Hands free mobile calls

[Shaun Walsh]

There was a recent case were someone was found not guilty of using a handheld mobile phone because they were neither texting nor making a phone call.

You can use a handheld mobile phone if you are parked with the engine off and handbrake on.

[G-JIMG]

If the police catch you with a mobile phone in your hand, or see you looking down at one, it constitutes the same offence as if you were making a call.

Same offence? Not really.

Stu, You are applying common sense and logic. Unfortunately, neither has any place in English Law or Policing Policy.

[Nigel R]

"How different is a hands free conservation to a typical conversation with a passenger?"

If you are talking to a passenger, the passenger is easily able (well, in theory) to see when you are "busy driving" and not wanting to reply or continue the conversation until a hazard is passed or junction negotiated or whatever.

On the other end of a phone, hands free or not, does not have this ability, and will just talk at you, providing a distraction from the more important task at hand.

[John Bisset]

Years ago I had a policeman tick me off for eating an apple whilst stationary, engine off, in a motorway traffic jam. Yes, I was behind the wheel, but no-one was going anywhere, given the solid queue to the horizon.

Amused me and annoyed my kids, who thought it stupid.

[PatMc]

Posted by G-JIMG on 22/08/2019 16:36:44:

Posted by Peter Christy on 22/08/2019 14:04:19:

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but my Garmin Satnav has been dumped in favour of the Google Maps app on my phone!

The 'phone SatNav has more up-to-date maps, its free, and it has far more up-to-date traffic information! The Garmin was supposed to navigate you around congestion, but it only told you about it once you were in it! The Android satnav is far better at this, and I now use it exclusively.

So is this use of a 'phone going to be banned? And what about those 'phones that connect to the car radio for true hands-free operation? How on earth is this going to be policed?

Nothing reduces the credibility of the law more than unenforceable regulation.

--

Pete

It already has been banned! If the police catch you with a mobile phone in your hand, or see you looking down at one, it constitutes the same offence as if you were making a call. Telling them you were just using the mapping function does not change the offence, you are still 'using' a mobile.

Don't ask me how this is different to using an after market Sat Nav!!

They haven't been banned, but they must be in a fixed cradle etc same as an after market sat nav.

[PatMc]

Posted by Erfolg on 22/08/2019 16:56:31:

Patmac

It was a report in a local paper of a woman fined for having pulled over to the side a road, switched of the engine and called back who ever had rung her. It certainly surprised me. Apparently you are still in charge of the vehicle whilst in the driving seat, engine on or not, so it appears.

She may not have been parked safely.

From Highway code -

[Geoff S]

Posted by Nigel R on 22/08/2019 17:24:15:

"How different is a hands free conservation to a typical conversation with a passenger?"

If you are talking to a passenger, the passenger is easily able (well, in theory) to see when you are "busy driving" and not wanting to reply or continue the conversation until a hazard is passed or junction negotiated or whatever.

On the other end of a phone, hands free or not, does not have this ability, and will just talk at you, providing a distraction from the more important task at hand.

Exactly! I'm regularly a 'vulnerable road user' either walking on narrow lanes with no footpath or cycling and anything that distracts a driver is dangerous.

Geoff

[Erfolg]

No one wants to see any accidents occur that can or could have been avoided, by sensible measures, I expect.

I remain unconvinced that banning hands free or sat navs achieves that goal.

The suggestion that it is not possible for a convention to become the norm where a driver politely informs a caller that they are driving at present, is accepted and recognised as an indication that there could be a pause or the the conservation ended if the situation requires it. Just as a passenger in a vehicle will typically accept.

The extreme and most intrusive situation that is typical is the police operation, where conversations under extreme pressure with multiple distractions are ever present. Ban hands free, then logically the police force logically must be prevented in entering into any conservation or interaction whilst driving.

Many of the reports that emerge from pressure groups or in some cases academic circles do not bear scrutiny, the reasons can be many and varied. In the case of parliamentary working parties, due to the fine balance of the various parties, are more about making mischievous for the government than being constructive or balanced in their reporting.

From what has been written here, it seems what I thought was clear cut, is less so. That guilt and innocence could be dependent on your bank balance and resolve.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Cuban8]

I keep my phone in a slide in type wallet so you can't see the screen, the whole lot then either goes in the glove box or centre console safely out of the way. It'll auto answer and come through via blue tooth to the sat nav. If in the rare event that I need to call out, I'll stop and select the number via the sat nav screen. That is tricky, requires going through a couple of screens and then scrolling to the required number and selecting 'call'. Not what you want to be doing when driving, so I never do it.

Mentioned a while ago in another thread that I was looking to get back into motorcycling. Did the deed on Monday and a nearly new Triumph T100 Bonneville will be sitting in my garage within a week or so. Was looking forward to the luxury of comms between rider and pillion rather than all the shouting and hollering as it used to be. Apparently, even intercoms may well come under the ban, because clearly it's much safer to turn around and shout at your passenger whilst riding or have your pillion tapping you on the shoulder and drawing your attention to the next services sign.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Doc Marten on 22/08/2019 23:04:54:

Posted by Erfolg on 22/08/2019 22:35:32:.

.........The extreme and most intrusive situation that is typical is the police operation, where conversations under extreme pressure with multiple distractions are ever present. Ban hands free, then logically the police force logically must be prevented in entering into any conservation or interaction whilst driving...……..

That's not a logical comparison as emergency service drivers are trained and assessed in running commentary driving at high speed, members of the public are not.

Would it be any more logical that a retired or off duty police trained driver would be prosecuted for telling his wife that he was going to be home late? Or that a racing driver in a high performance car is not allowed to drive faster than a 17 year old driver of a barely roadworthy Corsa who had passed his test earlier that week?

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[MattyB]

I suspect this will be one of the many pieces of proposed legislation that are quietly forgotten in the coming months when the government finds itself with rather more important things to do (preventing us from running out of critical medicines, trying to stop major foreign companies relocating elsewhere etc).

[Erfolg]

It is not logical to compare favorably high speed driving under stress as OK, with citizens undergoing normal controlled activities.

The dangers of stress and speeds that are in excess of posted maximum speed, are inherently dangerous, especially when compounded by a requirement to communicate under said conditions. That is without consideration to what members of the public anticipate as they go about their every day activities.

In comparison hands free phones and passenger conversations are very safe.

[John Bisset]

I'm not quite sure what you mean there Erfolg.

By its nature, all driving is dangerous, it simply remains to determine what is acceptable.

(If we were starting from scratch in today's relatively risk averse society, manually operating large fast moving lumps of metal, containing highly flammable fluids, in close proximity to pedestrians, as happens in any city street, would never be allowed!)

Most drivers are minimally trained - all our 'test' requires and at best minimally competent. The variation in capability seen daily on our roads is astonishing. A well trained driver, with good reactions and understanding of the task & its limitations, focused alert and operating a well maintained vehicle is, I'd suggest, less of risk than many a wandering half awake stumbly who doesn't know (or care) how wide his car is, who indicates after starting to turn, who runs too close up behind and who can't even reverse park the brute!

What does 'posted maximum speed' have to do with it? That is an arbitrary value, often set without regard to the realities of the road - and it may be a dangerously high speed itself in some conditions. Just because it is legal doesn't make it sensible.

The police driver is also regularly assessed and given practice in emergency handling, which adds to his/her safety in operation. This is something I wish was applied to us all. I'd happily sit a retest every few years , as I do for flying. My capability is checked and further training and testing provided if necessary.

Martin Harris made a good point too - I'd love to see differentiation between new inexperienced drivers and experienced, trained ones, to allow variation in what is permitted. Of course the counterpoint would be that the penalties for error or trangression would be correspondingly more severe. This might help remind folk that to be allowed to drive is a PRIVILEGE not a right ! These are lethal weapons, the only ones most of us have easy access to.

And cuban8 - I wasn't aware there was a proposal to ban motorcycle intercoms. Now that is utterly absurd !

[Erfolg]

John

There is nothing more to be said, you cannot or will not see that, high stress and speeds in excess of the norm in public places present a high level risk, who ever is involved. Training and procedures together with protocols may reduce risk to a degree.

Yet compared to a conversation whilst driving the risk will remain significantly greater. I would contend that hands free phones fall into a normal conversation.

To reduce the risk of distraction even further. establishing a convention whilst being taught to operate a vehicle that it is the norm to cease any other activity until the unsual event has been resolved, could be seen as helpful. Yet in the real world this is self evident, in all human activities.

[John Bisset]

Erflog, Actually I agree with your comments - I do see that there is increased risk. My point was that good training of competent individuals can mitigate that. where reasonable justification exists.

I suspect that is mostly that you and I have different perceptions of 'acceptable risk', which would likely vary across the range of our various activities !

Cheers.

John

[Bob Cotsford]

As I see it, all rules and regulations are by their very nature compromises. They cannot possibly be written to take account of all variables so there are always going to be loopholes and inconsistancies.

I'm not emergency service trained so I'm going to make assumptions. Our trained police driver exceeding the speed limit while reporting back is very much a special circumstance. It's not how he'd drive out on patrol, it's in response to an emergency, hence different rules apply, and also the very reason for the verbal feedback logging his and his target's actions. It's also done using hands free devices, or by a second officer judging by the police chases shown on the 'fly on the wall' tv programs.

As for the untrained driver doing the same while navigating and manouvering in normal traffic? Different ball game, different risk strategy, different rules. I don't like passengers chatting to me while I'm driving never mind a phone conversation, but the satnav giving me directions I am happy with as she doesn't expect a response!

[Alan Jarvis]

My granddaughter is taking her driving test in two weeks. Part of the test requires her to follow a route on a Satnav. OK the route is set by the examiner but they are hardly going to ban them I would suggest.

[eflightray]

One of my pet hates is watching the driver in front of me talk to the passenger by always turning their head to took at the passenger when talking.

One of my late wife's pet hates was TV presenters who can't talk without waving their hands about. I hate to think what they are like when driving and talking.

It's a good job most all of us are perfect drivers

.

[Shaun Walsh]

My wife once asked me why I didn't talk to her when we were in the car, I replied that I was concentrating on driving. Thank god she believed me 😂

[Erfolg]

Alan I sincerely hope that you are correct in believing there is no intention in banning Sat Navs. Today in returning from Manchester I was totally reliant on my Sat nav in avoiding traffic jams on both the M61 and the M6. Without needing to read a map or any other distraction the sat nav guided me home.

Johns mention of risk reminded me that most of us, have no real understanding of risk. Many will Happily cross the road, undertake DIY or even do nothing, drive a car oblivious to the level of risk. Yet become agitated at the risk of air, rail or even surgery. Although both rail and air travel are comparatively low risk to skate boarding.

To some degree, many of us are happy enough of taking risks when we have a choice, although have a different view if imposed.

In the past I used risk assessment as tool in getting a team to plan an activity incurring the minimum acceptable risk. As risk is always there.

Another aspect of risk assessment was compiling a tender, in that not everything will go as planned, nor will everything turn, you know what. With modern software a set of numbers pours out of the run programme.

I have also witnessed how less than dispassionate Scientist are when required to justify R&D type expenditure to keep the team together and keep their jobs.

In essence I remain convinced that Hand Free Telephones are broadly as safe as a talking passenger. That is unless you give me a few thousands, then I am sure can construct some convincing research.

Oh, yep, I am Billy no mates, only had about 3 or 4 people phone me when driving. Then they decided I am so boring, the conversation could wait.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Tim Flyer]

I have always had some issue with “emergency driver police chase training “ as sadly the pedestrians or other road users who walk out or accidentally move out in front of vehicles traveling at excessive speeds will not have had the training. It’s sad but a ridiculous situation we endure primarily due to cost and political expediency. It would be easy for the government to regulate that vehicles must have ignition kill devices fitted which could then be accessed by our emergency services. That would negate the need for high speed police chases on our public roads. Sadly it doesn’t seem to be politically acceptable and as a society we are happier to sacrifice more lives than have our “freedom “ curtailed.

[Rich too]

Posted by Shaun Walsh on 22/08/2019 12:12:32:

There is a more basic reason why this is impossible to police, there aren't any! Just look at the number of people you see using a hand held phone because they know that the chances of being stopped are practically zero. It doesn't matter how many new laws you introduce if you can't enforce them you may as well not bother.

I agree with the OP but this is spot on. Budget cuts have seen transport police evaporate over the years and now you rarely see them. The general standard of driving has gone way down as a result. And we are unlikely to see them return any time soon.