# An end to texting and driving?



## classic33 (4 Dec 2014)

Rocket scientist's answer to texting and driving 
*A Rocket scientist's new idea could put an end to texting while driving with the hope of saving lives in the process.*

On May 8, 2008, Dave Sueper was driving to a business meeting when he was struck and killed by a distracted teenage driver who had run a red light. Scott Tibbitts, a chemical engineer and space entrepreneur who made motors for NASA, was the person Sueper was scheduled to meet that tragic morning, and he was deeply affected when he learned about the accident. Like Sueper, he was a father of two, and as an engineer he became fixated on finding a way to prevent another death from distracted driving.

"There has gotta be something that will fix this technically," Tibbitts said, "and this feeling — it just wouldn't let go." He had recently sold his space company, Starsys Research Corp., and was looking for a new professional challenge. He soon committed himself to finding a solution to the growing epidemic of texting while driving.

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, mobile phones are involved in 1.6 million auto crashes each year that cause a half million injuries and take 6,000 lives. Texting while driving has replaced drinking and driving as the leading cause of teen vehicular death, responsible for 20 per cent of all teen highway fatalities in the U.S.

There have been several attempts to curb this disturbing trend, most often with the use of apps on phones that tap into GPS signals to detect when a mobile phone is traveling more than 15 kilometres per hour and disable distracting features on the phone. But these apps can easily be overruled by the driver, and they don't make a distinction between a person traveling by car, public bus, bike or any other transport over 15 kilometres per hour.

This was the mystery that Tibbitts and his team at the new company he founded, Katasi, set out to solve. Their answer is Groove, a small device that plugs into a port located under the steering wheel (found in most cars made after 1996) and connects the car to the Internet.

Once each driver of the vehicle is registered with Groove, within seconds of a drive starting, Groove figures out who the driver is and notifies the person's phone carrier, allowing it to block distractions before they reach the phone. Once the car is turned off, Groove again notifies the carrier, and all blocked messages come rolling in, so nothing is missed.

In order for Groove to work seamlessly, it relies heavily on the partnership with mobile phone carriers. Katasi is working actively with two U.S. carriers to deploy Groove in 2015, but this, according to Tibbitts, is not enough.

"Our goal is to have every carrier on board with Groove, providing the capability to limit distractions before they get to the phone when a subscriber is driving" he said.

When Diane Misgen, the widow of Dave Sueper, learned what Tibbitts had developed in response to her husband's death, she was both honoured and hopeful that Groove will make a huge difference. Misgen said, "It was so reassuring to me that this was going to save so many lives. And I think for my kids, it's also heartwarming to know that someone else who had nothing to do with our family took on that challenge in honour of their dad."

To know more about Groove and find out whether it is available to you, visit Katasi.


----------



## slowmotion (4 Dec 2014)

It's a laudable crusade. I'm terrified of texting drivers and I see them on every motorway journey drifting across lanes or on to the hard shoulder with sudden, erratic corrections. The problem with the solution that you describe is that young texting drivers don't drive state of the art cars. They drive bangers, like me.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (4 Dec 2014)

But how many drivers would voluntarily register with Groove? I can't picture hordes of motorists queueing to sign up to this service . Court cases could conceivably result in drivers being forced to register their phones with Groove, at which point a lot of them would just get other phones - there, annoying "problem" solved, as far as the driver's concerned.


----------



## summerdays (4 Dec 2014)

Would the phone still be able to other things, some useful and some not? For example we use a phone as a sat nav, which is useful, but I've also seem them being used to entertain the driver when bored. I guess I would accept having to buy another sat nav if it would result in fewer deaths.


----------



## Recycle (4 Dec 2014)

Good idea, but it will only work if fitting the device becomes mandatory and it can't be disabled or circumvented by the driver.


----------



## the_mikey (4 Dec 2014)

Google already have a mobile interface for Android devices that restricts what can be done with the phone when it's synchronised with the car entertainment system, in return for this it allows for certain uses such as sat nav or audio pkayback/Spotify through the existing car entertainment system, and messaging services are restricted by the OS while synchronised with the car. 

That said, it's only defeating a mobile phone, it can't prevent drivers from putting on make-up, Reading newspapers, tablets, or using laptops with Mobile data access, which just means people will move to the next device or service that circumvents the problem.


----------



## Tin Pot (4 Dec 2014)

Thick people will always behave in a thick way. 

Technology cannot fix thickness.


----------



## Drago (4 Dec 2014)

Give them an automatic years ban. If they ain't on the road, they can't do it.


----------



## winjim (4 Dec 2014)

Sounds like a device that shifts the burden of responsibility onto the actual car.


----------



## Recycle (4 Dec 2014)

winjim said:


> Sounds like a device that shifts the burden of responsibility onto the actual car.


Indeed, but our police and judicial system seems incapable of placing the burden of responsibility on the driver.


----------



## winjim (4 Dec 2014)

Drago said:


> Give them an automatic years ban. If they ain't on the road, they can't do it.


You need to catch them first. Maybe instead of blocking the phone, the device could simply detect when it's being used and automatically contact the DVLA to get their licence suspended.


----------



## bianchi1 (4 Dec 2014)

The solution still does not adequately address the 'passenger' point. Why, if an individual is driving, can a passenger not use that drivers phone...answering calls, checking sat nav etc. I know a few couples that share a phone contract and would find this solution a problem.

I'm with @Drago...huge fine, long ban and massive insurance premiums.


----------



## Recycle (4 Dec 2014)

winjim said:


> You need to catch them first. Maybe instead of blocking the phone, the device could simply detect when it's being used and automatically contact the DVLA to get their licence suspended.


The DM misreported (surprise surprise) that mobiles would be checked after crashes:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-wheel-bid-cut-deaths-distracted-drivers.html
Turned out to be not true for all sorts of privacy reasons (which doesn't seem to stop GCHQ). 
IMO when they test for alcohol they should also check mobile phones.

* Health warning: It is strongly advised that you wash your eyes out with industrial detergent after reading the Daily Mail.


----------



## G3CWI (4 Dec 2014)

classic33 said:


> cause a half million injuries and take 6,000 lives.



It's interesting to compare these figures with the current Ebola outbreak. Only one gets wide coverage and is a "crisis".


----------



## Ganymede (4 Dec 2014)

Gosh yes, what's the Ebola crisis? I've not heard about that at all...

Seems to me that this endeavour, while praiseworthy, is very complex for the size of the problem. All the phone operators would have to be willing to do the switching on and off, which would presumably be triggered even if a person took a short hop in the car, which could be several times a day. Although the problem is far too widespread - I mean, it's not like drink driving, where you could safely guess that most people never do it - I think it would be tricky to get the massive amount of collaboration that this would require. And then legislation, otherwise it would simply not be in every car.


----------



## Recycle (4 Dec 2014)

Ganymede said:


> I mean, it's not like drink driving, where you could safely guess that most people never do it


 Drink driving underwent a social change because of a concerted propaganda campaign. It morphed from something that drivers bragged about - "my car went home on autopilot last night" - to something to be ashamed of. That helps but shame is different from guilt (guilt in the personal rather than legal sense) in that shame is the result of a social misdemeanor and something that you would still do if there is a reasonable chance of not being found out, whereas guilt is the consequence of doing something that troubles your own conscience regardless of being found out. Drink driving unfortunately still accounts for far too many casualties.


----------



## jonesy (4 Dec 2014)

As it is so easy to spot examples of this sort of thing every day, it really shouldn't be hard for the police to catch lots of offenders every day. Some proper sentences and publicity would send the message that this is taken seriously and you have a good chance of being caught. Depressingly, lorry drivers seem to be regular mobile offenders, much of which must be happening with the knowledge of their employer. But if offending drivers had to take their vehicle to a police compound, leave it there and then make their own way home, so the haulier's customers got inconvenienced, it might focus their minds a bit.


----------



## Sharky (4 Dec 2014)

Rather than inventing ways of stopping people from texting, perhaps a little lateral thinking can come up with a solution to alow texting whilst driving.

By this, I mean something that is completely hands free, a built in docking station in the glove box so there is no temptation to use the device and full use of automatic text to speech and voice recognition and full control via the latter.

Make it safe and desirable, then people will want it and everybody will be safer.


----------



## palinurus (4 Dec 2014)

Tin Pot said:


> Thick people will always behave in a thick way.
> 
> Technology cannot fix thickness.


 
Can confirm; am thick.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (4 Dec 2014)

jonesy said:


> As it is so easy to spot examples of this sort of thing every day, it really shouldn't be hard for the police to catch lots of offenders every day. Some proper sentences and publicity would send the message that this is taken seriously and you have a good chance of being caught. Depressingly, lorry drivers seem to be regular mobile offenders, much of which must be happening with the knowledge of their employer. But if offending drivers had to take their vehicle to a police compound, leave it there and then make their own way home, so the haulier's customers got inconvenienced, it might focus their minds a bit.



Yup, I'd guess any of us that commute daily see regular occurrences of it. Every night I cycle in to Swanley and pass on average 5 drivers on mobile devices (texting/facebook/worse) stuck in slow moving traffic.

I presume they don't because they don't want the 'why aren't you catching real criminals' whining.


----------



## Recycle (4 Dec 2014)

Sharky said:


> Rather than inventing ways of stopping people from texting, perhaps a little lateral thinking can come up with a solution to alow texting whilst driving.


There are two things that make the use of any hand held device dangerous.
1. The loss of manual dexterity from driving.
2. The diversion of mental resources from driving.

The two are lethal together but most often 2 has a greater influence on driving than 1. Hands-free is a con from a safety perspective, you can be distracted as much by a talkative passenger as by a phone. The difference is that the passenger is generally sensitive to your driving demands and will back off when driving gets complex. The person on the other end of a phone is blind to your concentration needs.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Dec 2014)

Y'day, as a pedestrian, TLH banged on the window of a car, that slowly rolled through a red pedestrian crossing light, in a queue of traffic, because the driver was texting. The driver was furious and got out of the car to confront TLH. She was well ahead on points when he scuttled off.

Every streetlight and traffic light in the country needs a camera on it, do not pass go, do not collect £200.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Dec 2014)

Could people be persuaded to check if the other party is driving and, if so, end the call?

It seems to me that the first question every mobile call starts with is "Where are you?". If we could change this to "Are you driving?", and encourage people to hang up when the answer is yes, it might begin to have an effect.

But then again..







GC


----------



## winjim (4 Dec 2014)

Recycle said:


> There are two things that make the use of any hand held device dangerous.
> 1. The loss of manual dexterity from driving.
> 2. The diversion of mental resources from driving.
> 
> The two are lethal together but most often 2 has a greater influence on driving than 1. Hands-free is a con from a safety perspective, you can be distracted as much by a talkative passenger as by a phone. The difference is that the passenger is generally sensitive to your driving demands and will back off when driving gets complex. The person on the other end of a phone is blind to your concentration needs.


I also think that it diverts more of your mental resources talking to a disembodied voice than to an actual person who is present in the car. The only person I ever talk to on the phone whilst driving is my wife, because I know at any point I can tell her to STFU so I can concentrate. But essentially yes, hands free is a red herring.


----------



## andyfraser (4 Dec 2014)

winjim said:


> I also think that it diverts more of your mental resources talking to a disembodied voice than to an actual person who is present in the car. The only person I ever talk to on the phone whilst driving is my wife, because I know at any point I can tell her to STFU so I can concentrate. But essentially yes, hands free is a red herring.


I tried sending a text on an iPhone by talking to it while cycling once, just to see how it went. Never again, it's too distracting when the phone doesn't understand and gets things wrong.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Dec 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Could people be persuaded to check if the other party is driving and, if so, end the call?
> 
> It seems to me that the first question every mobile call starts with is "Where are you?". If we could change this to "Are you driving?", and encourage people to hang up when the answer is yes, it might begin to have an effect.
> 
> ...


I once worked for an employer who took an interesting line

"I call you, and you answer your mobile, and you are driving? Even with a hands-free kit, you don't work here any more."

One of our colleagues had been in a nasty crash, with life-changing injuries, on the M25, whilst on her hands-free mobile.


----------



## mustang1 (4 Dec 2014)

If I have a car that doesn't veer off a lane, slows and goes and stops and starts automatically,then why shouldn't I text?


----------



## KneesUp (4 Dec 2014)

Recycle said:


> There are two things that make the use of any hand held device dangerous.
> 1. The loss of manual dexterity from driving.
> 2. The diversion of mental resources from driving.
> 
> The two are lethal together but most often 2 has a greater influence on driving than 1. Hands-free is a con from a safety perspective, you can be distracted as much by a talkative passenger as by a phone. The difference is that the passenger is generally sensitive to your driving demands and will back off when driving gets complex. The person on the other end of a phone is blind to your concentration needs.


The logical conclusion here is that a genius - or just a driving genius - should be able to text and drive as they have more spare mental resources. 

I don't get many texts, but if I get one when I'm driving I read them at traffic lights, when the car is in neutral and the handbrake is on. I guess it's illegal to do so, but my judgement is it causes no danger to do so. This system would prevent that, which would be annoying. And as others have said, it relies on plugging your phone into the OBD )on board diagnostics) port on your car i.e. the driver taking action to prevent them doing something. If they have the inclination to do that, why not just have the inclination not to use your phone when driving, or putting your phone on silent, or in flight mode? On a practical note, my car is French, so the OBD port is, I think, on the passenger side. Either way it's under the dash and not readily accessible.


----------



## Recycle (4 Dec 2014)

KneesUp said:


> The logical conclusion here is that a genius - or just a driving genius - should be able to text and drive as they have more spare mental resources.


No. Conversation is generally made up of intuitive thought and this places low demands on the brain. Non intuitive topics that place high demand on the brain will come up from time to time and these are the dangerous moments. If for example we took a walk together together and I asked you to multiply two 2 digit numbers together (eg 16 x 41) the mental demands would almost certainly stop you from walking while you solve the problem. Your brain shuts down all other processes to devote its resources to the difficult task. A genius may well be a worse driver than Mr Average because (s)he may spend more mental time resolving complex problems.


----------



## KneesUp (4 Dec 2014)

Recycle said:


> No. Conversation is generally made up of intuitive thought and this places low demands on the brain. Non intuitive topics that place high demand on the brain will come up from time to time and these are the dangerous moments. If for example we took a walk together together and I asked you to multiply two 2 digit numbers together (eg 16 x 41) the mental demands would almost certainly stop you from walking while you solve the problem. Your brain shuts down all other processes to devote its resources to the difficult task. A genius may well be a worse driver than Mr Average because (s)he may spend more mental time resolving complex problems.


But a driving 'genius' brought up with texting would have no problem. I'd expect someone like Lewis Hamilton would be a better driver whilst texting than, for example, the old bloke who lives at the end of our road is when he's fully concentrating.

Why is it ok for one to drive and not the other?


----------



## summerdays (4 Dec 2014)

mustang1 said:


> If I have a car that doesn't veer off a lane, slows and goes and stops and starts automatically,then why shouldn't I text?


Does it drive itself with no input from you always if so fine.


----------



## Recycle (4 Dec 2014)

KneesUp said:


> Why is it ok for one to drive and not the other?


 It's not OK for either. The law is tailored to the lowest common denominator, not the highest.


----------



## summerdays (4 Dec 2014)

KneesUp said:


> But a driving 'genius' brought up with texting would have no problem. I'd expect someone like Lewis Hamilton would be a better driver whilst texting than, for example, the old bloke who lives at the end of our road is when he's fully concentrating.
> 
> Why is it ok for one to drive and not the other?


The geniuses have worked out that it isn't safe to try to do both. Problem is most of the population isn't in the genius category.

Me, I think (as I'm sure many on here do), that I'm an above average cyclist when it comes to my awareness on the roads, I've tried to ring and cycle at the same time on a cycle path, and I am aware that my cycling isn't of the same standard. Perhaps I'm not so good as I thought or .... It does take more concentration than we like to think.


----------



## KneesUp (4 Dec 2014)

Recycle said:


> It's not OK for either. The law is tailored to the lowest common denominator, not the highest.


The law says it's perfectly legal for the chap down the road to drive. He seems fine when I see him, but I wouldn't be too confident in a situation that demanded fast reflexes.

My point was that objecting on the grounds of how much mental capacity is available for driving is problematic because some people have more of it to start with, and require less of it to drive (my mum, for example, has been driving for 20 odd years, but it still seems to be a mental test for her) It's similar with texting. My young staff can do it with one hand without looking at their phones, whereas I have to make more of an effort.


----------



## Recycle (4 Dec 2014)

KneesUp said:


> The law says it's perfectly legal for the chap down the road to drive. He seems fine when I see him, but I wouldn't be too confident in a situation that demanded fast reflexes.


That's a social problem rather than a legal one. We favour an egalitarian right to drive rather than one based purely on ability. Passing the driving test demands competence, but judgement of competence is a subjective thing.


----------



## ColinJ (4 Dec 2014)

Recycle said:


> No. Conversation is generally made up of intuitive thought and this places low demands on the brain. Non intuitive topics that place high demand on the brain will come up from time to time and these are the dangerous moments. If for example we took a walk together together and I asked you to multiply two 2 digit numbers together (eg 16 x 41) the mental demands would almost certainly stop you from walking while you solve the problem. Your brain shuts down all other processes to devote its resources to the difficult task. A genius may well be a worse driver than Mr Average because (s)he may spend more mental time resolving complex problems.


My sister rang me using her new Bluetooth headset on a commute home. We chatted for a few minutes and then she realised that she had driven straight past the motorway junction she has been exiting from for over 10 years. Talking on a phone can _definitely_ be distracting!


----------



## Recycle (4 Dec 2014)

ColinJ said:


> My sister rang me using her new Bluetooth headset on a commute home. We chatted for a few minutes and then she realised that she had driven straight past the motorway junction she has been exiting from for over 10 years. Talking on a phone can _definitely_ be distracting!


Indeed, and its the talking rather than the phone that makes the distraction. We delude ourselves by thinking that hands-free makes it safe. It doesn't, it just makes it legal.


----------



## KneesUp (4 Dec 2014)

Recycle said:


> Indeed, and its the talking rather than the phone that makes the distraction. We delude ourselves by thinking that hands-free makes it safe. It doesn't, it just makes it legal.


What about talking to passengers or listening to the radio?


----------



## ColinJ (4 Dec 2014)

KneesUp said:


> What about talking to passengers or listening to the radio?


If a passenger saw that you were getting stressed in heavy traffic, poor visibility, (whatever), then hopefully they would just shut up and let you concentrate until you cleared the hazard?

If you were listening to the radio, then you would probably ignore it when hazards presented themselves? 

If your boss were on the phone and asking you for a description of your progress on the vital new thrust widget project, it might be a bit harder to deal with! (Yes, ideally you would just tell them that you couldn't talk about it while you were driving, but a lot of bosses might not like that ...)


----------



## Recycle (4 Dec 2014)

Don't know about radio. It's one way & doesn't demand a response.
Passengers are definitely distracting. The best example is with under 25 drivers. I remember reading a report which stated that an under 25 driver is four times more likely to crash with a passenger in the vehicle and that likelyhood doubles again with a second passenger.


----------



## KneesUp (4 Dec 2014)

ColinJ said:


> If a passenger saw that you were getting stressed in heavy traffic, poor visibility, (whatever), then hopefully they would just shut up and let you concentrate until you cleared the hazard


Have you ever tried driving with a child in the car?


----------



## ColinJ (4 Dec 2014)

KneesUp said:


> Have you ever tried driving with a child in the car?


No, but I was almost killed once by a driver who was turned round and arguing with her children in the back seat of her car as she overtook me ... The car was veering towards me as it passed and I looked straight up into the driver's horrified eyes as she realised what had nearly just happened!


----------



## mustang1 (4 Dec 2014)

[QUOTE 3409981, member: 9609"]In such a car would there be any point in sitting behind the wheel, why not climb into the back and have a sleep, I'm sure the car can wake you up when it gets to your destination - what type is it, I want one.[/QUOTE]
Well I think they only work on the motorways. Bmw merc Lexus etc. They can't drive themselves in town.


----------



## mustang1 (4 Dec 2014)

summerdays said:


> Does it drive itself with no input from you always if so fine.


Try telling that to the cops.


----------



## summerdays (4 Dec 2014)

mustang1 said:


> Try telling that to the cops.


I assumed you had got hold of one of these driverless cars that they are talking about, if not them don't text please. Those people who think it's fine to do when stationary, obviously are so unobservant that they've not seen how it causes problems for other drivers and cyclists when they don't move at a roundabout or a set of lights or a junction.


----------



## mustang1 (4 Dec 2014)

I do


summerdays said:


> I assumed you had got hold of one of these driverless cars that they are talking about, if not them don't text please. Those people who think it's fine to do when stationary, obviously are so unobservant that they've not seen how it causes problems for other drivers and cyclists when they don't move at a roundabout or a set of lights or a junction.


I was just playing devils advocate and don't promote texting while driving (unless you have one of those speech to text thingies).

I just came back from the shop half an hour ago and I crossed the road in front of a van driver that was parked but ready to go. The driver was on the phone so when he accelerated and honked his horn at me, I told him I figured he wasn't going to drive while yapping on the phone. I couldn't quite hear him but I think he swore at me. Shrugs.


----------



## KneesUp (4 Dec 2014)

[QUOTE 3410023, member: 9609"]So are you suggesting a minimum standard that no one needs to exceed - may be we could have self assessment, and those drivers who think they are "very good drivers" could drive less carefully. My own driving is truly outstanding, so could I play online chess whilst trucking down the A1 in my 44 tonner?[/QUOTE]
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm raising points for discussion.

Saying that doing an activity when driving impairs ability and therefore should not be allowed is problematic because it raises the question of what to do with people whose ability is below that of another driver when they are doing the activity

e.g. 
Driver A - 'driving ability' when fully concentrating 93%
Driver A - 'driving ability' when texting and driving 71%
Driver A - 'driving ability' when listening to the radio and driving 91%

Driver B - 'driving ability' when fully concentrating 75%
Driver B - 'driving ability' when texting and driving 50%
Driver B - 'driving ability' when listening to the radio and driving 70%

If we say that driver A cannot text and drive, it implies that we ought then to say to driver B that they cannot listen to the radio when driving.


----------



## Sharky (4 Dec 2014)

I gez der is no exkuse fot rexting amd dribing at tge sane tome.

Keith

Ps please exkuse tge spekking, it's deffikult balansing mi ipad om my nee, wistful dribimg at 80 nph threw uor village.


----------



## KneesUp (4 Dec 2014)

summerdays said:


> I assumed you had got hold of one of these driverless cars that they are talking about, if not them don't text please. Those people who think it's fine to do when stationary, obviously are so unobservant that they've not seen how it causes problems for other drivers and cyclists when they don't move at a roundabout or a set of lights or a junction.


Or they are quite capable of assessing how long the cycle is on the lights and also of using their peripheral vision.


----------



## KneesUp (4 Dec 2014)

User13710 said:


> Would you also be happy for drivers to have a couple of whiskys, as long as they stuck to the quiet roads?
> 
> The research into the difference between talking to a passenger in the vehicle and talking to someone on the phone, even a hands-free one, was discussed in some detail in All in the Mind, on Radio 4 the other day. It's pretty far advanced, and also very convincing - the two things are not at all comparable. The idea that some brainy people might be exempt from these effects is just ludicrous.


No one is suggesting some people are exempt from their driving being diminished by concentrating on something else - simply that one persons diminished driving might very well be better than someone else's best efforts.


----------



## KneesUp (4 Dec 2014)

User13710 said:


> And some people get more drunk on a glass of wine than others do on five pints. So what?


You could apply the same principles to the drink-drive limit, certainly. What would be the issue with that?

If Mr Smith is incapable after a sherry and Mr Brown is able to drive perfectly well after 3 pints, why should Mr Smith be allowed to drive and Mr Brown not? I know who I'd rather share a road with.


----------



## summerdays (4 Dec 2014)

KneesUp said:


> Or they are quite capable of assessing how long the cycle is on the lights and also of using their peripheral vision.


I've sat behind them, wondering how long it would take for them to notice or waited for them to go at a roundabout, eventually giving up and going myself, only for them to look up realise that they could go at the same moment.


----------



## Mugshot (4 Dec 2014)

summerdays said:


> Me, I think (as I'm sure many on here do), that I'm an above average cyclist when it comes to my awareness on the roads, I've tried to ring and cycle at the same time on a cycle path, and I am aware that my cycling isn't of the same standard. Perhaps I'm not so good as I thought or .... It does take more concentration than we like to think.


No one else has yet, so I'd like to be the first to tell you that I certainly think you're an above average cyclist


----------



## Mugshot (4 Dec 2014)

[QUOTE 3410115, member: 9609"]No not at all, the effect of a couple of whiskies would cover a far greater time span than a brief phone call.
The type of brief call I refer to would be how i used to use the phone before it was made illegal - half hour from home I would phone the wife so she could get the tea on - 30 second call on a quiet road with little traffic poses no dangers, phones were made illegal whilst driving because some clowns would be making entire journeys on the phone, driving round a town centre whilst on the phone. in fact many still behave like that, I can't remember the last time I made a journey and did not see a driver with a phone held to their ear.

I agree 100% with your second statement.[/QUOTE]
I ride an awful lot on quiet roads, I'd far rather that the drivers I meet are concentrating on the possibility that I may be round the next corner than what they're having for tea.


----------



## winjim (4 Dec 2014)

i player.User13710 said:


> The research into the difference between talking to a passenger in the vehicle and talking to someone on the phone, even a hands-free one, was discussed in some detail in All in the Mind, on Radio 4 the other day.


Cheers TMN , just listened to that on i player. Also interesting was the bit at the end about lookingbut not seeing . Well worth a listen for those interested in this thread.


----------



## the_mikey (4 Dec 2014)

Sharky said:


> Rather than inventing ways of stopping people from texting, perhaps a little lateral thinking can come up with a solution to alow texting whilst driving.
> 
> By this, I mean something that is completely hands free, a built in docking station in the glove box so there is no temptation to use the device and full use of automatic text to speech and voice recognition and full control via the latter.
> 
> Make it safe and desirable, then people will want it and everybody will be safer.




It's complicated, but users of Android phones already have the option to send SMS text messages using only their voice, try saying "OK Google, send SMS to 'contact name'" and see what happens. The implementation of Bluetooth would need to be changed to make it work in cars fully since most cars manufacturers still fail to supply even a digital radio, or when they support digital media it's often only mp3 and nothing else because they would owe tech companies a lot of money for the rights to implement the technology. Maybe in 20 years time the manufacturers will catch up, but by then society and technology will have moved on rendering the whole thing almost obsolete before it arrives.


----------



## summerdays (4 Dec 2014)

Mugshot said:


> No one else has yet, so I'd like to be the first to tell you that I certainly think you're an above average cyclist


 I could be wrong of course


----------



## GrumpyGregry (5 Dec 2014)

Recycle said:


> Don't know about radio. It's one way & doesn't demand a response.
> Passengers are definitely distracting. The best example is with under 25 drivers. I remember reading a report which stated that an under 25 driver is four times more likely to crash with a passenger in the vehicle and that likelyhood doubles again with a second passenger.


What's the biggest killer of women under 25 in the UK?




Their boyfriend's driving.

I got a lift to work this morning. We nearly had a head on collision because the driver, was having and animated debate with his passenger, me.


----------



## Ganymede (5 Dec 2014)

User13710 said:


> Would you also be happy for drivers to have a couple of whiskys, as long as they stuck to the quiet roads?
> 
> The research into the difference between talking to a passenger in the vehicle and talking to someone on the phone, even a hands-free one, was discussed in some detail in All in the Mind, on Radio 4 the other day. It's pretty far advanced, and also very convincing - the two things are not at all comparable. The idea that some brainy people might be exempt from these effects is just ludicrous.


Some while ago I heard a very interesting piece on R4 (cannot source it alas) which was discussing the difference in brain use when listening to a digital transmission of a voice compared to a person sitting next to you in the car. The digitalised voice uses different, more effortful brain processes because it is not natural speech, and has no other "living clues" to read. I do think conversation is distracting, and I often switch off the radio or say "hang of a bit" to my interlocutor when I get off the motorway and into a town where I have to find my way and watch for turnings. I also use my voice-activated bluetooth in the car, but I limit this severely as I can really tell how much more distracting it is:

*press hands-free button on stem*
*listen for beep*
Me: "Call Home"
*Wait for weird artificial voice*
WAV: "Call... CALLUM, confirm yes or no" (this happens when there is a lot of noise eg motorway; works first time when on a quiet road)
Me: "no"
WAV: "Process terminated"
*press hands-free button on stem*
*listen for beep*
Me "Call 'ome"
*Wait for weird artificial voice*
WAV: "Call... HOME, confirm yes or no" 
Me: "Yes"
bip bip bip bip bip bip bip
rrring
*Mr G picks up*

This really is distracting and I only use it when I must must must make a call eg family emergency, sudden change of plan which would involve a major mess-up if not communicated. Really as little as possible. Receiving calls is a far easier thing, it rings, you press the button on the stem and bob's yer uncle, but you still are talking and still somewhat distracted.

And just to add - you can't ban conversation in cars. The only person who has any power is the driver, who can say "please be quiet" or SHUT UP but might be ignored. Many's the time as kids Dad has ground the Austin Cambridge to a halt and said we're being thrown out of the car to walk if we don't shut up. Well, not many, but it shut us up!


----------



## Mugshot (5 Dec 2014)

[QUOTE 3410631, member: 9609"]Misunderstanding on the "quiet roads" I would agree that quiet country roads is a time when drivers need to be at max concentration - I was thinking more of quiet moments on big straight trunk roads when there are few other vehicles about, or crawling up a big hill at 15mph, this is when I *used to* often make brief calls, press speed dial without looking at the phone, then say something like "just coming over soutra, should be back within the hour" Something like that would be no more distracting than changing CD, switching radio stations, adjusting the heating, lighting up a smoke etc.

And note the past tense i used above -[/QUOTE]
I had noted the past tense and wasn't trying to suggest that you still used your phone, however, I believe it is wrong to suggest that making a call on a quiet road with no traffic poses no danger, it breeds complacency. The next time the road is a little busier or a little narrower or a little more winding and as the chances of getting done for it are virtually zero you soon find you're in the situation you describe where you can't remember a journey where you didn't see a driver playing with their phone and some of those will be drivers that started out making calls on quiet roads because they felt it was safe to do so.

Edit: I assume if you're crawling up hill at 15mph you're in a lorry?


----------

