Is this email okay?

[Boris Bajic]

driving holding a mobile isn't an odd infringement of the law , its kickin its doors in and blowin a raspberry in its face

That seems to be one area where you and I differ.

In many cases I would rate the use of a handheld mobile as a grave issue.

In stop-start traffic (largely stop) on the approach to a bridge with no obvious junctions around, it is not grave in my eyes.

I may well be wrong, but that is my view.

 

[subaqua]

stopped means Handbrake applied and engine off in this law I beleive. so stopped with foot on footbrake isn't stopped merely resting.

and you illustrate a previous post of mine perfectly.

 

[simon.r]

driving holding a mobile isn't an odd infringement of the law , its kickin its doors in and blowin a raspberry in its face

Give over! In stop start traffic, with no junctions etc it's no more dangerous than changing a CD or taking a swig from a water bottle (while cycling or driving) or any of the tens of other things nearly all drivers / cyclists do when on the move. An opinion that has been stated by more than one person earlier in this thread.

Like it or not, most of us, while aware of the laws of the land and accepting that the vast majority are 'good' laws, choose to bend or break some of them from time to time. Ever ordered a drink in a pub when already drunk? Gone through an amber light when you can clearly see there's no traffic approaching? Ridden your bike on a pavement? Had a drag of a spliff? Copied a CD?

It would be impractical to make a law allowing hand-held mobile use in certain situations, hence the blanket ban. Just because there is a law against something doesn't make it wrong and /or dangerous in all situations.

 

[Boris Bajic]

stopped means Handbrake applied and engine off in this law I beleive. so stopped with foot on footbrake isn't stopped merely resting.

and you illustrate a previous post of mine perfectly.

I'm not sure I quite understand your post, but I think I get what I believe is its general slant.

I do not for a moment claim that the use of a hand-held mobile in the circumstances shown is legal. I am explicit (more than once) in accepting that it is not.

I question whether it is serious, grave or worth making a fuss about. I think it is not serious, not grave and not worth making a fuss about.

I'm intrigued to hear which previous post I illustrate.

 

[gaz]

I suspect that the driver in my video below was using his mobile whilst stationary, note how his foot slipped from the brake and he ran into the back of me, it could have been a lot worse if he hadn't applied his brake again.

 

[subaqua]

Give over! In stop start traffic, with no junctions etc it's no more dangerous than changing a CD or taking a swig from a water bottle (while cycling or driving) or any of the tens of other things nearly all drivers / cyclists do when on the move. An opinion that has been stated by more than one person earlier in this thread.

Like it or not, most of us, while aware of the laws of the land and accepting that the vast majority are 'good' laws, choose to bend or break some of them from time to time. Ever ordered a drink in a pub when already drunk? Gone through an amber light when you can clearly see there's no traffic approaching? Ridden your bike on a pavement? Had a drag of a spliff? Copied a CD?

It would be impractical to make a law allowing hand-held mobile use in certain situations, hence the blanket ban. Just because there is a law against something doesn't make it wrong and /or dangerous in all situations.

transport research lab don't think so. I would rather believe their opinion on it than yours. I suppose driving at just over the drink drive limit stated in the law ( and by this i mean the limit where you will be prosecuted at ) is OK if you feel fine and don't feel impaired. get hit by a drink driver at and you will change you mind on that one i can guarantee it.

several of the points you list are also legal to do anyway copy a CD - for back up purposes- legal. ride a bike on a pavement- legal in some circumstances. hence my point in another earlier post about the user not being in the situation of being unsafe/impractical to stop to call emergency services.

the items listed above are also not illegal specifically unless an incident is caused then they may be used as part of driving without due care etc.

 

[subaqua]

I'm not sure I quite understand your post, but I think I get what I believe is its general slant.

I do not for a moment claim that the use of a hand-held mobile in the circumstances shown is legal. I am explicit (more than once) in accepting that it is not.

I question whether it is serious, grave or worth making a fuss about. I think it is not serious, not grave and not worth making a fuss about.

I'm intrigued to hear which previous post I illustrate.

not thinking the law applies to you

 

[simon.r]

I suspect that the driver in my video below was using his mobile whilst stationary, note how his foot slipped from the brake and he ran into the back of me, it could have been a lot worse if he hadn't applied his brake again.

That's a fair point. I'm not sure that using a mobile could be linked to his foot slipping off the brake, but I suppose it's conceivable.

 

[gaz]

That's a fair point. I'm not sure that using a mobile could be linked to his foot slipping off the brake, but I suppose it's conceivable.

I didn't say it was :P But his lack of concentration due to what I suspect was him using a mobile, allowed his vehicle to roll forward into the back of mine. My video highlights that whilst it would appear that it is perfectly safe to use a mobile whilst in stationary or slow moving traffic, there is always the potential for you to become distracted and not be in proper control of your vehicle.

 

[Boris Bajic]

not thinking the law applies to you

I do think the Law applies to me. I fully accept that the Law applies to me. Even if I wanted to pretend it didn't, I have a history of points and fines going back decades to prove that it does. Indeed my first scrape with the law preceded the awarding of points. When caught driving underage, I received what we used to refer to as two endorsements. Points came later.

I break the speed limit (but not by much) on a reasonably frequent basis. I am absolutely clear that I am breaking the law when I do so.

When I take a call in my car on a hand-held mobile in stationary traffic, I am absolutely clear that I am breaking the law.

I also cycle without reflectors on my pedals.

 

[simon.r]

I didn't say it was :P But his lack of concentration due to what I suspect was him using a mobile, allowed his vehicle to roll forward into the back of mine. My video highlights that whilst it would appear that it is perfectly safe to use a mobile whilst in stationary or slow moving traffic, there is always the potential for you to become distracted and not be in proper control of your vehicle.

I agree with you. I think being distracted enough by using a mobile phone to allow your foot to slip off the brake demonstrates extremely poor driving skills, but I have to accept that it could be a factor.

Maybe I should have qualified my earlier post by saying "Give over! In stop start traffic, with no junctions etc it's no more dangerous than changing a CD or taking a swig from a water bottle (while cycling or driving) or any of the tens of other things nearly all drivers / cyclists do when on the move, assuming that the driver or cyclist has a reasonable level of competence".

Which is obviously not the case for all drivers / cyclists on the road

I may be changing my opinion! I'll think about it

 

[Rickshaw Phil]

I say! Isn't the atmosphere in here getting hot!

Lets hope this thread doesn't get deleted too.

 

[simon.r]

I say! Isn't the atmosphere in here getting hot!

Lets hope this thread doesn't get deleted too.

Hey, it's only the internet Nothing wrong with a good debate!

Anyway, it's getting towards Saturday night and I have plans for the next 24 hours or so that don't involve a laptop I'll check back tomorrow night and see who's winning!

 

[Brandane]

sorry the drone of a retired know it all plod lorry driver who has to drive a car with single occupancy sent me to sleep.

LOL! I prefer to think of it more as a tolerant, live and let live kind of guy. The matter of commuting by car was done to death on the other thread. The above response shows that you are clearly another one of the narrow minded cycle fascists, who thinks that anyone who makes life choices that are at odds with yours must be wrong. Conversely, I don't really give a to55 what other people do. And it's EX plod, if you don't mind .

 

[Ajay]

Descending into the usual "cyclists good - drivers bad" schitt isn't going to solve anything here.
I think that there is genuine concern here for the OPs safety if he continues with his vigilante attitude.
In response to Matthew's actual question - send the email, but tone it down, simply report what you saw, don't demand a reply, you're not the police. Try to inject a little humour into your encounters, you'll still get your message across and you may avoid getting a slap from a numpty.