It would indeed require a culture shift to change this. I run my own wee business and spend a great deal of time travelling, mainly by car, to visit customers and suppliers. I decided to analyse my phone calls a couple of months ago and was not very surprised to find that on an average weekday I receive upwards of 30 calls while driving. Any gentle suggestion that it would be better if callers send me an E-mail which will be attended to within 24 hrs is met with impatience at best. It seems that it is no longer acceptable to be out of reach for more than a few minutes at a time. I have tried leaving a greeting message on the voicemail to say " please send an E-mail" but the majority of people don't and just leave a "please call me ASAP" message.
We are reaching the point of communication overload.
|
The thing that leaves me open mouthed is the number of professional drivers - HGVs, vans, reps whatever - who can't or won't invest in a £10 wired kit or a £20-30 Bluetooth earpiece.
Apart from anything else, it is so much more comfortable.
Can anyone out there explain why they will not buy a handsfree bit of kit?
Edited by drbe on 15/03/2008 at 09:30
|
The thing that leaves me open mouthed is the number of professional drivers -
Recently while waiting to turn right I was almost rear ended by a white van, driver on phone, brain in neutral. I braced for the hit but he saw me at the last second, swerved and put his van on the pavement. Pure luck no pedestrians. I think it should be six points a time.
|
|
|
|
We are reaching the point of communication overload.
On radio 4 this morning I heard that we now make more phone calls per day than we did in a whole year in 1980!
|
|
|
|
|
Ubi complains that the State doesn't intervene to stop people buying a useful device, fails to reduce the mischief caused by the stupidity of mobile users, but then switches to an accusation that when the State intervenes to reduce risk, its solely to make money. H'mm.
|
Ubi complains that the State ...................its solely to make money. H'mm.
I wonder if we could persuade the conspiract theorists on this forum to form a special interest group?
|
|
|
-"did the government listen to the sweet murmurs of Whitehall serpents telling them that they could increase the revenue stream once again by levying fines on the citizenry for using the devices"
Ubi - sorry but that is total rubbish. The legislation came in (initially pitched at a non-endorsable fixer) after a campaigning from safety groups after a number of phone related fatal accidents. The penalty was increased to an endorsable one as it was perceived that people still "risked" using their phones. There is no hypothecation with phone fines, basically Police Forces run this at a loss. the "income" from these fines to the Treasury are minimal.
Phone use whilst driving is dangerous - I have recent personal experience.
|
I agree with you PU, it is dangerous, but unless it was to be totally banned people will continue to do it. Some for purely social reasons but many for business also. Unless the playing field is levelled by a total ban no one who relies on the phone to make a living will stop using it despite the risks. I always use a hands free kit but nevertheless freely admit to being distracted by the phone. Until this is seen as being as antisocial as drink driving we will see continued abuse of this privelege. I think we all see countless nunbers of drivers every day blatantly flouting the law re phoning on a hand held. I also regularly see texters on the road. Only this week I was overtaken at high speed on the motorway by a young lady who was clearly texting.
I would "disinvent" the wretched things if I could! ( and E-mail by the way, had 56 yesterday quite apart from the spam. Only 4 of them were actually relevant to me, why do people now think it necessary to "cc" everyone they ever heard of who might just be slightly related to a project or contract ? )
Have a nice weekend everyone! I'm better now !
Grumpyspook ;-)
|
|
|
>>The penalty was increased to an endorsable one as it was perceived that people still >>"risked" using their phones.
Sadly, from what I see, this hasn?t changed much.
Clk Sec
Edited by Clk Sec on 15/03/2008 at 10:14
|
|
Not enough enforcement - I know of one Force that's digitising its Scamera vans so that they can "bookmark" such offences that they capture on film for later prosecution by post.
|
|
|
|
Would requiring manufacturers to fit cars out so that no signal could be received internally except for a hard wired aerial? Just a thought................
|
>I always use a hands free kit but nevertheless freely admit to being distracted by the phone>
Me too, but as my neighbour who is a traffic plod warns you won't normally get pulled for using a hands-free but should you be involved in an accident the fact you were on the phone at the time 'will be taken into consideration'!
|
it's been said before...but.. it is not paying proper attention that is the real problem, not holding something to your ear.
follow a car full of women yapping, any car on the school run, someone changing a CD, anyone taking a phone call (whether or not it is hands free)...none of them pay proper attention and therefore get caught out, because things happen 'suddenly' (they don't, a good driver will notice it building up).
I'm not arguing 'for' mobile phone usage when driving, just a more sensible look at all the problems, not just picking on one and pretending the others don't exist.
the last time i was on a motorway for any length of time i went through a phase of matching my speed with a chap in a high spec newish Merc E class. You could tell the point he took his phone call as up until then he was driving with a fair degree of awareness and consideration..and as I would periodically knock the cruise off (because the tomtom was telling me where the camera van sites were) he'd come past me... 'er indoors remarked on his sudden deterioration in driving as he didn't notice he was catching up someone in the middle lane rather sharply and indicated to pull out right in front of me..before we got there i said to her "he'll be on the phone" now..and sure enough you could see his mouth moving, so presumably hands free.....totally oblivious to everything else....but legal?
|
The situation is just the same in France. Use of an ordinary mobile in a vehicle is now illegal, attracting a fine and loss of points - but largely ignored. In recent weeks I've nearly been hit several times and each time the driver had a mobile to his (but mainly her) ear.
Back along I saw a moped rider pulling out of a junction onto a busy main road - on his mobile.
|
|
At the risk of sexism it is mainly women you see not using hands free isn't it? Only this afternoon a lady in a Beetle, stacked with presumably her kids, followed me for about four miles in heavyish traffic. 'Phone glued to ear she several times narrowly avoided parking in my boot. Felt like getting out and saying something but would probably have been accused of harassment or something. Eventually I went twice round a roundabout to get her off my chuff.
|
At the risk of sexism it is mainly women you see not using hands free isn't it?
Not in my experience.
|
|
The last four taxis I've caught have each had drivers taking calls (Hands free) during the ride. I'm considering telling them not to take calls whilst transporting me, but doubt I'd be popular!
|
Don't do it Marlot. They may just evict you from the cab. I would.
Handsfree mobile is easier to operate than old-style shortwave radio anyway. Why on earth do you object? How are these fellows to know where the next job is and so on?
If you want a driver to do exactly what you say, you may have to hire a chauffeur and pay very good wages.
Edited by Lud on 15/03/2008 at 17:11
|
Don't do it Marlot. They may just evict you from the cab. I would. Handsfree mobile is easier to operate than old-style shortwave radio anyway. Why on earth do you object? How are these fellows to know where the next job is and so on?
Sorry, Lud I don't agree - we use them as part of the job - I allow them to report that they have picked me up and where we are going if required - any other call is not necessary and I will tell them to cut it - the company I work for completely back our stance on this and have told the taxi firms that it is part of their continued use of the firm that they abide by it together with abiding to the 70 limit on motorways.
Once they have given details of the pick up and destination (with eta if required) there is no need for any further use of radio/phone except in emergency. We experienced too many incidents before and this has made our journey much safer and relaxed.
|
|
it's been said before...but.. it is not paying proper attention that is the real problem not holding something to your ear.
I would imagine holding a phone in one hand (and therefore not being able to use that hand to assist in driving the car) is far worse than using a hands free setup, which is turn is worse than not having a phone conversation and just getting on with your driving.
Unfortunately many people have to take (H/F) calls whilst driving because their employers require them to do so.
|
"driving because their employers require them to do so"
And what a lot of employers don't understand, or turn a blind eye to, is that if that is the case there must be a H&S Risk Assessment in place. We do and the control measure is that we don't use phones, full stop, anyone that chooses to do so and the consequent liability is squarely on their shoulders.
|
That's a luxurious position to be in these days, PU.
My wife's brother services machinery for the food industry and covers a large chunk of the UK, often sprinting from one customer to another. He is required to be on-call for a large proportion of his waking hours (and often his non-waking hours too!). If he doesn't answer the phone when working or on-call, whether in the car of not, then he's potentially facing the sack.
|
|
I have a split view on this. I hate in car phone use but while my competitors do it I also have to or I'd be out of business within a month.
Edited by shoespy on 15/03/2008 at 18:35
|
Is this maybe another 'one size fits all' reaction.
Lets be honest there are some drivers whether professional or not that are wholly incapable of driving competently whether distracted or not, and there are some who can drive perfectly well and have a conversation at the same time.
I don't sign up to this view that mobile phone users are the new mass murderers.
What does amaze me really are the (mainly lorry) drivers who hold the phone to their right ear in full view of everyone, if i was plod i'd definately ticket them, for sheer stupidity.
Why don't some drivers cut the piece of string that ties the phone to the throttle pedal?
|
|
You're absolutely right - its like a lot of laws, the control is there because some people can;t cope with the freedom that the balance between rights and responsibility give. Gun law is a prime example, no-one I know (and I know a fair number) who have guns have ever committed any firearms offence, however you have to legislate for the lowest common denominator - i.e. the very stupid.
|
Lets be honest there are some drivers whether professional or not that are wholly incapable of driving competently whether distracted or not and there are some who can drive perfectly well and have a conversation at the same time. I don't sign up to this view that mobile phone users are the new mass murderers.
Why do so many posters on this forum go in for massive exaggeration. No one has expressed the view that mobile phone users are the new mass murderers. However most vehicles, especially those with manual transmission, require two hands to operated them properly. You can't drive a car properly with only one free hand.
Hands free sets are obviously safer, but I (like most people) tend to zone out a little when having a phone conversation whilst driving, especially if the subject matter is work related and requires a lot of thought and decisions to be made.
My kids often travel in cars driven by the parents of their friends. I sometimes think about laws like this (and speed limits) and I'm rather grateful for these laws and their enforcement. They don't make the roads 100% safe, but they help.
|
|
Every day I see cars going along the B road where I live using mobiles. But yesterday a car stopped on the road and the driver was using his mobile. I think this practice of stopping in the road is more dangerous than using the phone whilst driving. They could easily get hit up the rear.
|
|
The danger has been known for a long long time. It is over 10 years ago when one of our customers was the met police. Someone phoned up for some information I couldn't supply and I gave him the mobile number of one of our salesmen. His reaction was that he would prefer not to call a mobile if it was likely to be answered in a car.
|
|
I saw some idiot from our local Highways, pull up in the distance in front of me - 8,000,000 candlepower of amber lights came on. As I pulled over the DWLs that he's parked against on a tight bend I could see him on his handheld phone. I'm sure he felt exempted from the requirements of the Road Traffic Act - but he shouldn't have parked where was.
|
Think I might have found the solution. Get the new all singing all dancing Blackberry. I got one a couple of weeks ago, first of all it will take most normal humans a week to figure out how it works, thus giving you at least that amount of time out of danger. Secondly, even when mounted on a car cradle the keys are so small and close together that the chances of calling anyone you actually want to speak to are limited. Thirdly, it goes through its battery so quickly that you won't be able to use it after lunch most days anyway !
Job done ;-)
|
|
With you on this - our old mobile contract "migrated" on Friday, for nearly two years I've carried two work-phones, I only have the Blackberry now. I may buy one of my own next year when I er..retire (aged 49 whoopee ! I've made it) - the Blackberry talks to our old TT7. I hate these ear-pieces with a passion.
|
|
Treated myself to a "Jawbone" noise cancelling earpiece to go with the flashy new BB. The earpiece is actually very good, like being on a landline even with the window open so I can have a fag as well ;-)
|
Hope the dog's steering !!
Have you got a link to the product ?
|
|
Sorry no, but just google "Jawbone" it really is very very good.
|
the bigger problem is NOT the fact you've got something in your hand, although it can cause difficulties...it's the fact you're so engrossed in something i.e. a phone conversation, that you're not concentrating on what is going on...
that's when you are driving without due care and attention and it happens every day on every road...... young mums chatting to their offspring, old biddies yapping to each other, it used to be smokers although they're a dying breed (sorry), someone unwrapping and eating a sandwich, changing a CD..etc, etc.
if you were doing the legal limit on a motorway and did one of the following, which would be worse in reality:
A, reach down to already opened tin of drink in cupholder, pick it up and drink from it, before returning it
B, take phone call on legal hands free system and talk intrically about whatever (e.g. row with missus, trying to make technical sale as salesman, discussing forthcoming meeting at work.. etc)
first one is illegal, second one is not. First one might have momentary lapse of concentration, second one would have you doing tens of miles on autopilot... and you'd be constantly missing things with your hazard perception.
|
Seems to me that the argument that a number of things can distract a driver , which are not illegal, is not an argument against outlawing hand-held use.
Some of the other distractions- for example, children crying- may not be avoidable ( so adding to the risk by using an HH phone seems stupid) ; or it would be hard to detect the action from outside the car. In this case handsfree is a reasonable compromise which balances the individual's desire for accessibility and the safety of the rest of us.
I have just been in the US for two weeks ( mostly Florida) and was shocked by the prevalence of people using HH phones ; I don't know whether it is illegal there but it is still just as stupid and careless of others' safety .For example in Fort Lauderdale- a very affluent town- people driving pretty new cars costing upwards of 30k were doing it- even though Bluetooth is easily available ; we saw people using Bluetooth, but never driving a car.
Just in case anyone argues that the cars were probably auto , " so they don't need both hands" (!) on one occasion I was nearly flattened at a ped crossing where I had the light to cross but where cars could legally turn across my path but had to stop if I was on the crossing. A woman simply wasnt paying enough attention.
|
my point is not to allow hand held mobiles, but that the authorities should try to educate the driving public on the dangers a loss of concentration can cause....the trouble with a campaign concentrating on one issue, is that in general people don't think enough for themselves, so might well accept that a hand held phone is dangerous (because everyone nowadays says it is), but fail completely to think of some of the points i've posted above...which in reality can equally cause problems and in some cases more so.
it's the same principle as the 'speed kills' campaign (i.e speed itself isn't always the problem, but speed at the wrong time can be lethal). It has ended up with many people believing speeding itself is the main problem... and many other things are totally ignored e.g. the condition of vehicles, individuals fitness to be behind the wheel, no documents, etc.
|
It isn't a question of something in your hand, or something else going on that may distract you. It's a question of being trained to be utterly clear about priorities. What this means is that if necessary you ignore what your passenger or telephonic botherer is saying to concentrate on a difficult bit of driving. You can apologise later.
A bad event under these circumstances can't really be blamed on the person at the other end of the phone or in the passenger seat, unless they have done something very unusual. That would be like blaming Jimmy Young for saying something so interesting that hundreds of drivers ran into crowded bus stops. It's the driver's fault.
Everyone knows that first things come first. Not everyone can maintain a sound list of priorities under all circumstances. That's the real problem.
|
I agree with the first paragraph but do you really mean the driving test should have a portion to demonstrate proper use of mobile phones? That is the only was to prove training and is unworkable.
From experience of 5 years with handsfree kits and four years without (due to a change of company policy) even hands free kits should be banned. I have experience what I would best describe as tunnel vision where all you see is what is ahead of you and your attention is entirely on the call. It is entirely different to speaking to someone in the car as they are also aware of what is going on around them - how often has your other half told you you are going too fast/too close?
Probably politically unacceptable but how about limiting calls when driving to one minute and if you are in an accident then phone records will demonstrate. But we also need more police on the roads both to attend the minor accidents so they catch these people and also to act as a deterrent.
|
It isn't a question of something in your hand or something else going on that may distract you. It's a question of being trained to be utterly clear about priorities. What this means is that if necessary you ignore what your passenger or telephonic botherer
Absolutely. At critical moments you have to snap at your passengers to shut up. If I'm trying to find my way in unfamiliar roads or spot a shop or turning I turn the radio etc off too.
Think of it as like chattering to the pilot just as he's coming in to land.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
