‘Spy signs’ that detect drivers’ mobile phone use to be trialled in Sussex

exilegareth wrote:

You have to admire whichever snake oil salesman persuaded the more money than sense partnership to invest in this technology.

Can it differentiate between a hands free call with full voice control, and my Auntie Mabel using her big button retro Nokia in the backseat? Can it distinguish betwen Calvin the chav texting his massive while driving his Corsa one handed, and my phone, locked in the central glove box, getting another update from Facebook that another person I regret working with in 2007 wants me to play Candy Crush Saga or some similar animated braindeath?

I despair of the gullibility of people in over funded safety departments who think that nag signs and preachy adverts are some kind of short cut to changing ingrained dangerous behaviours.

I don't know any of those things and nor do you. Maybe wise to get some answers before discarding it out of hand, eh?

Do I know if this sign can distinguish between data and voice? I'm willing to bet it can't, because to do so it would have to decrypt the transmission, and even now, in overly censored, overly censorious Britain, we haven't quite got round to installing GCHQ style decryption technology in a crappy sign sold by snake oil salesmen.

The fact that I used rhetorical questions doesn't mean I don't know the answer.

As for the absolute failure of some people to comprehend the failure of nag signs to change behaviour, I'm willing to have that argument with anyone, anywhere. We've invested more and more in infrastructure and signage with no evidence that we're actually changing driver habits. Repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting different results was Einstein's definition of madness.

exilegareth wrote:

the absolute failure of some people to comprehend the failure of nag signs to change behaviour, I'm willing to have that argument with anyone, anywhere.

A generous offer no doubt, and who wouldn't want some more arguments in their life, but maybe you have a link to some supporting evidence for your claim about the nag signs?

1. Detected offences are rising, even though cameras are clearly signposted; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/11312713/...
This quote from an evidence based review is spot on- “A consistent complaint is the proliferation of interventions that are based neither on theory nor
on a formal body of work, and with no supporting evidence. The burden of proof has shifted.” The report in question goes on to say "An investigation into the effects of speed awareness courses in 2006 (Fylan et al., 2006) showed that the rates of reoffending for course participants was significantly lower than those for
similar but not identical groups. This suggests that this form of ‘education’ can play a valuable part in regimes to reduce excessive speeding." The full review,which focusses on 20mph limits, is here https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Images/20mph_speed_limit_Public_health_report_CJ...

A cynic might think that's not proof that speed awareness courses stop people speeding, it just helps them avoid getting caught again... especially if detected offences are rising.

Marky Legs wrote:

Strange isn't it that drivers who hold their phones whilst driving - in other words are not in full control of their vehicle - are classed as a major threat to road safety, and rightly so, having witnessed many driving dangerously, yet smokers are not.
They too are not driving with full control.

It's alright while you are holding it; it's when you drop it that control becomes an issue…

As somebody who has both driven while smoking and whilst on the phone (handsfree obviously!), I would disagree with this comparison. Using a phone is far more dangerous as it is distracting your thoughts and concentration. I can drive my automatic car safely with one finger if I want to, smoking a fag is no more dangerous than changing gear in a manual car or switching radio stations. Or maybe eating an energy bar while cycling.

The reason that I stopped using my phone while driving was that I once drove c.35 miles M25/M1 in just over an hour while on the phone to my boss. When I got to where I was going I realised that I couldn't remember anything about my journey. Hopefully my sub-concious did a decent job, but my whole attention was really on my conversation. I'm not proud of that, only sharing as a personal experience that I learnt from. My company also now has a zero tolerance policy for phone use while driving.

PS. I haven't smoked for 15+ years so have no bias here.

Glasgow Cyclist wrote:

"The VAS ... will instead serve as a visual reminder for people to avoid using their phones while driving."

That's only if the driver looks up from the fucking phone! What a waste of money.

And look at the phrasing of the report: "Spy signs to catch drivers on their phones", as if it's somehow underhand to be catching people who are a danger on the roads. FFS.

My local paper reports where police traffic cameras will be stationed for the next week, so motorists can avoid those horrible spying policemen. It's just a war on the downtrodden motorist, I tells ya.

EK Spinner wrote:

"will instead serve as a visual reminder for people to avoid using their phones while driving"

That assumes that they see the signs, surely the problem is that they aren't looking up, they are looking at their phone.

Also as with any auto system, I can't believe that any system can distinguish between driver and passenger using phone. Only proper road policing can seriously deal with it, and reduce the paperwork system so that there is no incentive to just give a warning

Thrre is of course a very easy way round this. Simply ban all mobile usage in vehicles. Let the passenger wait till they park as well-hardly a massive imposition.

oldstrath wrote:

Thrre is of course a very easy way round this. Simply ban all mobile usage in vehicles. Let the passenger wait till they park as well-hardly a massive imposition.

Arguably safer but a bit baby and bath water maybe ?... although following this through... as some research suggests that much of the danger appears to come from the bit where the information is processed and replies formulated during the conversation - not the listening or talking bit - simply ban all conversation with the driver in the car n'est-ce pas ?

fukawitribe wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

Thrre is of course a very easy way round this. Simply ban all mobile usage in vehicles. Let the passenger wait till they park as well-hardly a massive imposition.

Arguably safer but a bit baby and bath water maybe ?... although following this through... as some research suggests that much of the danger appears to come from the bit where the information is processed and replies formulated during the conversation - not the listening or talking bit - simply ban all conversation with the driver in the car n'est-ce pas ?

My wife actually complains that I don't talk to her while I'm driving, despite me telling her, 'That's because I'm driving.'
(And she still drives too close to the car in front despite me telling her off for the last 10years.)

oldstrath wrote:

Simply ban all mobile usage in vehicles.

Same as the No Open Alcohol Bottles rules in some USA states. Can't quibble with the logic.

racyrich wrote:

I'd love to know how it distinguishes driver use from passenger use. I bet it can't, hence why it makes no effort to record the vehicle, which it obviously could do simply with existing technology.

Also receiving a text from sending one.

My car will read out received texts if I want it too, I don't have it switched on, but I doubt it's illegal is it?

racyrich wrote:

it obviously could do simply with existing technology.

Tec isn't the only barrier, it's politics. Google Photo users know how far image recognition has come but politics remains backward. Why can't I have a 20mph speed cam in my street if a majority of residents sign a petition for one? Politics.