Cyclists using mobiles - WTF?

[Rhythm Thief]

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.

And how do you guarantee that? Or even measure it? Who are you to say which risks are acceptable and which are not? Why your frame of reference and not mine? Or that of the little old lady in the zimmer frame from two doors up the road? No doubt her model of relative risks is very different from yours, and it probably includes cyclists on mobiles.
The trouble is, the general public don't differentiate between chav boy on his BMX, belting around the town with his phone glued to his ear, and someone riding within a model of relative risk. In short, everyone hates us anyway; why give them more ammunition?

 

[Cab]

You could have dropped the condescending façade...

Dear oh dear... Condescending? You mean, no one is arguing in favour of what you want to argue against so you're in a huff?

 

[Cab]

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.

Again, you're arguing against your own straw man. No one here has advocated that cyclists should break this law, merely that as the relative risk posed is often small, the level of ire shown towards those who break this law in such instances should also be pretty low.

That people doing different things are (and should) have laws enforced according to the problems they are responsible for is a pretty common way of policing. Shouldn't it be?

 

[Cab]

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.

Or in other words we should bow to those who believe that all road users are equal and should be treated equally? VED on bikes, anyone? Speeding laws to be introduced for cyclists?

To argue that enforcement of laws should be based on the real risk of harm rather than a dogmatic (and incorrect) insistence of uniformity does imply that it is okay to break the law. Why should it?

 

[Norm]

Dear oh dear... Condescending? You mean, no one is arguing in favour of what you want to argue against so you're in a huff?

No, I was just trying to see if you had a point to make rather than merely attempting to bully others, talking down to them as "fools" without adding anything positive. However...

Speeding laws to be introduced for cyclists?

... shows a considerable insight into why you cannot even formulate an obvious and reasonable counter argument.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Or in other words we should bow to those who believe that all road users are equal and should be treated equally? VED on bikes, anyone? Speeding laws to be introduced for cyclists?

Who said any of those things? Not me, that's for sure. Although would it be so terrible if we were treated equally as road users, as opposed to as second class citizens? If you're arguing that we should be allowed to break whichever laws we disagree with, you're just taking us further down the "us and them" road.

To argue that enforcement of laws should be based on the real risk of harm rather than a dogmatic (and incorrect) insistence of uniformity does imply that it is okay to break the law. Why should it?

I presume you've missed a "not" out of this post. But I'm afraid it's more accurate without it; of course it implies that it's OK to break the law. Once you (note the personal pronoun) have decided that it's safe to disobey the law because you (there it is again) believe it's safe to do so, there's no end to it. A system such as that which you describe would simply lead to everyone breaking every law because they'd persuaded themselves that the risk of so doing was low. Can't you see that what you're saying is exactly the same as the speeding driver saying that speeding is a victimless crime?

 

[Cab]

No, I was just trying to see if you had a point to make rather than merely attempting to bully others, talking down to them as "fools" without adding anything positive. However...


... shows a considerable insight into why you cannot even formulate an obvious and reasonable counter argument.

There is no reasonable counter argument to what you stated because you did not make an argument that was in any way linked to what I was saying; you constructed a strawman, you based your position of my stance based on a fake version of that. And because I didn't fall for your (rather tedious) bait, now you're getting personal.

 

[Norm]

And because I didn't fall for your (rather tedious) bait, now you're getting personal.

Getting personal by using the very terms which you used earlier.

Game over... I'm out.

 

[Cab]

Who said any of those things? Not me, that's for sure. Although would it be so terrible if we were treated equally as road users, as opposed to as second class citizens? If you're arguing that we should be allowed to break whichever laws we disagree with, you're just taking us further down the "us and them" road.

Ahh, but you can be 'equal' in terms of rights while not being quite identical with regard to requirements or punishments for transgressinig. And in effect thats the state of things; no licenses, no tests, no VED, and different penalties for breakng some of the same rules and some different ones. Thats how road law works, because you have many different categories of vehicles you've got many categories of laws. That doesn't mean we should be allowed to break laws, but it does mean that the need to enforce the laws is not always the same, nor even that all laws are always worth enforcing (for cyclists or anyone else). We're equal but different, like any other type of road user.

I presume you've missed a "not" out of this post. But I'm afraid it's more accurate without it; of course it implies that it's OK to break the law.

No, it doesn't. That there are shades of grey (that some things are wrong, some things are WAY more wrong) is the real state of things in most areas; why are you seeking to impose a black and white model for roads?

 

[Cab]

Getting personal by using the very terms which you used earlier.

Game over... I'm out.

And now because your strawman has been pointed out more clearly, and because you've been called up for getting personal, you storm off in your huff. Okay.

 

[Origamist]

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.

It is not an offence to use a handheld phone whilst cycling, it is an offence whilst driving - however, if you crashed and hit someone whilst texting a smiley to your mate, you might get hit with a careless or dangerous cycling charge.

 

[Mr Pig]

This is getting old. I won't be cycling whilst on the phone any time soon. If you want to then go for it. Personally I won't feel the least sorry for you if you crash and split yourself like a kipper but hey, it's your choice :0)

Night night chimps.

 

[HJ]

May there is one person who should be banned from using a bike or a phone...

 

[Mr Pig]

Na Borris can do whatever he likes, he's a star! ;0)

 

[Dan B]

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.

And how do you guarantee that? Or even measure it? Who are you to say which risks are acceptable and which are not? Why your frame of reference and not mine?

The tests for "careless driving" and "dangerous driving" are both expressed in terms of falling below standards that a "reasonable person" would expect - that's the frame of reference I have in mind. In the first instance the person who gets to decide is the police officer on the scene, if things go further then the court will decide based on their own interpretation of "reasonable", bolstered by the precedents that other courts have created in other similar cases. It's not simply my personal frame of reference, it's a consensus view or a reasonable approximation of one.

I grant you that it's expensive and difficult to prosecute when the alternative is to create new legislation that simply outlaws some behaviour felt to be often associated with dangerous road use (whether it be exceeding 70mph, or using the phone, or passing a red traffic light) and that's why we also have these more specific laws: however, as a private citizen who has the luxury of freely being able to dispense his approval or condemnation of others' acts without such expense, I don't see why I need to condemn people for breaking these kinds of law if what they're doing is, in my opinion, not otherwise careless/dangerous.