Jeremy Vine almost hacked down by 'clown' in a car; Urán sorry for baby blunder; Brit drivers set for tougher phone rules; UK's longest bike path?; Porsche buy into e-bikes; What happened to pedal cars?; Cyclist frees goat + more on the live blog

Don't forget all the things like speeding, driving while disqualified / without a licence etc. which suddenly appear in large numbers when you actually look e.g. on the close pass operations. And there's the constant "but we have very serious penalties - 14 years! for death by dangerous" - ignoring the fact that these things have to be detected, actually charged, prosecuted and if necessary go through court, be successfully convicted of the offence. And at the end of all that a judge may impose a dummy punishment / a small fraction of the maximum possible, presumably because that's kept for "monsters in human form" and one day one may appear...

Isn't driving on the pavement / footway illegal also? Asking for almost every driver, ever...

chrisonatrike wrote:

Isn't driving on the pavement / footway illegal also? Asking for almost every driver, ever...

Yes, but it has to be witnessed by a police officer.  All those cars parked on the pavement got there by being pushed by the driver and his mates.

eburtthebike wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

Isn't driving on the pavement / footway illegal also? Asking for almost every driver, ever...

Yes, but it has to be witnessed by a police officer.  All those cars parked on the pavement got there by being pushed by the driver and his mates.

Since s72 of the Highways Act 1835 says, "[If any person]... shall wilfully lead or drive any ... carriage of any description...upon any such [footway]", pushing the car onto the footway would still constitute an offence.

It's debateable whether hiab-ing the car in place is 'leading'. But since the carriageway would have to be pretty narrow to make parking on the footway remotely justifiable, the truck bearing the hiab would then have to be on the opposite footway to fit alongside the car's carriageway position prior to lifting. It would then be necessary to have a large crane to put the hiab truck in place, and using the crane would probably require a highways permit.

It would be much simpler if it was accepted in law that the car shouldn't be there, and that a NIP process is an appropriate measure to take.

Give over.
Cycling Mikey is going to catch everyone, everywhere.

To be fair we have an individual here who will be ecstatic at this demonstration of altruistic behaviour. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Of course I wonder if someone will bring up uses on bikes for some reason when the far more people are distracted when they walk along a street staring at a screen then cycling with one. 

So many pedestrians seem to think it's everyone else's responsibility not to walk into them, rather than their responsiblity to look where they're going! 

Even during the height (I think we're past the height, right?) of the pandemic, people still walking around looking at their phones not at where they're walking or where other people are... 

I'd be quite happy if they applied the identical law to cyclists. If I'm using my mobile whilst cycling (I use it as a cycle computer / satnav) then it is securely attached in a Quadlock, same as in the car.

Yes, I've seen cyclists reach their phone out of their rear pocket to field a call one-handed whilst filtering through rush hour traffic other-handed. I admire their skill, and their stupidity.

I think this is meant to allow for contactless payments via androidpay / ApplePay at toll booths, carparks etc

The BBC's article states it applies to making contactless payments "with a card reader" - i.e. you will need to be somewhere like a drive-thru where you pay by tapping your phone on a physical card reader. You still wouldn't be allowed to use your phone to order things from Amazon whilst at the traffic lights.

The summary @gov.uk stated the pay exemption only applies to NFC tap to pay devices, such as Macdonalds or toll both.

You aren't allowed to use your phone if your behind the wheel, even if you've stopped at traffic lights. Legally, you need to be parked with the engine off and the handbrake on.

Garage at Large wrote:

Motoring groups such as the AA were well behind the campaign to outlaw using phones while driving: "By making mobile phone use as socially unacceptable as drink-driving, we are taking big steps to make our roads safer", said the president of the AA. It's about time cycling websites campaigned for similar laws for cyclists.

To be honest, I think cyclists are already as socially unacceptable as drink driving... 

Garage at Large wrote:

Re handheld phones - This is a well-overdue overhaul of the rules to bring the law up to date for modern smartphones. Clearly it's as dangerous to do any kind of activity on a phone - such as play game while driving or use the camera - as it is to make a call, usually more so. It was an odd anomaly that it wasn't illegal in the first place.

If that is your genuine opinion then it's also rather an odd anomaly that you have been vociferous in your spiteful and petty attacks on Mike (CyclingMikey) for catching people doing exactly what you claim to abhor, getting them prosecuted for it and raising the profile of the issue.

Garage at Large wrote:

he is badly motivated... for... self-publicity and personal gratification. 

He's not, he's a genuine guy who has worked hard to raise awareness of road safety following personal tragedy on the road. But a better description of you one couldn't wish for.

The CyclingMikey who's Father was killed by a drunk driver? That one? Are you sure about what you think his motivation for road safety might be?

They have been told that many times but we all know their MO.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Garage at Large wrote:

Re handheld phones - This is a well-overdue overhaul of the rules to bring the law up to date for modern smartphones. Clearly it's as dangerous to do any kind of activity on a phone - such as play game while driving or use the camera - as it is to make a call, usually more so. It was an odd anomaly that it wasn't illegal in the first place.

If that is your genuine opinion then it's also rather an odd anomaly that you have been vociferous in your spiteful and petty attacks on Mike (CyclingMikey) for catching people doing exactly what you claim to abhor, getting them prosecuted for it and raising the profile of the issue.

I think this is the same writer who when a boxer was spotted doing some illegal phone use (he hadn't even bothered to put a top on his car to hide it) hoped that CyclingMikey would get assaulted by same boxer. If I remember correctly I think he then suggested that he himself would act as a reserve if Eubank didn't show (can't be arsed to look up the thread)...

Garage at Large wrote:

No, what happened was that mikey was bragging about being double-vaccinated, and I made a tongue in cheek joke that it would have been nice for Eubank to have given him a booster jab.

Hilarious pun, I'm sure you'd agree, but unfortunately one that the usual commenters twisted out of context to imply that I was hoping a member of the general public was assaulted by a professional boxer.

So you weren't saying that you were hoping a member of the general public was assaulted by a professional boxer?  So you know that Eubank retrained as a vaccination nurse how, exactly?

TBF, he did say he would pay to watch this "third jab" so of course we should have all laughed along with it. And it was only his "opinion" before trying to state he said it in jest.

Of course the defense does fall apart when he seems to always indicate that cyclists deserve to be knocked off bikes at the hint of a bad word or gesture, and fully agreed with another poster that stated "if they were the farmer, the cyclist would be lucky to get away with only a scratched bike" during that article. 

Not the first time that Boo, as both Boo and Nigel have stated a cyclist only films and publishes these incidents of law breaking for their youtube profiles and not actually for catching criminals even though most result in the drivers being punished. 

Garage at Large wrote:

It was an odd anomaly that it wasn't illegal in the first place.

It isn't an anomaly. The laws were written when mobile phones were literally phones, capable of making and receiving calls and texts and a few other things. As is so often the case, the law has been rendered outdated by the march of technology. 

As other have said, the problem is not really the size of the penalty for being caught, it is that way too many drivers (quite correctly) identify that they are unlikely to be caught so will continue to do it, and continue to get away with it. 

Until that is addressed I really have no interest in seeing the same rules apply to cyclists who, even in a distracted stated pose significantly less risk to other road users and, arguably more risk to themselves by riding distracted. 

Too many people, as you demonstrated repeatedly, fall into the trap of thinking that equal is the same as equivalent. The law can treat drivers and cyclists equally without having equivalent laws imposed on them. Those laws need to be based on addressing the types and levels of risk posed by them on other road users, which are significantly different. 

Personally, I would not have a problem with using a handheld phone whilst cycling being made illegal.  However, I can also see why it's not a priority.  We are again seeing the false equivalence which says if a law applies to drivers then it must also apply to cyclists.  The danger from cyclists using a mobile phone is tiny compared with the danger from drivers doing so.  And where do you stop - should we also ban pedestrians using mobile phones whilst walking?  A pedestrian could get seriously injured or killed whilst being distracted on their phone.

If we want to go further to mitigate the dangers of using phones whilst travelling, the actual next step (in terms of harm reduction) would be to ban the use of hands free phones - as research has shown that hands free calls can be as dangerous as hand held ones.

I've had a ped step out on me whilst distracted by their phone. That put me atrisk as well as the ped. 

Steve K wrote:

If we want to go further to mitigate the dangers of using phones whilst travelling, the actual next step (in terms of harm reduction) would be to ban the use of hands free phones - as research has shown that hands free calls can be as dangerous as hand held ones.

My "new" car has a bluetooth connection on the audio system which my phone connects to routing all calls via the incar mic and speakers, and with the answer/hang up controls on the steering wheel. 

I can vouch for the one and only call I have taken using that system (from my wife) being way way more distracting than when she is sitting in the passenger seat. 

As a result, I have turned off Bluetooth on the phone when driving and leave the thing in my laptop case. 

better still, turn it to airplane mode, and save the battery and the ringing. 

Especially when some people will try a second time after it rings to voicemail.

Jetmans Dad wrote:

My "new" car has a bluetooth connection on the audio system which my phone connects to routing all calls via the incar mic and speakers, and with the answer/hang up controls on the steering wheel. 

I can vouch for the one and only call I have taken using that system (from my wife) being way way more distracting than when she is sitting in the passenger seat.

It has long been established that talking to someone on the phone while driving is as dangerous as drink driving, and hands-free doesn't change that.  So, given that the government had the opportunity, again, to change the law banning such conversations and didn't take it, again, I think we can be fairly sure that their statements that they take road safety seriously are complete, total and utter BS.

Just like everything else they say.

Pretty much in full agreement with you on this. I think the time where phone use and cycling becomes an offence is when the modal share is at such a level that distracted cycling becomes a risk to other cyclists and we are nowhere near those kind of numbers. 

Garage at Large wrote:

I understand that you might find the trade-off between having a natter on your phone and having a nasty collision to be "worth it", but you also have to accept that - for many people - the thing that puts them off cycling is the risk to their personal safety.

For the moment, let's cast aside the unnecessary danger that a phone-toting cyclist poses to other vulnerable road users. Suppose a cyclist crashes and kills or seriously injures themselves as a result of being distracted by a mobile device. This person becomes a KSI, and these KSIs feed into national attitudes about the safety of cycling. So even though a cyclist might only do themselves harm in such a scenario, they are actually perpetrating psycological harm on the nation by making cycling appear more dangerous than it actually is when performed in a safe manner.

I rarely actually see anyone doing this. Genuinely. And those that I do see doing it are the same ones I also see pulling wheelies up the cycle lane and riding with their hands in their pockets rather than on the bars ... I doubt it being illegal to use their phone would stop them doing it.

I never do it, and don't need it to be made illegal to persuade me that I shouldn't. Given the relative speed and the fact that cyclists are not "indoors", the police will also find easier to enforce than the ban on drivers using them, and we can do without giving them another excuse not to focus on bad/distracted driving.