Register to Comment
Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 78
Like Tree49Likes
  1. #1
    Half Nelson Half Nelson is offline
    Half Nelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    19,614

    The End of Car phones - Hands-free or not.

    "The jury rejected your account and accepted that you were distracted by using your hands free phone."
    Woman who caused Lincoln biker’s death while chatting on hands-free phone jailed.

    In the UK, if you're in an accident while chatting on a hands-free phone, you could be facing a prison sentence by virtue of being distracted.

    This raises serious issues for individuals and, more especially, for employers, who may rely on hands-free to conduct business.
    An employer who provides a hands-free, or requests that an employee use one, may find himself in the dock alongside his employee.

    Lord Ross' antennae just twitched.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #2
    Victor Meldrew Victor Meldrew is offline
    Victor Meldrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    9,415

    Quote Originally Posted by Half Nelson View Post
    Woman who caused Lincoln biker’s death while chatting on hands-free phone jailed.

    In the UK, if you're in an accident while chatting on a hands-free phone, you could be facing a prison sentence by virtue of being distracted.

    This raises serious issues for individuals and, more especially, for employers, who may rely on hands-free to conduct business.
    An employer who provides a hands-free or requests that an employee uses one may find himself in the dock alongside his employee.

    Lord Ross' antennae just twitched.
    Your passengers know when to shut up to let you focus on the road. I find that there is a difference when I am chatting to herself via the phone, and can (through pauses in conversation, "hang on a sec, I am taking a turn", or "there is a muppet here"), infer that I am distracted, so pause, but if it is a client / colleague, not so much.

    Thing is, transporting children is worse. God, it can be awful. I think we need to market "people and children" carriers. With a Limo soundproofed divider for the back seats.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #3
    Congalltee Congalltee is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,231

    Smoking, drinking coffee, on the phone: cause a fatal crash and you’re going to the joy. (Unless the smoker and the coffee drinker hid the evidence).
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #4
    Half Nelson Half Nelson is offline
    Half Nelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    19,614

    New research from psychologists at the University of Sussex has found driving while talking on a hands-free phone can be just as distracting as talking on a hand-held mobile.
    Imagery-inducing distraction leads to cognitive tunnelling and deteriorated driving performance - ScienceDirect
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #5
    Half Nelson Half Nelson is offline
    Half Nelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    19,614

    Quote Originally Posted by Congalltee View Post
    Smoking, drinking coffee, on the phone: cause a fatal crash and you’re going to the joy. (Unless the smoker and the coffee drinker hid the evidence).
    If employers provide a hands-free they have a duty of care to ensure it is never used.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #6
    Orbit v2 Orbit v2 is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    9,308

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor Meldrew View Post
    Your passengers know when to shut up to let you focus on the road. I find that there is a difference when I am chatting to herself via the phone, and can (through pauses in conversation, "hang on a sec, I am taking a turn", or "there is a muppet here"), infer that I am distracted, so pause, but if it is a client / colleague, not so much.

    Thing is, transporting children is worse. God, it can be awful. I think we need to market "people and children" carriers. With a Limo soundproofed divider for the back seats.
    I don't think anyone is going to be locked up just for chatting on a hands-free phone.
    Samantha Ayres, 34, had been on a phone call for over 25 minutes and was completely on the wrong side of the road when she smashed in to devoted dad David Kirk, 26
    She was jailed because she was on the wrong side of the road. Maybe she was distracted, but that doesn't mean everyone would be distracted to that extent. But, I'd agree, a conversation with a customer/client might well be distracting.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #7
    Half Nelson Half Nelson is offline
    Half Nelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    19,614

    Quote Originally Posted by Orbit v2 View Post
    I don't think anyone is going to be locked up just for chatting on a hands-free phone.

    She was jailed because she was on the wrong side of the road. Maybe she was distracted, but that doesn't mean everyone would be distracted to that extent. But, I'd agree, a conversation with a customer/client might well be distracting.
    Here's a scenario -
    A company car driver has a minor accident and is charged with careless or dangerous driving because he was on the phone. He's banned and loses his job.
    He then sues for wrongful dismissal and damages because his employer provided the phone and implicitly made using it a condition of employment.
    What do you think are his chances of success?

    The same or similar reasoning would apply to charging the employer as an accomplice in the offence.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #8
    Cruimh Cruimh is offline
    Cruimh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    96,615

    Bloody things are a menace and should be banned - as with Sat Navs.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #9
    Orbit v2 Orbit v2 is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    9,308

    Quote Originally Posted by Half Nelson View Post
    Here's a scenario -
    A company car driver has a minor accident and is charged with careless or dangerous driving because he was on the phone. He's banned and loses his job.
    He then sues for wrongful dismissal and damages because his employer provided the phone and implicitly made using it a condition of employment.
    What do you think are his chances of success?

    The same or similar reasoning would apply to charging the employer as an accomplice in the offence.
    It's common sense. The post I replied to showed common sense. You're positing a whole sequence of tenuous connections. If someone has a minor accident then they're not likely to be charged with anything, even if they were on the phone. If the accident was more serious then it meant he was doing something stupid, like the woman mentioned above. Hands-free phones reduce risk dramatically compared to using a phone in your hand.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #10
    ShoutingIsLeadership ShoutingIsLeadership is offline
    ShoutingIsLeadership's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    47,763

    Au contraire - with the advent of driverless cars, we'll all be on them and more
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment