Thread: Mobile phone delete in vehicles

A crash can be accidental or deliberate but an accident can't be deliberate - isn't that right?

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

The ethical question behind the use of the word crash instead of accident is that that the incidents are almost always foreseeable and the result of human factors even if they weren't intentional. Lack of maintenance, lack of due attention, inappropriate actions for the environmental conditions, distraction, fatigue etc. In contemporary health/road crash research literature the use of the term accident is now tending to be used only for other events outside human factors which could be called acts of God.

Originally Posted by Homestar

At work we have strict policies about 'walking and talking' in our own yards on mobiles due to several 'near hits'. Anyone caught doing this gets a first and final warning, we have had a yardman and a sales rep fired in the last 18 months for this.

Should introduce that at my work too. Although no one tend to move much.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

A crash can be accidental or deliberate but an accident can't be deliberate - isn't that right?

I think that about sums it up. When you consider that deliberate also means a deliberate lack of deliberation which could also be described as negligence.

Originally Posted by scarry

So what is the rule about an iPad?

Not mentioned at all?

I think that would come under Rule 297.

They don't mention spoons & cereal bowls, shavers, lipstick, newspapers and novels either. All of which I have seen people use whilst driving.

Or reading the Melody's/ Gregorys on the fly, do they still print them?

Originally Posted by stealth

What training??

Advanced driver training actually, you are trained drive fast, but defensively. I actually dont think driving using a phone is that dangerous, the problems is when some people do it they dont seem to be able to do two things at once and the conversation on the phone takes over. Tests on simulators showed those using a phone where more likely to crash when the situation changed, but those doing the tests were not allowed to put the phone down which is not realistic either. Years ago I was doing 4,000 miles a month working in field trials. It was impossible to do your job and not use the phone while driving as I needed to make a lot of calls and hands free was not common at the time. I remember one near miss when some complete idiot realized he had taken the wrong exit on a motorway swerved back over the shevrons pulled in front of me doing about 20mph when I was doing 70. I was on the phone, I threw the phone in the passenger foot well slammed on and managed to slot my car between two other cars were there was hardly room. My heart was in my mouth, but I managed to avoid a big accident that would have been the fault of the other idiot. Yes I was on the phone, but my mind was still on the road, and when I saw conditions change (other nutter pulling in front of me) the phone was discarded and 100% of my concentration was on the road. Problem is most dont do this. Emergency services need the phone and the radio while driving, but they also dont take their mind off the road and choose the moment to make a call.
Chris

Spot on Chris.

Originally Posted by Eevo

what your point mick?
i never said it wasnt a rule.

i said it sets a bad standard cause its hypocritical.

That said Eevo, is it the setting a bad standard thats something you are very disappointed in?

Or is it you cannot do it.

If setting a bad standard is something you are trying to stamp out I am pleased to hear as surely that means as of today you won't troll anymore???

(Relax. I'm just stirring!)

With regard mobile phone use in CFS the reason you have had no training for it is that although it is permitted under law, it is forbidden under standing orders for the CFS. As you have been instructed to NOT use mobiles etc whilst the driver if something happened you would likely still be subjected to penalty as to prove you were covered under the rule you would require the CFS to state that in court.

I regard to other people's comment about cereals and makeup etc review micks posts the appropriate law is there quoted...

Who will guess the right one first??