New mobile phone laws

[mjr]

I think (purpose built) ones are safer than street directories. I was nearly knocked down by a car a few years ago, and when I stopped to remonstrate with the driver, she had an A-Z open on her steering wheel, and her only response to my rant was "Which way is Marble Arch?"

<and I told her>

Direct her up a dark tunnel, did you?

If she'd had a sat nav instead, she'd have probably been trying to type something into it when she hit you. Navigation aids are fine, but they ought to limit their in-motion interfaces more than they do.

 

[ChrisV]

I've seen people on bikes on their phones - could be on Strava, maos, music, whatever.

I take it this law doesn't apply? What happens then?

 

[marzjennings]

I use a traffic system called "Waze" and apart from the usual navigation functions ..........if you try using it when the vehicle is mobile it does not work unless you confirm you are a passenger. An attempt, but so easily over ridden

I use Waze almost everyday for the commute to work, very handy to be informed if the road ahead is blocked due to an accident or something. I like that anyone else using Waze can quickly post road hazards and therefore immediately inform other road users what's going on. I've always wondered how the interactive features of Waze would work in a country where you're not supposed to manually interact with your phone while driving.

 

[jefmcg]

I take it this law doesn't apply?

No, because we require a higher standard for driving a tonne of metal power by hundreds of horse power of internal combustion engine than for pedalling a bike.

 

[ChrisV]

No, because we require a higher standard for driving a tonne of metal power by hundreds of horse power of internal combustion engine than for pedalling a bike.

Why though? A cyclist not concentrating is still a danger to life - their own and vehicles swerving to avoid them.

 

[jefmcg]

Why though? A cyclist not concentrating is still a danger to life - their own and vehicles swerving to avoid them.

Sure. Let's get testing, licensing, insurance and road tax mandatory for cyclists. Or we could agree that we care more about the standard of driving than the standard of cycling.

(and as soon as fatalities caused by cyclists distracted by mobile phones reaches double digits, I'm open to discussing it again
Edit: I am open to discussing it when it gets into single figures)

 

[Globalti]

Here's a thought, just to swim briefly against the stream of this thread: How many accidents were caused before cellphones by distracted drivers reading road atlases, eating sandwiches, reaching for a coffee (holders helpfully supplied by the car manufacturer), shaving, putting on makeup or even reading the newspaper? The difference with cellphones is that they provide clear evidence of what distracted the driver, who can no longer blame that fox that crossed the road or patch of black ice or whatever.

 

[ufkacbln]

I use Waze almost everyday for the commute to work, very handy to be informed if the road ahead is blocked due to an accident or something. I like that anyone else using Waze can quickly post road hazards and therefore immediately inform other road users what's going on. I've always wondered how the interactive features of Waze would work in a country where you're not supposed to manually interact with your phone while driving.

With modern smart phones there is so much more tat could be voice activated...

However some research shows that interacting through speech also affects driving, so this is not the "best" answer

 

[ufkacbln]

GPS doesn't use data, it uses GPS signals. If you have maps stored on your device, like I do with OSMand, the mapping part (showing where you are, working out which turn to take next etc) doesn't use data either. Vehicle tracking does use data.

There is some variation on this depending on device

Most use augmented GPS where the data from cell towers is used to subsidise the signal from the GPS

Some systems offer an "accuracy" setting which prevents this by switching of the A-GPS data stream at the cost of accuracy


However some phones save on costs by using this system exclusively and not having a true GPS

 

[Heltor Chasca]

Two accident hot spots near us, due to casualties and worse, are outside two primary schools. Yesterday morning, when cycling back from the school run, there was a car that stood out because it was too big and going too fast and flying through a conjested section of road (where we were almost hit a year ago).

What was up? Pretty lady on her phone, too busy and important to care for the new law. Turns out I'm wrong though, because anything goes on the school run. You are allowed to park on pavements, across dropped kerbs, shoot through red pedestrian crossings, cross when the lolly pop lady is on patrol because she is only half way into the road. Etc etc. I love it. I love the wildness of it all.

 

[ChrisV]

So distracted cyclists are not dangerous?

 

[mjr]

Here's a thought, just to swim briefly against the stream of this thread: How many accidents were caused before cellphones by distracted drivers reading road atlases, eating sandwiches, reaching for a coffee (holders helpfully supplied by the car manufacturer), shaving, putting on makeup or even reading the newspaper? The difference with cellphones is that they provide clear evidence of what distracted the driver, who can no longer blame that fox that crossed the road or patch of black ice or whatever.

I still see people eating as they drive away from the retail park takeaways but they seem much more in control than the phoney drivers. I guess the pastie, twister or whopper doesn't answer back, bleep at inappropriate moments or offer to do more if you stroke it right!

Even the bus driver who I reported for reading a book on their steering wheel was driving far better than a phoney driver.

In short, it's not right but it doesn't seem as hazardous so let's focus on the biggest danger first.

 

[Dan B]

Walking downstairs is dangerous, but we don't legislate against walking downstairs while on the phone despite the risk that someone at the bottom might have to swerve out of your way as you roll past

 

[spen666]

Here's a thought, just to swim briefly against the stream of this thread: How many accidents were caused before cellphones by distracted drivers reading road atlases, eating sandwiches, reaching for a coffee (holders helpfully supplied by the car manufacturer), shaving, putting on makeup or even reading the newspaper? The difference with cellphones is that they provide clear evidence of what distracted the driver, who can no longer blame that fox that crossed the road or patch of black ice or whatever.

I think you are overlooking the fact that before cell phones, it was not possible whilst driving to be sending text messages, looking at Facebook, sending tweets etc. There are far more distractions available with a smartphone, as well as the distractions you mentioned, which still exist of course.

 

[nickyboy]

Here's a thought, just to swim briefly against the stream of this thread: How many accidents were caused before cellphones by distracted drivers reading road atlases, eating sandwiches, reaching for a coffee (holders helpfully supplied by the car manufacturer), shaving, putting on makeup or even reading the newspaper? The difference with cellphones is that they provide clear evidence of what distracted the driver, who can no longer blame that fox that crossed the road or patch of black ice or whatever.

I think that's a fair point. Using a mobile with driving is obviously dangerous in that it distracts attention fro the job in hand. But unfortunately lots of other things go on in cars that are also distracting. Fiddling with the radio, scrolling through the contacts on hands free, chatting with a passenger, unwrapping a sweet. Hands free calls are distracting and even the sat nav is too

My take on this is that we, as a society, can push phone use while driving into the "socially unacceptable" area that drink driving is now in. But I think that there will be technological "sticks" as well. It can't be that hard, for example, to have something built into the car and the smartphone OS that will only allow voice activated commands whilst in the car. I get lots of messages while driving that are work related. These can be urgent so I have to pull over, read the message, reply and then drive off. Presumably a system could read out the message I've received (from whatever messaging app I have on my phone) and I can voice instruct it to reply?? I know that not having any voice control would be better than this, but living in the real world this sounds like a reasonable solution