Not always wise to remonstrate drivers on mobiles.

greg66_tri_v2.0

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Driving on a mobile impairs your ability to the same extent as being drunk.

Is that the University of Utah study? That suggests that driving and using a phone is more dangerous than drink driving? Because it also suggests that driving sober is more dangerous than driving drunk. So that's pretty good to know.

Ps: that study assesses danger by reaction time and braking. Not so important when stationary. In fact, maybe even a good thing. It means the phone using driver will take longer to start wielding his moving Machete Of Death.

always_tyred

Greg66 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Driving on a mobile impairs your ability to the same extent as being drunk.

Is that the University of Utah study? That suggests that driving and using a phone is more dangerous than drink driving? Because it also suggests that driving sober is more dangerous than driving drunk. So that's pretty good to know.

No, it doesn't, Greg. you are being naughty again.

IT doesn't show a lot, actually. For starters they didn't have people try to have a rational discussion with a call centre. Now that's distracting. Or perhaps conduct a sales call or something like that. Or listening to sport on the radio, according to recent journalistically twisted headline factoids.

Jesus, this could be a helmet wearing debate......

greg66_tri_v2.0

Always Tyred wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Driving on a mobile impairs your ability to the same extent as being drunk.

Is that the University of Utah study? That suggests that driving and using a phone is more dangerous than drink driving? Because it also suggests that driving sober is more dangerous than driving drunk. So that's pretty good to know.

No, it doesn't, Greg. you are being naughty again.

IT doesn't show a lot, actually. For starters they didn't have people try to have a rational discussion with a call centre. Now that's distracting. Or perhaps conduct a sales call or something like that. Or listening to sport on the radio, according to recent journalistically twisted headline factoids.

Jesus, this could be a helmet wearing debate......

Really? Looked to me as if the drunks drove slower, were quicker on the brakes, braked harder and had fewer accidents than the sober drivers. Or am I focussing too hard on the table of results?

I liked this conclusion: One factor that may have contributed to the absence of accidents in the alcohol condition of our study is that the alcohol and driving portion of the study was conducted during the daytime (between 9:00 a.m. and noon).

Makes perfect sense to me. Get p!ssed over breakfast and you're an awesome driver. Why has nowhere legislated to allow this, I wonder?

lost_in_thought

Which was the study that told us how drunk people in their 20s react faster than OAPs? I liked that one.

mybreakfastconsisted

Greg66 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Driving on a mobile impairs your ability to the same extent as being drunk.

Is that the University of Utah study?.

Nope:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1885775.stm

Cell phone users have been found to be 5.36 times more likely to get in an accident than undistracted drivers. Other studies have shown the risk is about the same as for drivers with a 0.08 blood-alcohol level.

greg66_tri_v2.0

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Driving on a mobile impairs your ability to the same extent as being drunk.

Is that the University of Utah study?.

Nope:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1885775.stm

Cell phone users have been found to be 5.36 times more likely to get in an accident than undistracted drivers. Other studies have shown the risk is about the same as for drivers with a 0.08 blood-alcohol level.

Reaction times again. Not very indicative of much when you're stationary.

Qr perhaps these other studies measured the danger using a phone in queuing traffic. Who knows?

gordon861

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Driving on a mobile impairs your ability to the same extent as being drunk.

Is that the University of Utah study?.

Nope:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1885775.stm

Cell phone users have been found to be 5.36 times more likely to get in an accident than undistracted drivers. Other studies have shown the risk is about the same as for drivers with a 0.08 blood-alcohol level.

Sorry about this but only one response to a study like that ... Bollocks.

A study of just 20 people, pitifully small sample.

Done on behalf of an insurance company, guess what result they wanted.

Now I'm not saying driving on a mobile is safe but I would rather meet someoen on a mobile on the road than someone drunk! Also the people of the study were 'just over the legal limit', how many drunk drivers are just over the limit? Being 'just over the limit' does not mean you are 'drunk', it just means you are over the 'legal limit to drive'.

That article also mentions that 'hands-free kits were almost as dangerous as hand-held phones', and I expect a screaming kid on the way to school is even more distracting. Perhaps listening to the radio is distracting as well, what about having friends in the car?

prj45

Greg66 wrote:

Reaction times again. Not very indicative of much when you're stationary.

Qr perhaps these other studies measured the danger using a phone in queuing traffic. Who knows?

Eh? You think this guy was going to put the phone down when he moved off?

greg66_tri_v2.0

prj45 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Reaction times again. Not very indicative of much when you're stationary.

Qr perhaps these other studies measured the danger using a phone in queuing traffic. Who knows?

Eh? You think this guy was going to put the phone down when he moved off?

Yes. Because he did. Look at his hands when he spat.

always_tyred

lost_in_thought wrote:

Which was the study that told us how drunk people in their 20s react faster than OAPs? I liked that one.

Scary but entirely predictable. One telephone conversation with my father these days confirms most of my worst fears.

always_tyred

Greg66 wrote:

Really? Looked to me as if the drunks drove slower, were quicker on the brakes, braked harder and had fewer accidents than the sober drivers. Or am I focussing too hard on the table of results?

I liked this conclusion: One factor that may have contributed to the absence of accidents in the alcohol condition of our study is that the alcohol and driving portion of the study was conducted during the daytime (between 9:00 a.m. and noon).

Makes perfect sense to me. Get p!ssed over breakfast and you're an awesome driver. Why has nowhere legislated to allow this, I wonder?

Well, to my reading of the results, they were well within the error limits of each other. As soon as you are in that situation and press on to analyse the results anyway, you are in danger of being a useless "scientist".

Its just possible tht its a cr@p study. For starters, have you an idea how hard it is to get alcohol in Utah? They were using apple juice. Explains everything.

So, you know how we get all up in arms about riding on the pavement and running red lights even when its safe? Does your "not a problem if its not doing any harm" argument run to these issues also? Good, it would take 5 minutes off my commute.

DonDaddyD

Ok

I find it nigh impossible to hold a phone to my ear, turn the steering wheel and change gear with just two hands...

I still think driving under the influence more dangerous, purely on the basis that my mind will wander away from concentrating...

I don't like people telling me what to do if what I'm doing iisn't directly affecting them.

Spitting on someone is disgusting and a sure way to start a fight (remenbed Hesky's punch - football).

BUT

IF it was an awesomely fit burd (say Lit) tell me in the back of your mind you wouldn't be slighty[\i] turned on.... She just shared bodily fluids with you, an act of sexual intentions for sure. Reach into the car rub on her boobies...

In fact BentMikey, i think the van driver was flirting with you... Because you didn't respond positively he got annoyed...

always_tyred

DDD, do you know that you can edit and delete your own posts?

DonDaddyD

Edit: Your 'significant other' never spat on you and it turn into something equally aggressive but a lot less angry? No? Wow... Try it.

It's Friday, chillax...

WesternWay

Always Tyred wrote:

DDD, do you know that you can edit and delete your own posts?

+lots

tailwindhome

Always Tyred wrote:

DDD, do you know that you can edit and delete your own posts?

DonDaddyD wrote:

Edit: Your 'significant other' never spat on you and it turn into something equally aggressive but a lot less angry? No? Wow... Try it.

It's Friday, chillax...

I don't know that your edit helped there.

BentMikey

Morning all! Yeah, I've reported him to Roadsafe, which will do nothing more than get him a letter and a link to his moment of fame on youtube. I'm also going to report his assault as well, which will hopefully get him a formal caution.

So Greg, why do you ignore that he was driving along on the phone before the incident and insist he was only on the phone when stationary? Your logic is this: FAIL.

lost_in_thought

BentMikey wrote:

So Greg, why do you ignore that he was driving along on the phone before the incident and insist he was only on the phone when stationary? Your logic is this: FAIL.

I did the same, mostly because the video doesn't show him on the phone any other time than when he's stopped in a queue.

Actually, not mostly. That was my only reasoning.

BentMikey

Yeah, that would be a really top class assumption, given the average length of a phone call and the average length of time spent stopped at the lights.

lost_in_thought

Sure, the guy's a first class prat, no argument there, but he *could* have just answered a call at the lights, and been saying 'sorry mate I'll call you back'.

Much as his behaviour after you talked to him was reprehensible, it's unfounded to assume he was on the phone before you saw him.

rjsterry

BentMikey wrote:

Yeah, that would be a really top class assumption, given the average length of a phone call and the average length of time spent stopped at the lights.

Quite! Anyway, just because you're not moving, doesn't mean you can stop paying attention. You should still be paying attention to what the traffic around you (which might not be stationary) is doing. You might need to pull in to let an emergency vehicle past (a fairly common occurrence in London). The halfwit in question was clearly distracted enough to drive straight through a red light.

BentMikey

There's no assumption about him driving on the phone on my part, LiT.

rjsterry

lost_in_thought wrote:

Sure, the guy's a first class prat, no argument there, but he *could* have just answered a call at the lights, and been saying 'sorry mate I'll call you back'.

Much as his behaviour after you talked to him was reprehensible, it's unfounded to assume he was on the phone before you saw him.

I never understand this. I have phoned a number of people only to get the answer "sorry I can't talk now, I'm driving" often followed by the sound of the phone being dropped into the foot well. Why answer it then? Let it go to voicemail FFS! Nothing is that urgent that you can't pull over at the next sensible place, and take the call there.

cee

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

The cops have given up, this was their response when a mate sent in footage of drivers on mobiles:

Dear cyclist,

In response to your e-mail about mobile phones the answer is we do prosecute motorists for driving whilst using them, either in special campaigns which we place in the public domain or on an on-going and continual basis as part of normal policing activity.

I agree that the evidence currently would suggest society's addiction to their use supersedes their fear of apprehension.

It is unlikely we would prosecute from u-tube video alone. The evidential trail is difficult and time consuming besides there are a high number of offenders on our roads every day who need catching.

Thank you for your interest.

Had Mikey reported just the mobile use the cops would have done bugger all.

There's something badly wrong if they do nothing when they see this ape driver carrying on like a completely shitty bumclown.

is it just me or.....that message doesn't say what you imply...

it says that youtube videos are are not enough to convict, due to the difficulties with the chain of evidence. this takes time for zero results and would decrease the amount of time they could spend doing work that could actually end in a conviction. It does not say that drivers on mobiles are not prosecuted...

it actually says that drivers are caught as part of special campaigns in addition to the normal police patrolling.

youtube videos are easily faked. Now...instead... get 2 or 3 unrelated people to report that they witnessed the guy on his mobile while driving and suddenly you give the police a far easier time with regards to prosecuting.......

While I do see the point in video-ing a commute...I actually think it gives us false expectations about what will happen as a result of the video, and therefor more likely to not back away from situations that we might otherwise have ..*safe* in the knowledge that..."your on camera mate".......

you really dont want to say that to the type of person that would rip the camera off your bike and beat you to death with it....then make off with the very tape (ooh how retro!) you thought would protect you!

However to argue against myself (man i've been doing that a lot recently!)...my belief is that, gladly, there are not many of those sorts around and a little letter from los federales saying..."we know what you did...look how stupid you look on youtube..."....will probably be enough in the majority of cases.

dilemna

Didn't the plods prosecute some nutter motorcyclist in Devon and Cornwall who posted a youtube video of himself riding his bike at some ridiculous speed of 184mph?

So the police can and do prosecute as I believe in this case the motorcyclist was banned for a number of years and may have received a prison sentence. In any reported case it is down to whether the police can be bothered to gather the evidence and if it is sufficicently clear cut so it doesn't take up much of their time.

Spitting at some one is just GROSS.

cee

dilemna

yeah....i think i recall something about that....see...this is why i argue with myself...

BentMikey

cee wrote:

you really dont want to say that to the type of person that would rip the camera off your bike and beat you to death with it....then make off with the very tape (ooh how retro!) you thought would protect you!

I've had one of those, he got arrested by appointment and now has a formal caution for assault. He didn't actually do any beating, just tried to take the camera off me and gave up almost immediately. So far no-one has had the courage to actually do any real violence on camera - for most it's a very moderating influence.

Besides which, I have more than one camera on my bike.

cee

BentMikey wrote:

cee wrote:

you really dont want to say that to the type of person that would rip the camera off your bike and beat you to death with it....then make off with the very tape (ooh how retro!) you thought would protect you!

I've had one of those, he got arrested by appointment and now has a formal caution for assault. He didn't actually do any beating, just tried to take the camera off me and gave up almost immediately. So far no-one has had the courage to actually do any real violence on camera - for most it's a very moderating influence.

Besides which, I have more than one camera on my bike.

I noticed the rear view one on that video mikey....

I do accept that the presence of the video will 'encourage' the majority of people to behave a bit....

its the one percent as ever that will be the exception that that proves the rule!

rjsterry

BentMikey wrote:

cee wrote:

you really dont want to say that to the type of person that would rip the camera off your bike and beat you to death with it....then make off with the very tape (ooh how retro!) you thought would protect you!

I've had one of those, he got arrested by appointment and now has a formal caution for assault. He didn't actually do any beating, just tried to take the camera off me and gave up almost immediately. So far no-one has had the courage to actually do any real violence on camera - for most it's a very moderating influence.

Besides which, I have more than one camera on my bike.

It's the ones that stay in their cars that you want to worry about.

dilemna

Trust no one, suspect every one ............