Record number of motorists prosecuted for driving while usingmobile phones
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Record number of motorists prosecuted for driving while using mobile phones
Next: Record number of motorists prosecuted for driving while using mobile phones
From: Conor on 22 Mar 2010 18:58 On 22/03/2010 09:33, Ret. wrote: > One of the pieces of university research .....from a country with 3x the number of accidents per capita.... > stated that the majority of > accidents caused by mobile phone using drivers during the research was > rear-end shunts. The drivers were so engrossed in their conversations > that they did not notice that the cars in front had slowed down. By the > time they did notice - braking was too late and the shunt occurred. > ...Because they were Americans.. > It simply seems so obvious to me. The figures disagree. > Most rear end shunts result in damage > only accidents and so no serious investigation will take place into the > cause at all. Most rear end shunts occur at junctions because the driver behind fails to ensure the driver in front has moved off. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on 22 Mar 2010 19:01 On 22/03/2010 12:06, Ret. wrote: > The cause of collisions will be recorded *if* they are known, and *if* > the police attend. > Why are the figures a record low year on year? > If, however, numerous pieces of research demonstrate that drivers using > a mobile phone have reduced hazard perception, and delayed response to > situations requiring a response, surely it makes sense to take action to > deal with that? > But you claimed it was lower than DD? The statistics disagree. There were no mobile phones in 1926. There are fewer KSI than there were in 1926. Explain. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on 22 Mar 2010 19:02 On 22/03/2010 12:07, Ret. wrote: > I'm sure that they can find simpler ways of obtaining headlines. In any > case, do you really think that university researchers are likely to bow > to demands to falsify their findings? > East Anglia University Climate Research Unit did. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on 22 Mar 2010 19:04 On 22/03/2010 12:12, Ret. wrote: >>> Because mobile phones have been shown to be particularly distracting >>> - and far more than most other normal distractions. >> >> Bollocks. > > That is what the research shows. Disbelieve it if you want. > Research either done in the US or paid for by a body with a financial interest in it being proven. > Clearly you cannot legislate to ban *everything* that is risky whilst > driving - but it makes sense to legislate to ban specific acts that have > been demonstrated to be 'particularly' distracting. > So when is talking to passengers going to be banned? How do you police that? Perhaps we should ban car stereos too. -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on 22 Mar 2010 19:05
On 22/03/2010 13:30, Ret. wrote: > But the existing legislation did not provide the necessary deterrent for > this particularly risky practice did it? > > And how well has the new offence for mobile phone use whilst driving worked as a deterrent? -- Conor I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally. |