Mobiles are a menace

[Kenn]

This morning a pedestian with his back to me and mobile glued to ear stepped sideways into the road right in front of my bike without any warning. I always slow down on that bit of road, which is single track due to cars parked on the right, so I just managed to stop. He was still oblivious and talking on the phone. In the wet I would have hit him. White van instead of bicycle and he might be dead. (He almost died of cardiac arrest as I yelled a warning close to his free ear.)

I despair of mobile phone use on the move. It makes drivers dangerous and pedestrians (and occasional cyclists) suicidal. Is there realistically anything that can be done to reduce this menace. It seems to get worse with each passing year from my perspective.

[amediasatex]

Is there realistically anything that can be done to reduce this menace.

Realistically? I doubt it.

It's already illegal to use them in motor vehicles.
Even if there's no specific law of using a mobile on a bike I'm sure it's covered by other 'due care' laws. The only thing you could hope for is more and better enforcement for the actual law breaking, which would require more police and them actually targeting it, and with the current gov/spending that's not looking likely.

But there's no law against using a mobile, or reading a magazine, or not looking where you're going while walking. Maybe an educational campaign might work, but I'm sorry to say I'm doubtful it'd have much impact, however "look where you are going" is good advice for anyone no matter how they travel.

Keep your wits about you and ride safe!

[AlaninWales]

Even when I was young, pedestrians would be distracted by 'something' and step out into the road in front of passing traffic. What has changed is simply the expectation that they should be confined to the sidewalk, which expectation comes largely from the society which uses that expression for footways, the same society which spawned the expression "jaywalking" to describe stepping into the road with little regard to vehicular traffic. Expecting pedestrians to keep out of your way to allow your faster progress is as arrogant now (whether you are motorised or not) as it was when the only people with that expectation were the aristocracy.

[mercalia]

I think will be an evolutionary development where they are all killed off? One way to control population, I see this every where, buses, tubes, trains, walking, cars every where.

These days you cant tell the mad from the sane as every one seems to be talking to thin air ( on their mobile with earphones and mic )

[AlaninWales]

I think will be an evolutionary development where they are all killed off? One way to control population, I see this every where, buses, tubes, trains, walking, cars every where.

These days you cant tell the mad from the sane as every one seems to be talking to thin air ( on their mobile with earphones and mic )

What was that parliamentary quote? The one about pedestrians will learn to keep out of the way of the motor car in the same way that dogs and other animals learn (by being killed if they don't).

[Cunobelin]

I think will be an evolutionary development where they are all killed off? One way to control population, I see this every where, buses, tubes, trains, walking, cars every where.

These days you cant tell the mad from the sane as every one seems to be talking to thin air ( on their mobile with earphones and mic )

What was that parliamentary quote? The one about pedestrians will learn to keep out of the way of the motor car in the same way that dogs and other animals learn (by being killed if they don't).

It was Transport Minister Lieutenant-Colonel Moore-Brabazon, who stated during a 1930's discussion on road safety

It is true that 7000 people are killed in motor accidents, but
it is not always going on like that. People are getting used to
the new conditions. The fact that the road is practically the
great railway of the country instead of the playground of the
young has to be realised. No doubt many of the old Members of
the House will recollect the numbers of chickens we killed in
the old days. We used to come back with the radiator stuffed
with feathers. It was the same with dogs. Dogs get out of the
way of motor cars nowadays and you never kill one. There is
education even in the lower animals. These things will right
themselves."

[661-Pete]

We've had some discussion of this in the Cyclist on Trial for Manslaughter thread. I still maintain that there ought to be an offence of 'jaywalking', however much the libertarian lobby may throw up in horror at the idea! And if so, it should include a clause about using a mobile phone whilst in a dangerous situation, such as crossing a busy road. Especially if texting....

[kwackers]

We've had some discussion of this in the Cyclist on Trial for Manslaughter thread. I still maintain that there ought to be an offence of 'jaywalking', however much the libertarian lobby may throw up in horror at the idea! And if so, it should include a clause about using a mobile phone whilst in a dangerous situation, such as crossing a busy road. Especially if texting....

You would need evidence that it saves lives. Can't say I've tried too hard but I can't find any correlation between pedestrian deaths and jaywalking laws.

Could be the law of unintended consequences rears it's ugly head, perhaps if such a law exists drivers wouldn't bother looking for peds because they simply don't expect them to be there and thus where peds are "accidentally" killed then it's automatically the peds fault.
(I think we already have this).

But it turns out when you look into it that pedestrians don't even have any real rights on the pavements, let alone the carriageway. Killing one that's on the pavement is by no means guaranteed to see you prosecuted. So perhaps jaywalking laws aren't needed, other than damaging your cars bodywork you can pretty much run them over already.

[amediasatex]

I still maintain that there ought to be an offence of 'jaywalking'

I would strongly disagree with that (polite version). The last thing we need is more sense of entitlement given to those behind the wheel of motor vehicles. Safer urban spaces, more pedestrianisation, and protection and respect for vulnerable users are what is needed. The levels of death, injury and collateral damage we accept from motor vehicles is staggering, it's only because it's crept up on us over decades that we accept it as a society.

(yes I do have a car)

[Flinders]

You can't stop stupid people crossing the road whilst on the phone, or listening to music.
But you can decide that if they do, they will be deemed at fault for any accident, unless someone else is breaking the law in which case the responsibility would be shared accordingly.
So if nobody else breaks the law, no compensation, no other road user prosecuted, and the offending pedestrian should be prosecuted, and be held financially liable if other people are injured by their stupid behaviour.

If I walk listening to music/the radio on earphones, I turn it off and/or slip the earphones out/off when crossing the road. It's not that difficult. If I was somewhere where I was crossing roads a lot and this would be a nuisance, I wouldn't be listening to anything.

[Cunobelin]

We've had some discussion of this in the Cyclist on Trial for Manslaughter thread. I still maintain that there ought to be an offence of 'jaywalking', however much the libertarian lobby may throw up in horror at the idea! And if so, it should include a clause about using a mobile phone whilst in a dangerous situation, such as crossing a busy road. Especially if texting....

W were discussing this image at work yesterday. The Police are seeking protection behind their vehicle, whilst the guy with the phone is standing texting..

[squeaker]

I still maintain that there ought to be an offence of 'jaywalking'

I would strongly disagree with that (polite version). The last thing we need is more sense of entitlement given to those behind the wheel of motor vehicles. Safer urban spaces, more pedestrianisation, and protection and respect for vulnerable users are what is needed. The levels of death, injury and collateral damage we accept from motor vehicles is staggering, it's only because it's crept up on us over decades that we accept it as a society.

(yes I do have a car)

+1

[661-Pete]

I still maintain that there ought to be an offence of 'jaywalking'

I would strongly disagree with that (polite version). The last thing we need is more sense of entitlement given to those behind the wheel of motor vehicles. Safer urban spaces, more pedestrianisation, and protection and respect for vulnerable users are what is needed. The levels of death, injury and collateral damage we accept from motor vehicles is staggering, it's only because it's crept up on us over decades that we accept it as a society.

(yes I do have a car)

I'm just wondering what the 'impolite version' might have been. Presumably "that's a complete load of <insert rude word of your choice>"

Well well. Do I detect a nuance of anti-car rhetoric, in some of the answers here? I like to think I'm not anti-anything on the road, but I do harbour a sense of pro-cyclist. Well, perhaps not pro-every-cyclist.

I'm going to stick my neck out here, and say, yes I do feel a sense of 'entitlement' when behind the wheel. What sort of entitlement? Well, the entitlement to use my car when it's necessary and there's no alternative, to use it safely and efficiently in a way that doesn't impact upon, endanger or inconvenience, any other road user. Am I not permitted to have that sort of 'entitlement'?

I do however agree, that if 'jaywalking' were ever to become legally defined, the law would have to be formulated with extreme care. What we don't want is what used to happen in the Soviet bloc: that a uniformed busybody could march up to you if you crossed a quiet road elsewhere than at the traffic lights, and fined you oodles of roubles on the spot.....

[Tangled Metal]

I think will be an evolutionary development where they are all killed off? One way to control population, I see this every where, buses, tubes, trains, walking, cars every where.

You could say that about the cyclists too. His about thinking of your view wrt to pedestrians from a motorist's viewpoint over cyclists being on the roads. It's OK they'll all die off in some evolutionary process that either gets them into cars or they get run over by cars.

Simply put it's duty of care over more vulnerable users. Car drivers should have it for cyclists, cyclists should have it for pedestrians no matter how they are the origins of their own danger.

To the op, did you see the pedestrian near the edge of the road as you approached? Did you slow down in case they stepped out? No then your at fault.

[amediasatex]

Well well. Do I detect a nuance of anti-car rhetoric

I'm personally* not anti 'car'. I'm anti 'bad and unsafe road environments', whether that danger originates from poor infrastructure, or poor behaviour, and regardless of mode of transport. It's about duty of care and responsibility to other users, and especially the vulnerable ones

I'm going to stick my neck out here, and say, yes I do feel a sense of 'entitlement'

661-pete, what you've described there isn't entitlement, that's an acknowledgment of the responsibilities that go hand in hand with being allowed to use a car on our roads, as per our license. That's almost the exact opposite of the sense of entitlement displayed by many other drivers.

I won't wade in too far re:earphones because as someone who is partially deaf it grates with me in a very special way....But there is no reason that being unable to hear should make you unsafe, being distracted and not observing on the other hand are actually what people have the gripe with, the fact that listening to music can easily distract people isn't in question, but I get quite grumpy with the earphones=unsafe assertions as by proxy it implies anyone who cannot hear is unable to ride/walk/drive safely.

At least if you see someone with earphones in you can make the judgement that they might not be able to hear you and adjust your behaviour and expectations accordingly if necessary, but deaf people don't wear labels.

*with motor sport history in the family, me, parent, uncle etc. I'd go so far as to say I'm probably more 'pro car' than the average man in the street, but that doesn't preclude me form understanding the pecking order or the responsibilities that go with using a vehicle in a public space.