"Gaz" <gazter@msn.com> wrote in message
news:55fuflF23k8qnU1@mid.individual.net...
> Simon Finnigan wrote:
>> "KPR" <kpr_1969@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:rcfIh.56702$Da4.13948@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>>> are you still allowed to use the in ear type hands-free kit..
>>
>>
>> Yes, while still bearing in mind that the evidence shows that you are
>> still
>> 4 times more likely to be involved in an accident (the same risk as using
>> the phone without a hands-free kit).
>
> Except, that statistic is made up to suit an agenda by an ati-car pressure
> group.
Check out (for example) the report by Strayer, Drews and Crouch of the
University of Utah - "A comparison of the Cellphone driver and the drunk
driver".
And you can claim to be as capable of driving while using your phone all you
want - the simple fact is that it distracts you from driving, making you a
more dangerous driver. If you disagree then please prove this and have the
law changed.
> > where's the research to bach this statistic?
>
>
> Check out (for example) the report by Strayer, Drews and Crouch of
> the University of Utah - "A comparison of the Cellphone driver and
> the drunk driver".
OK, that's in Utah. Different types of road and vehicle, different
laws of the roads, different weather and traffic conditions.
Where's the BRITISH research to back this statistic?
"Paul Cummins" <agree2pay4uce@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.20070313170917.3736D@admin.vlaad.co.uk.. .
> In article <55o3igF25kc3kU3@mid.individual.net>,
> SimonFinnigan@hotmail.com (Simon Finnigan) wrote:
>
>> > where's the research to bach this statistic?
>>
>>
>> Check out (for example) the report by Strayer, Drews and Crouch of
>> the University of Utah - "A comparison of the Cellphone driver and
>> the drunk driver".
>
> OK, that's in Utah. Different types of road and vehicle, different
> laws of the roads, different weather and traffic conditions.
>
> Where's the BRITISH research to back this statistic?
you could have watched the traffic show on bbc1 last night where a woman in
her 20s was absolutely squished by a lorry driver playing with his mobile -
it looked like something that would come out of a car crusher.
> > Where's the BRITISH research to back this statistic?
>
>
>
> you could have watched the traffic show on bbc1 last night where a
> woman in her 20s was absolutely squished by a lorry driver playing
> with his mobile - it looked like something that would come out of a
> car crusher.
and this *single* accident proves that you have a 400% higher risk of
an accident if you happen to be using the phone at the time?
Given my driving record, my accident risk tends to zero. A 400%
increase in Zero risk is stil Zero risk.
"Paul Cummins" <agree2pay4uce@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.20070313192041.3736E@admin.vlaad.co.uk.. .
> and this *single* accident proves that you have a 400% higher risk of
> an accident if you happen to be using the phone at the time?
>
> Given my driving record, my accident risk tends to zero. A 400%
> increase in Zero risk is stil Zero risk.
so what's your argument exactly? - that your driving skill is such that if
you drive with a mobile phone your skill is not impaired?
"the dog from that film you saw"
<dsb@REMOVETHECAPITALSbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:55ohbrF25923iU1@mid.individual.net
> "Paul Cummins" <agree2pay4uce@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote in
> message
> news:memo.20070313192041.3736E@admin.vlaad.co.uk.. .
>
> > and this *single* accident proves that you have a 400%
> > higher risk of an accident if you happen to be using
> > the phone at the time? Given my driving record, my accident risk tends
> > to
> > zero. A 400% increase in Zero risk is stil Zero risk.
>
>
>
> so what's your argument exactly? - that your driving
> skill is such that if you drive with a mobile phone your
> skill is not impaired?
Driving skill is an individual thing, you simply cannot say *everyone* is
a more dangerous driver whilst doing a particular thing, be it using a
phone, eating a sandwich or whatever.
One person might be a risk to everyone within a 5 mile radius simply by
getting behind the wheel (although one hopes the driving test would weed
out the worst). Another person may very well be capable of driving at
70mph while both on the phone *and* eating a sandwich..! You simply cannot
reduce every single person to the lowest common denominator.
ivor@despammed.invalid declared for all the world to hear...
> You simply cannot
> reduce every single person to the lowest common denominator.
Maybe not, but in the interest of safety the law/rules/call it whatever
you want should me manufactured with the lowest ability levels in mind.
--
Regards
Jon
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:55otv9F25jjfdU1@mid.individual.net...
>> so what's your argument exactly? - that your driving
>> skill is such that if you drive with a mobile phone your
>> skill is not impaired?
>
> Driving skill is an individual thing, you simply cannot say *everyone* is
> a more dangerous driver whilst doing a particular thing, be it using a
> phone, eating a sandwich or whatever.
>
> One person might be a risk to everyone within a 5 mile radius simply by
> getting behind the wheel (although one hopes the driving test would weed
> out the worst). Another person may very well be capable of driving at
> 70mph while both on the phone *and* eating a sandwich..! You simply cannot
> reduce every single person to the lowest common denominator.
indeed - but you can put in some basic, common sense rules - such as, no
matter how great you are at driving, you have to take a driving test to
prove it.
no matter how great you are at driving, you have to keep your hands on the
wheel.
no matter how great, you dont use a phone.
nobody would claim you WILL crash as a result - but it's known that many
will.
> nobody would claim you WILL crash as a result - but it's known that
> many will.
On what basis is it known??? That's the whole point - where is the
british research to support this statistic.
The Australian research only refers to people who had accidents within
10 minutes of using the phone. That doesn't prove using the phone
caused the increase in risk.
"Jon" <spam@jonparker.plus.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2061a746559b104398a80f@text.usenet.plus.n et
> ivor@despammed.invalid declared for all the world to
> hear...
> > You simply cannot
> > reduce every single person to the lowest common
> > denominator.
>
> Maybe not, but in the interest of safety the
> law/rules/call it whatever you want should me
> manufactured with the lowest ability levels in mind.
Bring back the man with the red flag then and be done with it.
"Paul Cummins" <agree2pay4uce@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.20070314190202.1248F@admin.vlaad.co.uk.. .
> In article <55pmjtF2659efU1@mid.individual.net>,
>> nobody would claim you WILL crash as a result - but it's known that
>> many will.
>
> On what basis is it known??? That's the whole point - where is the
> british research to support this statistic.
you need research to know that driving while not looking at the road
increases your chance of an accident?
i dare say there's no research into whether driving with your eyes shut
increases the chance of an accident either.
> >> nobody would claim you WILL crash as a result - but it's known
> > that
> >> many will.
> >
> > On what basis is it known??? That's the whole point - where is the
> > british research to support this statistic.
>
> you need research to know that driving while not looking at the
> road increases your chance of an accident?
When are they to ban controls, speedos, rear-view mirrors, a-pillars,
sunglasses, sun-shades, radios, gearsticks and passengers then? They
also cause you to take your eyes off the road.
"Paul Cummins" <agree2pay4uce@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote in
message news:memo.20070314231945.2008B@admin.vlaad.co.uk
> In article <55r1e5F26glo6U1@mid.individual.net>,
> dsb@REMOVETHECAPITALSbtinternet.com (the dog from that
> film you saw) wrote:
[snip]
> > you need research to know that driving while not
> > looking at the road increases your chance of an
> > accident?
>
> When are they to ban controls, speedos, rear-view
> mirrors, a-pillars, sunglasses, sun-shades, radios,
> gearsticks and passengers then? They also cause you to
> take your eyes off the road.
Exactly..! Try driving a double deck bus with 60+ screaming schoolkids on
it. That's *far* more distracting than any phone call, believe me..!
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:55r03jF23o5s8U1@mid.individual.net...
> "Jon" <spam@jonparker.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2061a746559b104398a80f@text.usenet.plus.n et
>> ivor@despammed.invalid declared for all the world to
>> hear...
>> > You simply cannot
>> > reduce every single person to the lowest common
>> > denominator.
>>
>> Maybe not, but in the interest of safety the
>> law/rules/call it whatever you want should me
>> manufactured with the lowest ability levels in mind.
>
> Bring back the man with the red flag then and be done with it.
> Ivor
>
What a good idea, that's a job for all the east europeans
over here, pay them a couple of quid an hour to run in front
with a red flag.
A big red flag should make them homesick for the old days ;-)
Re: New law on diving while on mobiles.. 
Linear Mode
