[brooksby]

[quote]

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering wants a law change so cyclists are prosecuted for the offence of using a phone, in the same way that car drivers are.

…

Lady McIntosh questioned why Rule 149 of the code, requiring motorists to “exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times” and banning use of a mobile phone while driving, did not apply to cyclists and other road users.

To illustrate her point, she said she had recently been walking to the Houses of Parliament and as she was crossing the road, she suddenly became aware of a cyclist travelling towards her using a mobile phone, “one hand bicycling, one hand on the mobile phone, on the wrong side of the road”.

She added: “I wasn’t clear whether he was going to stop or not.”

[/quote]

Ahhhh – legislation based on anecdata 😉

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61018584

Topic

[wycombewheeler]

hawkinspeter wrote:

Cycling one-handed tends to make you slow down

For some of us this may be true, but I’ve seen some impressive selfie skills from moving cyclists

[Hirsute]

Totally justified – so you

Totally justified – so you believe 100 kg at 10 kph is the same as 2500 kg at 60 kph and that existing cycle laws are insufficient.

Why do you think that they are insufficient ?

[hawkinspeter]

Rockhopper229 wrote:

Rockhopper229 wrote:

Totally justified in my opinion. We are all in charge of a vehicle when riding/driving and we cannot rebuke others when doing the same. Let those without sin cast the first stone.

There’s a hell of a difference between two tonnes of fast moving metal and someone on a bike.

I don’t see the point really as using your phone when cycling tends to be self-controlled. Cycling one-handed tends to make you slow down (especially given the pothole-strewn roads) and most cyclists will take some care to avoid losing control or hitting someone/something as that tends to hurt and possibly break bits off of your bike.

There’s many things that can be done to improve road safety and this is way down the list.

[Rockhopper229]

Totally justified in my
Totally justified in my opinion. We are all in charge of a vehicle when riding/driving and we cannot rebuke others when doing the same. Let those without sin cast the first stone.

[chrisonabike]

brooksby wrote:

That’s the thing, isn’t it?  The article says that if you were caught using your phone while ‘something else’ happened then the legislation on careless cycling etc already covers it.  So introducing a new law just for the sake of it seems redundant (especially when the Govt seems so keen to take a flamethrower to so much existing legislation…).

Alas this is in poor taste given what we know from the Grenfell Tower enquiry. But yes, “hostile environment” for (most) migrants / the poor but “light touch” and “deregulation” for the powerful / loaded.

[mdavidford]

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Another demonstration of our current adminstration playing to the crowds.

Well, except that the person raising this isn’t part of the administration – just a random backbencher. And the relevant minister basically rolled their eyes and told them to do one.

[brooksby]

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

I’m so tired of this populist agenda…

They’ve only just started… 

[chrisonabike]

markieteeee wrote:

In the extremely rare event of it being enforced, a driver might get a fine and points on their license but good question, what was her proposed punishment for the unlicensed? 
 

Transportation for life, and then to be fined forty pound (apologies to Lewis Carroll).

This all sounded more like “I got startled … and then that started me thinking – it’s not fair”.  I’m a bit “meh” about this whole story.  I don’t think phone use while on any conveyance is smart.  Even walking about with phone increases risk to you and slightly to others.  Also this will go nowhere.  Even if it did it’ll have no impact for reasons others mentioned. However it points to a couple of interesting issues which could impede progress in getting universal cycling:
a) people are still shocked by bicycles.
b) we tend towards a “BBC concept of balance / fairness” in the public discourse e.g. if one thing applies for drivers then the same thing should apply for all other road users (irrespective of transport mode).
c) Bike = car – people don’t understand cyclists have their own unique set of requirements. They share some with drivers and pedestrians but are not the same as either.  Most worrying is that planners and even designers seem unaware of this.

[jh2727]

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Another demonstration of our current adminstration playing to the crowds. I’m so tired of this populist agenda…

Nothing particularly current about it. Baroness Pickering has been trying – and failing – to get such laws passed for over a decade.

[markieteeee]

In the extremely rare event

In the extremely rare event of it being enforced, a driver might get a fine and points on their license but good question, what was her proposed punishment for the unlicensed? 
 

[Rendel Harris]

Also frequently used for

Also frequently used for Drama Queen, which seems appropriate for someone who comes out with nonsense such as “mobile phone use by cyclists, given its ubiquity and danger – can and does easily cause injury or death to vulnerable pedestrians.”

[Jimmy Ray Will]

Another demonstration of our

Another demonstration of our current adminstration playing to the crowds. I’m so tired of this populist agenda…

I think it is utterly sensible that people cycling do not operate mobile phones whilst cycling. 

However I also believe there is not parity between the level of risk using a phone on a bike creates compared to when driving. And I’m not just talking about the risk presented by 80kg of cyclist compared to 1.5+ tonnes of motor vehicle, for me its more about the level of distraction caused and how that manifests itself in actions. Specifically;

 – the line between happily cruising along and ending up an injured mess is much narrower for a cyclist than a motorist. Smaller mistakes are more likely to cause accidents and injuries, therefore cyclists are less likely to divert attention from the road for any period of time

– aligned to this, operating a phone on a bike is a fiddly thing, where you are never more than a few moments away from lying in a ditch, or dropping your £700+ phone on the road. People either won’t do it for long, or won’t do it without paying greater attention to the road, or mitigating against the risk by slowing down

– phone use in cars is often associated with boredom… literally used to distract from the monotony of driving. I imagine the amount of motorist phone use on a busy A road, in heavy rain and busy traffic is minimal… cyclists do not need this distraction

I guess what I’m saying, the negative effect of using a phone is so much more obvious for a cyclist than motorist, that using it is likely to cause heightened attention rather than reduced, should it happen at all. 

Cyclists are already unlikely to use a phone, as its inconvenient and generally unnecessary. If doing so, it is unlikely to have the same distracting effect as seen when driving because cyclists literally have too much skin in the game.

So what we are talking about is adding specific legislation for something that people already rarely do, that is not evidenced as actively causing harm to others. It does not seem a sensible use of time or public funds to me.  

[AlsoSomniloquism]

I thought it was short for

I thought it was short for Dick Quotient, ie he fills the quotient of dicks on here. 

Still glad to see Road CC are on the ball with PBU posting on here. 

[AlsoSomniloquism]

A driver gets a fine and

A driver gets a fine and points on his license. Nothing else. If the person is a below 17yo or someone without a license, what is she proposing for punishment if she said they should get the same?

[chrisonabike]

OldRidgeback wrote:

I was once stung by a wasp on my finger, which then swelled up and hurt for days. Can we ban wasps that aren’t wearing high visibility apparel?

Did it give you special powers though?

[Author]

Replies