I think this survey may be a bit flawed in that apart from weekends the biggest use of mobiles in the survey is probably also the quietest time on the roads.
Still an interesting result though.
tachograph:
I think this survey may be a bit flawed in that apart from weekends the biggest use of mobiles in the survey is probably also the quietest time on the roads.Still an interesting result though.
Very interesting. But nothing will change, the over zealous safety brigade will say its unrepresentative data. If the roads are getting safer and mobile phone use is rising the 2 cant be related…or am I missing something.
I knew it was bs 
:)
Pimpdaddy:
I knew it was bs
And so did i.
So how many “non mobile users” were surveyed I wonder?
Saying there’s “no link” is like saying you won’t die if you breathe different air to someone that’s already died. 
If you have an accident, you are not going to admit is was because you were on the phone.
“I just didn’t see him guv!” - Ok bod, no harm done. Here’s a £60 fine for “not paying attention” - we won’t look into the real reasons why not.
So. How many bods above had an accident related to phone use? - Zero!
Lies, Damned lies, and Statistics.
Only a yank could come out with this absolute crap.
Anybody that believes that speaking on a mobile phone is not a distraction is seriously deluded.
It has been proved time and time again.
The ignorance or is it arrogance that makes people believe they are ok to use one?
albion1971:
Only a yank could come out with this absolute crap.
Anybody that believes that speaking on a mobile phone is not a distraction is seriously deluded.
It has been proved time and time again.
The ignorance or is it arrogance that makes people believe they are ok to use one?
I must have missed the part where it said using a mobile wasn’t a distraction, could you point us to that part ?
And also point us to the proof you talk about.
The survey suggests that there was no rise in accidents when mobiles were being used the most.
There are lies, there are damned lies & then there are ‘statistics’.
Did you know that it is a fact that more people drown in their cars every year than die from falling from a horse ! This fact is regularly used by the horsey brigade to fight the compulsory wearing of helmets.
“If we need to wear helmets, then car drivers need to wear aqua lungs”.
I remember the 70’s when they began the crusade to make drink driving not only illegal but hideously socially offensive. I remember several surveys that pointed out that a driver slightly intoxicated may actually be at a chance of driving better than when 100% sober. They began this crusade shortly after convincing us all that it really would be a good idea to put an approved helmet on before riding your motorcycle.
Then came the seat belt campaigns. Remember them? Something about not eating a Peach whilst walking 'round a corner.
Don’t start me off on the other safety campaigns like airbags & ABS brakes.
By far the safest vehicle out there has Nil, none, absolutely zero safety features except for a sharpened 6" spike in the centre of the steering wheel, pointed directly at the drivers throat.
albion1971:
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/distracted_driving/
There are three main types of distraction:
Visual: taking your eyes off the road;
Manual: taking your hands off the wheel; and
Cognitive: taking your mind off of driving.
On this basis, the single biggest cause of distracted driving must surely be the semi-naked, healthy young ladies that throng our highways whenever the sun comes out.
Maybe they have it right when they force their wimmin into Burkha’s !
“Falling asleep” usually works for all three as well.
I remember the 70s and the seat belt campaign.Who was the main presenter,ah yes Jimmy Savile.Clunk Klick every trip.
No more of a distraction than talking to a passenger, we should ban all passengers!
Chas:
There are lies, there are damned lies & then there are ‘statistics’.Did you know that it is a fact that more people drown in their cars every year than die from falling from a horse ! This fact is regularly used by the horsey brigade to fight the compulsory wearing of helmets.
“If we need to wear helmets, then car drivers need to wear aqua lungs”.
I remember the 70’s when they began the crusade to make drink driving not only illegal but hideously socially offensive. I remember several surveys that pointed out that a driver slightly intoxicated may actually be at a chance of driving better than when 100% sober. They began this crusade shortly after convincing us all that it really would be a good idea to put an approved helmet on before riding your motorcycle.
Then came the seat belt campaigns. Remember them? Something about not eating a Peach whilst walking 'round a corner.
Don’t start me off on the other safety campaigns like airbags & ABS brakes.
Chas dont take your safe car idea on the Dragons Den, I dont think you will get any takers
By far the safest vehicle out there has Nil, none, absolutely zero safety features except for a sharpened 6" spike in the centre of the steering wheel, pointed directly at the drivers throat.
I’ve spoken to my policeman mate about this. I asked him what exactly was the problem with using a mobile when driving. Was it the talking, listening, hand off the wheel or what. Tbh he couldn’t give me an answer when faced with other, non illegal, things drivers do like changing a DVD, using hands free phone, smoking. And then again it’s not as if it’s easy policed seeing as how many you see on phones daily.
One thing that is way more dangerous than speaking on a mobile when driving is trying to conceal that you are speaking on a mobile when driving.
Silver_Surfer:
No more of a distraction than talking to a passenger, we should ban all passengers!
You should have to have extra insurance to cover any passengers you may want to take in your car.
Was following someone the other day at a constant 140kph for sometime whilst they were on the phone and in my opinion their driving was spot on… Have also followed people doing 50 that are all over the place…
albion1971:
Only a yank could come out with this absolute crap.
Anybody that believes that speaking on a mobile phone is not a distraction is seriously deluded.
It has been proved time and time again.
The ignorance or is it arrogance that makes people believe they are ok to use one?
If mobiles are the evil you say they are then as mobile use has increased many fold over the last 10 years there should be carnage on our roads…but deaths and serious injuries are falling or static, so there is no link. Anything will distract a driver if they let it
thehairyarsedtrucker:
albion1971:
Only a yank could come out with this absolute crap.
Anybody that believes that speaking on a mobile phone is not a distraction is seriously deluded.
It has been proved time and time again.
The ignorance or is it arrogance that makes people believe they are ok to use one?If mobiles are the evil you say they are then as mobile use has increased many fold over the last 10 years there should be carnage on our roads…but deaths and serious injuries are falling or static, so there is no link. Anything will distract a driver if they let it
Someone will probably answer that with “lives are saved because there are so many mobiles that the emergency services are alerted that much earlier and get there quicker.”