Using Mobile Phones While Driving - New Laws

[nickycheese 10]

I suspect it's just a (attempted but failing) clarification of the current law about nothing obstructing a drivers view on the windscreen:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/stickers-or-other-items-in-front-and-rear-windscreens

 

The current law talks about a zone 290mm wide from the centre of the steering wheel so I guess they are trying to make it easier for people to understand by saying 45 degrees. However this completely fails as this thread has shown and also depending on how far forward or back you sit changes the 45 degree area...so unless the start point of the 45 degrees is fixed at an arbitrary distance then leaning forward could make you legal again as the 45 degree area would become smaller...#pedantry

 

Thanks . I'm guessing that as long as I'm not obstructing the windscreen in these areas, then I'm probably OK.

 

I agree with L00b - as long as I'm not obstructing my view of the road, then the closer to the central line of view, the better.

[Eater Sundae 12]

That 45 deg. FOV requirement seems daft to me.

 

Whilst it shouldn't be obscuring or impeding a driver's line of sight, placing a GPS phone (or other relevant device, e.g. dashcam or standalone GPS) 'much further away' from a driver FOV than e.g. the main instrument cluster (speedo/rpm), seems more dangerous (because the driver has to shift their gaze further away from the vehicle course, like e.g. when adjusting radio or air conditioning on a central cluster/console) as inviting unnecessary distraction.

 

I've never liked centrally-mounted GPS displays and instrument clusters (e.g. speedo dial on modern Minis, how daft: I never look at it when I drive the Mrs' Mini, instead I have the electronic display at the bottom of the rev counter dial (which does sit on front of the driver) set as a speedo repeater).

 

I've long mounted my GPS/dashcam-running phone in a holder at the bottom of the A pillar (driver side) atop the dashboard, as what I personally find to be, in practice, the least intrusive/most natural position. When underway, there's nothing "hidden" behind the phone in that position, that you haven't already observed long beforehand/before getting to it. If and when needed, only a fleeting glance required, within a couple inches or so of the speedo/rev counter.

 

Seems to me that, logically, vehicle instrumentation (built-in or aftermarket) should converge towards the highest standard of performance ergonomics, namely a plane-like heads-up display, with the most possible information in the smallest possible cluster as near to the driver's line of sight without impeding road observation. Not the contrary, "spreading" that instrumentation beyond the driver/pilot's line of sight, whether by design or statute.

 

Makes me wonder if that 45 deg. would even catch people I've often seen, who sucker their phone/GPS smack in the middle of the windscreen, halfway between the rear view mirror and the dashboard (and which strikes me as more distracting/dangerous).

 

When I had a dedicated sat nav, it came with a rubber sucker for fitting to the windscreen. Regardless of where I put it, it had some impact on vision through the screen.

 

Now I use a sat nav app on my phone. I've bought a general purpose bracket (for any phone) that clips into the ventilation outlet. I fitted it to the central passenger vent outlet. It is lower and so doesn't impact on my view through the windscreen. Much better in my opinion.

[El Cid 220]

Sorry, I don't get what you're saying.

 

Are you saying that the information about what the "45-degree angle of the driver's view" means was in TV and Radio Ads? Can't say it's been in any that I've seen.

 

 

What I am saying is that there have been TV/radio ads, but no one is any wiser. People need to be retested, its the only way that we can get 100% of license holders to know all the facts that they need to know.

[Cyclone 10]

What I am saying is that there have been TV/radio ads, but no one is any wiser. People need to be retested, its the only way that we can get 100% of license holders to know all the facts that they need to know.

 

10 yearly retests are the answer to many driving problems IMO.

And they have the added benefit of generating jobs (more test centres required).

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

10 yearly retests are the answer to many driving problems IMO.

And they have the added benefit of generating jobs (more test centres required).

Yes, but I'd not make them compulsory.

Better to incentivise drivers by e.g. lower motoring insurance premium levels for re-accredited motorists.

[ihpb 10]

Yes, but I'd not make them compulsory.

Better to incentivise drivers by e.g. lower motoring insurance premium levels for re-accredited motorists.

Or increase insurance premiums if they dont

[Eater Sundae 12]

The online Highway Code has been updated in the last week to include the £200 and 6 points penalty, but no mention of the 45 degrees viewing angle (unless I missed it when linking via the headings on the website).

 

I passed my test in 1970, and have never had a retest. However, I have always tried to keep up to date. Over the years I used to buy the highway code when a new edition came out (they were publicised in the national press). Since it has gone online, I occasionally browse it, or use it to look up anything I wasn't sure about. However, I'm not sure whether or not updates are publicised.

 

I've also tried the online theory test a couple of times, without any additional studying. I passed OK. The only ones I got wrong were some of the more irrelevant ones (irrelevant to me, in my opinion), such as the legal alcohol limits (I don't drink and drive so don't need to know the limit), or HGV speed limits (I don't drive HGVs, so again have no need to know). Other than those, I thought the test was quite easy, so I don't think it is hard to keep abreast of current legislation.

[Lord Rex 10]

Always put the mobile phone in the glove box is my rule.

[Eater Sundae 12]

Always put the mobile phone in the glove box is my rule.

 

Unless I'm using it as a sat nav, it stays in my pocket. Either way, I ignore it if it rings.

[Alcoblog 10]

Always put the mobile phone in the glove box is my rule.

 

Brilliant! … so when you hear your phone ringing (or Birdie Song for Parsonians), you have to fumble with the glove box, sort through a pile of sticky sweets, unpaid parking fines and broken sunglasses before you can answer it. Plain daft idea that.

[DT Ralge 10]

10 yearly retests are the answer to many driving problems IMO.

And they have the added benefit of generating jobs (more test centres required).

 

Much as I'd love the extra work that this could generate for me and others, re-testing would not sort out the wheat from the chaff as thoroughly as you suggest.

Drivers on re-test would simply tidy up their drive for the 40 minutes of the test and revert to type afterwards.

What test standard would you apply, anyway - the L-test standard is a test of minimum competence and hardly the gold-standard. It largely tests physical, vehicle-handling skills and knowledge of law/best practice as well as a random test of the driver's ability to mix in with whatever road and traffic conditions there are at the time.

The test does not test attitude and present and future behaviour patterns at all. The test (or any test for that matter) does not encourage good choices in the longer term.

 

What, for example, will the re-qualified driver do when in a rush, late, miffed/angry?

Drive too close?

Run a red/amber light?

Switch lanes in haste?

Emerge into too small a space causing others to brake?

Cuss and swear at those ahead who are plainly in the way?

Be dangerously distracted by negotiating contracts or by going through a personal performance review whilst legal and hands-free?

Accept "autopilot" as an acceptable norm?

 

It is hard to imagine drivers on test exhibiting these behaviours and yet these are everyday behaviours.

Re-testing cannot the answer, therefore, however attractive an idea it seems to be.

Refresher training (for starters) that encourages the driver to be honest with him/herself about "what drives me?", "what risks do I take" and "how can I mitigate my on-road risk" has a better chance of success. But, unfortunately, very few volunteer for such refresher (awareness, self-evaluation) training inputs that do make a difference to driver outcomes. Why? Well, driving is not seen as a life skill with stuff to learn now and in the future in a planned, structured rather than haphazard way.

Edited March 8, 2017 by DT Ralge

[Phanerothyme 12]

Presumably talking to a passenger, particularly one you can't directly see (in the back seat) causes exactly the same changes.

 

Cyclone - no, it's absolutely different, and there's good, quantified research which will tell you the reasons why, some of which has already been referenced in the thread.