Comment

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

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

Sort:hotnew top

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
    Blake@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    It’s legal precedent. The decisions made in that way become law, and that ruling has been used several times since, and it could be used again, to convict someone in the exact manner I described.
    
    It’s just an example, anyways. The point of it was to make you think about how arbitrary enforcement of the law could be used to oppress an individual who had done nothing wrong.
    
    I am far more interested in having you address my actual argument itself, as a whole. I’m very open to changing my perspective if you can explain why using a handheld phone while stuck in a traffic jam is more dangerous than using a phone handsfree while driving.
    
    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
    Blake@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Unlikely doesn’t mean it can’t happen. It also says “exceptional circumstances”. That’s two caveats that explicitly confirm that they can do EXACTLY what I wrote, if it suits them.
    
    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
    Blake@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Why are you expecting me to look through hundreds of citations to find a case about mobile phone use when the CPS outright states that it could be used for that purpose? If you want to argue it then get in touch with them.
    
    Also, 131 citations is quite a lot. There are around 11,000 rulings from the House of Lords, and maybe only 2000 or so of the rulings have more than 130 citations.
    
    Anyways, all of that aside - is using a handheld phone while stuck in traffic more dangerous than using a handsfree phone while travelling at 60 miles an hour?
    
    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