Conference terri::cars_uk

    
    
    We could always help the figures to be more accurate by not bothering
    to avoid their silly antics...
    
    :-)

    
    
    No more, I imagine, than cigarette-smokers, pipe-scrapers and
    -refillers, eaters, drinkers, newspaper-, map- and book-readers, nosepickers, radio-tuners,
    cassette-changers, glove-box-rummagers, hair-combers, make-up-fixers or
    two-fingered helpful and instructive gesture offerers.
    
    
    Very few of which can be performed entirely "hands free", and all of
    which you'll see in the outside lane of your nearest m-way every
    day....so we'd better include them, too, hadn't we ?
    
    Why not just try to persuade people to drive properly, instead of
    picking on one group that you don't happen to like ?
    
    Never mind, those nice chaps in the labour party have announced that
    this will be one of their first moves on being elected.....legislating
    against hands-on car-phone use, that is.  Nothing else, just car
    phones.
    Going for the jealousy vote, I suspect.......;-)
    
    

re.2:

You are right! Smokers and Car Phone users seem to make up the majority of those
who do not feel it necessary to either concentrate on the road or keep both
hands free for car control. How is society going to pursuade these large groups
of people to drive properly?

/Dave.

    
    Anyone know whether the driver of the BMW upside down on the M3 at
    Basingstoke was on the phone or having a fag (Not that I'm suggesting
    that he's a member of parliament, of course!)?
    
    Mark

    Re .4
    
    Perhaps he was Australian...
    
    JJ.

	Want to frighten yourself?  Try either of the following:

	1) Pick any street corner in Reading.  Watch cars as they come round
	it.  What percentage have both hands on the wheel?  Of those, what
	percentage have their hands anywhere sensible�?

	2) As a passenger on the motorway, repeat the observations in 1).

	Personally, I don't care whether or not people have a car phone;  
	however, they are a perk and should be taxed as such.

	Dave


	�where sensible means "able to respond effectively to all situations".

	>Personally, I don't care whether or not people have a car phone;  
	>however, they are a perk and should be taxed as such.
    
    Not entirely sure I agree with the definition of a carphone as a
    perk. I'm pretty convinced it's a tools of the trade, in the same way
    as a wrench to a plumber, etc. It remains to be seen if they really
    start taxing us for using them, and how much ?

    Re .2
    
    I'm sure the base note and .1 are tongue-in-cheek, but .2 is a very
    good rejoinder to them if not...
    
    I fail to see why using a true hands-free set, such as I have in my
    car, is any more dangerous (in fact the reverse is true) than talking
    normally to a passenger who is actually in the car. What's more, you're
    much more likely to remain looking at the road when on your own, than
    you are when talking to passengers...
    
    It's got to be safer than map-reading solo by balancing your AA
    large-format road atlas on the steering wheel while driving in the
    outside lane of the M25, as I've seen done...
    
    
    |SD
                                              

	Perks versus tools.

	I describe anything as a perk that can be used outside of work to 
	better your own life.  Thus, if I had a car phone, then I could use
	it to work with, but I could also use it for my own personal use.
	Hence, it's a perk.  Actually, the phone that I have on my desk 
	comes under the same heading.  If I phone a work-mate, its a tool,
	if I phone the wife, its a perk.

	Car phones do seem to be a status symbol though, and there are some
	who seem very anti-them for no clear reason.  As for driving cars 
	safely "keep your hands on the wheel and your brain on the problem".

	Dave

    	Well just to point out a little thing about carphones...
    
    	I was sitting at a set of traffic lights last night, and there
    	was this guy in front in a Renault 25 Turbo blah blah... who
    	was talking on his car phone. He was totally oblivious to the
    	fact that he was rolling back until his car hit the side of 
    	mine. After which he just looked at me in the mirror (only after
    	he heard that certain unmistakable 'cccrrrruuuccchhh') and moved
    	slightly forward. Did i care? Not at all... he only hit my bull
    	bars on the Jeep, but when i looked at his car he had a lovely
    	scratched and dinged area on his back wing. Brought a smile to
    	my face! ;-)
    
    	I hope he has a look at his car this morning... ;-)

Re.10

So, by that logic, carphones make cars roll backwards ?

No, bad drivers make cars roll backwards, whether they're on the
phone, or otherwise distracted.


Re. 6
	>Personally, I don't care whether or not people have a car phone;  
	>however, they are a perk and should be taxed as such.
 
A bit of dubious logic, I'm afraid, Dave.

	Car-phone = perk  ?

Not necessarily.  A significant proportion of those car-phones are actually
bought and paid for by the guy driving the car.   That's certainly
true in the case of many self-employed people, small businesses and the 
occasional person who just thinks they're a good idea and can work more 
efficiently because of it.

Ian

    
    Really? Small businessmen pay for car phones out of their own pockets?
    
    By that rationale everything a company buys should be exempt from
    'perk' tax, including cars!
    
    In reality Mr Small Businessman/Self Employed gets a great deal of 
    help from Mr Taxpayer to fund things like Carphones. Of course, the
    obvious thing to do is to tax people on any calls they make which 
    aren't company related (such as calls to their home or the local 
    chinese takeaway). Someone'll say it's not easy to do, but they
    impose similar rules on the number of miles a driver does on company
    business, so it could be applied to car phones.
    
    An alternative is for the user to 'pay' a certain amount each
    month/year whatever to his employer to cover usage of the phone
    for personal business.
    
    Mark

 >>>Really? Small businessmen pay for car phones out of their own pockets?
    

Really.  Some do, yes.  A lot of freelance people have to buy all their
own tools and materials.    

However, my beef is this assumption that ALL phones "must be perks", so
let's tax the lot of them out of existence.

Many of them are privately owned, without benefit of accountancy



... none of which is anything to do with the base topic !

:-)

Ian

�So, by that logic, carphones make cars roll backwards ?
    
    No of course not, don't be stupid.
    
    The point i was trying to get across is that a carphone is yet another
    distraction - when used when driving anyway!
    
    
    					Lewis.

    
    Ian,
    
    Most freelance people are classed as self-employed and can, therefore,
    offset their business expenses against their income tax (like the
    carpenter with his saws, etc). If they choose to do this and then use
    the phone for personal purposes, then they should be taxed on the
    benefit. If they truly pay for the phone out of their own (taxed)
    income, then there is no benefit to tax (same as if you have a private
    car).
    
    Mark

>>    carpenter with his saws, etc). If they choose to do this and then use
>>    the phone for personal purposes, then they should be taxed on the
>>    benefit. If they truly pay for the phone out of their own (taxed)
>>    income, then there is no benefit to tax (same as if you have a private


This is the case currently. If the company pays for private use of the
phone, then the tax penalty is �200 (this was introduced in the budget
of 1991). 

Karen

	Ian,
		me use dubious logic?  Never!  I suppose that you could argue
	just how much of a thing is a perk by the percentage of time that you
	use it purely for your own pleasure/personal use.  Presumably, this is
	what the company miles travelled band is about for cars.  Obviously,
	someone who made zillions of business calls on his/her carphone and once
	in a blue moon called home is a lot different from someone who is 
	always calling home and once in a while uses the phone for business.
	One very good use of a portable phone was the removals man who helped
	me move last time; I was able to borrow his phone to talk to my 
	solicitor after my phones had been chopped - very useful.

	However, the tax office and government are not neccessarily rigorous
	in their use of logic; so tax rules often are arbitrary.

	One question though, if I bought myself a car phone, would I be liable
	for some extra tax?  Or is the tax levied on company car phones only?

	Dave

 >>>If they choose to do this and then use
 >>>   the phone for personal purposes, then they should be taxed on the
 >>>   benefit.

They already are, aren't they ?  I seem to recall a �200 tax liability if you
use a company-supplied mobile for personal calls. (?)

.... but this does not take into account how many accidents you have..... ;-)
(Now *there's* one Granpa Munster missed yesterday... an Accident tax ! )



>>> The point i was trying to get across is that a carphone is yet another
>>> distraction - when used when driving anyway!
  
Precisely !   One of *many* distractions, not one to be singled out for particular 
vilification.

I'm right behind any move which reduces the chances of people doing silly things
while driving.  What I'm trying to point out is that we're guilty of targeting
a particular group of people, simply because they have a car-phone, and 
I suspect we're doing it for the wrong reasons. 


Car-phones do NOT cause accidents.  Drivers do.

Ian

>>Precisely !   One of *many* distractions, not one to be singled out for particular 
>>vilification.
    
    Going back to one of your previous replies about nose picking, hair
    brushing, map reading etc., there is no doubting that these do detract
    from a drivers concentration on the road, however, picking your nose
    (however unpleasant it may be !) will only take a few seconds to
    complete, as opposed to having a 3-5 minute phone call.  The chances
    are you are quite likely to make/receive multiple calls during longer
    journeys, which increases the amount of time during which a drives
    concentration is compromised.
    
    
    Shaun.
    
    P.S. I have no personal axe to grind as far as car phones are
    concerned, I'm just waiting for the type Captain Scarlet used to have
    comes on to the market, where the mouth piece runs along the ridge of
    his cap, and lowers when he has a call ;^)
    

    
    Shaun,
    
    Does this mean you qualify as a 'hat'?! :^)
    
    Mark

Re: .19

so thats why Allegro drivers wear the Trilby hats, they are really secret agents
out protecting the World from evil forces  ;-)

oo


mb

    
    If 15% of accidents are caused by drunks,
    and 9% of accidents are caused by careless driving,
    and 3% of accidents are caused by car-phone users,
    
    then 73% of accidents MUST be caused by sensible drivers.
    
    I'm off to get a carphone so that the chances of me having an accident
    are only 3% ;-).
    
    
    Nev.

>>    Does this mean you qualify as a 'hat'?! :^)
    
    Either its very early still or I'm really here, but I don't get it ?
    
    Shaun.
    
    (I'll read it later on, perhaps I'll understand it then ;^)

    
    	re .22...
    
    	..you watched Jack Dee last night then, Nev? 8-)...  

I have a headset with single ear piece and boom mike for Mobile radio amature 
operation.

Simon - G6ZTZ

>>>I have a headset with single ear piece and boom mike for Mobile radio amature 
>>>operation.


Most car-phone owners have something similar available, though it's usually
stuck on the window or dangled from the trim.  It's persuading them to use it
that's the problem.....

Ian

The worrying thing about this is there are people out there reading this stuff
and thinking it does not apply to them.

Seen this morning, a driver rewinding a cassette by hand while driving down the
A33.

/Dave.

    re .6 & .9
    
    If you are using your terminal to write these notes then surely that is
    a perk and you should be taxed accordingly. I sometimes use my terminal
    to write letters, should I be taxed ?
    
    A mobile phone is to a very large degree, a business tool and as such
    should not be taxed. If you phone your wife to say that you are stuck
    at work, is that a perk ?
    
    

	No, you're getting it wrong, you're using logic.  Besides 
	"reducto ad absurdum" being good arguing technique, I would say that
	this terminal is a perk.  I write letters to my bank on it, using some
	energy, disk and paper.  

	Dave

    As a regular carphone user who treats his 'phone as a business tool I
    object strongly to having to pay a tax on what I wouldn't go out and
    buy for myself.
    
    Having got that off my chest, yes, I do call home if my journey time is
    not as I expected or if there has been an unforseen delay. I personally
    do not class that kind of call a personal call as the only reason that
    I am away from home is because Digital requires it. I do however,
    restrict those calls to the minimum. I do not make any other personal
    calls from the car. I also do not make any personal calls from the
    phone line that has been installed for my business use at home, yet I
    don't get taxed on that.
    
    I think that there are still some improvements to be made in the
    quality of audio (like something better than unuseable at the worst and
    difficult at best) from mobile phones. Handsfree sets are just about
    the norm now and most people that I know will use them whenever
    practical. There are times when reception is so poor that it is
    inevitable that the handset will be picked up and used in the
    "improper" fashion.
    
    The mobile phone has been the biggest single improvement in working
    practice for the sales force that I can recall. The only snag is that
    it also produces more interrupts and you have to live with that. Or set
    call forward to the office and switch the darn thing off if you don't
    want to be disturbed........

This morning, my wife saw a Swiss Post Office van reverse into a properly
parked car - he was talking on his hand-held car phone.

Last week, a car pulled an incredible 'U' turn infront of me - across a 
junction with 5 roads... He didn't know that I was there (made no attempt to
look), and I had to make an emergency stop. He was talking on his hand-held
car-phone...

I believe that car-phone's should be disabled whilst the ignition is switched
on. People should only be able to use them when the car is stationary. 

Many phones implement a system whereby if someone does not respond (e.g.
because the phone is disabled) then the  phone number of the caller is held in
memory. As a phone owner you can later interrogate the machine to see who has
called and ring them back...

And taxing Car phones as a luxury item is ridiculous - they should be treated
simply as what they are - an advance in technology. Countries that discriminate
against them will be at a competitive disadvantage.

Cheers

Steve

    The Examples you give are extreme -1
    
    But that may be statement on the general lack of sense on the driver
    rather than say "The Car Phone Made Me Do IT!"!!!
    
    I have hands free on my car phone (yes I am mad about paying tax on it,
    but there again as a company car user & car phone user I am paying more
    tax now than I have ever done before!!! come the revolution brother!),
    and I do find it can be distracting, but all you need to do is stop
    talking!
    
    Don't blame the Technology, blame the user!
    
    Bob

    
    I belive that car accident statistics show that driver error is
    responsible for most accidents, _so_ (generalising) any distraction,
    can be a contributary factor, whether it is talking to your passenger,
    or car phone, changing the cassette or smoking! (Shall I start a
    rathole on smoking in cars? - the fire risk to both to car and scenery
    (when cigarette ends are thrown out) and passing motorcyclists. In
    case you hadn't guessed someone threw one out while I was following
    them today :-) )
    
    As -1 said, blame the driver, not the technology. 

>>    As -1 said, blame the driver, not the technology. 
    
    I think what you are saying is undeniable...
    
    ...but as it is a major distraction, and the chances of drivers
    improving their behaviour is fairly remote (untill somebody markets my
    cap ;^), hand ON phones should be banned while driving.
    
    
    As a side note, are you sure the smoking isn't already illegal ? 
    if eating an apple or shaving is illegal while driving, then surely
    smoking must fall into the same category !
    
    
    Shaun.

    
    > if eating an apple or shaving is illegal while driving...
    
    are you sure about this ?????????
    
    especially the eating of an apple bit ?
    
    where did you get this from ? -just interested etc.

    
    Is snorting cocaine while driving? If not, maybe that explains
    the way people drive on the Basingstoke ring road!
    
    Mark

    Surely, the bottom line is that the police may stop you if they
    consider that you are driving without due care and attention, whether
    you are using a car phone, smoking, eating an apple or whatever.
    
    Roy

    Carphones are an uniquely intense sort of distraction, not unlike TV
    and video.  A phone conversation, especially one involving any degree of 
    emotion, absorbs large amounts of audio/visual/motor brain functions.  You 
    can see this in your next important phone call at the office.
    
    Driving also requires large amounts of the same functions.  The problem
    is the overlapping mental requirements of phoning and driving.  A
    hands-free set does little to help.
    
    With respect to cognitive/reactive impairment, using a carphone is
    often equivalent to engaging in an argument with your passenger.
    
    Personally, I cannot hold a conversation or listen to the radio and drive
    in a situation where I must make decisions.         
    

>>>Is there any evidence which suggests that users of carphones have more
>>>    accidents than non-users?
    

Look at it the other way..... IMNESHO, the people likely to 
have accidents are more liable to use car-phones, lighters, cigarettes,
drinks, food, even cars themselves, incorrectly....which is why they have 
the accidents.


Ian

{....who had a guy barge non-stop onto a roundabout right in front of me 
last night,  talking on his hands-on phone and eating a sandwich at the 
same time  !!!!   This must be some kind of record.

No, I don't know what he was driving with, either.....;-)

I *do* know, however, that I was able to take evasive action without 
interrupting my (hands-free) phone conversation, except for a spot of bad 
language.  It can be done, you see ! }

re.39:

Hey, I know that driver. He was driving a dark blue Volvo estate, yes?

/Dave.

>>>Hey, I know that driver. He was driving a dark blue Volvo estate, yes?
 
    He was driving a dark blue Volvo estate, no.   :-)
    
    A maroon Sierra estate, in fact.
    
    Though I feel the use of the term "driving" is perhaps overly
    charitable......
    
    Ian
    

Oh no! Either he's changed cars, or worse, there's two of 'em!

/Dave.