Comment on What’s driving Cycling Mikey, Britain’s most hated cyclist?
Arrakis@feddit.uk 1 year agoIt’s legal precedent
When there is suspicion of drink driving. Editorialising facts serves nothing other than to make your statements seem unreliable.
Blake@feddit.uk 1 year ago
No, that’s not correct. It’s entirely about determining when you are, or not, driving. That’s why the course went to court. This legal case establishes that “driving” can include when you’ve stopped and gotten out of the car, assuming that you intend to continue your journey.
See my previous comment: are you going to actually answer my question? Whether or not you think my statements are unreliable doesn’t matter.
You answer that simple question without having to rely on anything I have stated.
Arrakis@feddit.uk 1 year ago
That’s not what the House decided at all. If you’re going to misquote and misconstrue law and disregard the actual decision points there isn’t really much merit for anyone else to discuss it with you. Like I said before, maybe you should actually read the case law and decisions lest people think you’re deliberately perpetuating falsehoods and not simply missundertanding.
You didn’t ask me a question? I’ve read through all your replies to me and none contain a question, are you confusing me with another commenter maybe?
Blake@feddit.uk 1 year ago
Happy to restate the question:
Is using a handheld phone while stopped and stuck in traffic more dangerous than using a phone handsfree while driving at 60 miles an hour?
Arrakis@feddit.uk 1 year ago
You never asked me that question, and it’s nothing to do with what I was talking about, soooo…