Comment

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

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

Sort:hotnew top

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
    C4d@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    “However, although 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 it is unlikely, other than in exceptional circumstances, to be appropriate to use section 41D to prosecute any person who in these circumstances made a phone call or accessed the internet. See Public Interest.”
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
    Arrakis@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Maybe you should have included the entire quotation:
    
    However, although 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 it is unlikely, other than in exceptional circumstances, to be appropriate to use section 41D to prosecute any person who in these circumstances made a phone call or accessed the internet
    
    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
    mackwinston@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Well I stand corrected on 2 way radios (one of those differences between Manx and English law - I know first hand that 2 way radios have to be hands-free here).
    
    Have any of those Pinner v Everett cases been for mobile phone use, or similar? Or has it all been to do with drink driving - certainly the list of citations that site gives for free were all about failure to provide a sample. Drink driving is a completely different kettle of fish because you can prove an offence on someone not in a car if you’ve observed them driving five minutes ago, because you remain over the limit for a considerable period of time. Given how many driving offences are prosecuted, 131 cases since 1969 (over 50 years ago) is a vanishingly tiny proportion of cases.
    
    Lots of things “can” happen but a prosecution of someone for using a mobile phone in a layby with the keys out the ignition is has about as likely as my underwear teleporting one foot to the left unexpectedly.
    
    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