Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Mobile phone use costs cyclist some teeth

“If he wasn't looking at his phone he would have saw there was a big metal gate” observes astute onlooker...

Earlier today we posted a video to our live blog in which a cyclist checking his phone rode into a solid fence at not inconsiderable speed. Turns out the man involved may have lost a few teeth in the collision.

The Mirror reports that the incident took place in Coventry in the early hours of last Wednesday.

The footage was captured by Daz Rollins’ CCTV.

In a subsequent video, Rollins can be seen picking up teeth from the road and pavement, collecting them in a plastic money bag.

He said: “I think no matter what you're driving or riding you shouldn't go on your phone. It only takes a split second for something to happen and if you're busy looking at your phone then obviously bad things can happen.

“As you can see from the footage, if he wasn't looking at his phone he would have saw there was a big metal gate. Looking at his phone has just cost him about six teeth. Let that be a lesson to people.”

Neil Greig, Director of Policy and Research at IAM Roadsmart, said: “This footage shows that distraction from smartphones causes exactly the same problems for cyclists as it does for drivers. You simply can't multitask if you are concentrating on a call.”

Greig went on to suggest that such instances of ‘careless cycling’ could end up being addressed by the upcoming review of cycling offences.

“Cycling offences are a grey area which are currently being reviewed by the Westminster government. We may also soon see a re-education course being made available for careless cycling. Given the vulnerability of cyclists, however, using a phone is more likely to lead to a very painful reminder.”

Cycling UK have said that the review in question is likely to be a ‘patch-up job’.

Speaking last month, Duncan Dollimore, the charity’s head of campaigns said: “Unfortunately, despite the representations made by us and others, the Department for Transport appears to have undertaken this as a discrete inquiry, without carrying out the broader review of all road traffic offences promised back in 2014.

“Instead of asking whether the definitions of and standards for ‘careless’ and ‘dangerous’ actually work when applied to offences by any road user, Government seems keen on only adding new careless and dangerous cycling offences: a patch up job rather than the holistic review required.”

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

29 comments

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet | 6 years ago
0 likes

BTBS, so stats or it never can happen? Ok.

You know when people get nicked for speeding and the magistrate/judge tells the naughty person about what COULD have happened....but didn't....and then gives them a large punishment even though the result of their speeding was.....nothing....

You can't have laws that only apply if there's any direct misfortune that happens from it. You end up utterly lawless like....Italy, where mopeds are wheelied down pavements, one ways are two ways, pedestrian zones mean less cars and old ladies stop cars on roundabouts to get an ice-cream. (This was all in short 4 day break)

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to Yorkshire wallet | 6 years ago
1 like
Yorkshire wallet wrote:

BTBS, so stats or it never can happen? Ok.

You know when people get nicked for speeding and the magistrate/judge tells the naughty person about what COULD have happened....but didn't....and then gives them a large punishment even though the result of their speeding was.....nothing....

You can't have laws that only apply if there's any direct misfortune that happens from it. You end up utterly lawless like....Italy, where mopeds are wheelied down pavements, one ways are two ways, pedestrian zones mean less cars and old ladies stop cars on roundabouts to get an ice-cream. (This was all in short 4 day break)

Who said it could never happen, I never said that nor anyone else.

Is cycling with a phone a problem that causes others to fear harm or come to harm more so than others getting about (without phones), how much harm are say pedestrians causing whilst using a mobile phone?

We have a ban on using phones in motors and yet that is still killing hundreds a year and you and others are worried about something that has not a single death attributed to it either for the user or an innocent party.

Again, I'm waiting for some actual evidence to prove that cycling with a phone is an issue over and above others behaviour on the basis that it causes harm to others enough so that we impose sanctions.

I'm still waiting.

Avatar
fenix | 6 years ago
3 likes

It's nice and simple. No using the phone if you're on a bike or driving a car. Motorists can't complain about cyclists getting off with it.

Safer all round.

Avatar
brooksby replied to fenix | 6 years ago
0 likes
fenix wrote:

It's nice and simple. No using the phone if you're on a bike or driving a car. Motorists can't complain about cyclists getting off with it. Safer all round.

I've never used a phone while riding my bike, but I think that's because I haven't mastered "rummaging around to find the phone thats fallen to the very bottom of my pannier" while riding...

Avatar
alansmurphy | 6 years ago
1 like

You're on the review panel aren't you?!

Avatar
barbarus | 6 years ago
5 likes

Easily solved by compulsory gum shields for cyclists. Hi Viz ones.

Avatar
Grahamd replied to barbarus | 6 years ago
5 likes
barbarus wrote:

Easily solved by compulsory gum shields for cyclists. Hi Viz ones.

Need to prove the effectiveness of gum shields first, is there any research or better still a graph?

Avatar
brooksby | 6 years ago
3 likes

Does the IAM Roadsmart bloke have anything to say about the almost total lack of enforcement of mobile phone use among motorists, before he starts calling for stricter rules for cyclists...

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 6 years ago
7 likes

Do stupid things, win stupid prizes!

I agree with BTBS that mobile use on bikes isn't worth legislating and enforcing. The cost to the tax-payer here is offset by not paying for extra police to stop mobile use, so I think society benefits by not having it illegal.

Ideally, people wouldn't do stupid things, but they do and the NHS provides healthcare even for the most stupid/self-caused of incidents. I doubt that the numbers of self-injured cyclists are anywhere close to the number of self-injured drinkers, but I'd have to see some graphs to be sure.

Avatar
madcarew replied to hawkinspeter | 6 years ago
0 likes
hawkinspeter wrote:

Do stupid things, win stupid prizes!

I agree with BTBS that mobile use on bikes isn't worth legislating and enforcing. The cost to the tax-payer here is offset by not paying for extra police to stop mobile use, so I think society benefits by not having it illegal.

Ideally, people wouldn't do stupid things, but they do and the NHS provides healthcare even for the most stupid/self-caused of incidents. I doubt that the numbers of self-injured cyclists are anywhere close to the number of self-injured drinkers, but I'd have to see some graphs to be sure.

Because society only benefits from actions that cost less? I think that's a definition narrow enough to be completely invalid

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to madcarew | 6 years ago
1 like
madcarew wrote:
hawkinspeter wrote:

Do stupid things, win stupid prizes!

I agree with BTBS that mobile use on bikes isn't worth legislating and enforcing. The cost to the tax-payer here is offset by not paying for extra police to stop mobile use, so I think society benefits by not having it illegal.

Ideally, people wouldn't do stupid things, but they do and the NHS provides healthcare even for the most stupid/self-caused of incidents. I doubt that the numbers of self-injured cyclists are anywhere close to the number of self-injured drinkers, but I'd have to see some graphs to be sure.

Because society only benefits from actions that cost less? I think that's a definition narrow enough to be completely invalid

Thanks for your straw-man.

I'm thinking about maximising the return on legislature/enforcement. Cost/benefit analysis if you like.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to madcarew | 6 years ago
0 likes
madcarew wrote:
hawkinspeter wrote:

Do stupid things, win stupid prizes!

I agree with BTBS that mobile use on bikes isn't worth legislating and enforcing. The cost to the tax-payer here is offset by not paying for extra police to stop mobile use, so I think society benefits by not having it illegal.

Ideally, people wouldn't do stupid things, but they do and the NHS provides healthcare even for the most stupid/self-caused of incidents. I doubt that the numbers of self-injured cyclists are anywhere close to the number of self-injured drinkers, but I'd have to see some graphs to be sure.

Because society only benefits from actions that cost less? I think that's a definition narrow enough to be completely invalid

 

That doesn't even make any sense as a response.  Cost less than what?  'Less' is not an absolute quality.  But whether society benefits from an action does indeed depend on how much that action costs vs how much is gained, rather obviously.

On reflection I _do_ agree with BTBS, because while using a phone while riding can be a bit risky, even sometimes to third-parties, legislating about this doesn't seem worth the enforcement effort and parliamentary time.  The government has some rather more pressing things it needs to be working on at the moment, surely?

 

Not that I care.  I don't even have a phone at the moment, and I think I might keep it that way (it's like being on an effing leash, everyone expecting to be able to contact you at all times and get an instant response and then getting all irate if you don't get back to them immediately...why did they have to invent those infernal things?  Cars, mobile phones, and mass-produced firearms - I'd uninvent all of them)

Avatar
dreamy | 6 years ago
4 likes

Ha ha ha

Did you see that guy. He's so much more dumber than me!

Avatar
ConcordeCX | 6 years ago
9 likes

Apparently he was sending a close pass video to Road.cc

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet | 6 years ago
12 likes

Behindthebikesheds, don't let your utter, cycling militancy blind you or anything. You seem to be buried in this notion of cycling accidents being primarily self-harming, so therefore not subject to any laws. 

Cyclist on phone, parent with toddler walking on footpath, cyclist loses controls, hits toddler. It's ok though. Cyclist on phone, loses control, goes under a passing cars wheels, traumatises driver. It's ok though. 

I remember crashing my motorbike and having to explain myself to the magistrate. Should have just said "it was only me that got hurt" and it would have been case dismissed. 

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to Yorkshire wallet | 6 years ago
4 likes
Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Behindthebikesheds, don't let your utter, cycling militancy blind you or anything. You seem to be buried in this notion of cycling accidents being primarily self-harming, so therefore not subject to any laws. 

Cyclist on phone, parent with toddler walking on footpath, cyclist loses controls, hits toddler. It's ok though. Cyclist on phone, loses control, goes under a passing cars wheels, traumatises driver. It's ok though. 

I remember crashing my motorbike and having to explain myself to the magistrate. Should have just said "it was only me that got hurt" and it would have been case dismissed. 

 

I don't know if I agree with BTB or not, but your counter-argument is very weak, because you completely ignore the relative probabilities.  You could construct potential bad-outcome scenarios for almost any behaviour, but what does that prove?

 

  Your logic could also be used to argue that using a mobile while jogging, or even walking quickly, should be illegal as well.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to Yorkshire wallet | 6 years ago
1 like
Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Behindthebikesheds, don't let your utter, cycling militancy blind you or anything. You seem to be buried in this notion of cycling accidents being primarily self-harming, so therefore not subject to any laws. 

Cyclist on phone, parent with toddler walking on footpath, cyclist loses controls, hits toddler. It's ok though. Cyclist on phone, loses control, goes under a passing cars wheels, traumatises driver. It's ok though. 

I remember crashing my motorbike and having to explain myself to the magistrate. Should have just said "it was only me that got hurt" and it would have been case dismissed. 

How many times has that happened, let's say in 10 years, please quote references to support your stats?

You missed the point that people on bikes raarely use a phone because all realise that it increases a risk of incident, those that do are such an infintessimally small number it's not worth worrying about and so far has no data to support that it's a problem.

Do crack on though with digging the stats out to prove yourself correct.

What, you can't or simply is it that riding with a phone is less dangerous to others than what happens in other non phone related background incidents by other modes in cluding people on bikes.

I'm waiting.

Avatar
bobbydazzler replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
1 like

 

 

[/quote]

You missed the point that people on bikes raarely use a phone because all realise that it increases a risk of incident, those that do are such an infintessimally small number it's not worth worrying about and so far has no data to support that it's a problem.

Do crack on though with digging the stats out to prove yourself correct.

What, you can't or simply is it that riding with a phone is less dangerous to others than what happens in other non phone related background incidents by other modes in cluding people on bikes.

I'm waiting.

[/quote]

 

I rarely post because I can't stand the descent into argument, but this one was so hypocritical I laughed out loud.

Avatar
DaveGnu replied to Yorkshire wallet | 6 years ago
0 likes
Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Behindthebikesheds, don't let your utter, cycling militancy blind you or anything. You seem to be buried in this notion of cycling accidents being primarily self-harming, so therefore not subject to any laws. 

Can I like this comment x26 please?

Mobile phone use while riding should be punishable by confiscation of the bike - as there are obviously no brain cells to confiscate.

Avatar
ktache replied to DaveGnu | 6 years ago
1 like
DaveGnu wrote:
Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Behindthebikesheds, don't let your utter, cycling militancy blind you or anything. You seem to be buried in this notion of cycling accidents being primarily self-harming, so therefore not subject to any laws. 

Can I like this comment x26 please?

Mobile phone use while riding should be punishable by confiscation of the bike - as there are obviously no brain cells to confiscate.

Yes, because they confiscate the motor vehicle of people actually breaking the law don't they?  You know those vehicles that kill quite a lot of innocent people.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... | 6 years ago
9 likes

Was the gate wearing high-viz?  If not, surely that Mr Loophole lawyer fellow could make a case that, phone-user stupidity notwithstanding, it was partly the gate's fault?

 

There's a gate across a partially-closed road I know of, which one day mysteriously got repainted in a dark colour over the oriignal brilliant white (I'm guessing bored kids?).  Within 24 hours it was knocked flat, presumably by a driver driving into it.

Avatar
kemakris | 6 years ago
5 likes

Will the metal gate be pursuing a private prosecution against the cyclist?

Driving, cycling, walking, whatever. Put the phone down. It can wait until you stop.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
5 likes

And this is precisely why it should NOT be an offence to operate a mobile phone whilst cycling, the risk is pretty much all on the person on the bike, even in conflict with pedestrians the bike rider is more likely to lose out and so far there is next to zero evidence to support that using a phone is any more detrimental over and above the general background incidents from non users, well aside from hearsay and coroners made up, evidence free summations.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
6 likes
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

And this is precisely why it should NOT be an offence to operate a mobile phone whilst cycling, the risk is pretty much all on the person on the bike, even in conflict with pedestrians the bike rider is more likely to lose out and so far there is next to zero evidence to support that using a phone is any more detrimental over and above the general background incidents from non users, well aside from hearsay and coroners made up, evidence free summations.

Of course it should be an offence. You have no idea of who else might be injured or suffer damage to their property in avoiding such idiots.

Will the cyclist in this clip be paying privately for their teeth or does the tax payer have to pick up the tab? Aside from which, I do not want hard pressed A&E having to divert time and resources to sorting out injured cyclists following this type of incident.

Avatar
alansmurphy replied to Hirsute | 6 years ago
4 likes
hirsute wrote:

Will the cyclist in this clip be paying privately for their teeth or does the tax payer have to pick up the tab? Aside from which, I do not want hard pressed A&E having to divert time and resources to sorting out injured cyclists following this type of incident.

Wow, we go down some silly routes here.

Smokers, alcoholics, fat people, rugby players... A&E has a few cases to see!

Avatar
cyclisto replied to alansmurphy | 6 years ago
0 likes
alansmurphy wrote:
hirsute wrote:

Will the cyclist in this clip be paying privately for their teeth or does the tax payer have to pick up the tab? Aside from which, I do not want hard pressed A&E having to divert time and resources to sorting out injured cyclists following this type of incident.

Wow, we go down some silly routes here.

Smokers, alcoholics, fat people, rugby players... A&E has a few cases to see!

I do agree with this part of hirsute logic, the state cannot allow people to get hurt themselves not only from an ethical point of view but of cost too. And regarding the other groups that love being in danger, smoking is being punished by the state that puts high taxes in an otherwise very cheap product, so does in alcohol and recently there have been thoughts about taxing unhealthy foods in other countries.

Nothing yet about rugby players because dangerous accidents or even worse, fatalities are really rare in the sport. And there is why third party liability for cyclists is a wrong concept, it is very unlikely and should it happen, the consequences are usually minor, and it may put off people from an otherwise beneficial to all activity.

To sum up, it is all about probabilities, we cannot wear a helmet and a Nomex suit while being on home because a comet may hit our house, but we cannot either cross a lava river stepping on the heads of hungry fireproof crocodiles when there is a bridge near there.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to alansmurphy | 6 years ago
0 likes
alansmurphy wrote:
hirsute wrote:

Will the cyclist in this clip be paying privately for their teeth or does the tax payer have to pick up the tab? Aside from which, I do not want hard pressed A&E having to divert time and resources to sorting out injured cyclists following this type of incident.

 

Wow, we go down some silly routes here. Smokers, alcoholics, fat people, rugby players... A&E has a few cases to see!

The original post seemed to be saying its ok because no one else is affected. The point was it isn't just the cyclist who is affected, there are consequences for others.

Avatar
burtthebike | 6 years ago
6 likes

".....the upcoming review of cycling offences."

I thought the government had backpedalled on this and it was supposed to be a review of the safety of cyclists?

Sorry, dreaming again and I fully acknowledge those killer cyclists who pose such a great threat to the driving public must be controlled.

Avatar
StraelGuy | 6 years ago
2 likes

Darwin would be so proud!

Latest Comments