# Using a mobile whilst driving....?



## Typhhon (Oct 28, 2006)

Obligatory viewing for the insane community...

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=648739011828436


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

You cab tell by some of the replies there are a lot of really stupid/ignorant people about.

If it makes one person think and stop then it's a success.


----------



## SalsredTT (Jan 8, 2011)

I throw my handbag in the boot along with the phone in it when I'm driving - no chance of me using it then. And I hate hands free too because I just KNOW I'm not concentrating!


----------



## j8keith (Jun 26, 2009)

Really makes you think, sadly nearly every time I go on the road I see someone playing with their phone whilst driving, people just do not seem to get the message about the dangers.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

I think thier is a world of a difference between talking on a phone and texting on a phone. Actually chatting on the mobile isn't dangerous. No more dangerous than talking to a passenger while picking your nose :lol:

I used to work in sales and marketing and would drive over 1500 miles a week and due to the nature of the job I had a mobile glued to my ear for most of that, I did that job for 5 years till the made it illegal and I got a hands-free kit. Not even once did it cause even a near miss and I never felt that I was inhibited.

Sending a text is utterly different even though at the time it was legal to operate a mobile I wouldn't have dreamed of trying to send a text, that's just dumb.


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

brian1978 said:


> I think thier is a world of a difference between talking on a phone and texting....


No there isn't Brian both are illegal and increase the chances of an accident (facts)

What I would say is talking is plain silly and texting is really asking for trouble.


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

jamman said:


> brian1978 said:
> 
> 
> > I think thier is a world of a difference between talking on a phone and texting....
> ...


I disagree, I never had a problem using my phone and driving. I don't do it now as it's illegal. But if it wasn't I'd still do it.

There is a world of a difference because to text you have to take your eyes off the road and concentrate on doing something unnatural. I.e. pressing keys to type.

Holding a phone to your ear and talking is infinitely less distracting.

Can you honestly say you have never ever drank a can of cola or such while driving, or eaten something on the move?

Doing this while chatting to a passenger must be on par with making a call.


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

Thanks for posting it


----------



## YoungOldUn (Apr 12, 2011)

While walking our dog I saw an arctic being driven by a guy who was eating either spaghetti or noodles out of an aluminium tray while he was presumably steering with his knees as he had both hands on view.


----------



## Hoggy (May 8, 2002)

brian1978 said:


> I think thier is a world of a difference between talking on a phone and texting on a phone. Actually chatting on the mobile isn't dangerous. No more dangerous than talking to a passenger while picking your nose :lol:
> 
> I used to work in sales and marketing and would drive over 1500 miles a week and due to the nature of the job I had a mobile glued to my ear for most of that, I did that job for 5 years till the made it illegal and I got a hands-free kit. Not even once did it cause even a near miss and I never felt that I was inhibited.
> 
> Sending a text is utterly different even though at the time it was legal to operate a mobile I wouldn't have dreamed of trying to send a text, that's just dumb.


 :roll: :roll: [smiley=argue.gif] [smiley=bigcry.gif] 
Hoggy.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

entirely agree with brian..obviously you don't talk on the phone while going throo spaghetti junction at 70 mph,, but there are many many times when it is perfectly safe to talk while driving,,, once again the boffins take one scenario with which they are familiar and apply this to every other scenario which are often totally outwith their ken... once again we have " experts " advising experts who then advise other experts so by the time we have arrived at the boffin who has to justify his job we are in fantasy land !!!,, perhaps brian,, if some of the boffins moved away from spaghetti junction they would see the real world,, for some tho the real world is spaghetti junction


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

What's worrying is that people who really should know better don't see that their ability to react properly to any situation which may arise is seriously impaired by not having both hands on the wheel. There's no excuse whatsoever, hands free kits are available at prices to suit everyone.

Holding a mobile phone to your ear whilst driving just says it all about your attitude and how you see your responsibilities in driving a motor vehicle on public roads.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

holding a phone, holding a mars bar, a banana, a cigarette, changing gear,, I am surprised at some peoples apparent / perceived lack of ability


----------



## Skeee (Jun 9, 2009)

roddy said:


> holding a phone, holding a mars bar, a banana, a cigarette, changing gear,, I am surprised at some peoples apparent / perceived lack of ability


 Missed the point entirely!

Driving requires focus and concentration. The majority of the time most of us could competently drive safely whilst eating an apple, smoking a cigarette, chatting to the kids, reading a map, or getting felated by the missus, but the one time when a deer lands in front of you or the oncoming driver is p!££3d you would like to have the best chance to survive the situation without confining one of the kids to a wheelchair!


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

Skeee said:


> roddy said:
> 
> 
> > holding a phone, holding a mars bar, a banana, a cigarette, changing gear,, I am surprised at some peoples apparent / perceived lack of ability
> ...


perhaps without the gushing sentimentality the " point " which you so generously make has in fact been attempted many many times before , my reply to it is in my post above,,,, re your repeat , which for some reason you think is going to lay the issue to rest, I have , I can asure you, been involved in all of your scinarios, with the exception of the ciggy , and I will lay a bet that I have met more deer on the road than you ever will so you will forgive me if I use my own experience regarding that.


----------



## Pugwash69 (Jun 12, 2012)

I'm not sure why talking to someone else whilst driving is an issue. I chatted to my driving instructor all the time during lessons. I was chatting easily with the examiner on my test too. No one bloody phones me when I'm in my car though, because I have no mobile reception at home and few people know my number. I have a hands free system just in case...


----------



## Skeee (Jun 9, 2009)

roddy said:


> Skeee said:
> 
> 
> > roddy said:
> ...


 Once again you've missed the point. Just 'cos you can cope safely doesn't mean all the other f%w!*ts on the road can.



Pugwash69 said:


> I'm not sure why talking to someone else whilst driving is an issue. I chatted to my driving instructor all the time during lessons. I was chatting easily with the examiner on my test too. No one bloody phones me when I'm in my car though, because I have no mobile reception at home and few people know my number. I have a hands free system just in case.


 Poor example as the driving instructor/examiner is trained and experienced in this very scenario and will pause if the road conditions determine. The person on the other end of the phone will not.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Roddy, it's about statistics. Whether or not you've had an issue isn't really the point, as I'm sure you understand. No one has ever claimed using your phone while driving is _guaranteed_ to cause a crash. It just increases risk, and as it's an easily avoided risk, it makes sense to avoid it.


----------



## Typhhon (Oct 28, 2006)

Sat a M1 J 10 one morning and watched little 'Miss texting while driving' plant her 206 right into the back of a stationary lorry.
Too many witnesses on that one.... 
Low speed so luckily only her pride and NCD destroyed...


----------



## brian1978 (Jul 10, 2013)

Typhhon said:


> Sat a M1 J 10 one morning and watched little 'Miss texting while driving' plant her 206 right into the back of a stationary lorry.
> Too many witnesses on that one....
> Low speed so luckily only her pride and NCD destroyed...


Back at this again, texting on a phone is utterly different to talking on one. It's like saying driving whilst eating a sandwich and driving while making a sandwich.

Different things altogether.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

The issue of difference between talking to someone on a phone (even hands free) and talking to a passenger is that when you come to a tricky driving moment your passenger will shut up to let you concentrate but the person on the other end of the phone won't see the cue for silence and will carry on talking and engaging your attention. Then it's down to how good you are at ignoring their demands and applying all your attention to the traffic situation. As social beings we have an inbuilt affinity to converse and a subconscious desire not to be rude and fail with conversation. There's a conflict.

You can train yourself to be good at anything - like driving if you only have one arm or one eye but you wouldn't necessarily chose to handicap yourself to that extent mid journey. On the other hand (presuming you have one) a marginal increase in risk falls into a sea of noise from other risks like choosing to drive more miles than most or with different shoes or whilst in a bad mood or tired. As usual you need a sense of proportion but we are not necessarily good at judging risk.


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Spandex said:


> Roddy, it's about statistics. Whether or not you've had an issue isn't really the point, as I'm sure you understand. No one has ever claimed using your phone while driving is _guaranteed_ to cause a crash. It just increases risk, and as it's an easily avoided risk, it makes sense to avoid it.


+1


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> Roddy, it's about statistics. Whether or not you've had an issue isn't really the point, as I'm sure you understand. No one has ever claimed using your phone while driving is _guaranteed_ to cause a crash. It just increases risk, and as it's an easily avoided risk, it makes sense to avoid it.


I agree. However "easily avoided" is an interesting one as to some people a choice is a need, a necessity or a right but to others undesirable, irrelevant or irresponsible.

Take for example your choice of tyres. You could say cheap tyres increase your risk of an accident but they may be all you can afford. Same with buying a second hand car or a new one with better safety. If you drive more miles you increase risk - is that a need or a choice because you don't want to move house nearer work?

People also rarely choose their car based on safety and reduced risk but arguably often based on increased risk and thrills and pay more insurance because of it - which is a statistical confirmation of their increased risk - it was easily avoided though - they could have bought a less sporty car. A case where right to choose trumps safety risk.


----------



## Skeee (Jun 9, 2009)

John-H said:


> The issue of difference between talking to someone on a phone (even hands free) and talking to a passenger is that when you come to a tricky driving moment your passenger will shut up to let you concentrate but the person on the other end of the phone won't see the cue for silence and will carry on talking and engaging your attention. Then it's down to how good you are at ignoring their demands and applying all your attention to the traffic situation. As social beings we have an inbuilt affinity to converse and a subconscious desire not to be rude and fail with conversation. There's a conflict.
> 
> You can train yourself to be good at anything - like driving if you only have one arm or one eye but you wouldn't necessarily chose to handicap yourself to that extent mid journey. On the other hand* (presuming you have one)* a marginal increase in risk falls into a sea of noise from other risks like choosing to drive more miles than most or with different shoes or whilst in a bad mood or tired. As usual you need a sense of proportion but we are not necessarily good at judging risk.


* +1 * _I already said that, but it wasn't as funny!_


Skeee said:


> Pugwash69 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure why talking to someone else whilst driving is an issue. I chatted to my driving instructor all the time during lessons. I was chatting easily with the examiner on my test too. No one bloody phones me when I'm in my car though, because I have no mobile reception at home and few people know my number. I have a hands free system just in case.
> ...


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

John-H said:


> The issue of difference between talking to someone on a phone (even hands free) and talking to a passenger is that when you come to a tricky driving moment your passenger will shut up to let you concentrate but the person on the other end of the phone won't see the que for silence and will carry on talking and engaging your attention. Then it's down to how good you are at ignoring their demands and applying all your attention to the traffic situation. As social beings we have an inbuilt affinity to converse and a subconscious desire not to be rude and fail with conversation. There's a conflict.
> 
> You can train yourself to be good at anything - like driving if you only have one arm or one eye but you wouldn't necessarily chose to handicap yourself to that extent mid journey. On the other hand (presuming you have one) a marginal increase in risk falls into a sea of noise from other risks like choosing to drive more miles than most or with different shoes or whilst in a bad mood or tired. As usual you need a sense of proportion but we are not necessarily good at judging risk.


+1 on above. Passenger is awre of things happening around you so shuts up if you brake hard, swerve etc...
I used to have a hands free in last car and it was great for quick calls to let SWMBO know I was stuck on M25 or whatever, but if I got in a 'heavy' business calm I found my concentration on the road / speed etc lacking, so didn't get hands free this time and let phone go to VM if driving.

Plus don't want to get points...

Each to their own though...


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

John-H said:


> If you drive more miles you increase risk.


Sorry do not agree on this. If you drive more miles you increase the probability of an incident, if only as more time on the road increases the chance of someone else hitting you.

I'd much rather drive on a motorway with lots of reps / high mileage drivers etc who are positive (even if fast or whatever) and assess the risk even if they don't know they are, than a load of old dodderers who only use the motorway infrequently and just do what they want, hog lanes, change lanes etc without assessing the risk


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Shug750S said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > If you drive more miles you increase risk.
> ...


What I meant was that your absolute risk or chance of having an accident increases due to the increased total driven time/miles as you say. Your risk per mile arguably would go down because of increased practice and experience but that's arguable.

Thanks for spotting the typo Skee :wink:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> I agree. However "easily avoided" is an interesting one as to some people a choice is a need, a necessity or a right but to others undesirable, irrelevant or irresponsible.
> 
> Take for example your choice of tyres. You could say cheap tyres increase your risk of an accident but they may be all you can afford. Same with buying a second hand car or a new one with better safety. If you drive more miles you increase risk - is that a need or a choice because you don't want to move house nearer work?
> 
> People also rarely choose their car based on safety and reduced risk but arguably often based on increased risk and thrills and pay more insurance because of it - which is a statistical confirmation of their increased risk - it was easily avoided though - they could have bought a less sporty car. A case where right to choose trumps safety risk.


Peoples differing perceptions of risk have nothing to do with how easy it is to avoid. It is easy to not use a phone whilst driving and what's more, it's free. That's unequivocal. What people chose to do doesn't change the level of risk, or the ease of mitigation. The fact that it's so simple to avoid just makes it all the more ridiculous that people still use their phones whilst driving in spite of both the law and the additional risks.

That's the thing though - you can skew the risk argument any way you want by arbitrarily choosing the baseline for safety and wording the risk assessment in the right way. You might say that cheap tyres increase risk. I might say that tyres should meet a legal minimum safety standard and anything above that is just decreasing risk below the maximum acceptable level. Eventually you have to rely on regulations to provide measurable, repeatable baselines for you, otherwise you're left with everyone's individual perception of risk, which we all know is meaningless.

Back in the real world though, I'd say for a sensible driver, the cars performance or its tyres should have no impact on risk at all, because the sensible driver will drive within the limits of the equipment and the conditions. Bad tyres don't put you in a ditch - Driving the the same way with bad tyres as you would with good tyres might though.


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

Shug750S said:


> old dodderers who only use the motorway infrequently and just do what they want, hog lanes, change lanes etc without assessing the risk


Isn't that a tad prejudiced? Just because someone is "old" (in your eyes anyway) doesn't mean to say they are unsafe and can't make good progress when driving. [smiley=thumbsdown.gif]

I invite you take part in my next NM cruise on 27th April, which I'll add to the _Events_ board soon and you can judge for yourself about "old dodderers"


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

A3DFU said:


> Shug750S said:
> 
> 
> > old dodderers who only use the motorway infrequently and just do what they want, hog lanes, change lanes etc without assessing the risk
> ...


Was an example, I meant the guy in the Datsun Sunny or old micra, wearing a trilby and driving gloves type, who just sails on to the motorway oblivious to anyone else, his or anyone else's speed or road conditions. I find the reps in their 316s / 320s etc tend to take more risks, but they assess them and are decisive rather than just doing their own thing...

Wasn't picking on oldies, I'm mid 50s and traded my Fireblade for a cruiser last year as the old back couldn't take it.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

To be honest, I think most drivers in slow, old cars tend to just sit in lane one and rarely pull out because they're not going faster than anyone else in that lane. They don't really affect anyone else around them. I think the decisive, 'calculated risk' group tend to be the ones who you need to watch out for, because whilst they're experienced, they make too many assumptions. They tend to see other road users as a series of obstacles, and although they may be very good at avoiding and working their way through these obstacles, they don't really have a lot of consideration for the obstacles themselves.

For example, if they want to move right to overtake, they'll assess gaps based purely on whether or not they can fit in them. They won't think twice about whether they'll leave the driver behind disadvantaged (from a safety viewpoint), or if they might cause him to brake.


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

Spandex said:


> .
> 
> For example, if they want to move right to overtake, they'll assess gaps based purely on whether or not they can fit in them. They won't think twice about whether they'll leave the driver behind disadvantaged (from a safety viewpoint), or if they might cause him to brake.


Agree with this entirely. All too often you see these drivers changing lanes into gaps little more than the length of their vehicle, and at high speed, having no regard for leaving a safe distance behind the vehicle they've just shoe-horned in behind and robbing following drivers of the safe distance they've left in front.


----------



## mullum (Sep 16, 2011)

As a biker I have to say that seeing someone with one of their hands holding a phone to their ear whilst driving - drives me mad. Hands free has been available so long and is so cheap now - there's just no excuse. In fact it should be a legal requirement to car manufacturers and possibly part of an mot test.
No hands free or it's not working - mot fail. Caught using your phone in your hand whilst driving - same punishment as driving over the legal limit for alcohol.
It's people's lives were talking about.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > I agree. However "easily avoided" is an interesting one as to some people a choice is a need, a necessity or a right but to others undesirable, irrelevant or irresponsible.
> ...


I don't disagree that some risks are easy to avoid and therefore it seems to make no sense to engage in them but I was making the point that people have different perceptions of risk and their perceived need to engage in them - and there in lies the problem and the argument.

I agree with what you've said about tyres to a large extent. Yes you can argue that a minimum standard sets a base line which some _body_ at some point deems is an acceptable minimum standard but clearly an improvement above that baseline reduces risk and it's _this_ extra margin that real people make choices about - weighing up cost against improved grip (as they are denied poorer choices by regulation) and it's that extra grip which could arguably save a life in an emergency stop. It's still cost versus safety regardless of there being a baseline.

Although I don't disagree, it's perhaps a bit misleading to say that a sensible driver compensates for more or less risk rendering the situation the same regardless of the state of the equipment. The argument presupposes that everyone being discussed is a sensible driver but we now this not the case of the general population, so it's a limited specific argument rather than a general one in scope. We know that regulations exist for tyre standards with minimum tread depth etc. and they exist to cover everybody and make no allowance for sensible people within that group - rather they protect against those who don't have a clue.

The insurance industry bring a statistical science to the assessment of risk regarding choice of car. The more sporty the higher the premium. Clearly they don't think that only sensible drivers buy them :wink: - the point here though is still that consumer choice trumps risk - they are still allowed to buy despite it being easy not to and their choice being more dangerous statistically.

Waves in the sea of noise risk


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

there is risk everywhere,, the way to deal with it is not to put a blanket ban on everything that is considered to be a risk, otherwise there would be no cars etc on the road, no people flying in helicopters planes, balloons etc, no mountain climbing, no swiming,, no drinking nescafe, etc etc,,,,management of the risk is the commonly used method.


----------



## Hibbsy (Mar 3, 2013)

Surely this argument is academic anyway. Like many things in this country using a phone behind the wheel without a hands free kit is illegal. I agree it's probably not in the same league as murder but it could end up with a death or injury. You just never know what's round that next corner.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

roddy said:


> there is risk everywhere,, the way to deal with it is not to put a blanket ban on everything that is considered to be a risk, otherwise there would be no cars etc on the road, no people flying in helicopters planes, balloons etc, no mountain climbing, no swiming,, no drinking nescafe, etc etc,,,,management of the risk is the commonly used method.


Exactly.. Hence banning mobile phone use without a hands free kit whilst driving. This effectively manages the risk without using a blanket ban.


----------



## mullum (Sep 16, 2011)

I thought my "mot fail" and "equal punishment to drink driving" comments would at least provoke SOME response :lol:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> I agree with what you've said the point here though is still that consumer choice trumps risk - they are still allowed to buy despite it being easy not to and their choice being more dangerous statistically.


Insurance risk isn't the same as safety risk. A high performance car isn't inherently more 'risky' than a standard car, from a safety perspective, and I don't think there's any evidence that they're more likely to be involved in accidents. On the road, risk is almost entirely a function of driver behaviour, rather than the car they're in, or the tyres they're using.

As an example, if you handed some people the keys to a £200k supercar on loan, they'd have it in a ditch within the hour. If you handed me the same keys, I'd baby it everywhere, crapping myself because I was driving around in a large chunk of someone else's money. So is the car really dangerous or really safe? If you did the same test with 100 people and 70 of them drove it like they stole it, does that suddenly make it a dangerous car? It's physically the same car as the one I drove really carefully..


----------



## muz1990 (May 12, 2013)

mullum said:


> As a biker I have to say that seeing someone with one of their hands holding a phone to their ear whilst driving - drives me mad. Hands free has been available so long and is so cheap now - there's just no excuse. In fact it should be a legal requirement to car manufacturers and possibly part of an mot test.
> No hands free or it's not working - mot fail. Caught using your phone in your hand whilst driving - same punishment as driving over the legal limit for alcohol.
> It's people's lives were talking about.


So my 80 year old gran who doesn't have a mobile will have a failed not cert for not having a £85 parrot kit? :lol:

Don't agree on punishment the same as a drunk driver..

I've been known to smoke, eat, drink juice, change cd's while driving along with one hand in an automatic for example.

I've even sent the odd text stuck in stand still traffic with the handbrake on, anyone who sits and rips at me for this can bugger off because we have all done it, it depends entirely on the situation!

Me - stuck on motorway for 45 minutes with no hands free on route to the office, decide since I haven't moved for 12 minutes il text my boss and notify them of this.. Should that be wrong? < not in my opinion.

Changing the radio, a cd, rolling down a window, talking to a passenger, drinking water, moving your seat, adjusting the rear view mirror.. All things considered 'a distraction', however the planet is so god damn over baring that they can't differentiate one thing and another. It's a load of bollocks IMO.

Don't phone/text people without hands free unless stationary, yes.. But it also depends on circumstance


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with what you've said the point here though is still that consumer choice trumps risk - they are still allowed to buy despite it being easy not to and their choice being more dangerous statistically.
> ...


I'm sure you would drive a £200k supercar that wasn't yours carefully and you being on the road in that car would be as safe as you driving your own car because you are a careful and responsible person, proving the point that the car itself in your hands has made no difference to safety - but - that's not how insurance companies who deal with averaged category risk assessment see it. I'm also sure that if you asked your insurance company to insure you in a £200k supercar they would put your premiums up on the basis that the car increases your risk _despite you being the same person_. What's changed? The car. On an insurance assessment of risk - performance cars carry more risk because in general people will try out the extra performance and are more likely to get themselves into a tricky situation and at a greater speed resulting in a bigger accident probability. Although you can say that's down to driver behaviour it's the car that allows them to behave like that.

It's a bit like arguing that a loaded machine gun is no more dangerous than a stick as it depends on the person using it. Well yes, in a way but when classifying weapons you can't quite be such a dangerous mad terrorist with only a stick. :wink:


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

muz1990 said:


> mullum said:
> 
> 
> > As a biker I have to say that seeing someone with one of their hands holding a phone to their ear whilst driving - drives me mad. Hands free has been available so long and is so cheap now - there's just no excuse. In fact it should be a legal requirement to car manufacturers and possibly part of an mot test.
> ...


The problem is there are far too many drivers who can't negotiate a junction or roundabout without drifting across lanes, let alone trying to do it with one hand and a mobile glued to their ear. As for texting or phoning while stationary in traffic, obviously it's much safer, but the blanket ban has been imposed across the board primarily to make enforcement easier and avoid the obvious arguments about whether the car was moving or not.

There's no comparison between taking a swift swig of water or smoking a ***, to driving for miles with a mobile held to your ear. We all see them every day, shamelessly on the phone for mile after mile, negotiating roundabouts and changing gears one handed. They're an absolute bloody menace and the existing penalty isn't enough.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> I'm sure you would drive a £200k supercar that wasn't yours carefully and you being on the road in that car would be as safe as you driving your own car because you are a careful and responsible person, proving the point that the car itself in your hands has made no difference to safety


Exactly. So, how can the same car not add risk for one person but add risk for another? The answer is in how it makes the other person behave, and I think it's misleading to imply that somehow the car itself is dangerous, or 'more risky' purely because the human being sat in it decides to take risks because they believe that's how you need to drive a performance car.



John-H said:


> that's not how insurance companies who deal with averaged category risk assessment see it. I'm also sure that if you asked your insurance company to insure you in a £200k supercar they would put your premiums up on the basis that the car increases your risk _despite you being the same person_.


£200k supercars demand high premiums because they cost £200k to replace, not because they're more likely to be crashed. You're trying to use insurance risk to demonstrate safety risk and the two are very different.



John-H said:


> It's a bit like arguing that a loaded machine gun is no more dangerous than a stick as it depends on the person using it. Well yes, in a way but when classifying weapons you can't quite be such a dangerous mad terrorist with only a stick. :wink:


Reductio ad absurdum... It's so far from being an example of what we're discussing that I have no idea how to respond to that...


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

I'm a risk engineer, working for a large insurer on industrial business and construction. We looked at all incidents in past 20 years, and with exception of Natural Catastrophe events, hurricanes, windstorm, flood etc, virtually 100% of incidents where we were doing loss investigations were down to people / human element failure.

All could be tracked back to poor operation, lack of maintenance, or just the person screwed up and did it wrong somewhere, or the equipment failed due to poor manufacture, installation or lack of maintenance

This reinforces the human element stated above by others


----------



## Hilly10 (Feb 4, 2004)

They have it spot on, the amount of young girls you see texting at the wheel is staggering.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure you would drive a £200k supercar that wasn't yours carefully and you being on the road in that car would be as safe as you driving your own car because you are a careful and responsible person, proving the point that the car itself in your hands has made no difference to safety
> ...


There's a chance that even your good self might have a mad moment, so having a car that allows you to express yourself at that time is a risk the insurance company recognises. Anyway, personalising the argument to be about yourself being well behaved is to avoid the general argument that includes the averaged whole and that is clearly; increased performance cars carry more risk. Sure they need a driver to make them move - that only says it's ridiculous to look at them in isolation.



Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > that's not how insurance companies who deal with averaged category risk assessment see it. I'm also sure that if you asked your insurance company to insure you in a £200k supercar they would put your premiums up on the basis that the car increases your risk _despite you being the same person_.
> ...


True, the cost of repair is a large part of the cover for a £200k supercar but It's not just the cost of repair that defines premiums and it's silly to suggest that the risk or extent of an accident does not come into it. For example, you could make your own super car with a big engine and all the right uprated parts and safety features and even get an engineers report done to say it's "safe" and well put together etc. Such a car might be no more expensive than a family saloon. Now accrding to what you seem to be saying the insurance company would only be justified in considering the human element and would ignore the performance aspect seeing as the cost of replacement parts wasn't much. As we all know, in reality, they would load your premiums because of what they consider to be extra risk and potential extent.



Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > It's a bit like arguing that a loaded machine gun is no more dangerous than a stick as it depends on the person using it. Well yes, in a way but when classifying weapons you can't quite be such a dangerous mad terrorist with only a stick. :wink:
> ...


No it isn't. You are just avoiding an obvious example. Most people in the real world recognise the extent of damage you could do with an item depending on what it is (whether it be a car or a weapon or whatever) as a factor in defining the risk and how much danger it poses. Sure, you have to pick up the weapon or drive the car but it would be absurd to assess risk on the basis that they would never be used :roll:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> There's a chance that even your good self might have a mad moment, so having a car that allows you to express yourself at that time is a risk the insurance company recognises. Anyway, personalising the argument to be about yourself being well behaved is to avoid the general argument that includes the averaged whole and that is clearly; increased performance cars carry more risk. Sure they need a driver to make them move - that only says it's ridiculous to look at them in isolation.


I don't think it's ridiculous to look at them in isolation. What I think is ridiculous is to claim a particular car is high risk based purely on the behaviour of the driver of that car. I agree if you look at it as a whole, the risk increases marginally (and if you look at the data, it really is marginal) but it's completely illogical to extend that evaluation to every component of the 'whole'. A Ferrari isn't a high risk car. A poor driver in a Ferrari _might be_ higher risk than in a standard car, but I wouldn't be surprised if the difference was negligible.

Did you know, you're more likely to have a crash in a Volvo than a BMW? Does that mean anything about Volvos? Probably not.



John-H said:


> True, the cost of repair is a large part of the cover for a £200k supercar but It's not just the cost of repair that defines premiums and it's silly to suggest that the risk or extent of an accident does not come into it. For example, you could make your own super car with a big engine and all the right uprated parts and safety features and even get an engineers report done to say it's "safe" and well put together etc. Such a car might be no more expensive than a family saloon. Now accrding to what you seem to be saying the insurance company would only be justified in considering the human element and would ignore the performance aspect seeing as the cost of replacement parts wasn't much. As we all know, in reality, they would load your premiums because of what they consider to be extra risk and potential extent.


Errr... Do "we all know" that? Do any of us have any experience of the situation you've just described? I have no idea what an insurance company would do with regard to a home designed and built car, regardless of its relative performance.



John-H said:


> No it isn't. You are just avoiding an obvious example. Most people in the real world recognise the extent of damage you could do with an item depending on what it is (whether it be a car or a weapon or whatever) as a factor in defining the risk and how much danger it poses. Sure, you have to pick up the weapon or drive the car but it would be absurd to assess risk on the basis that they would never be used :roll:


Good. You've explained exactly why it's a poor analogy. As you say, a gun is more dangerous than a stick because of the amount of damage you can do with it (and, I suppose, the range at which you can do that damage). A Ferrari will not do more damage than a Honda Accord in a crash though. Perhaps if you want to compare two potential weapons, a better analogy would be a rock and a hammer. The hammer is a much higher performance tool, but do you care which one the terrorist has in his hands now?

Or maybe we can compare a drawing pin and an intercontinental ballistic missile?? :roll:


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > There's a chance that even your good self might have a mad moment, so having a car that allows you to express yourself at that time is a risk the insurance company recognises. Anyway, personalising the argument to be about yourself being well behaved is to avoid the general argument that includes the averaged whole and that is clearly; increased performance cars carry more risk. Sure they need a driver to make them move - that only says it's ridiculous to look at them in isolation.
> ...


But the sort of berson who buys a high performance car is more likely to drive it accordingly. You need to consider the likely use it's put to. It's like the gun being considered more dangerous than a stick. If you don't use them then they are inanimate objects and unlikely to harm it's their potential or likely use when you pick them up or drive them that carries the risk and the risk is considered for both the item and the user together.



Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > True, the cost of repair is a large part of the cover for a £200k supercar but It's not just the cost of repair that defines premiums and it's silly to suggest that the risk or extent of an accident does not come into it. For example, you could make your own super car with a big engine and all the right uprated parts and safety features and even get an engineers report done to say it's "safe" and well put together etc. Such a car might be no more expensive than a family saloon. Now accrding to what you seem to be saying the insurance company would only be justified in considering the human element and would ignore the performance aspect seeing as the cost of replacement parts wasn't much. As we all know, in reality, they would load your premiums because of what they consider to be extra risk and potential extent.
> ...


I put an RS2000 enine, transmission and suspension in a Ford Escort 1300L and had an engineers report done on it in order to be able to insure it. They increased my premiums. They obviously thought there was more risk. I was the same, the car was near the same weight and unchanged in size and looks. I wonder what they were thinking? Oh I know - what the intended likely use was i.e. more performance - therefore more risk. I did try to argue it was less of a theft risk than an RS2000 but they argued it was a performance vehicle and higher risk. When it got stolen they tried to pay out on the basis of a 1300L but that's another story.



Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > No it isn't. You are just avoiding an obvious example. Most people in the real world recognise the extent of damage you could do with an item depending on what it is (whether it be a car or a weapon or whatever) as a factor in defining the risk and how much danger it poses. Sure, you have to pick up the weapon or drive the car but it would be absurd to assess risk on the basis that they would never be used :roll:
> ...


But I've used a rock as a hammer - their use can be similar. I used a gun and a stick because their use was clearly different. Are you arguing that an ICBM is as safe as a drawing pin? I suppose you'd say that dangerous chemicals are no more dangerous than a cup of water when not used whereas I'd say they were more dangerous because of their intended use. Like I'd also say that the Ferrari, whilst perhaps similar weight to a Honda Accord, is far more likely to have an accident at a higher speed due to its intended use.

Anyway my main point was that there are many risks that come into play when considering driving, the car being one but there are many more - inate skill at driving, being tired, being in a bad mood, being excited about something, chuckling over the enjoyable conversation with Spandex, talking to a passenger, using a hands free mobile, having chosen cheap tyres, deciding to drive at night, in the rain or at all, not checking your washer fluid, being in a hurry, being diabetic, only having one eye, arm or some other disadvantage like a heart condition, having a sore foot, being hungry, having had some alcohol, having a headache, having a bad cold, smoking, being hungry - the list goes on. Some risks you can't avoid unless you refrain from driving and some you have some control over - point is they all go in the mix and each should be considered in relation i.e. a sense of proportion is needed.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> But the sort of berson who buys a high performance car is more likely to drive it accordingly. You need to consider the likely use it's put to. It's like the gun being considered more dangerous than a stick. If you don't use them then they are inanimate objects and unlikely to harm it's their potential or likely use when you pick them up or drive them that carries the risk and the risk is considered for both the item and the user together.


Sure they are. But that doesn't make the car more risky, any more than it makes the tyres on that car more risky or the sunglasses they like to wear whilst driving more risky. You've said enough times now that some people will be perfectly safe in a performance car and some won't. If that doesn't tell you that it's not the car that is high risk, then I don't know what else to say to you.



John-H said:


> I put an RS2000 enine, transmission and suspension in a Ford Escort 1300L and had an engineers report done on it in order to be able to insure it. They increased my premiums. They obviously thought there was more risk. I was the same, the car was near the same weight and unchanged in size and looks. I wonder what they were thinking? Oh I know - what the intended likely use was i.e. more performance - therefore more risk. I did try to argue it was less of a theft risk than an RS2000 but they argued it was a performance vehicle and higher risk. When it got stolen they tried to pay out on the basis of a 1300L but that's another story.


Insurance companies will include a huge number of variables and factors when deciding on premiums and, lets face it, will also charge extra because they can, rather than because they need to. If you think you can extrapolate an actual relative safety 'value' by looking at how premiums change from one car to another then you're insane.



John-H said:


> But I've used a rock as a hammer - their use can be similar. I used a gun and a stick because their use was clearly different. Are you arguing that an ICBM is as safe as a drawing pin? I suppose you'd say that dangerous chemicals are no more dangerous than a cup of water when not used whereas I'd say they were more dangerous because of their intended use. Like I'd also say that the Ferrari, whilst perhaps similar weight to a Honda Accord, is far more likely to have an accident at a higher speed due to its intended use.


I've used a 911 to commute to work and I've used a Honda Civic - Their use seemed pretty similar to me, despite the fact one could potentially do the trip slightly quicker. Hence me suggesting a rock and a hammer is a better comparison:


They're both capable of inflicting a similar amount of damage, as are the two cars.
They both have similar uses, as do the two cars
They differ primarily in their performance when used for the same task, as do the two cars

As for a Ferrari being 'far more likely to have an accident' - if you're going to keep making up these statistics, I'm going to have to start asking you where you're getting your data from. :wink:



John-H said:


> Anyway my main point was that there are many risks that come into play when considering driving, the car being one but there are many more - inate skill at driving, being tired, being in a bad mood, being excited about something, chuckling over the enjoyable conversation with Spandex, talking to a passenger, using a hands free mobile, having chosen cheap tyres, deciding to drive at night, in the rain or at all, not checking your washer fluid, being in a hurry, being diabetic, only having one eye, arm or some other disadvantage like a heart condition, having a sore foot, being hungry, having had some alcohol, having a headache, having a bad cold, smoking, being hungry - the list goes on. Some risks you can't avoid unless you refrain from driving and some you have some control over - point is they all go in the mix and each should be considered in relation i.e. a sense of proportion is needed.


No one has ever chuckled over an enjoyable conversation with me.

I understand there is a complex system involving a lot of human factors, but you can't look at the system as a whole, average it out for *all humans*, generate a risk value based on everything, then break it all back down again and claim that same risk value is valid for all the individual factors and is independent of who's driving. If a high performance car encourages risk taking in some individuals, then that does not mean the car is more 'risky' than a low performance one. It means the individual is more risky in certain situations.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Call me insane if you like (how rude - tut tut) but I'm chuckling now :lol: :wink:

You keep trying to isolate the car from the driver but without a driver the car won't go. The drivers choice of a car's performance determines a risk factor in the eyes of an insurance company. In common parlance the car is seen as defining that risk. You can be pedantic and argue that the car in itself is not risky when isolated from the driver but I don't think you'd get very far arguing that point with your insurance company when you decide to give your car a remap and a load of performance mods.

P.S. I was chuckling in a nice way because it's been fun. We'd miss you if you weren't here to correct us


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

I do keep trying to isolate the car from the driver and you keep trying to roll them into one big, averaged out, one-size-fits-all risk assessment (which *is* what insurance companies do, but we all know they do it for convenience, not accuracy). Your way is fine if you want to simplify it in order to make sweeping statements - perfect for working out an insurance premium, for example - but it's not an accurate representation of the factors affecting risk.

If some twit has a 'lucky hat' that he loves to wear when driving because and it makes him feel confident and extroverted, causing him to show off and make rash decisions, is the hat 'risky'? To anyone else, it's just a hat. They wouldn't drive or behave any differently when wearing it.

I would say the hat is just a hat. The hat doesn't increase risk, the twit increases risk by having an unpredictable, ego-lead personality. Looking at the situation as a whole though, as you like to, you'd say "the only thing that's changed is the presence of the hat, and the risk has increased, therefore the hat is dangerous". Insurance companies don't care what increases the risk though, they just care that it's gone up.

Maybe we should consider two individuals - Mr. A owns a Ferrari and Mr. B owns a 1.2l Micra. They both drop their cars off to be serviced and they both get given a shiny new BMW 330 as a courtesy car (gutted for Mr. A). Now, insurance is covered by the garage, so no need to worry what they think , but in real terms, do you think a BMW 330 increases risk or decreases risk? Is it a more or less safe car?


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Lucky for Mr B he doesn't have to insure it himself. I hope he takes care given the extra risk he's been subjected to not being used to all the extra oomph and rear wheel drive - he could easily get into a spin being used to front wheel drive on a slippy bend. I hope the roads are not icy. Does he wear a hat by the way - just curious?


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

It seems a Honda FR-V is significantly more likely to be involved in an accident than a Nissan Skyline... :lol:

http://www.confused.com/car-insurance/articles/are-you-driving-an-accident-prone-car

I can only assume the FR-V drivers are all swerving off the road to avoid being seen in that monstrosity...

Now, this is only taken from confused.com accident records, so it's unlikely they have many exotics on their list, but there should still be a broad range of more mainstream performance cars. Obviously, apply the relevant pinch of salt as it's only a limited cross section of insurance claims.

Pity they don't provide the full statistics from the database though.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> I hope he takes care given the extra risk *he's been subjected to*


Oh dear...

Don't you mean the extra risk he's now able to subject himself to? Or is there some involuntary element of this we're not aware of?


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

He obviously has to put up with what he's given.


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

And I mistakenly thought this thread is about the use of a mobile while driving :roll:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

A3DFU said:


> And I mistakenly thought this thread is about the use of a mobile while driving :roll:


Yeah, someone should move this to some sort of 'off topic' section...


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> He obviously has to put up with what he's given.


So you're genuinely suggesting the garage has subjected him to additional risk by giving him the keys to a more powerful car??


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Well the poor chap probably thought he'd be Ok with his lucky hat. I expect he baulked a bit when the garage told him to be careful on the slippy roads because it was rear wheel drive amd more powerful than his own car but he probably thought I'll drive slow as I need to make a few phone calls - aaaaand we are back on topic


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> Well the poor chap probably thought he'd be Ok with his lucky hat. I expect he baulked a bit when the garage told him to be careful on the slippy roads because it was rear wheel drive amd more powerful than his own car but he probably thought I'll drive slow as I need to make a few phone calls - aaaaand we are back on topic


His lucky hat has caused him nothing but bother...

Did you know Audis are statistically more likely to be in an accident than BMWs? So much for 4wd vs rwd... Turns out accident statistics aren't as predictable as you'd think.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

:lol:


----------



## alexi7 (Aug 30, 2011)

I used a mobile as part of my profession, 20 + hours per week, that was hands free, however still a distraction, no matter how good you think you are at it. :x


----------



## Hibbsy (Mar 3, 2013)

I must admit I am amazed at the arrogance of some people in this thread. All that "I am such a good driver I can use my mobile behind the wheel" rubbish. All it takes is one slip, at any time, and the results can be catastrophic. I'm not talking about something as minor as damaging your car either.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

One of my best mate's wives has been in 'the other car' as in the example above.

Head-on collision at an estimated closing speed on 120mph on the A1 where it goes down to single lanes.

The cause of the accident? The guy coming the other way on his phone. She was lucky. In some respects (see below). Physically uninjured - except for some minor brusing from the seatbelt.

But she was in an Astravan and was carrying someone in the back. He was thrown out the back windo and has broken his back. So, last I heard, the Police were persuing her on that charge.

Subsequent 'Facebook' detective work, has found out that the guy who caused the crash regularly posted pictures from behind the wheel to his FB page.

I would certainly never text from behind the wheel, but have thought that a call was safe enough. However, the point is really that it's illegal. So I don't do it. There are no other arguments. You can forget your lucky hats, your bananas and your 330s, it's been made illegal and therefore should carry some sort of penalty. I know that the police were pushing for full sentence for the guy that caused the crash that involved my friend.

TBH though, I would confidently say that I've seen more people using their phone behind the wheel since they've made it illegal than I ever did before.


----------

