mobile phones whilst cycling?

[Paul Boyd]

Mark McNeill said the following on 09/10/2006 18:40:

> who have no idea what "de minimis non curat lex" means,

Er, for the 99.99% of us who didn't do Latin at school because we aren't
that old, what does it mean?

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Sniper805
(L96A1) ('[email protected]') wrote:

> Mark McNeill wrote:
>> Response to Sniper8052(L96A1):
>>
>>>It is the potential loss of
>>>control that makes the action dangerous. That one can ride with one or
>>>no hands is not in dispute. That one can do this with a degree of skill
>>>and safety is not in dispute either. That I, you or any other can do it
>>>to the same degree of safety we could exhibit with both hands
>>>controlling the bicycle is.
>>
>>
>> It appears to follow from what you say that riding a bicycle no-hands is
>> an offence, and should be prosecuted. Is this your position?
>>
> Is there any good reason why a person should cycle without any hands?

Yes. Taking a garment off, putting one on, opening a food bar, stretching
one's back and shoulder muscles, etc.

> The law as written says 'danger to any person', that includes the
> cyclist so they could be prosecuted for dangerous cycling.

If there is any danger to anyone, which I don't believe there is. The law
says words to the effect 'if an experienced cyclist would consider it
dangerous'. Experienced cyclists regularly ride no hands for short periods
while doing such things as I have listed above, so I don't believe riding
no hands can be successfully prosecuted under that act.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; killing [afghan|iraqi] civilians is not 'justice'

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Sniper805
(L96A1) ('[email protected]') wrote:

> If you truely do not believe that a lower degree of control increases
> the risks inherent in a task I don't think I can help you to
> enlightenment.  It should be obvious to anyone, it's like saying I can
> jump up and down on a box with one leg as safely as I can on the ground
> with two.

Lessening control of course increases risk. But risk of what? Risk of
falling off and grazing your elbow is of course risk, but it is
not 'danger'. One vehicle bicycle accidents /rarely/ damage more than
pride (yes, I've broken my back in one, but that's exceptional and had
nothing to do with riding no hands).

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; ... exposing the violence incoherent in the system...

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Sniper805
(L96A1) ('[email protected]') wrote:

> David Martin wrote:
>> Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:
>>
>>>David Martin wrote:
>>>
>>>>The test is whether it is dangerous. You would have to show that the
>>>>concentration and control were sufficiently impaired as to be
>>>>dangerous.
>>>
>>>In this instance I do not 'have to show' anything, that is the point I
>>>am trying to make. I can offer a statement that X was riding a bicycle
>>> and using a hand-held mobile phone and that constituted an offence of
>>>dangerous cycling.
>>
>> You make a jump. You argue that using a mobile when riding is de facto
>> dangerous cycling, ie 'falling far below the standard of a careful and
>> competent rider'. That has NOT been shown, and in fact is context
>> dependent. One could argue that drinking from a bottle whilst riding
>> along is dangerous. In some cases it is, in other cases it is not.
>
> I disagree, personally if I want a drink I stop and have one. I never
> drink and ride, I have more regard for my life than to take such foolish
> and avoidable risks.

This is just silly.

If you go out with any cycling club in the land, and you want to stop
everytime you need a drink, people are not going to wait for you. Stopping
to drink isn't evidence of 'care' or 'safety' - it's evidence of
inadequate skill and competence. If you aren't a good enough rider to take
a drink on the move, you aren't good enough to ride safely in a group
anyway.

You're in a hole. Stop digging.

>>>I do not have to evidence the extent of the danger
>>>caused as the implications to potential loss of control of the cycle are
>>>clear and obvious. This does not mean that they would occur just that
>>>they could.
>>
>> Proportionality is missing here. Obviously I would be less able to
>> avoid a rampaging bull that suddenly runs across my path. Is that a
>> reason to always keep both hands on the bars? Absolutely not (unless
>> you live in Perth).
>
> Proportionality has no place in the argument it is a discussion of fact.
> Fact the Law says ...any person that includes the cyclist who is
> committing the offence.

But /only/ if a safe and experienced cyclist would deem the behaviour
dangerous. Drinking, eating and changing outer garments on the move is
normal everyday behaviour for experienced cyclists.

> I would still disagree with you, it is dangerous to use a hand-held
> mobile phone whilst riding under any circumstances. That some places
> might present less external dangers I do not dispute but that does not
> make it a safe thing to do, merely safer under a given set of
> circumstances.

That's an argument that you can certainly make.

The difference, as I see it, between a mobile phone conversation and the
other activities that I've listed are

* Taking a drink from a bidon or putting on a rain jacket takes finite
time - you know how long it will take and will do it only when you can see
the road is sufficiently clear. By contrast you don't know in advance how
long a phonecall will last. Also, an incoming call does not necessarily
come when the road is clear.

* In a real emergency you'd toss a bidon over the hedge and grab the
brakes; you're unlikely to do that with your mobile phone.

In practice I normally[1] stop to answer my phone; this must be because I
think it potentially more dangerous than other things which I would
normally do whilst riding. But if I were called upon in a court of law[2]
to express an opinion on whether using a mobile phone while cycling was
per se dangerous, I'd have to say that my opinion is that it is not.

> For a test today I asked a number of people if they considered it
> dangerous and would they find a cyclist guilty of the offence. Of the
> ten people I asked all of them said it was clearly dangerous and they
> would find the cyclist guilty. True none of them were cyclists

But the law, as you have quoted it, says that the judgement that matters is
that of a safe and experienced cyclist, so this is irrelevant.

[1] not always.
[2] mind you you could well argue that while 'experienced' I am not 'safe'.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'Victories are not solutions.'
;; John Hume, Northern Irish politician, on Radio Scotland 1/2/95
;; Nobel Peace Prize laureate 1998; few have deserved it so much

 

[Daniel Barlow]

Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:
> would find the cyclist guilty. True none of them were cyclists but none
> of them was driving a car either.

If none of them could be described as "careful and competent
cyclists", I don't see why their opinions are relevant anyway. Lots
of (non-cyclist) people think cycling _in itself_ is too dangerous,
does that mean we can all be prosecuted for dangerous-by-definition
cycling?


-dan, not even going to ask about using a phone while inline skating ;-)

 

[[email protected]]

Paul Boyd wrote:
> Mark McNeill said the following on 09/10/2006 18:40:
>
> > who have no idea what "de minimis non curat lex" means,
>
> Er, for the 99.99% of us who didn't do Latin at school because we aren't
> that old, what does it mean?

you mean there i a band between too-young-to-have-done-latin-at-school
and too-old-to-know-how-to-use-google?

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, David
Martin ('[email protected]') wrote:

>> That fraction of a second is the point though, you are not fully in
>> control and unable to react promptly to an event.  Your mind when using
>> your phone would also be slower to react to visual and auditory
>> information leading to your being disadvantaged even before you started
>> to react.
>
> Anticipation and context are key. Is a person riding along a deserted
> road (Such things do exist up here) with no junctions, hedgerows,
> diveways, other road users, a clear road free of potholes being
> dangerous by using a phone?

Sheep. Don't forget sheep.

And when one is talking about the gloriously empty roads we have to ride,
allow me to recount an anecdote from less than a month ago.

My mate Dougie was cycling over the border into Ayrshire (yes, I know,
heathen parts) about a month ago when a driverless car came round the bend
towards him on its roof. He braked so hard to avoid collision that he tore
the tread of his front tyre loose from the fabric. Round the corner he
found the erstwhile occupant of the car, severely injured but still
conscious. So after Dougie had waited for the ambulance and the police to
scoop up the casualty, he had to phone me to go and rescue him with the
truck - he having foolishly neglected to take a spare front tyre with
him...

Even normally-empty roads have the occasional loonie.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Ring of great evil
Small one casts it into flame
Bringing rise of Men ;; gonzoron

 

[David Martin]

Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:
> It was not a 'cheap trick' just a reaction not restating my position yet
> again. If you did not bellieve that less control equates to increased
> risk and hence greater danger by then I doubt repeating the statement is
> going to convince you.
> >
> >
> > More to the point, you're again failing to address what I said earlier:
> > that increasing risk does *not* equate to danger. It's a simple enough
> > point to understand; and you've ignored it twice now.
>
> I have not ignored it, it is yourself who can't see the wood for the
> trees. If I have less control I increase risk, if I increase risk I
> also increase the danger. One follows from the other.

Try to follow me on this one:

Let us assume for the sake of sanity that danger equates to a standard
of cycling far below that which one would expect of the average careful
and competent cyclist. We can state that that related to a threshold of
some function of control and concentration related to speed.

We can measure concentration and control by the ability of a cyclist to
conduct their cycle in an appropriate manner and to react to events.
This means that for every cyclist there will be a certain reaction time
window in which an event occurs and they have to react to it.

If a cyclist is riding within that reaction time window then they are
riding safely. OUtside of it and they are riding dangerously. Hence a
rider doing 20mph on a clear road with no hazards is clearly safe,
whereas one doing the same speed slaloming between pedestrians in a
motor-free street is clearly dangerous.

So we have an semi-objective measure of dangerous cycling.

We know that increased speed requires a greater degree of control and
concentration. The reaction time window drops as speed increases. It
should be in accordance with a square law (reaction time plus
avoiding/stopping time.)

If a cyclist is to perform an action such as reading a map, cycling
with less than two hands on the handlebars, taking a drink or talking
on a mobile, and becasue of their ability, being a competent cyclist,
and having adjusted their speed appropriately , they are still within
that window of control and concentration then they are not riding
dangerously. Note that the appropriate window of control and
concentration is dependent on context.

So, to restate, a cyclist cannot be cycling dangerously if they have a
sufficient level of control and concentration to conduct the cycle and
react appropriately to events. It is irrelevant whether they could have
more control. If the level of control is sufficient then it is not *far
below the standard of a careful and competent cyclist*


> In doing so they would reference the research made into the effects on
> cognative awareness whilst using a mobile phone and their experiences of
> cycling and cyclist behavior. Hence the proper charge for riding whilst
> using a hand-held mobile phone should be Dangerous Cycling and it is my
> belief that such a charge would be hard to refute.

Let's now look at why your parallel with cars is wrong.

There is no contention that using a mobile phone reduces ones
concentration. Where the error lies is in equating the consequences.

With a car one can easily maintain speed whilst using a mobile phone.
As concentration reduces, it is difficult tp maintain a precise speed -
speeds tend to drift upwards, making the driver more dangerous
irrespective of the loss of concentration. The requirement for
concentration and control increases with speed.

With a cycle it is impossible to maintian the same speed when using a
mobile, even under ideal conditions. As concentration drops off the
cycle slows down. The concentration and control requirement diminishes
as the safety envelope around the rider increases with respect to
reaction time required.

Secondarily: With a car it is very easy to be isolated from the outside
environment. Concentration loss is easy. With a cycle one is immersed
in the enviroment and it is much harder to lose concentration.

With these factors together it is clear that, unlike in a car, use of a
mobile phone whilst riding is NOT de facto proof of dangerous cycling.
One has to be sure that the cyclist is riding at a standard far below
that of a careful and competent cyclist. That is dependent on the
cyclist and the conditions.

You made a comment in an earlier post about not drinking on the move. I
fully understand where you are coming from. Part of beng a safe and
competent cyclist is knowing ones abilities and whether an action
leaves one with sufficient control. If you feel that *for you*,
drinking on the move is unduely hazardous per se (something I dare say
many or even most of the posters here would not) then fine, don't do
it. If I saw a cyclist weaving all over the road because they were
drinking from a bottle then I would book them too.. (and probably ask
them what they have in the bottle ;-)

However, if a cyclist is obviously aware of their surroundings and is
sufficiently in control of their vehicle (ie well over the threshold of
concentration and control) then what is the problem?

...d

 

[Sniper8052(L96A1)]

David Martin wrote:
> Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:
>
>>It was not a 'cheap trick' just a reaction not restating my position yet
>>again. If you did not bellieve that less control equates to increased
>>risk and hence greater danger by then I doubt repeating the statement is
>>going to convince you.
>>
>>>
>>>More to the point, you're again failing to address what I said earlier:
>>>that increasing risk does *not* equate to danger. It's a simple enough
>>>point to understand; and you've ignored it twice now.
>>
>>I have not ignored it, it is yourself who can't see the wood for the
>>trees. If I have less control I increase risk, if I increase risk I
>>also increase the danger. One follows from the other.
>
>
> Try to follow me on this one:
>
> Let us assume for the sake of sanity that danger equates to a standard
> of cycling far below that which one would expect of the average careful
> and competent cyclist. We can state that that related to a threshold of
> some function of control and concentration related to speed.
>
> We can measure concentration and control by the ability of a cyclist to
> conduct their cycle in an appropriate manner and to react to events.
> This means that for every cyclist there will be a certain reaction time
> window in which an event occurs and they have to react to it.
>
> If a cyclist is riding within that reaction time window then they are
> riding safely. OUtside of it and they are riding dangerously. Hence a
> rider doing 20mph on a clear road with no hazards is clearly safe,
> whereas one doing the same speed slaloming between pedestrians in a
> motor-free street is clearly dangerous.
>
> So we have an semi-objective measure of dangerous cycling.
>
> We know that increased speed requires a greater degree of control and
> concentration. The reaction time window drops as speed increases. It
> should be in accordance with a square law (reaction time plus
> avoiding/stopping time.)
>
> If a cyclist is to perform an action such as reading a map, cycling
> with less than two hands on the handlebars, taking a drink or talking
> on a mobile, and becasue of their ability, being a competent cyclist,
> and having adjusted their speed appropriately , they are still within
> that window of control and concentration then they are not riding
> dangerously. Note that the appropriate window of control and
> concentration is dependent on context.
>
> So, to restate, a cyclist cannot be cycling dangerously if they have a
> sufficient level of control and concentration to conduct the cycle and
> react appropriately to events. It is irrelevant whether they could have
> more control. If the level of control is sufficient then it is not *far
> below the standard of a careful and competent cyclist*
>
>
>
>>In doing so they would reference the research made into the effects on
>>cognative awareness whilst using a mobile phone and their experiences of
>>cycling and cyclist behavior. Hence the proper charge for riding whilst
>>using a hand-held mobile phone should be Dangerous Cycling and it is my
>>belief that such a charge would be hard to refute.
>
>
> Let's now look at why your parallel with cars is wrong.
>
> There is no contention that using a mobile phone reduces ones
> concentration. Where the error lies is in equating the consequences.
>
> With a car one can easily maintain speed whilst using a mobile phone.
> As concentration reduces, it is difficult tp maintain a precise speed -
> speeds tend to drift upwards, making the driver more dangerous
> irrespective of the loss of concentration. The requirement for
> concentration and control increases with speed.
>
> With a cycle it is impossible to maintian the same speed when using a
> mobile, even under ideal conditions. As concentration drops off the
> cycle slows down. The concentration and control requirement diminishes
> as the safety envelope around the rider increases with respect to
> reaction time required.
>
> Secondarily: With a car it is very easy to be isolated from the outside
> environment. Concentration loss is easy. With a cycle one is immersed
> in the enviroment and it is much harder to lose concentration.
>
> With these factors together it is clear that, unlike in a car, use of a
> mobile phone whilst riding is NOT de facto proof of dangerous cycling.
> One has to be sure that the cyclist is riding at a standard far below
> that of a careful and competent cyclist. That is dependent on the
> cyclist and the conditions.
>
> You made a comment in an earlier post about not drinking on the move. I
> fully understand where you are coming from. Part of beng a safe and
> competent cyclist is knowing ones abilities and whether an action
> leaves one with sufficient control. If you feel that *for you*,
> drinking on the move is unduely hazardous per se (something I dare say
> many or even most of the posters here would not) then fine, don't do
> it. If I saw a cyclist weaving all over the road because they were
> drinking from a bottle then I would book them too.. (and probably ask
> them what they have in the bottle ;-)

It's not that I can't it's that I don't.

>
> However, if a cyclist is obviously aware of their surroundings and is
> sufficiently in control of their vehicle (ie well over the threshold of
> concentration and control) then what is the problem?
>
> ..d
>

I can see your point however I am still unconvinced that a court would
see that as sufficient argument to say that it was not dangerous. If
the cyclist were to fall or swerve, even at a slow speed, they could
have an effect on other traffic and be the cause of a secondary
collision etc... etc... The danger generated does not have to relate
solely to the cyclist but includes the cyclist.

I do not see it as a matter of great importance at the present time and
unless there is an upsurge of incidents where this features as a cause I
don't really see it becoming a matter which will require seperate
legislation.

I expect that sooner or later it will be tested in court, hopefully not
by me.

Sniper8052

 

[MartinM]

Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:

> For a test today I asked a number of people if they considered it
> dangerous and would they find a cyclist guilty of the offence. Of the
> ten people I asked all of them said it was clearly dangerous and they
> would find the cyclist guilty. True none of them were cyclists but none
> of them was driving a car either.

So to return to the OP; do I take it that as the 2003 act did not
include cycles, use of a mobile 'phone whilst riding one is either not
a significant hazard, or so much of a hazard that it warrants a charge
of dangerous cycling (which has never been brought for this "offence"
AFAIK)

or is it just the Standard trying to make a non-story into a story?

If cycling whilst on the phone is so dangerous can we have an
appropriate fixed penalty like car drivers have? pro-rata to the size
of the vehicle.

 

[MartinM]

So to return to the OP; do I take it that as the 2003 act did not
include cycles, use of a mobile 'phone whilst riding one is either not
a significant hazard, or so much of a hazard that it warrants a charge
of dangerous cycling (which has never been brought for this "offence"
AFAIK)

or is it just the Standard trying to make a non-story into a story?

If cycling whilst on the phone is so dangerous can we have an
appropriate fixed penalty like car drivers have? pro-rata to the size
of the vehicle.

 

[David Martin]

Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:
> I can see your point however I am still unconvinced that a court would
> see that as sufficient argument to say that it was not dangerous. If
> the cyclist were to fall or swerve, even at a slow speed, they could
> have an effect on other traffic and be the cause of a secondary
> collision etc... etc... The danger generated does not have to relate
> solely to the cyclist but includes the cyclist.

'If' is a specious argument in the absence of evidence of actual risk
of the event occuring. Should we ban all drivers over 50 with a BMI in
teh obese range from driving? They are at a higher risk of heart attack
and we know that there are documented cases of individuals crashing
cars into innocent bystanders whilst having a heart attack. So is
driving whilst fat and old sufficient for dangerous driving? Far more
so than cycling in an otherwise well contrlled an alert manner whilst
using a mobile phone.


> I do not see it as a matter of great importance at the present time and
> unless there is an upsurge of incidents where this features as a cause I
> don't really see it becoming a matter which will require seperate
> legislation.

> I expect that sooner or later it will be tested in court, hopefully not
> by me.

It would not be used as the sole evidence one hopes. More ot the point
of showing that the effect of using the phone led to them cycling
dangerously.

...d