mobile phones whilst cycling?

[Alan Braggins]

David Martin wrote:
>
>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.

It's perfectly possible, but there are studies that strongly suggest that
motorists often don't ensure that, and that using a hands free mobile is
not significantly safer than using one in one hand. I see no reason to
assume cyclists are very different in that. The relative risk posed by
someone controlling a ton of metal at up to 70mph is very different of
course. (On the other hand I see no risk at all from a motorist phoning
to say "I am stuck in completely stationary traffic".)

 

[David Martin]

Eddie wrote:
> "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.

That will be the RTO act 1988 which enables penalties for offences, and
specifically brings in the penalty points system.

Schedule 2 of that act doesn't affect the rest of it which states that
the offences it covers are those committed whilst driving a motor
vehicle.

...d

 

[Tony Raven]

Tony Raven wrote on 09/10/2006 09:38 +0100:
> 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

Ah, found it and what it says is:

"Is the offence endorsable?
No. The offence is subject to a £30 fixed penalty or maximum fine of
£1000 for conviction in court (maximum of £2,500 for drivers of goods
vehicles or buses/coaches.

However, we do plan to increase the penalty for the new offence by
making it subject to 3 penalty points and a £60 fixed penalty. Primary
legislation will be needed for this when a suitable opportunity arises
to amend Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. We do not
have a timetable for that yet."

No mention of changing it to apply to "all road users" indeed it says
"for the new offence" which is the offence of using a hand held mobile
phone while driving a motor vehicle and the change will make it subject
to penalty points.

Difficult to see how they would make an offence for using a phone while
cycling subject to 3 penalty points. Or are we going to go back to the
old chestnut of points on your driving license for cycling offences?
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1988/Ukpga_19880053_en_1.htm


--
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]

Alan Braggins wrote:
> David Martin wrote:
> >
> >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.
>
> It's perfectly possible, but there are studies that strongly suggest that
> motorists often don't ensure that, and that using a hands free mobile is
> not significantly safer than using one in one hand. I see no reason to
> assume cyclists are very different in that. The relative risk posed by
> someone controlling a ton of metal at up to 70mph is very different of
> course. (On the other hand I see no risk at all from a motorist phoning
> to say "I am stuck in completely stationary traffic".)

There is also a significant difference in environment. A motor vehicle
operator is in an enclosed environment where a loss of attention can
result in the vehicle exceeding sensible operating parameters.
Loosing attention on a bike normally results in slowing down and
stopping, not accidentally speeding up.

The two are totally different animals and modes of operation. Using a
mobile affects their use differently.

...d

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message
<1hmwl3f.wm0st9tbzar5N%[email protected]>, D.M.
Procida ('[email protected]') 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...

....particularly if one holds the phone in one's right hand. Do not ask how
I know this.

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

;; Want to know what SCO stands for?
;; http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030605

 

[David Martin]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message
> <1hmwl3f.wm0st9tbzar5N%[email protected]>, D.M.
> Procida ('[email protected]') 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...
>
> ...particularly if one holds the phone in one's right hand. Do not ask how
> I know this.

That depends how your brakes are set up. My commuters are both of
foreign origin so have a different brake set up. (I prefer to have the
front on the left, so I can brake while signalling, phoning, etc.)

...d

 

[David Martin]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message
> <1hmwl3f.wm0st9tbzar5N%[email protected]>, D.M.
> Procida ('[email protected]') 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...
>
> ...particularly if one holds the phone in one's right hand. Do not ask how
> I know this.

That depends how your brakes are set up. My commuters are both of
foreign origin so have a different brake set up. (I prefer to have the
front on the left, so I can brake while signalling, phoning, etc.)

...d

 

[sothach]

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.

What are you implying? I'm a monkey and hold a phone with my feet?

 

[Sniper8052(L96A1)]

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

Sniper8052

 

[Mark McNeill]

Response to Sniper8052(L96A1):
> >
> > 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?

Not that I know of, but we were talking of prosecution: and I hope we
haven't quite got to the point where somebody can be prosecuted for
performing an action, simply because there's no particular reason for
them to be doing it (presumably other than the fact that they're
enjoying themselves).


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

"Could"?? Of course they "could"! - and I'm sure you're only too well
aware of the number of foolish and trivial wastes of judicial time
brought by members of the police who have no idea what "de minimis non
curat lex" means, to say nothing of your own "lessening of control
equates to danger" rubbish. But that's not quite the question I asked,
is it?


--
Mark, UK
"We go on a journey to be free of all impediments; to leave ourselves
behind much more than to get rid of others."

 

[Jon_H]

> 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.


what even as a tandem stoker I find it difficult to believe that

>
> 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.
>
>
> Sniper8052

 

[Don Whybrow]

Eddie wrote:
> "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.

Following your link above ...

Q8. Who do the new regulations apply to?
The new regulations apply to the drivers of all motor vehicles on the
road, including cars, motorcycles, goods vehicles, buses, coaches and taxis.

They also apply to anyone supervising a learner driver, while the
learner driver is driving. Anyone supervising a learner driver needs to
be concentrating on what the driver is doing and should not be using a
mobile phone.

Q9. Do the new mobile phone regulations apply to cyclists?
No. However, the police have powers to deal with careless or dangerous
cycling.

> Arrogant ****

Pot, meet kettle.

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

A conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking. (Arthur Bloch)

 

[Colin]

In article <[email protected]>, sniper8052
@yahoo.co.uk says...

>

> Fact No matter what you say about your bikes braking set up or your
> skill as a trick cyclist you cannot have the same degree of control with
> one hand that you have with two.

So one would assume by this that cyclists who only have use of one hand
(or only have one hand) but ride a modified cycle where both brakes are
operated by one lever are, by the above definition, committing an
offence of dangerous cycling.

If the one-handed cyclist is not committing an offence, then logically
the law in question is not absolute and must have circumstances taken
into consideration when being decided whether an offence is being
committed.

Of course, if one handed or otherwise physically impaired cyclists are
not legally allowed to cycle, then this has all sorts of implications
with regard to discrimination of the less abled, especially if similarly
impaired people(or indeed the very same person) are legally allowed to
drive a car, even if modified to take into account their impairment. Or
are you saying such drivers must also be guilty of an offence?

--
Colin

Coincidence is the alibi of the Gods

(remove FOOT to reply)

 

[D.M. Procida]

David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

> > 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.

And there are plenty of plausible and likely situations in which you
need two hands on the bars to brake safely.

Daniele

 

[David Martin]

D.M. Procida wrote:
> David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> And there are plenty of plausible and likely situations in which you
> need two hands on the bars to brake safely.

Indeed, but sometimes X does not equal always X.

...d (off for a ride)..

 

[David Martin]

Sniper8052(L96A1) 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.. Every so often my back and shoulders need a good stretch.. easy
to do if you have the appropriate skill.

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

Show that riding no-hands per se for an appropriately skilled rider
represents a significant risk of injury and you have a case. Otherwise
you are doing a lot of hypothetical hand wringing. Do you prosecute
unicyclists on sight?

...d

 

[David Martin]

Sniper8052(L96A1) 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.

You miss the point. It is insufficient to show that X is less safe than
Y. It is blindingly obvious that travelling faster is more dangerous,
so why aren't you slowing down by half a mile per hour. It is safer.
Oh, and another half mile an hour is safer still.

It is a question of whether that action falls *far below* what would be
considered safe by a safe and competent cyclist.

...d

 

[AndyMorris]

Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:
> Is there any good reason why a person should cycle without any hands?

To put your coat on?

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

 

[Mark McNeill]

Response to Sniper8052(L96A1):
> 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.


Nor have I stopped beating my wife! But I'm afraid that sort of
cheap trick does you no credit; you should be ashamed of it.


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.


> But back to the point, yes - if the circumstances were sufficient they
> should be prosecuted.

Well, thank $DEITY for that. We are agreed on the principle that
circumstances alter cases, which is something. And I'd
certainly agree with you that if - /if/ - the circumstances
warranted prosecution, then prosecution is indicated. ;-)


So are we now agreed, then, that although taking one or both hands off
the handlebars [or, for that matter, the steering wheel or other
controls in a car] may reduce control to whatever degree, that reduction
in control doesn't invariably or necessarily result in a degree of
danger which constitutes an offence? Can we take that as a yes?


--
Mark, UK
"If you follow reason far enough it always leads to conclusions that are
contrary to reason."

 

[Mark McNeill]

Response to Sniper8052(L96A1):

> I maintain it is neither
> reasonable or safe to remove ones hand from the control surfaces for the
> any purpose other than shifting position, signalling or using another
> control.

"Reasonable" is not exactly the first word which occurs to me in
relation to this opinion ;-) - but would you also maintain that such
actions as you describe are, or ought to be, a prosecutable offence?


> 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.

Perhaps tomorrow you should find the same ten people, and ask them the
question I'm asking you above!


--
Mark, UK
"All progress is based upon a universal innate desire on the part of
every organism to live beyond its income."