available.
|
In answer to Mr Dipstick's question. My answer is 20 or 5%.
Is this one of those premium rate quiz things? Where the winner has already been decided and is the producer's (or OP's) brother in law?
|
Is this one of those premium rate quiz things? Where the winner has already been decided and is the producer's (or OP's) brother in law?
Yes, and you will be billed £2.50 for voting.
;)
|
|
|
In answer to Mr Dipstick's question. My answer is 20 or 5%. Is this one of those premium rate quiz things? Where the winner has already been decided and is the producer's (or OP's) brother in law?
I'm not sure what you are talking about. What *are* you talking about?
|
>> In answer to Mr Dipstick's question. My answer is 20 or >> 5%.
Ah. Now I see. Silly me. Hello phone.
|
|
Answering the original question, something that doesn't often happen here... ;-)
|
Ok, 4pm is pretty much the end of the afternoon in my world.
The actual answer was: *drum roll*
From the one hundred vehicles yesterday , there was just ONE person on a phone, in a transit van.
And of the three hundred this morning there were precisely NONE.
So, just one in four hundred in my little fun sample, which I found really surprising. I thought it would be way more, as many of you did, but there it is. Might be interesting to repeat that experiment in different places and times, and I bet I could win a pint doing this too.
|
|
Ah but Dipstick, how many were texting left-handed at waist level? 'Thr's a bloke sittg in a laby tryg to spot txtrs!'
|
Last time I sat in a layby it was with spam sandwiches and a little Primus stove, and I was wearing a zip up chunky knit cardy, an Aertex shirt, shorts with a snake clasp belt and a set of Start-rite sandals. (Mid nineteen sixties I would think, not last week.)
I was passenging, not laybying!
Point taken though.
|
Last time I sat in a layby it was with spam sandwiches and a little Primus stove, and I was wearing a zip up chunky knit cardy, an Aertex shirt, shorts with a snake clasp belt and a set of Start-rite sandals. (Mid nineteen sixties I would think, not last week.) I was passenging, not laybying!
there's all sorts of other things that go on in lay-by's nowadays that end with 'ing'......
|
>> From the one hundred vehicles yesterday , there was just ONE person on a phone, in a transit van. And of the three hundred this morning there were precisely NONE.
Ok, so I didn't win a major prize. Are you completely sure that the competition was fair, honest and even-handed and no-one was discriminated against?
Just out of curiosity, whereabouts in our fair land did the survey take place?
|
Survey was on the A10 between Cambridge and Ely, not dual carriageway or anything so I could see oncoming driver easily.
As to discriminating against anyone, my goodness me no. I was celebrating our multi cultural diversity in the back seat for at least twenty minutes.
|
From the one hundred vehicles yesterday , there was just ONE person on a phone, in a transit van. And of the three hundred this morning there were precisely NONE.
Dipstick that does surprise me! I've seen at least six people in the last 2 days, but I wasn't doing an impromptu survey, just people I've noticed while driving. Usually spotted while waiting at junctions where I've not got more important things to look at. It seems to me people are now more clandestine and sheepish about it than before the law changed.
This Yahoo article: snipurl.com/1dt3d says that more than 6890 people have been given caught since the law was toughened a month ago, which is 246 per day. And that doesn't include several forces such as the Met who do not publish their figures.
|
the Met who do notpublish their figures.
'We don't want the provincial forces - sorry, services - getting envious, do we sir?'
|
|
|
Now I understand that 13 people died last year on the roads due to mobile phone usage.
Far more died due to drunk driving even though it is much much less common.
So how come phone usage is more dangerous?
--
I read often, only post occasionally
|
Now I understand that 13 people died last year on the roads due to mobile phone usage.
I assume that figure is "known to have been caused by". ISTR a ROSPA report mentioning this figure, and also that it was highly unlikely to be a true one.
|
So Waino was first and I was second, not bad out of - how many contributors to this forum?
Would you contact my agent to discuss the logistics of the awards ceremony please?
|
I was basing my 'fourteen' on what I observe in a morning, weighted to the roads in the environs of Bury St Edmunds. 'Around town' kind of roads.
I also use the A10 occasionally between Cambridge and Ely and by the time drivers are onto that road, I would reckon they've escaped town and are starting to drive more purposefully - having already made those vital phone calls! (IMHO)
|
|
|
|
I am one of those seemingly annoying people who sit at the side of roads counting traffic ......................yes I know , but otherwise you would be paying income support /indvalidity benefit from your taxes because those of my age can't get proper jobs . From my unique position I can say that mobile 'phone use has gone down but nothing like suggested here .
|
i wud tk the tim to type btter but it's hard to drive & use Blackbnerry at same time
;-)
|
|
anyone seen that TV drama recently called 'Mobile', about a deranged man who didn't like mobile phone users driving with them and has been killing a few......... must be ITV or 4 'cos of the adverts.....don't normally like dramas but SWMBO got me into it...it's quite good
|
|
Just this morning on a bus-first truck we pass,driver eating with both hands,steering with knees-second truck,driver on handheld phone who then passes bus about 5 mins. later,still on phone.
|
|
ITV 3 - must admit to have watche both episodes.....enjoyed last night's more.....a lot of truisms in it.
|
|
|
|
>> That's a very emotive statement. Do you have the background for >> that claim? Would be interesting to see how they've defined various >> parts of the test. The TRL report is available off the "Direct Line" website. There are quite a few others available.
Interesting. I went to direct line, and found the article claiming this was a fact, and referring to another article.
So I looked at that article, which also claimed it as a fact (although did NOT make any claim about hands-free systems being included in this statistic), and referenced the Think! Tracking Research 2003.
Which has absolutely no proof of this statistic (and in fact doesn't even make the claim).
So it seems to be unsubstantiated, as far as I can tell. I was actually trying to see what level of 'dunkness' it was referring to, and it's testing methods, but I couldn't even get that far.
What it did say, was that in the last year 20 road fatalities have been caused by people using phones while driving. Now, I don't have figures to hand, but I'd be willing to put a wager on two things:
1) There are more miles done by people on a phone than by people over the drink drive limit
2) More than 20 fatalities were caused by drink drivers in the last year
Which doesn't really fit with phone usage being more dangerous.
|
>> The TRL report Interesting. I went to direct line, and found the article claiming this was a fact, and referring to another article. So I looked at that article, which also claimed it as a fact (although did NOT make any claim about hands-free systems being included in this statistic), and referenced the Think! Tracking Research 2003. Which has absolutely no proof of this statistic (and in fact doesn't even make the claim). So it seems to be unsubstantiated, as far as I can tell. I was actually trying to see what level of 'dunkness' it was referring to, and it's testing methods, but I couldn't even get that far.
You obviously have not read the TRL report.
|
You obviously have not read the TRL report.
Well would you like to give a link to it, rather than just acting bizarrely smug about it?
|
>> You obviously have not read the TRL report. Well would you like to give a link to it, rather than just acting bizarrely smug about it?
Sorry, I'm not trying to be smug (or bizarre). The TRL 'Phone Report is at:
tinyurl.com/3abgnh
There's a bit of preamble, and the interesting stuff starts at about p.6. There's a lot of "Direct Line's Report", which I suppose it is - but the research was done by the TRL. It's actually (IMO, of course) an interesting read.
|
Must we have wide 'reports' from commercial organisations that mess up the page?
Come come FT.
|
Must we have wide 'reports' from commercial organisations that mess up the page?
Eh? What page? Looks like a long-ish URL that's wrapped, to me, still clickable... is the accepted practice here to use tinyurl or whatnot (I know this should go in "I have a question")? Apologies if I've boobed posting it.
So the TRL is a commercial organisation. Most are. If not, it'd be a government one! Which is worse !!
|
is the accepted practice here to use tinyurl or whatnot
Only if you think the url is going to be too long. I have, (or am about to) replace your link for a tinyurl one as when displayed on a 15" monitor (or less) screws up the page width of the thread. It displays fine on my 17" monitor, btw. DD.
|
>> is the accepted practice here to use tinyurl or whatnot Only if you think the url is going to be too long. I have, (or am about to) replace your link for a tinyurl one
Thank you for that, and sorry for the trouble I've put you to. The trouble with "tinyurl", though, is that links from it expire, so I have heard. Is there a solution to that?
as when displayed on a 15" monitor (or less) screws up the page width of the thread. It displays fine on my 17" monitor, btw. DD.
That's probably why I didn't realise, I've got a big one which displays fine as well.
|
all the direct line research does is prove that the driving simulator doesn't match reality for the reasons I stated earlier.
--
I read often, only post occasionally
|
all the direct line research does is prove that the driving simulator doesn't match reality for the reasons I stated earlier.
What reasons might they have been, I wonder? In your only other post, I see a fallacial statement - but nothing
approaching fact. The TRL is an august organisation with a good reputation. Should one take as gospel an
individual's unsupported statements, or good scientific research?
|
The trouble with "tinyurl", though, is that links from it expire, so I have heard.
Not according to the bumf on their website. More than likely the link that tinyurl redirects to no longer exists or has been changed slightly.
Using the forum search, I found a couple from four plus years ago that still work ok.
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=10660&...e
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=86...8
But enough of highjacking this thread, lets get back to the original discussion now please.
DD.
|
Thanks for that, I was having a lot of difficulty finding it. I would agree that it's an interesting read. Unfortunately I'm at work, so was only able to skim it and try to get to the important bits.
There are several doubts I have about it:
As I expected, when they talk about 'being drunk' they seem to be talking about people who are exactly on the drink-drive limit. Do you think that's the general rule for drink-driving people?
Their measure of driving more dangerously seems to be almost entirely based on reaction times. Reading into the text surrounding this point, it does admit that the people on a mobile drove slower (negating the reaction time issue) and that the drunk drivers were more likely to leave their lane accidentally (personally I would class that as FAR more dangerous than the difference in reaction time they state)
I don't think that drivers reporting it was easier to drink drive than to phone drive is relevant - they were drunk! One of the whole points of that is it makes you think things are easier!
I have been on driving simulators, and they are completely removed from reality. They really do feel completely unlike the real thing, and I found myself reacting completely differently to how I would in a real car, on a real road.
20 is a VERY small sample. Without going into the stats (because I'm terrible at it) I would be very surprised if, on a scientific basis, that study proved anything at all.
I'm not attempting to argue that mobile-driving isn't wrong. But I don't really see the statement 'it is worse than drink-driving' proved by that study.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
