Luxury Cars and Mobile Phone Use

[BentMikey]

That's precisely the point. You could eat a sandwich etc no problem. The mobile phone law is an income generation scheme.

Wrong. Your penance is to watch this mythbusters episode on phone driving vs drink driving, and prepare to be shocked:



Parts 2 and 3 are easily discoverable from there.

 

[G3CWI]

Wrong. Your penance is to watch this mythbusters episode on phone driving vs drink driving, and prepare to be shocked:



Parts 2 and 3 are easily discoverable from there.

Well it's kind of lightweight but does make the point. I have a suspicion that mobile phone incidents are under reported as drivers don't admit to their use being the cause of an accident and Police only occasionally check. That's just a guess.

 

[Jezston]

Of course I'll never be sure, but I do not believe I see drunk drivers on the road many times daily

...

But for all that (and not wishing to say that there is no risk involved) I read very rarely of incidents involving 'phone use. I have yet to witness one.

Someone doesn't have to swerving all over the place to be drunk. How do you know you aren't seeing drunk drivers daily?

Afaik in the event of a collision breathalyser tests are mandatory. Checking phone records to see if they were using their phone at the time aren't. We don't know how many collisions involve phone we as a result.

 

[Boris Bajic]

Someone doesn't have to swerving all over the place to be drunk. How do you know you aren't seeing drunk drivers daily?

Afaik in the event of a collision breathalyser tests are mandatory. Checking phone records to see if they were using their phone at the time aren't. We don't know how many collisions involve phone we as a result.

That's why I worded it as I did. I cannot know, but I believe I cycle among far more mobile-phone users than I do drunks or people over the drink-drive limit.

As to mandatory breath tests after a collision, I cannot say. Have have had many collisions (car, bicycle, motorbike) and have never been breathalysed by the rozzers if they attended. My last car crash was ove a decade ago, so things may have changed.

I've blown into the bag three times for driving with enthusiasm or similar - all negative, as I am funny about using the road after a drink.

I take your point, but I was careful to state that I couldn't be sure and that my post was just a matter of belief. I still believe that there are significantly more phone chatters on the road than drunks.

 

[BentMikey]

Recently, deaths from texting whilst driving has exceeded deaths from drinking whilst driving amongst teenagers in the USA.

 

[Recycle]

Wot Jeztson sed. One of the problems in collecting data to prove causality link between mobile phone use and road casualties is that the evidence is ephemeral. Unless there are witnesses its easy for the driver to deny he/she was using the phone, unlike drunk driving, which will be automatically tested for if there are casualties.

A number of tests have been done using driving simulators which prove that mobile phone use while driving is deadly. CarCam serendipitously also picked this up in one of their studies with driving volunteers. There were no casualties, but some seriously close misses, once with a child, that were recorded by the cameras that the driver was oblivious to, all while using a mobile phone. These tests were done in the US before using mobile phones while driving was made illegal.

Here is an extract from Tom Vanderbilt's book "Traffic" describing his interview with the CarCams testers :

Not only was the driver unaware of the real hazards he was subjecting himself and others to in the way he was driving, he was not even aware that he was unaware. "This guy's probably a great guy, good family man, good employee, Lisk said. "He doesn't even know this is happening. If we told him it happened, with a black box or something, he wouldn't even believe it." Without the video, the driver would not have realised the potential consequences of his error. "I get reinforced more positively each day that I don't hit a kid because I'm not seeing that stuff" Moeller said. "I'm thinking I'm good, I can do this. I can look down at my Blackberry, I can dial a phone, I can drink. We all get reinforced the wrong way."

You see that's the problem. We all think that we can do it. Read back in this thread and you will find a few examples. We delude ourselves and even write down the near misses (that we see) to our own skill.

 

[Lancj1]

I suppose the main point i was attempting to make, wasn't to downplay the risks, but to suggest that other activities, for example changing a cd or eating a sandwich are at least as dangerous....and don't have specific laws were guilt is not defendable, because they are covered under existing laws. Using a mobile phone is covered under those laws too, so my leap tells me the law, in line with the increased use f mobiles in society, wasn't about safety but was about income generation.....for a long time it was on the spot fine remember, whereas eating a sand which and being done for would have got points too. So it must have been a difficult thing to prove using a mobile was undue care/ reckless etc ?

Horrible out there this morning

 

[Lancj1]

No it's definitely pissing down outside