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

• 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

    • C4d@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      The legal system is adversarial. Each side is incentivised to submit the best possible case on behalf of the client. Ideas and definitions get tested to the limit - and eventually a line has to be drawn; this may or may not set a precedent and any precedent may or may not require specific context or circumstance. Public interest plays a role. It may seem arbitrary at times but that’s how it works. Society does not want dangerous intoxicated or distracted drivers on the road.

      source

      • Blake@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        The problem with this idea is that lawyers are expensive and poor people can’t really afford good representation. So if we have a legal system where it’s possible for people to get mired in expensive, lengthy legal disputes, where even if you’re innocent then your life can be destroyed by the struggle of it, then that’s essentially establishing a system where law is used to serve wealthy people at the expense of the poor. And that is exactly what we do have.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • NuPNuA@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      You’re not completely stopped in traffic though are you, that traffic could start moving again at any moment and you not being fully cognizant of your surroundings when that happens can cause dangers for other road users.

      source