Garmin Advice needed

[ColinJ]

Be aware that from 1 July 2019, operating an electronic device while moving in the Netherlands will be punishable by a €95 fine. Even in the Netherlands, the motorists manage to get through their tit-for-tat cycling-as-dangerous-as-motoring nonsense laws sometimes.

It is fair enough to stop cyclists riding along holding devices such as phones, but obviously taking it too far to ban use of GPS devices.

That article suggests that it will be legal to look at a bar-mounted GPS while moving, as long as the cyclist does not touch it. I suspect it will take a court to decide?

 

[HobbesOnTour]

First of all, it's not a bad thing. The amount of mainly younger cyclists cycling and engrossed in their mobiles is a serious issue. I regularly meet groups of secondary school, students on my commute and if they continue this behaviour into adulthood there will be evermore problems.

Secondly I'm pretty sure the enforcement will be commonsense, as it is in most cases over here. I can't see an issue with a mounted gps and hitting a button. I can see an issue riding handsfree while tapping on a phone. There's a target market (for want of a better description). If you don't fit the target market and are not being obnoxious, you should be fine.

Finally, if the enforcement is as effective as the same rule for cars, then no-one has anything to worry about.

On a closing point ...

Even in the Netherlands, the motorists manage to get through their tit-for-tat cycling-as-dangerous-as-motoring nonsense laws sometimes.

Strangely, refolding paper maps or cue sheets one-handed on the move still seems to be legal, despite being much more hazardous IMO. I've seen cyclists ride straight at parked cars while messing with a map on the handlebars.

I understand that you campaign for cycling but as a cyclist I have to point out that statements like the above and the extreme example you use turn me off your argument - and I am broadly in agreement with you.

With so many bikes on bike paths there is a very strong argument to be made for this law. At times like rush hour in urban centres, close to train & bus-stations it can be madness. Similarly close to schools at getting out time. Projecting it as a motorist v cyclist debate is nonsense in my opinion.

As for the maps example. I agree. Trying to use a big map is dangerous while cycling. But practically nobody does it! But using that as an argument against this law is frankly, damaging to your argument.

 

[mjr]

[...] Projecting it as a motorist v cyclist debate is nonsense in my opinion.

Don't blame me for that. That's how it was pushed through despite failures of attempts to find evidence that it's dangerous. When you've got transport minister Cora van Nieuwenhuizen arguing for the law by saying mad stuff like "using a phone is just as dangerous on a bike as it is in a car," then it's already been made into a car-v-bike thing by the politicians.

As for the maps example. I agree. Trying to use a big map is dangerous while cycling. But practically nobody does it! But using that as an argument against this law is frankly, damaging to your argument.

Not just big maps, but even small maps are folded too. Maybe "practically nobody does it" (then why have I seen it even on my limited cycling in NL?) because there are currently safer electronic GPSes available: no need to refold, no need to find where you are, no need to spot placenames if you go off-route. My argument is that if this was really about loss of control, then things like the Luddites' more attention-demanding navigation system would not get a free pass.

If you don't like that example, then heck, you can still cycle along reading a guide book in one hand or with it on a handlebar mount and as far as I can tell, this law wouldn't touch you. This law looks to be about control of cyclists more than control while cycling.

Anyway, the main point is: if you're getting a GPS to navigate in NL, beware this! We don't yet know how it'll be enforced.

 

[HobbesOnTour]

Don't blame me for that. That's how it was pushed through despite failures of attempts to find evidence that it's dangerous. When you've got transport minister Cora van Nieuwenhuizen arguing for the law by saying mad stuff like "using a phone is just as dangerous on a bike as it is in a car," then it's already been made into a car-v-bike thing by the politicians.

Frankly, I don't need evidence that it is dangerous to ride a bike while engrossed in a mobile phone.

It is.

I'm not about to go looking up the quote you supply, but I'll say this about political pronouncements - they should be taken with a large spoonful of salt.

Not just big maps, but even small maps are folded too. Maybe "practically nobody does it" (then why have I seen it even on my limited cycling in NL?) because there are currently safer electronic GPSes available: no need to refold, no need to find where you are, no need to spot placenames if you go off-route. My argument is that if this was really about loss of control, then things like the Luddites' more attention-demanding navigation system would not get a free pass.

Big maps, small maps. It's all irrelevant. Of course there are other things we can do on a bike that are just as dangerous. that's not a reason to not introduce a law that might help solve a big problem. Otherwise nothing gets done.
And while being distracted by a map might not be against this new law, I wouldn't be surprised to find that it would be against another law.

I don't know why you see so many people cycling, holding maps in their hands. Perhaps it's the time of year you visit? Perhaps the routes you follow? It doesn't match my experience.

If you don't like that example, then heck, you can still cycle along reading a guide book in one hand or with it on a handlebar mount and as far as I can tell, this law wouldn't touch you. This law looks to be about control of cyclists more than control while cycling.

It's not whether I like the example or not. I'm simply pointing out to you that as an argument against the law not only do I find it ineffective, I find myself being turned off listening to you so any subsequent argument you have is likely to fall on deaf ears.
Referring to those on the other side of you as Luddites, arguing the law is about a loss of control, to my mind is not helpful to your argument. And I would consider myself to be on the same side of the cyclepath as you.
Take the feedback or not. I don't care.

Anyway, the main point is: if you're getting a GPS to navigate in NL, beware this! We don't yet know how it'll be enforced.

And my main point is that this is highly unlikely to be an issue for a cycle tourist unless there is another reason to come to Police attention.
No harm in knowing about it, so thanks for that.
My advice? Pack the gps, leave the chips for the shoulders at home.

 

[mjr]

Referring to those on the other side of you as Luddites, arguing the law is about a loss of control, to my mind is not helpful to your argument.

I did neither of those. I now think you may be reading what you think is there instead of what I wrote, so it's difficult to see how much good can come from this discussion, even leaving aside the "I don't need evidence" shocker. Let's pedal on!

 

[HobbesOnTour]

I did neither of those. I now think you may be reading what you think is there instead of what I wrote, so it's difficult to see how much good can come from this discussion, even leaving aside the "I don't need evidence" shocker. Let's pedal on!

Did you just tell me to jog on in cyclespeak?
Perhaps I've misinterpreted the Luddite comment, if so apologies, but this is what you said in relation to control..
"This law looks to be about control of cyclists more than control while cycling."

The dismissive way you deal with my "I don't need evidence" shocker, is frankly, insulting and designed, I believe to shut me up without actually engaging in the topic.
I think that using a mobile phone while cycling is more dangerous than not using a mobile phone while cycling.
I'll even explain why.
It removes at least one hand from the bike, reducing control.
It distracts my attention on the road, traffic, conditions.
It is a physical barrier in my field of vision.

If you have "evidence" otherwise I'd be interested in seeing it, but perhaps on another dedicated thread.

I'll say it again. I understand that you are an activist, a campaigner and I have no doubt that you do these with the best of intentions. I'm sure you've read more on these topics than I have. All things being equal, your opinion should carry a significant amount of weight.
However, your presentation in terms of language, tone and attitude does very little to advance your cause with me - and I agree with most of your positions, if not with quite the same intensity. I can only imagine the effect such tactics have on someone with an opposing view.

 

[mjr]

Did you just tell me to jog on in cyclespeak?

Nope. Again, you're imagining far worse than I wrote. I'm a blunt working-class midlander, so rest assured that if I ever mean to tell you to go fornicate yourself, that's what I'll write!

The dismissive way you deal with my "I don't need evidence" shocker, is frankly, insulting and designed, I believe to shut me up without actually engaging in the topic.

Well, I find that statement insulting and yes, I'm not engaging in that topic here, because it's not Garmin Advice and I'm almost sorry I mentioned that I think the new €95 Garmin use fine is unjust.