Cyclists and mobile phones - deeply depressing ignorance by journalists?

[Bonefishblues]

... and I've shown how in at least one respect, you would feel differently in Boris' position.

People catch falling knives all the time. Instinctive reactions are instinctive.

So why not try to catch bidons then?

Anyway, I'm MERELY making an observation about ONE ASPECT of TC's post. That's all. No need to start WW3 over it ...

Indeed, no need at all, nor perhaps for shouting at someone who was also, merely expressing a pov.

[thirdcrank]

imo This involves lots of things which have been the subject of discussion on here over the years including our political system, the problems caused by motor traffic, victim blaming, demonisation of cyclists apart from current concerns about the new HC.

My own phone use is minimal, the only feature I find I'm using a bit more frequently is the camera, simply because it's there to use and one fewer thing to carry. I cannot see using a phone while actually walking, cycling or driving is safe. The fact that doing so while driving is so much worse, doesn't imo make it ok for walking and cycling. And the fact that some frequent users may be more adept than I am doesn't imo make it any more ok for them, especially in the context of "frequent" usage

[mattheus]

People catch falling knives all the time. Instinctive reactions are instinctive.

So why not try to catch bidons then?

Anyway, I'm MERELY making an observation about ONE ASPECT of TC's post. That's all. No need to start WW3 over it ...

Indeed, no need at all, nor perhaps for shouting at someone who was also, merely expressing a pov.

I merely used upper case! Please forgive any unintended offence.

[mjr]

Some years ago my late sister-in-law gave me a juggling "kit" consisting of a book of instructions and three small beanbags. I never got very good - total rubbish - but I'm sure there are skilled jugglers who could do it riding a bike. That doesn't make it a good idea

Does the fact that you can't do something safely mean that everybody should be prohibited by law?

And I remind everyone that the not-at-all-imaginary cyclist offending the baroness was on the wrong side of the road, illegal under an 1835 law, but wasn't punished or scared out of it, so why would anyone expect more laws to help?

[Nearholmer]

This is what the Highway Code says, and since it is a “must” section, backed by force of law, I really can’t why more law might be necessary:

Rule 68
You MUST NOT

carry a passenger unless your cycle has been built or adapted to carry one
hold onto a moving vehicle or trailer
ride in a dangerous, careless or inconsiderate manner
ride when under the influence of drink or drugs, including medicine.
Law RTA 1988 sects 24, 26, 28, 29 & 30 as amended by RTA 1991

Of course, the existence of laws and obedience to laws are not the same thing, but making more and narrowly specific ones seems unlikely to be the solution to the problem oc people disobeying the ones that already exist.

Juggling while cycling on a highway in a busy town seems likely to contravene the “dangerous, careless, or inconsiderate manner” provision, but I suppose that if you are a phenomenally skilled person with immense attention capabilities, it might not. Clowns do it on unicycles, which seem the ideal vehicle, since braking and steering don’t require the hands. They even do it while spinning a plate on a stick balanced on their nose.

[thirdcrank]

To make it clear, I'm not suggesting any new laws are needed, but once again, this is a matter of context. (I do know that I overwork the word and do so beyond it's literal meaning but I cannot think of another.)

Here, I'd suggest that the context is that there have been strong campaigns saying that the "bad driving" offences and the con & use regs were inadequate, calling for a specific phone-while-driving offence and more recently calling for amendments to close loopholes.

It seems Baroness Wotsername's comments have been in response to recent HC amendments involving the hierarchy of users. This has defined the greater responsibilities of drivers towards vulnerable road users and so say all of us. One of my many hobbyhorses is how road safety improvements are consumed eg improved street lighting can cause drivers to drive as though they are in daylight. The hierarchy of users should not be wasted.

Above all, expecting to be free to do what you want others to be prevented from doing because what you do is unimportant is difficult to argue.

[mikeonabike]

The minister's response was pretty good. If anyone read the full article rather than just the headline they would be usefully educated.

What could have been added was that the hierarchy of road-users applies to the cyclist vis-a-vis the pedestrian. So the cyclist should now be aware of their duty towards pedestrians (if they were not already aware). And so perhaps the wider point is that the govt needs to educate everyone about that.

[drossall]

With apologies for re-posting this image of Boris Johnson, are there those on here who can ride as he is doing and feel comfortable?

Not in town. I've occasionally been on a country road where I could see for half a mile in both directions that nothing was coming and no-one was around. I guess that, in that situation, I might not worry too much about whether using a phone were not being in proper control. That's about the only difference a specific law could make to me though.

With the popularity of phones for navigation then, for cyclists just as much as drivers, there's the issue of holding one to use for finding the way. But that's why I have GPS mounts on my bikes, and don't use phones for that. And of course, the disadvantage of specific laws was shown by the recent need to close a loophole for drivers. The specific law banned making calls, roughly speaking, because no-one considered anything else, so it had to be updated to refer to games and stuff (presumably including navigation).

When the law was brought in for drivers, it was argued to be unnecessary, because the RTA already required them to be in proper control, and using a phone with one hand would breach that. The response, as I recall it, was that the new law was more to do with spelling the point out for the hard of understanding than the actual need for new requirements - i.e. it was there to change behaviour more than to be enforced.

All of which makes the case that a law is needed for cyclists, whom the RTA also requires to be in proper control, even weaker.

[Bonefishblues]

I regularly see it on horses hereabouts

[thirdcrank]

Some years ago my late sister-in-law gave me a juggling "kit" consisting of a book of instructions and three small beanbags. I never got very good - total rubbish - but I'm sure there are skilled jugglers who could do it riding a bike. That doesn't make it a good idea

Does the fact that you can't do something safely mean that everybody should be prohibited by law?

And I remind everyone that the not-at-all-imaginary cyclist offending the baroness was on the wrong side of the road, illegal under an 1835 law, but wasn't punished or scared out of it, so why would anyone expect more laws to help?

I explained my phone user "status" merely to clarify my non-expert status. I suppose the basis of what I've been trying to say is that using a mobile phone is inherently distracting and may also physically detract from the other things somebody can do at the same time. We've had studies linked on here previously suggesting that even using hands-free can reduce performance more than being over the drink/drive limit. I was careful to use a pic of somebody with a phone clamped to their lug to get away from things like using a phone as a satnav in a holder but cycling does often need the riders hands.

@ drossall

I'm not clear if you are saying that you think the campaigns to create specific offences for drivers using phones were misguided.

It's totally obvious to me that somebody using a phone while driving is not driving with due care and attention and FWIW, plenty on here will tell you that careless driving is inherently dangerous, and in a Clapham Omnibus sort of way, that's true.

[mjr]

It seems Baroness Wotsername's comments have been in response to recent HC amendments involving the hierarchy of users.

No, they were in response to the recent HC amendment due to the law changing on motorist phone use. Read the comments in full and in context at https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?i ... 89#g2146.2

I think it's especially informative that Baroness McIntosh of Pickering believes "because of Covid, thankfully cyclists were not allowed to cycle in clumps on country roads. I think that has prevented a lot of accidents." That's incorrect in at least two major ways and shows just where she's coming from.

Anne McIntosh was a forgettable Essex MEP who became a disgrace as a Yorkshire MP (serving as both MEP and MP for 2 years I think?), claiming illegitimate expenses (which she had to repay), voting against expenses reform and ultimately losing her safe seat by losing the confidence of her local party, and she seems to be little better as a bike-bashing Baroness.

But at least we have sane lords like Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb.

[thirdcrank]

Thanks for the link. Perhaps the most informative thing for me is that Baroness Macintosh may be behind the recent publicity for creating offences of causing death by dangerous/careless cycling.

It's depressing that this talking shop for political appointees exists. Poor by the standards of some internet forums.

However, the reality is that such people carry influence within government and - like it or not - reflect elements of public opinion, even though that's in a most undemocratic way.

But that's the realty cycle campaigners among others face.

[mattheus]

I think it's especially informative that Baroness McIntosh of Pickering believes "because of Covid, thankfully cyclists were not allowed to cycle in clumps on country roads. I think that has prevented a lot of accidents."

I'm grateful for her insight - I foolishly thgouth it was mainly due to the massively reduced road traffic since COVID started. Silly me!

[mattsccm]

Re current legislation etc. Car drivers were also expected to be under control before the speciifc phone rules came in. I doubt that anyoje here woukd prefer the old version so why expect it for bikes?

[mjr]

I think it's especially informative that Baroness McIntosh of Pickering believes "because of Covid, thankfully cyclists were not allowed to cycle in clumps on country roads. I think that has prevented a lot of accidents."

I'm grateful for her insight - I foolishly thgouth it was mainly due to the massively reduced road traffic since COVID started. Silly me!

I am also grateful because I thought cyclists riding together was called a "group", "peloton" or maybe a "bunch", "pack" or "gang" but now I know that it is a "clump". So I will be at Ride London next month cheering the arrival of the pro clump. Maybe we might even see the race finish in a clump sprint?