"Submarine" lights

Scania · 2 Oct 2018 at 11:08

Dis86 said:
Exactly, you'll do it under a massively restricted set of circumstances. You can't text, check emails etc. The reason you don't do that?

Hardly the same things are they?

I think you seem to feel I’ll stare longingly into the rear view mirror admiring my beautiful child creation, in actual fact it’s no more of a glance than I’d take looking in the rear view mirror to see what’s behind or indeed looking into my wing mirrors.

Its a perfectly natural and instinctive - in so far as being a parent - thing to do although if I was transporting someone else’s small child, I’d have an eye on that too.

robj20 · 2 Oct 2018 at 11:09

-westy- said:
You're so dangerous! Best not have kids

Already got them, I agree with you, screaming baby in the back there is literally nothing that will stop me having a look to see what's up.

Dis86 · 2 Oct 2018 at 11:29

Scania said:
Hardly the same things are they?

I think you seem to feel I’ll stare longingly into the rear view mirror admiring my beautiful child creation, in actual fact it’s no more of a glance than I’d take looking in the rear view mirror to see what’s behind or indeed looking into my wing mirrors.

Its a perfectly natural and instinctive - in so far as being a parent - thing to do although if I was transporting someone else’s small child, I’d have an eye on that too.

Right. You're missing the point. They're not the same but the effects of each can be quantifiably measured and have been. You're not ok with doing certain things with your phone as it provides a distraction. We know, and particilarly you know as a professional driver what this can lead to. I posted a video earlier in the thread of a driver momentarily looking at his phone and killing an entire family as a result.
Having a child in the car provides 12 times the distraction so why is that ok?

-westy- · 2 Oct 2018 at 11:31

Dis86 said:
Right. You're missing the point. They're not the same but the effects of each can be quantifiably measured and have been. You're not ok with doing certain things with your phone as it provides a distraction. We know, and particilarly you know as a professional driver what this can lead to. I posted a video earlier in the thread of a driver momentarily looking at his phone and killing an entire family as a result.
Having a child in the car provides 12 times the distraction so why is that ok?

Following that logic, you would ban having children in the car then, or at least ban them from making noise?

He's stated that he would indeed take a phone call when it's safe to do so, people checking on their kids would look in a mirror to check when safe to do so, no?

Scania · 2 Oct 2018 at 12:06

Dis86 said:
Right. You're missing the point. They're not the same but the effects of each can be quantifiably measured and have been. You're not ok with doing certain things with your phone as it provides a distraction. We know, and particilarly you know as a professional driver what this can lead to. I posted a video earlier in the thread of a driver momentarily looking at his phone and killing an entire family as a result.
Having a child in the car provides 12 times the distraction so why is that ok?

I’d like to see any government try to bring in a policy that bans checking of children in a moving vehicle.

Making or taking a phone call is optional, keeping tabs on a child - very small ones especially - is not something the vast majority of parents wouldn’t do even if instructed not to do so by law, as I said it’s wholly instinctive to do so whereas reading a text or taking / receiving a call isn’t at all.

The stats you quoted whilst I’m sure validated by whoever certainly don’t match my own experience of transporting my daughter when she was little and indeed my now five month old granddaughter, so long as it’s no more than a quick glance - and that’s the crucial bit - it’s no different to looking briefly at anything else in the car (like a sat Nav for example) and imo no more distracting.

Are you a parent? If so, are you seriously trying to tell me you wouldn’t check on a little one whilst on a trip on your own with it?

-westy- · 2 Oct 2018 at 12:17

Scania said:
The stats you quoted whilst I’m sure validated by whoever certainly don’t match my own experience of transporting my daughter when she was little and indeed my now five month old granddaughter, so long as it’s no more than a quick glance - and that’s the crucial bit - it’s no different to looking briefly at anything else in the car (like a sat Nav for example) and imo no more distracting.

Are you a parent? If so, are you seriously trying to tell me you wouldn’t check on a little one whilst on a trip on your own with it?

Agreed - I was going to post exactly this. You can lean on stats all you like, but until you have real world experience of such situations, you're not really in a place to comment. The people disagreeing with @Dis86 all have children (I think so anyway) - so know exactly how distracting a child in the car can or cannot be.

Dis86 · 2 Oct 2018 at 13:50

-westy- said:
Following that logic, you would ban having children in the car then, or at least ban them from making noise?

He's stated that he would indeed take a phone call when it's safe to do so, people checking on their kids would look in a mirror to check when safe to do so, no?

When is it safe to do so? That lorry driver thought it was safe to do so. How'd that work out for the family he killed?

Dis86 · 2 Oct 2018 at 13:56

-westy- said:
Agreed - I was going to post exactly this. You can lean on stats all you like, but until you have real world experience of such situations, you're not really in a place to comment. The people disagreeing with @Dis86 all have children (I think so anyway) - so know exactly how distracting a child in the car can or cannot be.

I have experience of it.

So let's see - you and Scania have anecdotal experience.

I have peer reviewed scientific data and experience. Hmm...

Have you perhaps considered that, as I stated multiple times, you are not thinking or acting rationally because you are biased by emotion?

Armageus · 2 Oct 2018 at 13:57

Dis86 said:
When is it safe to do so? That lorry driver thought it was safe to do so. How'd that work out for the family he killed?

I think we need to ban everything else that could be a distraction whilst driving then:

Smoking (although seriously how isn't this banned anyway - possibility of setting fire to yourself is surely a big distraction!)
Eating
Drinking
Radio/Music as you might be tempted to sing along
Looking at sat navs
Reading e.g. when Maps were commonplace
Talking to passengers

Once you've banned all of the above, then you can consider banning *looking* at your children in a mirror

Dis86 · 2 Oct 2018 at 14:02

Armageus said:
I think we need to ban everything else that could be a distraction whilst driving then:

Smoking (although seriously how isn't this banned anyway - possibility of setting fire to yourself is surely a big distraction!)
Eating
Drinking
Radio/Music as you might be tempted to sing along
Looking at sat navs
Reading e.g. when Maps were commonplace
Talking to passengers

Once you've banned all of the above, then you can consider banning *looking* at your children in a mirror

People have been prosecuted for many of the above.

https://www.axa.ie/articles/driving/is-eating-while-driving-illegal/

I think the opening sentences of that article address your points.

I saw a woman rear-end another car last week because she was too busy talking to her passenger and pointing out something outside the window.

Simon · 2 Oct 2018 at 14:20

Ban passengers then.

In fact ban driving as it’s obviously less risk to just not drive.

Seriously Dis86, I notice from another thread you mention you are an engineer. *** removed ***

ttaskmaster · 2 Oct 2018 at 14:27

Dis86 said:
If they require a higher degree of observation then they're a safety risk.

Only at the precise moment when they might be suffering from an attack... or merely coughing for a sec, either of which you might not spot unless you had a way to check on them. But that'd be no different to the myriad of other possible distractions - Your mate unexpectedly having a heart attack, for example. Difference with the kid and a known risk is that you can assess the likelihood in advance and plan accordingly for if/when it does happen... which includes methods of observation which minimise the impact on your driving.

But then, if driving is so dangerous that you need things like crumple zones and airbags and seat belts, perhaps we should ban driving altogether, no?

Dis86 said:
Why is use of a mobile phone banned?

Why is the use of a handheld radio transceiver NOT banned?
If people can learn to use one of those safely enough, requiring both attention off the road and a hand off the wheel to operate the controls, can they not learn to make a quick safety check on their kids?

Dis86 said:
You cannot be fully in control if you're observing something not related to driving...

Such as looking for a parking space,

Dis86 said:
Evidence ^^

Russian 40-year-old virgins being allowed to drive and blaming an advert agency for their mistakes doesn't really support any argument for banning definite non-virgins from driving with their kids...

Meanwhile, your earlier 'evidence' states:
"The video recordings showed that children travelling in the rear seats accounted for 12 per cent of all potentially distracting activity"
That's just 12%.... and even then, only potentially distracting.
What about the other 88%? Are we not concerned about that?

Dis86 said:
If your kid is a medical liability then they should have someone available at all times to assist. You know...the other parent.

So every parent whose partner is dead will now also be banned from driving with their kid(s) in the car, under the new DisGovernment, yes?
Yeah, good one. Got any more like that?

-westy- said:
The people disagreeing with @Dis86 all have children (I think so anyway) - so know exactly how distracting a child in the car can or cannot be.

Nope, not at all.
I just recognise that you can't ban people from transporting their kids, and that there will be circumstances when they will have to keep an eye on them, just as you would any other passenger. The whole idea of those Baby On Board signs was to make people aware that the driver might be a little distracted.

-westy- · 2 Oct 2018 at 14:31

ttaskmaster said:
Nope, not at all.
I just recognise that you can't ban people from transporting their kids, and that there will be circumstances when they will have to keep an eye on them, just as you would any other passenger. The whole idea of those Baby On Board signs was to make people aware that the driver might be a little distracted.

Apologies - I was referring to the more frequent posters in this thread, such as Scania and Simon.

Although as you say, common sense can occasionally prevail.

-westy- · 2 Oct 2018 at 14:33

Dis86 said:
I have experience of it.

So let's see - you and Scania have anecdotal experience.

I have peer reviewed scientific data and experience. Hmm...

Have you perhaps considered that, as I stated multiple times, you are not thinking or acting rationally because you are biased by emotion?

So...you do have a child/children then?

ttaskmaster · 2 Oct 2018 at 14:49

-westy- said:
Apologies - I was referring to the more frequent posters in this thread, such as Scania and Simon.

Terribly sorry - I'd have been more frequent in this thread, but it kinda kicked right off in the few hours since I last posted, and I have things to be doing, like sleeping.

-westy- said:
Although as you say, common sense can occasionally prevail.

Nah, where's the fun in that?

-westy- · 2 Oct 2018 at 14:59

ttaskmaster said:
Terribly sorry - I'd have been more frequent in this thread, but it kinda kicked right off in the few hours since I last posted, and I have things to be doing, like sleeping.

Nah, where's the fun in that?

How dare you sleep when people are trying to argue on the internet :mad:

Gaygle · 2 Oct 2018 at 15:31

Kenai said:
This has to be a contender for the most stupid argument in motors this year.

Thank God. I thought I was the only one thinking this.

Dis86 · 2 Oct 2018 at 16:19

-westy- said:
So...you do have a child/children then?

No. I've had others in the car and been in cars with others. Amazingly neither myself nor the other drivers saw the need to monitor them. And you know what, they didn't do a thing. They sat. In silence. In their seats.

-westy- · 2 Oct 2018 at 16:21

Dis86 said:
No. I've had others in the car and been in cars with others. Amazingly neither myself nor the other drivers saw the need to monitor them. And you know what, they didn't do a thing. They sat. In silence. In their seats.

Ah yes, children being silent in their seats. Exactly how all children are.

Dis86 · 2 Oct 2018 at 16:23

-westy- said:
Ah yes, children being silent in their seats. Exactly how all children are.

It was nice. The time my nephew threw up on me though...not so much. And that - was a distraction. Hence why I pulled over when safe to do so. So you see - I have first hand experience of children being a distraction in the car. I also have the evidence to back it up. You and those others trying to argue don't ha e that evidence. But clearly you all know better than peer reviewed scientific research.