Cyclists using mobiles - WTF?

[Rhythm Thief]

And as the likelyhood of it happening is so low as to be practically zero, its not something to get het up over.

I'm not het up about it. But if two pedestrians a year are killed by cyclists, then we shouldn't really be doing anything that increases that risk, small though it is. Especially as it's so easy to pull over safely on a bike.

 

[Cab]

I'm not het up about it. But if two pedestrians a year are killed by cyclists, then we shouldn't really be doing anything that increases that risk, small though it is. Especially as it's so easy to pull over safely on a bike.

Two is an upper estimate; tell me, what proportion are killed by cyclists on mobile phones?

 

[manalog]

Why do some people on here do stupid things like riding while on the phone and try to justify it by saying its not as bad as when driving. Stop being CHILDISH.

 

[BentMikey]

Why do some people on here do stupid things like riding while on the phone and try to justify it by saying its not as bad as when driving. Stop being CHILDISH.

I don't see anyone trying to justify it. Cab is taking an objective look at the risk to others, and is clearly in possession of at least a small amount of this: CLUE.

 

[Cab]

Why do some people on here do stupid things like riding while on the phone and try to justify it by saying its not as bad as when driving. Stop being CHILDISH.

Stop being so inflammatory, no one is justifying it, merely putting it in to context.

 

[I am Spartacus]

ADMIN
When we have a thread like this can we have a running score..?

was that a neat little equalizer last one?



people do get soooo worked up

 

[Norm]

I am confused, Cab, by what I see as a dichotomy between "cyclists can use mobiles because the risk is small" and "cyclists can ride without lights because it's down to other road users to avoid them".

I realise that is a simplified summary but the only way I can understand those two positions is "cyclists are always right".

IMO, cyclists have the same responsibility to show respect to other road / path users as they have to show respect to us. If we expect drivers and dog walkers to be aware of their environment by not using mobiles and by always keeping an eye out for bikes, then I think we should show them the same level of responsibility by looking where we are going and by making ourselves visible.

That the risk is low will not matter to those clattered to the ground by someone organising their evening's entertainment. And, whilst I don't think that the risk is so low as to be negligible, I do think that we should be seen to be aware of our own vulnerabilities, which, again IMO, means concentrating on our surroundings.

people do get soooo worked up

Indeed, although I am curious about Cab's apparently divergent positions.

 

[Cab]

I am confused, Cab, by what I see as a dichotomy between "cyclists can use mobiles because the risk is small" and "cyclists can ride without lights because it's down to other road users to avoid them".

You're confused because you've constructed a straw man argument. I haven't advocated riding while on the phone, and I haven't advocated riding with no lights.

I realise that is a simplified summary but the only way I can understand those two positions is "cyclists are always right".

A 'simplified summary' needs to be correct; you are not. You've mounted a good old fashioned strawman, an argument that sounds a bit like what I've said but which is in reality very different, something that only fool would say and to which there is an obvious (and reasonable) counter argument.

 

[Mr Pig]

The likelihood of an accident may or may not be increased, the harm caused by a cyclist is likely to be pretty trivial

You keep using words like tiny and trivial but that doesn't make it the rider's right to decide if it's acceptable. If you're a teenage girl who gets her front teeth knocked out buy a cyclist who was too busy reading a text to notice you I doubt you'd consider it very trivial. What you're saying is that it's ok to increase the risk of harming others as long as you're not likely to kill them! Although you might.

What really gets me is the selfishness of it. Since when has it been a necessity to communicate with the world twenty-four hours of the day? Telling your mates you'll be out later more important than looking where you're going. Screwed up people in a screwed up world.

 

[Cab]

You keep using words like tiny and trivial but that doesn't make it the rider's right to decide if it's acceptable.

And you keep acting like I'm condoning it. I'm not. I'm pointing out that in any objective measure, its just not all that big a deal.

 

[Norm]

You could have dropped the condescending façade for a moment to say how "it's not a big deal" is so different from "the risk is small"?

As for the obvious and reasonable counter argument, it must be so obvious and reasonable that you can't even lower yourself to write it?

Still, rather than addressing my points, you seem keen to just climb further up your own nose, to such heights that neither cycle lights, dog leads nor mobile phones will trouble you.

Enjoy the view from your lofty perch, I'll be sure not to worry you again.

 

[hydridmatt]

Wow - some heat, a litttle light.

Talking about the relative risks is a red herring. The real issue is cyclists choosing which road laws we adhere to, then condemning drivers if they want to do the same.

The law is the law. Our respect for it must be indivisible, because the second we start picking and choosing the laws we want to respect, we give licence to others to do the same.

Drivers are using a 2 ton metal projectile - we just pack a smaller weapon.

 

[Dan B]

Talking about the relative risks is a red herring. The real issue is cyclists choosing which road laws we adhere to, then condemning drivers if they want to do the same.

The law is the law. Our respect for it must be indivisible, because the second we start picking and choosing the laws we want to respect, we give licence to others to do the same.

That's fine. I am perfectly prepared to give that licence to others (insofar as it's within my power to grant, anyway) provided that they pick and choose by reference to the same (or a similar) model of relative risks that I do.

 

[Mr Pig]

And you keep acting like I'm condoning it.

I know, but you're doing a darn good impression of someone who is! ;0)

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Wow - some heat, a litttle light.

Talking about the relative risks is a red herring. The real issue is cyclists choosing which road laws we adhere to, then condemning drivers if they want to do the same.

The law is the law. Our respect for it must be indivisible, because the second we start picking and choosing the laws we want to respect, we give licence to others to do the same.

Drivers are using a 2 ton metal projectile - we just pack a smaller weapon.

Exactly. The amount of risk we present to other road users, and the likelihood of us as cyclists being involved in an accident in which a third party is injured is (while I can see the point Cab is making) largely irrelevant. The main thing is that if we want to be respected as road users, we cannot afford to be seen to be choosing which laws we obey, and which we disobey because the risk of injuring someone is small. That's the same argument, to the letter, used by those on Safespeed.