Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: John-Ha on 19 November 2019, 17:10:13
-
In a recent thread I stated “Even using a hands free phone is somewhat similar to being on the alcohol limit.”
Andy B replied “13ollocks”.
When I asked Andy B “Could you please substantiate your comment.”, citing two research papers which supported my position, he responded “No .... Lies, damned lies & statistics.” The thread was subsequently locked so I sent Andy B a PM with the web address so he could download the report for himself and said I would start a new discussion.
One report I cited is by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory and is entitled How dangerous is driving with a mobile phone? Benchmarking the impairment to alcohol (see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259258482_How_Dangerous_is_Driving_with_a_Mobile_Phone_Benchmarking_the_Impairment_to_Alcohol).
I took this from the report Executive Summary and sorted and bulleted the points. Everything is a direct quote from the report.
This study aimed to quantify the impairment from Handsfree and Hand-held phone conversations in relation to the decline in driving performance caused by alcohol impairment.
Using a phone is worse than driving with 80mg/ml alcohol
- … drivers had significantly poorer speed control when using the Hand-held phone than during the other three conditions [including driving with 80 mg/100ml].
- Reaction times were significantly slower for drivers using phones in comparison to when they had alcohol.
- Results showed a tendency for drivers to slow down when talking on Hand-held or Hands-free phones, even when they were specifically instructed to maintain a set speed. [unable to follow instructions] .
- … drivers missed significantly more warnings when they were using a phone.
- There was [sic] also significantly fewer warnings missed by the drivers when they were on alcohol in comparison to when they were using the Hands-free phones. [ie even hands free is worse than driving with 80mg/100ml alcohol]
- The phone drivers were also responding to the wrong warnings more often than the alcohol drivers (false alarms).
- From the subjective mental effort ratings participants made immediately after driving each route, it was clear that they found driving while using a Hand-held phone to be the most difficult.
- … certain aspects of driving performance are impaired more by using a phone than by having a blood alcohol level at the legal limit (80mg/ 100ml).
Driving with 80mg/ml alcohol is worse than using a phone
- ... drivers drove faster than normal when under the influence of alcohol. [and unable to follow instructions]
- When drivers were under the influence of alcohol, they were significantly worse at driving smoothly (standard deviation of lane position) than during the other three conditions.
It is concluded that driving behaviour while talking on a phone is not only worse than normal driving, it can also be described as dangerous.
Although using phones while driving ... can be considered as irresponsible and dangerous, this behaviour is common. Drivers need to be strongly discouraged from engaging in any phone use while behind the wheel.
I fail to see why that is "13ollocks" but perhaps Andy B will join the discussion and tell us why he believes it is "13ollocks"
-
As per my pm reply ..... in part, as I've only skimmed through it, the 'conversation' at TRRL was more of a test than a conversation.
You get the likes of BRAKE coming out with drivel half the time re road safety.
That's my first & final reply.
-
John-Ha... I really think you need to get out more. :)
-
And John ... please don't lecture me on the forum guide lines ... the forum mods will put me right if need be.
ANdy
I have started a new thread. I will be interested to see your considered reasons why you think the report is 'dangle berries'.
I put "13ollocks" in quotes as you may be unaware that the forum guidelines state:
Excessive use of bad language of any description will not be tolerated, neither will the use of certain words (masked or otherwise) which we hope should be plain and obvious to anyone who can read these guidelines and be intelligent enough to work out what kind of behavior is and isn't allowed.
Members being offensive to other members will not be tolerated. Offensive or abusive public threads or private messages will be looked in to and appropriate action taken by the Moderators.
-
no one's even mentioned climate change yet :-X
dave the builder sh!t stirrer ;D
-
As per my pm reply ..... in part, as I've only skimmed through it, the 'conversation' at TRRL was more of a test than a conversation.
You get the likes of BRAKE coming out with drivel half the time re road safety.
That's my first & final reply.
So, Andy B, I think all can see that your accusation that I was talking "13ollocks" was completely unwarranted and that you cannot substantiate it in any way.
When I am proved so convincingly wrong as you have been I admit it and learn from it.
An apology would be nice but I doubt it will be forthcoming as it takes a big man to admit in public that he was wrong.
-
I have almost 45 years experience on the roads in all kinds of vehicles, conditions etc. When it was considered slightly naughty (but no more than that)to have a few pints and drive Ive done it. In a dire emergency at motorway speed I have spoken on a hand held phone - to the police ! I have Bluetooth In my car and use it occasionally.
I don't give a monkeys what this report says. There is no way in the world that a sensible intelligent driver can be affected as much by speaking on the phone as they would be by driving under the influence of twice the legal limit of alcohol.
I can only imagine it was commissioned by people with an agenda and the criteria was thus skewed to produce the result they wanted.
-
I have almost 45 years experience on the roads in all kinds of vehicles, conditions etc. When it was considered slightly naughty (but no more than that)to have a few pints and drive Ive done it. I
You what? ;D
-
As you delight in referring to unsubstantiated peer reviews, a peer review here would suggest that of your 39 posts, only 5 have been constructive... which could be construed to imply that 87.17949% of what you post is nothing more than inflammatory tosh :-X
-
As you delight in referring to unsubstantiated peer reviews, a peer review here would suggest that of your 39 posts, only 5 have been constructive... which could be construed to imply that 87.17949% of what you post is nothing more than inflammatory tosh :-X
Yes, but if people keep rising to it..............
-
I have almost 45 years experience on the roads in all kinds of vehicles, conditions etc. When it was considered slightly naughty (but no more than that)to have a few pints and drive Ive done it. I
You what? ;D
Sorry, Im pissed and talking on the phone while typing.
-
John-Ha... I really think you need to opps off :)
:o ::)As per my pm reply ..... in part, as I've only skimmed through it, the 'conversation' at TRRL was more of a test than a conversation.
You get the likes of BRAKE coming out with drivel half the time re road safety.
That's my first & final reply.
So, Andy B, I think all can see that your accusation that I was talking "13ollocks" was completely unwarranted and that you cannot substantiate it in any way.
When I am proved so convincingly wrong as you have been I admit it and learn from it.
An apology would be nice but I doubt it will be forthcoming as it takes a big man to admit in public that he was wrong.
Indeed, Andy is still waiting... :-X
-
I have almost 45 years experience on the roads in all kinds of vehicles, conditions etc. When it was considered slightly naughty (but no more than that)to have a few pints and drive Ive done it. I
You what? ;D
Sorry, Im pissed and talking on the phone while driving.
That's ok, you won't be any worse than the average woman driver ;D
-
I have almost 45 years experience on the roads in all kinds of vehicles, conditions etc. When it was considered slightly naughty (but no more than that)to have a few pints and drive Ive done it. I
You what? ;D
Sorry, Im pissed and talking on the phone while driving.
That's ok, you won't be any worse than the average driver ;D
True enough.
-
I have almost 45 years experience on the roads in all kinds of vehicles, conditions etc. When it was considered slightly naughty (but no more than that)to have a few pints and drive Ive done it. I
You what? ;D
Sorry, Im pissed and talking on the phone while driving.
That's ok, you won't be any worse than the average driver ;D
True enough.
I arrived home today to be greeted by a queue at the bottom of our road. There's normally hardly any traffic at that time of day. I heard honking and we moved forward slowly. When I got to the hold up, it was an old chap who had seen a mate of his on the pavement and stopped to chat. He was, more or less, in the middle of the road, and they were having a catch-up. ;D
-
You have to do these things when the opportunity presents itself... neither may be around tomorrow ::)
-
Should have driven through him. That would have learned him.
-
In a recent thread I stated “Even using a hands free phone is somewhat similar to being on the alcohol limit.”
Andy B replied “13ollocks”.
When I asked Andy B “Could you please substantiate your comment.”, citing two research papers which supported my position, he responded “No .... Lies, damned lies & statistics.” The thread was subsequently locked so I sent Andy B a PM with the web address so he could download the report for himself and said I would start a new discussion.
One report I cited is by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory and is entitled How dangerous is driving with a mobile phone? Benchmarking the impairment to alcohol (see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259258482_How_Dangerous_is_Driving_with_a_Mobile_Phone_Benchmarking_the_Impairment_to_Alcohol).
I took this from the report Executive Summary and sorted and bulleted the points. Everything is a direct quote from the report.
This study aimed to quantify the impairment from Handsfree and Hand-held phone conversations in relation to the decline in driving performance caused by alcohol impairment.
Using a phone is worse than driving with 80mg/ml alcohol
- … drivers had significantly poorer speed control when using the Hand-held phone than during the other three conditions [including driving with 80 mg/100ml].
- Reaction times were significantly slower for drivers using phones in comparison to when they had alcohol.
- Results showed a tendency for drivers to slow down when talking on Hand-held or Hands-free phones, even when they were specifically instructed to maintain a set speed. [unable to follow instructions] .
- … drivers missed significantly more warnings when they were using a phone.
- There was [sic] also significantly fewer warnings missed by the drivers when they were on alcohol in comparison to when they were using the Hands-free phones. [ie even hands free is worse than driving with 80mg/100ml alcohol]
- The phone drivers were also responding to the wrong warnings more often than the alcohol drivers (false alarms).
- From the subjective mental effort ratings participants made immediately after driving each route, it was clear that they found driving while using a Hand-held phone to be the most difficult.
- … certain aspects of driving performance are impaired more by using a phone than by having a blood alcohol level at the legal limit (80mg/ 100ml).
Driving with 80mg/ml alcohol is worse than using a phone
- ... drivers drove faster than normal when under the influence of alcohol. [and unable to follow instructions]
- When drivers were under the influence of alcohol, they were significantly worse at driving smoothly (standard deviation of lane position) than during the other three conditions.
It is concluded that driving behaviour while talking on a phone is not only worse than normal driving, it can also be described as dangerous.
Although using phones while driving ... can be considered as irresponsible and dangerous, this behaviour is common. Drivers need to be strongly discouraged from engaging in any phone use while behind the wheel.
I fail to see why that is "13ollocks" but perhaps Andy B will join the discussion and tell us why he believes it is "13ollocks"
Stop talking shit. I can find a whole heap of official reports that clearly state to the emergency services that non handheld communications devices are perfectly safe to use when the driver feels its safe enough to use them. I take more notice of these than random "reports" written to a differing agenda.
But I'm not interested in playing my cock is bigger than yours.
-
In a recent thread I stated “Even using a hands free phone is somewhat similar to being on the alcohol limit.”
Andy B replied “13ollocks”.
When I asked Andy B “Could you please substantiate your comment.”, citing two research papers which supported my position, he responded “No .... Lies, damned lies & statistics.” The thread was subsequently locked so I sent Andy B a PM with the web address so he could download the report for himself and said I would start a new discussion.
One report I cited is by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory and is entitled How dangerous is driving with a mobile phone? Benchmarking the impairment to alcohol (see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259258482_How_Dangerous_is_Driving_with_a_Mobile_Phone_Benchmarking_the_Impairment_to_Alcohol).
I took this from the report Executive Summary and sorted and bulleted the points. Everything is a direct quote from the report.
This study aimed to quantify the impairment from Handsfree and Hand-held phone conversations in relation to the decline in driving performance caused by alcohol impairment.
Using a phone is worse than driving with 80mg/ml alcohol
- … drivers had significantly poorer speed control when using the Hand-held phone than during the other three conditions [including driving with 80 mg/100ml].
- Reaction times were significantly slower for drivers using phones in comparison to when they had alcohol.
- Results showed a tendency for drivers to slow down when talking on Hand-held or Hands-free phones, even when they were specifically instructed to maintain a set speed. [unable to follow instructions] .
- … drivers missed significantly more warnings when they were using a phone.
- There was [sic] also significantly fewer warnings missed by the drivers when they were on alcohol in comparison to when they were using the Hands-free phones. [ie even hands free is worse than driving with 80mg/100ml alcohol]
- The phone drivers were also responding to the wrong warnings more often than the alcohol drivers (false alarms).
- From the subjective mental effort ratings participants made immediately after driving each route, it was clear that they found driving while using a Hand-held phone to be the most difficult.
- … certain aspects of driving performance are impaired more by using a phone than by having a blood alcohol level at the legal limit (80mg/ 100ml).
Driving with 80mg/ml alcohol is worse than using a phone
- ... drivers drove faster than normal when under the influence of alcohol. [and unable to follow instructions]
- When drivers were under the influence of alcohol, they were significantly worse at driving smoothly (standard deviation of lane position) than during the other three conditions.
It is concluded that driving behaviour while talking on a phone is not only worse than normal driving, it can also be described as dangerous.
Although using phones while driving ... can be considered as irresponsible and dangerous, this behaviour is common. Drivers need to be strongly discouraged from engaging in any phone use while behind the wheel.
I fail to see why that is "13ollocks" but perhaps Andy B will join the discussion and tell us why he believes it is "13ollocks"
Stop talking shit. I can find a whole heap of official reports that clearly state to the emergency services that non handheld communications devices are perfectly safe to use when the driver feels its safe enough to use them. I take more notice of these than random "reports" written to a differing agenda.
But I'm not interested in playing my cock is bigger than yours.
Have you seen it lately? In the flesh, I mean, not in the mirror ;D
-
Have you seen it lately? In the flesh, I mean, not in the mirror ;D
Not when I went out earlier today. I think it turned inside out. Brrrrrrr!
-
Have you seen it lately? In the flesh, I mean, not in the mirror ;D
Not when I went out earlier today. I think it turned inside out. Brrrrrrr!
Wimpy southern jelly. Me and doggie were strolling round in minus three this morning. The worst part was, I got my boots soaking wet yesterday and left them in the car. When I put them on this morning, the inside was frozen ;D
But, after ten minutes or so, everything was fine. My toes were frozen too, so I couldn't feel a thing.
-
Have you seen it lately? In the flesh, I mean, not in the mirror ;D
Not when I went out earlier today. I think it turned inside out. Brrrrrrr!
Wimpy southern jelly. Me and doggie were strolling round in minus three this morning. The worst part was, I got my boots soaking wet yesterday and left them in the car. When I put them on this morning, the inside was frozen ;D
But, after ten minutes or so, everything was fine. My toes were frozen too, so I couldn't feel a thing.
hope you have the correct strength screen wash ;D
-
Have you seen it lately? In the flesh, I mean, not in the mirror ;D
Not when I went out earlier today. I think it turned inside out. Brrrrrrr!
Wimpy southern jelly. Me and doggie were strolling round in minus three this morning. The worst part was, I got my boots soaking wet yesterday and left them in the car. When I put them on this morning, the inside was frozen ;D
But, after ten minutes or so, everything was fine. My toes were frozen too, so I couldn't feel a thing.
hope you have the correct strength screen wash ;D
It's ok, my boots are out of warranty. And my toes ;D
-
Have you seen it lately? In the flesh, I mean, not in the mirror ;D
Not when I went out earlier today. I think it turned inside out. Brrrrrrr!
Wimpy southern jelly. Me and doggie were strolling round in minus three this morning. The worst part was, I got my boots soaking wet yesterday and left them in the car. When I put them on this morning, the inside was frozen ;D
But, after ten minutes or so, everything was fine. My toes were frozen too, so I couldn't feel a thing.
hope you have the correct strength screen wash ;D
It's ok, my boots are out of warranty. And my toes ;D
what about the mut :-\
-
It was a balmy minus 2 when I got to Luton this morning...
Fortunately my new, proper, job is hanger based, so will be nice and warm inside all winter :D
-
Have you seen it lately? In the flesh, I mean, not in the mirror ;D
Not when I went out earlier today. I think it turned inside out. Brrrrrrr!
Wimpy southern jelly. Me and doggie were strolling round in minus three this morning. The worst part was, I got my boots soaking wet yesterday and left them in the car. When I put them on this morning, the inside was frozen ;D
But, after ten minutes or so, everything was fine. My toes were frozen too, so I couldn't feel a thing.
hope you have the correct strength screen wash ;D
It's ok, my boots are out of warranty. And my toes ;D
what about the mut :-\
She has a posh fur coat.
-
Have you seen it lately? In the flesh, I mean, not in the mirror ;D
Not when I went out earlier today. I think it turned inside out. Brrrrrrr!
Wimpy southern jelly. Me and doggie were strolling round in minus three this morning. The worst part was, I got my boots soaking wet yesterday and left them in the car. When I put them on this morning, the inside was frozen ;D
But, after ten minutes or so, everything was fine. My toes were frozen too, so I couldn't feel a thing.
Ah, but I bet you had the foresight to put a coat on :-[
-
Have you seen it lately? In the flesh, I mean, not in the mirror ;D
Not when I went out earlier today. I think it turned inside out. Brrrrrrr!
Wimpy southern jelly. Me and doggie were strolling round in minus three this morning. The worst part was, I got my boots soaking wet yesterday and left them in the car. When I put them on this morning, the inside was frozen ;D
But, after ten minutes or so, everything was fine. My toes were frozen too, so I couldn't feel a thing.
Ah, but I bet you had the foresight to put a coat on :-[
Well.....yes. It's what normal folk do. ;D
-
You've been people watching haven't you... :D
-
I seem to manage, drinking tea, eating and talking on the phone, and DG hasn't written off and of easyjets things driving his snow plough.
Also the trrl test, did they use a 24year old snowflake t conduct the test or an experienced driver with 25+ years experience.
-
Using a phone is worse than driving with 80mg/ml alcohol
- … drivers had significantly poorer speed control when using the Hand-held phone than during the other three conditions [including driving with 80 mg/100ml].
- Reaction times were significantly slower for drivers using phones in comparison to when they had alcohol.
- Results showed a tendency for drivers to slow down when talking on Hand-held or Hands-free phones, even when they were specifically instructed to maintain a set speed. [unable to follow instructions] .
- … drivers missed significantly more warnings when they were using a phone.
- There was [sic] also significantly fewer warnings missed by the drivers when they were on alcohol in comparison to when they were using the Hands-free phones. [ie even hands free is worse than driving with 80mg/100ml alcohol]
- The phone drivers were also responding to the wrong warnings more often than the alcohol drivers (false alarms).
- From the subjective mental effort ratings participants made immediately after driving each route, it was clear that they found driving while using a Hand-held phone to be the most difficult.
- … certain aspects of driving performance are impaired more by using a phone than by having a blood alcohol level at the legal limit (80mg/ 100ml).
Driving with 80mg/ml alcohol is worse than using a phone
- ... drivers drove faster than normal when under the influence of alcohol. [and unable to follow instructions]
- When drivers were under the influence of alcohol, they were significantly worse at driving smoothly (standard deviation of lane position) than during the other three conditions.
It is concluded that driving behaviour while talking on a phone is not only worse than normal driving, it can also be described as dangerous.
Although using phones while driving ... can be considered as irresponsible and dangerous, this behaviour is common. Drivers need to be strongly discouraged from engaging in any phone use while behind the wheel.
I fail to see why that is "13ollocks" but perhaps Andy B will join the discussion and tell us why he believes it is "13ollocks"
Sorry John ha-ha, but I have to add my two pennies worth on this one.
If that report was true to life, all the police officers that I know who have to constantly use phone and radio comms when on normal road patrol duties, let alone on blue's and two's, driving at speed, would be constantly crashing due to being "under the influence" of something akin to having had a few pints. Also the Advanced traffic officers who are trained to tactical pursuit level, using comms whilst driving at very high speeds, would certainly be having a constant stream of crashes if that report was true.
No, it is all down to the ability of the driver and their application to the practice of driving whilst being able to concentrate on that skill whilst handling all other mental distractions, such as making and taking hands free comms. All kinds of factors come into that equation, such as age, driving experience, driving application, mental capacity, spacial awareness, and quality of training. Some drivers should never be on the road due to their lack of coordination and their slow reaction speeds , whilst others are gifted, highly trained, with excellent driving disciplines and can well cope with any distractions that come their way.
To use the reports as a blanket judgement that using phones is as dangerous as driving whilst "under the influence" is just plain stupid and wrong. ;)
-
....
To use the reports as a blanket judgement that using phones is as dangerous as driving whilst "under the influence" is just plain stupid and wrong. 13ollocks ;)
FTFY ::) ::) ::)
-
We haven't yet mentioned F1 drivers talking over the radio at 200mph +. Maybe for novelty value they should ban the radios and force them all to drink 5 pints of lager before the start of each race.
-
That will opps up the overtaking a bit :D
-
Regardless of what the report says, my phone stays in my pocket when I'm driving. I've had hands free kits, I don't even both installing them anymore.
The reason for this was when I was working as an IT Consultant, I used to get calls from a colleague asking me quite technical questions about something I may have done months ago. I found my driving dropped below what I would call an acceptable threshold.
For that reason, I stopped answering the phone. Nothing in my life is that important that it can't wait until I've finished my journey, or if it is that important, I will pull over and have the conversation.
We all know alcohol has a detrimental effect on driving. It doesn't need a report.
To summarise, both mean your concentration and abilities are less than they could be. Why split hairs over which is worse? It's like arguing it's better to be burnt to death rather than drowning to death. The result is same.
-
That will opps up the overtaking a bit :D
I don't think Vettel needs anymore excuses :-X
-
Regardless of what the report says, my phone stays in my pocket when I'm driving. I've had hands free kits, I don't even both installing them anymore.
The reason for this was when I was working as an IT Consultant, I used to get calls from a colleague asking me quite technical questions about something I may have done months ago. I found my driving dropped below what I would call an acceptable threshold.
For that reason, I stopped answering the phone. Nothing in my life is that important that it can't wait until I've finished my journey, or if it is that important, I will pull over and have the conversation.
We all know alcohol has a detrimental effect on driving. It doesn't need a report.
To summarise, both mean your concentration and abilities are less than they could be. Why split hairs over which is worse? It's like arguing it's better to be burnt to death rather than drowning to death. The result is same.
Drowning for me, please.
-
Regardless of what the report says, my phone stays in my pocket when I'm driving. I've had hands free kits, I don't even both installing them anymore.
The reason for this was when I was working as an IT Consultant, I used to get calls from a colleague asking me quite technical questions about something I may have done months ago. I found my driving dropped below what I would call an acceptable threshold.
For that reason, I stopped answering the phone. Nothing in my life is that important that it can't wait until I've finished my journey, or if it is that important, I will pull over and have the conversation.
We all know alcohol has a detrimental effect on driving. It doesn't need a report.
To summarise, both mean your concentration and abilities are less than they could be. Why split hairs over which is worse? It's like arguing it's better to be burnt to death rather than drowning to death. The result is same.
.
At last a sensible comment.
-
We haven't yet mentioned F1 drivers talking over the radio at 200mph +. Maybe for novelty value they should ban the radios and force them all to drink 5 pints of lager before the start of each race.
Not to mention adjusting engine modes,brake bias etc all at high speed
-
Watching police shows It always amazes me how many police drivers are giving it the Oscar Zero Delta routine on the radio pinned to their uniform whilst charging down some offender at full pelt , yet are happy to give points and fines to someone parked at traffic lights doing no harm , pot kettle black ?
-
Watching police shows It always amazes me how many police drivers are giving it the Oscar Zero Delta routine on the radio pinned to their uniform whilst charging down some offender at full pelt , yet are happy to give points and fines to someone parked at traffic lights doing no harm , pot kettle black ?
.
Here we go again 😄
-
We haven't yet mentioned F1 drivers talking over the radio at 200mph +. Maybe for novelty value they should ban the radios and force them all to drink 5 pints of lager before the start of each race.
Not to mention adjusting engine modes,brake bias etc all at high speed
There is a difference - I mean, beyond the fact that these people tend to have reaction times that would make most of us look like Grandma - in that all the "traffic" is doing the same thing; travelling the same direction, following the racing line, generally behaving predictably..
Where on the roads you're faced with oncoming traffic, and unpredictable people driving like they might as well have had 12 pints, after a few joints and a couple of lines of coke for a "pick me up" ;D
-
You haven't watched Vettel or Grosjean driving recently then ?
-
You haven't watched Vettel or Grosjean driving recently then ?
;D ;D I watched an interview spot with Ricciardo yesterday - he was pulling apart various racing movies.. anyway, he's talking about one movie and says "You wouldn't lose the car in a straight line".
In the comments, someone posts:
Danny Ric: “You wouldn’t lose the car in a straight line”
Romain Grosjean: “.....” ;D ;D
-
Grosjean on his good days is as quick as anyone out there, but he seems to have a problem with concentration or intelligence where he does the most stupid things possible for no apparent reason.
-
If that report was true to life, all the police officers that I know who have to constantly use phone and radio comms when on normal road patrol duties, let alone on blue's and two's, driving at speed, would be constantly crashing due to being "under the influence" of something akin to having had a few pints. Also the Advanced traffic officers who are trained to tactical pursuit level, using comms whilst driving at very high speeds, would certainly be having a constant stream of crashes if that report was true.
Lizzie
I think you have misunderstood the point 8) as drunk drivers are not "constantly crashing" either! The reports identify the effect of using a phone and show it is similar, and in many cases worse, than driving at 80mg/100ml. I think all will agree that drunk drivers are at greater risk of accident - so are those using mobile phones.
To use the reports as a blanket judgement that using phones is as dangerous as driving whilst "under the influence" is just plain stupid and wrong. ;)
Lizzie
Unfortunately I think you are misquoting me and then saying the misquote is incorrect. My original comment was "Even using a hands free phone is somewhat similar to being on the alcohol limit." and I objected when Andy B called me a liar. He isn't man enough to apologise.
There are many similar reports. For example the Institute of Advanced Motorists commissioned research in 2012 which showed:
- when sending and receiving messages through Facebook reaction times were slowed by 37.6% and participants were unable to respond as quickly to the car in front changing speed gradually;
- texting slowed reaction times by 37.4%;
- hands free mobile phone usage slowed reaction times by 26.5%;
- alcohol above the driving limit in England and Wales but below 100mg per 100ml blood slowed reaction times by 6-15%;
- These figures show that even hands free conversations can be more dangerous than driving with alcohol in the system.
The other report I cited originally was A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver. Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Crouch, D. J. (2006) Human factors, 48, 381-391 It concluded:- Motorists who talked on either handheld or hands-free cell phones drove slightly slower, were 9 percent slower to hit the brakes, displayed 24 percent more variation in following distance as their attention switched between driving and conversing, were 19 percent slower to resume normal speed after braking and were more likely to crash. Three study participants rear-ended the pace car. All were talking on cell phones. None were drunk.
- Drivers drunk at the 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level drove a bit more slowly than both undistracted drivers and drivers using cell phones, yet more aggressively. They followed the pace car more closely, were twice as likely to brake only four seconds before a collision would have occurred, and hit their brakes with 23 percent more force. “Neither accident rates, nor reaction times to vehicles braking in front of the participant, nor recovery of lost speed following braking differed significantly” from undistracted drivers, the researchers write. [None rear-ended the pace car]
Everyone apart from me in this thread is giving their personal opinions and they are welcome to have them. Some people are honestly of the opinion the earth is flat and they shout down anyone who contradicts them (https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_Society). I think we will all agree they are cranks. As an aside I loved the "proof" given by the guy who flew thousands of miles with a spirit level on his lap and concluded that, as the level showed horizontal at both the start and end of the journey, this was absolute proof the earth was flat.
No-one has cited anything, other than their opinion, to contradict what I stated. So, the question remains:
Should I believe opinions from people who have not done any research in the matter and who are dragging up their personal prejudices and publishing them in the Omega Owners Forum General Discussion Area? Andy B was unable to substantiate his opinion when asked.
Or should I believe well qualified, doctorate level scientists and psychologists who have conducted actual experiments across the world with drivers in simulators and who have published their findings in peer-reviewed papers in internationally recognised journals?
I know whom I choose to believe.
-
What difference does any of this make? People will continue as they have, regardless of.....well.....anything really. Short of putting a signal blocker in every car to stop them, folk will use their phones.
-
What difference does any of this make?
Hopefully those who followed the argument will now accept that using even hands free mobile phones while driving is somewhat similar to driving with 80mg/100ml alcohol.
People will continue as they have, regardless of.....well.....anything really. Short of putting a signal blocker in every car to stop them, folk will use their phones.
Most now respect the alcohol limit and don't drive while drunk but many use phones which is illogical as the effects seem to be remarkably similar. One can only hope that once people realise this they will stop doing so.
If the discussion has caused members to rethink their phone use while driving it has been well worth it.
-
What difference does any of this make?
Hopefully those who followed the argument will now accept that using even hands free mobile phones while driving is somewhat similar to driving with 80mg/100ml alcohol.
People will continue as they have, regardless of.....well.....anything really. Short of putting a signal blocker in every car to stop them, folk will use their phones.
Most now respect the alcohol limit and don't drive while drunk but many use phones which is illogical as the effects seem to be remarkably similar. One can only hope that once people realise this they will stop doing so.
If the discussion has caused members to rethink their phone use while driving it has been well worth it.
Offences of drink driving are on the up, according to West Yorkshire police. Also, the amount of people getting away with the offence must be higher, if the amount of police on the road has dropped by 40%.
And remember, drink driving is against the law, using a hands free is not. So, while you can consider the effect of both on driving ability, you cannot lump them together as similar behaviours.
I would suggest that this thread has had no impact whatsoever on anyone who uses a hands free whilst driving. Why would it?
-
I would suggest that this thread has had no impact whatsoever on anyone who uses a hands free whilst driving. Why would it?
I think that reflects your rather low opinion of the type of person on the forum.
I live in a world where intelligent people respect facts, where they listen to and understand arguments, where they evaluate what new things they learn, and where they change their behaviour according to the new knowledge they have.
-
I would suggest that this thread has had no impact whatsoever on anyone who uses a hands free whilst driving. Why would it?
I think that reflects your rather low opinion of the type of person on the forum.
I live in a world where intelligent people respect facts, where they listen to and understand arguments, where they evaluate what new things they learn, and where they change their behaviour according to the new knowledge they have.
You're on the wrong forum then pal! ;D
-
What difference does any of this make?
Hopefully those who followed the argument will now accept that using even hands free mobile phones while driving is somewhat similar to driving with 80mg/100ml alcohol.
People will continue as they have, regardless of.....well.....anything really. Short of putting a signal blocker in every car to stop them, folk will use their phones.
Most now respect the alcohol limit and don't drive while drunk but many use phones which is illogical as the effects seem to be remarkably similar. One can only hope that once people realise this they will stop doing so.
If the discussion has caused members to rethink their phone use while driving it has been well worth it.
My final comment on this John ha-ha is that I have said what I said based on what you had quoted before and I stand by what my interpretation is.
I have nothing to add or take away so let it be ::) ::) :-X
-
Define intelligent ::)
-
Diane Abbot 😃😄😆
She must be she's an MP
-
I would suggest that this thread has had no impact whatsoever on anyone who uses a hands free whilst driving. Why would it?
I think that reflects your rather low opinion of the type of person on the forum.
I live in a world where intelligent people respect facts, where they listen to and understand arguments, where they evaluate what new things they learn, and where they change their behaviour according to the new knowledge they have.
You've got that wrong too, John. You're a dickhead, I'm not. :)
-
You've got that wrong too, John. You're a dickhead, I'm not. :)
Post reported to a moderator for a ruling on whether calling a fellow member "a dickhead" is acceptable.
-
I think this thread needs to be deleted.
-
You've got that wrong too, John. You're a dickhead, I'm not. :)
Post reported to a moderator for a ruling on whether calling a fellow member "a dickhead" is acceptable.
Good luck with that ;D
-
I think this thread needs to be deleted.
Poor old John. Back to the thirties.....again.
-
You've got that wrong too, John. You're a dickhead, I'm not. :)
Post reported to a moderator for a ruling on whether calling a fellow member "a dickhead" is acceptable.
Good luck with that ;D
Forum guidelines state:
Members being offensive to other members will not be tolerated. Offensive or abusive public threads or private messages will be looked in to and appropriate action taken by the Moderators.
I await their decision.
-
You would have done well to have read and understood them before you posted the bulk of your output :-X
-
....
when Andy B called me a liar. He isn't man enough to apologise.
.....
opps all to apologise for I did NOT call you a lair. I said 13ollocks to the suggestion that talking on a phone was akin to driving drunk
-
You accused me of having a low opinion of other forum members and insinuated that I was of low intelligence. Bang on with the first assertion but I find the second offensive. I think you should be
shot in front of your family banned. :P
-
Of course, this whole argument can be blown out of the water by one very important variable. Someone who has never drunk any alcohol would be absolutely legless with 80mg/ml of alcohol in their blood. A regular drinker would be relatively unaffected.
Next.
-
Takes seat,gets a corn based snack, and awaits.
I think we know the outcome,,, will our new lovebirds be getting a tut room int Barnsley/Wakefield,. But me thinks the wippet might savage Mr ha-ha to death. ;D
-
CBA to read the entire thread.
But a message to the OP - if you insist on trying to wind people up, stop constantly crying out to the Admin Team when people return the favour.
To others, try not to rise to what is clearly a wind-up (as surely nobody is daft enough to believe such bias "reports").
-
CBA to read the entire thread.
But a message to the OP - if you insist on trying to wind people up, stop constantly crying out to the Admin Team when people return the favour.
To others, try not to rise to what is clearly a wind-up (as surely nobody is daft enough to believe such bias "reports").
Yes......I'm quite disappointed in myself for being led astray. I'll be a good boy from now on.
-
A permanent ban would remove all temptation :-X
-
A permanent ban would remove all temptation :-X
Well, it takes 2 to tango ;)
-
A permanent ban would remove all temptation :-X
Well, it takes 2 to tango ;)
I'll accept an apology and we'll leave it at that.
-
A permanent ban would remove all temptation :-X
Well, it takes 2 to tango ;)
I'll accept an apology and we'll leave it at that.
Good luck with that ;D
-
A permanent ban would remove all temptation :-X
Well, it takes 2 to tango ;)
Perhaps, but given that the OP seems to only be here to cause arguments and wind everyone up, surely it would be more effective to get done rather than have to wade into the subsequent mess every time he posts :-\
People have their accounts deleted for two or three posts because they are clearly spammers... How is the OP any different? Unless the admins team know exactly who this individual is and are humouring him for their own reasons.
-
You accused me of having a low opinion of other forum members and insinuated that I was of low intelligence. Bang on with the first assertion but I find the second offensive. I think you should be shot in front of your family banned. :P
If you are going to quote me, then at least have the decency to quote me correctly. I said "I live in a world where intelligent people respect facts, where they listen to and understand arguments, where they evaluate what new things they learn, and where they change their behaviour according to the new knowledge they have. " I did not mention your name but if the cap fits wear it.
-
You accused me of having a low opinion of other forum members and insinuated that I was of low intelligence. Bang on with the first assertion but I find the second offensive. I think you should be shot in front of your family banned. :P
If you are going to quote me, then at least have the decency to quote me correctly. I said "I live in a world where intelligent people respect facts, where they listen to and understand arguments, where they evaluate what new things they learn, and where they change their behaviour according to the new knowledge they have. " I did not mention your name but if the cap fits wear it.
John......you're a dickhead.
Now look what you've made me do!
-
Locked.