back to article Banning handheld phone use by drivers had NO effect on accident rate - study

Recent legislation banning the use of handheld phones by drivers had basically no effect on the number of road accidents, according to a new study. “If it’s really that dangerous, and if even just a fraction of people stop using their phones, we would expect to find some decrease in accidents,” says professor Daniel Kaffine, …

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I am not smart enough to find the original link, so I apolgise for the facebook link.

    This is the "logic" behind the ban.

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152524626537884&fref=nf

    I personally think texting while driving is the most bizarre and dangerous cell phone usage.

    The "logic" could be applied to any activity which distracts the driver. Radios (which if invented today would be illegal to operate), SatNavs, (which probably ought to be illegal to operate while moving), opstreperous knee-biters in the back seat and so on.

    1. Arctic fox
      Headmaster

      @AC 10.50 GMT 21/07 Re: "I personally think that texting while driving......."

      As far as texting while driving is concerned I entirely agree - utterly insane. It is simply not possible to both drive a car safely and at the same write text messages, an activity that also requires concentration. If one has to answer a text then pull over as soon as you can and then do it. As far as this study is concerned on the subject of talking on the phone I remain agnostic.

    2. Vicar

      Talking and Walking

      People can't even walk safely whilst talking on the phone. Try negotiating a double fire door at work with someone in the phone! It could be that maybe driving needs less attention than walking.

      I've found that if I'm taking to someone sitting next to me, then they can see the reasons why I sometimes don't respond immediately. Maybe I'm overtaking or there's a roadblock ahead.

    3. J.G.Harston Silver badge

      But you don't operate a radio while driving. You turn it on when you get into the car and turn if off when you get out.

      1. VinceH

        "But you don't operate a radio while driving. You turn it on when you get into the car and turn if off when you get out."

        Sadly, while that should be the way things are (and it certainly works for me), the reality is probably that people don't like this song, so tune to another radio station, or don't want to listen to this CD again, so fumble around ejecting that one and finding another - all while driving.

        (Yes, a CD player is not a radio, but Mr Average Joe may very well call that thing in his car a radio even if he doesn't use the radio function - although stereo is more likely).

      2. MrXavia

        "But you don't operate a radio while driving. You turn it on when you get into the car and turn if off when you get out."

        Actually I change stations sometimes.... That is why I have controls on my steering wheel....

        But usually I choose a playlist before I leave, then if I need to change it, I pull over...

    4. chivo243 Silver badge
      Pint

      Yes, excelent demonstration, saw the video last week, even forwarded the link to friends. I hope it saves lives!

      Have a pint, but not on the road!

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Banning handheld phone use by drivers had NO effect on handheld phone use by drivers"

    There we go, fixed it for you.

    1. James 51

      I cycle a lot and the drivers who concern me most aren't always on the phone but there is a lot of dangerous driving done by drivers on the phone. Though maybe they are just careless in general. That's why these kind of studies are so difficult. But still, it's against the law but I still see a lot of people doing it.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "But still, it's against the law but I still see a lot of people doing it."

        So report it then! I am so tired of people saying "I see it all the time" but they never report the drivers or attempt to collect evidence!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          WTF?

          Do tell...

          "So report it then! I am so tired of people saying "I see it all the time" but they never report the drivers or attempt to collect evidence!"

          So we report it and then what?

          Oh I see I'm supposed to whip out a camera, focus, get a photo of the driver, then one of the car along with the reg plate..all in about 5 seconds flat!

          Genius.

          1. Rocket_Rabbit

            Re: Do tell...

            I ride to work with a helmet cam for this reason. You can see the phone users a mile off as they shimmy about and border the lane. That and they don't see fit to get out of the outside lane despite dawdling along and nothing in the inside lane. I have quite a few reg plates and face on camera :)

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Do tell...

              > I have quite a few reg plates and face on camera :)

              So you're operating a surveillance camera? Is that legal?

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Do tell...

                So you're operating a surveillance camera? Is that legal?

                For private use, yes - that's equivalent to taking pictures on the public road. It gets different if its use is commercial, so if he seeks to make money of what he has filmed he might find himself in trouble soon (use to shore up insurance claims after an accident is not deemed commercial, so that's quite OK).

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Do tell...

                  > For private use, yes - that's equivalent to taking pictures on the public road.

                  Not the same thing at all. Photography in a public place is OK if used for private and domestic purposes. You are pre-emptively monitoring individuals and collecting personal information about them to be used in the event of a road traffic incident. This is surveillance and is subject to a different set of rules.

                  1. Naughtyhorse

                    Re: Do tell...

                    Just like PRISM

                    but instead of the might of the US government you just have a cunt on a bike.

                  2. Adrian Midgley 1

                    And for other

                    purposes.

              2. Rocket_Rabbit

                Re: Do tell...

                Yes it's legal because those people are needlessly endangering my life. When there is an incident, the first thing the guilty party does is blame you. So next time you see a cyclist/motorcyclist there is a good chance you're being filmed because the majority of car drivers are too busy mucking about and not paying attention whether it's texting or zoned out because they have't had their morning coffee :)

            2. Ken Hagan Gold badge

              Re: Do tell...

              "I ride to work with a helmet cam for this reason."

              Car drivers can get dashboard cameras, too. I think this will become increasingly common. A relative was involved in an accident recently and pleasantly surprised to discover that one of the cars coming the other way was a driving instructor with a dash-cam and so there was HD video footage of the whole thing. Made the insurance paperwork *much* easier.

              I can see a time coming when you get a reduction in your premium if you have cameras on your car. This is not because it lets your insurance company screw you when it was your fault, but rather because it makes it so much harder for the other guy's insurance company to argue when it was his fault.

          2. Christopher E. Stith
            Joke

            Re: Do tell...

            Yes, because holding a phone or other camera steady long enough to get a clear picture of one moving car from another moving while driving is much safer than holding the phone to one's ear.

        2. LucreLout

          "So report it then! I am so tired of people saying "I see it all the time" but they never report the drivers or attempt to collect evidence!"

          Yeah, don't do this.

          AC - Try reporting everyone you see using a phone behind the wheel. I'll bet you don't make it to August 1st before your local police send someone round for a chat about police time/resources etc.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Reply Icon

          "But still, it's against the law but I still see a lot of people doing it."

          So report it then! I am so tired of people saying "I see it all the time" but they never report the drivers or attempt to collect evidence!

          And exactly how are *you* reporting them? By phone?

          :)

        4. James 51

          I don't have a camera on my helmet (whiich I suppose I could rectify) and licence plates can be dirty (little more difficult). I have enough problems with the ocassional ejit trying to spook me by blasting a horn and shouting at me or waving their arm out of the window as they speed past without putting a big target on my back. Plus I've had things like oil being stolen from the tank in my garden and the police didn't even call out when I reported it. Just because you hand the police a conviction on a plate doesn't mean they'll do anything about it.

        5. Rob Gr

          Yeah, nothing could go wrong...

          As a cyclist, who regularly sees this behaviour in the UK (similar laws apply), I canniot recommend attempting to photograph the driver - many drivers get irate when you do such things, and you're pretty vulnerable on a bike.

          Personally, I've had drivers swerve to try and hit, or at least scare me, while cycling for such small things as giving them the finger (after they'd nearly killed me), so attempting to photograph them could lead to a drastically decreased life expectancy for the cyclist.

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

        6. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. Irongut

        re : James 51

        Cycling through a red traffic light is against the law but I see a majority of cyclists doing it. For some reason they think the highway code does not apply to them.

        1. James 51

          Re: re : James 51

          As do I occasionally but the police don't seem to be doing much about that either. I doubt it is the majority of cyclists doing it though, only the majority of cyclists you notice (or at least you don't notice them till they are going through a red light). I see far more car drivers do it but then there are far few cyclists in the road, you can start on the percentage of the total who do such things etc etc. Lot of kilometrage in that argument.

          1. Down not across

            Re: re : James 51

            As do I occasionally but the police don't seem to be doing much about that either.

            Ah, that makes alright then?

            It's still against the highway code.

            1. James 51

              Re: re : James 51

              Ah, that makes alright then?

              No, my point is that both cyclists and motorists jump red lights and it is wrong to condemn the entirety of either group for the actions of (hopefully) a few. The police have a duty to stop anyone from doing so but I have never seen that traffic rule enforced on either a cyclist or a motorist the spot.

        2. oddie

          Re: re : James 51

          "Cycling through a red traffic light is against the law but I see a majority of cyclists doing it. For some reason they think the highway code does not apply to them."

          As both a cyclist and a motorist I mostly agree with you.. (I don't know if its the majority that jump red lights)... when cyclists jump red lights (even if it is 'safe' to do so) it creates the idea that they don't follow traffic rules and are somehow different to the other parts of the traffic. As a cyclist I disslike it when they do as it just re-inforces the idea that if you are on a bike you don't really follow the traffic rules and it generates animosity between cyclists and other members of traffic. When I'm driving I disslike it as I don't know what they are going to do next.. sverve into another lane without indicating? I'm afraid I could hit and hurt someone :(

          I don't jump red lights on my bike (or in my car), and usually if I am standing at a junction (with my bike) other cyclicts won't jump either if I get there first.. but every so often I will see someone standing at the front, waiting; not for the lights to change, but for the road to empty so they can pedal across while it is still red. I don't think its the majority, BUT.. I cycle on a fairly busy road, so less chance of 'safe' jumps and I probably don't see as many as I would if I was on 'empty' roads.. but it certainly is enough to be a 'thing'.

          Long way of saying that there are cyclists that don't like cyclists that jump red lights either :(

          The solution is very simple: red means stop, yellow means get ready (at least on driving tests), green means go :)

          edit: forgot to quote post.

          1. Smig

            Re: re : James 51

            Green means you may go if the way forward is clear.

            Just saying.

          2. David 18

            Re: re : James 51

            "The solution is very simple: red means stop, yellow means get ready (at least on driving tests), green means go :)"

            Er, no. Amber means stop, along with red and red/amber, especially on your driving test!

            1. Identity
              Go

              Re: re : James 51

              Really? In Massachusetts, green means go and red means go...

            2. Naughtyhorse

              Amber means stop, along with red and red/amber, especially on your driving test

              explains him being a cyclist then dont it

        3. Rob Gr

          Re: re : James 51

          A majority? Really. Empirical evidence please, or is it just that they're the only one's you notice.

        4. Boring Bob

          Re: re : James 51

          Virtually all pedestrians will cross the road if the red man is showing and it is safe to do so. For some reason they (i.e. everybody) think the highway code does not apply to them. What is the difference between a cyclist passing through a red light when it is safe and a pedestrian (i.e. you) doing the same?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: re : James 51

            One is illegal, the other isn't. Pedestrians have priority on any road, other than a motorway and are not controlled by traffic (key is in the word) lights or signs.

            1. Captain Hogwash

              Re: Pedestrians ... are not controlled by traffic (key is in the word) lights or signs.

              That's correct in the UK. I understand it's not correct in the USA and so might not be elsewhere too.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: re : James 51

              The key is in what word ? Pedestrian ?

              If you think the key word is "traffic" then I can only presume that you have never heard the phrase "pedestrian traffic", to refer to... pedestrians.

              The lights facing the pedestrians on a PELICAN crossing control the pedestrians just as much as the lights facing the vehicular traffic control those (apart from cyclists, who apparently consider themselves neither pedestrian nor vehicular, or to alternate as suits).

              Similarly the lights at a level crossing... or, what... ? You think that trains will give way to pedestrian traffic because the stop lights don't apply to them ?

              I think perhaps you should check your Highway Code.

              You appear to have confused the need for vehicular traffic when turning to give way to pedestrians WHO HAVE ALREADY STARTED TO CROSS THE ROAD they are turning into. There is otherwise no overriding priority for pedestrians on the road. They are road users like any other and are expected and required to abide to rules that apply to them.

              1. Tom 38

                Re: re : James 51

                You appear to have confused the need for vehicular traffic when turning to give way to pedestrians WHO HAVE ALREADY STARTED TO CROSS THE ROAD they are turning into. There is otherwise no overriding priority for pedestrians on the road. They are road users like any other and are expected and required to abide to rules that apply to them.

                You need to actually read the highway code as it relates to pedestrians, Mr AC.

                The number of things which pedestrians have to obey are marked with the word MUST bolded and in capitals - hey, its just like an RFC. There are only 4 rules which pedestrians must obey, the others are simply advice on how best to use the road:

                Motorways. Pedestrians MUST NOT be on motorways or slip roads except in an emergency

                Moving vehicles. You MUST NOT get onto or hold onto a moving vehicle.

                You MUST NOT loiter on any type of crossing.

                Railway level crossings. You MUST NOT cross or pass a stop line when the red lights show,

              2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

                Re: re : James 51

                "Similarly the lights at a level crossing..."

                I think you'll find that the road crosses the railway line, not the other way around so you are on railway property under railway rules and laws.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: re : James 51

            What is the difference between a cyclist passing through a red light when it is safe and a pedestrian (i.e. you) doing the same?

            Agility. Pedestrians have a much greater range of senses to detect if they are about to get themselves killed, and can change direction pretty much at will. Cyclists move at higher speeds, look generally only ahead (their range of vision is in the 150° range forward) and need to brake/swerve to change their position.

          3. Whiskers

            Re: re : James 51

            In the UK 'Highway Code', only those rules expressed as MUST or MUST NOT actually have the force of law; all the others are advisory (although they may be taken into account if an accident leads to legal action).

            Pedestrians:

            18

            At all crossings. When using any type of crossing you should

            always check that the traffic has stopped before you start to cross or push a pram onto a crossing

            always cross between the studs or over the zebra markings. Do not cross at the side of the crossing or on the zig-zag lines, as it can be dangerous.

            You MUST NOT loiter on any type of crossing.

            Laws ZPPPCRGD reg 19 & RTRA sect 25(5)

            Cyclists:

            64

            You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.

            Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129

            69

            You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.

            Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)

            <https://www.gov.uk/browse/driving/highway-code>

            So the little green and red men are advisory only for pedestrians crossing the road, but the big red amber and green traffic lights at road junctions are obligatory for cyclists just as they are for motor vehicles.

            1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: re : James 51

              "So the little green and red men are advisory only for pedestrians crossing the road, but the big red amber and green traffic lights at road junctions are obligatory for cyclists just as they are for motor vehicles."

              Spot on. And by definition, a zebra crossing is just a courtesy where politeness is expected to be at a maximum by all concerned, A vehicle only has to stop if someone is on the crossing. If someone is standing at a crossing waiting, a driver does not HAVE to stop. So, in effect, a zebra crossing has no real effect other than to remind a driver that a pedestrian in the road has more right of way than an oncoming vehilce sin ce the same zebra crossing "rules" apply at all times even when there is no crossing.

          4. James 51

            Re: re : James 51

            It is legal for them to use their judgement and cross when the light is red for them. It is illegal for any road user to do the same (not sure how that would work out if you had a problem with a horse, particular if something spooked it).

            I know is the US they'd be charged with jaywalking. I was going to make a flippant comment about crazy laws but I am sure we have a few of those too.

          5. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: re : James 51

            ... here (in an un-named european country) relative to a motorist, the cyclist and pedestrian are the same. They are both "weak" (as opposed to strong) and as such the "strong" actors (cars and trucks) have an absolute responsibility not to run over them. This is a sub-optimal way of looking at things, as it promotes an "I am always in the right" attitude from the cyclists and pedestrians.

            The most egregious act I see regularly, and which was responsible for 2 accidents in which I was present, involved cyclists riding the wrong way around roundabouts causing all sorts of havoc as the motorists are all looking the other way. It is pretty horrible watch a car flatten a cyclist and have to make evasive maneuvers, afterwards to call ambulance, cops etc. and then explain to the plod that it was the cyclist's fault.

            The number of cyclists with a very apparent death wish is astonishing.

          6. Naughtyhorse

            Re: re : James 51

            so you are the type of cyclist that ignores red lights then....

            and when you are killed doing it, it will be the drivers fault.

            and not 'all' people cross against a red. In fact this very weekend me and 10 or so of my mates were out on the piss, and traversing town from pub to pub on 2 occasions we waited at red lights even though there was no traffic coming. (and to be fair taking the piss out of ourselves as we did it!)

            apparently it's more common in germany

          7. paulc

            Re: re : James 51

            because it is not illegal to cross the crossing with a red man showing, merely extremely unadvisable?

            Just gone through the rules for pedestrians and there's a distinct lack of the phrase "MUST NOT" for any crossings so therefore it isn't illegal.

            The only thing about pedestrian crossings that isa actually against the law is that you MUST NOT loiter on them...

            http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/1-35-rules-for-pedestrians

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "maybe they are just careless in general"

        I suspect this is it. People I know of who make handheld phone calls in the car also are involved in other risky behaviour. My guess is that the unsafe drivers are just as unsafe whatever laws you pass. The people who stopped making phone calls in the car were the ones who were careful about doing it anyway.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like