mobile phones whilst cycling?

[M-gineering]

Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:
> David Martin wrote:
>> Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:
>>
>>> If you use a mobile phone whilst cycling you should be summoned for
>>> dangerous cycling.

Germany is the only country in Europe where this is actually forbidden,
but the fine is much lower than when driving a car.
In the Netherlands the Minister has decided against a ban as
investigation has showed that actually very few accidents occur

--
---
Marten Gerritsen

INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl

 

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 07:49:05 GMT, "Sniper8052(L96A1)"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>David Martin wrote:
>> Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:
>>
>>>If you use a mobile phone whilst cycling you should be summoned for
>>>dangerous cycling.
>>>
>>>Cycling - Dangerous Cycling
>>>
>>>Cycling on a road in a dangerous manner is an offence under the Road
>>>Traffic Act 1988, as amended by the 1991 Act.
>>>
>>>Section 28(2) of the act, defines a person to be regarded as riding
>>>dangerously if (and only if), the way the person rides falls far below
>>>what would be expected of a 'competent and careful' cyclist, AND it
>>>would be obvious to a 'competent and careful cyclist' that riding in
>>>that way would be dangerous.
>>
>>
>> Now kindly explain how riding whilst using a mobile phone endangers
>> other road users. It is obvious that driving a ton or so of metal
>> whilst distracted is a distinct hazard. As for cycling, it is far
>> closer to walking whilst using a mobile.
>
>It is clear that the control system of a bicycle is designed to
>predominately require the normal use of two hands to maintain safe
>control.

So using one while riding a unicycle would be perfectly fine, then.

 

[Sniper8052(L96A1)]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote on 08/10/2006 08:49 +0100:
>
>>
>> It is clear that the control system of a bicycle is designed to
>> predominately require the normal use of two hands to maintain safe
>> control.
>
>
> Ah, that would be why they had down tube shifters for years and water
> bottle holders on the frame then?

Did one hold onto the tube shifter for minutes whilst conducting a
conversation?

I think not, one changed gear and replaced the hand to the handlebar.
>
>>
>> Whilst you may not like the idea that I don't have to prove a de-facto
>> element of danger that is the case. I state I feel that it is
>> dangerous. The magistrate then has to decide if it is reasonable in
>> the evaluation of a 'careful and competent cyclist' that they ride
>> whilst using a hand held mobile phone.
>
>
> No, you are reversing the burden of proof in the UK legal system, which
> is worrying for a police officer. It is totally incumbent on you to
> prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was dangerous

I am not reversing the burden of proof, I am stating a fact. As a
police officer I may say to the court that in my opinion it's dangerous.
There is nothing in the act which says I have to cite an event or
incident that arose from the act. The court can then agree with my
opinion or not. It was, and is, my contention that a court would agree
and that a cyclist would find it difficult to argue a case, sufficient
to convince the court otherwise, to say that it was not .

>>
>> If the cyclist wishes to challenge my opinion they have to show that
>> their action was not dangerous.
>
>
> No they don't. The burden of proof is on you and the most the defence
> have to show is reasonable doubt
>

The burden of proof in this instance does not require any other person
to be present. The act says "..Any Person"

> The term "danger" refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property.

As no other needs to be present and the act does not require an incident
to have occurred for the offence to be complete the burden of argument
lies with the offender. They must argue their case to show the action
was not dangerous. If they can show 'reasonable doubt' as to whether
the action is or is not dangerous then they would have fulfilled my
statement and shown the action was not dangerous.

>>
>> I quoted the regulations to illustrate that the same research that
>> described the need for new rules to govern the use of hand held phones
>> in vehicles would show that the use of a hand-held mobile phone on a
>> bicycle would also diminish concentration and control. I did not say
>> the Construction and Use regulation would be used to bring a
>> prosecution. In fact I stated it the prosecution would be for
>> "Dangerous Cycling"
>>
>
> In that case why was there a need for mobile phone legislation for
> drivers and why didn't a charge of "Dangerous Driving" suffice?

I am not saying that the charge would be used just that it could. I
might say that inherently a car is more stable than a bicycle and hence
it may be more difficult to show a potential to a catastrophic loss of
control where direction of travel and stability can be more easily be
maintained with one hand and where balance is not an issue. I would
expect a motorcyclist using a phone to text - and yes I have seen this -
to be charged with dangerous driving, not issued a FPN.

>
>>
>> No I don't, that's the point. I only have to show that the person was
>> using a hand held mobile phone. It is my contention that doing so is
>> dangerous and in itself causes danger. I do not need to show who it
>> causes danger to or show that it resulted in any incident that may
>> have been otherwise avoided.
>
>
> Very worrying from a policeman. The Courts do not act on your beliefs
> and instructions. They act on it being _proved_ beyond reasonable doubt
> that it was obvious to a ‘competent and careful cyclist’ that riding in
> that way would be dangerous.

In this instance the court decides between my belief as represented by
the CPS and the statements of the suspected offender. The case has to
be one of opinion by its nature. Even if a collision or other incident
occurred it would still be an opinion that it was influenced by the
actions of the suspected offender in using a hand-held mobile phone.
The court would have to decide on the argument presented by the offender.

The later post by M-GINEERING is interesting and that research might
assist in introducing 'reasonable doubt' however the fact that something
has not specifically been banned does not make it any less dangerous
even if it has been shown that, "... very few accidents occur."

> Germany is the only country in Europe where this is actually forbidden, but the fine is much lower than when driving a car.
> In the Netherlands the Minister has decided against a ban as investigation has showed that actually very few accidents occur


>
>>
>> The action clearly lowers the standard of control and concentration...
>> hence I don't believe that a cyclist could argue successfully that
>> his control and or concentration was not adversely effected.
>>
>
> The test is not "control or concentration", it is whether it would be
> obviously dangerous to a competent and careful cyclist. And this thread
> here provides more than enough for the defence of reasonable doubt plus,
> as above, it was clearly not considered to be "Dangerous Driving"
> previously which is why specific legislation had to be introduced for
> drivers.

No the test is 'concentration and control', that is the essence of the
danger presented. You cannot argue that you have the same degree of
concentration or control whist using a hand-held mobile phone as you do
when riding normally. That loss of control and concentration should be
obvious to the offender and is what would be tested in court.

I would like to think I am competent and careful cyclist. I would not
consider it safe or sensible to ride for a protracted period with one
hand, let alone whilst using a mobile phone. I think the majority of
the population would consider the action dangerous and that it should be
obvious to anyone that it was so. The fact that people do it and get
away with it does not make it safe.
>
> I am deeply troubled by your understanding as a professional of the way
> the Court system works. Perhaps you have appeared too often in Telford
> Magistrates Court.

I have never been to Telford, however that case of Mr Cadden raises the
point that courts rule on opinion. Wrongly in that instance as
legislation was bent to try and fit an offence that had not occurred.
Here we are discussing an action that may constitute an offence and in
my opinion could be tested with a summons for dangerous cycling. A
somewhat different circumstance.

Sniper8052

 

[David Martin]

Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:
> > In that case why was there a need for mobile phone legislation for
> > drivers and why didn't a charge of "Dangerous Driving" suffice?

It does suffice, but the specific legislation, as for speeding, makes
it far easier to prosecute by making a black and white offence.

> >> The action clearly lowers the standard of control and concentration...
> >> hence I don't believe that a cyclist could argue successfully that
> >> his control and or concentration was not adversely effected.
> >>
> >
> > The test is not "control or concentration", it is whether it would be
> > obviously dangerous to a competent and careful cyclist.
>
> No the test is 'concentration and control', that is the essence of the
> danger presented. You cannot argue that you have the same degree of
> concentration or control whist using a hand-held mobile phone as you do
> when riding normally. That loss of control and concentration should be
> obvious to the offender and is what would be tested in court.

The test is whether it is dangerous. You would have to show that the
concentration and control were sufficiently impaired as to be
dangerous.


> I would like to think I am competent and careful cyclist. I would not
> consider it safe or sensible to ride for a protracted period with one
> hand, let alone whilst using a mobile phone. I think the majority of
> the population would consider the action dangerous and that it should be
> obvious to anyone that it was so. The fact that people do it and get
> away with it does not make it safe.

I would disagree. I think being able to ride with one hand is a key
ability in improving balance and control. It is a question of context
and proportionality. I can, and frequently do, ride no hands along part
of my commute. I am happily in control, and when other traffic
approaches, I can (and do) regain the handlebars as quickly as someone
tuning their radio. As far as line goes, you wouldn't be able to tell
when I am riding with/without hands on the handlebars by just looking
at the wheel track.

Likewise with a mobile, it is easy to pause a conversation to signal or
to brake, and perfectly possible to ensure that you do not focus on the
conversation to the exclusion of other events. Again it is context. I
wouldn't be using the phone on a busy road, or at speed. Again it is
about context - using a phone on a quiet road is probably safer than
not using one in busy traffic.

...d

 

[Pyromancer]

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as David
Martin <[email protected]> gently breathed:

>Now kindly explain how riding whilst using a mobile phone endangers
>other road users.

They fail to pay attention to the road conditions and as a result force
another road user (who could be anyone from a pedestrian to another
cyclist to a bus or articulated truck) to get out of the way or take
avoiding action to avoid the cyclist.

>It is obvious that driving a ton or so of metal
>whilst distracted is a distinct hazard. As for cycling, it is far
>closer to walking whilst using a mobile.

Indeed - but pedestrians using mobiles have been known to cause
accidents. You know, phone-user steps off pavement without looking,
oncoming motor vehicle swerves out of the way and as a direct result
runs into a cyclist overtaking a parked vehicle on the other side of the
road, that kind of thing.

>With a car, being distracted easily results in speeding up. Hardly the
>case with a bike.

True.

<snip>

>You will need more than a study of motorists to show that a cyclist is
>a danger when using a mobile phone. You propose a chewbacca arguement.

Ok, will you please explain what Star Wars has to do with anything?
Google on "chewbacca" finds nothing but references to the film
character, Dictionary.com doesn't have an entry. So presumably you are
referring to the Wookie?

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

 

[David Martin]

Pyromancer wrote:
> >You will need more than a study of motorists to show that a cyclist is
> >a danger when using a mobile phone. You propose a chewbacca arguement.
>
> Ok, will you please explain what Star Wars has to do with anything?
> Google on "chewbacca" finds nothing but references to the film
> character, Dictionary.com doesn't have an entry. So presumably you are
> referring to the Wookie?

It is a reference to an argument where something that can be proved is
used as evidence that something unrelated is true.
It is a variant on the straw man arguement.

Ie If chewbacca is a wookie, the empire is evil

Chewbacca is a wookie, therefore the evilness of the empire is shown.

...d

 

[D.M. Procida]

David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

> Now kindly explain how riding whilst using a mobile phone endangers
> other road users.

You can't use the brakes properly while holding a mobile phone. If you
think that matters to your safety and that of others, then it seems to
me like a good reason for considering using a phone while cycling is a
very poor idea.

Daniele

 

[Sniper8052(L96A1)]

David Martin wrote:
> Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:
>
>>>In that case why was there a need for mobile phone legislation for
>>>drivers and why didn't a charge of "Dangerous Driving" suffice?
>
>
> It does suffice, but the specific legislation, as for speeding, makes
> it far easier to prosecute by making a black and white offence.
>
>
>>>>The action clearly lowers the standard of control and concentration...
>>>>hence I don't believe that a cyclist could argue successfully that
>>>>his control and or concentration was not adversely effected.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The test is not "control or concentration", it is whether it would be
>>>obviously dangerous to a competent and careful cyclist.
>>
>>No the test is 'concentration and control', that is the essence of the
>>danger presented. You cannot argue that you have the same degree of
>>concentration or control whist using a hand-held mobile phone as you do
>>when riding normally. That loss of control and concentration should be
>>obvious to the offender and is what would be tested in court.
>
>
> 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. 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.

>
>
>
>>I would like to think I am competent and careful cyclist. I would not
>>consider it safe or sensible to ride for a protracted period with one
>>hand, let alone whilst using a mobile phone. I think the majority of
>>the population would consider the action dangerous and that it should be
>>obvious to anyone that it was so. The fact that people do it and get
>>away with it does not make it safe.
>
>
> I would disagree. I think being able to ride with one hand is a key
> ability in improving balance and control.

I agree that one should be able to ride with one hand. Cyclists need
enough control to be able to signal and maintain balance, to look behind
them and assess traffic etc. To do so for protracted periods though is
another matter especially if one is holding another object in that hand.

It is a question of context
> and proportionality.
I can, and frequently do, ride no hands along part
> of my commute. I am happily in control, and when other traffic
> approaches, I can (and do) regain the handlebars as quickly as someone
> tuning their radio. As far as line goes, you wouldn't be able to tell
> when I am riding with/without hands on the handlebars by just looking
> at the wheel track.

Again it is not a question of if you can do it once or even a thousand
times and get away with it. I am sure drivers used and use the same
argument in relation to mobile phones. 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. Do you suggest you have the same degree of
control with no hands that you have with both, do you state that you can
brake safely with both hands should the unexpected happen, a ball or a
child running into your path, a car backing out of a driveway whilst one
hand is gripping a mobile phone? No, I do not think you would claim
such a thing, hence although one may get away with it - it is not a safe
or prudent thing to do.
>
> Likewise with a mobile, it is easy to pause a conversation to signal or
> to brake, and perfectly possible to ensure that you do not focus on the
> conversation to the exclusion of other events. Again it is context. I
> wouldn't be using the phone on a busy road, or at speed. Again it is
> about context - using a phone on a quiet road is probably safer than
> not using one in busy traffic.

Again the point is not that it is safe when everything goes according to
plan but that when the unexpected happens and people say 'he was using
his mobile and...' It is the potentiality for danger that is the test
of the case.

>> I wouldn't be using the phone on a busy road, or at speed. Again it is
>> about context - using a phone on a quiet road is probably safer than
>> not using one in busy traffic.

Stopping at the side of the road and using it would be safer though
would it not? Could you be to blame if a collision occurred after you
had stopped in a safe place?

Sniper8052

 

[Mark McNeill]

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?


--
Mark, UK
"There is no prejudice so strong as that which arises from a fancied
exemption from all prejudice."

 

[David Martin]

D.M. Procida wrote:
> David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Now kindly explain how riding whilst using a mobile phone endangers
> > other road users.
>
> You can't use the brakes properly while holding a mobile phone. If you
> think that matters to your safety and that of others, then it seems to
> me like a good reason for considering using a phone while cycling is a
> very poor idea.

I can't? Interesting suggestion. I have at least one cycle with which
it is perfectly possible to brake one handed, using both brakes.

Again it is about context.

...d

 

[David Martin]

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 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).


> I agree that one should be able to ride with one hand. Cyclists need
> enough control to be able to signal and maintain balance, to look behind
> them and assess traffic etc. To do so for protracted periods though is
> another matter especially if one is holding another object in that hand.

Such as a drink bottle?


> It is a question of context
> > and proportionality.
> I can, and frequently do, ride no hands along part
> > of my commute. I am happily in control, and when other traffic
> > approaches, I can (and do) regain the handlebars as quickly as someone
> > tuning their radio. As far as line goes, you wouldn't be able to tell
> > when I am riding with/without hands on the handlebars by just looking
> > at the wheel track.
>
> Again it is not a question of if you can do it once or even a thousand
> times and get away with it. I am sure drivers used and use the same
> argument in relation to mobile phones. 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.

So would that level of safety be dangerous?

> 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. Do you suggest you have the same degree of
> control with no hands that you have with both,

Not instantly, no. Within a fraction of a second, yes. But that is not
the test, otherwise you would be booking everyone for going faster than
they strictly need to, as they are not as safe as they could otherwise
be. Proportionality.

> do you state that you can
> brake safely with both hands should the unexpected happen, a ball or a
> child running into your path, a car backing out of a driveway whilst one
> hand is gripping a mobile phone? No, I do not think you would claim
> such a thing, hence although one may get away with it - it is not a safe
> or prudent thing to do.

Indeed, if you are riding along a road with driveways or where children
are playing. The road along which I ride most frequently without full
control has none of these hazards. It is a remarkably hazard free road.
Any hazards can be anticipated well in advance. 200m further on the
road is far from a safe place at which to ride in that style.


> >
> > Likewise with a mobile, it is easy to pause a conversation to signal or
> > to brake, and perfectly possible to ensure that you do not focus on the
> > conversation to the exclusion of other events. Again it is context. I
> > wouldn't be using the phone on a busy road, or at speed. Again it is
> > about context - using a phone on a quiet road is probably safer than
> > not using one in busy traffic.
>
> Again the point is not that it is safe when everything goes according to
> plan but that when the unexpected happens and people say 'he was using
> his mobile and...' It is the potentiality for danger that is the test
> of the case.

And the potential for danger depends entirely on context.

>
> >> I wouldn't be using the phone on a busy road, or at speed. Again it is
> >> about context - using a phone on a quiet road is probably safer than
> >> not using one in busy traffic.
>
> Stopping at the side of the road and using it would be safer though
> would it not? Could you be to blame if a collision occurred after you
> had stopped in a safe place?

Assuming that you have a safe place to stop, that it is indeed safer to
stop rather than continue, and so on. it depends on context.

But again, it is not a question of being maximally safe, it is a
question of whether the action is itself dangerous, as described in the
law as being 'far below the standard of a competent and careful rider'.

I could quite happily claim, and I don't think you would disagree, that
the use of a mobile while riding in certain circumstances is not
dangerous, according to being 'far below the standard etc.'. In other
circumstances it is an act of gross stupidity. Much like drinking from
a bottle, or even signalling, checking over ones shoulder etc.

...d

 

[D.M. Procida]

David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

> > You can't use the brakes properly while holding a mobile phone. If you
> > think that matters to your safety and that of others, then it seems to
> > me like a good reason for considering using a phone while cycling is a
> > very poor idea.
>
> I can't? Interesting suggestion. I have at least one cycle with which
> it is perfectly possible to brake one handed, using both brakes.

I'm sure you can use both brakes and just one hand. But you still won't
be braking as well as you would be as you would with both hands on the
handlebars.

Daniele

 

[Tony Raven]

Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote on 08/10/2006 14:14 +0100:
>
> No the test is 'concentration and control', that is the essence of the
> danger presented. You cannot argue that you have the same degree of
> concentration or control whist using a hand-held mobile phone as you do
> when riding normally. That loss of control and concentration should be
> obvious to the offender and is what would be tested in court.
>

It is not "concentration and control" Here are the relevant paragraphs
of the Act:

28. — (1) A person who rides a cycle on a road dangerously is
guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above a person is to be
regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if)—

(a) the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a
competent and careful cyclist, and

(b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that
riding in that way would be dangerous.

(3) In subsection (2) above "dangerous" refers to danger either of
injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in
determining for the purposes of that subsection what would be obvious to
a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard shall be
had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be
aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the
knowledge of the accused.

Do you really think that using a mobile phone fits those requirements?

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Tony Raven]

Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote on 08/10/2006 19:49 +0100:

>
> 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. 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.

Again, loss of control is irrelevant. You would have to show that loss
of control was likely to result in injuring someone or causing serious
damage to property in the specific circumstance.

If you do not and simply make a statement in your opinion it was
dangerous, if the Court convicted on that we could simply throw away the
Court and let the police decide if they thought he was guilty.


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Pyromancer]

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as David
Martin <[email protected]> gently breathed:
>Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:

>> I agree that one should be able to ride with one hand. Cyclists need
>> enough control to be able to signal and maintain balance, to look behind
>> them and assess traffic etc. To do so for protracted periods though is
>> another matter especially if one is holding another object in that hand.

>Such as a drink bottle?

Generally speaking, someone will hold a drink bottle only long enough to
remove it from its mount, take a drink, and put it back again. And TBH
unless I was in some kind of race, I'd want to stop before taking a
drink, trying to drink while riding would greatly reduce the ability to
savour the drink.

But leaving all that aside, what's most noticeable about this argument
is how much it resembles the speeding one - speed fans claim that speed
cameras are bad because they take no account of proportionality or the
ability of a given driver to drive safely at faster than the speed
limit.

Most of us here rightly reject such arguments as the self-justifications
of those who wish to drive without regard to other people. The
consequences may be less severe, but the same applies to using a phone
while cycling. Personally, I'd prefer *all* road users I have to share
road space with to be concentrating on the task of driving or riding. I
can live with pedestrians using phones as they are generally on the
pavement, and I ride on the road, and one should always assume that a
pedestrian may step off the road regardless of whether they are using a
phone or not, and ride / drive cautiously when lots of pedestrians are
about. But the operators of vehicles should concentrate on operating
their vehicles.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

 

[Chris Slade]

Tony Raven wrote:

> Again, loss of control is irrelevant. You would have to show that loss
> of control was likely to result in injuring someone or causing serious
> damage to property in the specific circumstance.

In the case of drink driving you don't even need to show that the driver was
likely to lose control. Does that mean that the drink-driving laws are
wrong?

> If you do not and simply make a statement in your opinion it was
> dangerous, if the Court convicted on that we could simply throw away the
> Court and let the police decide if they thought he was guilty.

See above.

I think I should state, for the record, that I have no problem in principle
with the drink-drive laws as they currently stand.
--
Chris

 

[Tony Raven]

Pyromancer wrote on 09/10/2006 01:50 +0100:
>
> But leaving all that aside, what's most noticeable about this argument
> is how much it resembles the speeding one - speed fans claim that speed
> cameras are bad because they take no account of proportionality or the
> ability of a given driver to drive safely at faster than the speed
> limit.
>

I agree but not in the way you think. Its like the argument about
whether it is illegal to exceed the speed limit on a bike. It's not -
the law specifically limits the offence to motor vehicles, the same as
it does with mobile phones. Whether it is sensible to use a mobile
phone on a bike is a different argument altogether just as whether it is
sensible to go faster than the speed limit on a bike. Both _could_ be
prosecuted for dangerous or careless cycling if the conditions were such
that it was, but its not a blanket offence in either case as Sniper
seems to want to imply.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[David Martin]

D.M. Procida wrote:
> David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > You can't use the brakes properly while holding a mobile phone. If you
> > > think that matters to your safety and that of others, then it seems to
> > > me like a good reason for considering using a phone while cycling is a
> > > very poor idea.
> >
> > I can't? Interesting suggestion. I have at least one cycle with which
> > it is perfectly possible to brake one handed, using both brakes.
>
> I'm sure you can use both brakes and just one hand. But you still won't
> be braking as well as you would be as you would with both hands on the
> handlebars.

Not necessarily the case. My commuter bike has a back pedal brake, and
a single brake lever. I can brake quite happily using front and back
brakes with one hand on the bars (yes it took some practise).

There comes a limit where there is nothing to be gained from any
additional control.

...d

 

[Eddie]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Eddie wrote on 06/10/2006 16:50 +0100:
>>
>> Sorry to be so vague, and I may well be wrong,
>>
>
> You are right....but only about being wrong.
>
No I'm not.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_025216.hcsp

Section 16

New laws are going to be made under the RTO - as primary legislation, which
will apply to all road users. Under RV(C+U) only motor vehicles are
covered.

Arrogant ****

E

 

[Tony Raven]

Eddie wrote on 09/10/2006 09:09 +0100:
>>
> No I'm not.
>
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_025216.hcsp
>
>
> Section 16
>
> New laws are going to be made under the RTO - as primary legislation,
> which will apply to all road users. Under RV(C+U) only motor
> vehicles are covered.
>

Can't find that on the page linked and in any case "New laws are going
to be made" is not "I believe it has now been enabled in legislation
that applies to all road vehicles, and bicycles are road vehicles, and
now they can apply full penalties to the offence (i.e. upto 2500) as
opposed to the 30 pound fixed charge."

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci