Using Mobile Phones While Driving - New Laws

[L00b 441]

<...>

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.

...but if you need to look at the GPS display atop the ventilation outlet, you then need to avert your eyes from the road 'down to and across' the central ventilation outlet.

 

With the position I use, I don't need to avert my eyes from the road as far, therefore not as long either, and the road ahead remains more within my peripheral field of vision than when looking at the central console.

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

The online test which alchresearch or DTRalge posted (pay attention to phone conversation whilst counting passers-by in coloured t-shirts) reminded me a bit of that situation...I don't even talk to my front passenger when I'm driving (to the absolute ire of Mrs L00b, when I just 'mm-mm' -answer her questions which I haven't really heard! )

[Cyclone 10]

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.

 

How, how can it possibly be different to talk to someone you can't see, who isn't a driver, by the mechanism of a voice from behind you, or a voice from a speaker somewhere? If you magically replaced the passenger behind you, according to your argument, with a speaker (without the drivers knowledge) this would somehow change the effect on the driver.

[Phanerothyme 12]

I accept that talking hands-free will affect your concentration, just like any other activity whilst driving (including looking at billboards, thinking about the match/your partner/kids/that nice new car in the other lane/etc, listening to your favorite song or a discussion on the radio) but I think it's important to keep the risk in proportion.

It's one thing to physically reduce your driving ability (by holding a phone to your head) but to highlight the risk of talking hands-free while ignoring similar activities (talking passengers, radio/music, your own thoughts) is ridiculous. As some have already mentioned, talking hands-free is no different to talking to a passenger.

 

The evidence is all there Roots, talking on the phone is functionally very different to talking to a passenger, or any of the activities you list.

 

The risk we are discussing turn out to be fatal for 20-30 people a year, conservatively. That's 20-30 people a year that would probably still be alive (other risks notwithstanding) if we all simply avoided using the phone in the car, and made it as socially unacceptable as drink driving.

 

You may not be an accident risk yourself, on or off the phone, handset or hands-free, but you must recognise the value of a rule that protects everyone, even if it means a minor inconvenience to you.

 

If you don't accept the research that shows how talking to someone one the phone is a totally different activity (from a brain/attention/focus standpoint) to talking to someone in the rear seat, or other passenger, I'd be interested to know why? These are multiple, unconnected studies by universities, government and transport research organisations, and they come to very similar conclusions:

 

Talking on the phone, hands-free or otherwise, causes the same changes in reaction time attention and hazard recognition as being over the limit for bloodstream alcohol in the UK.

[Cyclone 10]

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.

 

You're right, it's not magic, and people would obviously drive to pass.

That said, I'm absolutely convinced that some drivers passing me too closely whilst I cycle, believe that they are driving well and that they would do this on a test as well. Perhaps failing that test would encourage them to actually think about what they're doing.

A higher standard for a retest would be reasonable, but not entirely fair. You might be retesting someone who has had a license for 10 years, but very very rarely drives. So long as they can satisfy the basic test, then legally they're allowed to drive.

 

---------- Post added 09-03-2017 at 09:25 ----------

 

 

Talking on the phone, hands-free or otherwise, causes the same changes in reaction time attention and hazard recognition as being over the limit for bloodstream alcohol in the UK.

 

So the claim is that the mechanism for holding a conversation with an unseen person somehow has an effect on the reaction time of the driver. The MECHANISM, not the act of conversing. Somehow a speaker rather than a voicebox, is what is responsible for increasing reaction time.

I can't see any plausible explanation for how the speaker causes this change rather than the act of conversing.

[Phanerothyme 12]

How, how can it possibly be different to talk to someone you can't see, who isn't a driver, by the mechanism of a voice from behind you, or a voice from a speaker somewhere? If you magically replaced the passenger behind you, according to your argument, with a speaker (without the drivers knowledge) this would somehow change the effect on the driver.

 

...

 

So the claim is that the mechanism for holding a conversation with an unseen person somehow has an effect on the reaction time of the driver. The MECHANISM, not the act of conversing. Somehow a speaker rather than a voicebox, is what is responsible for increasing reaction time.

I can't see any plausible explanation for how the speaker causes this change rather than the act of conversing.

 

Well, you're an intelligent chap, instead of trying to puzzle it out for yourself with "magical" passenger replacement scenarios, why don't you look it up?

[Cyclone 10]

Some may argue that talking on a cell phone while driving is no different than conversing with a passenger in your car. However, research (Drews, Pasupathi, & Strayer, 2008) suggests otherwise. Passengers share the same context. Conversation flows more or less with the demands placed on the driver. Passengers can make the driver aware of any road conditions or can suspend conversation when driving conditions intensify. We are also more likely to tell passengers to wait or hold on if we need to divert our mental energy to driving. The person on the other end of a cell phone conversation or text lacks this context and is less likely to be told to wait.

 

This only works when the passenger is a) aware of the road conditions and load placed on the driver, b) capable of understanding it (so most likely a driver themselves).

 

It's basically a comparison of apples and oranges to reach a foregone conclusion that talking on the phone is worse. But depending on the passenger and situation that isn't the case.

 

---------- Post added 09-03-2017 at 09:54 ----------

 

https://www.fnal.gov/pub/traffic_safety/files/NSC%20White%20Paper%20-%20Distracted%20Driving%203-10.pdf

 

This acknowledges in a side bar "some conversations with passengers can be distracting".

So, the "passengers don't distract" is actually a best case, based on front seat passengers who are probably drivers themselves. The only other factor that is mentioned is a social pressure that it's 'rude' to not answer when on the phone, perhaps more so than to a passenger who you might be happy to say "one sec" or "shush for a minute".

[sgtkate 10]

...but if you need to look at the GPS display atop the ventilation outlet, you then need to avert your eyes from the road 'down to and across' the central ventilation outlet.

 

With the position I use, I don't need to avert my eyes from the road as far, therefore not as long either, and the road ahead remains more within my peripheral field of vision than when looking at the central console.

The online test which alchresearch or DTRalge posted (pay attention to phone conversation whilst counting passers-by in coloured t-shirts) reminded me a bit of that situation...I don't even talk to my front passenger when I'm driving (to the absolute ire of Mrs L00b, when I just 'mm-mm' -answer her questions which I haven't really heard! )

 

I wonder how HUDs are classified? Some cars now have the dashboard on the windscreen...

[Phanerothyme 12]

Can you refute this Cyclone?

The research is pretty clear and unequivocal: Talking on the phone, hands-free or otherwise, causes changes in focus and reaction time that are comparable to driving over the limit.

 

 

 

I understand that people don't want to hear, or believe this, because they are in the habit of using hands-free with impunity and have no wish to acknowledge the driving impairment it is shown to cause.

 

I'll start with this -

Dr Graham Hole, Senior Lecturer in Psychology at the University of Sussex, said:

 

“A popular misconception is that using a mobile phone while driving is safe as long as the driver uses a hands-free phone. Our research shows this is not the case. Hands-free can be equally distracting because conversations cause the driver to visually imagine what they’re talking about. This visual imagery competes for processing resources with what the driver sees in front of them on the road.

 

“Our findings have implications for real-life mobile phone conversations. The person at the other end of the phone might ask “where did you leave the blue file?”, causing the driver to mentally search a remembered room. The driver may also simply imagine the facial expression of the person they’re talking to.

 

“Clearly this research isn’t a green light to use hand-held mobile phones while driving, however. The use of hand-held phones was made illegal primarily because they interfere with vehicle control; but our study adds to a mounting body of research showing that both hand-held and hands-free phones are dangerously distracting for drivers. The only ‘safe’ phone in a car is one that's switched off.

[sgtkate 10]

The evidence is all there Roots, talking on the phone is functionally very different to talking to a passenger, or any of the activities you list.

 

The risk we are discussing turn out to be fatal for 20-30 people a year, conservatively. That's 20-30 people a year that would probably still be alive (other risks notwithstanding) if we all simply avoided using the phone in the car, and made it as socially unacceptable as drink driving.

 

You may not be an accident risk yourself, on or off the phone, handset or hands-free, but you must recognise the value of a rule that protects everyone, even if it means a minor inconvenience to you.

 

If you don't accept the research that shows how talking to someone one the phone is a totally different activity (from a brain/attention/focus standpoint) to talking to someone in the rear seat, or other passenger, I'd be interested to know why? These are multiple, unconnected studies by universities, government and transport research organisations, and they come to very similar conclusions:

 

Talking on the phone, hands-free or otherwise, causes the same changes in reaction time attention and hazard recognition as being over the limit for bloodstream alcohol in the UK.

 

Have you got a link for that research that shows that talking to a passenger sat in the back is safer than talking on the phone? Or does different things to the brain? Or lowers concentration? I'm genuinely interested in the mechanics of that as it's quite an interesting idea that someone our brains react differently when talking to a person as opposed to a speaker...I have google but can't find anything sadly.

 

---------- Post added 09-03-2017 at 10:17 ----------

 

Can you refute this Cyclone?

 

 

I'll start with this -

 

He's not trying to refute it, in fact he has said a few times that mobile phones are distracting. He's saying that they are no more distracting than chatting with a passenger. That's the point I'm also interested in as it doesn't actually make sense.

[RootsBooster 24]

The evidence is all there Roots, talking on the phone is functionally very different to talking to a passenger, or any of the activities you list.

 

The risk we are discussing turn out to be fatal for 20-30 people a year, conservatively. That's 20-30 people a year that would probably still be alive (other risks notwithstanding) if we all simply avoided using the phone in the car, and made it as socially unacceptable as drink driving.

 

You may not be an accident risk yourself, on or off the phone, handset or hands-free, but you must recognise the value of a rule that protects everyone, even if it means a minor inconvenience to you.

 

If you don't accept the research that shows how talking to someone one the phone is a totally different activity (from a brain/attention/focus standpoint) to talking to someone in the rear seat, or other passenger, I'd be interested to know why? These are multiple, unconnected studies by universities, government and transport research organisations, and they come to very similar conclusions:

 

Talking on the phone, hands-free or otherwise, causes the same changes in reaction time attention and hazard recognition as being over the limit for bloodstream alcohol in the UK.

 

As you've decided to play the ambiguous avoidance game when questioned by Cyclone, I went back and had a look at the reference for your earlier post. It seems there's actually very little difference between a hands-free conversation and a passenger conversation and the difference relies on the passenger(s) taking notice of events on the road around them, recognising when to pause the conversation and actually implementing that.

 

As I said earlier, I've never known passengers do that (unless something dramatic happens - a car speeding past or some brakes screech, etc). So that aside, do you think there's any other difference?

 

---------- Post added 09-03-2017 at 10:30 ----------

 

This only works when the passenger is a) aware of the road conditions and load placed on the driver, b) capable of understanding it (so most likely a driver themselves).

 

It's basically a comparison of apples and oranges to reach a foregone conclusion that talking on the phone is worse. But depending on the passenger and situation that isn't the case.

 

---------- Post added 09-03-2017 at 09:54 ----------

 

https://www.fnal.gov/pub/traffic_safety/files/NSC%20White%20Paper%20-%20Distracted%20Driving%203-10.pdf

 

This acknowledges in a side bar "some conversations with passengers can be distracting".

So, the "passengers don't distract" is actually a best case, based on front seat passengers who are probably drivers themselves. The only other factor that is mentioned is a social pressure that it's 'rude' to not answer when on the phone, perhaps more so than to a passenger who you might be happy to say "one sec" or "shush for a minute".

 

Sorry, didn't realise you'd already done it yourself

[L00b 441]

I wonder how HUDs are classified? Some cars now have the dashboard on the windscreen...

Well, I could look for and link ample studies into optimal information conveying in fast-changing environments, into ergonomics, into human perception and reflex speeds, <...>

 

...but objectively, it doesn't get faster-changing/more stressful than at the controls of a fighter jet or a low-flying attack chopper, and HuDs have been the best-fit solution in that context for decades, universally so (so much so that they are now integrated into pilot helmets/visors, talk about "obscuring vision").

 

So if it's good enough for them, considering a car only moves in two dimensions, at speeds an order of magnitude or two slower, and car driving requires very significantly less information at hand...I'm always surprised at how little traction Peugeot's early efforts for automotive HuD (in the massmarket context) have gained

[davyboy 18]

An example of phone use whilst driving.

I was on a side road, I came up to a mini roundabout which was on the major road.

I signalled right.

2 cars coming from my left.

First one went by as I hadn't reached the rb and he had plenty of time.

2nd one reached the rb same time as me and to my horror went straight on causing me to do a quick halt.

She was on her phone and hadn't seen me or the rb and she continued chatting for the next mile when she turned off, still chatting!