Driving whilst using mobile phone

[Biker Biggles]

It does seem odd that you can take one hand off to smoke,fiddle with the radio or whatever because that shouldnt affect your concentration on driving,yet you cant use one hand to hold a phone.You can,however, use a hands free phone,but we all seem to agree its the talking on the phone which causes a lack of concentration on the driving.As so often the law is an ass so gets treated with contempt.

[Spiderman]

I'm sure it was Mythbusters who did a test between talking on a mobile and ebing over the drink drive limit and thus proved it to be just as dangerous.

IIRC they did various test, one being where the driver simply talked into a phone while holding it to his ear as he drove and the other being where he had to actively think about things like you would if you were actually having a serious conversation. The thinking element was what caused the issues. A psychologist said it was to do with the fact that the brain attempts to do 2 very "calculative" processes at once that causes the problem.

Originally Posted by Ed

I wish people would answer the question. Pete said that the bloke's driving was 'fine'. Not erratic.

Can't expect to raise a question of a large audience AND expect it not to go off at a tangent or have people introduce their own experiences Ed. Human nature.

Originally Posted by TazDaz

If at low speeds I see no difference between a driver talking down a phone, than talking to someone sat next to them.

But would he have noticed the X5 if he was speaking to a passenger? I can't explain why a phone is more distracting than a conversation with a passenger either, but I find that it is.

Maybe it's because

• Conversations with a passenger are usually much more casual in nature
• You can halt the conversation momentarily to deal with a traffic situation, because the passenger can see and understand exactly why you've done it, then resume when safe
• On the phone you only have your hearing and even that is compromised by signal quality, etc, so have to concentrate harder to pick up all the details, humour, sarcasm, happy, sad, etc
• With a passenger, you can glance them them and pick up facial expression and body language.

Words are only 7% of a normal conversation, with tone of voice 38% and body language 55%. So if that's face to face, then over the phone you are only getting half of the conversation, then introduce the task of driving, and perhaps a bad signal quality, and in my case a bit of hearing loss (which is why I use bluetooth through the car stereo, normal kits just aren't loud enough), and it's no wonder your driving goes to s**t.

[Stu]

How do we know he didn't see the X5?

Perhaps he just thought, well I'm only doing 10 he's never going to pull me for being on the phone.

I overtook 2 marked Police bikes who were filtering too slow for me. it's not as if I didn't see them, just that I considered I wasn't doing anything wrong.

They disagreed

Originally Posted by Stu

They disagreed

Did they book you or just have a word?

If he was mobile (driving) then it was right for him to get a ticket regardless of how slow he was moving, no excuses, law is law, yes i may bend the rules as far as speed goes but i know the risks & if i am caught then i'm caught but i have not, do not & will not drive whilst using a mobile.

BP - was this one of those situs where you have a guy with a walky-talky looking for "candidates" and once spotted, radios to a group down the road who then pull the "candidate" over?
I got the impression that in those situations, less discretion was allowed - is that the case?

I always thought I was ok looking at my phone when I was at traffic lights, but it seems not. I'm not sure where the line is drawn - could you clarify that?
And whilst I'm asking, what's the situ with being in a car when over the driving limit? I've slept in a car when I've been over the limit (never intending to drive, just ran out of floor space at the party I was at), but I was told afterwards that I could have been done for drink driving, unless keys were in the passenger-side glove compartment. Is that true?

As for whether you should have pulled him, I'd say yes. There are laws and ultimately he broke it. Each time I find I've crept over the speed limit, I know I've only got myself to blame, should I get caught.

Ta!

Originally Posted by TheOnlyNemesis

Yeah, the law states do not use a mobile while driving, no matter what the speed is, it is very clear and easy to understand. So what he wasn't moving fast, he might have decided to change lane real quick and have done so without proper attention because his distraction of the phone and hit a motorbike filtering or something. Law is simple in my eyes, wanna use a phone pull over and turn the engine off.

Big +1 to that.

I've read a few times that it isnt necessarily just the act of using the phone that is dodgy, but that people generally think about what they have just talked about for a good few minutes after, which from what I understand (if he stopped the call before he got there!) would mean that he was still not 100% focused on driving. IMO people should be 100% focused on it. After all is said and done he is still more dangerous for it.



Another one. Drunk driver 5 times over the limit, 10mph queue all the way home, should you book him? hmmm



Just so I've said it, I think people speeding get no real slack, and in my view it is not as bad as distractions like phones, food etc.

Originally Posted by rpwoodman

I've slept in a car when I've been over the limit (never intending to drive, just ran out of floor space at the party I was at), but I was told afterwards that I could have been done for drink driving, unless keys were in the passenger-side glove compartment. Is that true?

Read this thread from post #52 onwards

http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?t=140471

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

Read this thread from post #52 onwards

http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?t=140471

Interesting, thanks.
I always thought that I could be arrested for doing something, not possibly doing something, tho I guess the "possession of an offensive weapon" type laws are there to prevent a particular action.