- 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
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Cyclist with headphones (cc licensed by Adrian Midgley on Flickr)AA warns of "zombie" pedestrians and cyclists
The AA has released an article dubbing “smombies”, or smartphone zombies, the latest menace on the roads.
According to the AA-Populus poll of 24,070, quoted today, 72% of drivers say they often see pedestrians step into the road while distracted by their phones, while AA patrols report an increase in “zombie pedestrians and joggers oblivious to traffic”.
The AA is often praised for its support of cycling, including as a member of British Cycling’s Choose Cycling Network, and its president, Edmund King OBE, recently told road.cc he supports more cycling infrastructure as beneficial for everyone. In an AA press release King warns of the dangers of pedestrians and cyclists experiencing "smartphone oblivion" on the roads.
More mobile phone use behind the wheel – but prosecutions for it are down
Edmund King OBE, AA president, said: “We can’t stop the march of technology but we need to halt the pedestrian, cycle and driver zombies. Whether on two feet, two wheels or four, too many people are suffering from Smartphone Oblivion.
“When on the move our brains have much to take in and using technological gadgets means that we can’t always concentrate on so many things at once.
“This is when we walk into traffic; don’t hear the truck or drive cocooned from the outside world.
"Our research suggests this problem is growing so we all need to use common sense to ensure that technological cocooning doesn’t endanger our lives or the lives of others.”
The AA article says pedestrians’ lack of attention may be a factor in some of the 446 pedestrian deaths in 2014.
It adds more drivers making claims for minor shunts are citing 'podestrians' [using iPods] or ‘Smombie pedestrians’ as the cause, and estimates pedestrian inattention is the cause of 17 collisions per day.
More than half of AA Insurance claims involving a collision with a pedestrian include causes such as:
‘Person on phone stepped out, wasn’t looking’
‘Pedestrian just walked out’
‘She looked the wrong way’
‘He walked into the side of the car’
However, Sam Jones, Campaigns Coordinator at CTC says although mobile phones and technology are a growing hazard, distracted driving is responsible for greater injuries on the roads.
He says: “All road users have a responsibility to be aware of their surroundings, but this article unfortunately seems to focus on vulnerable road users while almost ignoring the greater danger: drivers distracted by technology.
“While CTC would never defend irresponsible cycling, a distracted cyclist or pedestrian is more likely to be a danger to themselves than others. A driver on the other hand, can endanger not just themselves, but their passengers and other road users."
The AA article tells motorists not to wear headphones, and “to be extra alert and slow down in areas frequented by cyclists and pedestrians".
According to the CTC in 2014 there were 24 fatalities and 111 serious injuries in crashes where police thought using a mobile phone was a contributory factor. Drivers are four times more likely to crash when using a phone, and more than half a million UK drivers have points on their licence for the offence, or being otherwise distracted.
Jones says though the government’s recent consultation on increasing fines for drivers using phones is welcome, without extra traffic policing, penalties mean nothing.
He adds: “Our President Jon Snow is therefore writing to all Police and Crime Commissioner candidates this week, asking them to commit to increasing the amount allocated to roads policing by at least 2% above inflation each year for the next four years should they be elected on 5 May.”
Laura Laker is a freelance journalist with more than a decade’s experience covering cycling, walking and wheeling (and other means of transport). Beginning her career with road.cc, Laura has also written for national and specialist titles of all stripes. One part of the popular Streets Ahead podcast, she sometimes appears as a talking head on TV and radio, and in real life at conferences and festivals. She is also the author of Potholes and Pavements: a Bumpy Ride on Britain’s National Cycle Network.
Latest Comments
- bensynnock 28 min 21 sec ago
Stick it in the road.
- Hirsute 1 hour 26 min ago
If you can't see a %^$&ing large tractor what ^%$£"!*ing hope is there that you will see a cyclist ?...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 44 min ago
Well if you *can* interview the original riders at all surely they worked, at least?...
- David9694 2 hours 13 min ago
Live: Car plunges over wall and lands on beach rocks...
- biking59boomer 2 hours 19 min ago
Looks like yet another bike share service that's going to fold because of selfish idiots.
- quiff 6 hours 24 min ago
Fair point - I was restricting myself to pedal bikes. As I've never spent that kind of money on anything though (mortgage doesn't count), it's kind...
- brooksby 7 hours 26 min ago
And finally: I wonder how many of the "more than 3,000" signatures on that petition are actually locals, who live or work there (and are not just...
- Doug_D 9 hours 2 min ago
Another book suggestion - I can highly recommend "Lost Summers and Half-Forgotten Afternoons: A Mint Sauce collection" - a beautifully presented...
Add new comment
34 comments
Well, I think that clears up why SP doesn't get a very positive response from the Police every time he goes to complain about being run over.
"72% of drivers say they often see pedestrians step into the road while distracted by their phones"
Although I see drivers using their phones every day I'm surprised that 72% of them actually admitted to it!
I like you interpretation, but it has one major flaw, a motorist distracted by their phone would probably not see an elephant step into the road, never mind a pedestrian.
By the rules / regulations granted to me as a Police officer i can drive at a speed in excess of the speed limit if it is safe to do so in order to get to a high priority job where blues and two's are required and at times that speed is very high. Is that better wording
Much better. You drove at speeds in excess of the speed limit, but you'd never drive at excessive speeds, safety being your number one priority. Of course.
AWPeloton.
You are police, and you've just admitted to driving at 'very excessive' speeds!?
i don't think you understand the word excessive.
sorry, bad choice of words.
i don't think excessive means what you think it does.
excessive: more than is necessary, normal, or desirable; immoderate.
Most of society is fine with emergency services being able to drive at "more than is normal" speed when performing their duties as long as they're not reckless.
What does "excessive" mean to you?
the same as it would to a magistrate, when, for example, discussing the use of force.
Admitting you used 'excessive force' is going to do you no favours. Explaining that you used just enough force to effect a safe arrest would work. In the same way that on a blue-light run you'd never admit to driving at an excessive speed.
Hope that helps?
Oldstrath - your right but unless someone somewhere has a magic wand or a genie in a bottle it will continue to happen.
I can't help but think this is a brilliant piece of research. Rather than saying "i jumped a red light, whilst speeding and tagging myself on facetube" the claimant said "the pedestrian just stepped out". Case closed.
However, i assume the conclusion is that people moving at 3-4 mph are often distracted and causing incidents therefore this will multiply considerably when moving at 40-70mph. Therefore, car radios and sat navs are banned and no electronic devices can be carried in a car.
Job done AA!
I had the pleasure of living in Halifax ,Nova Scotia for 18 months. There in the downtown areas pedestrians have right of way at any junction not controlled by traffic lights. You could just step off the pavement (the call it a sidewalk) onto the the road (they call it the pavement - that can be confusing) and the traffic would stop. I was hard work as a driver (living there made me a much better driver) - you had to concentrate and pay attention to everything that was going on both the road and the pavement and drive at a sensible pace so you could stop if somebody walked out in front of you. And as a pedestrian hanging around at the edge of the pavement was frowned upon as it made life difficult for the drivers. It made downtown Halifax a pleasant place to walk around and goes to show that drivers can - if they can be bothered - cope with "random" pedestrians but the car culture here in the UK would make it very difficult.
Police - and to me excessive is used only when it is deemed very safe to do so on the likes of motorways, major roads not in built up or residential areas.
"I drive a very powerful motor vehicle and at times at a very excessive speed due to the nature of my job -" Eh?
What's this job that needs 'very excessive speed'? Test driver for Lewis Hamilton? Friday night delivery driver for Tesco? Rushing a kidney to Cardiff? New host of Top Gear? Also if excessive means too much what is 'very excessive' Like so really really bonkers fast?
As for people walking out in road. Happens all the time when I'm on the bike. So many people check traffic using their ears not their eyes.
Ambulance/police car/fire engine driver?
This just highlights the need for (a) less motor traffic in towns and cities and (b) more 20mph areas.
The motor lobby seem to approach this as everybody has to change their behaviour to suite motor cars but I think it would be a better solution if people could walk around without having to fear for their lives at every step.
No-one gets around cities by travelling at 30mph rather than 20mph much quicker.
I think all groups can admit blame at some point. However, the overiding fact remains that those in vehicles present the greatest danger to all.
They appear to be held to no greater level of responsibility if you look at punishments though and perhaps this is part of the problem.
If a child breaks a window as opposed to an adult, we can all instantly recognise the level of response we're likely to respond with. Flimsy punishments equal flimsy deterrants and that just leads to a do whatever I want attitude.
The inevitable result is not a string of broken windows but instead a mass of broken lives.
Government remains wholly apathetic.
I work a short walk along Tooley Street from London Bridge and everyday I witness countless acts of downright stupidity from Walkers, Cyclists and Drivers alike.
Drivers staring at phone screens while moving at the generally snails pace that traffic moves towards London Bridge (I saw six in one go, once) ; Walkers mill about between traffic because they can't be bothered to use one of the (many) crossings - or cross at a crossing even though it's not green and traffic isn't stopped, what's that about?; Cyclists try not to hit said Walkers because they're looking at their phones, not where they're going; Maybe 1 in 15 Walkers actually look before crossing a road, or turning; Cyclists weave in and out of stationery traffic rather than wait a few scant seconds; Dickhead Taxis pull up, usually without indicating, into the Cycle Lanes.
Whatever the method of transport, people need to accept and be aware of their responsibility to be safe in their own surroundings and basically watch where the hell their going. Drivers are supposed to be careful, yes, but that doesn't mean they should take the blame for those who are to stupid to do the same.
Why does a portmanteau word need to be created for absolutely everything?! A "smombie"?! "Podestrian"? Are we all becoming so stoopid that we can't even understand proper English anymore?!
[[[[[ It's because we're turning into smidiots, innit.
Speaking from experiences at work i can say that pedestrians not looking properly does happen and no matter how safe someone is driving if a numpty steps out at the last minute or young kid runs out between parked vehicles or a young un on a bike flies out without looking properly then an accident is going to happen.
Mainly becuse we are human, not machines and at times we dont think, we dont look, especially when we are concentrating on something else.
To always blame the driver is short sighted and at times downright stupid.
"Mainly becuse we are human, not machines and at times we dont think, we dont look, especially when we are concentrating on something else."
Which is very exactly why allowing someone to drive a few tonnes metal at high speed anywhere near squishy things is a terrible idea. You don't need to be malicious, or even incompetent. Just mildly distracted, briefly, will do it.
I would tend to agree.....Commuting through a major city I am amazed at the amount of people who just naturally step out into the road whilst looking at their phone. I have had some very near misses with this. If I cant hear a car I just step out (without looking) seems to be the general approach
The other irritation is people appraoching a pedestrian crossing staring at their phone and just pressing the button....no a single car in sight, just me on a bike.....sometimes having to slam on the brakes to stop. I accept they are entitled to do this but its annoying having to stop, when a quick glance would have been quicker for us both.
yes. My trusty bell is my defensive weapon against the blind road crossers. They don't need to be wearing headphones for them to step out without looking. I find it odd that people do cross when they can't hear anything.
The AA estimates pedestrian inattention is the cause of 17 collisions per day. It says more than half of AA Insurance claims involving a collision with a pedestrian include causes such as:
‘Person on phone stepped out, wasn’t looking’
‘Pedestrian just walked out’
‘She looked the wrong way’
‘He walked into the side of the car’
You need to bear in mind that this will be based on what their customer (lying scumbag motorist, who just killed or maimed a pedestrian) says, it would be in their interest say it was a single witness suicide swerve.
Updated link
Wonder how many AA Insurance claims involving a collision with a pedestrian include causes such as:
'Driver on phone, wasn't looking'
‘Driver just pulled out’
‘He drove into the side of the pram’
I can guess ...
Driver inattention is the cause of every collision.
Really?
Luckily we can look to some proper stats (for london as least) rather than listen to your idiotic dogma.
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/pedestrian-fatalities-in-london.pdf
"It goes on: “More drivers making claims for minor shunts are citing 'podestrians' [using iPods] or ‘Smombie pedestrians’ as the cause.”
while pedestrian/vehicle collision may be attributed solely to the pedestrian in the report you cite, once a second car becomes involves someone was not paying attention, or was driving two close or too fast, because you should always have safe stopping distance to react to any action of the car in front.
allthough I did note a few interesting anomolies in the report.
1) 21 of 198 incidents were recorded as pedestrian factor - crossing obscured by stationary/parked behicle & 13 incidents recorded as driver factor - vision obscured by stationary/parked vehicle. However removal of on streetparking only considered probably a benefit 6 times.
2) there is talk of incidents occuring within 50m of a crossing but implication that this includes those incidents at crossings. It would be quite useful to know what percentage were pedestrians crossing at the crossing and which were at locations close to a crossing but not a crossing. Similar for junctions. The safest place to cross is obviously on a straight road, and failing that at the junction so you can see both roads, crossing near to a junction but out of sight of one ofn the roads is worst.
3) vehicle not indicating not a factor ever, I am amazed that not one single incident involves a pedestrian attempting to cross a side road as a car turns left into it without indicating.
I also note that 6 times the pedestrian was in accordance with the traffic lights, but only 5 times the driver was not. Does this mean once the green man and green light were both active?
How is disability or illness a pedestrian factor? do we mean only fit and healthy people can cross the road?
24 times speeding was a contributory factor in a fatality, but only 5 times was the driver convicted.
"only 3 pedestrias were wearing hi vis clothing" really? why should they?
as many drivers as pedestrians were using a mobile phone, despite it beiong legal for one group and illegal for the other, while more drivers were listed as other distraction than pedestrians using headphones, but the AA report at the start talks of zombie pedestrians causing collisions
Pages