Mobiles and cycling

ShaunOnaOrange

Been on a ride this mornining and got pulled by PC Knob for using my mobile whilst cycling. PC Knob threatened to issue me with 3points and £60 fine. It is not illegal to use your mobile whilst cycling, but when I challenged him and told him this he did not like it and told me to change my attitude. I'm not a kid , I'm 50. I've put in a complaint to GMP. Any legal advise appreciated.

fat sam

3 points on what , you dont need a licence to ride a bike :shock: do you :?:

nonnac85

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q604.htm

nonnac85

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q604.htm

nonnac85

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q604.htm

ShaunOnaOrange

Yep! Went on this site. This is the basis of my complaint.

fat sam

so you can only get 3 points on your licence if you were riding a electric assisted cycle, you werent riding one of them were you, there the tools of the devil

ShaunOnaOrange

He said 3 Points on my driving license. The Plonker!!

ShaunOnaOrange

Riding Stumpy

biff55

did you get a fine ? or surrender your licence ? or get the coppers badge number ?
if the answer is no to these questions then let it go , forget about it , focus on your next bike ride.
unfortunately there are assholes working in every profession.

chedabob

Was he going to fine you for using the phone, or for "careless riding or riding without due care and consideration" ?

Also, as biff said, if nothing happened, just let it go.

Anonymous

Were you riding on the road and without due care and consideration (almost certainly if you were on a mobile on the road)?

Seen a cyclist weaving about all over the place whilst on a mobile not giving a crap and being a danger to himself and other road users, so I have no sympathy if you were pulled on the road for using a mobile. Just deal with it.

If you were off road that's another matter, though personally I'd stop the bike to make a call. Mobiles are a serious distraction and more so when cycling one handed, but I guess you'd only be a danger to yourself off road.

P.S. was this a genuine plod or a jumped up PCSO?

Anonymous

Can't get points on your licence for anything on a pushbike.
That's like being thrown in jail for dealing crack, because you were drunk and disorderly.
Well, not quite, but you see what I mean.

giantculler

and if you dont have license? they will keep the points for when u will have one?

P-Jay

Just another Div copper, too many of them seem to only want to be in uniform to bully around the public, gives the good ones a bad nam,e.

I rarely ride on tarmac so don't come into contact with them much, but apart from riding on the pavement they can't touch you for much on a pushbike.

As for points? ha ha, best of luch with that. Of course you don't have to carry anything (ID licence etc) to ride a bike, they can't search you without good cause and you don't have to give them your name etc if you don't want to, you can hower be charged with giving false details.

cooldad

+1 what DK says.
The problem with laws is that many are brought in to prevent morons killing themselves or others.
Use a bit of common sense.

Bar Shaker

I can remember the heady days when you could use a phone whilst driving. I don't recall killing anyone doing it but some people find driving a car difficult on its own, so using a phone as well may be a distraction for them.

Anonymous

I have to admit I did use the phone occasionally when driving and frankly yes it was a distraction. No I didn't kill anyone or cause an accident, but I did make little mistakes. I even do using the handsfree system in the car I've got now. It's hard to pay attention at a busy junction or roundabout whilst you've got someone on the phone grilling you about some issue at work or whatever. Even just talking to a passenger is a distraction!

So I generally avoid the phone now when driving. I have no real need for it. I'll never make a call and even with the hands free I'll only answer it if I'm expecting a call. Tends to be fellow riders calling me to find out where I am

On a bike. Just stop, phone out of pocket, answer call, phone in pocket, continue. Not hard really and I'd be less likely to end up in a bush or over the bonnet of a car.

cooldad

Bar Shaker wrote:

I can remember the heady days when you could use a phone whilst driving. I don't recall killing anyone doing it but some people find driving a car difficult on its own, so using a phone as well may be a distraction for them.

How fortunate for the rest of us! Or maybe you were just too drunk to remember.
But obviously being a multi tasking wunderkid, a special exception should be made for you.

Bar Shaker

PMSL at cooldad.

Its a good job you have never exceeded a speed limit, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to post as you did. I like the drunk reference. Its a common thing for road safety nutters to liken phone use with driving whilst drunk.

Whatever.

Driving with the radio on can be a distraction, if you are so easily distracted. Thinking about a problem at work or home can be a distraction.

Please lighten up.

chedabob

Bar Shaker wrote:

It's a common thing for road safety nutters to liken phone use with driving whilst drunk.

That's because it has been proven to be more dangerous than drunk driving.

cooldad

Bar Shaker wrote:

PMSL at cooldad.

Its a good job you have never exceeded a speed limit, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to post as you did. I like the drunk reference. Its a common thing for road safety nutters to liken phone use with driving whilst drunk.

Whatever.

Driving with the radio on can be a distraction, if you are so easily distracted. Thinking about a problem at work or home can be a distraction.

Please lighten up.

There have been a number of studies (by universities - proper studies) that talking on a cellphone is as dangerous as driving under the influence, which is why it's been banned by most civilised countries.

Try a bit of education before you make inane remarks - obviously many things can be distracting, but to puposely distract yourself is stupid.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6090342-7.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_pho ... ing_safety
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 105257.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 172628.htm
http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle- ... -crash.htm
http://www.unews.utah.edu/p/?r=062206-1
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract ... 97512.55v1
I’m not a safety freak, but I am a serious driver, and would prefer not to share the road with idiots.

Bar Shaker

chedabob wrote:

Bar Shaker wrote:

It's a common thing for road safety nutters to liken phone use with driving whilst drunk.

That's because it has been proven to be more dangerous than drunk driving.

How drunk are we talking about? Were that true, I suspect the penalties would be similar.

cooldad

Bar Shaker wrote:

chedabob wrote:

Bar Shaker wrote:

It's a common thing for road safety nutters to liken phone use with driving whilst drunk.

That's because it has been proven to be more dangerous than drunk driving.

How drunk are we talking about? Were that true, I suspect the penalties would be similar.

You suspect wrong.

teulk

On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. At the time Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued a letter stating that:

"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."

Almost identical advice has since been issued by the Home Office with regards the use of fixed penalty notices by 'Community Support Officers' and wardens.

"CSOs and accredited persons will be accountable in the same way as police officers. They will be under the direction and control of the chief officer, supervised on a daily basis by the local community beat officer and will be subject to the same police complaints system. The Government have included provision in the Anti Social Behaviour Bill to enable CSOs and accredited persons to stop those cycling irresponsibly on the pavement in order to issue a fixed penalty notice.

I should stress that the issue is about inconsiderate cycling on the pavements. The new provisions are not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other road users when doing so. Chief officers recognise that the fixed penalty needs to be used with a considerable degree of discretion and it cannot be issued to anyone under the age of 16. (Letter to Mr H. Peel from John Crozier of The Home Office, reference T5080/4, 23 February 2004)


CYCLING WHILE DRUNK

Cycling is intoxicating, it gives a natural high but it's also a very sociable activity and those who partake in the weekend 'pub run' will attest that cycling is easier after the odd drink or two.

A social tipple, imbibed in moderation - the proverbial swift half - will not lead to a massive impairment in your ability to ride home but, despite alcohol's pain reducing effect, it impairs athletic performance so too much booze is bad for biking.

The Licensing Act 1872 makes it an offence to be drunk in charge of a bicycle (or any other vehicle or carriage, or cattle) on a highway or in a public place but this old law also forbids any public drunkenness - even in a pub - so is clearly never enforced.

In law a bicycle is defined as a carriage for use on the highway but cyclists are not in charge of 'mechanically propelled' vehicles so, in law, do not have to adhere to exactly the same 'drink drive' rules as motorists.

Section 30 Road Traffic Act 1988 says: "It is an offence for a person to ride a cycle on a road or other public place when unfit to ride through drink or drugs - that is to say - is under the influence of a drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle.

In Scotland a PC may arrest without warrant a person committing an offence under this section. There is no obligation for a cyclist to submit to a blood or urine alcohol test.

'Road' in the above bit of legislation includes a bridleway so don't think you can get blotto at a country pub and ride home 'off road' without risk.

And here's the rub. If you ride drunk you risk endangering yourself and possibly others by your actions. Would you ride home blindfolded? Beer-googles and bicycles do not mix. And, as stated above, cycling 'dangerously' can be fined by up to £2500.

You cannot get endorsements on your UK driving licence for a 'drink cycling' offence. Some US States have such a law so be careful when searching on this topic via Google.

The UK Highway Code - a useful but not a definitive source for UK legislation on motoring and cycling offences - says the penalty point system is "intended to deter drivers from following unsafe driving practices...The accumulation of penalty points acts as a warning to drivers that they risk disqualification if further offences are committed."

Note the word 'drivers.'

In law, cyclists propel vehicles on the highway and so have to adhere to the same rules as motorists. However, the fines and penalties for offences are different. Cyclists DO NOT qualify for three penalty points for failing to comply with a red light. Offending cyclists, when caught, are given a non-endorsable fixed penalty ticket for £30. There are no offences that carry penalty points for cyclists.

Mr basset

What about the countless morons I see cycling with ipod type earphones in? I can sure see the point of music to motivate or stimulate you if your'e training or about to race but no way would I wear these on the road. There's too many other distractions going on and I want to see, hear and sense other traffic on the road which is coming up behind and potentially going to kill me.

There must have been incidents in cities where cyclists have been hit by cars and a contributing factor was the cyclist's unawareness of his surroundings due to earphones. I've nearly hit someone myself (a pedestrian) who just stepped out across a junction in front of me, oblivious to the surroundings as he stared at that little screen ith his earphones in. Nearly shat himself when the bonnet appeard in his field of view!

bails87

Mr basset
I wouldn't use headphones myself while driving. But I kind of see how people justify it. If you're going to be hit by something that you could hear but not see, that suggests it's something approaching from behind. In which case, even if you could hear it, would you be able to know it was going to hit you? And even then, would you be able to avoid it?

Then there's the fact that you don't know how loud the music is. But most cheap headphones (iPod white ones) are rubbish for blocking out noise, so they can probably hear more with earphones in than most drivers can with the windows shut and radio on.

As I said, I wouldn't do it myself, but I spent a lot of time on the road in a vehicle that has been specifically designed to keep out noise.

Bar Shaker

So the studies say that using hands free is just as dangerous as holding the phone, but that's OK and legal.

And in the test quoted on wikipedia, of their study, 10 people crashed using a phone, 2 people crashed from the baseline group and no people crashed whilst drunk.

The evidence is clear then. We would be at our safest if we all drove whilst drunk.

Or was the study rubbish?

I am certain that using a phone can decrease your concentration. So can changing radio channels, changing cd, smoking, looking for change for the Dartford Crossing/M6/etc. Comparing using a phone with driving whilst drunk (even though not actually backed up by the tests posted above), is ridiculous.

projectsome

deadkenny wrote:

Were you riding on the road and without due care and consideration (almost certainly if you were on a mobile on the road)?

Seen a cyclist weaving about all over the place whilst on a mobile not giving a crap and being a danger to himself and other road users, so I have no sympathy if you were pulled on the road for using a mobile. Just deal with it.

If you were off road that's another matter, though personally I'd stop the bike to make a call. Mobiles are a serious distraction and more so when cycling one handed, but I guess you'd only be a danger to yourself off road.

P.S. was this a genuine plod or a jumped up PCSO?

+1 only takes a second to pull over and answer.

Anonymous

Bar Shaker wrote:

I am certain that using a phone can decrease your concentration. So can changing radio channels, changing cd, smoking, looking for change for the Dartford Crossing/M6/etc.

And that brings it all back to "without due care and consideration" and the original post. Whether it's a mobile or whatever else, if plod thinks you aren't paying attention then he's got every right to slap a fine.

The points are another matter.

And in the car, yes even hands free is a distraction. I know from experience that I'm not paying enough attention to the road when I use it so I try to avoid it. Whether it's banned or not, if you have a smash and it was clear you were distracted you can still get slapped with fines or worse.

And no one has superior skills that enables them to multi-task enough to not be distracted. The confidence people have with it just comes from the fact they have not had an accident yet.

Comparing using a phone with driving whilst drunk (even though not actually backed up by the tests posted above), is ridiculous.

No it isn't. Both impair your ability to concentrate on the road and what is going on around you. Both can and have been proven to cause accidents (fatal). It doesn't just take some study you can scoff at. I have seen the results for myself!

Anonymous

I call bullcrap on the phone driving nonsense. Pretty much everyone used to drive and talk, at least at some point, but the casualties, and especially fatalities were significantly less in total number than those caused by drunk driving, which only a tiny minority of the population has ever been engaged in.

I think what you have there is a typical, textbook perfect, example, of a government funded study, to assist in passing new laws.
Why these laws are passed, is anyone's guess. But I suspect it has something to do with some government body like the accidents agency or whatever it's called, which lobbies to make EVERYTHING safe.
It's similar bodies to them, that are responsible for banning mobile phone use on garage forecourts, even though there is ZERO link between mobile phone use and petrol station fires.