HRH Del Boy (LLJ), swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> Wow, that's shocking.
>
> I'd also be interested to see how modern in-car entertainment interface design has affetcted driver awareness. For example, when the Tesla Model 3 was announced, I recall saying that I would be surpirised that such a car was allowed on UK roads seeing as the (entirely touch-screen based) centre-console required drivers to look away from the road to perform any task. I remember contrasting this with the BMW I drove at the time where all the buttons/dials on the centre-console had different sizes/textures, so that after a few days of familiarisation you could do anything from change the volume, to adjust the climate control, to interact with the sat-nav without taking your eyes off the road. To my surprise, not only was the model 3 interface deemed safe, but pretty much every car released since has tried to copy it. I don't see how touch-based interfaces with no haptic/tactile feedback can be doing anything other than significantly reducing driver awareness.

What about those fairy-cyclists who "think" they're in a race and who
consequently rarely look at the road except for the bit between their
pedals and the front wheel?

Not sure I fully understand your sentence...

To clarify my position... looking at those thirty seconds...

The accident itself will have taken time. From impact, to going into the ditch, to coming to a stop. Being generous, lets say ~5 seconds. Then there will be a period of pause... where you go, 'what the fudge?' Again lets say that was 3-5 seconds. Getting out of the car would be a further 5 seconds, with a similar amount of time spent assessing the situation, so a further 5-10 secs.... You also need to factor in time to take the phone out of your pocket, unlock and dial... thats got to be 5 seconds. Best case scenario, 23 seconds minimum.

So we've a maximum possibility of 7 seconds of wiggle room. But wait, you have to factor in the other side... from finishing on Snapchat, the phone will need to have been closed and placed down and the hand returned to the steering wheel... thats another couple of seconds of distraction at least.

So to me, by being incredibly generous, there is a potential 5 sec window between last phone use whilst driving and the impact. But wait, some of that 5 seconds would have included pre-impact time... where the two parties were deviating on to a collision course.

And, I'm ignoring the fact that as the phone had been in use, it would not have been in the drivers pocket, so post crash, this would need to have been located, which takes time... well unless the phone was already in the hand.

I struggle to understand how any reasonable person would not accept the phone was in use at the time of the impact.

JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> HRH Del Boy (LLJ), swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Wow, that's shocking.
>>
>> I'd also be interested to see how modern in-car entertainment interface
>> design has affetcted driver awareness. For example, when the Tesla Model
>> 3 was announced, I recall saying that I would be surpirised that such a
>> car was allowed on UK roads seeing as the (entirely touch-screen based)
>> centre-console required drivers to look away from the road to perform
>> any task. I remember contrasting this with the BMW I drove at the time
>> where all the buttons/dials on the centre-console had different
>> sizes/textures, so that after a few days of familiarisation you could do
>> anything from change the volume, to adjust the climate control, to
>> interact with the sat-nav without taking your eyes off the road. To my
>> surprise, not only was the model 3 interface deemed safe, but pretty
>> much every car released since has tried to copy it. I don't see how
>> touch-based interfaces with no haptic/tactile feedback can be doing
>> anything other than significantly reducing driver awareness.

> What about those fairy-cyclists who "think" they're in a race and who
> consequently rarely look at the road except for the bit between their
> pedals and the front wheel?

Even cycling.co.uk advocates cyclists to occasionally lift their heads in
order to see where they are going.

--
Spike

Mobile phone use only really started early 90s, became common in the mid 90s.

Phone use while driving was mad illegal in lateish 2003.

A decade, maybe a tad more.
TWO DECADES - SJM

It's been against the law for a generation.

On 16/09/2022 07:15 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> Not sure I fully understand your sentence...
>
> To clarify my position... looking at those thirty seconds...
>
> The accident itself will have taken time. From impact, to going into the ditch, to coming to a stop. Being generous, lets say ~5 seconds. Then there will be a period of pause... where you go, 'what the fudge?' Again lets say that was 3-5 seconds. Getting out of the car would be a further 5 seconds, with a similar amount of time spent assessing the situation, so a further 5-10 secs.... You also need to factor in time to take the phone out of your pocket, unlock and dial... thats got to be 5 seconds. Best case scenario, 23 seconds minimum.
>
> So we've a maximum possibility of 7 seconds of wiggle room. But wait, you have to factor in the other side... from finishing on Snapchat, the phone will need to have been closed and placed down and the hand returned to the steering wheel... thats another couple of seconds of distraction at least.
>
> So to me, by being incredibly generous, there is a potential 5 sec window between last phone use whilst driving and the impact. But wait, some of that 5 seconds would have included pre-impact time... where the two parties were deviating on to a collision course.
>
> And, I'm ignoring the fact that as the phone had been in use, it would not have been in the drivers pocket, so post crash, this would need to have been located, which takes time... well unless the phone was already in the hand.
>
> I struggle to understand how any reasonable person would not accept the phone was in use at the time of the impact.

What if the 999 call was the first thing done after the vehicle came to
a halt?

HRH Prince Del Boy Mason <swldx...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mobile phone use only really started early 90s,

1980s...

> became common in the mid 90s.

It had certainly grown in popularity (and was more affordable) by then.

> Phone use while driving was mad illegal in lateish 2003.

It wasn't.

It still isn't illegal, M'Lud.

Fancy a learned man such as your good self - especially with all your
Royal connections - not knowing that.

> A decade, maybe a tad more.
> TWO DECADES - SJM
>
> It's been against the law for a generation.

It hasn't.

There was some research done in Sweden (link is external) using an old Volvo as the "control" vehicle comparing how long it takes to do stuff in cars with touchscreens. This is not surprising.

I find it interesting that the Apple Car Play always comes out more distracting than the equivalent Android. I have always found Apple products less than intuitive, but I know others wouldn't use anything else. I was wondering if it was corrected for whether the driver was a habitual Android/ Apple user or have I been right all along?

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not sure I fully understand your sentence...
>
> To clarify my position... looking at those thirty seconds...
>
> The accident itself will have taken time. From impact, to going into the
> ditch, to coming to a stop. Being generous, lets say ~5 seconds. Then
> there will be a period of pause... where you go, 'what the fudge?' Again
> lets say that was 3-5 seconds. Getting out of the car would be a further
> 5 seconds, with a similar amount of time spent assessing the situation,
> so a further 5-10 secs.... You also need to factor in time to take the
> phone out of your pocket, unlock and dial... thats got to be 5 seconds.
> Best case scenario, 23 seconds minimum.
>
> So we've a maximum possibility of 7 seconds of wiggle room. But wait, you
> have to factor in the other side... from finishing on Snapchat, the phone
> will need to have been closed and placed down and the hand returned to
> the steering wheel... thats another couple of seconds of distraction at least.
>
> So to me, by being incredibly generous, there is a potential 5 sec window
> between last phone use whilst driving and the impact. But wait, some of
> that 5 seconds would have included pre-impact time... where the two
> parties were deviating on to a collision course.
>
> And, I'm ignoring the fact that as the phone had been in use, it would
> not have been in the drivers pocket, so post crash, this would need to
> have been located, which takes time... well unless the phone was already in the hand.
>
> I struggle to understand how any reasonable person would not accept the
> phone was in use at the time of the impact.

With the timing suggested, I struggle to understand how any reasonable
person would not accept the phone was not in use at the time of the impact.

--
Spike

I think that the problem is actually the opposite. It is not the fact that in the 90s some cars had phones in, and in 2001 my employer installed a hands free kit in my car so that I was "always available". It is the fact that now cars have apps, cars encourage you to use your phone for sat nav, music etc, and people have come to define themselves by their online activity so can't bear to not have their phone in reach.

Add to this the feeble sentencing and the almost total lack of road police presence and people just carry on texting, online dating etc knowing they will get away with it.

And then someone dies.

On 16/09/2022 05:00 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> I think that the problem is actually the opposite. It is not the fact that in the 90s some cars had phones in, and in 2001 my employer installed a hands free kit in my car so that I was "always available". It is the fact that now cars have apps, cars encourage you to use your phone for sat nav, music etc, and people have come to define themselves by their online activity so can't bear to not have their phone in reach.
>
> Add to this the feeble sentencing and the almost total lack of road police presence and people just carry on texting, online dating etc knowing they will get away with it.
>
> And then someone dies.

And of course, you have not written this in response to my post
correcting you on the timeline (mobiles appearing in the 1980s), M'Lud.
>

I don't see how touch-based interfaces with no haptic/tactile feedback can be doing anything other than significantly reducing driver awareness.

Car manufacturers love them as they're cheap and can be trivially redesigned. They just need to include a disclaimer about not using them whilst driving and then they can blame the driver for any issues that arise.