Drink drivers being targetted this Christmas

[digger]

Guys,

As we probably all know, again this year Police will be heavily targetting drink drivers, if caught it means your licence :nazibanned:and your car gets impounded...:nazilock:

Its getting very serious guys... why even last night when I had a really big night out on the town I thought I should do the right thing. So I locked my car up at the hotel carpark and took the bus home..

I am actually very proud of myself.... Ive never driven a bus that big before...:twisted:

(but seriously be careful out there people!)
Merry Christmas.

[alexturner]

A fantastic use of emoticons there digger.

[Mick_Marsh]

Careful Digger.
You could have pulled yourself over and booked yourself.
Good job you were in no fit state to perform your duties.

[pfillery]

I think if you are too drunk you'd never work out which is the correct key to open and start a series 3.

At least we series drivers are safe from speeding fines:D

[p38arover]

Guys,

As we probably all know, again this year Police will be heavily targetting drink drivers, if caught it means your licence :nazibanned:and your car gets impounded...:nazilock:

Quite frankly, I'd like to see the cars of drink drivers impounded - especially those of recidivist drink drivers who have lost their licences but continue to drive.

We impound cars for so-called hooning or even breaking traction but we continue to let drink drivers loose on our roads. I know which of those I'm more afraid of.

[pfillery]

Quite frankly, I'd like to see the cars of drink drivers impounded - especially those of recidivist drink drivers who have lost their licences but continue to drive.

We impound cars for so-called hooning or even breaking traction but we continue to let drink drivers loose on our roads. I know which of those I'm more afraid of.

Somewhat agree Ron. However take an example of a one car family. One person drink drives, has the car impounded, what of the other person and their need for the vehicle. It isn't really fair to expect them to cop it sweet and lose their car for a week or whatever the impound time is, particularly if they need to transport children etc. If anything, specifically punish the person involved. I know this will somewhat effect their family but not as much as taking away a family's form of transport especially when the partner is not responsible for the crime. Set up longer term drunk tanks for repeat offenders, shove them in a cell for 48 hours at their cost, ther have to be better ways.

In qld over the last few months AFAIK they have been trialling enforced interlock devices fitted to the cars of repeat drink drivers. Blow anything above 0 and the car won't start. I also believe it logs all readings and can randomly request a sample while driving as well, just in case you decide to get someone else to blow in to start the car. Great idea as long as only the drink driver uses that car and as long as they don't use any other vehicles. Principle is sound though.

[It'sNotWorthComplaining!]

Great it might get a few more of those bozos of the roads, Hope they target those with mobile phones glued to the ear and texters, as they are causing havoc on roads as well.

[will d8r]

I worked with a driver who had one of those devices fitted. He was caught over the limit,he was aloud it as is wife didn't drive,cost him $3000 through.It can recognize only one's breath,bit like finger prints,you blow in it if ok the car will start and it beeps at random times so you blow in it to keep going.I think it gives you about 10 seconds to do it.Every 28 days he went somewhere to down load it any problems you are on your feet.It fixed him.
Cheers Will

[JDNSW]

.....Hope they target those with mobile phones glued to the ear and texters, as they are causing havoc on roads as well.

Problem I have is that if mobile phone use is as dangerous as claimed -

1. Why has the number of road deaths continued to decline over the period since mobile phones have gone from rare to ubiquitous (and routinely used by many drivers)?

2. Why is it that accident rates and road death rates in the United States show no difference in the continued decline between those states that allow mobile phone use and those that don't?

The first could be explained by assuming that mobile phone use by drivers is rare - I don't know what your experience is, but my observation is that it is very common. And I think I am the only person I know who does not routinely use the phone while driving!

The second could be explained, at least as far as the lack of difference goes by assuming everyone in the states that ban it ignore the ban (which may be right!). But that does not explain the continued decline in the statistics.

John

[p38arover]

Somewhat agree Ron. However take an example of a one car family. One person drink drives, has the car impounded, what of the other person and their need for the vehicle. It isn't really fair to expect them to cop it sweet and lose their car for a week or whatever the impound time is, particularly if they need to transport children etc. If anything, specifically punish the person involved. I know this will somewhat effect their family but not as much as taking away a family's form of transport especially when the partner is not responsible for the crime.

I disagree. By implementing this, it might force them to take stock and might also make the innocent partner keep their drinking partner out of the driver's seat.

The loss of their car for while is nothing compared to the losses incurred by innocent victims - and I don't necessarily mean monetary losses. They could be loss of life, mobility, a limb, sight, brain function, etc. - so don't try the innocent family bit with me.

Ditto with someone lending a car to a friend why has had a drink. By doing that, the lender is an accessory and deserves to lose their car for while.

[V8Ian]

Somewhat agree Ron. However take an example of a one car family. One person drink drives, has the car impounded, what of the other person and their need for the vehicle. It isn't really fair to expect them to cop it sweet and lose their car for a week or whatever the impound time is, particularly if they need to transport children etc. If anything, specifically punish the person involved. I know this will somewhat effect their family but not as much as taking away a family's form of transport especially when the partner is not responsible for the crime. Set up longer term drunk tanks for repeat offenders, shove them in a cell for 48 hours at their cost, ther have to be better ways.

In qld over the last few months AFAIK they have been trialling enforced interlock devices fitted to the cars of repeat drink drivers. Blow anything above 0 and the car won't start. I also believe it logs all readings and can randomly request a sample while driving as well, just in case you decide to get someone else to blow in to start the car. Great idea as long as only the drink driver uses that car and as long as they don't use any other vehicles. Principle is sound though.
The same situation exists if the car is impounded for 'hooning'. I, like Ron, believe drunken drivers are a far greater risk than a driver who accidently breaks traction momentarily on a gravel shoulder.

[d2dave]

In qld over the last few months AFAIK they have been trialling enforced interlock devices fitted to the cars of repeat drink drivers. Blow anything above 0 and the car won't start. I also believe it logs all readings and can randomly request a sample while driving as well, just in case you decide to get someone else to blow in to start the car. Great idea as long as only the drink driver uses that car and as long as they don't use any other vehicles. Principle is sound though.

Victoria has had interlock devices for years. They allow the car to start at .02 or below. And yes it does request a reading every 15 to 20 minutes, in case the driver starts drinking after the initial start. The info is downloaded regularly, and if you have tried to drive over .02, you have some explaining to do.

I know a girl who has one and she over did it with hair spray and her car would not start.

Dave.

[Mick_Marsh]

The same situation exists if the car is impounded for 'hooning'. I, like Ron, believe drunken drivers are a far greater risk than a driver who accidently breaks traction momentarily on a gravel shoulder.
Ditto.

Believe it or not, some hoons have families in the same way as some drunk drivers have families.

The law should be applied equally. Either the car is impounded in both cases or the car is not impounded in both cases.

[Basil135]

Quite frankly, I'd like to see the cars of drink drivers impounded - especially those of recidivist drink drivers who have lost their licences but continue to drive.

We impound cars for so-called hooning or even breaking traction but we continue to let drink drivers loose on our roads. I know which of those I'm more afraid of.

I agree that the cars should be impounded, and likewise, especially those of repeat offenders.

However, it should be noted that cars are NOT impounded for simply breaking traction. I am fairly sure that it has to be a sustained loss of traction. Simply taking off from the lights on a wet road, and briefly spinning the wheels wouldn't qualify. You simply lift your foot.

However, if you keep your foot planted to the floor, and make NO attempt to stop the spin, then THAT is when the cars should be impounded.



Problem I have is that if mobile phone use is as dangerous as claimed -

1. Why has the number of road deaths continued to decline over the period since mobile phones have gone from rare to ubiquitous (and routinely used by many drivers)?

2. Why is it that accident rates and road death rates in the United States show no difference in the continued decline between those states that allow mobile phone use and those that don't?

The first could be explained by assuming that mobile phone use by drivers is rare - I don't know what your experience is, but my observation is that it is very common. And I think I am the only person I know who does not routinely use the phone while driving!

The second could be explained, at least as far as the lack of difference goes by assuming everyone in the states that ban it ignore the ban (which may be right!). But that does not explain the continued decline in the statistics.

John


Sorry John, but I can't agree.

Any statistics can be manipulated to show what someone wants. You cite that there has been no increase in death rates, and this may be so. However, what about the amount of accidents that have been caused by drivers using mobile phones?

To get this number, the driver involved would have to actually admit they were breaking the law when they were involved....

And on that point, it is illegal to use a hand-held mobile phone, just as it is illegal to drive over .05. Agree or not, it is the law.

[juddy]

They should be shot.

[ramblingboy42]

Careful Digger.
You could have pulled yourself over and booked yourself.
Good job you were in no fit state to perform your duties.

no innuendo here Mick?:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

[digger]

It started as a christmas joke.. with a message...

anyway,

In SA
anything .05 and over car is impounded 28 days (usually immediately),lic is suspended (6 months .05 --> .149, 12 months .15 --> up ) these suspensions are until court and can be varied (shortened/extended) by court but usually are continued.

28 days impound fees and tow fees are starting at about $900.. and can be higher depending on the court and on when they are collected.

our "hoon laws" have same conditions, (impound 28 days) and fees. Sustained wheel spin,organised or any street racing, 'unreasonable' engine or tyre noise emitting from private premises but audible from any other or a public place... etc sustained wheel spin usually is about 2 secs or more (that is a rough rule of thumb), but there is an expiation fee for "fail to maintain effective control of a vehicle" that covers a lot of other stuff.

Mobile phones are responsible for some of the worst driving Ive seen, but then again those without phones just were lousy drivers!! (eg just an excuse?)

We have alcohol interlock, your lic is endorsed with the rego number of the fitted vehicle (fitted at your expense) and you are limited to that vehicle only. same stuff applies (downloads, random breaths and in transit etc).

We have found the rate of drink drivers we are seeing is dropping dramatically.

If caught "hooning" or drink driving the vehicle used can be siezed reguardless, but another vehicle can be substituted (that they own) at the officer or sgts discretion. - the owner is issued with an order prohibiting, sale, damage or alteration until court is completed as every impounded car is eligible for siezure to be sold (profits to Victims of crime) or crushed (booyeah!!! ).

anyway, have a nice Christmas break, slow down (speeding and drinking) and be alive for the new year)

[Chucaro]

I lost my mother just because a drunken driver did not stop on the traffic lights.
I do not have any kind of regards for irresponsible people that do not care to drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
The car becomes a weapon, they should have the car confiscated and sold to rise money for the victims of this kinfd of accidents.
Also forget a about a DL for 5 years or more. If they are do it again, then apply the Malaysia solution.........for life

[Bigbjorn]

Much of the great reduction in the road toll over the last 50 years has been due to not only savage enforcement and penalties for drink driving but to a complete turn around in community attitude to drink driving.

Before the breathalyser and the publicity campaigns most people, at least the ones in my acquaintance, had a laissez faire attitude to drink driving.Any one who drank, drank what they wished and drove. I once heard a Senior Sergeant of Qld. police say that you had to be pretty damn full before you couldn't drive a motor car.

Random breath testing and "booze buses" were the nails in the coffin for most drink drivers. These really smartened up driver's attitudes.

Some uniformity in penalties would be an improvement. These now vary greatly between states and even between individual courts.

A rellie was arrested after being found asleep behind the wheel with his car's nose down in a drain, lights on, engine running on a country road. He blew .286 which would have been at least two hours after his last drink. He had been at a football match and had driven around 50 k's towards home at that point. He actually thought the local copper who found him was driving him home. He was most surprised to find that he was going to Warwick watchouse to be tested.

I asked a couple of coppers I knew and a court officer how much he was likely to get. They were unanimous in informing me that the courts had instructions about such high readings and were to hand out a minimum of $1,000 and twelve months cancellation. Conditional licences were not to be issued for readings over.15. He went before Warwick Magistrate's Court, got $300 and three months, and a conditional licence.

The level at which one is considered to be legally impaired varies from country to country, and even from state to state in the USA. In most of Scandinavia no blood alcohol is permitted, whilst other places in the world vary through .02, .05, .08, .10. Some places do not bother with drink driving at all, others only if you do something out of order or have an accident. Some don't bother with a breathalyser but still rely on observations.

[JDNSW]

Sorry John, but I can't agree.

Any statistics can be manipulated to show what someone wants. You cite that there has been no increase in death rates, and this may be so. However, what about the amount of accidents that have been caused by drivers using mobile phones?

Do you have any figures where this was the single cause of an accident? Remember that just because an accident occurred while using a phone does not mean that this was a cause, and that it would be rare for any accident to have a single cause.

To get this number, the driver involved would have to actually admit they were breaking the law when they were involved....

And on that point, it is illegal to use a hand-held mobile phone, just as it is illegal to drive over .05. Agree or not, it is the law.

It is not a matter of agreement. And it is not a matter of manipulating statistics. The statistics I commented on are readily available, in the Australian case from the ABS.

Can you come up with any explanation that covers the simple fact that despite the increase in mobile phone use, the number of road deaths continues to decrease? And don't tell me that it is because the law stops people from using mobile phones while driving, because anyone with eyes can see them being used by many drivers every day. This was not the case fifteen years ago, when few drivers had mobile phones.

I am not querying the law, but the reason for the law. Real data does not appear to support it.

As to why mobile phone use does not appear to be a major risk factor, I suggest that the most likely reason is that drivers who allow their use to distract them from driving are also going to let other activities distract them from driving, and those who do not allow it don't let other activities distract them either.

Using your comparison of driving over 0.05, the statistics strongly support this; drivers over the limit invariably represent less than 1% in random test campaigns, where drivers over the limit in fatal accidents represent 25-40% of all drivers in fatal accidents. If there was any substantial basis for the idea that phone use causes accidents, you would expect the steady decrease in road deaths to have shown some signs of this effect as phones became widely used, and in particular, the US case where they are banned in some states but not others, you should see the effect. But neither of these show up.

Just to repeat what I said before - I do not use or answer the phone when driving - but I don't think I know anyone else that is as strict about it as I am!

John

[Yorkshire_Jon]

Drink driving is just wrong, period.

Allowable limit should be 0.0 for all. Those caught over the limit should loose their license for 5years.

You guys here are far too soft with it and the problem appears much worse here than in other parts of the world.

Sent using Forum Runner

[d2dave]

I would love to see some stats to back this up. I doubt that .0499 or below has caused any accidents.

Dave.

[Chucaro]

Drink driving is just wrong, period.

Allowable limit should be 0.0 for all. Those caught over the limit should loose their license for 5years.

You guys here are far too soft with it and the problem appears much worse here than in other parts of the world.

Sent using Forum Runner
Well I am not sure about other parts in the world, back in 2008, Brazil introduced a "dry law" indicating a nearly zero alcohol tolerance law regarding driving. The tolerated blood alcohol limit is 0.2g/l to allow for alcoholic mouthwashes or certain medicines.

This means that consuming a beer or small glass of wine before driving is now a serious offense. A driver found to have more than the legal limit of alcohol is fined based on the blood alcohol level - the higher the level, the larger the fine. In some cases the driver faces suspension, and a driver that causes an accident, injury or death may also face jail.

Since it's introduction, the law has reduced alcohol related driving incidents considerably in a short period of time. Previously, an estimated 20,000 deaths per year on Brazil’s roads were alcohol related.

[bob10]

Read something interesting recently, in preparation for a trip to NZ in Jan., been boning up on the rules etc., as some driving may be done, the blood alcohol limit was said to be 0 for drivers under 20, and .08 for those over. We in Qld have lost a number of young drivers in the last month through accidents, alcohol wasn't mentioned as a cause, of course, but I would be very surprised to hear it wasn't in some cases at least. 0 limit for drivers under 20 might not be a bad idea. Bob

[d2dave]

In Victoria it is 0.0 until you are 22 at the earliest. I think this is a good idea.

Dave.

[JDNSW]

I somehow doubt that the actual figure makes a lot of difference - if you look at the figures occasionally published for the results of random tests, it is clear that most (but not all) "over the limit" readings are well over, and most "under the limit" are zero or pretty close to.

This is not really surprising when you think about it - anyone concerned about their blood alcohol level is likely to try and be well on the safe side, but those unconcerned are unlikely to stop close to the legal limit.

However, setting a limit so low that it is impossible to comply if you have even one drink is likely to reduce drink driving slightly, because it makes a clear either/or decision between drinking or driving.

A potential problem with setting a zero level however, is that as technology improves it will become possible to detect levels as low as 0.0000000001% (or any other ridiculously low non-zero number you care to pick). In other words, it will be possible to convict almost anyone at any time, as traces of alcohol are present in all sorts of places - for example, did you get a whiff of that 10% ethanol petrol? For this reason, I have to oppose a zero level, but would have no problem with a level close to zero. This problem may not have surfaced yet in a court case, but I predict it will before many years have passed with current laws setting zero for some drivers.

Zero sends a message perhaps, but it also is laying a legal minefield for the future!

John

[d2dave]

As I said in an earlier post, .02 or below .02, not sure which, is actually allowed for drivers who are on 0.0, to allow for cough mixtures or that piece of cake that was eaten that had alcohol used in it.

Dave.

[It'sNotWorthComplaining!]

Problem I have is that if mobile phone use is as dangerous as claimed -

1. Why has the number of road deaths continued to decline over the period since mobile phones have gone from rare to ubiquitous (and routinely used by many drivers)?

2. Why is it that accident rates and road death rates in the United States show no difference in the continued decline between those states that allow mobile phone use and those that don't?

The first could be explained by assuming that mobile phone use by drivers is rare - I don't know what your experience is, but my observation is that it is very common. And I think I am the only person I know who does not routinely use the phone while driving!

The second could be explained, at least as far as the lack of difference goes by assuming everyone in the states that ban it ignore the ban (which may be right!). But that does not explain the continued decline in the statistics.

John
I said havoc on roads not death on roads.

Mobile phone users are to involved in their conversations to really realise what is happening around them.
I say when you use your phone whilst driving you would have driven kms and not even noticed what had gone on in your surroundings as you play less attention than if you where only concentrating on driving.

Have you never pulled up at the traffic lights and the car in front is doing texting, the lights change green and the driver ahead is still too involved in their own little world of playing with their toy the mobile phone.

Have you never nearly been side swiped by a car that is diving erratically in the lane next to you, unable to drive straight and wanders over from lane to lane, almost as it they were drunk, only that they are texting and looking at their phone and not looking at the road ahead.

Then we have the oblivious to their surroundings jay walkers, they walk whilst they frig around with their mobiles and walk straight into oncoming traffic.
statistic show road tolls, they don't show injuries or near misses.
I suppose it depends on how long one is on the road for, you start to see more and more people and their mobile phone antics

Every body has an excuse for justifying what is not allowed.

[d2dave]

Mrs Whippy was almost involved in a head on a few years ago on a 100 kph road. The other driver was texting and had drifted onto the wrong side of the road.

I reckon that texting is worse than driving at .08 Bac.

Dave.

[Bigbjorn]

The true problem is impaired driving, not a statutory proscribed concentration of alcohol in the bloodstream. Whether one is impaired by use of alcohol or other chemical substances, or by stupidity such as texting, reading, eating bowls of cereal, making up ones face, receiving a blow job etc. is the problem. Many people hold driver's licences and drive daily who should not be allowed to be in charge of a bottle opener.

How to judge "impairment"? Perhaps a certain mandatory skills level. Below this level one is impaired. At or above this level, one is not impaired no matter what one's level of booze or other.

The solution to impaired driving is a fair dinkum driving test including a skid pad session. This should be repeated at regular intervals before licence renewal. A licence like a pilot's licence which allows the holder to use only certain classes of vehicle after training and testing in that class. Many drivers would find themselves licenceless or restricted to say " under one litre capacity, max. 30 bhp, two seats, max. tare 700 kilos. Not more than 30 kilos from address of record." Heavy vehicle licensing should be like an apprenticeship with progression from miniscule vehicles commencing after one has held a clean licence for sometime, say two-three years post P plates and slowly stepping up with driving experience and TAFE training to the point where one could possibly be able to be examined for multi trailer licences after one reaches a mature age of responsibility. i.e. no 25 year old road train drivers.

This, of course, would cripple the economy and change a government that dared to apply such legislation. In the immortal words of Sir Humphrey Appleby " a most courageous decision, Prime minister".

[Fluids]

Mrs Whippy was almost involved in a head on a few years ago on a 100 kph road. The other driver was texting and had drifted onto the wrong side of the road.

I reckon that texting is worse than driving at .08 Bac.

Dave.


Yep! We all drive, and use a UHF, and listen to the radio/CD, and talk with our passengers .... and arrives safley .... but the idiots who TEXT whilst driving :angel: ... and that's the main reason talking on a mobile gets banned ... we've had mobiles for way longer than the ban ... smartphones have got us to where we are now.

The average person is competant enough to talk hands free on a mobile whilst driving ... he talks to his passengers !!

[bee utey]

Yep! We all drive, and use a UHF, and listen to the radio/CD, and talk with our passengers .... and arrives safley .... but the idiots who TEXT whilst driving :angel: ... and that's the main reason talking on a mobile gets banned ... we've had mobiles for way longer than the ban ... smartphones have got us to where we are now.

The average person is competant enough to talk hands free on a mobile whilst driving ... he talks to his passengers !!

Personally I find talking to passengers much less distracting than talking on the hands free. Passengers, especially in the front seat, generally clam up when dangerous situations arise or they see body signals from me indicating my need for concentration. On the phone I find my concentration narrows a lot, so I only chat when I am out of heavy traffic or tell the other person to hold on while I park.

Yes using the phone in the car reduces your concentration like you are a bit under. Except shutting up is faster than sobering up.;)

[JDNSW]

I said havoc on roads not death on roads.
......

Every body has an excuse for justifying what is not allowed.

I have seen USA statistics for all accidents as well as deaths - and there are no systematic differences between states with and without phone use bans.

Please note that I am not giving excuses or justifying anything, simply pointing out that the data does not support phone use as a major cause of accidents and deaths. (it is probably a minor factor, but so are many other things that are not banned!)

John

[mick88]

How often have you been driving along a double lane roadway and the person in the vehicle alongside you is texting, head down looking at the phone so they can read the reply, smiling to themselves and totally oblivious to the fact you are watching them. When they sense they are being watched they get all embarrassed and speed off!
It's got me stuffed how they can even steer the car whilst texting.....let alone drive it!
Definetly dangerous stuff......just another aspect that contributes to the roads being a warzone!

Cheers, Mick.

[mick88]

Victoria has had a significant drop in speed camera income, so they have decided not to reveal where their mobile speed camera's will be located.
Definetly not about revenue is it!

Cheers, Mick

[vnx205]

I have seen USA statistics for all accidents as well as deaths - and there are no systematic differences between states with and without phone use bans.

Please note that I am not giving excuses or justifying anything, simply pointing out that the data does not support phone use as a major cause of accidents and deaths. (it is probably a minor factor, but so are many other things that are not banned!)

John

I think you may have considered this possibility earlier, but I wonder whether the reason there is no significant difference between states with and without a ban may be that there is no significant difference between mobile phone usage regardless of the ban.

If I were simply to go on the basis of what I see, I would not have realised that NSW had a ban on the use of phones. I see them being used so often that as a casual observer I could be forgiven for thinking that it was legal.

Unless of course US drivers are more law abiding than a lot of Australian drivers appear to be.

A possible reason why the prevalence of phone usage created a rise in the accident statistics may be that phone usage by itself may in fact have led to a very small increase in accidents but that increase has been effectively balanced by a combination of other things that have been responsible for a marginal improvement.

I have no evidence to support any of this; it is pure speculation. As you have said on numerous occasions, many accidents have a multiplicity of causes and it is rarely possible to confidently attribute an accident to a single cause. So apart from a few things like seat belts and RBT, it is hard to be sure of the harm or benefits of one factor.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Problem I have is that if mobile phone use is as dangerous as claimed -

1. Why has the number of road deaths continued to decline over the period since mobile phones have gone from rare to ubiquitous (and routinely used by many drivers)?

2. Why is it that accident rates and road death rates in the United States show no difference in the continued decline between those states that allow mobile phone use and those that don't?

The first could be explained by assuming that mobile phone use by drivers is rare - I don't know what your experience is, but my observation is that it is very common. And I think I am the only person I know who does not routinely use the phone while driving!

The second could be explained, at least as far as the lack of difference goes by assuming everyone in the states that ban it ignore the ban (which may be right!). But that does not explain the continued decline in the statistics.

JohnJohn

Your use of generalised statistics sounds an impressive argument against phone use bans, however specific research on phone use had reported a 4 times greater risk of having an accident when using a mobile phone over when not using a mobile phone. The extraneous variable in the generalised statistics data is that during the period since the advent of mobile phones we have concurrently seen significant increases in the safety of the passenger cell i.e. from the rare driver only airbag, now to multiple aribags on all passenger seats. It is likely this increasing occupant safety that has masked the phone use statistics.

You only have observe daily traffic, the irratic driver with the phone to their head, the driver texting in traffic not realising a 100 metre gap has appeared in front of them as the traffic moved away, the rapid turns at intersections without indication when the phone using driver realises they are about to pass their turn. These I have personally witnessed.

Diana

[d2dave]

John

The extraneous variable in the generalised statistics data is that during the period since the advent of mobile phones we have concurrently seen significant increases in the safety of the passenger cell i.e. from the rare driver only airbag, now to multiple aribags on all passenger seats. It is likely this increasing occupant safety that has masked the phone use statistics.
Diana

It's a good thing that all these phone using drivers aren't driving Defenders then:)

Dave.

[It'sNotWorthComplaining!]

forgot to mention the mobile phone users are mainly right handed, so whilst talking they don't use indicators whilst talking because the indicator stalk is on the right hand side of the wheel.
This doesn't apply to Volo drivers, BMW or Merc drivers as these don't even have indicators, I think they are a factory option, seems no one wanted this option.

Landy drivers are ok using mobiles as they use the left hand indicator stalk;)

[digger]

<<<snip>>>
Landy drivers are ok using mobiles as they use the left hand indicator stalk;)

letting go of the steering wheel with the only hand free whilst they do so.

[d2dave]

This would have to be the younger generation. I am right handed and I could not use a phone in my right hand. When using land lines we would always have it in the left hand so as to dial the number with the right hand. Also if needing to take notes the right hand was free.

Therefore when I am talking on my phone when driving my Disco I can't use the indicators.

Dave.

[JDNSW]

John

Your use of generalised statistics sounds an impressive argument against phone use bans, however specific research on phone use had reported a 4 times greater risk of having an accident when using a mobile phone over when not using a mobile phone. The extraneous variable in the generalised statistics data is that during the period since the advent of mobile phones we have concurrently seen significant increases in the safety of the passenger cell i.e. from the rare driver only airbag, now to multiple aribags on all passenger seats. It is likely this increasing occupant safety that has masked the phone use statistics.

But accidents are decreasing as well as injuries.

You only have observe daily traffic, the irratic driver with the phone to their head, the driver texting in traffic not realising a 100 metre gap has appeared in front of them as the traffic moved away, the rapid turns at intersections without indication when the phone using driver realises they are about to pass their turn. These I have personally witnessed.

Diana

Arguing from example rather than data is always fraught with the possibility of error. And I agree you see this sort of thing - but mobile phones are only one of the distractions that causes this sort of driving - others include changing stations on the radio, looking at or fiddling with the GPS, disciplining the kids and a whole host of others. (for example, a fairly recent horrific head on locally was cause when a mother turned round to deal with a child in the back, killing herself and seriously injuring the child with a head on B-double).

Phone use is just about the only one of these that is specifically singled out for prohibition.

John

[JDNSW]

I think you may have considered this possibility earlier, but I wonder whether the reason there is no significant difference between states with and without a ban may be that there is no significant difference between mobile phone usage regardless of the ban.

Which, if true, is another reason for considering it is a bad law. Any law that is generally ignored serves no useful purpose, and brings the law in general into disrepute!

If I were simply to go on the basis of what I see, I would not have realised that NSW had a ban on the use of phones. I see them being used so often that as a casual observer I could be forgiven for thinking that it was legal.

I won't argue that one!

Unless of course US drivers are more law abiding than a lot of Australian drivers appear to be.

My experience suggests that they may be, but only slightly, and my experience is only in a couple of states.

A possible reason why the prevalence of phone usage created a rise in the accident statistics may be that phone usage by itself may in fact have led to a very small increase in accidents but that increase has been effectively balanced by a combination of other things that have been responsible for a marginal improvement.

Which contradicts the claim that phone use represents a 28% increase in the accident probability.

I have no evidence to support any of this; it is pure speculation. As you have said on numerous occasions, many accidents have a multiplicity of causes and it is rarely possible to confidently attribute an accident to a single cause. So apart from a few things like seat belts and RBT, it is hard to be sure of the harm or benefits of one factor.

Yes. My view is that it is not the use of a mobile phone per se that is the problem, but the attitude to driving that allows it (or anything else) to distract the driver when he/she needs full attention.

John

[Chucaro]

I would make the inclusion of phone hand free devices compulsory in any car regardless of the model or age and include this law in the RWC.
Hand free kits are very cheap and it is not an excuse not to have one.

[JDNSW]

I would make the inclusion of phone hand free devices compulsory in any car regardless of the model or age and include this law in the RWC.
Hand free kits are very cheap and it is not an excuse not to have one.

That is simply another legislative response adding red tape. And why should people be required to retrofit this to their cars if they either have no intention of using a phone while driving, or simply do not have one anyway? There are people who do not have them!

There are studies that have shown that the use of a hands free phone is almost as distracting as using a handheld one, and unless I am mistaken, some jurisdictions have recently at least proposed a complete ban on mobile phone use for P plate drivers.

John

[vnx205]

I would make the inclusion of phone hand free devices compulsory in any car regardless of the model or age and include this law in the RWC.
Hand free kits are very cheap and it is not an excuse not to have one.

I have a vague recollection that there was some evidence that talking on a mobile phone, even hands free engaged the mind in a different way from engaging in conversation with someone physically present in the car. I think there was some evidence that the fact that the conversation was with someone remote from the car somehow drew the driver's attention away more.

If that is true, then hands free does not solve the problem. The problem may not be so much what you do with your hands when you are on the phone, but what you do with your brain.

However it might have just been something they "tested" on Mythbusters. :D

Has anyone else seen any research on that issue?

On the subject of which hand you use for the phone, I think Mr Whippy is right; it is an age related thing. Those of us who grew up with the old dial telephones probably still hold the receiver or phone with the left hand so that we can dial with our right (except for the cacky handers). That is how I use my cordless at home. I think I do the same on the extremely rare occasions when I use a mobile.

[d2dave]

I have a vague recollection that there was some evidence that talking on a mobile phone, even hands free engaged the mind in a different way from engaging in conversation with someone physically present in the car. I think there was some evidence that the fact that the conversation was with someone remote from the car somehow drew the driver's attention away more.

If that is true, then hands free does not solve the problem. The problem may not be so much what you do with your hands when you are on the phone, but what you do with your brain.

However it might have just been something they "tested" on Mythbusters. :D
Has anyone else seen any research on that issue?.

Yes I have seen research on this and I agree with everthing said above. I personally reckon that holding the phone to your ear is no worse than hands free. It is the lack of concentration, not the fact that you have only one hand on the wheel. Talking on the phone with either method is totally different to talking to a passenger.

At the time this research came out it was the topic for discussion on talk back radio. A caller rang in and told us how all the Reps. cars had the hands free removed and the drivers were instructed to pull over and use hand held phones when calling or receiving calls. Any driver caught breaking this rule would face instant dismissal.

Dave.

[vnx205]

The National Safety Council has something to say on this subject.

http://www.google.com.au/url'sa=t&rct=j&q=hands%20free%20distraction&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CEAQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fnal.gov%2Fpub%2Ftraffic_safe ty%2Ffiles%2FNSC%2520White%2520Paper%2520-%2520Distracted%2520Driving%25203-10.pdf&ei=RX_tTpWHOoegiQf6-fWYBw&usg=AFQjCNHj-ll5agasbms0lxr53k6LPk6wFg


It says, amongst other things:

• Many drivers mistakenly believe talking on a hands-free cell phone is safer than handheld.

Hands-free devices often are seen as a solution to the risks of driver distraction because they help eliminate two obvious risks – visual, looking away from the road and manual, removing your hands off of the steering wheel. However, a third type of distraction can occur when using cell phones while driving – cognitive, taking your mind off the road.

Hands-free devices do not eliminate cognitive distraction.

[Chucaro]

So.......driving with one hand only is as safe as using two?
I do not think so, specially when the driver try to avoid an accident ;)

[vnx205]

So.......driving with one hand only is as safe as using two?
I do not think so, specially when the driver try to avoid an accident ;)

???

I didn't realise that anyone had claimed that it was.

[d2dave]

Myself and a lot of people often drive with only one hand on the wheel. It might not be as safe but we all(most) do it at times. I will have two hand when I feel it is necessary.

You might have trouble believing this. I got my licence to drive semi's about six years ago. When driving on rough roads it was suggested we only have one hand on the wheel, as this helped keep the steering wheel more steady.

As the truck is bouncing, with two hands you are fighting the bumps with a push pull, which tended to make you over do it. This did not happen with one hand.

Dave.

[Chucaro]

???

I didn't realise that anyone had claimed that it was.

Well it is obviously that if the driver is on the phone without a hand free device he/she only have one hand on the wheel.
It is not the concentration factor that have to be taken into consideration when I suggested the compulsory hands free device.

[vnx205]

I reckon that texting is worse than driving at .08 Bac.

Dave.

The University of Utah appears to agree with you.

That NSC report that I linked to earlier says:

• University of Utah driving simulator study found drivers using cell phones had slower reaction times than drivers impaired by alcohol at a .08 blood alcohol concentration, the legal intoxication limit.


The findings in that report are hard to dismiss.

I find it a lot easier imagine reasons why there isn't a huge increase in the total number of accidents in the statistics matching the increased use of mobile phones than finding fault with the findings reported in that study.

[Chucaro]

Myself and a lot of people often drive with only one hand on the wheel. It might not be as safe but we all(most) do it at times. I will have two hand when I feel it is necessary.

You might have trouble believing this. I got my licence to drive semi's about six years ago. When driving on rough roads it was suggested we only have one hand on the wheel, as this helped keep the steering wheel more steady.

As the truck is bouncing, with two hands you are fighting the bumps with a push pull, which tended to make you over do it. This did not happen with one hand.

Dave.

From the NSW RTA test book
One hand only and test lost ;)
Quote:
Operating the controls
Some of the driving tasks that will be observed and recorded are
listed here:
• Effective operation of the accelerator and brakes.
• Coordination of the clutch and gear lever to make
smooth gear changes.
• Effective steering with both hands on the steering wheel
(except when using another control). You may use either
‘hand-over-hand’ or ‘push-pull’ method with hands on the
outside of the steering wheel.
Maintaining vehicle control is very important. Many crashes
happen where the older driver runs off the road.

[d2dave]

I'm in Victoria, not NSW The group of instructors are also the testers. I am not saying whether it is legal or not as I don't know. Sometimes things work better when not following the rules. These instructors might not have been following rules but were applying what works best in a real life situation.

Dave.

[mudmouse]

As with most instructors (and instruction), they tend to overdo it so that the best possible standard is met for an assessment. That's the theory anyway.

Over time and with human nature, we get slack and it's mainly through repetition and confidence. Get someone in a manual for the first time and ask them to text/make-take calls and they won't be able to do it with much competency, but with practice they will...and do. But what they're practicing to do is drive whilst distracted.

You can argue all you like that there are a huge amount of distractions whilst driving, but what we are doing is introducing a device that directly diverts our attention from driving.

It's not good, and about eight years ago i did a job with a little fella, seven at the time, who got hit by a car crossing the road with his bike. The driver who hit him was looking for a number in their phone. This kid had his pelvis and leg broken. He still can't run 'properly' and running causes him pain. He's just a kid who will never do stuff we all took for granted....and why, because some goose put their priorities over their responsibility of driving.

Mobile phones are a pest.

Matt.

[p38arover]

Myself and a lot of people often drive with only one hand on the wheel.

I see that quite often with younger people - one arm hanging down outside the vehicle.

Having an arm outside the car was made illegal in NSW over 40 years ago if I recall correctly - and that includes driving with one's elbow on the window sill.

[digger]

I see that quite often with younger people - one arm hanging down outside the vehicle.

Having an arm outside the car was made illegal in NSW over 40 years ago if I recall correctly - and that includes driving with one's elbow on the window sill.

we call them "arm donors" for obvious reasons.. and the fine is substantial and I think 3 points..

we also talk about "deaf drivers" (doof doof) (which also can attract a fine and in SA is the first strike (for each occupant of vehicle no matter where seated) under the "hoon law" legislation.)

and "boy racers" (small cars, small brains etc..pommy term I believe)

[superquag]

Talking/listening on a mobile phone occupies & distracts some areas of the brain that are also utilised in the (boring, mundane, - 'anybody-can-do-it....') task of driving a vehicle.

Does'nt affect the manual dexterity , but slows and fogs up the decision-making process. THIS is the dangerous bit. The other dangerous bit is the use of hands-free devices, which are legal... but as the distraction is in the mind and not the fingers, they merely fool the idiot into thinking that he/she's "safe" in using them.:mad:


Using a two-way radio IS differant, more formalized, at least for those using them sensibly.... and for that reason the amount of 'distraction' is less. - From the research I've come across as well as my own experience.

Commercial flying usually involves one pilot flying the aircraft and the other doing the Comms.

Sending or reading text is another thing altogether, occupying the brain (if any...) as well as taking eyes off the road. No apologies, and NO sympathy for whatever penalties the Safety Nuts impose on you for 'texting'.l:mad::mad::mad:

[JDNSW]

......

Commercial flying usually involves one pilot flying the aircraft and the other doing the Comms.
.....

It should also be pointed out :-

1. With aircraft, radio communications are usually strictly to do with the aircraft operation. (unlike phone conversations)

2. Except during landing and takeoff, aircraft do not operate sufficiently close to other vehicles or obstacles to need continuous attention. It is a quite different situation.

John

[It'sNotWorthComplaining!]

the problem with people with mobiles phones is a lot of the stuff they are reading on texts is crap, every second of the day revolves around gossip or other rubbish that isn't really important.
walk in a a shopping mall and watch the brainless ZOMBIES , looking at their phones and texting, you have to dodge them as they are in a trance and will run into you.
Go to the pictures, as soon as the session is over, watch the zombies come out ,straight on to their phones.
supermarkets, texting as they leave checkout and before they even get into the car.
They don't have to worry about big brother , as they volunteer every minute of their mundane lives to each other.
Have a look at school kids, spend all day with each other then at home time, they need to get onto the mobile to debrief each other.:confused:
People need to get their lives back.
social networking?

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I would make the inclusion of phone hand free devices compulsory in any car regardless of the model or age and include this law in the RWC.
Hand free kits are very cheap and it is not an excuse not to have one.Not actually true. Try to get a hard wired kit these days, particularly one that has an external antenna for marginal areas. It's almost impossible, at any price.

It seems that most kits available these days are bluetooth devices, don't get me started on the problems of the re-trans delay involved in activating and voice quality of bluetooth.

[bob10]

the problem with people with mobiles phones is a lot of the stuff they are reading on texts is crap, every second of the day revolves around gossip or other rubbish that isn't really important.
walk in a a shopping mall and watch the brainless ZOMBIES , looking at their phones and texting, you have to dodge them as they are in a trance and will run into you.
Go to the pictures, as soon as the session is over, watch the zombies come out ,straight on to their phones.
supermarkets, texting as they leave checkout and before they even get into the car.
They don't have to worry about big brother , as they volunteer every minute of their mundane lives to each other.
Have a look at school kids, spend all day with each other then at home time, they need to get onto the mobile to debrief each other.:confused:
People need to get their lives back.
social networking?

Sometimes I tend to think the same way, but then I remember the movie, "happy feet", when the old fart penguins are on top of the hill, trying to drown out the dancing feet of the young ones down below. It's called progress, and we either move with it, and find ways to cope, or spend the rest of our old fart lives mumbling in our beards. BTW., I'm a young 63. Bob