From: Conor on
On 19/03/2010 15:25, Ret. wrote:

> The only way in which we disagree is that having looked at all the
> research I am now firmly of the opinion that the use of a mobile phone
> whilst driving should be completely banned. The abundance of research
> now available shows beyond doubt that using a mobile phone while driving
> is particularly distracting - more than adjusting your radio, far more
> than chatting to a passenger - and more even than driving under the
> moderate influence of alcohol.
>

Funny how the alcohol level is now "moderate". And its more dangerous
than the millions of people who turn to look at their passenger as
they're talking to them whilst driving down the road?

If its more dangerous than DD, why are there fewer deaths attributed to it?



--
Conor
I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on
On 20/03/2010 14:22, Ret. wrote:

> Also, as has been stated previously, it is not difficult for a driver to
> dispose of a mobile phone prior to the police arriving if no-one
> actually witnessed him using it.
>

Wow, look at the straw grasping.


--
Conor
I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: Conor on
On 20/03/2010 14:33, Ret. wrote:

> I do agree with you in one sense that it is a ridiculous piece of
> legislation because the research shows that it is the conversation that
> causes the danger and not the holding of the 'phone. IMO, the ban should
> have been on using a cellphone in a car - not just 'holding' a cellphone
> in a car.
>

How do you police that? Are you going to have the Police pulling
everyone over who looks like they might be talking when in fact they may
only be singing along to the radio?

> Because mobile phones have been shown to be particularly distracting -
> and far more than most other normal distractions.
>

However they haven't been proven to be a common cause of accidents.

> So why has the research shown that drivers conversing on a mobile have
> greater reduced hazard perception, slower reactions times, longer
> braking distances, etc. than someone under the confluence?
>

Because it was funded by someone who wanted a particular answer, just
the same way climate research has...

> Both the drink/drive legislation and the mobile phone legislation are
> intended to be preventive pieces of legislation to improve road safety.
> The only major mistake is that research shows that whether a mobile
> phone call is made whilst holding the phone - or hands free, makes not
> difference - they are both equally dangerous because the distraction is
> in the conversation.
>

Yet the reality is it isn't as dangerous as you're claiming, is it? You
state it is worse than driving drunk yet even though there are more
phones than people in the UK, more people die as a result of DD than
using mobiles whilst driving. Ergo, it is not more dangerous than DD. If
you need me to explain why, you're dumber than I thought.


--
Conor
I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
From: JNugent on
Conor wrote:
> On 20/03/2010 14:33, Ret. wrote:
>
>> I do agree with you in one sense that it is a ridiculous piece of
>> legislation because the research shows that it is the conversation that
>> causes the danger and not the holding of the 'phone. IMO, the ban should
>> have been on using a cellphone in a car - not just 'holding' a cellphone
>> in a car.
>>
>
> How do you police that? Are you going to have the Police pulling
> everyone over who looks like they might be talking when in fact they may
> only be singing along to the radio?

Make singing along to the radio an absolute offence, obviously.

It would count as obstructing the police in the performance of their duties.

>> Because mobile phones have been shown to be particularly distracting -
>> and far more than most other normal distractions.

> However they haven't been proven to be a common cause of accidents.

Yes, that's a good point. If talking on the phone is as bad as driving under
the influence, how come there isn't carnage on the roads all day long?

>> So why has the research shown that drivers conversing on a mobile have
>> greater reduced hazard perception, slower reactions times, longer
>> braking distances, etc. than someone under the confluence?

> Because it was funded by someone who wanted a particular answer, just
> the same way climate research has...

:-)
From: JNugent on
Ret. wrote:

> Conor wrote:
>> On 20/03/2010 14:22, Ret. wrote:

>>> Also, as has been stated previously, it is not difficult for a
>>> driver to dispose of a mobile phone prior to the police arriving if
>>> no-one actually witnessed him using it.

>> Wow, look at the straw grasping.

> Not at all. The reason that many accidents caused by mobile phone useage
> will go unreported as such as that it is an easy thing to hide.

So has there been a reported but effectively "unexplained" large increase in
KSI and other serious accidents since the advent of the mobile phone?