New mobile phone laws

[jefmcg]

I would have viewed that as a special (more extreme) case of the first class: grabbing your attention means diverting your cognitive resource. The difference is not in the thing being demanded but in the unpredictability of that demand.

That's probably true to toddlers, but not for phones. The beeping isn't the distraction, it's responding to it. If sweets beeped to let you know they were ready to be eaten, they'd be more dangerous than quiet sweets.

(I'm not sure this analogy is working )

 

[jefmcg]

GtiJunior, in common with his 17 year old pals, seems to be absolutely addicted to social media but I don't say anything because I hope and believe that one day he will realise what a time-waster it all is and begin talking to people face to face instead. I just hope this conversion happens before he starts driving.

I'm not sure this is bad.

For a million years, people (and pre-people) lived in small groups, interacting every day with the people they knew and loved the most. It's only since the industrial revolution that people have been split apart and arbitrarily dumped with a bunch of strangers they have no connection to. Your son may be behaving like a more natural human, carrying his community around with him in his pocket.

 

[jonny jeez]

Had a Citroen C4 Cactus as a courtesy car last month - virtually everything was run off a touchscreen in the middle of the dash - heater, stereo, phone, etc
It was incredibly distracting if you needed to do even something simple like turn the heater down, or adjust the volume and it all worked all the time, including when the car was in motion. I'm not entirely sure how faffing with the touchscreen in the dash is any different to faffing with a mobile phone.
Sadly it looks like this is something that's being fitted to virtually all new cars now.

Funny....a weekend in the alps behind the wheel of a cactus (with a dreadful auto gearbox) is what cemented my thoughts that this design vogue must to be responsible for collisions...it was really hard to use, oversensitive and way, way to complicated. It took three screen changes to turn the fan down a single notch.. Id like to know how to assess the relationship between this type of design and causation.

 

[jonny jeez]

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.

Interesting question but I believe this is a false equivalence.

Maps, sandwiches, drinks etc dont demand immediate attention like phones.

If you don't believe me, try this.

When was the last time someone you were talking to, suddenly stopped mid sentence, looked away from you and completely ignored you while they took a bite from their sandwhich.

People switch off entirely when engaged on a phone, they enter another place and become oblivious of their surroundings.

 

[Jody]

Interesting question but I believe this is a false equivalence.

Maps, sandwiches, drinks etc dont demand immediate attention like phones.

They are all still a distraction and reading a map whilst driving definitely takes more of your immediate attention than talking on a phone.

 

[swee'pea99]

Funny....a weekend in the alps behind the wheel of a cactus (with a dreadful auto gearbox) is what cemented my thoughts that this design vogue must to be responsible for collisions...it was really hard to use, oversensitive and way, way to complicated. It took three screen changes to turn the fan down a single notch.. Id like to know how to assess the relationship between this type of design and causation.

I love my 20 year old pre-computer Golf - if you want to turn the fan down a notch, you turn a knob, if you want to turn the volume up, you turn a different knob. You don't have to look, or even think - you know exactly where they are, and there's no way to get it wrong. Also, when it goes wrong, the bill is usually about 60 quid, because there's no computer, just bits that are easy to identify, remove and service or replace. Admittedly you can't use your mobile hands-free, but I suspect that not using your mobile *at all* is by far the safest approach to doing something which is inherently and inescapably quite risky: manoeuvring a tone and a half of metal around at high speed, surrounded by idiots doing the same.

 

[spen666]

It isn't and that's why it works.

If you have technology to block all mobile use in a car then passengers can't use devices. Work arounds will come onto the market and then drivers will use them too. Defeats the objective

But if you have some technology that makes all mobiles in a car voice activated only, passengers can still use their phones. Drivers can use their phones too. No major incentive to find a work around

So then it is pointless technology as it will prevent me working in my vehicle whilst the chauffeur is driving me between meetings.

 

[Globalti]

The point I was trying to make is that, thanks to the technology, mobile phones provide irrefutable evidence of driving without due care and attention whereas in the past a driver could possibly get away with it by claiming to have swerved to avoid an animal or something else for which he could not be blamed.

I'm not trying to excuse mobile phone use but I'm saying that thanks to the proof they offer, mobile phones will now be taking the blame for an increasing proportion of the crashes caused by bad driving.

Actually, I'd be willing to bet that British drivers are some of the safest in the world in relation to the terrifying density of our traffic but that's a different matter.

 

[jonny jeez]

They are all still a distraction and reading a map whilst driving definitely takes more of your immediate attention than talking on a phone.

I agree they are all a distraction but the phone demands that distraction more than almost any other item.
I also.agree Tha maps are a bigger distraction but honestly how often did we use them...phones sit there 24 hours a day pinging away reminding you that you need to pay the little black mirror more attention.

I honestly believe them to be a far greater danger than any past generation of distraction

 

[jonny jeez]

I love my 20 year old pre-computer Golf - if you want to turn the fan down a notch, you turn a knob, if you want to turn the volume up, you turn a different knob. You don't have to look, or even think - you know exactly where they are, and there's no way to get it wrong. Also, when it goes wrong, the bill is usually about 60 quid, because there's no computer, just bits that are easy to identify, remove and service or replace. Admittedly you can't use your mobile hands-free, but I suspect that not using your mobile *at all* is by far the safest approach to doing something which is inherently and inescapably quite risky: manoeuvring a tone and a half of metal around at high speed, surrounded by idiots doing the same.

Which reinforces my point that vehicle designers are tapping into the addiction and providing "legal" ways for people to keep on distracting themselves, via their car dash in full knowledge that this is dangerous but is what people want.

Its really depressing.

 

[Jody]

I honestly believe them to be a far greater danger than any past generation of distraction

Can't argue with that. They are a massive distraction even if you aren't directly using them.

 

[marzjennings]

So distracted cyclists are not dangerous?

Statistically speaking, no.

 

[nickyboy]

Oh dear, how on earth did people manage before this technology was available? Perhaps you'd have to be a bit more flexible, difficult I know, and do old-fashioned paperwork or background reading in your limo.

Methinks it was a joke. However, my suggestion still holds water. Make all phones voice activated only whilst in a car. If you're a passenger you can still use your phone. If you're a driver you are somewhat less distracted than if you use your phone in the conventional way. Phones are part of people's lives now whether we like it or not. You won't get people to give them up when they're driving so best solution is to make them as non-invasive as possible

 

[marzjennings]

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

Already exists, some cars can read texts to you and allow you to reply with voice-to-text conversion.

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

There are so many people now that believe they know better, so everything they see in front of them is not subject to rules but to their perception.
On a motorway the gantry signs will say 40 but most drivers ignore it. People won't even brake when the car in front brakes because they can't see the reason.