Comment

Comment on What’s driving Cycling Mikey, Britain’s most hated cyclist?

Blake@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

I wouldn’t be bothered if he was reporting drivers putting people’s life in danger, but people stuck in a traffic jam checking their phone? Many people rely on driving for their work of for their independence, I don’t think that the state should take that away from people just because they held their phone for a second in a traffic jam. If you’ve got your handbrake on then I really don’t see what the issue is.

I have very little sympathy for people who were using their phones while actively driving, especially if they’re looking at their screens to use them, but honestly the law as it stands is too strict imo.

Like, if you’re driving and you get a call on your phone, and your friend hands it to you so you can put it on your magnetic hands free mount, you could get 6 penalty points just for that brief moment of handling the phone.

Either way, the guy sure as hell isn’t a hero, he’s a tool of the oppression of the state

source

Sort:hotnew top

mackwinston@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
If people rely on driving for their work or independence, they should not be using their phones while driving. It’s not hard. A friend of mine is a train driver and you can imagine that being caught using your phone in that job is instant dismissal. His solution is to turn the phone off and put it in his bag, therefore there can be no temptation to use the phone and absolute proof in the case of an incident that phone usage wasn’t part of it. If a motorist can’t resist the temptation to use their phone, they should be doing the same.

The overwhelming majority of people ‘caught’ by Mikey seem to be using social media, not taking urgent work calls.

It is still dangerous to use the phone in traffic jams, because what phone users do while texting or doing Instagram is to be looking down while using their peripheral vision to see if traffic is moving, or even less. So they see a movement and move off, not having seen the pedestrian crossing through the gaps. I’ve witnessed a crash caused by such a distracted driver - albeit it was in Houston - the phone user next to us heard a car horn from behind and without looking just went and hit the car in front. Had there been someone crossing the road in front they would have been crushed.

Being in a traffic jam is still actively driving.

source
- Blake@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  I’m not discussing whether it’s hard to avoid texting while driving or anything like that. Obviously, it’s not hard. Phones are a distraction to drivers, and distractions are dangerous while driving.
  
  With all of that said, however, I believe that The laws of society should be just. It wasn’t so long ago that people were hanged for stealing a loaf of bread. While that’s clearly a more extreme punishment, my point simply is that I’m interested only in whether the punishment, loss of one’s livelihood, fits the crime - using a phone while completely stopped. I haven’t yet been convinced of that.
  
  Under the law, if you pull into a lay-by, stop the car, turn off the engine, remove the key, and leave the car to take a phone call, you can still be charged and found guilty of using a phone “while driving”.
  
  If you don’t think that is an absurd overreach, then honestly, I have nothing more to discuss with you - we would have such radically different values that we could never reach consensus.
  
  There are countless things which could distract drivers in stopped traffic and we do not regulate most of them. We don’t ban listening to any kind of media, we don’t ban conversation within the vehicle, we don’t ban the use of two-way communication radios. But if you’re stopped in traffic, listening to Spotify and a song comes on that you’re not a fan of and you dare to press “skip”? That’s you half-way to losing your job if it’s your unlucky day.
  
  The only question I have is: Is that justice? That’s the only point I want to discuss.
  
  source
  - Arrakis@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    
    Under the law, if you pull into a lay-by, stop the car, turn off the engine, remove the key, and leave the car to take a phone call, you can still be charged and found guilty of using a phone “while driving”.
    
    You got a source for this bit of rhetoric?
    
    source
    Blake@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    www.cps.gov.uk/…/road-traffic-mobile-phones
    
    the House of Lords in Pinner v Everett held that a person might still be driving even when they turned off the engine and got out of the car
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - mackwinston@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    
    Under the law, if you pull into a lay-by, stop the car, turn off the engine, remove the key, and leave the car to take a phone call, you can still be charged and found guilty of using a phone “while driving”.
    
    Don’t be absurd. There is exactly one case where this was discussed and it was a suspected drink driver who had been observed to be driving and in motion (look up the case here: vlex.co.uk/vid/pinner-v-everett-793596681). There are exactly 0 prosecutions for driving offences for people who weren’t actually in their car and driving when the alleged offence took place.
    
    Also two way radios are banned if they are hand held. The rules are the same for two way radios - they must be hands-free.
    
    source
    Blake@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Nope, you’re wrong about radios.
    
    “Most drivers are aware that it’s an offence to use a hand-held mobile phone while driving. This also applies to any “interactive communications device”, but an exemption applies for two way radios”
    
    Also, there’s more than one case where Pinner v Everett has been used as precedent, you can see on the very page that you linked that the precedent has been cited in 131 cases, and the original link I shared has CPS reference it and state that it can use it as precedent for mobile phone use, and I think that the Crown Prosecution Service might know a bit more than we do about prosecution than we do. But sure, by all means, keep arguing with me about it in the comments.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - CrapConnoisseur@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Has Mikey gotten anybody in trouble who’s pulled into a lay-by, stopped the car, turned off the engine, removed the key, and left the car to take a phone call? If not, I don’t see what your beef is with him.
    
    source
    Blake@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Remember that bit in my comment about “all I want to discuss is whether or not that is justice”?
    
    I don’t have a “beef” with Mikey, he’s somewhat neutral as far as I’m concerned. Why do you care about that in comparison to the real question I asked? Surely if there’s injustice in our legal system that’s more important than whether or not some random internet weirdo likes some other internet weirdo?
    
    source
C4d@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
I don’t agree.

Being stopped in traffic is part of driving.

If being able to drive is so critical to personal freedom or for work, there’s all the more reason to ensure performance and compliance with the law.

Compliance with the law is assured by connecting up the phone to an appropriate system or leaving it well alone. Rather than taking the phone from the friend in your scenario, ask them to deal with it.

Do you intervene when the safety law is broken, or do you wait until after an incident has occurred?

Road safety laws are there for a reason. Many are written in blood.

source
- Blake@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  What additional danger is posed by someone distracted by their phone stopped in traffic if they’re holding it in their hand, as opposed to it being on a hands-free mount?
  
  source
  - C4d@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    The main difference is the tendency to take your eyes off the road to look at your phone; more likely in the hand held scenario.
    
    Some studies have shown that driving while taking a call was distracting whether or not a handheld or hands-free phone was used, but as I understand things it was felt that enforcing an outright ban on using a mobile phone would be more difficult than banning the use of a handheld phone.
    
    Source: the lovely people at RoSPA - a pdf link to one of their factsheets is here
    
    I first came across them when trying to understand the evidence base for booster seats and the age / weight cut-offs that were being used; enormously helpful people.
    
    source
    Blake@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Thanks for your comment. I think everyone is really taking my comments out of context.
    
    My point is that the law is objectively bullshit. If the reason for banning phone use was to reduce accidents caused by phones, then why would there be an explicit ban on using phones even while completely stopped, which has a very minor risk to safety, but at the same time, there’s an explicit allowance for the use of handsfree phones, which has a much, much higher risk to safety? It doesn’t make sense at all if you look at it from that perspective.
    
    I think that the laws of our society should be just and sensible. If they’re arbitrary, then they’re bad laws and should be revised.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
NuPNuA@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
If you rely on your car for work, then you should be taking more precautions not to break the law and lose your licence, not less.

source