Cyclist riding no-handed while using his phone argues with driver; Brailsford warns people to expect the unexpected at Tour de France; Former Olympian urges athletes to 'let loose'; World's most picturesque cycling cities + more on the live blog

Nigel Garrage wrote:

He didn't say it was a against the law, he said the cyclist was riding recklessly. But anyway:

29 Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling.

If a person rides a cycle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.

Now I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty confident that it could be successfully argued that riding with no hands on the handlebars while looking at a mobile constitutes a lack of care and attention.

Dammit, that's the second time I've liked one of your posts today.

1. The driver said "... aren't allowed to have their phones in their hands ... you have to conform to the same rules". Talking about what is allowed is very fundamentally a statement about laws, because nothing else gives anybody the authority to decide what is allowed and what isn't. So clarifying the actual laws is very relevant.

2. The legal test is whether he was inattentive or inconsiderate, not whether he had hands on the handlebar or held a phone as such; these are two different (though possibly related) things, depending on exact circumstances and skills. Perhaps he was not in control, perhaps he was - as I said "we don't know because the video doesn't show him actually cycling, so it's all speculation based on what the driver and the cyclist say. Perfect starting point for people who want to open another culture war here..."

Feel free to speculate what might or might not have happened outside the video; I was only trying to clarifying the actual legal situation about mobile phone use while cycling. If a lawyer can shed light on that, that would be great, but I'm not interested in more finger-pointing about things that might or might not have happened.

Legin wrote:

It is cock cyclists like this that make the rest of us look bad, ......

Doesn't make me look bad, he's not my family.

Captain Badger wrote:

Legin wrote:

It is cock cyclists like this that make the rest of us look bad, ......

Doesn't make me look bad, he's not my family.

I'm not sure about that; have you undertaken a DNA comparison?

Legin wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

Legin wrote:

It is cock cyclists like this that make the rest of us look bad, ......

Doesn't make me look bad, he's not my family.

I'm not sure about that; have you undertaken a DNA comparison?

 

Unless I missed the bit in the report that he had a black and white pointed nose I'd put money on it.

Legin wrote:

It is cock cyclists like this that make the rest of us look bad, What does the Highway Code say:

Rule 112

The horn. Use only while your vehicle is moving and you need to warn other road users of your presence. Never sound your horn aggressively. You MUST NOT use your horn

while stationary on the road
when driving in a built-up area between the hours of 11.30 pm and 7.00 am

This motorist used his horn to warn the cock that he was there. Too many people take the use of the horn as an indication of aggression, that is not neccessarily so.

Whether or not the driver intended the use of horn to be aggressive or not, his subsequent threat of aggression was (and makes all drivers look bad?).

Surely in this case the better analogy is if using a shared path, a pedestrian in front was on their phone and was walking in a way where a pass wasn't possible safely with oncoming peds and bikes so you had to stay behind. You then decide to use your 100DB horn on your handlebars to show your displeasure on having to wait behind. You then have a confrontation and the pedestrian whips his phone out as you started to state it is against the law to walk and use a mobile phone. 

Well now you have gone and ruined it with the 100 pedestrians killed a year by cyclists. Surely only Ex-President loving conspracy theorists believe that type of thing. Next this pedestrian will state that powergenerating windmills will be killing everything and giving cancer. 

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Let's start by imagining a pedestrian who's decided to go for a walk wearing a spandex leotard. He passes a familiar sign which reads "Pedestrians, this is a shared use path. For your own safety you should keep to the left of the path and be prescient of cyclists approaching.

Rather much to expect pedestrians to be prescient of cyclists approaching, most of them don't seem to realise we're there when they can actually see us.

Prescient: having or showing knowledge of events before they take place.

Avoiding such flamboyant pedestrians sounds like a good reason to shun shared use paths and cycle on the road instead. The equivalent for the motorist would be to avoid driving through parks.

Whilst personally I would consider cycling in traffic no hands and looking at a phone as some form of fuckwittery, I'd also make sure to give additional space for the possible consequences of the fuckwittery to not involve me or my vehicle. This would include not startling them unnecessarily unless they were about to cycle into me or someone else. I cannot imagine threatening to run someone over just because I consider their behaviour to be a bit irrational.

Sure but in this case, both parties agree it was around 65dB as they both agreed it was a toot.

Car horns are 100-120 dB. It doesn't matter if it is a toot or they lay on it for 5 mins. It is on / off. 

Tripe; the cyclist, caused this confronation. I read it as the driver didn't need to be arguing the toss with a total plank and responded in frustration. That does not make him aggressive; that is a response to unreasonable provication. 

Legin wrote:

Tripe; the cyclist, caused this confronation. I read it as the driver didn't need to be arguing the toss with a total plank and responded in frustration. That does not make him aggressive; that is a response to unreasonable provication. 

How can you tell who started it? Could have been the driver beeping unnecessarily or could have been the cyclist reacting poorly to a polite beep.

"Polite beep", hmm. We all know there's no such thing, not car-car and certainly not car-vulnerable road user. 

When I'm driving, I occasionally make correct use of the horn, e.g. when a another driver is ererging from a driveway I. Can see them, they can't yet see me. I always wave profusely to indicate that I wasn't being an arse. 

Another thought, if there's a part of my life that is continually causing me grief (e.g. a job, a person/ relationship; a football team, an activity) I look to see what I can do about it. Sometimes you can fix it, change your own approach, negotiate better terms with the other party; but sometimes you have to cut it (or them) right out.  

Driving and following a bad football team - it's as though some people have to have something in their lives to wind them up. 

Starting a new standard has been quite a common move in the past, not least in wheel and tyre sizes. A few years ago I bought 20" tyres for an old child-sized road bike with 20" wheels. And then found out that there are two 20" tyre sizes. I had 406 mm tyres and needed 451. There are an awful lot of other sizes.

The second that some marketing person gets it into their beautifully oiled beardy hipster head that another size is viable, it'll happen. I'm told that 29er mountain bikes are worlds better than old tat with 26, which no one now wants because they're barely ridable to the shops let alone on a gnarly rad trail, or whatever it is those baggy people do.

So don't be totally surprised if some idiot pops up on Kickstarter with bigger wheels for unlikely looking bigger bikes for the bigger gentleman with bigger everything.

You have a point - and in fact there are a couple of existing "standards" which are bigger than 700C - including 700B. https://www.sheldonbrown.com/cribsheet-tires.html

(It looks like Sheldon correctly predicted your 20" confusion!)

PRSboy wrote:

The cyclist riding no handed whilst on the phone comes across as a total smartarse, IMHO.  Should be ashamed of himself, trying to make a thing of the actions of who seem to be a courteous elderly couple.

I can also drive my car with no hands on the wheel whilst on my phone quite safely, right up to the point it isn't.

I find videos like this very cringey, and counterproductive vs those showing genuinely poor driving.

Much as I hate to see use of the horn in remonstration, particularly against the vulnerable I agree. This is not a hill I'd have wanted to fight on. Best thing to do is keep off your phone....

PRSboy wrote:

The cyclist riding no handed whilst on the phone comes across as a total smartarse, IMHO.  Should be ashamed of himself, trying to make a thing of the actions of who seem to be a courteous elderly couple.

I can also drive my car with no hands on the wheel whilst on my phone quite safely, right up to the point it isn't.

I find videos like this very cringey, and counterproductive vs those showing genuinely poor driving.

Thanks for saying that and saving me the trouble.  We have to admit to our mistakes, and riding with no hands whilst on the phone is one, at the very least because it gives drivers another reason to hate us.  What could possibly have been so important that you have to answer the phone while riding?

Pandering to drivers in case they hate us is not a strategy that can work.

"Rosa, shut up and get to the back of the bus,. You'll only make the white folks hate us more."

Eton Rifle wrote:

"Rosa, shut up and get to the back of the bus,. You'll only make the white folks hate us more."

No. Just no. We may feel, with some justice, that we are treated like second-class citizens sometimes, but that analogy is both wrong and tasteless on quite a number of levels.

"a courteous elderly couple"

'Are you stupid?'

'If I'd shouted get out the fucking way you moron...'

I'm not making a judgement on the rights and wrongs of the situation overall, but that is not a courteous elderly couple.