Mobile phone use costs cyclist some teeth

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

BTBS, so stats or it never can happen? Ok.

You know when people get nicked for speeding and the magistrate/judge tells the naughty person about what COULD have happened....but didn't....and then gives them a large punishment even though the result of their speeding was.....nothing....

You can't have laws that only apply if there's any direct misfortune that happens from it. You end up utterly lawless like....Italy, where mopeds are wheelied down pavements, one ways are two ways, pedestrian zones mean less cars and old ladies stop cars on roundabouts to get an ice-cream. (This was all in short 4 day break)

Who said it could never happen, I never said that nor anyone else.

Is cycling with a phone a problem that causes others to fear harm or come to harm more so than others getting about (without phones), how much harm are say pedestrians causing whilst using a mobile phone?

We have a ban on using phones in motors and yet that is still killing hundreds a year and you and others are worried about something that has not a single death attributed to it either for the user or an innocent party.

Again, I'm waiting for some actual evidence to prove that cycling with a phone is an issue over and above others behaviour on the basis that it causes harm to others enough so that we impose sanctions.

I'm still waiting.

fenix wrote:

It's nice and simple. No using the phone if you're on a bike or driving a car. Motorists can't complain about cyclists getting off with it. Safer all round.

I've never used a phone while riding my bike, but I think that's because I haven't mastered "rummaging around to find the phone thats fallen to the very bottom of my pannier" while riding...

barbarus wrote:

Easily solved by compulsory gum shields for cyclists. Hi Viz ones.

Need to prove the effectiveness of gum shields first, is there any research or better still a graph?

hawkinspeter wrote:

Do stupid things, win stupid prizes!

I agree with BTBS that mobile use on bikes isn't worth legislating and enforcing. The cost to the tax-payer here is offset by not paying for extra police to stop mobile use, so I think society benefits by not having it illegal.

Ideally, people wouldn't do stupid things, but they do and the NHS provides healthcare even for the most stupid/self-caused of incidents. I doubt that the numbers of self-injured cyclists are anywhere close to the number of self-injured drinkers, but I'd have to see some graphs to be sure.

Because society only benefits from actions that cost less? I think that's a definition narrow enough to be completely invalid

madcarew wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Do stupid things, win stupid prizes!

I agree with BTBS that mobile use on bikes isn't worth legislating and enforcing. The cost to the tax-payer here is offset by not paying for extra police to stop mobile use, so I think society benefits by not having it illegal.

Ideally, people wouldn't do stupid things, but they do and the NHS provides healthcare even for the most stupid/self-caused of incidents. I doubt that the numbers of self-injured cyclists are anywhere close to the number of self-injured drinkers, but I'd have to see some graphs to be sure.

Because society only benefits from actions that cost less? I think that's a definition narrow enough to be completely invalid

Thanks for your straw-man.

I'm thinking about maximising the return on legislature/enforcement. Cost/benefit analysis if you like.

madcarew wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Do stupid things, win stupid prizes!

I agree with BTBS that mobile use on bikes isn't worth legislating and enforcing. The cost to the tax-payer here is offset by not paying for extra police to stop mobile use, so I think society benefits by not having it illegal.

Ideally, people wouldn't do stupid things, but they do and the NHS provides healthcare even for the most stupid/self-caused of incidents. I doubt that the numbers of self-injured cyclists are anywhere close to the number of self-injured drinkers, but I'd have to see some graphs to be sure.

Because society only benefits from actions that cost less? I think that's a definition narrow enough to be completely invalid

That doesn't even make any sense as a response.  Cost less than what?  'Less' is not an absolute quality.  But whether society benefits from an action does indeed depend on how much that action costs vs how much is gained, rather obviously.

On reflection I _do_ agree with BTBS, because while using a phone while riding can be a bit risky, even sometimes to third-parties, legislating about this doesn't seem worth the enforcement effort and parliamentary time.  The government has some rather more pressing things it needs to be working on at the moment, surely?

Not that I care.  I don't even have a phone at the moment, and I think I might keep it that way (it's like being on an effing leash, everyone expecting to be able to contact you at all times and get an instant response and then getting all irate if you don't get back to them immediately...why did they have to invent those infernal things?  Cars, mobile phones, and mass-produced firearms - I'd uninvent all of them)

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Behindthebikesheds, don't let your utter, cycling militancy blind you or anything. You seem to be buried in this notion of cycling accidents being primarily self-harming, so therefore not subject to any laws. 

Cyclist on phone, parent with toddler walking on footpath, cyclist loses controls, hits toddler. It's ok though. Cyclist on phone, loses control, goes under a passing cars wheels, traumatises driver. It's ok though. 

I remember crashing my motorbike and having to explain myself to the magistrate. Should have just said "it was only me that got hurt" and it would have been case dismissed. 

I don't know if I agree with BTB or not, but your counter-argument is very weak, because you completely ignore the relative probabilities.  You could construct potential bad-outcome scenarios for almost any behaviour, but what does that prove?

  Your logic could also be used to argue that using a mobile while jogging, or even walking quickly, should be illegal as well.

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Behindthebikesheds, don't let your utter, cycling militancy blind you or anything. You seem to be buried in this notion of cycling accidents being primarily self-harming, so therefore not subject to any laws. 

Cyclist on phone, parent with toddler walking on footpath, cyclist loses controls, hits toddler. It's ok though. Cyclist on phone, loses control, goes under a passing cars wheels, traumatises driver. It's ok though. 

I remember crashing my motorbike and having to explain myself to the magistrate. Should have just said "it was only me that got hurt" and it would have been case dismissed. 

How many times has that happened, let's say in 10 years, please quote references to support your stats?

You missed the point that people on bikes raarely use a phone because all realise that it increases a risk of incident, those that do are such an infintessimally small number it's not worth worrying about and so far has no data to support that it's a problem.

Do crack on though with digging the stats out to prove yourself correct.

What, you can't or simply is it that riding with a phone is less dangerous to others than what happens in other non phone related background incidents by other modes in cluding people on bikes.

I'm waiting.

[/quote]

You missed the point that people on bikes raarely use a phone because all realise that it increases a risk of incident, those that do are such an infintessimally small number it's not worth worrying about and so far has no data to support that it's a problem.

Do crack on though with digging the stats out to prove yourself correct.

What, you can't or simply is it that riding with a phone is less dangerous to others than what happens in other non phone related background incidents by other modes in cluding people on bikes.

I'm waiting.

[/quote]

I rarely post because I can't stand the descent into argument, but this one was so hypocritical I laughed out loud.

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Behindthebikesheds, don't let your utter, cycling militancy blind you or anything. You seem to be buried in this notion of cycling accidents being primarily self-harming, so therefore not subject to any laws. 

Can I like this comment x26 please?

Mobile phone use while riding should be punishable by confiscation of the bike - as there are obviously no brain cells to confiscate.

DaveGnu wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Behindthebikesheds, don't let your utter, cycling militancy blind you or anything. You seem to be buried in this notion of cycling accidents being primarily self-harming, so therefore not subject to any laws. 

Can I like this comment x26 please?

Mobile phone use while riding should be punishable by confiscation of the bike - as there are obviously no brain cells to confiscate.

Yes, because they confiscate the motor vehicle of people actually breaking the law don't they?  You know those vehicles that kill quite a lot of innocent people.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

And this is precisely why it should NOT be an offence to operate a mobile phone whilst cycling, the risk is pretty much all on the person on the bike, even in conflict with pedestrians the bike rider is more likely to lose out and so far there is next to zero evidence to support that using a phone is any more detrimental over and above the general background incidents from non users, well aside from hearsay and coroners made up, evidence free summations.

Of course it should be an offence. You have no idea of who else might be injured or suffer damage to their property in avoiding such idiots.

Will the cyclist in this clip be paying privately for their teeth or does the tax payer have to pick up the tab? Aside from which, I do not want hard pressed A&E having to divert time and resources to sorting out injured cyclists following this type of incident.

hirsute wrote:

Will the cyclist in this clip be paying privately for their teeth or does the tax payer have to pick up the tab? Aside from which, I do not want hard pressed A&E having to divert time and resources to sorting out injured cyclists following this type of incident.

Wow, we go down some silly routes here.

Smokers, alcoholics, fat people, rugby players... A&E has a few cases to see!

alansmurphy wrote:

hirsute wrote:

Will the cyclist in this clip be paying privately for their teeth or does the tax payer have to pick up the tab? Aside from which, I do not want hard pressed A&E having to divert time and resources to sorting out injured cyclists following this type of incident.

Wow, we go down some silly routes here.

Smokers, alcoholics, fat people, rugby players... A&E has a few cases to see!

I do agree with this part of hirsute logic, the state cannot allow people to get hurt themselves not only from an ethical point of view but of cost too. And regarding the other groups that love being in danger, smoking is being punished by the state that puts high taxes in an otherwise very cheap product, so does in alcohol and recently there have been thoughts about taxing unhealthy foods in other countries.

Nothing yet about rugby players because dangerous accidents or even worse, fatalities are really rare in the sport. And there is why third party liability for cyclists is a wrong concept, it is very unlikely and should it happen, the consequences are usually minor, and it may put off people from an otherwise beneficial to all activity.

To sum up, it is all about probabilities, we cannot wear a helmet and a Nomex suit while being on home because a comet may hit our house, but we cannot either cross a lava river stepping on the heads of hungry fireproof crocodiles when there is a bridge near there.

alansmurphy wrote:

hirsute wrote:

Will the cyclist in this clip be paying privately for their teeth or does the tax payer have to pick up the tab? Aside from which, I do not want hard pressed A&E having to divert time and resources to sorting out injured cyclists following this type of incident.

 

Wow, we go down some silly routes here. Smokers, alcoholics, fat people, rugby players... A&E has a few cases to see!

The original post seemed to be saying its ok because no one else is affected. The point was it isn't just the cyclist who is affected, there are consequences for others.