Thread: Drink drivers being targetted this Christmas

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

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

Originally Posted by vnx205

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

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by vnx205

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.
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.

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

http://www.google.com.au/url'sa=t&rc...lxr53k6LPk6wFg


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.

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