Deterring mobile phone use

reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Deterring mobile phone use

Post by reohn2 »

Psamathe wrote:I remember many years ago in the days when speed trap detectors worked yet were illegal in France, it was always said that if you were caught with one (in France) the officers would politely ask you to give it to them to look at, they would politely take it and place in directly in front of your front wheel then ask you to pull the car forwards a bit and ... no more speed trap detector. Of course it was you (the driver) who had actually destroyed your own device so you could complain to yourself for driving over your own illegal detector ...

Ian


The problem with such an approach is that this is the UK,and in the UK it wouldn't be long before a Bobbie doing such a thing would be set up by a perpetrator(s),fined,sacked without notice and that would put paid to that approach.

The answer to the whole problem initially is detection,followed by a no wriggle room harsh sentence.
As it is there's little risk of detection due to a far less than adequate police force,and the penalties are minimal.
If as Vorpal posted a fail safe electronic system is available so a mobile can't be used by the driver then why isn't it in operation presently?
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Psamathe
Posts: 17646
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Deterring mobile phone use

Post by Psamathe »

reohn2 wrote:....
If as Vorpal posted a fail safe electronic system is available so a mobile can't be used by the driver then why isn't it in operation presently?

I suspect for a combination of reasons. Technology to prevent the driver operating their mobile would be "challenging" as you need to be able to identify the driver and their phone (i.e. distinguish between a driver's phone and a passenger's phone). And then need some means to prevent the passenger "declaring" themselves as driver so the driver can "unlock" their own phone.

Then there are the commercial considerations - no mobile phone company is going to risk sales/profits by unilaterally introducing a restrictive system system that locks out drivers phones (or restricts them) - they would immediately lose out massively to competitors (an impact of our system where £££ is placed as highest priority and "doing the right thing" does not even appear on the list of considerations).

So any action along those lines would need the government to introduce new laws. By the time they have gone through consultations, identified and approved technology, given the vehicle and phone manufacturers warning and time to introduce (several more years) it will all be out of date or superseded anyway.

I (unfortunately) believe that smaller incremental steps are probably all that can be achieved (that will have lower impact but can be introduced quicker and easier) e.g. the new cars supplied with car radios must include bluetooth hands free functionality. Plus more enforcement and tougher penalties plus campaigns to make such behaviour socially unacceptable. Thinking about it, drink driving changes were implemented without any real "technology" preventing people from breaking the law.

Vulnerable road users "who don't even pay for the roads" will be campaigning against those "forward looking" business people who drive around cutting the deals that are making Britain great again ... (and guess who will win that battle when it goes out to "consultation - and I don't accept those arguments/comments but they would be made to any government consultation)".

I do agree we have the technology to make it impossible for people to use their phones whilst driving but I can't see a practical way forward for that to be introduced if we are to keep our current priorities in society. Even introducing minor software changes in phones such that they will only operate handsfree if moving above e.g. 20 mph without a Wi-Fi signal (and will silent any mail/tweet/Facebook/etc notifications) would meet unbelievable resistance as it would also impact e.g. passengers (I would say "so what - buy a hands free kit" but that would not be accepted against the very vocal objections).

Ian
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Deterring mobile phone use

Post by mjr »

Psamathe wrote:Even introducing minor software changes in phones such that they will only operate handsfree if moving above e.g. 20 mph without a Wi-Fi signal (and will silent any mail/tweet/Facebook/etc notifications) would meet unbelievable resistance as it would also impact e.g. passengers (I would say "so what - buy a hands free kit" but that would not be accepted against the very vocal objections).

Well, yes, as some people would want it overbroad like the above. What's the problem with message notifications? Are they really any more distracting than the traffic alerts on the car stereo?

And what's with the "without a Wi-Fi signal" exclusion? Won't people just use mobile hotspots then? (What some brand called Mi-Fi IIRC)

Disclosure: I have my phone set to read out message and missed call notifications while I'm driving. I then either act on the information (changed appointment location or whatever), pull over and stop in a safe place to return an urgent message, or wait until my next scheduled stop and deal with it then. I don't need to look at or touch my phone while driving to do this. I don't think hands-free calling while driving is safe enough, either - as others have suggested, the law is lagging behind current research evidence on that.

I also feel that satnavs and dashcams should have to have detailed controls where they cannot be reached from the normal driving position, too. Maybe OK and cancel buttons on the wheel or similar, like how car stereos often have a "dismiss traffic alert" button on the wheel (handy for those times atmospheric skip and/or strange transmitter service areas brings you someone waffling about roads 150 miles away which you really don't need to hear), but entering new addresses and stuff should be made impossible while driving.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Psamathe
Posts: 17646
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Deterring mobile phone use

Post by Psamathe »

mjr wrote:
Psamathe wrote:Even introducing minor software changes in phones such that they will only operate handsfree if moving above e.g. 20 mph without a Wi-Fi signal (and will silent any mail/tweet/Facebook/etc notifications) would meet unbelievable resistance as it would also impact e.g. passengers (I would say "so what - buy a hands free kit" but that would not be accepted against the very vocal objections).

Well, yes, as some people would want it overbroad like the above. What's the problem with message notifications? Are they really any more distracting than the traffic alerts on the car stereo?

And what's with the "without a Wi-Fi signal" exclusion? Won't people just use mobile hotspots then? (What some brand called Mi-Fi IIRC)
...

Just thinking aloud. message notifications silenced as they would prompt the driver to pick-up their phone to e.g. see the baby photo a friend has just Tweeted - basically a prompt that your phone needs you to look at it.

The "without Wi-Fi signal" is a thought to make it less likely that the e.g. above 20mph would block non-car use. You would not normally get a WiFi signal in you car but, if moving above 20 mph on e.g. a train you often would have Wi-Fi signal (even if you were not associated with the connection). so the Wi-Fi signal would override the "above 20 mph" lock to allow use on e.g. trains. I'm sure the "in your car" rules need to be improved on my suggestion and I agree that some higher end cars have in-car internet available - but they also probably have hands free through their car radios which would lower the probability of people holding their phones.

The difficulty as I see it is that getting the full technical scheme to prevent people from breaking the law would never get through Government and even if it eventually did it would be out of date before it actually got implemented in any significant %age of vehicles. So in practice we need cruder, less adequate but implementable alternatives.

Just thoughts (far from perfect but to lower the occasions where phone locked unnecessarily).

mjr wrote:Disclosure: I have my phone set to read out message and missed call notifications while I'm driving. I then either act on the information (changed appointment location or whatever), pull over and stop in a safe place to return an urgent message, or wait until my next scheduled stop and deal with it then. I don't need to look at or touch my phone while driving to do this. I don't think hands-free calling while driving is safe enough, either - as others have suggested, the law is lagging behind current research evidence on that.

Valid point - they allow phones to read out such messages and block just the "beep beep" noise that prompts people to pick-up their phone. Or allow the beep and block the screen display/touch input so driver has to stop before picking-up the phone.

mjr wrote:I also feel that satnavs and dashcams should have to have detailed controls where they cannot be reached from the normal driving position, too. Maybe OK and cancel buttons on the wheel or similar, like how car stereos often have a "dismiss traffic alert" button on the wheel (handy for those times atmospheric skip and/or strange transmitter service areas brings you someone waffling about roads 150 miles away which you really don't need to hear), but entering new addresses and stuff should be made impossible while driving.

I would agree. Maybe a set of strict rules and where a manufacturer wants to depart from those rules they can make their case as to why their proposals are safe, submit to authorities who will approve or reject those alternatives (maybe with the constraint that anything approved cannot be patented so other manufacturers can also use similar techniques ...). Just thinking aloud here.

Edited: A couple of edits to respond to mjr's other comments.
Ian
Last edited by Psamathe on 25 Jan 2017, 11:34am, edited 3 times in total.
Psamathe
Posts: 17646
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Deterring mobile phone use

Post by Psamathe »

One thought for additional punishment for people caught using their mobile phone whilst driving is for them to be banned from owning a mobile phone for a period. Their mobile number would be blocked and legally they would be forbidden from having a mobile phone (difficult to enforce because of PAYG but if caught e.g. giving a new number for others then they would be "done" for breaking that ban).

Logic is that in operating their phone whilst driving they have demonstrated that they are not capable of using their car in a responsible safe manner and they have demonstrated that they are not capable of using their mobile in a safe responsible manner - so should be banned from both for a period of time.

And arguments about "I need my mobile" should hold no weight as many live in areas of no mobile coverage, networks fail (does happen), SIMs fail, etc. and those that are affected do survive and their lives do go on.

Ian
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Deterring mobile phone use

Post by mjr »

Psamathe wrote:Just thinking aloud. message notifications silenced as they would prompt the driver to pick-up their phone to e.g. see the baby photo a friend has just Tweeted - basically a prompt that your phone needs you to look at it.

It's really not. Most smartphones can read out the messages (originally for vision-impaired access, but has other uses). It's only a prompt to pick up the phone if you're the sort of person who picks up the phone too often... and then you're probably going to be picking up the phone even when there's no notification just because you thought of some immensely cool thing that must be tweeted Right Now.

Psamathe wrote:And arguments about "I need my mobile" should hold no weight as many live in areas of no mobile coverage, networks fail (does happen), SIMs fail, etc. and those that are affected do survive and their lives do go on.

I agree. Also, if you need your mobile, don't fondle it while driving... but that's like saying if you need your car, don't keep driving criminally and we let motorists off that if they make a feeble excuse.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Psamathe
Posts: 17646
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Deterring mobile phone use

Post by Psamathe »

mjr wrote:
Psamathe wrote:Just thinking aloud. message notifications silenced as they would prompt the driver to pick-up their phone to e.g. see the baby photo a friend has just Tweeted - basically a prompt that your phone needs you to look at it.

It's really not. Most smartphones can read out the messages (originally for vision-impaired access, but has other uses). It's only a prompt to pick up the phone if you're the sort of person who picks up the phone too often... and then you're probably going to be picking up the phone even when there's no notification just because you thought of some immensely cool thing that must be tweeted Right Now.
...

Sorry, I edited my post to respond to your other comments - my edits and your response probably posted simultaneously.

I agree (particularly about phones reading out messages). Unsure about people obsessed with picking-up their phones "just to check in-case" particularly whilst driving - but as I don't suffer the phone obsession I probably don't appreciate how some people use their phones. Maybe wuld make my subsequent thought about ban from mobile if caught quite effective ?

Ian
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Deterring mobile phone use

Post by Vorpal »

Psamathe wrote:Sorry, I edited my post to respond to your other comments - my edits and your response probably posted simultaneously.

I agree (particularly about phones reading out messages). Unsure about people obsessed with picking-up their phones "just to check in-case" particularly whilst driving - but as I don't suffer the phone obsession I probably don't appreciate how some people use their phones. Maybe wuld make my subsequent thought about ban from mobile if caught quite effective ?

Ian

Many people use, or even rely on their phones for work. A company-issued mobile phone makes employees available 24-7 and many bosses expect their employees to either answer, or call back in a few minutes. I have had bosses contradict company policy about in-car phone use by implication, if not direct order. What can an employee do about something like that? Even whistlblower policies can't help there. Often only the boss and employee know what has occurred. A complaint or refusal to comply could very well mean someone losing their job.

Banning someone in that situation, even if it is feasible (the company may own the mobile phone & contract) may lead to job loss, anyway. IMO, there should be some penalty on companies that require that kind of phone vigilance. They all have policies that at least pay lip service to safety, so it may be difficult to get at that sort of cultural problem.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Psamathe
Posts: 17646
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Deterring mobile phone use

Post by Psamathe »

Vorpal wrote:
Psamathe wrote:Sorry, I edited my post to respond to your other comments - my edits and your response probably posted simultaneously.

I agree (particularly about phones reading out messages). Unsure about people obsessed with picking-up their phones "just to check in-case" particularly whilst driving - but as I don't suffer the phone obsession I probably don't appreciate how some people use their phones. Maybe wuld make my subsequent thought about ban from mobile if caught quite effective ?

Ian

Many people use, or even rely on their phones for work. A company-issued mobile phone makes employees available 24-7 and many bosses expect their employees to either answer, or call back in a few minutes. I have had bosses contradict company policy about in-car phone use by implication, if not direct order. What can an employee do about something like that? Even whistlblower policies can't help there. Often only the boss and employee know what has occurred. A complaint or refusal to comply could very well mean someone losing their job.....

I agree but also then a few offences and getting enough points for a ban will mean you can't drive so how can your company expect you to answer the phone whilst driving if you can't drive - so loss of job becomes a risk again and we sort of end-up with a situation where offenders cannot be punished because they might suffer hardship. Except others are punished because they can't prove hardship. Being contactable 24/7 is only any use if you can do your job and for many such people a significant part of that job will be travel to/from customers/company as and when needed.

Answer would be for such people or companies to provide e.g. a hands-free car radio (you can buy them for as little as £60). I agree with comments about increased risk even talking hands-free but maybe getting people to comply with the law would be a good start. Or even have people pull-in when phone without hands free goes off (and even on motorways you don't have to wait too long for a junction or services to pull off and stop on).

Ian
roubaixtuesday
Posts: 5814
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: Deterring mobile phone use

Post by roubaixtuesday »

Personally I think hands free should be illegal. Why? It's just as bad as speaking on a handset for driving, but makes the driver believe that are safe.


Driving while talking on a hands-free phone can be just as distracting as talking on a hand-held mobile phone, psychologists have found.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 100130.htm
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Deterring mobile phone use

Post by mjr »

Vorpal wrote:I have had bosses contradict company policy about in-car phone use by implication, if not direct order. What can an employee do about something like that? Even whistlblower policies can't help there. Often only the boss and employee know what has occurred. A complaint or refusal to comply could very well mean someone losing their job.

It may be that all an employee can do about this - or any other lawbreaking - is covertly record the boss issuing such an instruction, probably lose one's job for refusing to act criminally and start looking for another job while blowing the whistle to both the company board and the police. It takes some bravery but we should still encourage such heroes to act.

"My boss told me to break that law" doesn't seem like a valid defence and such bosses should be jailed for conspiracy or something and fired while law-abiding workers get promoted to take their place.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
AlaninWales
Posts: 1626
Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 1:47pm

Re: Deterring mobile phone use

Post by AlaninWales »

BrianFox wrote:Personally I think hands free should be illegal. Why? It's just as bad as speaking on a handset for driving, but makes the driver believe that are safe.


Driving while talking on a hands-free phone can be just as distracting as talking on a hand-held mobile phone, psychologists have found.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 100130.htm

Extremely odd conclusion given the study (but not unexpected, these studies tend to limit their conclusions to how mobile phone use impacts drivers rather than the wider implications of distracted driving. It is almost as if they are avoiding the conclusion that driving is hard work and requires concentration!
Dr Hole says anything which causes drivers to imagine something visually, including passengers, can interfere with driving performance because the two tasks compete for similar processing resources.

Now that is a valid conclusion from the study, and deseves to be more widely publicised. However he goes on to make unsupported comments that excuse other distractions as irrelevant for some reason:
He said, "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."

The good Dr knows different passengers to me! Apparently he has never been in a car where the driver turns around (on a country road at NSL) to chastise her children, or sat next to a chatty person who just won't shut up and expects answers regardless of what is happening outside. Passengers are frequently unable to drive themselves and lack the training to judge what a "road hazard" is, let alone to handily behave as the Dr suggests. As for the "non-verbal cues" available from passengers, is the Dr suggesting it is good driving practice to look at your passengers when conversing :shock: ?
Psamathe
Posts: 17646
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Deterring mobile phone use

Post by Psamathe »

Just come across relevant article (going through unread RSS)
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/24/apple-class-action-lawsuit-texting-driving-iphone-patent (24 Jan 2017) wrote:Apple sued for not using iPhone safety fix it patented to stop distracted driving

A California man has launched a class-action lawsuit against Apple for failing to introduce an iPhone safety feature that would prevent people from texting while driving.

Ceja is not seeking monetary damages but hopes to force Apple to implement the lockout mechanism or have sales of the iPhone halted in California. The lawsuit proposes a class of every person in California – more than 39 million people.
...
The case, filed in Los Angeles superior court on 17 January, follows a similar suit filed in Santa Clara superior county court late December. In that instance, a couple sued the iPhone maker after a driver, allegedly using FaceTime, collided with their car, resulting in the death of their five-year-old daughter. Bethany and James Modisette argued that Apple should be held accountable for the accident because it had not introduced the same safety featured, patented in 2014.
...
The patent describes a lockout mechanism that disables the mobile device from performing certain functions, such as texting and video calls, while behind the wheel. The patent filing acknowledges the dangers of distracted driving and highlights how hard it is for law enforcement to police.

“Texting while driving has become so widespread it is doubtful that law enforcement will have any significant effect on stopping the practice,” Apple wrote in the filing.


I have no idea about the likely outcome but even if these cases don't succeed, I guess they do represent bad PR for the companies so might help exert additional pressure on the phone companies to start doing something (and I guess with the number of phones out there even small things could help at least a bit).

Ian
Bonefishblues
Posts: 11009
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Deterring mobile phone use

Post by Bonefishblues »

thirdcrank wrote:
Bonefishblues wrote: ... Which is all good, but I think that the biggest factor is how socially unacceptable it became and remains. In absolute terms there's little chance of being apprehended.


It's chicken and egg of course, but at what point did failing a breathalyser become socially unacceptable? I remember the introduction of the Road Safety Act very well: we learnt the old rules, so to speak during initial training at district training centre and shortly after being let out into the real world, we had local training about the new-fangled breathalyser. One of the main items of interest in the breathalyser training was how much could be downed without risking a failure. Older colleagues were quick to urge caution, suggesting, for example that a breath test would only be appropriate in a case where a doctor would have previously be called: ie, if the suspect could more or less stand up, leave them be. Around here at least, there seemed to be a lot of opposition from many doctors, not least I suspect because many valued the medicinal effects of a few sherbets. I've posted before that my own view was largely formed by seeing a doctor on telly saying that a policeman with a breathalyser was a very good public health inspector.

One point about social acceptability is that the venue for a breathalyser charge is the magistrates' court as this offence is summary trial only: no scope for getting it in front of a jury. That's something to be born in mind by anybody urging heavy custodial sentences for mobile phone use. If a defendant has a right to trial by jury, that offers a better chance of acquittal which is greatly increased if the jury can be persuaded that a defendant risks years locked up for something that can be characterised as relatively trivial.

The point about the tiny chance of being caught is one I've consistently made. I've also made the point in that connection that mobile phone use is very easily seen by anybody so they know how much of it is going on unpunished. Driving "under the influence" is not immediately visible in the same way.

I sense we are agreeing?
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Deterring mobile phone use

Post by thirdcrank »

Bonefishblues wrote: ... I sense we are agreeing?


It would be good to think so. I try to set out my arguments - and any supporting evidence when they are more than opinions - at some length so there's less chance of being misunderstood. My embarrassingly high post count includes a high word count. :oops:
Post Reply