'Cycle lane parking puts lives at risk': Cyclist's sticker justice for bike lane van driver; Will you be paying Strava's increased price? (POLL); Another short cycle lane classic; Bizarre Argentinian mountain stage; New bike day + more on the live blog

cyclisto wrote:

Using a smartphone in a vehicle that doesn't move doesn't seem to me to pose any danger at all. Of course that changes if the drivers start moving.

If this guy with a camera. wants to report really dangerous stuff that happens way too often., he should take a speedometer and monitor speeds

The problem is that it takes a surprisingly long time (shall look for a study on this) for a person to look up from a phone screen and properly process what is going on around their vehicle. A very common behaviour is that drivers will be staring at their phone and notice peripherally that the vehicle in front is starting to move, and so they'll also start moving forwards even though they haven't checked that it is safe to do so.

I don't think police will accept speed readings from the public as the devices are unlikely to be calibrated.

I don't think police will accept speed readings from the public as the devices are unlikely to be calibrated

This is such a useful dodge for the police that it has achieved the status of an axiom: All cyclists are travelling at less than 10mph at all times, except when we're trying to get them for hitting a pedestrian, because we acknowledge no such thing as a bicycle speedometer. Lancashire Constabulary, after I had gone through the complaint process which is doomed from the start, stated that I could have been travelling at less than 10mph all the way here so there was no offence

https://upride.cc/incident/du61vhj_stuartbraithwaitebuilders_dwlcrossclosepass/

I had a similar argument with TVP. They patiently explained that GPS readings were not usable in court. I then suggested that they could confirm the data themselves by averaging my time taken between two fixed points. My argument, I was doing well above the 10mph limit (I was at about 17mph) , was even if they allowed for a high margin of error in the calculation, it would show that I was easily above the 10mph and if presented correctly would surely satisfy even the most sceptical. They then said they didn't have the resources for that....what like a calculator.

For the record I believe that Speedwatch schemes do not result in an FPN unless the driver is caught 3 times. Something that made no logical sense.

They patiently explained that GPS readings were not usable in court

It's another aspect to the same dodge: almost none of these offences are going anywhere near a court, but they still use this as an excuse to not even bother themselves with the joke advice letter, or the joke course. As far as the police are concerned it's always legal to overtake a cyclist and cross single or double unbroken white lines no matter how dangerous the manoeuvre. 

IanMK wrote:

They then said they didn't have the resources for that....what like a calculator.

No. A brain.

IanMK wrote:

 argument, I was doing well above the 10mph limit (I was at about 17mph) , was even if they allowed for a high margin of error in the calculation, it would show that I was easily above the 10mph and if presented correctly would surely satisfy even the most sceptical. They then said they didn't have the resources for that....what like a calculator.

I guarantee you that the majority of people couldn't calculate a speed in MPH and estimate its accuracy, given the distance in metres and the time in seconds. Many wouldn't even know that if you divided the former by the latter you'd have a speed in metres per second and could use Google to convert it to MPH if they didn't know to calculate result x 3600 / 0.3048 / 5280.

Wazzocks of Lincolnshire.

A quick and repeatable calculation from the church to the bridge puts your speed at 25kph.

Have you never seen the whatsapp gap? The distracted driver in the queue who lets a largish gap appear and then either suddenly notices, or is beeped by the vehicle behind and just accelerates forward quickly then without checking if people taking advantage of the stationary traffic are crossing. Plus if they are using their phone in the queue, why would they not then carry on when the speed picks up, especially if they are expecting replies.

Of course this would be dangerous if they kept up while driving even at queue speeds. But the video posted is mostly stationary vehicles (I didn't see it all, in the part I saw all vehicles were stationary)

For me is more dangerous allowable driver behaviors such in a moving car playing with car radio, talking to other passenger or even worse bluetooth talking, even more worse arguing. I will often advice drivers when they break the law and surprisingly often they will accept it (ok not always, so not so sure to advice to other people doing it, as getting rammed is always part of the game), but playing the policeman for such offences that aren't really safety dangers make us seem like Karens. To make things worse, this guy actually creates risks to play the policeman, since he stops when he could possibly block the path of another cyclist, and looks not at the road and potential dangers but at a single stationary car.

As was pointed out twice, the risk comes when the traffic ahead starts moving. They frequently just accelerate, usually faster than usual with the accompanying torque steer, withiut doing any checks before moving that it is safe to do so. 

They frequently just accelerate, usually faster than usual with the accompanying torque steer, withiut doing any checks before moving that it is safe to do so

You can see exactly this on the YH66 UTP link in my post below. Slow to follow the car in front out of Garstang High School onto the main road because he's on the phone, changing gear with left hand, phone in right which therefore cannot be properly in control of the wheel

nosferatu1001 wrote:

As was pointed out twice, the risk comes when the traffic ahead starts moving. They frequently just accelerate, usually faster than usual with the accompanying torque steer, withiut doing any checks before moving that it is safe to do so. 

Whilst that is the biggest issue, it isn't the only issue.  When driving you need need to be fully aware of your surroundings even when stationary. e.g. is there an emergency services vehicle approaching - can you assist by maneouvring your vehicle (hopefully you stopped your vehicle with some room to maneouvre and not just stopped an inch from rear bumper of the vehicle infront).

I did have a debate once with a driver who claimed that they could wait at lights with their eyes shut and still know what was going on around them.

They didn't care much for cyclists either.

hirsute wrote:

I did have a debate once with a driver who claimed that they could wait at lights with their eyes shut and still know as much as they usually do about what was going on around them.

They didn't care much for cyclists either.

Fixed

Hands free should be banned as it is no different from handheld

https://news.stv.tv/west-central/speeding-motorist-john-paul-smith-kille...

The judge: “At the point of the collision you were speeding at 71mph considerably in excess of the limit of 50mph.

“You were conducting a hands-free mobile telephone call, which is not in itself an offence, but is relevant to your reduced attention.

Talking to a passenger does not utilise the same brain area as a phone call and passengers are able to go with the ebb and flow when they realise that the road situation requires driver attention.

HC rule 148 covers your other two situations

Research by the TRL also reveals that there is a difference between a driver holding a conversation with someone in the vehicle and with someone over a phone. When speaking with someone in the vehicle, the driver will prioritise driving over the talk when mental processing is required to compelte a driving action. When speaking over the phone, the opposite is true.

That may be a factor in whether the police decide it's a priority for enforcement. But it's still prohibited. Also, agree with the other comments - the problem is that the distraction doesn't stop when the driver starts moving.  

Plenty of studies on the cognitive distraction lasting well beyond the point of use.

Mark Hodson

"I've been to three fatal #RTC s caused by drivers using phones in stationary traffic, children and the elderly the victims"

there is an app speedcam anywhere https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.speedcamanywhere&hl=en...

but as HP says, not evidential standard

cyclisto wrote:

Using a smartphone in a vehicle that doesn't move doesn't seem to me to pose any danger at all. Of course that changes if the drivers start moving.

If this guy with a camera. wants to report really dangerous stuff that happens way too often., he should take a speedometer and monitor speeds

You could just admit you're a bad driver.  Too many people don't take driving seriously enough, your attitude is absolutely typical of them.

I don't think that is a fair summary of their posts.

Bad drivers don't identify fiddling with the radio or arguing as a problem.

There is extesnive, peer reviewed research into this if you care to look it up. Check out the TRL website. It takes several minutes for the brain to reset from using a phone to text or use the Internet or whatever. For those minutes, it is unsafe for someone to be driving. That is why the law is the way it is. 

Taking whole minutes to recover from using a phone screen seems way too much for me. If such thing existed and proved "scientifically" I would expect at least one article saying "why should you wait 10 minutes before starting your car".

I do admit though that eyes on screen time on a moving car seems like a great distraction, so it makes me huge impression how these huge screens of latest cars haven't yet been somehow regulated.

@Daveyraveygravey relax mate, peace.

It's almost as if motor vehicles and driving was a massive exception now "mass motoring" has been a thing for a while.  Could it even be that there is some kind of pressure to "normalise irregularity" - especially when it comes to new gizmos people might want to sell together with said motor vehicles?

A giant marketing tail wagging the public safety dog.

TBH I think what this all shows - not exactly shockingly - is that we have fixed it so people can take driving far too casually and mostly get away with it.  In some ways I approve - humans are humans! but the cost is that e.g. cyclists and pedestrians have been mostly driven off the roads by fiat.  And if on the roads they've been made to understand it's their responsibility to stay out of the way or otherwise make it easy for drivers - so the KSI rate for them is globally low.  Rate of road deaths is likely stuck as is.

If you believe these addicts are only accessing their current drug of choice only whilst stationary then you are being incredibly naive.

This.

I don't think any will:

Quote:

 That's 72 endorsement points and £2,400 of fines
@PoliceScotland could issue if they'd delivered the fabled dashcam portal. Sadly I don't have two days to report them all the old-fashioned way.

The poster is making the point that Police Scotland's failure to implement new ways of reporting means he doesn't have the time at two hours per submission to do so, so they lose the income and the drivers go unpunished.