heh at passengers looking out for hazards, some may some may not, I hardly think it is sufficient to justify the distinction. Passengers also provide the extra hazard of tempting the driver to turn to look at them every now and then (which we have all seen drivers do regularly).
Presumably the problem is with the driver talking, not with listening. I think you will find the radio does not shut up when hazards approach.
In short, it makes sense to ban anything that involves making the driver look away from the road (current phone law) but seems bizarre to distinguish between different forms of potential audio distraction.
Sorry it’s total bollocks that hands free calls are any more distracting than talking to people in the car. There is no evidence for this whatsoever.
I agree that this policy belongs in the dustbin, alongside 10,000 more prison places (we have a ridiculous number of people in prison already, and not one shred of informed research on the topic suggests prison actually works).
Ban children from cars. A study as w**k as the one this proposal is based on found having small children in cars was more distracting than being over the drink drive limit and talking on a handheld phone.
MPs (of all political persuasions) seem to hove to the view that all the big political issues have either been solved, or found to be unsolveable, and therefore the only way they can make a difference to anyone’s life is to ban more stuff and bang more people up.
My Mrs works with some scarily dangerous people who should defo be in prison but aren't because of space.
I'm not a hang-em-and-flog-em kind and in theory I would have more non-custodial punishments but if the general public knew the kind of dangerous people who were out there almost totally unsupervised (because the probation service privatisation was so botched and the remainder has been cut back so badly to the bone) they'd be shocked.
I’m perfectly willing to believe there are dangerous people who should be in prison but aren’t.
However there is a much greater number of people who shouldn’t be in prison, but are, despite the fact that it is probably the worst possible way of achieving the aims of the justice system in their case.
If I were home secretary Id say to the director of the prisons service (or more likely the parole board or without): with effect from six months today, there will be half the number of prison places there are now. Identify your worst 50%, you can keep them. The rest are getting paroled, cos we’re not paying for them to stay inside any longer.
I'm perfectly prepared to accept there are people in prison who shouldn't be.
But when my Mrs is supervising a predatory paedophile sex offender who's released automatically after 4 years despite offences against multiple kids, who they know will do it again, and then goes and does it again 2 weeks after coming out, I get a skewed view of "who the fook must still be in there?"
Who are they keeping in Laz if they're letting these fookers out with totally inadequate supervision?
Have you ever noticed that most of the countries that have much lower incarceration rates than us aren’t terrible shitholes where kids can’t walk the streets safely? I have.
There are people in prison for non payment of tv license - perhaps we should release them before building more prisons
There is no evidence that more proton places reduce crime - rather the reverse. There are and should be places for the dangerously violent - most other people can and should be dealt with in different ways
But when my Mrs is supervising a predatory paedophile sex offender who's released automatically after 4 years despite offences against multiple kids, who they know will do it again, and then goes and does it again 2 weeks after coming out, I get a skewed view of "who the fook must still be in there?"
I always say Parole Boards should go inside with any perp they release early who goes on to reoffend. If they had kept the scum inside where they belong an innocent person would not have been robbed/raped/murdered etc.
If the Parole Board reach the right decision that it would be unfair because they CAN'T KNOW if they are safe or not - leave them rotting in jail.
If you’re not going to physically harm someone if you’re on the outside, then you shouldn’t be on the inside. End of.
Horseshit.
So someone can steal millions from innocent people, destroying many lives and just get away with it? What do you suggest they do, paint a few fences? Pick up some litter?
I think you need to Google "fooking half witted fook face"
Bernie has stolen the life savings of 300 people and gambled it all away. How is he going to restore anything?
Or is the punishment that the victims get to sit and talk to him and ask him "why did you steal my life savings?" and he can say "because my mother didn't love me" and they have a nice group hug.
Oh, red faced shouty man on internet angry that world doesn’t dance to his reactionary tune. Go fook yourself you gammon freak, centuries of entrenched liberalism in the civil service and policy making means reactionary fookwits like you are always going to be pissing in the wind. I laugh in your face.
Have you not googled restorative justice and fooked off yet?
Di you have a hypothesis as to why all of the countries that actually practise liberal sentencing policies are much much nicer places to live than Brexit Island?
Oh, red faced shouty man on internet angry that world doesn’t dance to his reactionary tune. Go fook yourself you gammon freak, centuries of entrenched liberalism in the civil service and policy making means reactionary fookwits like you are always going to be pissing in the wind. I laugh in your face.
I agree that a lot of fookwits who couldn't hack a job in the real world work for the Civil Service. That's why it is so utterly shit.
And if you stay a while you get a knighthood too for no apparant reason.
Sir Gordon has been here 40 years being mediocre every day. What an acheivment. Let's all clap Sir Gordon...
Because your concentration is eroded even where you retain use of your hands. Your visual field is reduced, for example.
See the Transportation Research journal's study and the University of Sussex's nice summary of it below. Don't know why people are saying there's no evidence for this.
I haven't seen where they cover other forms of distraction e.g. passengers, music etc. My guess would be that these don't impact on concentration as much, generally, but I don't know.
"However, chatty passengers tend to pose less of a risk than mobile phone conversations. They will usually moderate the conversation when road hazards arise. Someone on the other end of a phone is oblivious to the other demands on the driver and so keeps talking. And talking in person involves non-verbal cues which ease the flow of conversation. Phone conversations are more taxing because they lack these cues"
Quote from report - extraordinary claim (apparently without cited evidence) that conversation without non-verbal (i.e. visual) cues are less safe than one with visual cues. To see a visual cue you have to look away from the road FFS.
Guy you are not thinking about this properly. Visual cue = absorb quickly, get back to looking at road. No visual cue = use concentration visualizing, focusing on road less.
You have to look at the brain's capability holistically.
Exactly Heff - that illustrates the issue around concentration, but with phone calls it's much harder to tell people to shut up whilst you negotiate a tricky manoeuvre, especially if it's a work call.
We don't live in a perfect world there are all sorts of distractions when driving, there are all sorts of dangers in life. We need to balance the cost and benefit before outlawing things. I am not sure I can see this has been done.
My gut feeling is that small kids in the back of a car are by far the biggest likely distraction to a driver, and indeed I recall reading about several serious accidents caused by the driver trying to deal with unruly kids - but it would be disproportionately inconvenient to ban people from driving alone with kids - even if it may save a few lives/prevent a few injuries. I think taking hands free calls falls into that category.
We would certainly need to ban drivers from talking to passengers in the back of the car, because unless you advocating them swivelling 180 degrees to pick up the "non-verbal cues" (and it would be ironic to say the least if you were) I cannot possibly see how this is less distracting than a hands free call.
wibble, the obvious reality is that being in a conversation whilst driving is distracting. Academics think it, the research supports it. The government thinks it, hence it's thinking about banning handsfree calls.
But oh no, it's the fooking Jeremy Clarkson act, accusing fooking PC brigade of going fooking mad again, mad for wanting to improve concentration levels for no obvious motivation other than to ensure fewer road deaths, the mad, killjoy bastards.
Are they going to actually bother to enforce the not using a phone in your hand one before making a new stupid pointless law that will be almost impossible to detect at all?
Nothing Jeremy Clarkson about this - but a lot of Jeremy Beagle about you.
Sorry, that's all very well, but we cannot just ban things because they have a bad side effect. We need to apply cost benefit analysis and act with consistency. For example are you able to explain to me how hands free calls are worse than talking to a passenger in the back, especially if they are unruly children?
No - I said at 14:02 that I don't know how it compares to other forms of distraction. I'm all for a proper analysis as to how it compares with other forms of distraction and consideration as to what can realistically be implemented.
Sorry, it is not a question of "not knowing" it is blindingly obvious talking to a passenger in the back must be just as distracting as talking to somebody hands free on a phone. You don't need to do "research" to establish that.
How many people have died on our roads, ever, due to hands free phone conversations? If it’s less than, say, 100, then I don’t care about hands free phone conversations as a road safety risk, and they should fook off.
Guy you so, so do need to measure the impact on concentration of various forms of distraction rather than just rely on what you (think you) know, you daft bugger.
Or, put another way, is it not better to do that form of testing?
That’s exactly how they have worked out that handsfree is as dangerous as handheld. I am sure it was thought “blindingly obvious” at the time that handheld was worse.
re unruly children in the car, my father actually once turned round when we had gone suspiciously quiet in the back to see us crayoning on the back parcel shelf ( pale plastic in those days) and smacked us both whereupon he drove into the back of the car in front.
in the seventies, natch.
I think that if you ban hands free kits then you probably have to invent something which stops phones working at all in cars, otherwise we just go back to the days of people holding their phones while driving"
being able to use a phone in a car can actually contribute to safety in some cases.
0
0
I don't understand why hands free calls are any more distracting than talking to a passenger- are they going to ban that too?
0
0
I am all for banning all forms of verbal communication in the car. But i have just driven several hours to and from a holiday with 3 nippers.*
*and a wife**
**and four stick insects for reasons that are lost on me***
***they were quite quiet tbf
0
0
They are more distracting because a passenger can see hazards and shut up when needed to, people on the other end of the phone can’t and don’t.
HTH
0
0
passengers do not look out for hazards or shut up
hth
0
0
Your friends are w**kers non shocka
0
0
heh at passengers looking out for hazards, some may some may not, I hardly think it is sufficient to justify the distinction. Passengers also provide the extra hazard of tempting the driver to turn to look at them every now and then (which we have all seen drivers do regularly).
Presumably the problem is with the driver talking, not with listening. I think you will find the radio does not shut up when hazards approach.
0
0
In short, it makes sense to ban anything that involves making the driver look away from the road (current phone law) but seems bizarre to distinguish between different forms of potential audio distraction.
0
0
Sorry it’s total bollocks that hands free calls are any more distracting than talking to people in the car. There is no evidence for this whatsoever.
I agree that this policy belongs in the dustbin, alongside 10,000 more prison places (we have a ridiculous number of people in prison already, and not one shred of informed research on the topic suggests prison actually works).
0
0
Ban children from cars. A study as w**k as the one this proposal is based on found having small children in cars was more distracting than being over the drink drive limit and talking on a handheld phone.
0
0
MPs (of all political persuasions) seem to hove to the view that all the big political issues have either been solved, or found to be unsolveable, and therefore the only way they can make a difference to anyone’s life is to ban more stuff and bang more people up.
0
0
The 10,000 prison places shite is so weird. It's like the government think we've passed through some time warp to the 80s.
0
0
Isn’t it just Boris trying to appeal to his core voters? Baby Boomers in middle England who think everyone not like them is a criminal...
0
0
This is nothing to do with Boris.
It is he Commons Transport Select Committee.... Lilian Greenwood seems to be pushing this - she is a hmong.
0
0
ah you mean panckakes?
fair dos and yes.
0
0
Yeah cos baby boomers don't have mobiles and handsfree...
We have to tell my 72 year old father-in-law to get off Facebook and maybe spend some time with his grandkids.
0
0
My Mrs works with some scarily dangerous people who should defo be in prison but aren't because of space.
I'm not a hang-em-and-flog-em kind and in theory I would have more non-custodial punishments but if the general public knew the kind of dangerous people who were out there almost totally unsupervised (because the probation service privatisation was so botched and the remainder has been cut back so badly to the bone) they'd be shocked.
0
0
I was responding to pancakes’ question about prison places. Apologies, I thought that would have been obvious.
0
0
yeah soz - i noted that.
0
0
I’m perfectly willing to believe there are dangerous people who should be in prison but aren’t.
However there is a much greater number of people who shouldn’t be in prison, but are, despite the fact that it is probably the worst possible way of achieving the aims of the justice system in their case.
If I were home secretary Id say to the director of the prisons service (or more likely the parole board or without): with effect from six months today, there will be half the number of prison places there are now. Identify your worst 50%, you can keep them. The rest are getting paroled, cos we’re not paying for them to stay inside any longer.
0
0
I'm perfectly prepared to accept there are people in prison who shouldn't be.
But when my Mrs is supervising a predatory paedophile sex offender who's released automatically after 4 years despite offences against multiple kids, who they know will do it again, and then goes and does it again 2 weeks after coming out, I get a skewed view of "who the fook must still be in there?"
Who are they keeping in Laz if they're letting these fookers out with totally inadequate supervision?
0
0
"However there is a much greater number of people who shouldn’t be in prison, but are, "
This is clearly bollocks.
Unless you mean people in for minor drug charges, in which case, that is true. But you dont.
0
0
erm, I do actually. And most property and financial crime.
0
0
Have you ever noticed that most of the countries that have much lower incarceration rates than us aren’t terrible shitholes where kids can’t walk the streets safely? I have.
0
0
It's just a way to fleece more money out of drivers. Why don't they fook off?
Will we be able to turn the aircon on? We will be able to open a window or change radio station. Utter miserable cretins.
Why don't MP's sort out Brexit. w**kERS.
0
0
There are people in prison for non payment of tv license - perhaps we should release them before building more prisons
There is no evidence that more proton places reduce crime - rather the reverse. There are and should be places for the dangerously violent - most other people can and should be dealt with in different ways
0
0
Yup
If you’re not going to physically harm someone if you’re on the outside, then you shouldn’t be on the inside. End of.
0
0
I always say Parole Boards should go inside with any perp they release early who goes on to reoffend. If they had kept the scum inside where they belong an innocent person would not have been robbed/raped/murdered etc.
If the Parole Board reach the right decision that it would be unfair because they CAN'T KNOW if they are safe or not - leave them rotting in jail.
0
0
Try not to talk shite on the internet all day, eh
0
0
Horseshit.
So someone can steal millions from innocent people, destroying many lives and just get away with it? What do you suggest they do, paint a few fences? Pick up some litter?
FFS!
0
0
You do. Absolute horse shite.
0
0
You wouldn't have given Bernie Madoff prison time Laz?
0
0
Google restorative justice and then fook off pls
0
0
(that was to SPC)
0
0
I think you need to Google "fooking half witted fook face"
Bernie has stolen the life savings of 300 people and gambled it all away. How is he going to restore anything?
Or is the punishment that the victims get to sit and talk to him and ask him "why did you steal my life savings?" and he can say "because my mother didn't love me" and they have a nice group hug.
You utter utter twot.
0
0
Public shame community service confiscation of assets are all suitable punishment for property crime
0
0
Oh, red faced shouty man on internet angry that world doesn’t dance to his reactionary tune. Go fook yourself you gammon freak, centuries of entrenched liberalism in the civil service and policy making means reactionary fookwits like you are always going to be pissing in the wind. I laugh in your face.
0
0
HAHAHAHAHAA so if I nick £1m, my punishment is to give it back?
You mean, I can't even keep the proceeds of my crime?? How unfair is that????
And I have to pick up some litter? Oh no!!
My god, no wonder this world is so fooked up.
0
0
Have you not googled restorative justice and fooked off yet?
Di you have a hypothesis as to why all of the countries that actually practise liberal sentencing policies are much much nicer places to live than Brexit Island?
0
0
I agree that a lot of fookwits who couldn't hack a job in the real world work for the Civil Service. That's why it is so utterly shit.
And if you stay a while you get a knighthood too for no apparant reason.
Sir Gordon has been here 40 years being mediocre every day. What an acheivment. Let's all clap Sir Gordon...
0
0
Whereas you’ve really been pulling up stumps out in the real world?
0
0
Laz, don’t feed it m7
0
0
Absolutely
0
0
Hi 5 tbf
You played the only shot I gave u
0
0
Because your concentration is eroded even where you retain use of your hands. Your visual field is reduced, for example.
See the Transportation Research journal's study and the University of Sussex's nice summary of it below. Don't know why people are saying there's no evidence for this.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369847816000085…
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/broadcast/read/35831
I haven't seen where they cover other forms of distraction e.g. passengers, music etc. My guess would be that these don't impact on concentration as much, generally, but I don't know.
0
0
"However, chatty passengers tend to pose less of a risk than mobile phone conversations. They will usually moderate the conversation when road hazards arise. Someone on the other end of a phone is oblivious to the other demands on the driver and so keeps talking. And talking in person involves non-verbal cues which ease the flow of conversation. Phone conversations are more taxing because they lack these cues"
Quote from report - extraordinary claim (apparently without cited evidence) that conversation without non-verbal (i.e. visual) cues are less safe than one with visual cues. To see a visual cue you have to look away from the road FFS.
0
0
Guy you are not thinking about this properly. Visual cue = absorb quickly, get back to looking at road. No visual cue = use concentration visualizing, focusing on road less.
You have to look at the brain's capability holistically.
0
0
I never take a call in the car even hands free, it's much too distracting unless possibly I know it's just a 30 seconds family call
however it's much more important that the law against texting/emailing/holding phones whilst driving is enforced
it is shocking how many drivers are busy on their phones
0
0
and I often ask passengers to stop talking to me if driving gets complicated eg at roundabouts or pulling onto a motorway or in a busy urban area
0
0
Exactly Heff - that illustrates the issue around concentration, but with phone calls it's much harder to tell people to shut up whilst you negotiate a tricky manoeuvre, especially if it's a work call.
0
0
No its not.
Hang on a minute - on a roundabout.
Yes carry on.
Seriously, if you are not able to do that you should not be allowed to drive anyway.
0
0
We don't live in a perfect world there are all sorts of distractions when driving, there are all sorts of dangers in life. We need to balance the cost and benefit before outlawing things. I am not sure I can see this has been done.
My gut feeling is that small kids in the back of a car are by far the biggest likely distraction to a driver, and indeed I recall reading about several serious accidents caused by the driver trying to deal with unruly kids - but it would be disproportionately inconvenient to ban people from driving alone with kids - even if it may save a few lives/prevent a few injuries. I think taking hands free calls falls into that category.
0
0
Also - if you cant drive and deal with people talking to you all at the same time
See above re not being allowed to drive.
0
0
We would certainly need to ban drivers from talking to passengers in the back of the car, because unless you advocating them swivelling 180 degrees to pick up the "non-verbal cues" (and it would be ironic to say the least if you were) I cannot possibly see how this is less distracting than a hands free call.
0
0
also that research being cited is by: -
Gemma Briggs has been a lecturer in Psychology at the Open University since 2008
1) "Psychology"
2) the Open University
heh
0
0
The Open University is a very serious research institution. Open or not, they wouldn’t take you.
0
0
HEH!
but then in your world you are a successful academic these days too....
0
0
small children in the back of car. infinitely more distracting than a hands free call.
0
0
What on earth are you talking about?
0
0
https://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?s=Psychology
There are 117 unis on the list... Psychology League Table 2020.
Guess what number The Open Uni is?
0
0
Cannot possibly be arsed to chase your dullinks sorry. Whatever the story, they’re better at psychology than you.
0
0
its not even on the list...
And Buckinghamshire New is...
HEH
HEH
HEH
all over your face
0
0
wibble, the obvious reality is that being in a conversation whilst driving is distracting. Academics think it, the research supports it. The government thinks it, hence it's thinking about banning handsfree calls.
But oh no, it's the fooking Jeremy Clarkson act, accusing fooking PC brigade of going fooking mad again, mad for wanting to improve concentration levels for no obvious motivation other than to ensure fewer road deaths, the mad, killjoy bastards.
0
0
Picking your nose when driving is distracting.
Talking to people when driving is distracting.
Smoking when driving is distracting.
Are they going ban those?
Are they going to actually bother to enforce the not using a phone in your hand one before making a new stupid pointless law that will be almost impossible to detect at all?
Nothing Jeremy Clarkson about this - but a lot of Jeremy Beagle about you.
0
0
Sorry, that's all very well, but we cannot just ban things because they have a bad side effect. We need to apply cost benefit analysis and act with consistency. For example are you able to explain to me how hands free calls are worse than talking to a passenger in the back, especially if they are unruly children?
0
0
stop talking sense Guy!
0
0
No - I said at 14:02 that I don't know how it compares to other forms of distraction. I'm all for a proper analysis as to how it compares with other forms of distraction and consideration as to what can realistically be implemented.
0
0
Banning Stuff is almost always a Bad Thing.
I would have thought you would agree with that.
0
0
Sorry, it is not a question of "not knowing" it is blindingly obvious talking to a passenger in the back must be just as distracting as talking to somebody hands free on a phone. You don't need to do "research" to establish that.
0
0
How many people have died on our roads, ever, due to hands free phone conversations? If it’s less than, say, 100, then I don’t care about hands free phone conversations as a road safety risk, and they should fook off.
0
0
As the OP says:
Why don't these aunts just fook off ?
0
0
Guy you so, so do need to measure the impact on concentration of various forms of distraction rather than just rely on what you (think you) know, you daft bugger.
Or, put another way, is it not better to do that form of testing?
That’s exactly how they have worked out that handsfree is as dangerous as handheld. I am sure it was thought “blindingly obvious” at the time that handheld was worse.
0
0
re unruly children in the car, my father actually once turned round when we had gone suspiciously quiet in the back to see us crayoning on the back parcel shelf ( pale plastic in those days) and smacked us both whereupon he drove into the back of the car in front.
in the seventies, natch.
I think that if you ban hands free kits then you probably have to invent something which stops phones working at all in cars, otherwise we just go back to the days of people holding their phones while driving"
being able to use a phone in a car can actually contribute to safety in some cases.
0
0
LOL @ minkie’s dad and the 1970s approach to parenting (and driving).
Join the discussion