- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Texting while driving (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 licence by Paul Oka:Flickr)Drivers using phones at the wheel as much today as 5 years ago - but now they're texting and tweeting
Drivers are more likely to be using their phones to text or look at the internet than to make calls, a Department for Transport (DfT) study has found, suggesting that the war on illegal driver distraction needs to go a lot further than enforcing the use of hands free kit.
DfT observations at 60 locations near the end of last year found that drivers were more likely to have their phone in their hands than up to their ears.
Since 2003 it has been illegal to use a phone held in the hand at all while driving.
But the survey found that 1.4% of car drivers were found to be using a mobile, along with 2.7% of van drivers, most of whom (1.9%) were holding it to their ear rather than in their hand.
Only 1.2% of goods vehicles and lorry drivers were on a phone, with bus, coach and minibus drivers having the lowest usage rate at 0.4%.
1.7% of male drivers used a hand-held mobile phone, compared to 1.3% of females.
On a more positive note, 98.2 per cent of car drivers were observed using seat belts in England and Scotland.
The DfT said: "A distinction was made between drivers holding the phone to their ear (indicating that the driver was receiving or making a call) or holding it in their hand (indicating that the driver may have been receiving or making a call, texting or reading a text, or using it for some other interactive function)."
It acknowledged that "it was not possible for observers to determine what the mobile phone was being used for".
However, it said the finding "suggests that most mobile phone usage whilst driving was for the purposes of sending or receiving a text or using social media rather than making a call".
Chief Inspector Steve Maskrey, commander of the East Staffordshire local policing team, told the Burton Mail:
"Road safety is a big priority for police in East Staffordshire.
"People should understand, though, that it is not worth taking risks on the roads because you can end up having to be dealt with by the police but, more importantly, their actions could have devastating consequences."
Edmund King of the AA said on his blog: “The only way to counter White Van Man’s addiction to mobiles is to have more cops in cars and for employers to take their duty of care more seriously. If not they could face corporate manslaughter charges.
“It's worrying that the percentage of car drivers using a hand-held mobile phone has not gone down since 2009. This shows that there is a hardcore of drivers who still believe there is nothing wrong with their behaviour and continue to put their own lives, and the lives of others, at risk by using their phone behind the wheel.”
In 2013 we reported how researchers from the Carnegie Mellon University and the London School of Economics analysed eight million crashes in the USA over a three year period from 2002 to 2005 and found no link between conversations being had on mobile phones and collisions - but the results did not include texting and using mobile internet, which have increased enormously in popularity in the following years.
Levels of smartphone ownership have risen dramatically since Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007, with other brands following it into the market. By the start of 2012, ownership of smartphones had overtaken that of basic mobile phones in the UK, and by the end of this year three in four British adults are expected to own one, according to Mobile Marketing Magazine.
And last year we reported that a minibus driver has been sent to prison for five years and handed a 10-year ban from driving for killing a cyclist while looking at pictures on his mobile phone.
Andrzej Wojcicki, aged 45, had been looking at pictures of vintage sports cars on his phone as he drove at 50 miles an hour on the A472 near Newbridge, Gwent, when he struck cyclist Owain James on Sunday 21 July 2013.
Mr James died later in hospital as a result of the severe injuries he sustained in the crash.
Latest Comments
- galibiervelo 21 min 40 sec ago
That is class news. Super bikes and vision. Bet there will be no stand at the Taiwan bike show next year! Big luck to all the team
- Hirsute 44 min 3 sec ago
"However, he said that by moving his head around Wilkinson, who was driving at around 20mph, could and should have been in a position to have seen...
- Destroyer666 1 hour 3 min ago
Pretty clearly stated several times in the text that the issue was not related just to his son. And besides, everybody watching the races could see...
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 19 min ago
All Fizik and Selle Italia saddles (though not all their other products) are made in Italy I believe, and their 3D printed models definitely are.
- chrisonabike 1 hour 45 min ago
If you're not on the road with a car, I bet its driver is much less likely to swerve into your space *. Because you're not "in the way"! (Any...
- mdavidford 2 hours 1 min ago
The problem with this argument, though, is that it's just not true....
- Legin 3 hours 56 min ago
The tory party will oppose anything that might restrict their tanks rolling at the next election.
- mdavidford 4 hours 26 min ago
Especially since the similarly priced Tickr X did have that functionality.
Add new comment
25 comments
"But the survey found that 1.4% of car drivers were found to be using a mobile, along with 2.7% of van drivers, most of whom (1.9%) were holding it to their ear rather than in their hand."
DID this survey take place in a parallel world?
Take a wander through Central London during the week, and you will see a large percentage of drivers of all persuasions with either a cell phone held to their ear, or tapping at the screen of a smart phone or tablet (!)
One of my weekly (pre-work) road rides takes me up into the hilly NW of London around Hampstead and Highgate. This is during the school run, so there are long queues or slowly moving or stationary traffic.
My regular observation on my rides, as I slowly filter past traffic on the outside (I am watching the driver in case they make a sudden move) is a good 3/4 of them using cell phone, smart phone, tablet, reading book / newspaper. This observation tells me that many of these drivers do this as normal habit because its so commonplace, and they will be making the same commute / school run every weekday.
They really don't seem to give a sh*t about the law, probably because they well know its not enforced, even in busy areas like the photo above where the motorist was parked ahead of the ASL and busy using a smart phone.
I am sure they would be "very sorry" if they caused a road traffic collision whilst using their hand held device or other distraction. People are often sorry once caught, but could care less during their normal routine.
Yep, that's definitely the TRUE picture out there on the roads.
I don't believe the statistics. The figures compiled are based purely on the particular locations used for the survey. They don't necessarily represent the true picture. Stand outside any large trading estate or technology park and just watch how many van, car and lorry drivers are on their phones as they leave. I wonder how the statistics would have looked had they used these locations. I see so many drivers using phones while driving (texting or talking), and don't get me started about drivers not giving way at junctions and traffic islands, or overtaking at speed just inches from my elbow.
The figures on phone use seem remarkably low, compared to my everyday observation. It doesn't help that most drivers know that if they do kill someone, then they can generally find a lawyer to get them off or that the jury won't convict...
Remember that the figures are the percentage of drivers observed using a mobile phone at that one instant; not (even) the percentage of drivers using a mobile during that one journey.
"2.7% of van drivers" ???!!?!
Should that decimal point be there?
Simple and easy really. Met police especially, dedicated small police team that you can submitvideos to and who actually follow them up and issue tickets or more. Police officers in unmarked cars with a passenger who's job it is to specifically look out for illegal driver activities. More, many more speed camera's to reinforce the 20mph roads that have become rat runs.
but shirley if we're all "made" to wear helmets and hi viz then everything will ok ... right ...
ok ... igmc ...
more traffic police, a lot more traffic police. Drivers have to believe they will be caught. The punishment is irrelevant if you won't get caught.
I'm with MrMo on this one, I drive and like to be safe when doing so, I don't speed or take chances, that's because I'm aware of the outcome if I did have an "accident", and I am one of those people who goes around thinking "it could be me" unlike a majority of careless drivers who seem to have the attitude that they will never be involved in any kind of collision.
Effective policing has been identified as one of the main factors that could be used to reduce road deaths, as has 20mph limits (the only thing stopping these from working is a lack of willingness by the police to enforce them).
I was nearly taken out earlier today by a driver using a cellphone. I was on my old motorbike having just dropped off my son, with the headlight on and as it's a noisy old two stroke, the driver really had no excuse for not seeing or gearing me. But he was busy with his call and started to pull out from a side road in front of me without looking properly as he was too busy talking. He did stop, but only at the last minute. I was already braking hard because I could see he wasn't doing what he should do.
In other words he bit about seatbelt use should read:
Not sure how more people not wearing seatbelts is a positive thing.
My other thing to take away from this is that basically up to 5% of drivers (and that's just people on phones and seatbelts) don't think that the law applies to them. 1 in 20 on the roads as having no regard for the law is a pretty scary figure!
"Not sure how more people not wearing seatbelts is a positive thing."
I quote from a blog by Professor John Adams.
http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2013/03/24/the-biggest-lie/
"a June 2008 article in Significance by Richard Allsop, Oliver Carsten, Andrew Evans, and Robert Gifford (all members of PACTS). See table below.
Significantly the Significance article did not make it into the Review’s list of key references on seat belts. A significant omission because the authors, all defenders of the seat belt law, acknowledge an effect of the law of important consequence to vulnerable road users. They say “the clear reduction in death and injury to car occupants is appreciably offset by extra deaths among pedestrians and cyclists.”"
There is good reason for cyclists to dislike the seatbelt law. I would prefer that drivers were at the same risk from their carelessness as I am (from their carelessness as well as my own.).
Pacts is the Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Transport Safety.
"Significance" is an academic journal about staistics.
+1 for this.
I've always been a advocate for the removal of driver seat belts and air bag and replacing them with a 6 inch steel spike sticking out of the wheel. I'm sure everybody's safety would improve and there would be such a problem with 20 mile an hour speed limits. Drivers feel too safe.
Here, here. I'd go even further and ban ABS, traction control and side impact beams. Generally make cars more unsafe for the user.
Totally disagree. How would I feel if someone t-bones me and kills my 4 year old in the back seat because my car has been made unsafe for my own protection by removing the side impact beams?
I ride, I drive. I'd like to feel safe doing both.
Ah but the other driver wouldn't t-bone you hard enough as they would be travelling slow enough towards the junction or area of danger not to end up with six inch spike between the eyes.
However, welcome to the arms race where you surround yourself with safety features to make yourself feel safer. The safer you feel, the more risk is acceptable, the more risk is taken, the more serious the outcome is when it goes wrong.
I ride, I drive, I marshal motorsport events. I want to be safe doing all and take responsibility for the safety of those around me.
IF their a responsible driver they won't. What about all the idiots, speeders, phone users, drink drivers, car thieves etc..... The only way to account for other peoples stupidity is with technology. Why should I put myself or my daughter at risk by not having these technological advances?
You do realise ABS works as a safety feature for pedestrians and cyclists as well? At 20 mph without ABS a car will slide under harsh/ emergency breaking. I'm all for 20 mph limits but ABS potentially stops a car emergency braking and sliding into a young child that hasn't looked properly before crossing the road.
There is a very convincing German study which showed that drivers with ABS brake later and leave smaller gaps than drivers without. They use the putative safety gain as a performance gain.
"You do realise ABS works as a safety feature for pedestrians and cyclists as well?"
Do you have any data to support your contention that ABS equipped vehicles kill fewer pedestrians and cyclists?
The only relevant research that I am aware of compared two fleets of vehicles, identical except that one fleet had ABS and every other possible "safety" feature, and the other didn't. The expectation was that the first group would be significantly less risky than the second, but the results were that it wasn't in reality. The researchers findings were that the drivers of the first group, with ABS etc, used the extra perceived safety benefits as performance benefits i.e. they could go faster and take more risks without increasing the risk to themselves.
Road safety is a complex field of human behaviour, and without realising that human behaviour changes and adapts to the circumstances, most "safety" interventions are doomed to failure. Don't get me started on helmets.
You may be referring to this famous study.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/oldwiki/Road_safety/Risk_compensation
"Among a total of 747 accidents incurred by the company's taxis during that period, the involvement rate of the ABS vehicles was not lower, but slightly higher, although not significantly so in a statistical sense. "
"Subsequent analysis of the rating scales showed that drivers of cabs with ABS made sharper turns in curves, were less accurate in their lane-holding behaviour, proceeded at a shorter forward sight distance, made more poorly adjusted merging manoeuvres and created more "traffic conflicts". This is a technical term for a situation in which one or more traffic participants have to take swift action to avoid a collision with another road user.[2] Finally, as compared with the non-ABS cabs, the ABS cabs were driven faster at one of the four measuring points along the route. All these differences were significant. "
Valid point and I agree with John Adam's studies. I don't however think you can extend that logic to say that non seatbelt drivers are a good thing in a country where seatbelts are mandatory. Theres a different dynamic at play here.There is evidence to suggest that those who deliberately flout the seatbelt law are a selective group more likely to be risk takers and as such, a greater risk to other road users.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3508353/
Yes but, it is not the not belt wearing which makes these drivers dangerous, but rather the other way round. The average driver will feel less safe without and so take more care.
Seatbelt law and phone law are vastly different. A driver using his phone near me puts me at risk and I'd quite like to see him caught and punished. A driver not wearing his seat belt is putting himself at risk. I'd be very happy if no drivers wore seat belts.