Not always wise to remonstrate drivers on mobiles.
Comments
-
It saddens me that some members of this cycling fraternity would turn a blind eye to, or deem tolerable, an illegal activity which could endanger a fellow cyclist.
For sure, in the video bentmikey was not in immediate danger, but it demonstrates a pattern of behaviour on the part of the driver. In fact, I'm glad it did not show bentmikey in immediate danger.
I do remonstrate with drivers using their mobile phone(s), usually by a shake of the head with a disapproving look. Does it do any good? Perhaps not. But perhaps they will think the better of it, the more it happens to them.
Drivers should not be allowed to get away with driving without due care and attention; by the police or by other road users. We all have shared responsibility for our safety.
Funny how we can all agree on RLJ's.0 -
sorry navt, but I cry shenanigans (yes including the dance!)
I don't think anyone here has deemed mobile phone use by drivers as tolerable or acceptable...
simply that the reality is that there was more danger after the comment than before...
and RLJ is not agreed by everyone...some do it...some dont.Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.
H.G. Wells.0 -
FWIW, the Met are currently considering prosecuting a coach driver for driving without due care and attention based on a report from me on the Met's RoadSafe website which included a link to youtube footage of the incident. They subsequently took a formal statement from me and a high-quality copy of the footage on a DVD (the youtube clip was pretty poor quality for upload size reasons).
I am actually quite (pleasantly) surprised how seriously they seem to be taking it. I get the feeling that, without the camera footage, they would have let it pass.Never be tempted to race against a Barclays Cycle Hire bike. If you do, there are only two outcomes. Of these, by far the better is that you now have the scalp of a Boris Bike.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Like the way everyone else stares straight ahead as if nothing is happening.
+1. what useless cnts0 -
BentMikey wrote:So Greg, why do you ignore that he was driving along on the phone before the incident and insist he was only on the phone when stationary? Your logic is this: FAIL.
I didn't "ignore" anything. Your footage doesn't show him driving along on the phone. It shows him stationary on the phone. Perhaps you need to re-assess "logic".BentMikey wrote:There's no assumption about him driving on the phone on my part, LiT.
Except where you've assumed he was driving along on the phone. Unless, of course, there's some hidden JFK-type footage from a grassy knoll that we've yet to see.0 -
Greg66 wrote:BentMikey wrote:So Greg, why do you ignore that he was driving along on the phone before the incident and insist he was only on the phone when stationary? Your logic is this: FAIL.
I didn't "ignore" anything. Your footage doesn't show him driving along on the phone. It shows him stationary on the phone. Perhaps you need to re-assess "logic".
AFAIK it matters not a jot as far as the law is concerned whether the vehicle is moving or stopped in traffic.0 -
will3 wrote:Greg66 wrote:BentMikey wrote:So Greg, why do you ignore that he was driving along on the phone before the incident and insist he was only on the phone when stationary? Your logic is this: FAIL.
I didn't "ignore" anything. Your footage doesn't show him driving along on the phone. It shows him stationary on the phone. Perhaps you need to re-assess "logic".
AFAIK it matters not a jot as far as the law is concerned whether the vehicle is moving or stopped in traffic.
That's perfectly true. But some posters seem to be confusing breaking the law (by using a phone whilst driving, even if stationary), and being a danger to other road user by using a phone whilst stationary (likened to nonchalantly swinging a machete, IIRC).
My point is that every time you use a phone whilst driving, you may be breaking the law, but you won't always be a source of danger to other road users.
As I understand it, the "bottom line" of the legislation is this: touch a mobile phone while the keys are in the ignition and the car is on the road, and you're done. So pulling over to park to take a call requires you to kill the engine and take the keys out for complete impunity. There's (fairly clearly, I would have thought) a pretty large overlap between what's breaking the law and what's not dangerous here.0 -
No Greg, there's no assumption on my part. Time for you to stop grasping at straws for point scoring.
You can't honestly suggest that drivers just answer calls whilst stopped at the lights, and that this is a valid excuse for using the phone. Quite a few drivers claim this, but they are clearly rubbish excuses when so often you see them driving up to the lights on the phone.0 -
Oh great - another utterly pointless argument is underway.0
-
-
BentMikey wrote:No Greg, there's no assumption on my part. Time for you to stop grasping at straws for point scoring.
You can't honestly suggest that drivers just answer calls whilst stopped at the lights, and that this is a valid excuse for using the phone. Quite a few drivers claim this, but they are clearly rubbish excuses when so often you see them driving up to the lights on the phone.
We're not talking about "drivers". We're talking about that driver. Now, do you say he was using his phone whilst his white van was on the move? If so, based on what?
I think I've made my position pretty clear about whether he was breaking the law, and whether his use of a phone created a danger. It seems fecking obvious to me that the much more dangerous things he did were to undertake you by squeezing up against the kerb, so he could line you up for some target expectorating, and then drive through the red light. But those don't have anything to do with mobile phone use, as far as I can tell (you can see both his hands on the wheel when he's alongside you).0 -
Greg, do you really have to try to create an argument out of nothing? I saw him on the phone, driving, specifically. I also generally comment that I've never yet seen a driver answer his or her phone just at the lights whilst stopped, but I've heard many excuses along that line from drivers that drove before or after answering the phone, still on the phone.
Really, why would you go on and on about such an improbable argument? Put the spade aside already, before you dig your own hole any deeper.0 -
BentMikey wrote:There's no assumption about him driving on the phone on my part, LiT.
Oh, sorry, I didn't realise you'd already seen him on the phone while the car was moving.
In fairness, the video only shows him on the phone while the car was stationary.0 -
BentMikey wrote:I saw him on the phone, driving, specifically.
Ok, you say you saw him. It's not on the video, but I don't doubt you if that's what you say. Word to the wise though: if by some miracle plod end up doing something about this tw@t, you might want to get all of your story out at the beginning, rather than dripfeed important bits like that into the account as you go along. You see, it can lack credibility if you introduce vital information like that only once put on the spot.
As I said earlier, if you want to be a traffic law vigilante, go ahead. Just don't be surprised if your authority meets with some resistance, and you end up feeling like Cartman shouting "respect mah authoritee!". FWIW, on a conservative basis, I must overtake or be overtaken by tens of drivers every day talking on phones, texting on phones, or even (Boxster driver on Wed am) eating pomegranate bits from a punnet as they drive along. I've managed - touch wood - never to feel endangered by any of them. I suspect, however, that were I to have a word with each one, I'd end up with a considerably more dangerous ride as a result of them getting p1ssed off and directing their ire towards me.0 -
Greg66 wrote:I must overtake or be overtaken by tens of drivers every day talking on phones, texting on phones, or even (Boxster driver on Wed am) eating pomegranate bits from a punnet as they drive along. I've managed - touch wood - never to feel endangered by any of them. I suspect, however, that were I to have a word with each one, I'd end up with a considerably more dangerous ride as a result of them getting p1ssed off and directing their ire towards me.
go on - do it :P0 -
It is an offence to use the phone whilst the car engine is running- whether moving or notWant to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
Whether he was only moving slowly or stationery is irrelevant. What appears to be forgotten is the reason WHY the law was changed to ban the use of mobile phones while driving. It was simply due to the number of deaths and serious injuries caused, when the gulty parties mitigating plea was , "BUT I WAS ON THE PHONE". As if that makes everything OK.
The guy should be done for the evidence of phone use while in the car, nevermind his thuggish attitude. Why can't the police use this evidence to convict?
The penalties in this country are FAR too lenient. For any misdemenor that endanger other road users I consider that their licence should be immediately revoked and that they should have to take a re-test at their own expense. Maybe it would make motorists (of which I am one) reconsider the consequences of their bad driving attitudes.
DBPlanet-X SL Pro Carbon.
Tifosi CK3 Winter Bike
Planet X London Road Disc
Planet X RT80 Elite0 -
Bentmikey - The footage could be used without any problem as far as I can tell. You have footage of the individual using a handheld mobile phone. He may be stationary in traffic, however - the law states that the vehicle should be parked up, handbrake applied and engine turned off. This prevents the vehicle being propelled.
Rather unlikely as he is waiting to progress on the change of the ATS.
In relation to his behaviour towards you, the spitting is classed as a Common Assault (s39 assault) as you have not received any visible injury. I would recomend preserving the clothing where the fluids struck you and produce this as an exhibit to Police - this will give them a chance to obtain DNA if required for court. You can burn a dvd of the footage and produce this as another exhibit. Report it as an assault, insist you wish to progress with a formal complaint and obtain an incident number. Ensure you give a full statement in person to a Police officer on official MG11 statement forms. Ensure a Crime report is submitted and then hopefully the culprit will be arrested and dealt with in accordance with cps guidelines.
The Police will treat a report of assault more seriously than a Road Traffic violation.
Get the right Police officer dealing and they will nail him for the phone offence also.
Good luck with it all.
My advice would be to try and bite your lip when you are vulnerable in traffic. It is very hard, I know. But a tonne of metal is lethal. Better to live to ride another day.
Again, Good luck.
0 -
OK, a bit more of a sober intervention.
Pretty much if I see a driver with a mobile phone I'll ask them to put it down, and if they don't I'll start a conversation with them. If there's a police officer within sight I'll get their attention with a shout, and a phone to ear signal whilst pointing at the offender.
Never had any real problems, a couple of thinly veiled "death" threats, and one guy who was actually being pretty dangerous in his car at the time I asked him to stop it started purposefully drifting toward me, but I was in control (and he wasn't being too serious).
Drivers of livered vehicles are reported to their employers if they keep on doing it, but this is very rare.
Like I say, if more of us did it I think the roads would be a far safer place.0 -
-
MTB-Idle wrote:
You seem to misunderstand the word "vigilante" :?
Just read a load of this thread. Some daft comments left and right but imo the squeaky wheel and all that. If you dont speak up (when you consider it to be safe to do so) or report things to the Police or the campaigns then you dont get the safe roads we all have a right to use and should have.0 -
Dog Breath wrote:Whether he was only moving slowly or stationery is irrelevant. What appears to be forgotten is the reason WHY the law was changed to ban the use of mobile phones while driving. It was simply due to the number of deaths and serious injuries caused, when the gulty parties mitigating plea was , "BUT I WAS ON THE PHONE". As if that makes everything OK.
Don't think any of us will ever forget those dark days. The roads ran red with blood. The mobile phones machines had taken over. Mobphoneskynet became self aware. The human race was pretty close to going under.
Thank God for the John Connor law.0 -
Hmmm...as a cyclist and a father why would i want dangerous drivers to be challenged? Hmmm..tricky one that....if you're as dense as a f*cking mollusc.MTB-Idle wrote:
When did I say I want to be a vigilante?If you wanna run around being a vigilante or telling people what not to do then go join the filth.
Yeah - that's right anyone who wants safe roads should join the police. :?
I take it back - to say you have a mollusc brain is an insult to molluscs.0 -
oooh! Get youFCN = 40
-
Porgy wrote:
How's that going?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:
the lamenting has got a bit more intense0 -
spen666 wrote:It is an offence to use the phone whilst the car engine is running- whether moving or not
Surely everyone knows this, and we don't need a daft argument about whether the driver was doing something illegal or something illegal?
Spen is right.*
* on this occasion
Riding on 5310
