Stopping drivers using phones.

[Brandane]

People use phones while driving, people speed, and cyclists RLJ. Ignoring the possible consequences, the common feature is that the laws to stop these offenses aren't enforced because most people don't see them as a big deal. That's all.

Errm, there's a huge difference between the consequences of cyclists jumping red lights and drivers using phones.
Here is an example of the results of a driver on the phone. And here is a typical example of the consequences of a cyclist jumping a red light:

 

[Silver Fox]

I like your plan, although might I suggest one teensy amendment? When the vehicle starts moving, if the vehicle detects the driver on the phone several tasers deploy and zap the driver.

Or to reduce the chance of reoffending, the Gerard Butler approach to mobile phone use could be used, the one depicted in the judge in chambers scene of Law Abiding Citizen.

 

[byegad]

But it is legal for passengers to use them.

I would like the law changed so that anyone could report it, it would be worth getting a camera. And although the ones chatting really annoy me, I'm more worried by those texting and typing on social media sites.

And they don't seem to be aware of how obvious it is to other drivers..... Imagine if you had cameras filming the traffic then displaying the bad behaviour on a large screen, whilst simultaneously sending the fine direct to the owner of the car! (I'll carry on dreaming for a few moments more)

I'd extend your scheme. Pay the photographer a small fee, say £5, for each photograph of a driver using a phone. I'd pay for my next three lenses and a new camera in a few weeks, just for popping down to the roundabout at the end of the village for 35mins every morning.

 

[Milkfloat]

Got some evidence to back up those rather significant claims?

An oldy - but a goody http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2443303/

also another report at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0736467911007888

and a less independent one http://www.gsma.com/publicpolicy/study-shows-mobile-phones-save-lives-in-emergencies

I don't get why there is need for such aggression from a lot of the 'old boys' of the forum. Constant sniping of 'where is your evidence' without providing their own evidence. Plus ganging up on people making simple discussion points makes the forum a pretty horrible place a times. It is not a war.

 

[Milkfloat]

Except it doesn't actually support most of the claims made by 0-markymark-0...



It also doesn't really take account of (although it refers to) the introduction of mandatory targets - backed by fines - for response times, which coincided with the period reviewed.

The reports state that the emergency call can be made made faster. Therefore, total response time will be faster. Furthermore it states, that due to triangulation locations can be pinpointed more accurately and faster. In fact since these reports the system has improved significantly with even faster and more accurate geo-location.

The actual drive time of the emergency service is an irrelevant variable for this discussion. The only thing that matters is that after an incident the operator can be notified faster than before and that the location of the incident can be found quicker.

 

[Dan B]

The reports state that the emergency call can be made made faster. Therefore, total response time will be faster. Furthermore it states, that due to triangulation locations can be pinpointed more accurately and faster. In fact since these reports the system has improved significantly with even faster and more accurate geo-location.

The actual drive time of the emergency service is an irrelevant variable for this discussion. The only thing that matters is that after an incident the operator can be notified faster than before and that the location of the incident can be found quicker.

On the assumption that any technology-based phone suppression system would only be active while the car was moving, how much time does it really add to the ambulance response if you have to wait until your car has finished crashing before you call 999?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

It does activate automatically if there's a crash as well.

Phew!

GC

 

[Milkfloat]

On the assumption that any technology-based phone suppression system would only be active while the car was moving, how much time does it really add to the ambulance response if you have to wait until your car has finished crashing before you call 999?

I don't recall ever saying that suppression of mobile phones in moving vehicles is a bad thing. I think it is incredibly dumb and unworkable. Enforcement and attitude change is the way to go in my opinion.

 

[Milkfloat]

Err... no. The response time clock starts when the call is received. You can't respond to something that you haven't been alerted to...

I notice you've edited your original post to add in a few more references. The second study (which was industry funded) says nothing about response times - it's about clinical outcomes, of which response times is a single factor. The third is a puff piece for the mobile phone industry that's linked to the second reference you linked to.

There's no 'aggression' or 'ganging up'. If you come out with blase, sweeping statements and generalisations then you can expect to get called on them.

That depends on your definition of a response - to the person in the RTA it is the total response time they are interested in. Plus, actually even if we use your definition of response, those response times are still faster as the location of the incident is known within seconds, rather than spending time questioning the caller.

Bullies rarely think they are bullying.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

The response time of the emergency services can only be measured from when they know about something

And the sooner they know, the sooner they can get there. That's the point @Milkfloat is making.

GC

 

[Dan B]

I don't recall ever saying that suppression of mobile phones in moving vehicles is a bad thing. I think it is incredibly dumb and unworkable.

Not sure I understand how those two sentences go together

Enforcement and attitude change is the way to go in my opinion.

That I agree with

 

[Milkfloat]

The response time of the emergency services can only be measured from when they know about something - when they have something (the call) to respond to. The time between any accident and the call being made to the emergency services is an irrelevance when it comes to measuring their response times - as they can't respond to something they don't know about.

Unless you're suggesting that somehow the emergency service should be responding before someone has alerted to the need for a response?



If you think I'm bullying then you can always raise your concerns with the moderators... or simply don't bother engaging with the discussion. Simples!

The overall response time to an incident is from when it occurs until the first responder arrives on scene. The response time of the emergency services is just one part of this. What matters is how long it takes for that first responder to arrive. Although it seems you trying to deny it, by getting the call to the emergency services sooner by use of mobile phone the overall response time will be faster - more so in rural locations where it can be difficult to find a landline, although obviously mobile phone signals play a part.

You also seem to be ignoring the part about the geo-location, where a mobile phone allows the operator to quickly identify where the incident has taken place, thus reducing the response time as you define it.

To summarise - if you were unfortunate to be in an accident - would you want someone nearby with a mobile phone?

As for this discussion - now it is time for me to bow out as I don't think I am articulate enough to explain my thought process to you.

 

[Milkfloat]

Not sure I understand how those two sentences go together

That I agree with

Sorry my fault - I meant to say 'I don't think mobile phone suppression in a vehicle is a good thing'.

 

[Dan B]

Sorry my fault - I meant to say 'I don't think mobile phone suppression in a vehicle is a good thing'.

I think if reliable and if it can be made not to interfere with passengers' use of phones or data used by satnavs etc then it wouldn't be a bad thing - but it would still be a bit pointless. I imagine it would be a lot cheaper and more effective for the police routinely to act on Roadsafed[*] camera evidence of drivers on the phone.

[*] or local equivalent in places without roadsafe

 

[Markymark]

Given you haven't bothered to provide a link to the pod cast, we'll take that as no - you don't have any evidence... I'm somewhat surprised you didn't reinforce your claim with "It's common sense, innit".

Think it was The Most Dangerous Machine podcast from freakonomics. Sure it can be googled as links on phone are fiddly.