# Reporting mobile use while driving



## Twenty Inch (4 Mar 2010)

People in London can report mobile-phone-using drivers on the following form:

http://www.met.police.uk/roadsafelondon/

The form takes about 5 mins to fill in, and can be sent anonymously. It is also relevant for other gross traffic offences. I have sent in several forms and correspondence with the admin officers shows that they are very keen indeed to get details of "those who consider themselves above the law" in their words. There is even a drop-down choice for "cycling near-misses". We should support this effort to change the enforcement environment in favour of the general good.

If people are aware of other schemes around the country, perhaps they could also post details?

Admin, could we have a sticky?

Cheers

TI


----------



## HobbesChoice (4 Mar 2010)

Thank you.


----------



## hackbike 666 (4 Mar 2010)

I will have some of that.


----------



## manalog (4 Mar 2010)

Shame I didn't get the Plate number of the Coach Driver turning in to Jamaica Road from Tower Bridge, it was shocking to see a "Professional" driver on the phone whil turning the steering wheel.


----------



## mr_cellophane (4 Mar 2010)

Great, that's my 2 from last week reported. One twice - close pass and speeding.


----------



## upsidedown (4 Mar 2010)

Looks good, wish they did something like that in the Midlands.


----------



## DJ (4 Mar 2010)

Looks great, thanks.


----------



## Tynan (4 Mar 2010)

hard to see what they can do with it, anon allegation of something that can't be proved?


----------



## mr_cellophane (4 Mar 2010)

Just got a mail back about the first one on here 

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9GVhG7QVfo




> Hi Philip
> Many thanks for the information, and you quite rightly state that this
> vehicle is not insured.
> I will be in contact with the owner imminently
> ...


----------



## Origamist (4 Mar 2010)

mr_cellophane said:


> Just got a mail back about the first one on here
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9GVhG7QVfo




Good cycle cam evidence - looks like the Met site might have some teeth after all. 

When I get a chance, I'll use it...


----------



## mr_cellophane (4 Mar 2010)

She can't get to youtube. So I am just sending her a snapshot for evidence.


----------



## Origamist (4 Mar 2010)

mr_cellophane said:


> She can't get to youtube. So I am just sending her a snapshot for evidence.



Can't you send her a moving image file with the footage?


----------



## BentMikey (4 Mar 2010)

mr_cellophane said:


> Just got a mail back about the first one on here
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9GVhG7QVfo





Oooh well done sir!!


----------



## mr_cellophane (4 Mar 2010)

Origamist said:


> Can't you send her a moving image file with the footage?



Got a failure mail back as the clip was too big for their system.


----------



## BentMikey (4 Mar 2010)

Or upload the clip somewhere she can download it from? I have webspace that you're welcome to put it on. I'll need some sort of access to the clip though.


----------



## 661-Pete (4 Mar 2010)

Twenty Inch said:


> If people are aware of other schemes around the country, perhaps they could also post details?


For those living in *Sussex*, we've had Operation Crackdown for quite a while now. This is for reporting general vehicle crime, not just mobile phones. I must confess I have yet to make my first sortie onto the site , but one day perhaps...


----------



## Twenty Inch (4 Mar 2010)

I made the point badly in the original post - the form IS for all vehicle crime, including stolen, untaxed, uninsured etc. I use it mostly (one a day!) for mobile phone use, as this is what I see most of and is a particular irritant. Give it a go, Pete, but it's a slippery slope....


----------



## Calendula (4 Mar 2010)

If it really does work, it'll be excellent. A close pass this morning and a mobile user, damn their eyes.


----------



## 661-Pete (5 Mar 2010)

Problem, as I see it: if I were really to do the job properly re mobile phones, I'd be 'shopping' just about every fourth or fifth motorist I pass on the road. I don't have the energy, and I think the police would be overwhelmed and have all the more reason not to follow any of them up.

Now, if the initiative were to come _from the police_, say an announcement of some sort of 'clampdown' week, encouraging fellow citizens to grass up on offenders, and if the police diverted extra manpower to deal with the expected influx, that would be different. Of course the regular offenders would be wise to it too...


----------



## beanzontoast (5 Mar 2010)

upsidedown said:


> Looks good, wish they did something like that in the Midlands.



+1. We get plenty of phone-wielding drivers up here as well. Why not roll it out across the UK?


----------



## Twenty Inch (5 Mar 2010)

661-Pete said:


> Problem, as I see it: if I were really to do the job properly re mobile phones, I'd be 'shopping' just about every fourth or fifth motorist I pass on the road. I don't have the energy, and I think the police would be overwhelmed and have all the more reason not to follow any of them up.
> 
> Now, if the initiative were to come _from the police_, say an announcement of some sort of 'clampdown' week, encouraging fellow citizens to grass up on offenders, and if the police diverted extra manpower to deal with the expected influx, that would be different. Of course the regular offenders would be wise to it too...




Absolutely understand both points. However I have accepted I can't report all the phone users I see, so I just do the one whose details I remember until I can write them down. I also don't know why the Met is not making more noise about this initiative, although it's quite possible I've missed some publicity, I'm a bit news-phobic. However it's clear that they are trying to change the environment, and improve enforcement. I feel that if I don't report people, I am contributing to the problem. I have no idea what their research entails, what options are available to them after they research the driver, how long the initiative will last, what sort of evaluation of results will be carried out, or whether they'll be made public. 

However, I've seen the catastrophic effect of using a mobile phone on my driving (I did it once - never again), I and my family have nearly been killed by a phone user doing 80mph across all three lanes of the M2, and I daily see people putting themselves and others in danger with this selfish and illegal behaviour. Why WOULDN'T I report people?


----------



## hackbike 666 (5 Mar 2010)

Good god...Im glad I don't have to use motorways or use them very rarely.I see too many morons in Londinium so I can just imagine what it is like out there.


----------



## Amanda P (5 Mar 2010)

Tynan said:


> hard to see what they can do with it, anon allegation of something that can't be proved?



Commercial vehicles have tachos. A signed tacho chart, plus the mobile phone network's records would be solid evidence for a conviction. (Unless the tacho chart was tampered with, but that's a conviction in itself). The anonymous allegation would just tell them where to start looking and which companies' records to examine.

A couple of officers with the will to push some of these things through could make a difference.


----------



## longers (5 Mar 2010)

While riding to and from work I've been thinking about whether the police could have cycling officers who are equipped with helmet cameras who are out and about as part of crackdowns on mobile phone use. 
I see quite a few drivers on the phone, they might be able to film them in action.

Would it work?


----------



## 661-Pete (5 Mar 2010)

One manoeuvre that really worries me, is _doing a turn_ whilst holding a mobile phone to one's ear. I see it happen, often enough. I know my driving lessons were a long time ago, but I'm pretty sure I had it drummed into me: when turning a corner *both hands* on the steering wheel no matter what (I think my instructor 'explained' this to me, when I tried to change gear while turning...).


----------



## Twenty Inch (5 Mar 2010)

Email conversation with the admin officer shows that they pass commercial vehicle details on to the relevant companies, and for private cars they check ownership, insurance, tax, licence, and the "many other databases available to us" and the results of these checks determine their approach.

The officer also says that they often receive links to youtube footage - perhaps they can now access it?


----------



## Debian (5 Mar 2010)

The crux of the problem is that there is practically zero enforcement of any motoring offence apart from those caught on speed / light cameras. Therefore drivers are lulled into a sense of security that they can get away with things.

If there were to be a real crackdown on the minor motoring offences then the message would get around that one is quite likely to get caught.

For example, look at the number of idiots who drive with front fogs/spots on, cars with one headlight not working, rear/brake lights not working, etc. How many times do you see or hear of anyone being collared for such offences? - practically never. Now these offences are easy to spot, mr traffic officer doesn't even have to be able to see inside the vehicle to spot the offence so there's no reason / excuse for such vehicles not being pulled but they never are. This just reinforces the mindset that "it's only a traffic offence and we'll probably not get caught anyway" and that mindset then moves up the chain to mobile use, drink driving, etc.

What is needed is a zero tolerance program towards these offences; if traffic cops pulled and booked the driver of every offending vehicle they saw then I'm sure the message would get around.


----------



## gaz (5 Mar 2010)

I reported 
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HlJNodCgKM
2 weeks ago, apart from the inital response i had nothing. Chased the met up today via the general phone line, seamed to get a positive response and they are chasing up what has happened so far. Again i'm hoping i hear something.

On a side note, the two people i spoke to at the met had never heard of this page.


----------



## hackbike 666 (5 Mar 2010)

Another one is intimidation/bullying using a traffic vehicle.


----------



## HLaB (5 Mar 2010)

I found out today, that an apple could be worse than a mobile (perhaps it was an edible iphone) ,however at least they are visible giving you plenty of time to cover the brakes.


----------



## zacklaws (5 Mar 2010)

I followed a car one day whilst the driver had his phone pinned to his left ear. When he slowed down to turn right, I could not work out how he must be changing down through the gears, until I went up his inside and looked and saw that the woman in the passenger seat was doing it.


----------



## Tinuts (5 Mar 2010)

Twenty Inch said:


> The officer also says that they often receive links to youtube footage - perhaps they can now access it?



I reported this incident:


View: http://www.youtube.com/user/TiNuts?feature=mhw4#p/a/u/0/UEmvycwXSEo


and received this in reply:

"Thank you for your email and Youtube link, we are currently looking into
the company"

It would appear that the Youtube links are now acceptable.


----------



## Tinuts (5 Mar 2010)

longers said:


> While riding to and from work I've been thinking about whether the police could have cycling officers who are equipped with helmet cameras who are out and about as part of crackdowns on mobile phone use.
> I see quite a few drivers on the phone, they might be able to film them in action.
> 
> Would it work?



Why wouldn't it work? They should have un-marked Police cyclists with head cams the same way they have un-marked cars. All it takes is the will from the Police Force to actually put this in motion. The only reason these antisocial morons use mobiles whilst driving in the first place is because of the perception that there is little risk of getting caught. I'd love to be there to see the face of the first one who gets shopped.......


----------



## longers (5 Mar 2010)

Tinuts said:


> Why wouldn't it work?



It makes sense to me but I might not have thought it through properly. 

Some media coverage to say it's going to be done even though that shouldn't be necessary, a couple of hours a day on the bike for a few days in a variety of locations and then a bit of watching the playback leading to a few letters through the post. 

If an officer was positioned filming drivers on foot then they'd see them there and drop the phone in time, same for police cars but I doubt they'd notice another person on a bike, especially if in plain clothes, whether that's Hi Viz or not.


----------



## BentMikey (5 Mar 2010)

661-Pete said:


> One manoeuvre that really worries me, is _doing a turn_ whilst holding a mobile phone to one's ear. I see it happen, often enough. I know my driving lessons were a long time ago, but I'm pretty sure I had it drummed into me: when turning a corner *both hands* on the steering wheel no matter what (I think my instructor 'explained' this to me, when I tried to change gear while turning...).



Althought it's not good, I don't think that's the big risk. The problem comes from the mental investment in the phone conversation, and thus not in driving the car or doing the limited planning ahead that most drivers seem to do. This is why handsfree are just about as dangerous as handheld.


----------



## Landslide (5 Mar 2010)

Tinuts said:


> ...They should have un-marked Police cyclists with head cams...


Depending on your job, it may be worth seeing if you have "power of witness" (IIRC).

A friend of mine worked for his local council's Environmental Health department, and as such was deemed to be trustworthy enough to report drivers for littering etc. Quite useful in what would otherwise be a "one person's word against another's" situations.


----------



## hackbike 666 (6 Mar 2010)

I wish the cops would take this mobile phone usage serious.Heavy fines...penalty points and bans till these idiots learn that it isn't on to endanger other people.

Companies should also be fined when their employees use a marked van while driving along.Say 5 grand may help them get the message.Clamp down hard to eradicate it.

They are quick to enforce the smoking ban so why can't they do it with mobile phones?


----------



## Twenty Inch (6 Mar 2010)

Hurrah! A sticky - thanks Admin.


----------



## Pip (6 Mar 2010)

Uncle Phil said:


> Commercial vehicles have tachos. A signed tacho chart, plus the mobile phone network's records would be solid evidence for a conviction. (Unless the tacho chart was tampered with, but that's a conviction in itself). The anonymous allegation would just tell them where to start looking and which companies' records to examine.
> 
> A couple of officers with the will to push some of these things through could make a difference.



I doubt it would be enough for a conviction - 'I was using a hands free guv.'

Until driving with handsfree is made illegal as well (Which I don't see happening anytime soon, for better or worse) all a tacho and phone bill proves is that a phone was in use while the vehicle was in motion, not the manner of it's use.


----------



## Amanda P (8 Mar 2010)

Twenty Inch said:


> Email conversation with the admin officer shows that they pass commercial vehicle details on to the relevant companies, and for private cars they check ownership, insurance, tax, licence, and the "many other databases available to us" and the results of these checks determine their approach.



This suggests that no-one would actually be convicted for using a phone while driving on the testimony of a (possibly anonymous) tip. Just that a tip-off for phone use would attract the attention of the police to other possible violations. 

That's good news and bad news, but better than nothing.



Pip said:


> I doubt it would be enough for a conviction - 'I was using a hands free guv.'



Good point. But see above...

So, as long as I keep up to date with my tax, insurance etc, and look out for police officers, I can continue using my mobile while driving with little fear of being caught or punished - right?


----------



## redjedi (10 Mar 2010)

This is a step in the right direction, and mobile phone use while driving really annoys me.

There is an easy way to catch offenders though. They just need to position a camera by the side of the road and set it to record. They would catch hundreds of offenders every day. Add a fine to the offence and they could really boost their annual budget, and hopefully put people off using their mobiles while driving, all for the cost of a few cameras.
you can stand outside my office on a busy road for 5 minutes and sometimes see more mobile phone users than non-users.

Makes you wonder if it's actually against the law or not.


----------



## hackbike 666 (11 Mar 2010)

No it's called driving without due care and attention.If it isn't going to stamped on then it isn't going to be stopped.


----------



## postman (13 Mar 2010)

Good about time .I could shop loads here in Leeds .King Lane ,Stonegate Road ,ScottHall Road .
All major roads .With Schools on .


----------



## vorsprung (26 Mar 2010)

redjedi said:


> This is a step in the right direction, and mobile phone use while driving really annoys me.
> 
> There is an easy way to catch offenders though. They just need to position a camera by the side of the road and set it to record. They would catch hundreds of offenders every day. Add a fine to the offence and they could really boost their annual budget, and hopefully put people off using their mobiles while driving, all for the cost of a few cameras.
> you can stand outside my office on a busy road for 5 minutes and sometimes see more mobile phone users than non-users.
> ...



There are thousands of CCTV camera across Britian but there is still antisocial behaviour in town centres.
Spying on people is often not the best solution


----------



## BentMikey (26 Mar 2010)

It's not spying, because you're on the public highway.


----------



## Origamist (31 Mar 2010)

Interesting reply on BR to a question about video use/links by Roadsafe (my bolds):




> Thank you for raising this, you may not be aware but the ROADSAFE system is in the development stages where we are ironing out many issues before we launch it for the whole of London.
> 
> *This was not something we had thought of and is a very valid point. We have discussed the issue and from now on when we have been given evidence via a 'you tube' or other public domain link (If we think the informants details could not be found from it) we will indeed be including the link details if we send out a letter to the driver. *
> 
> ...


----------



## Vikeonabike (6 Apr 2010)

London Firm Sacks driver after complaing to Road safe website.

It would appear results are starting to come in!


----------



## mr_cellophane (6 Apr 2010)

He had a camera installed in his van and he still drove badly, what a complete arse !


----------



## BentMikey (6 Apr 2010)

Nice one! That's exactly the sort of reaction I want to see to bad driving.


----------



## gaz (6 Apr 2010)

Good response by the company, i just wish road safe would do more than just write letters!!


----------



## gavintc (6 Apr 2010)

Over here in Naples, mobile phone use is common and almost a requirement. This does allow some degree of analysis of driving competence and without any doubt I can comment that driving standards definitely deteriorate when a driver is using a mobile. The most common error is wandering from the lane on a dual carriageway.


----------



## Origamist (6 Apr 2010)

London firm sacks driver after complaint from cyclist to police website

http://road.cc/content/news/16230-london-firm-sacks-driver-after-complaint-cyclist-police-website


----------



## Vikeonabike (6 Apr 2010)

Origamist said:


> London firm sacks driver after complaint from cyclist to police website
> 
> http://road.cc/content/news/16230-london-firm-sacks-driver-after-complaint-cyclist-police-website





Sorry Ori...beat ya by 5 posts...


----------



## Origamist (7 Apr 2010)

Vikeonabike said:


> Sorry Ori...beat ya by 5 posts...



Damn you Vik

Here's the detail from the cyclist and roadsafe: 

http://www.lfgss.com/post1277835-82.html


----------



## siadwell (7 Apr 2010)

Origamist said:


> London firm sacks driver after complaint from cyclist to police website
> 
> http://road.cc/content/news/16230-london-firm-sacks-driver-after-complaint-cyclist-police-website



Just goes to show that some people can't help themselves. The driver must have known there was a camera in the van, but he still acted like a nob.


----------



## Jezston (9 Apr 2010)

"our director cycles to work daily"

Hmm, I wonder if it would have got such a good result if that wasn't the case.

If the director had been some BMW driving, Daily Mail reading twatend he'd probably have told the driver to try harder next time.


----------



## gaz (24 Apr 2010)

I got an e-mail from Road Safe.. the contents as following



> Dear Sir
> I would like to thank you for the interest you have shown in the RoadsafeLondon (RSL) reporting system and for providing information via the website.
> RSL is a new system aimed at getting information to help tackle dangerous and poor driving on London’s roads, it is currently in a pilot stage and under constant review to develop aspects to ensure that it is fit for purpose.
> Aspects currently under review are areas such as the initial acknowledgement to the informant, together with several fields to obtain further details of the incident.
> ...



My Response


> Thanks for contacting me, i appreciate what your trying to achieve and the effort the road safe team are putting into this.
> 
> Could you please expand on what you mean by 'your style of riding presents unnecessary risk to yourself and others'
> One of the reasons i got my camera was to not only educate my self on how i can be a better cyclist but to also point out to others how we are sometimes treated on the roads. Clearly your service provides an assistance with the later. But I'm hoping you can be a third eye and give me some advice on how i can cycle safer.



I'm grateful to be called an experienced cyclist, and whilst i sometimes feel like i didn't take control of the road, i don't feel like i take unnecessary risks. 

I'm currently waiting for a response.


----------



## mr_cellophane (24 Apr 2010)

I passed 3 out of 7 drivers on the phone within 200 yards today. I was driving as well so no chance of me getting the reg of any of them.


----------



## BentMikey (24 Apr 2010)

I hate that sort of bland response, Gaz. I'd like to see answers on specific incidents that they thought were risky, and why. My bet is that it'll prove to be nothing more than driver-oriented road use ignorance, rather than your poor riding. Unfamiliarity with what is currently considered best cycling practice.


----------



## gaz (26 Apr 2010)

The Response i got


> It is very difficult to be specific without showing the points as they happen on your videos. As a long term traffic officer riding police motorcycles on the roads of London over the last 24 years I have seen a lot of poor driving and riding.
> 
> One of the regular things I and my colleagues have noted is your riding plan. You do look ahead but when you see an incident developing you fail to take the 'I might get hurt' option of slowing down a bit or moving over a bit etc. As I said in my letter you have as much right to the roads as other road users but you do need to read more of what's around you.
> 
> I would be happy to go through some of your journeys end to end and make some observations for you, unfortunately I run the road crime intelligence unit and cannot grant you access to my office but if you were to load your video onto a lap top (Or a DVD to save you carrying a lap top) I can arrange a meeting room at Empress state building and go thought it with you.


I don't agree with him on my planning, i always look ahead and take my time when it comes to traffic and roads and i never rush through. I also give way where i can to avoid an incident.

I've yet to respond but am tempted to take him up on his offer.


----------



## magnatom (26 Apr 2010)

A fascinating response! If I was you I would take him up on the offer. I would be really interesting to find out what they constitute as poor riding etc. 

If you were willing you could post the sections that he has discussed and we could debate them here. It would be an interesting and valuable learning excercise for us all (if you are willing!).


----------



## Bollo (26 Apr 2010)

That is a top response. Deffo take him up on his offer. 

If he's a motorcycle cop but doesn't ride the non-motorised kind, it would also be interesting to take him out on a ride so that he could fully appreciate the differences.


----------



## Amanda P (26 Apr 2010)

Do it, Gaz. I'd love to be there - but we can't all fit in one office.

Perhaps you can do as Mags suggests and that'd be the next best thing.


----------



## mr_cellophane (26 Apr 2010)

He is probably mistaking the camera view for your view and forgetting that, although you move your head, which can be seen on video, you also move your eyes.


----------



## BentMikey (26 Apr 2010)

Yeah do it Gaz!! His time and experience has got to be worth a mint. Make sure you take notes! I'd be tempted offer him a meal at a restaurant.


----------



## Ashtrayhead (26 Apr 2010)

Take him up on his offer! They have 2 excellent restaurants at Empress State Building too.


----------



## hackbike 666 (1 May 2010)

gaz said:


> The Response i got
> I don't agree with him on my planning, i always look ahead and take my time when it comes to traffic and roads and i never rush through. I also give way where i can to avoid an incident.
> 
> I've yet to respond but am tempted to take him up on his offer.



I wouldn't take offense with what he says....he seems to know what he is talking about as opposed to this website where cyclists even unexperienced ones seem to take offense if you aren't riding primary every second of the day.

I think I would like to hear what he has to say and im sure there are weaknesses in my riding...it has been pointed out on here about a million times.


----------



## gaz (1 May 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> I wouldn't take offense with what he says....he seems to know what he is talking about as opposed to this website where cyclists even unexperienced ones seem to take offense if you aren't riding primary every second of the day.
> 
> I think I would like to hear what he has to say and im sure there are weaknesses in my riding...it has been pointed out on here about a million times.



Thats one reason why i got a camera, to learn how to ride better. Defiantly taking him up on it, just need to organise a date i can sneak away from the office. Don't worry i will report back.


----------



## hackbike 666 (1 May 2010)

gaz said:


> Thats one reason why i got a camera, to learn how to ride better. Defiantly taking him up on it, just need to organise a date i can sneak away from the office. Don't worry i will report back.



Yeah sounds great...this is interesting.


----------



## BentMikey (1 May 2010)

Don't be too defiant, the police will attitude adjust you!


----------



## Vikeonabike (2 May 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Don't be too defiant, the police will *attitude adjust* you!



Yes.....I carry attitude adjustment tools (mk1 extendible and mk2 multi target) on my belt kit all the time for adjusting the attitudes of the defiant!


----------



## Jaguar (2 May 2010)

mr_cellophane said:


> He had a camera installed in his van and he still drove badly, what a complete arse !


 Just goes to show how confident he was at not getting caught, or perhaps he thought he was justified in his behaviour. I've discussed the incident on another (not cycling) forum and was shot down in flames for it: the general driving public honestly does think that cyclists get what they deserve, ie abuse



mr_cellophane said:


> I passed 3 out of 7 drivers on the phone within 200 yards today. I was driving as well so no chance of me getting the reg of any of them.


I used to get alongside them and flash my camera (not actually take a photo, just fire off the flash) at offenders (hubby driving, me passenger). Their reactions are usually quite amusing. 
I've done it on ASBO kids too, terrorising my old mum: gone out with my camera, calm as anything, just said "smile" and fired the flash. They scarpered PDQ and didn't bother her again. Much more effective than shouting & swearing


----------



## Crankarm (9 May 2010)

Just come back from marshalling a road race. I stopped to allow an oncoming car to pass as road was obstructed by parked cars. As the car approached saw it was one of those big Audi Estate cars and the driver was a stupid fat peroxide blond b***h yaking away on her mobile phone !!!!!! She didn't even slow or make any acknowledgement toward me, so blew the car horn so it will be on the phone record if she causes an accident elsewhere.

Then ......... about 30 seconds down the road coming toward me another huge vehicle this time a Ford C Max people carrier starts to drift onto my side of the road. I again have to sound the horn to avoid a head on collision. The driver a stupid fat brunette b***h only has her mobile phone glued to her ear !!!!!!!

What is it with stupid fat women in people carriers who feel the need to use their mobile phones whilst driving? Do they think their vehicle won't start or run with out them talking on their mobile phones??!! 

The road race was great. Ours must have been the cleanest stretch of road in Cambridgeshire. Of course a plod car had to pass by against race direction, plus a seriously big feck off tractor being driven at speed, a couple of large horses with very sturdy female riders on board, several groups of club riders riding against the race direction (Muppets or what. We told them a road race was going on, but they ignored us). A few dogs out for walks with militant 4x4 driving owners. Not the sort of obstacles you would really want to confront right in front of you riding at 30mph in a large group.

Anyway rant over. Stand easy.


----------



## manualtypist (14 May 2010)

Ok not sure where to put this...but as it's mobile phone related I'll put it here.

Yesterday when cycling around Russell Square in London, I was literally left with my jaw dropping to the floor.
Policeman behind the wheel of a police van...driving...and low and behold...holing a mobile phone to his ear and chatting away!

Have I missed something here? Are police exempt from the law?
And yes I am totally sure it was a mobile phone and not the walki-talki thing.

I didn't get a number plate though.


----------



## manualtypist (16 May 2010)

> If you're responding to an emergency then you are exempt. Doesn't sound like your scuffer was though.



Nope, he certainly didn't seem to be in any sort of a hurry...just casually cruising around with one hand on the steering wheel...


----------



## Vikeonabike (16 May 2010)

> If you're responding to an emergency *and there is no other option but to carry on driving *then you are exempt



Fixed that for you


----------



## hackbike 666 (18 May 2010)

Of course if it's a walkie talkie it's perfectly fine.


----------



## Vikeonabike (18 May 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> Of course if it's a walkie talkie it's perfectly fine.



But not if it's a mobile on loudspeaker...see


----------



## manalog (21 May 2010)

I reported this guy today navigating a mini Roundabout while on his Mobile.


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RY_uKVMtp8


----------



## hackbike 666 (21 May 2010)

They dont care about a knob using a mobile in a car plus they cant enforce the law or dont want to.


----------



## Vikeonabike (21 May 2010)

manalog said:


> I reported this guy today navigating a mini Roundabout while on his Mobile.
> 
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RY_uKVMtp8



Who too Manalog? Police?


----------



## manalog (23 May 2010)

Vikeonabike said:


> Who too Manalog? Police?


I reported this one to Roadsafe. I have footage of a 4X4 driver on his Mobile but its not very clear so I din't bother.


----------



## astrocan (29 Jun 2010)

gaz said:


> The Response i got
> I don't agree with him on my planning, i always look ahead and take my time when it comes to traffic and roads and i never rush through. I also give way where i can to avoid an incident.
> 
> I've yet to respond but am tempted to take him up on his offer.



Did you get the meeting Gaz?
How did it go?

My impression from his letter is that he certainly has a lot of experience with cars and motor cyles but does he ride a bike?
While taking the ' I might get hurt' approach is very safety concious it means that cycles have to give way to every muppet in a box and so enforce their attitude that they own the road.

I would be interested to hear his opinion of their driving standards.


----------



## gaz (29 Jun 2010)

astrocan said:


> Did you get the meeting Gaz?
> How did it go?
> 
> My impression from his letter is that he certainly has a lot of experience with cars and motor cyles but does he ride a bike?
> ...


I did, it was very good.

I met with several of the staff there, all traffic cops, all with great experience with HGV's, cars and motorbikes. And one was a cyclist who also has muvi.

The i might get hurt approach is often a good one, and i go by it most of the time. Sometimes i stand my ground, but only when i know i have an escape route if everything goes tits up.


----------



## Dunbar (2 Aug 2010)

upsidedown said:


> Looks good, wish they did something like that in the Midlands.



Hi Upsidedown,

They do have a process in the Midlands (or anywhere else for that matter), but it means a visit to the station. 

If you go to this trouble, ask to see a Police Officer, or even the Duty Inspector. If you have the time, place of the offence, and the registered number of the car, and you are prepared to give evidence in Court, then you are unlikely to be fobbed off. 

Should you feel you are being fobbed off, just ask for the Officer's name and number and then write an official letter, (recorded delivery) to the appropriate Chief Constable. There's no need to feel intimidated by this procedure. In any case as soon as you ask the Officer for his or her details they will guess why you want to know. It's up to you if you wish to put across your point, about the seriousness of this offence.

But somehow, I don't think it will come to that. At the moment the Police seem to be engaging in a little 'war' against these idiots who use phones whilst driving. 

Regards 

John


----------



## Dunbar (2 Aug 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> They dont care about a knob using a mobile in a car plus they cant enforce the law or dont want to.



Hi Hack, 



Presumably by 'they' you mean the Police. 

Please don't take this the wrong way but:

I can only refer you to my above post. 

Yes, it is a difficult law to enforce, and in any case there was plenty of legislation in place to deal with it, before it became an outright offence in itself. 

You can't blame the Police for the problems in enforcing it though. Blame the muddled thinking of the lawmakers who cause these problems. 

The Police can't issue a ticket on the evidence of a third party. They can take the driver to Court though, so I repeat, if you are prepared to stand up in Court and say your piece, you can strike a blow. 

If not, then there isn't much point in complaining my friend.

regards
John


----------



## hackbike 666 (3 Aug 2010)

I would definitely be prepared to stand up in court...especially if there is an accident but I think we are on to a losing battle here.

Who are these lawmaker people?

Also with today's society I think we are onto another loser here because people can't really see what they are doing wrong or actually see how it affects their driving....

Sorry about slagging the police I know they do a great job...It's just bore out of frustration of seeing the same old p155 takers who are quite happy to risk peoples lives just so the can talk 5h1t on a mobile phone.

Cheers.


----------



## Tinuts (7 Aug 2010)

hackbike 666 said:


> I would definitely be prepared to stand up in court...especially if there is an accident but I think we are on to a losing battle here.
> 
> Who are these lawmaker people?
> 
> ...



Yes, I quite agree. I encountered some chav female driver earlier this week - mobile in one hand cig in the other - amazing she could actually keep her mind on the driving so I requested she get off the phone as I passed. I'm sure you can guess the response. Anyway, I encountered her again 15 or so minutes later at a junction where she's sitting at the lights still texting on the phone so had another go. Similar F***off response, obviously, so reported the idiot's number & details to Roadsafe but really, who knows if they actually do anything about it? 

I think the frustrating thing is I remember well when the Police used to go on one of their regular drink-drive assaults where, if you were out driving after a particular time you could expect a copper to leap into the road with his hand up forcing you to stop so he could ask you a few questions while trying to detect any alcohol fumes present. Beats me why they can't carry out the same sort of campaign aimed at mobile users. All you have to do is stand at any junction and you'll see the mobile morons as they drive past. They are both plentiful and blatant.

Unfortunately we seem to have descended to a level where the Police appear to have almost given up on any attempt at prevention. Sure, if you are found to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol or have been using a mobile at the time of an accident you'll get the book thrown at you - and quite deservedly so. The trouble is that there appears to be very little visible attempt at preventing people from behaving in what is, to say the least, a socially unacceptable and potentially downright dangerous way in order to prevent such accidents happening in the first place. So, unsurprisingly, the sort of driver who thinks that the accident-waiting-to-happen-because-they're-on-the-phone will never happen to them will just carry on doing it - until it's too late. It's a combination of denial of responsibility for one's actions with a feeling that you're unlikely to get caught anyway.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Aug 2010)

Where's the video, TiNuts?


----------



## Tinuts (7 Aug 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Where's the video, TiNuts?


I'm afraid it wasn't really good enough to post. Although I could clearly see the woman's actions the video wasn't so hot. Just back on the bike after a few months and I'm afraid I'm desisting from posting anything that isn't absolutely either a) very damning or b) very positive! Don't worry though, as I now have a rearward facing cam also there *will* be something new posted as soon as I can work out how to do the split screen thing.


----------



## hackbike 666 (7 Aug 2010)

The trouble with car drivers today as they see it as a god given right to drive and so they tend to drive how they feel like,knowing they will probably get away with it and nothing will be done.

I see more and more early morning RLJing* from car drivers but seeing as there is no-one around apart from an idiot cyclist this seems to be ok.I have to really keep my eyes peeled.

*=I wonder where they got this from.


----------



## Grendel (16 Aug 2010)

Debian said:


> The crux of the problem is that there is practically zero enforcement of any motoring offence apart from those caught on speed / light cameras. Therefore drivers are lulled into a sense of security that they can get away with things.
> 
> If there were to be a real crackdown on the minor motoring offences then the message would get around that one is quite likely to get caught.
> 
> ...



Regularly, and indeed have been stopped myself. You will be issued with a HORT/1 form, and have to present your documents and a certificate stating the vehicle has been repaired, at a local police station.
Having been stopped for a blown bulb I replaced it and took it to the police station with my docs. On asking that they look and see that my brake lights were now working, they refused, as they "aren't qualified to confirm they work". "That's strange" I said, "You are qualified to say they don't work, but not to say they are"?


----------



## SquareDaff (9 Sep 2010)

I see loads of drivers on mobiles whilst cycling in Leeds. However I'm pretty sure that if I sent in my camera footage to the police it'd be ignored as it would be inadmissable (or equivalent excuse). We have police on bikes so was thinking the other night....why don't they fit cameras too??!?! If they saw half the number of offenders I do then the police coffers would start to swell from the fines in no time. And you could hardly argue with the validity of the evidence then could you?!?!?


----------



## davefb (9 Sep 2010)

Tinuts said:


> I'm afraid it wasn't really good enough to post. Although I could clearly see the woman's actions the video wasn't so hot. Just back on the bike after a few months and I'm afraid I'm desisting from posting anything that isn't absolutely either a) very damning or b) very positive! Don't worry though, as I now have a rearward facing cam also there *will* be something new posted as soon as I can work out how to do the split screen thing.



surprised your camera still works after the damage that must be caused by that horn  . its certainly making my ears bleed watching your youtube channel with headphones on !


----------



## BSRU (9 Sep 2010)

SquareDaff said:


> I see loads of drivers on mobiles whilst cycling in Leeds. However I'm pretty sure that if I sent in my camera footage to the police it'd be ignored as it would be inadmissable (or equivalent excuse). We have police on bikes so was thinking the other night....why don't they fit cameras too??!?! If they saw half the number of offenders I do then the police coffers would start to swell from the fines in no time. And you could hardly argue with the validity of the evidence then could you?!?!?



I was told by a copper that they think you would use your Steven Spielberg editing software to implicate someone out of spite, even a complete stranger.


----------



## Tinuts (9 Sep 2010)

davefb said:


> surprised your camera still works after the damage that must be caused by that horn  . its certainly making my ears bleed watching your youtube channel with headphones on !


There's a lesson to be learned there then.


----------



## porteous (21 Sep 2010)

I think most of these reporting systems are about building up an intelligence picture. One report can be ignored, but five or six or sixty begin to put a real question over that driver's behaviour and they go on the "stop and have a chat" list perhaps?

I wish more areas had an online report systems, especially for mobile phone stupidity and near misses!


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (2 Oct 2010)

porteous said:


> I think most of these reporting systems are about building up an intelligence picture. One report can be ignored, but five or six or sixty begin to put a real question over that driver's behaviour and they go on the "stop and have a chat" list perhaps?
> 
> I wish more areas had an online report systems, especially for mobile phone stupidity and near misses!




Sussex Police's "Operation Crackdown" works on the principle that they "have a word" with someone who has two separate reports.


----------



## Timmy201 (13 Oct 2010)

So glad there is a reporting system - you see this so often in London and I've got really frustrated with no police around - grinds my gears so to speak. I shall now be carrying my little video camera around with me everywhere!


----------



## marmalade400 (22 Oct 2010)

I wonder if moble use whist driving will be targeted by the latest Police endeavour; known as Operation "Let's Not Bother" :-
Link


----------



## campbellab (27 Oct 2010)

In the car today - WMV infront sat for 10 seconds after light went green because he was on mobile. Saw him clearly in his wing mirror because he then took a poor line around the roundabout. Then an the next roundabout/traffic lights car behind on mobile all the way down sliproad and onto the M4. Don't really have a mechanism to record details in the car, short of pulling out the mobile phone and writing a text!  

I wonder how much better the roads could be if most people had onboard video recording, would be good for any insurance claims at least


----------



## the snail (29 Oct 2010)

How about getting together and organising a joint operation - maybe set up sommewhere with video / photographer, maybe 3 people to provide moral support, as visible as possible. Three people's evidence would carry more weight, and even if no convictions result it would be good publicity - if enough drivers get wound up it might be newsworthy even?


----------



## Origamist (1 Nov 2010)

*Check out the this reply - it gives you data on how Roadsafe is operating:*



> 1.
> How many peoples have visited the site since its inception?
> 
> 
> ...



http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/efficacy_of_roadsafe_website


----------



## gaz (2 Nov 2010)

damn it origamist!!!!!!!!
I just got passed that yesterday and wrote about it on my blog today.


----------



## Tinuts (21 Nov 2010)

So, out of 530 *Cycling 'Near Miss' *reports we have the astounding figure of *21 cycle intelligence reports passed to the newly formed cycle team.*
*
*
It's great to be taken seriously.........


----------



## subaqua (22 Nov 2010)

Tinuts said:


> So, out of 530 *Cycling 'Near Miss' *reports we have the astounding figure of *21 cycle intelligence reports passed to the newly formed cycle team.*
> *
> *
> It's great to be taken seriously.........



the cycle team focuses not just on crime against cyclists , but also crimes commited by cyclists.

It saddens me to see cyclists that just don't know the "rules of the road" . they are the ones who let us all down. 

I have the privelige of possesing Car licence, PCV licence and a LGV licence, there are idiots out there in all forms and they are thankfully the minority. but its the minority that you remember. the amount of us cyclists who still sit in a vehicles blind spot is terrifying, but stop next to them for a chat and they turn into a lycra lout. fine mate, only trying to save your life.


----------



## the snail (29 Dec 2010)

subaqua said:


> It saddens me to see cyclists that just don't know the "rules of the road" . they are the ones who let us all down.



I've been looking out for mobile offenders over the last few weeks, apart from a taxi-driver, the only other offender I've spotted was.... a cyclist (riding on the pavement of course)


----------



## croyde (5 Jan 2011)

Wish they would do the same for shitting dog owners. Walking the kids to school was the usual fecal minefield this morning. Disgusting!!


----------



## turnout (6 Jan 2011)

croyde said:


> Wish they would do the same for shitting dog owners. Walking the kids to school was the usual fecal minefield this morning. Disgusting!!




Blimey! It's bad enough when the dogs poo everywhere, let alone the owners.


----------



## BSRU (13 Jan 2011)

the snail said:


> I've been looking out for mobile offenders over the last few weeks, apart from a taxi-driver, the only other offender I've spotted was.... a cyclist (riding on the pavement of course)



It's not illegal to use a mobile while riding a bicycle, the law only relates to motorised vehicles.


----------



## Hockeynut (1 Feb 2011)

croyde said:


> Wish they would do the same for shitting dog owners. Walking the kids to school was the usual fecal minefield this morning. Disgusting!!



This is what we need for that.


----------



## Merlin (2 Feb 2011)

On at least one occasion I've seen a woman with a fag in one hand and mobile in the other turning right at traffic lights. Anyone know if South Wales police have a similar facility?


----------



## newb (2 Feb 2011)

They should do something like that in merseyside. I have a few mates that are coppers and I have had a discussion over this thread.
My mates all hate mobile phone drivers. They have told me that when they see someone on the road using a phone, they get a ticket no questions asked. They did however tell me that it is really hard to spot someone on the phone when you are driving a bright yellow van with massive blue lights on top.

I think someone hit the nail on the head. This site is a great idea for intelligence purposes. If there is a repeat location which for some unknown reason people use there phones more on (or commit other offences) then the Police become aware of this location and can plan accordingly.
(plain clothes operations etc).

Inteligence wise this site is superb Im going to suggest the local plod adopt it.


----------



## onyurbike (2 Feb 2011)

I will look into this one hope, they have something like that in Scotland


----------



## McrJ64 (7 Feb 2011)

I've only just noticed this thread and it's really interesting. I'm going to contact the Greater Manchester police to see what their attitude is to such reports. We need something up here badly! I would be careful not to confront them too much though as it will just get their backs up. 

Their answer: 

One of the regular things I and my colleagues have noted is your riding plan. You do look ahead but when you see an incident developing you fail to take the 'I might get hurt' option of slowing down a bit or moving over a bit etc. As I said in my letter you have as much right to the roads as other road users but you do need to read more of what's around you.

indicates to me that they think cyclists should give way / move over whenever there is a vehicle around. If we do that, we teach motorists that they can do what they want and we will concede right of way. When they meet someone who doesn't give way, smack! 

Carry on the great work.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Mar 2011)

Just got a message from DukeOfBelgravia begging me to take down the video of a Pedder Properties employee on the phone, suggesting that the consequences of senior management seeing her video would be far worse than her driving on the phone. Whilst he's right, she didn't actually drive on the phone as we were waiting at a red light, I'm certain she would happily have carried on and driven off when the lights changed, had I not said anything.

I don't think I'll be responding or taking the video down. Consequences are there for a reason, plus I've been drinking bitter lemon.


----------



## recumbentpanda (15 Mar 2011)

Couple of days ago, while cycling into town, I overtook a bloke in charge of a vehicle of enormous length and several tons burden, him doing at least twice the speed limit while deep in conversation on his mobile phone. 

Yes, I overtook him. The speed limit in question was 4mph and the vehicle was a canal narrowboat . . .


----------



## gaz (22 Mar 2011)

SORTED!!!!!
I got the main description box to be extended, we can now add as much text as we like


----------



## DamoDoublemint (14 Apr 2011)

gaz said:


> SORTED!!!!!
> I got the main description box to be extended, we can now add as much text as we like



Really? I've just filled out the form, and the description box didn't take very much text, a lot less than the last time I used it (I think I'm quite verbose in my descriptions). I ended up putting it in one of the other boxes (think it was driver's address!), as it was the only one that would accept more than a few words... I pointed this out in the description.


----------



## gaz (14 Apr 2011)

DamoDoublemint said:


> Really? I've just filled out the form, and the description box didn't take very much text, a lot less than the last time I used it (I think I'm quite verbose in my descriptions). I ended up putting it in one of the other boxes (think it was driver's address!), as it was the only one that would accept more than a few words... I pointed this out in the description.



It was fixed, then they reverted it 
i have pointed it out several times to them. Lets hope they fix it sooner rather than later.


----------



## Tinuts (28 Apr 2011)

Just emailed Virgin Media about one of their drivers who I spotted on a mobile this morning. They phoned me back within ten minutes to assure me that my complaint would be dealt with. Would be very nice if RoadSafe did the same.......


----------



## abo (29 Apr 2011)

Tinuts said:


> Just emailed Virgin Media about one of their drivers who I spotted on a mobile this morning. They phoned me back within ten minutes to assure me that my complaint would be dealt with. Would be very nice if RoadSafe did the same.......



I wonder how it will be delt with for real? If it were a random company I suspect there'll be a ticking off if that. But with VM being a phone company, maybe they'll expect their drivers to know better?

Years ago I worked for Orange (the phones not the bikes ) and was a company driver. When the law first came in we were strongly warned that in no uncertain terms if we were caught using a handheld phone we'd be subject to a discliplinery, due to the lovely publicity it would generate if the Sun, Daily Mail etc. got hold of it...


----------



## abo (29 Apr 2011)

User said:


> Use of two way radios is permitted. The evidence shows that these are far less distracting than mobile phones.



Yes, this is how the police 'get around' the law with their Airwave system. Ok, not get around; the law specifically details which frequencies are subject to it. So walkie talkies are not subject to the specific mobile phone law but their use is covered of course by other laws e.g. driving without due care and attention.


----------



## John the Monkey (5 May 2011)

reiver said:


> ...if this is the case how come hands free (a bit of a grey area) appears to be acceptable.


It stems from the (imo, erroneous) perception that driving is predominantly a physical activity.

Most studies (istr a single exception, sponsored by a manufacturer of handsfree kits, coincidentally) indicate that the reduction in hazard perception & reaction times is similar for hands free and hand held. 



> Although I believe you are correct that CB Radios are permitted, I do find it very strange, it does entail holding an object in the hand and not being able to steer correctly.



I'm not sure why the exception exists - I'd speculate that in the case of police radio, a case could be made for the vehicle occupants having recieved additional training and the radio use being focussed on the situation at hand (commentary on a pursuit &c) rather than events at home, what's for tea, or the mood of Chris Moyles. Keeping the drivers' mind "in the vehicle" as it were. Pure speculation, however, and it's quite possibly as unjustifiable as the exception in law that exists for handsfree mobile use.

Edit: Just noticed that regulator posted about the evidence re: these up above, sorry.


----------



## TheCyclingRooster (14 Jun 2011)

Twenty Inch said:


> People in London can report mobile-phone-using drivers on the following form:
> 
> http://www.met.polic...roadsafelondon/
> 
> ...




Hi to you all out there. I myself am a car owner/driver as doubtless many cyclists are. I don't wish to be a " damp squid " on this one but it smells a little of Kettles & Black Pots. I have witnessed a considerable number of cyclist up & down the country using mobile phones whilst on bikes,they have been riding one handed or in some cases no hands at all. These have not been isolated occasions on a cycle pathway but on busy commuter routes with HGV's,buses,coaches etc.
All I can say about this, other than my input at present is, it is a bloody good job the cycles don't as yet carry ID plates like Road Race Cyclists do with their race number.
Wouldn't it be a real tragedy if a Brain Dead mobile phone using cyclist wearing a Head Cam was to record his/her own demise and it was used as a defence to show that they were a victim of their own misgivings.


----------



## BSRU (14 Jun 2011)

TheCyclingRooster said:


> Hi to you all out there. I myself am a car owner/driver as doubtless many cyclists are. I don't wish to be a " damp squid " on this one but it smells a little of Kettles & Black Pots. I have witnessed a considerable number of cyclist up & down the country using mobile phones whilst on bikes,they have been riding one handed or in some cases no hands at all. These have not been isolated occasions on a cycle pathway but on busy commuter routes with HGV's,buses,coaches etc.
> All I can say about this, other than my input at present is, it is a bloody good job the cycles don't as yet carry ID plates like Road Race Cyclists do with their race number.
> Wouldn't it be a real tragedy if a Brain Dead mobile phone using cyclist wearing a Head Cam was to record his/her own demise and it was used as a defence to show that they were a victim of their own misgivings.



There is no specific offence relating to riding a bicycle and using a mobile, as much as I do not like it, it is not against the law.
I do not wish for anyone to have an accident, irrespective of the number of wheels or lack off.


----------



## BentMikey (14 Jun 2011)

I don't think very much of cyclists riding and using the phone, but they are considerably less dangerous to others than drivers on the phone.


----------



## Dan B (14 Jun 2011)

I imagine that using a handheld mobile while riding would usually fall foul of some more general-purpose legislation along the lines of "not being in proper control of the vehicle". But as BRSU says, there's no specific law against it. Whether it is safe or sensible to ride while using a hands-free phone is another discussion, of course


----------



## TheCyclingRooster (14 Jun 2011)

BSRU said:


> There is no specific offence relating to riding a bicycle and using a mobile, as much as I do not like it, it is not against the law.
> I do not wish for anyone to have an accident, irrespective of the number of wheels or lack off.




Hi BSRU. In principle your are correct,however the offence is not simply a matter of; " I've no sense", Me Lud. The real offence is that of, No common sense. The offence of riding a cycle whilst under the Affluence of Incahol is just as balmy. If a cyclist was struck by an intoxicated motorist there would be hell to pay,I wonder what the outcome would be if an intoxicated cyclist was to strike a car?.


----------



## TheCyclingRooster (14 Jun 2011)

BentMikey said:


> I don't think very much of cyclists riding and using the phone, but they are considerably less dangerous to others than drivers on the phone.




Hi BentMikey. How do you figure that one out?. Whilst there is not the mobile lump of metal on the road there were in the many instances that I have witnessed a cyclist on the walkways with pedestrians,mothers with prams & buggies,toddlers all where they should be for their own safetey and some plonker cyclist where he/she shouldn't be, doing something that should not be practised both two counts.


----------



## gaz (14 Jun 2011)

You think the kind of cyclists that a. use cameras b. reports stuff to the police via that form are the kind that would be doing stupid things such as holding a phone to their ear or cycling on the pavement?


----------



## TheCyclingRooster (14 Jun 2011)

gaz said:


> You think the kind of cyclists that a. use cameras b. reports stuff to the police via that form are the kind that would be doing stupid things such as holding a phone to their ear or cycling on the pavement?




Hi gaz. Yes I do,it would further endorse their moronic thinking and behaviour to actually incriminate themselves in their furry to report others.


----------



## gaz (14 Jun 2011)

TheCyclingRooster said:


> Hi gaz. Yes I do,it would further endorse their moronic thinking and behaviour to actually incriminate themselves in their furry to report others.



 are you actually a cyclist?


----------



## BentMikey (15 Jun 2011)

LMAO!!!


----------



## rich p (15 Jun 2011)

TheCyclingRooster said:


> Hi gaz. Yes I do,it would further endorse their moronic thinking and behaviour to actually incriminate themselves in their* furry* to report others.



A furry :troll: ?


----------



## Dan B (15 Jun 2011)

Pretty sure I'd know if being a furry had been made illegal. Xkcd would have said, wouldn't they?


----------



## TheCyclingRooster (15 Jun 2011)

gaz said:


> are you actually a cyclist?




Hi gaz. Yes,I most certainly am,albeit not like I used to be in the 50's & 60's and again in the 80's. Marriage,family & commitments took priority then. I then was self employed for my last 30yrs of my work. I took up the bike again in the late 80's/early 90's only to have my right knee cave-in.
I now ride again but only to keep the new knee functional,nothing over taxing. I still climb the lumps and bumps around Parbold,Wrightington,Upholland & Rainford. At 65 all things considered I can still give my eldest & youngest daughters a run for their money, both on the flat and climbing.


----------



## gaz (15 Jun 2011)

You didn't really get my hidden point, which was, you don't really come across as a cyclist. You seem to have an image which is commonly held by motorists. "All cyclists break road laws, cycling through red lights and riding on the pavement"
Which isn't the case.
On the other hand all white van drivers are overweight males who drive like idiots and wolf whistle at ladies.

It's good to hear your still cycling, keep it up!


----------



## TheCyclingRooster (15 Jun 2011)

gaz said:


> You didn't really get my hidden point, which was, you don't really come across as a cyclist. You seem to have an image which is commonly held by motorists. "All cyclists break road laws, cycling through red lights and riding on the pavement"
> Which isn't the case.
> On the other hand all white van drivers are overweight males who drive like idiots and wolf whistle at ladies.
> 
> It's good to hear your still cycling, keep it up!




Hi again gaz. No, I have been there,done that and thrown away a tattered jersey many a time. I have ridden on pavements and with no lights (delayed by a girl friend,yes she did get punctured;but not her tyres!!!!!!!!!) and got hauled over by a cousin of Dixon of Dock Green and well & truly nicked,on both counts. Not even my Scouse whit about the punctured girl friend saved me). I think he was P***ed off because he was on night duty.
The latest breed of white van is not Male,if you are really lucky you will see a tasty single mum that needs to work and survive in a world that was dominated by little short of Viking Descendants.
I believe that a minority of the males still do whistle,but at other (apparent) blokes!!!!!!!!.
At 65yrs old and still alive(at present) and still riding, the only thing that I need to prove (to myself) is that I can still do it and stay alive on the Tarmacadam Jungle.


----------



## BentMikey (15 Jun 2011)

OMG you are a caravanner!!!! The horror!!!


----------



## TheCyclingRooster (15 Jun 2011)

BentMikey said:


> OMG you are a caravanner!!!! The horror!!!




Hi BentMikey. Can I assume (although it is not a regular practice of mine) that the OMG was in my direction. If it wasn't please excuse me,if it was then yes I am,all 26ft of it. An Elddis Crusader SuperSirocco.
My other confession is a passion for 'Big boys toys'. More apt in my case because I am 4'10" tall in my bare feet. My current passion is my 1997 Volvo V70 T5 CD Auto. S**T off a greased shovel. The police did not only have these for taking traffic cones on their holidays. When I first got it, a very good friend of mine that had one of those rather less lively Ford Sierra Cosworths asked me to describe the car in a few words,my reply was short & straight to the point;an orgasm on four tyres. The car has now got 197,000miles on it and it never fails to light up my face. 
Even with a large twin axle caravan on the back it is no slouch.
I have just acquire a 2000 V70 2.4T SE (the low pressure turbo model) 200bhp and it is not much behind the T5 in the smile stakes.


----------



## BentMikey (15 Jun 2011)

LOL, you also missed my hidden point about taking your own anti-camera prejudice and pointing it back at you via caravan prejudice. In reality I rather like caravans, and miss the brilliant holidays we used to have as kids in our parents one.


----------



## BentMikey (15 Jun 2011)

p.s. you have got to be another member having a laugh, right?


----------



## TheCyclingRooster (15 Jun 2011)

BentMikey said:


> p.s. you have got to be another member having a laugh, right?



Hi again BentMikey. No No No, thrice times a thousand times No.


----------



## SW19cam (15 Aug 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-14533821 ...


----------



## TheCyclingRooster (15 Aug 2011)

chrisk said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk...orfolk-14533821 ...




This total moron is now a real public threat & liability. The sentence is not severe enough. He wanted locking up for a few months and a £150.00 is a joke. An unemployed uninsured person in charge of a moving motor vehicle and with a mobile phone in their face,never mind the details of the additional phone,this guy wants putting out of the way of a vulnerable public. 
If the car that he was driving was his and his alone (by receipt) it should have been impounded and not released until his ban is expired and a driving test is taken. The mobile phones, again if his (by receipt) should be confiscated and disabled at the network and effectively turned into scrap.


----------



## Seigi (15 Aug 2011)

I wish they had this sort of thing where I live, almost got hit earlier by a car whose driver was on a mobile phone while trying to overtake me with an oncoming traffic island...


----------



## gaz (15 Aug 2011)

chrisk said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk...orfolk-14533821 ...



His solicitor is a total [insert a string of expletives]
And he didn't have insurance.


----------



## Vikeonabike (1 Sep 2011)

What you really need to do is join up as a Police Special....You can then hand out your own tickets for mobile phone using offenders or if not on duty, wait until you are next in uniform, Send out a NiP and invite them down to the nick for a quick interview and ticket...Simples.


----------



## TheCyclingRooster (1 Sep 2011)

Vikeonabike said:


> What you really need to do is join up as a Police Special....You can then hand out your own tickets for mobile phone using offenders or if not on duty, wait until you are next in uniform, Send out a NiP and invite them down to the nick for a quick interview and ticket...Simples.




Hi Vikeonabike. Iam not quite sure whether the quoted content is for me or any of the others that have added a response.
Irrespective of that, your Cavalier attitude to hand held mobile phones being used whilst either driving or riding a bike is astonishing.
Wait and see what happens when you become a victim. If you already have been a victim that is even more astonishing.


----------



## Vikeonabike (2 Sep 2011)

TheCyclingRooster said:


> Hi Vikeonabike. Iam not quite sure whether the quoted content is for me or any of the others that have added a response.
> Irrespective of that, your Cavalier attitude to hand held mobile phones being used whilst either driving or riding a bike is astonishing.
> Wait and see what happens when you become a victim. If you already have been a victim that is even more astonishing.



Rooster, my old chum, I believe you have completley the wrong end of the stick, not your fault as the written word does not always allow the spirit of the message to come over.

I have lost count of the number of tickets I have issued for drivers using mobile phones. I was serious about people, if able, joining the police as a Speacial. It's a great "dare I say HOBBY" (Although it's more than that), that puts something back into the community. With cuts in policing, the more Speacials we can get on board the better. Being a Special and a cyclist means you could help educate the masses as to why they should not use a mobile whilst driving.


As a serving member of her majesties constabulary, who uses a bike as his normal mode of transport and commutes 31 miles a day, believe me Driving whilst using a mobile is NOT something I take lightly.

I appologise to yourself and anyone else who misunderstood my message.

Vike


----------



## TheCyclingRooster (2 Sep 2011)

Vikeonabike said:


> Rooster, my old chum, I believe you have completley the wrong end of the stick, not your fault as the written word does not always allow the spirit of the message to come over.
> 
> I have lost count of the number of tickets I have issued for drivers using mobile phones. I was serious about people, if able, joining the police as a Speacial. It's a great "dare I say HOBBY" (Although it's more than that), that puts something back into the community. With cuts in policing, the more Speacials we can get on board the better. Being a Special and a cyclist means you could help educate the masses as to why they should not use a mobile whilst driving.
> 
> ...




Hi Vikeonabike. At 66yrs old on the 14th Sept 2011 & 4'10" tall would I still qualify !!??. Oh,by the way I have had Total Left Knee replacement & the right knee is progressively falling to bits.
When I was in my early 20's I wanted to join the Traffic Division in the cars but in those days the training included the Motorcycles.
I could not reach the Foot-Pegs never mind the road surface. I was consoled by being directed towards a Welsh Force,allegedly no height restrictions for the Regular PC. At this point there were no motorcycles that I could reach the floor on,not even the Triumph Tiger Cub.


----------



## Alun (2 Sep 2011)

gaz said:


> His solicitor is a total [insert a string of expletives]
> And he didn't have insurance.



Why what has his solicitor done?

The drivers a plonker, right enough!


----------



## gaz (2 Sep 2011)

Alun said:


> Why what has his solicitor done?
> 
> The drivers a plonker, right enough!


Because of what he said.


----------



## Bicycle (5 Sep 2011)

Responding to the title of this thread:

I think that reporting mobile use while driving is totally wrong.

One ought to stop when it is safe to do so and then report mobile use.

(Excellent picture of P Mandleson in the press today, taking a call on his brompton. It's these unschooled yobs who give us all a bad name).


----------



## Matthew_T (21 Sep 2011)

gaz said:


> On a side note, the two people i spoke to at the met had never heard of this page.



Same here. I informed a woman (a long time ago) that I would be reporting her and she could find her reg plate on Youtube. She said that if I did put it on "TubeTube" then she would be sueing me!

I did post it up and nothing happened.


----------



## jds_1981 (22 Sep 2011)

Any idea on how long it normally takes for a reply on bad driving?

Reported this on roadsafe 
View: http://vimeo.com/29015611
. One of those videos where it is worse than it looks. Pretty certain he was on the phone too else I wouldn't have bothered to report, no reply from the police even though it's been over a week.


----------



## gaz (23 Sep 2011)

Have you ha the standard response?
They generally won't reply any dieter after that, i've asked them several times if they could keep us up to date on how this progress with each report but it goes unheard.


----------



## gary in derby (1 Oct 2011)

Don't suppose there is something like this for derbyshire ?


----------



## recumbentpanda (21 Dec 2011)

I don't drive often these days, but when I do I am increasingly horrified. A day on the motorway yesterday revealed:

Norbert Dentressangle artic repeatedly veering onto the hard shoulder - driver apparently texting

4x4 enters from slip road, crosses to fast lane through fast moving traffic and proceeds to tailgate vehicle in front, all while using a hand held phone.

Saab coupe doing 45/50 in slow lane - fair enough, but on overtaking discover driver is leaning comfily against side window while deep in an apparently fascinating phone call on his hand held. 

It's an epidemic out there. It's as if people have had their imaginations surgically removed. OK, I don't cycle on the motorway, but I see little difference on ordinary roads. I feel this has got out of control and needs a major public safety campaign.


----------



## Archie_tect (31 Dec 2011)

RP if I'm horrified by what I see on motorways [eg the Saab coupe driver lost in concentration] I've drawn alongside [if it's safe... I certainly wouldn't slow down for no apparent reason in the middle lane!!!]and blip my horn so they look up because even with a car alongside they've not been aware I'm there and immediately drop the phone thinking I'm the police. If it gives them a shock then they might [just might mind] appreciate what they were doing and be more alert and concentrate more.


----------



## recumbentpanda (2 Jan 2012)

Archie_tect said:


> RP if I'm horrified by what I see on motorways [eg the Saab coupe driver lost in concentration] I've drawn alongside [if it's safe... I certainly wouldn't slow down for no apparent reason in the middle lane!!!]and blip my horn so they look up because even with a car alongside they've not been aware I'm there and immediately drop the phone thinking I'm the police. If it gives them a shock then they might [just might mind] appreciate what they were doing and be more alert and concentrate more.



Yeah, Archie, I thought of that, but both in car and on bike, I'm inclined to just get clear of the nutters, and concentrate on my own safety. A moments distraction can be fatal in any traffic situation. And I guess the thought behind my point was that this has got beyond individual protests and interventions, and needs a public campaign.


----------



## Archie_tect (2 Jan 2012)

An advert like the Australian drink/driving Christmas campaign would be a shock to their system... but then again causing death while using a mobile phone attracts a minimum 2 year prison sentence but it still doesn't act as a deterrant, so make using a phone while driving an instant ban or even a car crushing offence and publicise the first ones caught,... that would soon sharpen their awareness...


----------



## Watt-O (6 Jan 2012)

Christ, I'd be filling out the form 24/7 if I reported all the motors with faulty tail lights, brake lights, head lights etc. I see in SE London on my daily commute. I must spot at least two dozen a day. Still, it's a good idea to shop these tw@ts that are on their mobiles/drinking coffee/driving erratically, although the logistics of taking their details down could be problematic to the commuter with the hammer down. What I tend to do is point out the error of their ways if I happen to pull up beside them at the traffic lights.


----------



## yello (6 Jan 2012)

Interestingly, the French have just introduced a fine of €1500 and 3 points for driving whilst.... wait for it.... watching a film! 

Surely there's some generic law that'd do the trick. Do people really need to be told that it's dangerous to drive whilst doing a jigsaw puzzle? (No need to answer that btw)

The fine for driving whilst on a mobile has also been raised to €1500 and 3 points.


----------



## BSRU (6 Jan 2012)

You still need traffic police patrolling the streets to catch them, if there is no fear of being caught the punishment is irrelevant to many of drivers.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (6 Jan 2012)

BSRU said:


> You still need traffic police patrolling the streets to catch them, if there is no fear of being caught the punishment is irrelevant to many of drivers.


 
+1


----------



## 5cl (8 Jan 2012)

It narks me when boy racers get carried away and tint their driver's window - it must be like driving with sunglasses on 24/7. What's more you can't tell whether they have seen you if they're waiting to pull out of a junction. If you report this, it is easily verifiable by the police.

I could use this form to report the police motorcyclists who think it's OK to ride in the cycle lane on the CS7. I have seen this a few times in the last 3 months, and it seems to be spreading the message to civvie motorbikers that it's a legitimate thing to do.


----------



## yello (9 Jan 2012)

5cl said:


> It narks me when boy racers get carried away and tint their driver's window - it must be like driving with sunglasses on 24/7. *What's more you can't tell whether they have seen you if they're waiting to pull out of a junction.*


 
I've stopped exactly because of that. I had no idea where the driver was looking, whether they'd seen me or not so I took no chances and stopped and waited for them to pull out. Ok, so I was also deliberately making the point, hoping the driver would realise _why_ I'd stopped (I'm the eternal optimist!) but it's the same argument from a different perspective.


----------



## Archie_tect (9 Jan 2012)

yello said:


> I've stopped exactly because of that. I had no idea where the driver was looking, whether they'd seen me or not so I took no chances and stopped and waited for them to pull out...


+ impossible for them to see much on gloomy overcast days or at night.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Jan 2012)

yello said:


> I've stopped exactly because of that. I had no idea where the driver was looking, whether they'd seen me or not so I took no chances and stopped and waited for them to pull out. Ok, so I was also deliberately making the point, hoping the driver would realise _why_ I'd stopped (I'm the eternal optimist!) but it's the same argument from a different perspective.


 
People aren't psychic - they can't read your mind and will almost certainly have no idea that you're being anything other than polite. If you want a motorist to know something, then tell them concisely and politely. Better still, tell them via YouTube and a Roadsafe letter if it's serious enough, so avoiding talking to the driver yourself and thus a potential road raging incident.

I also never bother to guess whether a driver has looked or not - seeing their eyes means nothing to me and doesn't prove whether they will or will not pull out.


----------



## yello (9 Jan 2012)

As I said, I'm the eternal optimist.  I didn't _really_ think the driver would realise why or, more to the point, care why I'd stopped!

Eye contact doesn't prove anything, true, but it's a start.


----------



## Vikeonabike (11 Jan 2012)

Well there I was wandering through my local town dressed in my non work clothes, when I see Mr Subaru man driving towards me. On his mobile would you believe! Well he stops, because of traffic right next to me. Well I had too didn't I. I got my "I can tell you what do" card out of my pocket and knocks on the window. "Could you put your phone down please Sir!" I said in a polite but authorititve tone. He in turn replies in a not so polite tone of Voice "Why don't you bugger off and mind your own business". Well I bet he wouldn't say that off someone was stealing his car! Off he drives and I wander into my local House of cut backs and being stabbed in the back by Theresa May (you may know this as a Police Station) and reported said incident. Suggesting a notice of intended prosecution. Anyway my local forces Central Ticket Office has said because an officer from another force has reported it, he has to do the NIP, put the file together interview him and then pass it on to them. Now if on interview he accepts that he was using his mobile I could just give him a ticket couldn't I? No, I can't give him a ticket from my force it has to be from the one where I work it has to be from the force it occured in. But I don't have one of those tickets, so I still have to take him to court which is going to cost a lot more than it would do just issuing a ticket.
Good Job I 'm only in the county next door really. If I was in the Met would I still have to do all the donkey work...
Points to note
1. No wonder Joe public has a problem reporting things.
2. We are wasting a lot of time and money that we shouldn't
3. Theresa May is a Bitch! (Nothing to do with this post btw)


----------



## yello (14 Jan 2012)

Vikeonabike said:


> Theresa May is a Bitch! (Nothing to do with this post btw)


 
Cheers, Voab, you've just made me chuckle!


----------



## ComedyPilot (14 Jan 2012)

Vikeonabike said:


> ................................3. Theresa May is a Bitch! (Nothing to do with this post btw)


 
And her husband watches porn films claimed on expenses.................or was that the other one?


----------



## andy_spacey (15 Jan 2012)

I am going to put my views out there. I am a full time cycles. I give up driving over 3 years ago so do a lot of miles in all weathers. So this is a every day problem and so many near misses for me

Driving when using a phone is no diffident than diving under drink or drugs.
Would peolpe get into the car with a driver has had a drink?
Would they drive there family/ kids around when drunk?

The law dose nothing to help and people dont give a F*&&K about it. Just look at how meny people break the law every day by using there phone when driving.

I bet the number of people killed, or RTA's have gone up since the mobile phone.

I feel that the police should hand over catching of people driving when using there phone over to private companies. The companies would film the drivers and car reg in HD then this would help the "is was not me using the car" The phone records would be also used to back up the offence

Up the fine to a £1000 and 6 points for the first time and second time a 12 mouth band and the car being crushed.

Because the private companies get paid from out of the fine, "Yes a bit like piece work " and
yes They would pop up every where filming. 

The filming could also be done covert. No big yellow vans like speeding cameras, where people just slow down. In this case just put there phone down till they go past.

Or put covert cameras up on lamppost every where.

If the chance of being court was increased by 10,000 times this would stop a lot of people and save a lot of life.

But the fact is . nothing is going to change and more people are going to get injured or even die and a lot of people are going to break the law and get away with it.


----------



## BigonaBianchi (15 Jan 2012)

..so me texti ng on my bike isnt going to make me popular then?


----------



## Vikeonabike (25 Jan 2012)

Well it had gone a bit quiet on the ticket front. However, back on song. 3 in the last couple of days without even trying. Tonights, was a driver delivering curry. Guess me on my pushbike was a bit difficult to spot when you are looking for house numbers and talking on the phone!


----------



## gb155 (28 Jan 2012)

Heres some mobile usage


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEX58XxXcIs


----------



## blazed (28 Jan 2012)

gb155 said:


> Heres some mobile usage
> 
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEX58XxXcIs


----------



## MarkyMark292 (15 Feb 2012)

I contacted my local police service and asked if they had a communication line setup for users in Cheshire to report mobile usage in moving vehicles. Alas, they said they do not, but thought it a great idea and asked how current schemes are setup. Today I found the link to the Met Police site, so I will send that to them and let's hope they do something so we can start naming people as offenders. I want to get myself a GoPro cam too and I will edit my video and submit that as evidence too. I am sick to death of incompitent drivers thinking they know what they are doing when they are in mid conversation on the phone. It's bad enough when people are in the car and they don't have to hold a device to their ear sometimes!


----------



## BigonaBianchi (15 Feb 2012)

Good man!


----------



## LarryDuff (15 Feb 2012)

Saw a guy on a bike on Sunday going a fair lick through my home village while talking away on his phone.


----------



## steveindenmark (3 Mar 2012)

Can I ask how you knew the vehicle was not insured?

Could someone else not have been driving it on their insurance?

Steve


----------



## gaz (5 Mar 2012)

steveindenmark said:


> Can I ask how you knew the vehicle was not insured?
> 
> Could someone else not have been driving it on their insurance?
> 
> Steve


It's possible to check the Motor insurance database, which shows if a vehicle has insurance registered against it. The check can be a week out of date though.


----------



## Arjimlad (6 Mar 2012)

There's a young lad who blazes along a single track road with passing places yabbering on his mobile the whole way. I told him off for it one day but it made no difference. His driving is awful because he is not paying enough attention. Other motorists tell him off but they just get 2 fingers.

I don't cycle that way home all that much because it is a short and muddy route, but if I could catch him & take a picture on my phone of him on his, perhaps the Police might act...


----------



## Alan Whicker (12 Mar 2012)

Reported some jackass using his ipad the other week. He had it on his steering wheel . Used the new 101 non-emergency police number. I often report drivers to RoadSafe but it feels like delivering mail to an empty house. Never get a reply. 101 got very excited when I told them what I'd just seen!


----------



## fenlandpsychocyclist (15 Mar 2012)

gaz said:


> It's possible to check the Motor insurance database, which shows if a vehicle has insurance registered against it. The check can be a week out of date though.


 
Doesn't work if its a business vehicle insured via business insurance.


----------



## gaz (15 Mar 2012)

fenlandpsychocyclist said:


> Doesn't work if its a business vehicle insured via business insurance.


Is that info not stored in the MID?


----------



## Amanda P (15 Mar 2012)

fenlandpsychocyclist said:


> Doesn't work if its a business vehicle insured via business insurance.



That's funny, because where I work we have Crown vehicles which aren't insured at all (they're underwritten directly by the Treasury) and leased vehicles for which we do have business insurance. Both come up as insured on askMID.


----------



## fenlandpsychocyclist (15 Mar 2012)

Maybe they've changed askmid??

Last year i checked our three company vans, and they didn't come up as having insurance,
even though i knew they were insured.


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (20 Mar 2012)

I did a stupid stupid stupid thing yesterday...

during my morning commute to work a car overtakes me a little close - this does not particularly bother me as it happens all the time. But what did bother me was when I looked though his rear window i saw he was texting, and not paying any attention to me or the road . So anyway I cycled a little faster, caught him up and knocked a couple of times on his rear side window.

He was looking at his phone when i did it, and his look on his face when i did this was was total shock and panic. It was then I realised what a total idiot I had been. 

The other stupid thing - once our eyes met I realised he was built like a tank, he could probably kill me with his little finger.

Anyway, red mist got the better of me


----------



## recumbentpanda (21 Mar 2012)

You did a very good thing. Big thanks from me. Yes it could have gone horribly wrong, but then, so can riding a bike.


----------



## bonker (30 Mar 2012)

_On my commute it's getting to the stage where it would be easier to report those people not using a phone than those who are. I try and make innoffensive gestures to 'say stop' texting or 'watch the road' but quite often they are so busy texting they don't bother looking up!_


----------



## steveinnorthants (1 Apr 2012)

I don't condone driving and using a mobile in any way whatsoever, but do feel that this forum is becoming heavily populated by camera weilding cyclists who see it as their duty to go round and film every incident, be it a close pass, a lorry jumping a red light, someone not seeing a cyclist etc etc etc.......leave it to the police guys else we cyclists are going to become even less popular. As has been posted elsewhere, we are not law enforcement officers, if you want to be one then join up as a special! 
How long before the BMW and Audi drivers start installing forward facing cameras on their dash to record cyclists jumping red lights, riding on pavements etc!


----------



## gaz (1 Apr 2012)

steveinnorthants said:


> I don't condone driving and using a mobile in any way whatsoever, but do feel that this forum is becoming heavily populated by camera weilding cyclists who see it as their duty to go round and film every incident, be it a close pass, a lorry jumping a red light, someone not seeing a cyclist etc etc etc.......leave it to the police guys else we cyclists are going to become even less popular. As has been posted elsewhere, we are not law enforcement officers, if you want to be one then join up as a special!
> How long before the BMW and Audi drivers start installing forward facing cameras on their dash to record cyclists jumping red lights, riding on pavements etc!


You perceive that people go around filming every incident. Where as you have no idea what kind of distance they are traveling. How many vehicles are passing them, what they let go and what they deem to be worthy of uploading and reporting.

Why do you think some of us have cameras?
Is it because the police don't take any action if it's just your word against someone else's?
Is it because some people put us in danger?

Why would any of us have a problem with other road users filming us? After all, it is cyclists who make Silly Cyclists.


----------



## BSRU (1 Apr 2012)

steveinnorthants said:


> leave it to the police guys


In the more than 100 hours of commuting so far this year, during the morning/afternoon rush hour, I have seen one traffic police vehicle, just the once.
I'm all for other road users installing camera's, even just to protect themselves from loosing their no claims, especially these days as many insurance companies are very quick to go for a 50/50 settlement.


----------



## steveinnorthants (1 Apr 2012)

Fair enough guys, perhaps you can get some t shirts printed too - the cycling militia..... Why stop at cycling issues, you could ride round trying to film thieves and muggers too! Just hope none of you come up against some real thug who doesn't give a shoot about your camera or whether they cut you up in their uninsured and untaxed car.....there are a few videos of that sort of confrontation too on the net....just hope you don't end up in casualty!


----------



## gaz (1 Apr 2012)

steveinnorthants said:


> perhaps you can get some t shirts printed too - the cycling militia.


A t-shirt? pffft... we all have tattoos with that on.


----------



## steveinnorthants (1 Apr 2012)

Sums up the holier than thou attitude methinks!


----------



## gaz (1 Apr 2012)




----------



## BSRU (1 Apr 2012)

steveinnorthants said:


> you could ride round trying to film thieves and muggers too!


Unfortunately that is not an unreasonable idea as I have had at least two friends who each were mugged in the town centre in the past couple of years but the police were not interested in investigating as there was no cctv footage available.


----------



## RedRider (1 Apr 2012)

gaz said:


> You perceive that people go around filming every incident. Where as you have no idea what kind of distance they are traveling. How many vehicles are passing them, what they let go and what they deem to be worthy of uploading and reporting.
> 
> Why do you think some of us have cameras?
> Is it because the police don't take any action if it's just your word against someone else's?
> ...


 
I would say it's about the attitude we take to life and our approach to negotiating relationships.


----------



## Vikeonabike (2 Apr 2012)

steveinnorthants said:


> Why stop at cycling issues, you could ride round trying to film thieves and muggers too!


Actually we (the Police) rely heavily on Private CCTV footage (including headcam footage) for just that reason. (It is also why most police officers now wear head or body cams. The more cams out there the more chance of being able to identify a miscreant for a robbery or burglary.
And if you are unlucky enough to get the crap kicked out of you, then you have helmet cam footage of the offender. Even better, if you have footage of you defending yourself because some errant numpty in his Penis extension is trying to impress his much younger girlfriend complains to the Police you have the evidence to keep yourself out of court! I have only sought to prosecute one driver in the videos I have taken. 99% of incidents don't even make it onto you tube. Believe me. I'm more likely to make a complaint because of what I do for a living.
As for the camera issue, if every motor vehcicle was fitted with a camera and black box data recorder, I bet driving standards would improve and insurance costs would come down.
So in essence, we should all, in these days of litigation and compensation should be videoing our journeys whether on a bike, Motorbike Car bus or HGV.


----------



## BentMikey (2 Apr 2012)

at Steve. Sometimes I really struggle to understand how such skewed and wildly weird viewpoints exist.

I think it must be alibi-in-advance searching to try to reduce the chances of having their own possible misbehaviour filmed?


----------



## steveinnorthants (2 Apr 2012)

Not at all, just don't like wannabe do gooders thinking they suddenly become quasi law enforcers as soon as a camera is strapped to their head!


----------



## growingvegetables (3 Apr 2012)

steveinnorthants said:


> just don't like wannabe do gooders


There speaks a very comfortable, laid back guy ........ who has never felt seriously threatened, neither personally, nor through his family.

An ignorant, complacent idiot.


----------



## rollinstok (3 Apr 2012)

As for the camera issue, perhaps we all should be plastic.
Laws are made to protect the wealthy.. show me otherwise


----------



## rollinstok (3 Apr 2012)

And the constable is only there to protect the wealthy mans interest.. please show me otherwise


----------



## steveinnorthants (3 Apr 2012)

growing vegetables said: ↑
just don't like wannabe do gooders
There speaks a very comfortable, laid back guy ........ who has never felt seriously threatened, neither personally, nor through his family.

An ignorant, complacent idiot.

Thanks for that n o b head, go back and do what you do best, grow veg in your allotment. Oh, hope that someone confronts you if you have a camera filming them for some minor misdemeanour , perhaps straying over a white line in their car......a baseball bat over the head may well render your "evidence" pretty useless and leave your camera in bits on the pavement! My whole point was that people should be careful about the use of cameras as it will piss some aggressors off.


----------



## BentMikey (3 Apr 2012)

Punishment, i.e. consequences such as filming and public shame, speeding tickets, etc., almost always piss people off. Why are you suggesting there should be no consequences?


----------



## Moderators (3 Apr 2012)

Your attention is drawn to the Guidelines:

*Respect - *Please be respectful and considerate to other CycleChat members.
*Inappropriate conduct -* Don't insult, bully, undermine, stalk, flame, troll, bait or otherwise harass other members of CycleChat. If a disagreement makes you angry, take a break and come back later when you are more composed.
Keep away from the personal insults, please - otherwise this thread will be locked.


----------



## gaz (3 Apr 2012)

steveinnorthants said:


> My whole point was that people should be careful about the use of cameras as it will piss some aggressors off.


Such as yourself?


----------



## growingvegetables (3 Apr 2012)

@ steveinnorthants - my "An ignorant, complacent idiot" was out of place and unnecessarily personal. My apologies.

No excuse - but it came from a deep wellspring of anger about a situation that affected my family for several years, in which ...
- camera footage was instrumental in getting violent thugs locked up, and neighbours-from-hell evicted;
- the guy who put me in hospital, and tried to do the same to my kids, would have had his day in court - IF there had been camera footage to demolish his lies about his assaults, and the lies told by supposed "witnesses".


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (18 Apr 2012)

steveinnorthants said:


> this forum is becoming heavily populated by camera weilding cyclists who see it as their duty to go round and film every incident, be it a close pass, a lorry jumping a red light, someone not seeing a cyclist etc etc etc... we are not law enforcement officers, if you want to be one then join up as a special!


 
Or as being populated by a growing number of cyclists who have either first or second hand experience of incidents where not having potential evidence (in the form of video footage) has meant dangerous or criminal driving has escaped prosecution and where having the evidence has lead to some rather nasty people being caught. Having a camera on your bike (or car etc) doesn’t make you a wannabe law enforcement officer, I see it as just a bit of added insurance


----------



## growingvegetables (18 Apr 2012)

It will be interesting to see what personal abuse steveinnorthants throws out this time.


----------



## BentMikey (18 Apr 2012)

I've quite a good driver response to me filming his wife on the phone a few weeks ago.


----------



## steveinnorthants (19 Apr 2012)

It will be interesting to see what personal abuse steveinnorthants throws out this time.


Errr.....seem to recall it was you that started the personal abuse......for which you subsequently apologised, obviously that apology was not genuine.
I'm not gonna waste my time responding on this thread, good luck filming guys.


----------



## growingvegetables (19 Apr 2012)

steveinnorthants said:


> It will be interesting to see what personal abuse steveinnorthants throws out this time.
> 
> 
> Errr.....seem to recall it was you that started the personal abuse......for which you subsequently apologised


I'm glad you noted my apology - it was sincere at the time, I assure you.

However, it seems my apology and withdrawal of the comment may have been premature - given your failure to reciprocate, both for your abuse given in this thread, and that by message to my profile.


----------



## steveinnorthants (19 Apr 2012)

Obviously your apology was as genuine as the probable cock and bull story about your first hand experience.

End of..... Will leave you and your sad mates to film who the hell they like, have fun, maybe in another life you can be a real law enforcer and wear the uniform.


----------



## fossyant (20 Apr 2012)

Children, stop now


----------



## Vikeonabike (23 Apr 2012)

steveinnorthants said:


> Obviously your apology was as genuine as the probable cock and bull story about your first hand experience.
> 
> End of..... Will leave you and your sad mates to film who the hell they like, have fun, maybe in another life you can be a real law enforcer and wear the uniform.


 

Steve
Some helmet camera cyclist do wear the uniform and are real law enforcers in this life!


----------



## dawesome (24 Apr 2012)

£100 fine later this year ,maybe:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...s-for-using-a-mobile-phone-while-driving.html


----------



## BSRU (24 Apr 2012)

dawesome said:


> £100 fine later this year ,maybe:
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...s-for-using-a-mobile-phone-while-driving.html


If they put some traffic police on the streets to catch drivers on the phone as well that would help


----------



## Vikeonabike (29 Apr 2012)

BSRU said:


> If they put some traffic police on the streets to catch drivers on the phone as well that would help


 
If we had any traffic police to put on the street that would be useful too!


----------



## Ian Cooper (29 Apr 2012)

BSRU said:


> If they put some traffic police on the streets to catch drivers on the phone as well that would help


 
With cellphone technology, on-board computers and GPS, one would think that it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to figure out who was driving while using a cellphone based on the car's number of occupants and the speed of travel, and fine people without having to use street cops at all.


----------



## Alun (29 Apr 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> With cellphone technology, on-board computers and GPS, one would think that it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to figure out who was driving while using a cellphone based on the car's number of occupants and the speed of travel, and fine people without having to use street cops at all.


Might need a camera focussed on the driver as well. Using a mobile/cellphone whilst driving is not an offence in the UK, but it is using a "handheld" one which crosses the line. Thought I'd mention that as it's probably different in the US.


----------



## Ian Cooper (29 Apr 2012)

Alun said:


> Might need a camera focussed on the driver as well. Using a mobile/cellphone whilst driving is not an offence in the UK, but it is using a "handheld" one which crosses the line. Thought I'd mention that as it's probably different in the US.


 
We have vague 'distraction while driving' laws that vary by state, but they are not used to prosecute cellphone use, so every now and then, we get someone somewhere seeking to make cellphone use a clear violation, but I don't think these proposed laws get very far - too many drivers like using the phone while they're driving, and the US is a car (and a telephone) culture, so the law reflects what the lowest common denominator wants. Personally, given how lax law enforcement is when it concerns people behind a steering wheel, I'm surprised the US criminalizes drinking and driving.

You folks are lucky, living in the UK. At least there, if someone kills a cyclist, the driver is likely to see some jail time. Here in the US, drivers who kill get a friendly visit from the police, and an accident investigation that starts from a premise of 'The cyclist was clearly to blame' and goes from there. It's always surprising to me that the families of US cyclists killed on the road aren't stuck with a bill for a car wash to get the blood off the car and for the resulting work to fix the dents, not to mention the therapy visits for the 'victim' (as drivers who kill are often called - and no, I'm not exaggerating).

If you don't believe me, check these out:

http://www.thewashcycle.com/2010/09/pettigrew-death-investigation-continues-vigil-planned.html
In this one, the driver drove all the way home (4 miles!) with a bicycle lodged under her SUV. She thought she had hit an animal, but didn't bother to check. Although witnesses saw smoke and sparks coming from her vehicle, she 'didn't notice' the bike until she got out of the car. She called police and they gave her a friendly visit. They didn't even issue a hit and run citation.

http://gothamist.com/2011/10/26/mother_of_cyclist_killed_by_william.php
In this one, the truck driver left the scene of the accident and days later, when the police found him, he was not cited and the police allowed the truck to be washed clean of blood, erasing evidence. The 'investigation' effectively consisted of noting down the truck driver's and the cyclist's names. At the time, a police spokesman accused the cyclist of running a red light - yet traffic camera footage proves he did not.


----------



## Alun (29 Apr 2012)

Ian Cooper said:


> You folks are lucky, living in the UK. At least there, if someone kills a cyclist, the driver is likely to see some jail time.


You'd be surprised, plenty don't !


----------



## Blurb (1 May 2012)

With a bit of luck this sort of coverage will help improve the situation:

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/897770-...ting-motorists-who-text-or-call-while-driving

For non-Londoners, this is a free newspaper given out at most Tube stations, and is widely read by travellers. 
Hopefully, word will get around and make our commutes a little better.


----------



## Theseus (1 May 2012)

Blurb said:


> With a bit of luck this sort of coverage will help improve the situation:
> 
> http://www.metro.co.uk/news/897770-...ting-motorists-who-text-or-call-while-driving
> 
> ...


 
For Londoners, we also get it in Edinburgh. Available on most busses and in the foyer of my work. I would imagine it is also available in a few other cities, I seem to remember reading it when I worked in Glasgow as well.


----------



## Blurb (1 May 2012)

Apologies, I didn't know it was national. Even better! It was front page BTW and not tucked away somewhere.


----------



## mumbo jumbo (9 May 2012)

I think the insurers' stance could well be instrumental in changing drivers' behaviour - but it might take a while for it to percolate through to the masses. In the meantime, simple effective messages from elsewhere are most welcome. See for example this pic of the side of a West Mids fire engine. Apologies if this (or similar) has been posted before.


----------



## Hover Fly (19 May 2012)

http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/truck...ghed-into-two-cars-1.955975?referrerPath=news


----------



## subaqua (20 May 2012)

well the Met have just left my house after taking some details about a vehicle that nearly knocked my 4 yr old off his bike yesterday. wished i had the camera set up , as it would have caught him texting whilst speeding round a blind corner in a residential area. he wasn't too pleased when i chased after him and caught him when he stopped to continue his text convo. i asked him why he thoughtb he could drive and text and think it was fine , nearly hitting my son.
He responded with Eff of you C or i will run you over too. askMID shows it as uninsured too.

the nice man that came from the police was very happy with the details i gave him and smiled when i told him i would take a chance with the breach of the data protection act for using askMID for a non authorised reason


----------



## Psycolist (31 May 2012)

Finally, a reason to want to cycle in the capital again. Several lifetimes ago, I was a commuting cyclist living and working in West London. I would not relish a return to that enviroment, now living in the rurals of N. Essex, except for the chance to use this reporting system for vehicle crime. What an amazing opportunity. It's not like the capital is smothered by CCTV that can count the hairs on the back of your hand or anything. ENFORCEMENT is the problem, both with this idea and with most other problem areas in our society. Vandalism - fly tipping - muggings - bad driving. The laws/rules are there, its just that there is not enough follow through to make these laws/rules be feared or obeyed. Our society cant afford it, and thats sad.


----------



## Rupie (14 Jun 2012)

As a driver and cyclist I find most of this post just the usual appauling overly aggressive behavour that makes me sometimes ashamed to be a cyclist. Have some of you got nothing better to do than log drivers details, now video and edit footage, then send it all off *daily* to the police !
And you wonder why motorists hate you ? Infact even as a cyclist I am embarrised by some of you...If cyclists had reg plates as well and motorists started doing the same for people on pavements, going through red lights, one way streets, and cutting between lorries, it would be a different story.
I know its tough out there but some of you need to look the extreme posts put on this forum and maybe start to worry about some sort of anger issue.


----------



## BentMikey (14 Jun 2012)

Not much of a cyclist then?


----------



## gaz (14 Jun 2012)

Rupie said:


> Have some of you got nothing better to do than log drivers details, now video and edit footage, then send it all off *daily* to the police !


DAILY? how many issues are you having on the roads?


----------



## bjellys (7 Jul 2012)

> I don't condone driving and using a mobile in any way whatsoever, but do feel that this forum is becoming heavily populated by camera weilding cyclists who see it as their duty to go round and film every incident, be it a close pass, a lorry jumping a red light, someone not seeing a cyclist etc etc etc.......leave it to the police guys else we cyclists are going to become even less popular. As has been posted elsewhere, we are not law enforcement officers, if you want to be one then join up as a special!
> How long before the BMW and Audi drivers start installing forward facing cameras on their dash to record cyclists jumping red lights, riding on pavements etc!


 
I must agree they need to get a life and enjoy it ( Sent from my mobile phone while driving past an old peoples home at 99 mph ) Ha Ha !


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jul 2012)

We have lives, and we'd like to keep them. That's why we report tossers on the phone. I bet you'd report a drink driver in a heartbeat. A phone driver is very little different to a drink driver.


----------



## bjellys (7 Jul 2012)

> We have lives, and we'd like to keep them. That's why we report tossers on the phone. I bet you'd report a drink driver in a heartbeat. A phone driver is very little different to a drink driver


 
A phone using driver is very driver is very different form a drunk driver they still have their reaction times in tact also if your statement was correct there would be millions of accidents more every day as that seems to be the amount motorists using their phones.
I don't actually use my phone when driving but I still have momentarily lapses in concentration which can have the same consequences. 


.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Jul 2012)

You only wish that were true. Drunk drivers often get away with no collisions, but the point is that their risk of having one is significantly higher than for an average driver. The same goes for mobile phone users, who have similar impairment to drink drivers.


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Jul 2012)

Just be subtle..... In Bath earlier this week and a prat is driving through the pedestrian area texting. Missed us by about a foot



Knock on window, pint at crowd and shout in a loud voice

"Officer, can you have a word with this prat about texting whilst driving?"

I have never seen a phone dropped so fast.

Only shame there was no Police actually around.


----------



## gaz (7 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> A phone using driver is very driver is very different form a drunk driver they still have their reaction times in tact also if your statement was correct there would be millions of accidents more every day as that seems to be the amount motorists using their phones.
> I don't actually use my phone when driving but I still have momentarily lapses in concentration which can have the same consequences.
> 
> 
> .


Oh really... Read the following research http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/DrivingAssessment2003.pdf


----------



## dawesome (7 Jul 2012)

> Motorists who talked on either handheld or hands-free cell phones drove slightly slower, were 9 percent slower to hit the brakes, displayed 24 percent more variation in following distance as their attention switched between driving and conversing, were 19 percent slower to resume normal speed after braking and were more likely to crash. Three study participants rear-ended the pace car. All were talking on cell phones. None were drunk.
> Drivers drunk at the 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level drove a bit more slowly than both undistracted drivers and drivers using cell phones, yet more aggressively. They followed the pace car more closely, were twice as likely to brake only four seconds before a collision would have occurred, and hit their brakes with 23 percent more force. “Neither accident rates, nor reaction times to vehicles braking in front of the participant, nor recovery of lost speed following braking differed significantly” from undistracted drivers, the researchers write.


http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/drivingissues/20060830105036.html

If I saw someone drunk getting in a car I'd take their keys. Drivers on mobiles are as bad as drunk drivers, drunk drivers and drivers on mobiles are both recklessly stupid scum.


----------



## bjellys (7 Jul 2012)

> drunk drivers and drivers on mobiles are both recklessly stupid scum


 You missed a few smokers / people eating food / people chatting / and last but not least car drivers


----------



## gaz (7 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> You missed a few smokers / people eating food / people chatting / and last but not least car drivers


Do you have anything to back up anything you are saying?

As the rest of us have posted research that backs up our claims.


----------



## bjellys (7 Jul 2012)

You can't believe every piece of research you read ,as the people who write it are normally manipulating the figures as to keep their paymasters happy.
How many people were killed on the road where alcohol was a factor ? ( a very high percentage ) 
How many people were killed on the road where using a mobile was a factor ( a very low percentage this why you only get a fixed penalty for phone use or a driver training course you don't get this for drunk driving )
I can't reply any more as I am off to drive to the pub to do a bit more research I might even ring my mates on the way . ( the pub is the Red Lion on the A30 if you want to report me )


----------



## gaz (7 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> You can't believe every piece of research you read ,as the people who write it are normally manipulating the figures as to keep their paymasters happy.
> How many people were killed on the road where alcohol was a factor ? ( a very high percentage )
> How many people were killed on the road where using a mobile was a factor ( a very low percentage this why you only get a fixed penalty for phone use or a driver training course you don't get this for drunk driving )
> I can't reply any more as I am off to drive to the pub to do a bit more research I might even ring my mates on the way . ( the pub is the Red Lion on the A30 if you want to report me )


And drink driving has always been punished in the way it is today?


----------



## bjellys (8 Jul 2012)

I am now doing a bit of research so here are 3 Questions for the camera wielding cyclists 

1. Would you report your mother or father for using a mobile while driving ?
2. If you are a car driver have you ever driven over the speed limit ?
3. do you smoke ?

I would like to see a bit of honesty in the answers please.

.


----------



## gaz (8 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> I am now doing a bit of research so here are 3 Questions for the camera wielding cyclists
> 
> 1. Would you report your mother or father for using a mobile while driving ?
> 2. If you are a car driver have you ever driven over the speed limit ?
> ...


1. If I had some proof that they had, yes. Getting a letter or a fine from the police would be much more effective at getting them to stop doing it than me just telling them.
2. Yes, When I was young and had only been driving a few months. Was pulled over by the police and had a very stern talking to (along with a fine and 3 points). My outlook on driving and safety on the roads has changed, I think that is clear to see 
3. No.


----------



## dawesome (8 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> How many people were killed on the road where using a mobile was a factor ( a very low percentage


 
What's your evidence that mobile phone use causes very few accidents?



> UP TO nine Scots could have been killed in the last three years because of drivers using mobile phones, new information reveals.
> Drivers making phone calls, texting or even using smartphones to surf the internet instead of concentrating on the road have caused hundreds of crashes, police statistics show.
> Strathclyde Police, Scotland’s largest force, dealt with 81 crashes, including two serious incidents, where driving using a mobile phone was a definite factor.


 
http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2012/04/15/crashes-caused-by-mobile-phones-on-scottish-roads-revealed/


----------



## addictfreak (8 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> I am now doing a bit of research so here are 3 Questions for the camera wielding cyclists
> 
> 1. Would you report your mother or father for using a mobile while driving ?
> 2. If you are a car driver have you ever driven over the speed limit ?
> ...


----------



## bjellys (8 Jul 2012)

Perhaps in Scotland they drive with a phone in one hand and a bottle in the other ,the link below is just what I was trying to say about facts and figures.
'' It is estimated that just more than one in seven deaths on Scottish roads involve drivers who are over the legal limit ''
http://m.scotsman.com/news/transport/scottish_motorists_defy_festive_drink_drive_crackdown_1_203979
6
You don't see police calling for these type of punishments for mobile phone use.
mobile phone use is in the same category /no seatbelt /and speeding.
there are millions of drivers every day using their mobiles if it was that bad hundreds of dead and injured on or road every day. 
http://m.scotsman.com/news/transport/scottish_motorists_defy_festive_drink_drive_crackdown_1_203979
6


----------



## gaz (8 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> Perhaps in Scotland they drive with a phone in one hand and a bottle in the other ,the link below is just what I was trying to say about facts and figures.
> '' It is estimated that just more than one in seven deaths on Scottish roads involve drivers who are over the legal limit ''
> http://m.scotsman.com/news/transport/scottish_motorists_defy_festive_drink_drive_crackdown_1_203979
> 6
> ...


So because hundreds of people don't die everyday, then we should just ignore it?


----------



## bjellys (8 Jul 2012)

You got it in one


----------



## gaz (8 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> You got it in one


Hundreds of people everyday don't die from the following, you expect us to just ignore these?


----------



## stephen.rooke (8 Jul 2012)

wasnt it on the last series of traffic cops where the truck driver used his phone and drove through the back of a stationary car killing the occupants? if you dont like the law dont drive, simples


----------



## bjellys (9 Jul 2012)

It seems to me that the camera wielding cyclists really do have a deep rooted underlying attitude problem with other road users and perhaps need some anger management help to get over these issues .They also need to know that it is the car drivers that pay for them to use the roads ( car tax & fuel duty )
I would like to read the posts on here , the day when it is announced that cyclists will have to pay road tax insurance / MOT & last but not least have registration numbers.

You all need to chill out and have a bit of give and take not just take.


That's my lot I am off out now on my bike with my dog to enjoy the day ,and before you ask yes I have got a pocket full of poo bags 
Have a good day ( turn your cameras off ) and enjoy it & stop your constant moaning and being negative, it will feel a whole better to get this burden off your back.


----------



## gavintc (9 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> I .They also need to know that it is the car drivers that pay for them to use the roads ( car tax & fuel duty )
> I would like to read the posts on here , the day when it is announced that cyclists will have to pay road tax insurance / MOT & last but not least have registration numbers.
> 
> .


Prat. 

You need to learn a little bit more about how the government tax us and spend the money. Buying a fiddle tank does not give you any 'ownership' of a piece of road anymore than paying VAT on a pie does not give you 'ownership' of the pie shop.


----------



## bjellys (9 Jul 2012)

> You need to learn a little bit more about how the government tax us and spend the money. Buying a **** tank does not give you any 'ownership' of a piece of road anymore than paying VAT on a pie does not give you 'ownership' of the pie shop.


 
The cycling community me included pays F### All towards the roads if it wasn't for the motorists revenue income tax and vat would be astronomical.


----------



## BentMikey (9 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> It seems to me that the camera wielding cyclists really do have a deep rooted underlying attitude problem with other road users and perhaps need some anger management help to get over these issues .


 
LOL, not this old saw again!! No, I don't see anyone with a deep seated anger problem, or even a mild one. Most of us are doing this from a community duty point of view, making a steady difference in the behaviour of the minority of motons out there.

Instead I think you're projecting, and you don't like the potential of having consequences brought to your own driving.



bjellys said:


> They also need to know that it is the car drivers that pay for them to use the roads ( car tax & fuel duty )
> I would like to read the posts on here , the day when it is announced that cyclists will have to pay road tax insurance / MOT & last but not least have registration numbers.


 
Motorists pay for cyclists to use the roads? Nonsense, on the contrary it is cyclists and other non-drivers who are subsidising the use of the roads by private motorists. All motoring related taxes don't even come close to paying the true cost of motoring. I'm not complaining by the way, I'm very happy that my own driving is subsidised by others to some small degree.



bjellys said:


> You all need to chill out and have a bit of give and take not just take.


 
Ah, just the sort of thing I often see from camera cyclists, but so very rarely from the misbehaving drivers that tend to be the majority of subjects in their youtube videos.



bjellys said:


> That's my lot I am off out now on my bike with my dog to enjoy the day ,and before you ask yes I have got a pocket full of poo bags
> Have a good day ( turn your cameras off ) and enjoy it & stop your constant moaning and being negative, it will feel a whole better to get this burden off your back.


 
You seem to be the only one with any moaning here. You can get happy pills at the doctor, you know.


----------



## bjellys (9 Jul 2012)

bjellys said: ↑
_That's my lot I am off out now on my bike with my dog to enjoy the day ,and before you ask yes I have got a pocket full of poo bags 
Have a good day ( turn your cameras off ) and enjoy it & stop your constant moaning and being negative, it will feel a whole better to get this burden off your back._​ 
AS for moaning it is not in my nature to moan .It seems I totally got it wrong when I started posting on this thread ,in the beginning I thought that driving after drinking ten pints of lager & a few shots was much worse than answering a call from the wife on my mobile.

Swinley forest here I come for some peace and quite


----------



## BentMikey (9 Jul 2012)

Ah, hyperbole and the straw man. Are you actually a cyclist?


----------



## gavintc (9 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> The cycling community me included pays F### All towards the roads if it wasn't for the motorists revenue income tax and vat would be astronomical.


 
Yawn.

The government runs its money as a central pot. Even national insurance gets dumped into this pot. So, we do not even fund the NHS and Social Security from a separate fund. Into this pot goes VED, VAT, Income Tax etc etc. So, when you are out riding today ponder the VAT on your bike, the income tax you pay etc etc. These all pay for the roads.


----------



## CopperCyclist (9 Jul 2012)

I paid more VAT on my last bike than I will pay VEL ("car tax") in the next three years.


----------



## stephen.rooke (9 Jul 2012)

Roads sent paid from ved. Ved is just a pollution tax. Most new cars have very little or no ved. And for your information most of us here have cars as well. I pay over £200 ved. Paying ved doesn't mean you can act like a ****. I'll pay ved on my bike if you want. Its 0 emissions so I'll pay nothing and means other taxes would have to go up to cover the cost of the paperwork. Everyone contributes to the roads via vat, income tax etc, you'll prob find that the vat on my bike was more than most people pay in ved


----------



## MissTillyFlop (9 Jul 2012)

Is there a form for reporting lorry drivers who are holding a clipboard in front of their face entirely WHILST DRIVING?
Was crssoing the road outside work this morning & luckily, he had a very jazzy-looking cab which made me look up and notice he was reading directions and not looking at the road at all.

If not I might be a Tillyflop pancake right now.


----------



## benb (9 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> The cycling community me included pays F### All towards the roads if it wasn't for the motorists revenue income tax and vat would be astronomical.


 
I don't think you understand how the treasury works.

All tax goes into a central pot. VED doesn't pay for the roads, except in the very loose sense that ALL tax pays for the roads; and schools, police, civil service, NHS, etc. etc.


----------



## bjellys (9 Jul 2012)

Thanks for the constructive comments I'm back to the MTB section they are a happy lot in there, they cycle without a care in the world and do not rise to the bait like in the Commuting section.
Nothing like a lively debate to keep you on your toes.


----------



## dawesome (9 Jul 2012)

How can a grown man remain in complete ignorance about how roads are paid for, and think cyclists don't pay any tax, it's a whole new level of stupidity.


----------



## gaz (9 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> The cycling community me included pays F### All towards the roads if it wasn't for the motorists revenue income tax and vat would be astronomical.


The amusing thing here is that you know absolutely nothing about how the road network works, but you spout off like you do.

For starters, roads on the majority are maintained by the local council. Do they get motorists 'road tax' for upkeep of them? certainly not directly and certainly not all of it.
VED (road tax) is based on the emission the engine makes. The more it makes, the more you pay. Some cars, such as the VW Polo Blue motion, pay zero VED because their engine makes very little emissions. Should that car be banished from the roads?

So in your mind, because the motoring sector pays so much tax, it there for gives them more rights on the road. Rights to do what ever they want and rights to almost injure those that pay less than them?

You are a joke.


----------



## benb (9 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> Thanks for the constructive comments I'm back to the MTB section they are a happy lot in there, they cycle without a care in the world and do not rise to the bait like in the Commuting section.
> Nothing like a lively debate to keep you on your toes.


 
Translation: I was trolling to provoke a reaction.
Pathetic.


----------



## EasyCrank (10 Jul 2012)

As some of you may have seen, I've taken to riding with a descrete camera attached to my handlebars. While I'm not going to win any OSCARs with it, it's great for picking up dodgy drivers along with their number plates. A useful little feature...


----------



## bjellys (10 Jul 2012)

> Translation: I was trolling to provoke a reaction.
> Pathetic


 
Looking at some of the other members comments about my posts I didn't realize you can only voice one point of view and that is yours.I just take a more laid back & less intense attitude towards these things and try to enjoy every moment of every day.I dont want to live in a Gestapo type state and I dont want to grass my own mum or dad up for using a mobile when driving as some members would.
As for not understanding the way the government collects and spends it's taxes I certainly know the way they collect it and waste it when they spend it.
I drive to work 650 miles a week ( no other choice ) and pay 62 % tax on every gallon of fuel I buy this equates to about £ 48 per week in fuel tax,so please don't try and tell me that the cyclists pays equal amounts into the proverbial pot they don't ! I would like to know how many members think they should pay road tax for their bike ?
As for the members who think I am not a cyclist I cycle every day (7 days a week ) I used to run every day before that.I am now 64 years old and have a laid back attitude to life I have seen lots of changes over the years some good some bad and the one thing I have learned is not to swallow all the spin and lies the politicians feed us and most of all to enjoy my cycling and not go looking to report some other human being for minor misdemeanour's you all seem to me to need to chill-out a bit and enjoy your cycle to work.
Last but not least the next time you are trying to beat your cycle to work best ever time think of the poor homeless person in a shop doorway.get off your bike give them your sandwiches & and a couple of quid this will help them and you. It might even get you out of the me me me attitude.
On a side note I went to box hill last Saturday for a family picnic and was looking forward to zooming up Zigzag road in my car ( the Olympic route ) but I couldn't because of all the bloody cyclists hundreds of them riding two abreast (there were signs saying single file for cyclists )
did I moan No I just laughed and thought of you lot on here.
have a good day 

.


----------



## BentMikey (10 Jul 2012)

You're mistaken. On average, cyclists pay MORE towards the roads. Not only do most cyclists own cars, but cyclists are over-represented by high earners. Cyclists subsidise your road use.


----------



## benb (10 Jul 2012)

Of course you can express a differing point of view, but when you say things that are factually wrong, you can expect to be challenged and corrected.

And when you admit that you were only trying to get us to "rise to the bait" you can see why that comes across as trolling.


----------



## bjellys (10 Jul 2012)

> You're mistaken. On average, cyclists pay MORE towards the roads. Not only do most cyclists own cars, but cyclists are over-represented by high earners. Cyclists subsidise your road use.


 
Do you subsidise the lorry's as well ? I have never heard such a load of nonsense as this in all my life Ha Ha


----------



## bjellys (10 Jul 2012)

> Of course you can express a differing point of view, but when you say things that are factually wrong, you can expect to be challenged and corrected.
> 
> And when you admit that you were only trying to get us to "rise to the bait" you can see why that comes across as trolling


 
I am try trying to tell you there is a great big world outside of your little bubble,you need to embrace it and enjoy it. 
.


----------



## BentMikey (10 Jul 2012)

The only nonsense here is your ignorance, bjellys. If you really did understand even a little about the tax system, you'd realise that all taxpayers are subsidising motoring costs. Only some of those taxpayers are drivers, who don't pay the full costs of their motoring.


----------



## gavintc (10 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> Do you subsidise the lorry's as well ? I have never heard such a load of nonsense as this in all my life Ha Ha


We all pay for truck VED and fuel. Hauliers do not drive for charity, but cover their costs through their daily/mile charges. So, in answer to your troll question, every time you buy something, you are indirectly paying for the truck.


----------



## gavintc (10 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> I drive to work 650 miles a week ( no other choice ) and pay 62 % tax on every gallon of fuel I buy this equates to about £ 48 per week in fuel tax,so please don't try and tell me that the cyclists pays equal amounts into the proverbial pot they don't ! I would like to know how many members think they should pay road tax for their bike ?
> 
> .


 
Buy a car with a small engine - VED free
Buy a bike with a small engine (one man power) - VED free

I therefore pay my way quite adequately 

Oh and I pay VED on my family car.


----------



## benb (10 Jul 2012)

Also, bicycles don't damage the road in any substantial way, so even if we pretend that VED pays for road maintenance, we are paying the correct amount.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (10 Jul 2012)

So why should small cars pay no road tax (sic) but bikes pay for it?

Plus bikes have never paid road tax (sic) but suddenly we should pay road tax,what has changed apart from motorists bitterness?


----------



## BentMikey (10 Jul 2012)

Nothing, bjellys just has an unjustified sense of entitlement, and feels like a poor put upon motorist, rather than realising the true nature of his obligations and duty of care.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (10 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> The cycling community me included pays F### All towards the roads if it wasn't for the motorists revenue income tax and vat would be astronomical.


 
Aside from motorways (which bicycles don't use), roads are paid for from council tax and income tax.



> Vehicle tax was introduced in the 1888 budget and the current system of excise duty applying specifically to motor vehicles was introduced in 1920. This excise duty was ring-fenced for road construction and was paid directly into a special Road Fund from 1920 until 1937 after which it was treated as general taxation.[3] Even during this period the majority of the cost of road building and improvement came from general and local taxation due to the tax being too low for the upkeep of the roads


 
Also, if you wish cyclists to pay road tax, then do those who do not use any sort of road transport at get a rebate on all that general taxation they paid and didn't use?

Also disabled people are exempt from car tax, as are those with cars over 30 years old and those withvehicles with low emissions - are you going to get on their case as well?


----------



## gaz (10 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> I drive to work 650 miles a week ( no other choice ) and pay 62 % tax on every gallon of fuel I buy this equates to about £ 48 per week in fuel tax,so please don't try and tell me that the cyclists pays equal amounts into the proverbial pot they don't ! *I would like to know how many members think they should pay road tax for their bike ?*


If you want to bring in road tax for bicycles. Then I think it is only fair that it is done on the same system as all other forms or transportation.
And that is based on the CO2 emissions that the vehicle produces. So as a bicycle produces less than 100g of CO2 per km, it would pay £0.

So lets say that it costs £5 to make and distribute a single VED disc to a single bicycle.
In 2009, 3.5million bicycles where sold in the UK (compared to 1.9million cars). So lets say there are 5 million bicycles used on the roads in the UK
That would mean a cost of £25,000,000 to just send out VED discs, what about the cost of all the admin work?


----------



## gavintc (10 Jul 2012)

gaz said:


> If you want to bring in road tax for bicycles. Then I think it is only fair that it is done on the same system as all other forms or transportation.
> And that is based on the CO2 emissions that the vehicle produces. So as a bicycle produces less than 100g of CO2 per km, it would pay £0.
> 
> So lets say that it costs £5 to make and distribute a single VED disc to a single bicycle.
> ...


 
I am afraid that people like that simply quote the Daily Hate / Clarkson comments and are not using their brain. IMO cyclists are not perfect and could clean up their act in many ways, but VED and 'paying for the road' is not one of them.


----------



## growingvegetables (10 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> I am try trying to tell you there is a great big world outside of your little bubble.
> .


Correction - you're trying to tell us that the entire world should be managed for the convenience of your personal petrol tank. And as you've noticed, that kind of short-sightedness doesn't fly.


----------



## benb (10 Jul 2012)

I've come to the conclusion that idiots like this don't want cyclists to pay "road tax" (as a moment's thought would show that we would pay £0 under VED banding); they want us to pay a punitive cycling tax for having the temerity to cycle on "their" roads.

In other words, they simply want cycling to be less attractive: they want to price us off the roads.

Of course, they never seem to consider that if every cyclist drove instead, that would make their journey *more* congested and difficult not less. In fact, every cyclist is doing motorists a massive favour by taking up less room on the roads.


----------



## bjellys (11 Jul 2012)

_I'll just say it again _Looking at some of the other members comments about my posts I didn't realize you can only voice one point of view and that is yours.I just take a more laid back & less intense attitude towards these things and try to enjoy every moment of every day.I dont want to live in a Gestapo type state and I dont want to grass my own mum or dad up for using a mobile when driving as some members would.
That's me finished have a good day.


----------



## benb (11 Jul 2012)

No-one has said you can't have your own point of view, but you were posting factually inaccurate statements, so were challenged on them.

You're entitled to your own opinions, you're not entitled to your own facts.


----------



## gaz (11 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> _I'll just say it again _Looking at some of the other members comments about my posts I didn't realize you can only voice one point of view and that is yours.I just take a more laid back & less intense attitude towards these things and try to enjoy every moment of every day.I dont want to live in a Gestapo type state and I dont want to grass my own mum or dad up for using a mobile when driving as some members would.
> That's me finished have a good day.


When your 'point of view' is factually incorrect (road tax, are you living in the 1930's?). Expect some replies about it


----------



## BentMikey (11 Jul 2012)

E_Mc2-86MuA said:


> I would only report a driver for being on a mobile If they were a c#!t (e.g Chav being a moron in a golf polo he thinks is a Bugatti)
> Or if they HIT me.
> Doing it for the sake of it is petty and pointless. Will solve nothing except government debt slightly.


 
Incorrect. It's not pointless at all. Taking drivers to task for small transgressions will affect their future behaviour and if done often enough across the driving population, will significantly affect the KSI stats. That is not a bad thing.


----------



## BentMikey (11 Jul 2012)

Drivers will always whinge for being brought to task. Moan about parking tickets, speeding tickets. IT'S NOT FAIR WAAAAH WAAAAH WAAAH. *Puts in dummy*

They behave better next time, almost invariably.


----------



## Hector (11 Jul 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Incorrect. It's not pointless at all. Taking drivers to task for small transgressions will affect their future behaviour and if done often enough across the driving population, will significantly affect the KSI stats. That is not a bad thing.


 
You got anything to back the above up?


----------



## Hector (11 Jul 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Incorrect. It's not pointless at all. Taking drivers to task for small transgressions will affect their future behaviour and if done often enough across the driving population, will significantly affect the KSI stats. That is not a bad thing.


 
You got anything to back the above up?


----------



## BentMikey (11 Jul 2012)

I saw details of a study that found high levels of traffic policing did indeed do that. I didn't keep a link unfortunately. Maybe someone else on here has that?


----------



## Vikeonabike (12 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> I am now doing a bit of research so here are 3 Questions for the camera wielding cyclists
> 
> 1. Would you report your mother or father for using a mobile while driving ?
> 2. If you are a car driver have you ever driven over the speed limit ?
> ...


1. I'd give them the ticket myself
2. Who hasn't but I am generally "Driving Miss Daisy" when not at work.
3. Never even tried one!


----------



## Hector (13 Jul 2012)

BentMikey said:


> I saw details of a study that found high levels of traffic policing did indeed do that. I didn't keep a link unfortunately. Maybe someone else on here has that?


 
Ok, but I don't quite see how the above and your original post are which I quoted are linked.

High levels of traffic Policing I suppose could reduce levels of mobile phone use as the Police are there as a punitive measure should they catch someone and word will spread.

I don't see how this can be integrated into cyclists filming and reporting, especially as it would apppear from reading the thread on the 'Silks' blog that video cameras are not being used as evidence as they are not objectionable.

I think you have confused matters here with all due respect. Cyclists filming and reporting drivers will not have the same impact as the Police pulling them over and giving them a ticket.

Citing such actions by cyclists and saying they will have an impact due to high traffic policing is a strawman.


----------



## BentMikey (13 Jul 2012)

Well, it's true that camera cyclists are not the same as police action, but there is some considerable merit to the idea that a shaming on YouTube is actually much more publicly painful than points and a court appearance. In the end it doesn't really matter which is more painful, as both bring consequences home to the driver. Bringing consequences that cause pain is what changes driver behaviour.

If you look at a company liveried vehicle, the consequences of a YouTube shaming can be far more severe than any police action.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (13 Jul 2012)

User3094 said:


> Who died and put you in charge?


 
I did.


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> Looking at some of the other members comments about my posts I didn't realize you can only voice one point of view and that is yours.I just take a more laid back & less intense attitude towards these things and try to enjoy every moment of every day.I dont want to live in a Gestapo type state and I dont want to grass my own mum or dad up for using a mobile when driving as some members would.
> As for not understanding the way the government collects and spends it's taxes I certainly know the way they collect it and waste it when they spend it.
> I drive to work 650 miles a week ( no other choice ) and pay 62 % tax on every gallon of fuel I buy this equates to about £ 48 per week in fuel tax,so please don't try and tell me that the cyclists pays equal amounts into the proverbial pot they don't ! I would like to know how many members think they should pay road tax for their bike ?


 
I drink beer and pay 38% of the price of a pint of beer in tax...... my wife who drinks coffee in the pub, so deosn't ay this tax. Is it unfair that she uses the same Pub?

You pay tax on fuel because you use fuel, in the same way as I choose to drink beer. The difference is that I do not bleat about it expect my beer to be subsidised by others.

As for "road tax" it is properly VED, and cyclist are in Class A along with all vehicles with emissions of less than 100g Co2 per mile..... are you suggesting that we have a special rate for cycists outside the normal calculations?




> As for the members who think I am not a cyclist I cycle every day (7 days a week ) I used to run every day before that.I am now 64 years old and have a laid back attitude to life I have seen lots of changes over the years some good some bad and the one thing I have learned is not to swallow all the spin and lies the politicians feed us and most of all to enjoy my cycling and not go looking to report some other human being for minor misdemeanour's you all seem to me to need to chill-out a bit and enjoy your cycle to work.


 
If I report something it is because t is dangerous and the person needs to be taken to task. If you feel that bad driving and endangering others is unacceptable then you are entitled to that opinion, but do not expect others to share it. Personally I have a 100% hit rate. Every driver I have reported has been subsequently the sunject of formal censure such as a fine or points on their license



> Last but not least the next time you are trying to beat your cycle to work best ever time think of the poor homeless person in a shop doorway.get off your bike give them your sandwiches & and a couple of quid this will help them and you. It might even get you out of the me me me attitude.


or.... Last but not least the next time you are trying to drive to work, think of the poor homeless person in a shop doorway.Stop your car, give them your sandwiches & and a couple of quid this will help them and you. It might even get you out of the me me me attitude, and realise that by actually doing something about dangerous drivers you are helping others by making the roads safer




> On a side note I went to box hill last Saturday for a family picnic and was looking forward to zooming up Zigzag road in my car ( the Olympic route ) but I couldn't because of all the bloody cyclists hundreds of them riding two abreast (there were signs saying single file for cyclists )
> did I moan No I just laughed and thought of you lot on here.
> have a good day


Considerate of you "zooming up" a single track road with poor visibility, narrow and with difficult corners.... perhaps those cyclists saved you from injuring someone and being reported for your poor driving?


----------



## growingvegetables (13 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> I didn't realize you can only voice one point of view and that is yours.I just take a more laid back & less intense attitude towards these things and try to enjoy every moment of every day.I dont want to live in a Gestapo type state


 
While you are laid back, and enjoying the benefits of your cycling, how about a word of appreciation for cycle cammers who put a bit of effort into making the roads just a little bit safer for you and me?

I have (as of today) 200 clips on Youtube. Reported every one? No way - but this is a rough tally.

20 are pure celebration of the pure fun (and humour) I find in cycling.
10+ of my videos have led to commendations for individual bus/commercial drivers.
30+ have led to police letters to drivers (and a large proportion of those letters have been delivered in person by a senior police officer to their home or employer, so that he could give "words of advice").
20+ of those videos have led to employers "having words" with their driver.
1 of those videos has led to a taxi driver being issued with a 3 page warning letter.
a particular series of videos has led to a public hire firm substantially cleaning up their drivers' act (with a proviso - the company knows where I live, and now pretty much avoid that area; when they do come close to my area, I'm pretty recognisable, even from behind - it may just be me they're giving preferential treatment to).
and the impact of 1 of those videos has resulted in a major national employer recommending that cycle-awareness be included as an integral part of their programme of two-yearly assessment and training for their drivers.
While you're sitting in comfort at a keyboard, wittering about a "Gestapo type state", some of us are actually doing something positive. I'm not in any way suggesting that you should be joining in and doing your bit with a camera - but I will tell you .......... *don't p!ss on the guys who are doing their bit for your safety*.


----------



## Crankarm (13 Jul 2012)

Wednesday 11th July - VN02 BHK - dark blue Ford Ka, chesterton road approx 8am, female 20-23 years, mobile glued to her right ear. Then has to stop in traffic. WHACK! on the roof. Boy did it give her a fright and the lorry driver behind tooted and did a big thumbs up to me. she gave me a middle fingered salute with a loud "F**k you!" I waived back.

Tonight 13th July - Y124 SUR silver Volvo another woman driver with mobile phone glued to her ear as she drove up castle hill. Women seem to be in the majority dialing and driving around Cambridge.

This evening I saw a male driver in a huge people carrier type vehicle using a laptop which was on his lap as he drove along the A14 in the outside lane. Frightening.


----------



## ufkacbln (14 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> I am now doing a bit of research so here are 3 Questions for the camera wielding cyclists
> 
> 1. Would you report your mother or father for using a mobile while driving ?
> 2. If you are a car driver have you ever driven over the speed limit ?
> ...


 
Smoking is an interesting one... to use your own analogy...


The non smoking community me included pays F### All towards the hospitals if it wasn't for the smoker revenue income tax and vat would be astronomical.

I smoke 400 fags a week and pay 69 % tax on every pack I buy this equates to about £ 40 per week in tobacco tax,so please don't try and tell me that the non-smokers pays equal amounts into the proverbial pot they don't ! I would like to know how many members think they should pay a subsidiary tax ?


----------



## bjellys (16 Jul 2012)

What I was trying to find out was is there a connection between non smoking and grassing up you parents.
I do not smoke myself but I agree you get a raw deal from all sides ,I think places of work /pubs should be allowed to have rooms for smokers.


----------



## BentMikey (16 Jul 2012)

..and yet again that flies in the evidence supporting the ban on smoking in enclosed public places. That has had one of the biggest positive effects on public health of any intervention for some time, I believe.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (16 Jul 2012)

BentMikey said:


> ..and yet again that flies in the evidence supporting the ban on smoking in enclosed public places. That has had one of the biggest positive effects on public health of any intervention for some time, I believe.


 
They all smoke round the bike racks at Waterloo now,can't say I like it and the place looks filthy.


----------



## CopperCyclist (16 Jul 2012)

BentMikey said:


> ..and yet again that flies in the evidence supporting the ban on smoking in enclosed public places. That has had one of the biggest positive effects on public health of any intervention for some time, I believe.



It's also made it much, much more pleasant to visit pubs now too!


----------



## ufkacbln (16 Jul 2012)

bjellys said:


> What I was trying to find out was is there a connection between non smoking and grassing up you parents.
> I do not smoke myself but I agree you get a raw deal from all sides ,I think places of work /pubs should be allowed to have rooms for smokers.


 
For once I am quite willing to advocate helmets!


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (19 Jul 2012)

Crankarm said:


> Wednesday 11th July - VN02 BHK - dark blue Ford Ka, chesterton road approx 8am, female 20-23 years, mobile glued to her right ear. Then has to stop in traffic. WHACK! on the roof. Boy did it give her a fright and the lorry driver behind tooted and did a big thumbs up to me. she gave me a middle fingered salute with a loud "F**k you!" I waived back.
> 
> Tonight 13th July - Y124 SUR silver Volvo another woman driver with mobile phone glued to her ear as she drove up castle hill. Women seem to be in the majority dialing and driving around Cambridge.
> 
> This evening I saw a male driver in a huge people carrier type vehicle using a laptop which was on his lap as he drove along the A14 in the outside lane. Frightening.


 
Yeah I see that,shocking,they are all hypocrites.


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Jul 2012)

What about Sean Yates today, driving, speaking into a microphone and apparently watching a video feed of the final moments.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (21 Aug 2012)

I'd never report mobile use while I am driving.(boom boom)


----------



## Thierry Beliere (23 Aug 2012)

Twenty Inch said:


> People in London can report mobile-phone-using drivers on the following form:
> 
> http://www.met.police.uk/roadsafelondon/
> 
> ...


I don't like this kind of forum, delation type... 
Low key... specially that I often break lights


----------



## cycleoptic (29 Aug 2012)

Both cabbie and phone in one: 
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM_7M2snFZ8


reaction from carriage office:

"I must explain that the Taxi & Private Hire (TPH) can only deal with offences that are contrary to the Hackney Carriage Acts and Orders. Under the circumstances you describe, we are unable to take any action against the taxi driver involved.

The TPH has no legislative power to investigate road traffic offences committed by cab drivers. I can only advise you that if you have a complaint about the driving behaviour of a cab driver you should report the matter in person to the nearest police station."

Obviously they just check the cab is clean and boot laces are done up!​


----------



## gaz (29 Aug 2012)

cycleoptic said:


> Both cabbie and phone in one: ​View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM_7M2snFZ8​​​reaction from carriage office:​​"I must explain that the Taxi & Private Hire (TPH) can only deal with offences that are contrary to the Hackney Carriage Acts and Orders. Under the circumstances you describe, we are unable to take any action against the taxi driver involved.​​The TPH has no legislative power to investigate road traffic offences committed by cab drivers. I can only advise you that if you have a complaint about the driving behaviour of a cab driver you should report the matter in person to the nearest police station."​​Obviously they just check the cab is clean and boot laces are done up!​


Was that reported to roadsafe or to TFL?


----------



## BentMikey (29 Aug 2012)

I'd definitely want to Roadsafe that taxi, the James Blunt. Also to put his taxi number and registration in the YouTube title and tags, as having it indexed is at least a consequence to him that you can control and issue yourself.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (31 Aug 2012)

Scary,I don't know what the obsession is with using mobile phones while driving but I see more and more of it,especially texting.Nothing seems to be done about this.Why?
I've got a fixed camera so I haven't always got the best of evidence,not that anything is done anyway.

I don't like cyclists jumping red lights but IMHO this is worse.


----------



## jimbo notts (17 Sep 2012)

upsidedown said:


> Looks good, wish they did something like that in the Midlands.



In the midlands would be great can't count the number of times people pull into the bike lanes at traffic lights and are forever on there phone I've been knocked off twice this year already neither stopped and all to quick to get a plate number debating getting a cam for my commute just to see if I can hand a copy to the old bill at the end of a week lol


----------



## SpokeyDokey (19 Sep 2012)

Maybe once you become a head-cam wielding, form filling self appointed guardian of the law the fun has gone out of your cycling?


----------



## gaz (19 Sep 2012)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Maybe once you become a head-cam wielding, form filling self appointed guardian of the law the fun has gone out of your cycling?


Nope.... pretty sure I'm enjoying cycling more now than I was this time last year..


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (26 Sep 2012)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Maybe once you become a head-cam wielding, form filling self appointed guardian of the law the fun has gone out of your cycling?


 
No the fun has gone out of cycling due to the car driving imbeciles out there.

Lets face it,there are quite a few who should not be driving.


----------



## BentMikey (26 Sep 2012)

Miquel In De Rain said:


> No the fun has gone out of cycling due to the car driving imbeciles out there.
> 
> Lets face it,there are quite a few who should not be driving.


 
You're not kidding! I wouldn't trust quite a few of them to do my photocopying.


----------



## Phill057 (29 Sep 2012)

I see it all the time over here in Ireland. It infuriates me seeing them with the kitchen tile stuck to their ear while driving. We have another good one over here in Ireland is texting while driving. You have to see this on to believe it. Us as commuting cyclists should have the power to issue out point on the spot when they are stopped at traffic lights. I would introduce a mandatory penalty of putting their mobile phone under their front wheel and getting them to drive off. Because the are reducing police stations and the number of the police itself the police have neither the time not the motivation to impose any penalties. Personally speaking the problem is such state that if they did spend their time collecting the fines accociated with this they would have an entire police budget within a month easy. 
It is only us that are on bikes can see how bad the situation is. Being a former Fire Fighter I have seen the result of the Mobile/ Car combination and it aint pretty at all. And when a rescue is performed what is the first thing that they look for when they are being put into the ambulance . "Where is my Phone"


----------



## Phill057 (7 Oct 2012)

I say Report them to the police every chance you get. And Report the police officer that ignores them


----------



## Davidsw8 (11 Oct 2012)

cycleoptic said:


> Both cabbie and phone in one: ​View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM_7M2snFZ8​​​reaction from carriage office:​​"I must explain that the Taxi & Private Hire (TPH) can only deal with offences that are contrary to the Hackney Carriage Acts and Orders. Under the circumstances you describe, we are unable to take any action against the taxi driver involved.​​The TPH has no legislative power to investigate road traffic offences committed by cab drivers. I can only advise you that if you have a complaint about the driving behaviour of a cab driver you should report the matter in person to the nearest police station."​​Obviously they just check the cab is clean and boot laces are done up!​


 
I reported a cabbie who cut me up the other week and got almost exactly the same response as above - looks like a regular cut-and-paste response eh? I replied:

"As this was a case of inconsiderate (but potentially dangerous) driving, I felt this did contravene sections 39.1.a and 39.2.a (despite the antiquated language) of the Hackney Carriages Act so I was surprised to hear that this kind of driving is deemed acceptable."

Needless to say, I heard nothing further from them on this so I reported it to Roadsafe...


----------



## Davidsw8 (11 Oct 2012)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Maybe once you become a head-cam wielding, form filling self appointed guardian of the law the fun has gone out of your cycling?


 
The fun has definitely gone out of cycling I'm afraid, it's just a cheap and quick way of me getting to work.

I say report every last one of them too, if someone I cared about got hurt by some idiot not paying attention cos they're talking to their partner about what fish to have with their chips for dinner, I'd be pretty damn upset!

It's our obligation to report breaches in the law, there are too many people willing to stand by and let bad things happen to other people.


----------



## Phill057 (14 Oct 2012)

I totally agree with you. They think it is no harm until they have an accident. All of those offenders should be made witnessed what have during my Fire Fighting years. All of which was due to carelessness. They do not seem to realize that it is lethal weapon that they are in. More so than a loaded gun.


----------



## Cyclopathic (17 Oct 2012)

Pardon the laziness of this question but what is the best, easiest and qickest way to report drivers on their mobile phones? I live and cycle in Leicester. Does anyone know if there is a particular system in place for this here or if it is just down to taking the details and phoning it in to the police station (through their ordinary number, not the emergency line obviously)


----------



## Davidsw8 (18 Oct 2012)

Cyclopathic said:


> Pardon the laziness of this question but what is the best, easiest and qickest way to report drivers on their mobile phones? I live and cycle in Leicester. Does anyone know if there is a particular system in place for this here or if it is just down to taking the details and phoning it in to the police station (through their ordinary number, not the emergency line obviously)


 
The Met Police have RoadSafe London but this doesn't look like a nationwide initiative (and I'm not convinced at how good it is anyway), maybe contact your local police to see if they have something similar though?


----------



## Robson3022 (18 Oct 2012)

Is there any point in doing this if you have no proof other than your word? I ask as a genuine question. I was riding up a bank last week through a traffic calming chicane with my right of way when WVM comes flying through on his phone so I have to stop.

I probably wouldn't report him anyway but it would be interesting to know if I wanted to?


----------



## Davidsw8 (18 Oct 2012)

Robson3022 said:


> Is there any point in doing this if you have no proof other than your word? I ask as a genuine question. I was riding up a bank last week through a traffic calming chicane with my right of way when WVM comes flying through on his phone so I have to stop.
> 
> I probably wouldn't report him anyway but it would be interesting to know if I wanted to?


 
I'm not sure what happens when these things are reported but if you have the incident on camera, then that's a good start point. Also, if you have the registration of the car and the time of the incident, the police can check the drivers' phone records which will prove definitively either way if he was using his phone.


----------



## Robson3022 (18 Oct 2012)

> Also, if you have the registration of the car and the time of the incident, the police can check the drivers' phone records which will prove definitively either way if he was using his phone.


 
That's a good point. However will the police really go to all of this trouble?


----------



## Davidsw8 (18 Oct 2012)

Robson3022 said:


> That's a good point. However will the police really go to all of this trouble?


 
Depends how easy it is for them to do I suppose... Worth plugging away at it though I reckon.


----------



## John Kervin (23 Oct 2012)

Is there anything in Cheshire?


----------



## veloevol (23 Oct 2012)

The police aren't going to lift a bloody finger unless there is a victim. It will just get filed IMHO.


----------



## Davidsw8 (30 Oct 2012)

Um, did someone say it was pointless reporting mobile phone use? Just got this letter from the Met (reducted):

------------------------------
"We have received a report from yourself in relation to an incident that occurred on Thursday the 11th of Oct 2012 at 09:16hrs at Lambeth Rd , Lambeth Bridge regarding a WHITE Transit in ###### registration number #### ###. You are shown as being involved and the information you submitted has been examined and a decision has been made in this instance not too take any further action for the following reasons.

It was noted the driver was using a mobile phone whilst driving and a letter has been sent to the ########### informing them of this. They are identifying the driver and taking internal action against him and the matter is to be resolved in this matter as this is in line with policy that the Roadsafe Unit has in place at the moment. I recognize the safety element in this matter and am ensuring that the driver is identified and confirm he will receive a letter from me highlighting the Roadsafe system and the poor nature of his driving.

A letter will be sent to the driver stating they have been involved in an incident with a cyclist and an allegation has been made and the standards of the driver have been highlighted, but on this occasion No Further Action has been taken. Should the registration number or company involved come to notice again I will of course look into the matter.

No police action or further investigation will be taken and we are simply informing you that this matter has been investigated. Our role is to raise awareness and promote road safety with all road users."

----------------------------------------------

The more drivers know that if they choose to use their mobiles while driving, that they'll be caught - Icall that a result 

Any internal action taken by the company is his look out. For the record, he drove through a red light and then sped through a second as it was changing from amber to red whilst he was on his phone... in rush hour... on a particularly busy bridge.


----------



## gaz (30 Oct 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> Um, did someone say it was pointless reporting mobile phone use? Just got this letter from the Met (reducted):
> 
> ------------------------------
> "We have received a report from yourself in relation to an incident that occurred on Thursday the 11th of Oct 2012 at 09:16hrs at Lambeth Rd , Lambeth Bridge regarding a WHITE Transit in ###### registration number #### ###. You are shown as being involved and the information you submitted has been examined and a decision has been made in this instance not too take any further action for the following reasons.
> ...


Roadsafe have made some slight changes and we are getting better 'results'


----------



## Trickedem (15 Nov 2012)

Is this worth reporting to Roadsafe. The last time I reported something they didn't even reply.
I think this is probably one of the biggest dangers on the road nowadays, Drivers who are using their phones for texting, updating facebook etc.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (15 Nov 2012)

Trickedem said:


> Is this worth reporting to Roadsafe. The last time I reported something they didn't even reply.
> I think this is probably one of the biggest dangers on the road nowadays, Drivers who are using their phones for texting, updating facebook etc.




Lucky there is no Dislike button for this comment but the cycist should be looking where hes going instead of worrying about the car driver.


----------



## Trickedem (15 Nov 2012)

Just to put this in perspective this video is running at very slow speed. In real time this is about 1 second, in the middle of which I look forward. So I was looking where I was going.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (15 Nov 2012)

Sorry, I think that its annoying people going around trying to report minor stuff, just get on with your own lifes.

Not directing this at you, I would probs be looking at the car anyway and not looking where im going.


----------



## benb (16 Nov 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> Sorry, I think that its annoying people going around trying to report minor stuff, just get on with your own lifes.
> 
> Not directing this at you, I would probs be looking at the car anyway and not looking where im going.


 
Not really minor stuff though, is it?


----------



## gaz (16 Nov 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> Sorry, I think that its annoying people going around trying to report minor stuff, just get on with your own lifes.
> 
> Not directing this at you, I would probs be looking at the car anyway and not looking where im going.


How about you get on with your only life and leave the rest of us who are campaigning for safer roads to get on with doing it.


----------



## growingvegetables (16 Nov 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> Sorry, I think that its annoying people going around trying to report minor stuff, just get on with your own lifes.




Yesterday, your "minor stuff" damned near took me out on the approach to a zebra crossing, and again on the zebra crossing.
Your "minor stuff" also scared the **** out of pedestrians at the next zebra crossing.
Your "minor stuff" then turned right, imho, recklessly and only very marginally in control.
Yes - I fully intend to get on with my own life, for a very long time. And I, sure as hell, will do all I can to make sure idiots on phones (your "minor stuff") do not curtail mine or anybody else's lives.

You're annoyed? Sorry, mate - if that's the price for me living my life to its full stretch, you've got a lot more annoying to come. Tough! 


Edited - and get real! That wasn't the first time - and thanks in part to the complacency of people who think like you, it is (sadly) unlikely to be the last time.


----------



## BentMikey (17 Nov 2012)

Trickedem said:


> Is this worth reporting to Roadsafe. The last time I reported something they didn't even reply.
> I think this is probably one of the biggest dangers on the road nowadays, Drivers who are using their phones for texting, updating facebook etc.


 
Yeah, I'd report it. Don't listen to Peter Armstrong, IMO.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (18 Nov 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> Lucky there is no Dislike button for this comment but the cycist should be looking where hes going instead of worrying about the car driver.


 
This is some sort of joke right?

Sometimes I look in when I come across strange behaviour or want some sort of tip of what the driver is going to do next when he passes me,like he may be thinking of left hooking me,he may be making a movement to signal left or right.I find it a handy tip and not necessarily because I want to catch someone using a mobile phone.Sometimes in car behaviour can be a handy warning to what is going to happen next.

Yes,I worry about car drivers as some are complete buffoons in charge of a ton of metal.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (19 Nov 2012)

ooo lets look inside this persons car, let see what they are doing. I want to catch them on a mobile because im sad.
Driver hates cyclist, driver finds out sad cyclists are reporting mobile users, driver hates cyclists even more.


----------



## gaz (19 Nov 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> ooo lets look inside this persons car, let see what they are doing. I want to catch them on a mobile because im sad.
> Driver hates cyclist, driver finds out sad cyclists are reporting mobile users, driver hates cyclists even more.


Ooo lets look inside this thread, lets see what they are doing. I don't like what they are doing, but instead of getting on with my own business, i'm going to comment about how I think it is sad, but not quite realizing that in the process, I am also being sad.


----------



## trampyjoe (19 Nov 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> ooo lets look inside this persons car, let see what they are doing. I want to catch them on a mobile because im sad.
> Driver hates cyclist, driver finds out sad cyclists are reporting mobile users, driver hates cyclists even more.


If they weren't breaking the law they wouldn't get annoyed.


----------



## Peter Armstrong (20 Nov 2012)

Well I always drive with one hand holding a mobile phone, one hand holding a cig and my another hand holding a drink.


----------



## benb (20 Nov 2012)

Peter Armstrong said:


> Well I always drive with one hand holding a mobile phone, one hand holding a cig and my another hand holding a drink.


Hi Zaphod


----------



## adamangler (22 Dec 2012)

Personally dont agree with grassing people up for using mobile phones, i am a cyclist, but i also drive for a living and a few times me or my colleagues have been told tales on for various things (whether in the right or wrong) because the company number is plastered on the side of our vans. If somone driving is using a phone effects you personally at that time then by all means have it out with them, but i find telling tales behind people back cowardly and a bit pathetic really. Its not really solving anything either its like speeding fines, most people who get caught will continue to speed, perhaps a little more cautiously .


----------



## BentMikey (22 Dec 2012)

adamangler said:


> Personally dont agree with grassing people up for using mobile phones, i am a cyclist, but i also drive for a living and a few times me or my colleagues have been told tales on for various things (whether in the right or wrong) because the company number is plastered on the side of our vans. If somone driving is using a phone effects you personally at that time then by all means have it out with them, but i find telling tales behind people back cowardly and a bit pathetic really. Its not really solving anything either its like speeding fines, most people who get caught will continue to speed, perhaps a little more cautiously .


 
Yeah, sure, because you're going to take it so well, saying "I'm sorry I was naughty, I won't do it again." Cool story bro.

More importantly, I'd rather you got a little pain from work over that behaviour than killing someone through your distracted driving. Casual and careless driving habits are NOT ACCEPTABLE. You are in charge of two tonnes or more of heavy machinery at speed in the public space, you have a huge duty of care to other people. Take your responsibility seriously and stop whinging about "being told on". FFS!!!


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (22 Dec 2012)

I think using phones while driving is selfish and irresponsible.How can a phone call be more urgent than safe and responsible driving?

People have been killed by this behaviour,you know?


----------



## adamangler (22 Dec 2012)

adamangler said:


> Personally dont agree with grassing people up for using mobile phones, i am a cyclist, but i also drive for a living and a few times me or my colleagues have been told tales on for various things (whether in the right or wrong) because the company number is plastered on the side of our vans. If somone driving is using a phone effects you personally at that time then by all means have it out with them, but i find telling tales behind people back cowardly and a bit pathetic really. Its not really solving anything either its like speeding fines, most people who get caught will continue to speed, perhaps a little more cautiously .





BentMikey said:


> Yeah, sure, because you're going to take it so well, saying "I'm sorry I was naughty, I won't do it again." Cool story bro.
> 
> More importantly, I'd rather you got a little pain from work over that behaviour than killing someone through your distracted driving. Casual and careless driving habits are NOT ACCEPTABLE. You are in charge of two tonnes or more of heavy machinery at speed in the public space, you have a huge duty of care to other people. Take your responsibility seriously and stop whinging about "being told on". FFS!!!



Actually I don't use my phone when driving at work because its 3 points and I need my licence. But that doesn't give me the right to tell tales on everyone doing something I disagree with. Being on the road every day I see it all, speeding, mobile phones, arguments, cutting up, jumping lights etc. If I were to report every incidentI've ever seen I'd be on the phone all the time! You just shrug your shoulders and get on with it, I tend to ignore idiots and the times I have felt the need to complain the windows down and have a discussion, that's it, done, forget it. I take offence to sneaky cowardly behaviour. I'm a firm believer of if you have a problem with someone to take it out face to face. Believe me if some idiot driver knocked me off my bike whilst on the phone I would certainly take the issue up with them or the police however I can't agree with random acts of vigilante. Keep your nose out imo. I agree with the principal of careless driving being punishable and I don't condone it. I wouldn't want someone telling tales on me so wouldn't do it to someone else., why people feel the need to interfere in other people's business is beyond me.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (22 Dec 2012)

I dont ignore 5h1t driving.


----------



## BentMikey (22 Dec 2012)

adamangler said:


> Actually I don't use my phone when driving at work because its 3 points and I need my licence. But that doesn't give me the right to tell tales on everyone doing something I disagree with. Being on the road every day I see it all, speeding, mobile phones, arguments, cutting up, jumping lights etc. If I were to report every incidentI've ever seen I'd be on the phone all the time! You just shrug your shoulders and get on with it, I tend to ignore idiots and the times I have felt the need to complain the windows down and have a discussion, that's it, done, forget it. I take offence to sneaky cowardly behaviour. I'm a firm believer of if you have a problem with someone to take it out face to face. Believe me if some idiot driver knocked me off my bike whilst on the phone I would certainly take the issue up with them or the police however I can't agree with random acts of vigilante. Keep your nose out imo. I agree with the principal of careless driving being punishable and I don't condone it. I wouldn't want someone telling tales on me so wouldn't do it to someone else., why people feel the need to interfere in other people's business is beyond me.


 
What is sneaky and cowardly is expecting people not to report serious misdeeds, equivalent to drink driving. Think of it as a stupidity tax - if you're stupid enough to do something illegal knowingly, and knowingly risking other peoples' lives, then you should expect consequences. It's not interfering in other peoples' business, it's dealing with an issue that directly affects me personally.

It's long past time to stop tolerating such misbehaviour on our roads.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (22 Dec 2012)

Driving a car like riding a bike requires thought and planning,unfortunately when I encounter mobile phone wielding motorists I find they have done neither.It may not matter about me but it does matter to some kid crossing the road.


----------



## Davidsw8 (22 Dec 2012)

adamangler said:


> Personally dont agree with grassing people up for using mobile phones, i am a cyclist, but i also drive for a living and a few times me or my colleagues have been told tales on for various things (whether in the right or wrong) because the company number is plastered on the side of our vans. If somone driving is using a phone effects you personally at that time then by all means have it out with them, but i find telling tales behind people back cowardly and a bit pathetic really. Its not really solving anything either its like speeding fines, most people who get caught will continue to speed, perhaps a little more cautiously .


 
Let's not forget that mobile phone use while driving is against the law, it's not some harmless child's jape like scrumping apples - people die because of this selfish behaviour.

Here's one from last week:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/975...d-pedestrian-after-texting-escapes-jail.html#

This grandfather is now dead because this woman just had to send that text!

Cowardice is irrelevant here, I wouldn't stand by and watch an old lady getting mugged just because it didn't affect me personally, same as I won't stand by and watch someone run a red light or drive using their mobile if I can do something about it.

I have no qualms or guilty feelings about grassing some idiot up if they actively choose to break the law, either they are too stupid to realise the consequences of their behaviour or they simply don't care, either way they shouldn't be allowed to drive and I don't want them on the same roads as me or anyone I care about.

I'm not bothered if any of this sounds pompous or self-serving, this infuriates me and it's time for zero-tolerance here.


----------



## Cycling Dan (22 Dec 2012)

adamangler said:


> Actually I don't use my phone when driving at work because its 3 points and I need my licence. But that doesn't give me the right to tell tales on everyone doing something I disagree with. Being on the road every day I see it all, speeding, mobile phones, arguments, cutting up, jumping lights etc. If I were to report every incidentI've ever seen I'd be on the phone all the time! You just shrug your shoulders and get on with it, I tend to ignore idiots and the times I have felt the need to complain the windows down and have a discussion, that's it, done, forget it. I take offence to sneaky cowardly behaviour. I'm a firm believer of if you have a problem with someone to take it out face to face. Believe me if some idiot driver knocked me off my bike whilst on the phone I would certainly take the issue up with them or the police however I can't agree with random acts of vigilante. Keep your nose out imo. I agree with the principal of careless driving being punishable and I don't condone it. I wouldn't want someone telling tales on me so wouldn't do it to someone else., why people feel the need to interfere in other people's business is beyond me.


 
It makes me sad to think there are people like you in this country.
Whats worse is they are in the justice system as well.
The Law is the Law!!
If you see someone breaking the law it is your right and duty as a citizen to report this person to the correct authority.
I cant stress that enough.
Ignoring is a terrible policy, and it's terrible politics. It's a terrible policy because you are rewarding people forbreaking the law!


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (22 Dec 2012)

Seems like people are more worried about picking up points instead of seeing what a stupid and irresponsible act this is.


----------



## BentMikey (22 Dec 2012)

On the other hand, there is a line we all choose to draw somewhere as to what is worth reporting. I don't generally bother with drivers not wearing seatbelts, for example, nor drivers going in the ASL. 

Phone driving scum, though, I'll report every time.


----------



## Cycling Dan (22 Dec 2012)

Davidsw8 said:


> Let's not forget that mobile phone use while driving is against the law, it's not some harmless child's jape like scrumping apples - people die because of this selfish behaviour.
> 
> Here's one from last week:
> 
> ...


 
"phone use at the wheel were woefully inadequate and the punishments should be put on par with drink driving if motorists were to take them seriously."
i would take it further... i would call it manslaughter. Give them the 14 years. or do what the Americans do (didnt think i would be saying that)... Vehicular or intoxication manslaughter
some people would say oh she will be guilty and other crap like that.... however they can go about there life as normal... having time with their children... However this person who has been killed was taken from everyone they knew.... it not just the person who is killed that is affect. Everyone that they knew and loved is. In no way is that equal.. Try this crap in a middle east country they take body parts.
It just enrages me that people who pull this crap get a slap on the wrist. Clearly a human life is worth a fine these days. 
We should come down on people like this with a iron fist!


----------



## adamangler (22 Dec 2012)

Just for the record i dont condone mobile phone use, seems my point has been twisted to be something its not....
Anyway me disagreeing with reporting it doesnt matter, in the same way people reporting it doesnt, people will continue to do what they want just like speeding, some just dont think. Its wrong but so is a lot of things in this world, human nature is what it is. 

Its not really something that bothers me enough to argue about, so i`ll leave it there.


----------



## Davidsw8 (22 Dec 2012)

adamangler said:


> Just for the record i dont condone mobile phone use, seems my point has been twisted to be something its not....
> Anyway me disagreeing with reporting it doesnt matter, in the same way people reporting it doesnt, people will continue to do what they want just like speeding, some just dont think. Its wrong but so is a lot of things in this world, human nature is what it is.
> 
> Its not really something that bothers me enough to argue about, so i`ll leave it there.


 
I got the impression that whilst you didn't condone mobile phone use, you object to people reporting others for doing it. Maybe I misconstrued your point...

The point, I and others here have countered with is that the world would be a better place if people didn't take a back seat and permit bad behaviour to continue without consequence. People's behaviour may not alter but if it doesn't alter then they will have choices removed from them, i.e. continued driving offences will result in them being disqualified from driving.

However, I'd argue that faced with losing one's job or mobility may prompt some people not to commit these offences, even if they don't care if they or someone else gets hurt (or dies) because of what they do.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (22 Dec 2012)

> Actually I don't use my phone when driving at work because its 3 points and I need my licence.


 
Thank god he's got a job then.


----------



## BentMikey (22 Dec 2012)

adamangler said:


> Just for the record i dont condone mobile phone use, seems my point has been twisted to be something its not....
> Anyway me disagreeing with reporting it doesnt matter, in the same way people reporting it doesnt, people will continue to do what they want just like speeding, some just dont think. Its wrong but so is a lot of things in this world, human nature is what it is.
> 
> Its not really something that bothers me enough to argue about, so i`ll leave it there.


 
As David said, do nothing and nothing will change. Do something, such as reporting it, and things will change. Not as much as we'd like, and yet considerably more than you suggest (i.e. no change).

Quite a few of us have repeat customers, and most of the time these repeat customers do considerably better on their second encounter. Quite a few of mine drive as though they have a driving examiner sat next to them.

You might think that a few cycling cameraistas will make no difference, but there are thousands of us now. Camera use is increasing exponentially, simply because cyclists are most likely to get maltreated on the roads and most likely to have their complaints dismissed. Video changes that. Often, contrary to popular belief, cyclists are highly motivated technically savvy people with disposable income and time and a willingness to make a difference. This means that camera campaigning becomes particularly effective, as many drivers and companies have found out to their surprise.


----------



## Davidsw8 (23 Dec 2012)

I know Adam's post got removed (by himself or someone else) but I did just want to say that I don't believe any cyclist with a camera sets out to deliberately find people committing traffic offences. It would be like saying you wear a cycle helmet then go out to find the nearest bit of tarmac to throw your head against. It's for protection.

For me, the camera acts as a back up should anything bad happen. If I get knocked off my bike, I want real evidence not their word against mine - and if someone chooses to break the law and I capture it on cam then I'll report it.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (28 Dec 2012)

Met a dangerous driver last night on mobile in white marked van,a sub-contractor for Thames Water towing a two wheel thingy coming back from Waterloo going up to Tower Gateway,would have taken his number if I could have gotto a pen.You say we shouldn't "grass" these people up but they are allowed to have total disregard for other peoples safety.What a f'kin joke.

Passed too close and dangerously.


----------



## adamangler (28 Dec 2012)

I dont agree with grassing someone up for the sake of it.(for example someone driving the other way or sat at the lights not bothering me) I did however say if them being on a phone effects you (like you just said it did) then fair enough. 

personally i couldn`t be bothered reporting them unless they had caused an accident, but everyone can please themselves.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Dec 2012)

It wouldn't be an accident, Adam. It'd be a collision caused by a James Blunt on the phone.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (28 Dec 2012)

I think when the accident has happened it is slightly too late to report these people.

How many people are killed on Britains roads each year,FFS.Wasn't there a crash on Saturday to do with a bus stop.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20857434

Sure it was ok then,perhaps he wasn't on the phone.There is something seriously wrong with the people in this country.Ok I know not everyone in this country is like this but sometimes it doesn't seem like it,esp when I have to put up with more crap driving from a motorist again.No,the camera is not fitted because quite plainly I can't be bothered to film the same old crap.

R.I.P,so sorry for the victims.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Dec 2012)

Little apposite quote for you, Adam:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...s-their-business/story-e6freoof-1226544796475



> I remember one year we went to three serious crashes where young female P-platers had parts of mobile phones actually embedded in their hands.
> They've been talking on the phone, looked up, gone "crap" and tried to brace themselves and the phone has become embedded in their hand.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (28 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> Little apposite quote for you, Adam:
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...s-their-business/story-e6freoof-1226544796475


 
Wow,that's breathtaking.


----------



## adamangler (28 Dec 2012)

Driving is dangerous. Mobile phone use, excess speed, weather, driver skill or any other variable makes it more so.
But its a lottery overtime you go on the roads, there's not one of us who can make the world all rosy. The world is a selfish place, non more so than the roads, I haven't Got the time or inclination to try to right every wrong in this world or o judge people who make mistakes because I'm not perfect im sure at somepoint in life I have or will do something stupid whether that's in a car on a bike or anything else. I just go out and ride my bike, what will be will be.

Everyone is different and I'm only giving my view, if no one agrees that's fine, we all have out own outlook on life, I just think life is too short to be worrying about everyone else's shortcomings, just do you. You can't change other people.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Dec 2012)

Nonsense, you can change both yourself and other people. The change in other people is quite obvious from the repeat "customers" lists many of us have. I'd like to think the amount of learning done by camera cyclists and youtube fans is considerable and very obvious indeed.

I think it's breathtaking how complacent and casual you come across to me. I think that you, and those like you, are a major part of the safety problem on our roads. You seem to ignore, tolerate, and tacitly accept and encourage significant risk, just like in the bad old days when complacent drivers would "have one for the road", accept that behaviour, and encourage their friends to join them in a drink.


----------



## gaz (28 Dec 2012)

adamangler said:


> Driving is dangerous. Mobile phone use, excess speed, weather, driver skill or any other variable makes it more so.
> But its a lottery overtime you go on the roads, there's not one of us who can make the world all rosy. The world is a selfish place, non more so than the roads, I haven't Got the time or inclination to try to right every wrong in this world or o judge people who make mistakes because I'm not perfect im sure at somepoint in life I have or will do something stupid whether that's in a car on a bike or anything else. I just go out and ride my bike, what will be will be.
> 
> Everyone is different and I'm only giving my view, if no one agrees that's fine, we all have out own outlook on life, I just think life is too short to be worrying about everyone else's shortcomings, just do you. You can't change other people.


You don't have the time or the inclination to report these people or to judge them but you have the time and inclination to tell us that. Just go out and ride your bike and leave us to work on trying to make a difference.


----------



## adamangler (28 Dec 2012)

You're arguing about about my opinion.
All I said is I wouldn't report mob use for the sake of it unless it had caused an accident.
That's up to me not you, there's really no argument to that..but I will entertain you.

You can change yourself, but others? You can educate others or put your point across, but change? Not really a person has to want to change. As regards to "repeat customers" you're nothing more than a speed camera, a driver sees you and behaves himself until he's passed, all you are doing is causing a distraction with drivers looking out for that bloke with a camera rather than the road.

I'm not complacent at all, there is no complacency is taking care of my own actions on the road rather than looking for others mistakes, if anything I'm more complacent because I'm concentrating in what I can control.

As for me being a safety problem, that's ridiculous, see above I'm concentrating on what I can control.

You say I ignore on tolerate, I say I live and let live I'm not god, I have no right to tell other people what to do, we have police to enforce laws.

I look at it like this, anyone can pull anyone up on anything, you shouldn't speed, use a phone, smoke, drink, have an affair, blah blah etc. 

I wouldn't take kindly to someone shoving a camera in my face so I wouldn't do it to someone else.


----------



## adamangler (28 Dec 2012)

gaz said:


> You don't have the time or the inclination to report these people or to judge them but you have the time and inclination to tell us that. Just go out and ride your bike and leave us to work on trying to make a difference.



Because its a forum and I gave my opinion on the topic and got slated for it. Like I'm not going to argue my case. Im all for you're camera campaigning, that's great, good for you .
I'm not attacking anyone for it, its not my cup of tea.

Crack on


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (28 Dec 2012)

After the accident is no good.


----------



## BentMikey (29 Dec 2012)

adamangler said:


> All I said is I wouldn't report mob use for the sake of it unless it had caused an accident.


 


BentMikey said:


> *It wouldn't be an accident, Adam. It'd be a collision caused by a James Blunt on the phone.*


You'll bother to tell us off for making an effort to grass up someone with a phone, but you wouldn't bother to tell anyone on the phone off because "you don't have the time to do that"? Hypocrite much?


----------



## adamangler (29 Dec 2012)

BentMikey said:


> You'll bother to tell us off for making an effort to grass up someone with a phone, but you wouldn't bother to tell anyone on the phone off because "you don't have the time to do that"? Hypocrite much?


 
Im not telling you off, i was giving my opinion on the topic on an internet forum.
Ive been more than respectful to your views on the subject, i accept that people are different and you are free to do as you please, that does not mean i have to follow you.

i didnt want to drag it that level, why cant you just respect my opinion and move on, i try to be very tolerant of others in life, maybe this is where you are going wrong expecting everyone to conform to what you see as right...

But if you want to go there and call me a hypocrite... You`re an interfering little shoot who sneaks around shoving cameras in peoples faces and tells tales like a nine year old child, probably due to an inferiority complex or maybe just because you are a pussy?

Maybe one day you`ll poke your beak into the wrong persons business and get your just deserts.

Im not saying another word on it, thank god im not from london if this is the type of shoot that goes on.

bye


----------



## BentMikey (29 Dec 2012)

adamangler said:


> But if you want to go there and call me a hypocrite... You`re an interfering little s*** who sneaks around shoving cameras in peoples faces and tells tales like a nine year old child, probably due to an inferiority complex or maybe just because you are a pussy?


 
I think that tells us all we need to know about your attitude and maturity.


----------



## benb (31 Dec 2012)

Hmm, let's hope that people who witness a crime in progress aren't as selfish.


----------



## Miquel In De Rain (4 Jan 2013)

Peter Armstrong said:


> ooo lets look inside this persons car, let see what they are doing. I want to catch them on a mobile because im sad.
> Driver hates cyclist, driver finds out sad cyclists are reporting mobile users, driver hates cyclists even more.


 

WUM.


----------



## Cycling Dan (5 Jan 2013)

Found this joker doing this in a company car.#lostmyfaithinhumanity
 

Clear on the video so reported to the company and the police.
From past dealings with the police im guessing this guy with get the £60 fine and 3 points or get a warning.


----------



## Davidsw8 (12 Jan 2013)

adamangler said:


> Maybe one day you`ll poke your beak into the wrong persons business and get your just deserts.


 
Nice attitude, would you say that to anyone trying to improve things or is that just reserved for cyclists with cameras?

I think it's more cowardly to stand by and let stuff happen, that person you won't grass up for using his mobile phone when it doesn't affect you could go a couple more minutes down the road and slam into some kid or old lady crossing the road...

Fair enough not wanting to stand up for something Adam, but please don't so vehemently criticise others that care to.


----------



## Cycling Dan (12 Jan 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> Found this joker doing this in a company car.#lostmyfaithinhumanity
> 
> 
> Clear on the video so reported to the company and the police.
> From past dealings with the police im guessing this guy with get the £60 fine and 3 points or get a warning.



Ha, thats testament to my naivety.


----------



## PocketFrog (29 Jan 2013)

A woman pulled out on me on Sunday while on her phone... when i protested she smiled sarcastically and said "I'm ACTUALLY on the phone to the Police, they LITERALLY know i'm driving....".

The Police: encouraging bad driving habits as long as it helps them out.


----------



## Davidsw8 (29 Jan 2013)

PocketFrog said:


> A woman pulled out on me on Sunday while on her phone... when i protested she smiled sarcastically and said "I'm ACTUALLY on the phone to the Police, they LITERALLY know i'm driving....".
> 
> The Police: encouraging bad driving habits as long as it helps them out.


 
I'm fairly certain she was lying.


----------



## PocketFrog (29 Jan 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> I'm fairly certain she was lying.


 
I was too until I saw the police car turn up!


----------



## Black Country Ste (29 Jan 2013)

I once made a 999 call on the M6 to report a pedestrian walking along the hard shoulder. Even hands free (phone is velcroed to the dash for music through an FM transmitter) I was really struggling to concentrate on my driving.

Unless she was being followed I can't see how even an emergency call is justified while driving.


----------



## BentMikey (31 Jan 2013)

PocketFrog said:


> A woman pulled out on me on Sunday while on her phone... when i protested she smiled sarcastically and said "I'm ACTUALLY on the phone to the Police, they LITERALLY know i'm driving....".
> 
> The Police: encouraging bad driving habits as long as it helps them out.


 
ISTR the one exception to mobile use behind the wheel is for emergency calls, yes?


----------



## PocketFrog (31 Jan 2013)

BentMikey said:


> ISTR the one exception to mobile use behind the wheel is for emergency calls, yes?



I take it back...sort of:



> (5) A person does not contravene a provision of this regulation if, at the time of the alleged contravention—
> (a)​he is using the telephone or other device to call the police, fire, ambulance or other emergency service on 112 or 999;​(b)​he is acting in response to a genuine emergency; and​(c)​ it is unsafe or impracticable for him to cease driving in order to make the call (or, in the case of an alleged contravention of paragraph (3)(b), for the provisional licence holder to cease driving while the call was being made).



Can't fully say that B was/wasn't the case but C certainly wasn't. It was on my estate with plenty of places that the driver could have parked safely to make the call.

Also, it was a she... so none of the above seem to apply according to the sexist wording of the law :P


----------



## gaz (31 Jan 2013)

PocketFrog said:


> Also, it was a she... so none of the above seem to apply according to the sexist wording of the law :P


lol that is bad wording, good spot.


----------



## DrLex (1 Feb 2013)

gaz said:


> lol that is bad wording, good spot.



Although I'm assuming that PocketFrog was making a joke, one of the few things I remember from my legal training was the Interpretation Act 1978, which provided for words importing the masculine gender include the feminine, "'unless the contrary intention appears". Saves writing "he/she" in all legislation or using the awkward (to my mind) "they".


----------



## borstal (13 Feb 2013)

Im completely dismayed that there are cycle users on here that seemingly are unhappy with reporting of phone use, dangerous driving etc.

I have three boys (13,8,2) and even the 2 year old is getting taught to be careful near the roads as its not just their attention that they need to be wary of. I tell them all the time that even if they are careful they have to remember that some drivers arent especially those that use phones when moving.

As the police cant be everywhere all the time then I cant see how cyclists capturing footage and reporting drivers can be anything other than beneficial. Of course posters are entitled to their opinion when decrying 'grasses' and 'busybodies', but I'd ask them to think that one serial phone user recieving a couple of letters warning or their friends and family seeing them on youtube and deciding that they should stop could potentially save lives can't be bad. How can you argue against that?


----------



## Black Country Ste (16 Feb 2013)

I went to the police station this afternoon to report a driver using his phone. Normally I wouldn't otherwise I'd be there every day but this driver became aggressive when challenged and made to get out of his car when I told him he was on camera. This leads me to believe he might already be of interest to Plod.

I have an appointment to see an officer tomorrow but the civilian desk officer was an idiot. I had to explain to him that unless you're parked with the engine off (ie. not driving) then it's an offence, it doesn't matter if the car is stationary in traffic.

I'm feeling a little bemused about it and hopeful the officer takes me seriously when I show up tomorrow.


----------



## Cycling Dan (18 Feb 2013)

Black Country Ste said:


> I went to the police station this afternoon to report a driver using his phone. Normally I wouldn't otherwise I'd be there every day but this driver became aggressive when challenged and made to get out of his car when I told him he was on camera. This leads me to believe he might already be of interest to Plod.
> 
> I have an appointment to see an officer tomorrow but the civilian desk officer was an idiot. I had to explain to him that unless you're parked with the engine off (ie. not driving) then it's an offence, it doesn't matter if the car is stationary in traffic.
> 
> I'm feeling a little bemused about it and hopeful the officer takes me seriously when I show up tomorrow.


Best just to go in and fill out a incident report.
The people on the desks are what i call desk monkeys.... placed there to admin. A glorified receptionist in uniform.
One of the best things to do is ring 101 and a operator will handle it. Then the operator will arrange for a officer to come see you or you see them in a station. Them coming to see you is best as it will most likely be some one who knows what they are talking about.


----------



## Black Country Ste (18 Feb 2013)

I went back yesterday and was there an hour with the PC having a chat about it and what will be done. Gave a statement, had a chat about the camera and what I do with the footage. He likes the camera and wants one for his motorbike. Good bloke, certainly on my side.

The driver lives some distance away so when he's back on shift Thursday he's going to ring the driver and get his side, then let me know how it went. He's not inclined to issue a FPN or prosecute but if the driver's a tosser about it then he will. He's certainly going to give him a few hard words about his attitude.

Slightly unhappy that he's not taking a harder line but overall it was a positive meeting. He's given me an hour of his time so I feel I've been taken seriously.


----------



## Cycling Dan (18 Feb 2013)

Black Country Ste said:


> I went back yesterday and was there an hour with the PC having a chat about it and what will be done. Gave a statement, had a chat about the camera and what I do with the footage. He likes the camera and wants one for his motorbike. Good bloke, certainly on my side.
> 
> The driver lives some distance away so when he's back on shift Thursday he's going to ring the driver and get his side, then let me know how it went. He's not inclined to issue a FPN or prosecute but if the driver's a tosser about it then he will. He's certainly going to give him a few hard words about his attitude.
> 
> *Slightly unhappy that he's not taking a harder line but overall it was a positive meeting*. He's given me an hour of his time so I feel I've been taken seriously.


I think this is the appropriate option.
As you say if the drivers a tosser he will issue to FPN so fingers crossed you found yourself a tosser. The £60 fine is bound to bring your council tax down a bit.(JK).
As i said i think this is the best way forward. Sometimes they just need a telling off and they will stop it. Anyhow it will go on record as no doubt it will be a formal warning. So if they do something like that again its off to the nick.


----------



## Cycling Dan (18 Feb 2013)

Black Country Ste said:


> .


 

This the one your talking about


Also when I have spoken to officers over the 2/3 things ive reported i have asked the officer to pass on that they can video the footage on Youtube and all they have to do to find it is type there reg into Google.
For the second incident I got a copper who was a top bloke(in fairness the first was but not as top). He went round and showed her the footage through Youtube and basically said right well how to do you explain this. Anyhow she got a section 59 warning. Not seen her again.


----------



## Black Country Ste (18 Feb 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> As i said i think this is the best way forward. Sometimes they just need a telling off and they will stop it. Anyhow it will go on record as no doubt it will be a formal warning. So if they do something like that again its off to the nick.


 
Indeed, he said there would be a marker on the car so if it's stopped again, chances are it'll be an FPN no messing about.

I haven't uploaded it. Holding onto it until I know for certain that there won't be charges.


----------



## Cycling Dan (18 Feb 2013)

Black Country Ste said:


> Indeed, he said there would be a marker on the car so if it's stopped again, chances are it'll be an FPN no messing about.
> 
> I haven't uploaded it. Holding onto it until I know for certain that there won't be charges.


I would imaging as long as hes not a blockhead he would just sit there with Yes Sir No Sir answers staying quite and bitch after.


----------



## Amanda P (19 Feb 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> I think this is the appropriate option.... Sometimes they just need a telling off and they will stop it.


 
I take your point, and your view is widely held.

However, the Fixed penalty is, I think £60 and three points? So it's barely more than a telling-off anyway. You can get away with this _three times_ before your license is in any danger. Since the penalty is so mild, why not simply apply it every time?


----------



## Cycling Dan (19 Feb 2013)

Uncle Phil said:


> I take your point, and your view is widely held.
> 
> However, the Fixed penalty is, I think £60 and three points? So it's barely more than a telling-off anyway. You can get away with this _three times_ before your license is in any danger. Since the penalty is so mild, why not simply apply it every time?


I say its an appropriate option however i dont think its the best one. I would personally want all of them prosecuted if they don't have a good reason, anything less than an emergency is not a good enough reason. I do think the Law should be ruthless unless there is due and good cause.


----------



## Recycle (17 Mar 2013)

Cycling Dan said:


> I say its an appropriate option however i dont think its the best one. I would personally want all of them prosecuted if they don't have a good reason, anything less than an emergency is not a good enough reason. I do think the Law should be ruthless unless there is due and good cause.


+1

When I follow up on many drivers who have done a dumb manoeuvre I see the tell tale sign of hand to ear as I approach, and a hurried concealment when they realise they realise they are spotted. A few have been so engrossed that it requires a bang on the window to draw their attention. That they don't plough straight through cyclists in their path is sometimes pure chance.


----------



## Davidsw8 (19 Mar 2013)

Coming on to St James Sq in London this morning, I noticed a white van man parked to my left start to pull out, whilst still on the phone. I had a good look in with my helmet camera, then just for good measure I pulled over a bit further up to see if he was still on the phone (he was) and get some more footage.

The funniest thing was, he thought I pulled over to let him pass so he beamed at me and stuck his thumb up, bless 

I'll clip it and post it later.


----------



## Davidsw8 (19 Mar 2013)

Here's the clip, I especially like the no-hands on the wheel bit as he gives me a thumbs up with one hand while holding his phone to his ear with the other.

Berk!


View: http://youtu.be/9H1XRoBF_dw


----------



## BentMikey (19 Mar 2013)

Please tell me you Roadsafed that, David?


----------



## Davidsw8 (20 Mar 2013)

BentMikey said:


> Please tell me you Roadsafed that, David?


 
Of course


----------



## Davidsw8 (23 Mar 2013)

This one is very clearly him using his phone:


View: http://youtu.be/rYmIqRscv-I


This one isn't so clear due to the lighting conditions but the chap in this van was behind me through several turns. I thought it was a bit odd (maybe strangely overly considerate?) for a vehicle to be travelling slower than me through empty streets until he passed me and I could see he was on the phone. He carried on chatting on the phone whilst crossing the Walworth Rd and eventually pulled over further on:


View: http://youtu.be/fMj2JUuIcsE


----------



## Davidsw8 (26 Mar 2013)

BentMikey said:


> Please tell me you Roadsafed that, David?


 
RoadSafe just got back to me and said this chap has been sent a letter about his bad driving. Basically a rap on the knuckles.

At least he knows he can be seen being a bad boy and next time he won't get off so lightly


----------



## glenn forger (29 Mar 2013)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ivers-caught-twice-says-UKs-police-chief.html



> *Six-point penalty for using mobile at the wheel: And ban drivers caught twice, says UK's top police chief *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Davidsw8 (29 Mar 2013)

glenn forger said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ivers-caught-twice-says-UKs-police-chief.html


 
That'd be really good if they could do that. However, if they actually issued fines/points using the existing penalties, I'm sure enough people would end up getting banned anyway.


----------



## glenn forger (29 Mar 2013)




----------



## BentMikey (29 Mar 2013)

That's very good, but two other things are needed from the PoPo: more enforcement, and automatic notification of insurance companies.


----------



## Black Country Ste (30 Mar 2013)

BentMikey said:


> automatic notification of insurance companies.


 
If that isn't already possible/done for any driving offence then it should. I occasionally wonder how often drivers fail to notify their insurance of endorsements in the hope they can get away with it.


----------



## glenn forger (30 Mar 2013)

The insurers can check. Naturally they have access to the records of any convictions.


----------



## BentMikey (30 Mar 2013)

I do wonder how automatic it is, though. I'd like to see a system where it happens as an automatic result of a court conviction or FPN. Nobody needs to check, it simply gets documented and included in future insurance quotes.

Same goes for opticians doing eyesight tests and DVLA notification.


----------



## glenn forger (31 Mar 2013)

If someone makes a claim on their car insurance checks are run for convictions, so a theft claim won't be paid out until they pay the additional premium that they would have had to pay had they declared an SP30 or CU80.


----------



## BentMikey (31 Mar 2013)

Same car seen by both me and CycleGaz:


----------



## Davidsw8 (2 Apr 2013)

I'm pleased to say that RoadSafe responded to all 4 of my recent 'grassing's up' of miscreants with the following e-mail. The e-mail is the same each time, except for the date. I'm curious as to what the letter sent to the motorist says though, does anyone know?


-----------------------------------------------------
Dear Cyclist

The Metropolitan Police Service is committed to reducing serious traffic collisions and the purpose of this letter is to increase driver and cyclist’s awareness and reduce road crime.

We have developed a web based information reporting system called ‘Roadsafe London’ to support us in this aim. Roadsafe London is accessible to the public via http://www.met.police.uk/roadsafelondon/

We have received a report from you in relation to an incident that occurred at approximately 17:45hrs on 20th 2013. 

The Driver has been sent a letter which highlights their driving at the time of the incident. They have been advised that the letter is a written warning and should the vehicle come to notice in similar circumstances then it is likely that they would face prosecution. 

As no further Police action is being taken, I am informing you that this matter has been investigated. Our role is to raise awareness and promote road safety with all road users.

--------------------------------------------


----------



## BentMikey (4 Apr 2013)

I've just had a response as well, on the one Gaz filmed 3 years ago and I filmed on Saturday. Much the same. Good on Roadsafe.


----------



## Recycle (5 Apr 2013)

Davidsw8 said:


> I'm curious as to what the letter sent to the motorist says though, does anyone know?


If I ever get one I would be too embarrassed to say, and I suspect no-one I know would tell me if they got one because my response would be less polite than the letter.


----------



## BentMikey (5 Apr 2013)

Actually, Gaz and I've had one. I had one for KJ05WUM, as apparently I was riding too far right, and spoke to her too aggressively. John Franklin wrote a rebuttal of this, which I passed onto the then Roadsafe officer and his boss, explaining how with that narrow lane I was riding exactly where I should have been. Additionally, he told them that fight or flight meant that my response to her was entirely normal, ending it with his expert court witness credentials. I'd thought I was extremely restrained with her. Roadsafe have never once told me I'm riding too far right again or that I spoke to a driver wrongly since.


----------



## gaz (5 Apr 2013)

They warned me about my language in some cases., suggesting that I would be charged under section 5 of the public order act if I continued.


----------



## Matthew_T (5 Apr 2013)

gaz said:


> They warned me about my language in some cases., suggesting that I would be charged under section 5 of the public order act if I continued.


I have had that in the past. In a very old incident involving a guy in a BMW M5 who tried to run me off the road when I screamed w*nker in his face. I have since learnt not to say anything like that to someone again after the police officer gave me a stern warning about shouting at people.
The video was never online due to me forgetting to upload it. I am glad of that now as I was utterly disappointed with my behaviour.


----------



## gaz (5 Apr 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> I have had that in the past. In a very old incident involving a guy in a BMW M5 who tried to run me off the road when I screamed w*nker in his face. I have since learnt not to say anything like that to someone again after the police officer gave me a stern warning about shouting at people.
> The video was never online due to me forgetting to upload it. I am glad of that now as I was utterly disappointed with my behaviour.


As long as you don't do it any more than 30 seconds after the incident then it's fairly easy to get around with some basic knowledge of section 5 of the public order act.


----------



## BentMikey (5 Apr 2013)

A lot of people really don't understand how very distressing it is for a cyclist to be almost knocked off. They think we're angry ranting nutters behaving totally unreasonably, probably because insulated in a metal cage they haven't felt or thought of the risk involved at all. Fight or flight response doesn't seem to be considered at all.

I'm probably one of the calmer cyclists going purely by other peoples' comments, but I think that might mean there's something wrong with me.


----------



## Matthew_T (6 Apr 2013)

BentMikey said:


> A lot of people really don't understand how very distressing it is for a cyclist to be almost knocked off. They think we're angry ranting nutters behaving totally unreasonably, probably because insulated in a metal cage they haven't felt or thought of the risk involved at all. Fight or flight response doesn't seem to be considered at all.


I am fortunate enough to have now driven a car a few times and I can say that I understand to a certain degree the difficulty motorists have sometimes. Being in a car you cannot hear much of what is happening outside, and have a blocked perception sometimes. However this does not condone close passes or SMIDSY's. The width of the car comes with the practice of driving the car and there is no excuse for pulling out of a junction in front of anyone. If you cannot safely pull out without causing a problem then it is unsafe.
I have had to pull out into busy traffic before and realised that if you dont get your speed up quickly, even if the gap you went into was large enough, people (other cars) are behind you within a matter of seconds. And it is not like I was slow to accelerate or kept way under the speed limit, people just like to speed around everywhere with not much patience (until they see the L plates and you stall!).


----------



## Matthew_T (6 Apr 2013)

Back onto mobile phone use...

Saw a van driver stopped at a ped crossing today on the phone. I think he clocked my camera as I saw the phone go to his lap immediately as he started to move off from the crossing. Still had the phone in his hand though with a worried look on his face.
Cant be bothered to upload it and contact the company on his van. Some things arent worth the effort.


----------



## Black Country Ste (8 Apr 2013)

This is the one I reported a couple of months ago. With a backlog of videos to sift through for anything worthy of upload and the stress of my recent assault this got shoved to one side.


----------



## Recycle (22 May 2013)

The latest furore of @EmmaWay20 tweeting cycle hatred has been followed up by another ill judged tweet.
"I think it should legal to run over cyclists #idiots #getofftheroad" by another twitter user. I won't comment on the nievety
of the post so much as the fact that if you look at the #getofftheroad posts it becomes apparent that many of the posters are sending them whilst driving, sometimes with photo links. That is a lot more worrying than the bile that they post.


----------



## mr_cellophane (18 Jun 2013)

I'll have to start using Twatter, it sounds a hoot.


----------



## Monkreadusuk (1 Jul 2013)

My one from today, going to try and get this reported, but not sure if my local force will be very interested. Will keep this updated if/when I get an answer.


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFO_n2YYu9g&feature=youtu.be


----------



## Roadhump (9 Jul 2013)

I was recently in Italy and saw a few motor cyclists texting as they rode along...gobsmacked!!!


----------



## BigglesVII (16 Aug 2013)

Hi Guys, Not sure if you noticed but the fine for driving whilst using a mobile phone is now upto £100 and 3 Points.

Also with regard to your helmet cams do you have the ability to have the date and time stamp as it's recording as It makes it alot easier for the police to get a conviction. With youtube video's, you also shouldn't edit them in anyway if you plan to pass them onto the met's Roadsafe as it makes it very difficult to get the conviction if the video has been edited in any way this also includes adding text to the video clip.


----------



## gaz (19 Aug 2013)

BigglesVII said:


> Hi Guys, Not sure if you noticed but the fine for driving whilst using a mobile phone is now upto £100 and 3 Points.
> 
> Also with regard to your helmet cams do you have the ability to have the date and time stamp as it's recording as It makes it alot easier for the police to get a conviction. With youtube video's, you also shouldn't edit them in anyway if you plan to pass them onto the met's Roadsafe as it makes it very difficult to get the conviction if the video has been edited in any way this also includes adding text to the video clip.


All a load of rubbish.

Time and date stamp adds very little to the video, a good police officer and a good prosecutor can easily build a case without it. What does it add? The time of when something happened, that is no different to saying when it happened or using another source for the time and date.

Editing videos in what sense? making replays and adding text is fine. Adding explosions and lasers is obviously taking things a bit too far. Reporting them to roadsafe with replays and text is no problem for a conviction. Why? Because if the police are going for a conviction then you will have to supply the video on a DVD, where you just put the content as it is. Roadsafe do not take videos from youtube for a conviction.

Source: Several years of working with roadsafe, including getting several prosecutions with videos originally uploaded to youtube with plenty of basic edits.


----------



## BentMikey (19 Aug 2013)

Edits that do not change the facts, mind. Neither of us are into making stuff up or exaggerating driver actions. We simply don't need to.

Like you, when submitting statements the police get the source footage, usually as well as a copy of the edit.


----------



## Davidsw8 (24 Aug 2013)

Haven't had one of these in a few months then I get 3 incidents in 1 day!

1st one is your standard Addison Lee driver who can't be bothered to wait with the rest of us at a junction and decides to totally cut up the oncoming cyclist:


View: http://youtu.be/FMjnF_LhZhc


2nd one is a scooter entering the ASZ on a red:


View: http://youtu.be/BMKWrvHyJvw


3rd one is a little harder to see but this woman starts texting in heavy traffic and doesn't notice the traffic moving forward. Interesting to see the police motorbike overtake and seemingly notice what she's doing - I hope he pulled her over later on (but I doubt it...)


View: http://youtu.be/dVp7g2qKuj0


----------



## glenn forger (24 Aug 2013)

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

View: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=796_1377296784


----------



## Davidsw8 (29 Aug 2013)

If anyone was ever in any doubt as to how dangerous this is:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-23876320

This selfish idiot killed 2 people cos he couldn't wait until the next services to read his stupid text messages. I'm pretty disgusted that he only got 5 years for this, he'll probably be out in less than 3 years but these 2 people have families that will never see their loved ones again.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (29 Aug 2013)

Has there been any update on the Frank Wrathall case? The trial was ongoing in July so ought to be concluded, or thereabouts, by now.

GC


----------



## Davidsw8 (29 Aug 2013)

They need to throw the book at these people, it's not like they don't know it's illegal.


----------



## glenn forger (29 Aug 2013)

Frank Wrathall has been on Twitter since he killed the cyclist, boasting about his holidays.



> Wrathall was arrested and told police Mr Fingleton had run into the side of him.
> Mr McEntee said: 'It was clearly a shock to the defendant when he saw CCTV showing Mr Fingleton entering onto the roundabout first.'


 
He's a piece of work, Mr Wrathall. Killed a man, then lied to blame him for his own death.


----------



## Twelve Spokes (1 Sep 2013)

Recycle said:


> The latest furore of @EmmaWay20 tweeting cycle hatred has been followed up by another ill judged tweet.
> "I think it should legal to run over cyclists #idiots #getofftheroad" by another twitter user. I won't comment on the nievety
> of the post so much as the fact that if you look at the #getofftheroad posts it becomes apparent that many of the posters are sending them whilst driving, sometimes with photo links. That is a lot more worrying than the bile that they post.



Just ignore the halfwits.



glenn forger said:


> Frank Wrathall has been on Twitter since he killed the cyclist, boasting about his holidays.
> 
> 
> 
> He's a piece of work, Mr Wrathall. Killed a man, then lied to blame him for his own death.



Seems like usual behavior these days where people at fault blame someone else.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/41...rathall-killed-cyclist-as-he-chatted-on-phone

I see,yet another bonehead halfwit.I better get off of this thread im getting more and more p1553d off.


----------



## crazyjoe101 (3 Sep 2013)

Hello, do you think it is worth reporting vehicles which are stationary / parked on a cycle lane as well as a double yellow / double red line? I have some helmet camera footage with number plates.


----------



## crazyjoe101 (4 Sep 2013)

I've just used it to report this, it was worse than appears in the video though...


----------



## crazyjoe101 (7 Oct 2013)

I can't edit my last post. As far as I know no action was taken; I'm not angry or even surprised about that. What I was surprised at however was the lack of any contact whatsoever, I guess reporting this was a waste of time for both parties in my case.


----------



## Phaeton (8 Oct 2013)

And a waste of 1.5 minutes of my life watching a non event.

Alan...


----------



## crazyjoe101 (8 Oct 2013)

Phaeton said:


> And a waste of 1.5 minutes of my life watching a non event.
> 
> Alan...



So in your opinion that driver's pass was satestfactory or at least not bad enough to warrant concearn? His driving was aggressive from the onset, with less than ideal positioning approaching two blind corners. He then passes me leaving so little room I have to alter my direction as he cuts accross my line of travel and stops completely because there's an oncoming car which was easily visible before he started overtaking.


----------



## Phaeton (8 Oct 2013)

It was a non event, it happens, get over it, move one, no it was not ideal, but if you don't want to have to deal with these moron's stop riding on the road.

Alan...


----------



## Frood42 (8 Oct 2013)

Phaeton said:


> It was a non event, it happens, get over it, move one, no it was not ideal, but if you don't want to have to deal with these moron's stop riding on the road.
> 
> Alan...


 
The "moron" in the car should be the one that is removed from the road.
I would not call that sort of poor driving a non-event, he was cut up badly, and that poor sort of driving while not the worst one can experience is not something we should just be shrugging off.

As an individual it is best not to get too stressed about it at the time, best to report it later (and then follow up on it if you feel you need to).

Impatient people like that driver could cause quite a bad accident and clearly has a poor attitude on the road, the more like that who are removed temporarily or permanently the better (goes for cyclists and drivers).


----------



## Phaeton (8 Oct 2013)

Frood42 said:


> Impatient people like that driver could cause quite a bad accident and clearly has a poor attitude on the road, the more like that who are removed temporarily or permanently the better (goes for cyclists and drivers).



I totally agree with you, but do you live in the real world, NOTHING repeat NOTHING is going to happen by reporting it, it was a non event, no-one was injured, more importantly to the powers that be no property was damaged, they will not do anything, if anything they will have a good laugh at the the OP's expense. Don't tilt at windmill's they won't fall down.

Alan,,,


----------



## Frood42 (8 Oct 2013)

Phaeton said:


> I totally agree with you, but do you live in the real world, NOTHING repeat NOTHING is going to happen by reporting it, it was a non event, no-one was injured, more importantly to the powers that be no property was damaged, they will not do anything, if anything they will have a good laugh at the the OP's expense. Don't tilt at windmill's they won't fall down.
> 
> Alan,,,


 
I do (I think  ) live in the real world, and while nothing may happen in this case (which I wouldn't agree with), I don't think it should stop people reporting such things, or that people should be scared off the roads by such things.

Prevention is better than cure.
Nip such behaviour in the bud now before it can become something worse later, not to mention the money saved by preventing that drivers behaviour in the future causing an accident.

I understand there will be priorities, but why must it come to blows/injuries before something is done...

Oh, yes, this is the real world, so money and poor direction of that money.


----------



## gaz (8 Oct 2013)

Phaeton said:


> I totally agree with you, but do you live in the real world, NOTHING repeat NOTHING is going to happen by reporting it, it was a non event, no-one was injured, more importantly to the powers that be no property was damaged, they will not do anything, if anything they will have a good laugh at the the OP's expense. Don't tilt at windmill's they won't fall down.
> 
> Alan,,,


Seriously, why do you even come in this thread?


----------



## Phaeton (8 Oct 2013)

To try to get through to the people who feel that that having a camera strapped to their bonce or bike makes everything they do correct & everything the evil motorist does is wrong.

Alan...


----------



## gaz (8 Oct 2013)

Phaeton said:


> To try to get through to the people who feel that that having a camera strapped to their bonce or bike makes everything they do correct & everything the evil motorist does is wrong.
> 
> Alan...


Maybe you should change your approach, as you aren't coming across very well.


----------



## Phaeton (8 Oct 2013)

Why? Will you change yours if I say please?

Alan...


----------



## gaz (8 Oct 2013)

Phaeton said:


> Why? Will you change yours if I say please?
> 
> Alan...


What have I got to change? I'm not the one being an arse here.


----------



## crazyjoe101 (8 Oct 2013)

Guys, I think it's clear this is going a bit off topic now, it's also clear we're not going to agree anyway.


----------



## Phaeton (9 Oct 2013)

gaz said:


> What have I got to change? I'm not the one being an arse here.


Who's a big clever boy then, can't win an argument by reason so results in calling people names, your mummy must be so proud of you.

Alan...


----------



## gaz (9 Oct 2013)

Phaeton said:


> Who's a big clever boy then, can't win an argument by reason so results in calling people names, your mummy must be so proud of you.
> 
> Alan...


There is no argument to win here.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Oct 2013)

> Street cleaners in Northamptonshire say lives are being put at risk by vehicles which are mounting the pavement to undertake their trucks.
> 
> MGWSP, which is hired by the county council to maintain roads, said "impatient drivers" were illegally passing workers clearing drains.
> 
> It said it would pass the registration plate details of offenders to police.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-20583868

Kind of OT, sorry, but does anyone disagree with this? Does anyone seriously think the roads are under-policed? The police can't do anything apart from scratch the surface, there just aren't enough trafpol. If someone is a repeat offender the police do send letters, so the driver knows his behaviour hasn't gone unnoticed.


----------



## benb (9 Oct 2013)

gaz said:


> Seriously, why do you even come in this thread forum?



FTFY!


----------



## benb (9 Oct 2013)

Phaeton said:


> To try to get through to the people who feel that that having a camera strapped to their bonce or bike makes everything they do correct & everything the evil motorist does is wrong.
> 
> Alan...



Well no need, as no-one here thinks that.


----------



## mr_cellophane (6 Nov 2013)

Phaeton said:


> To try to get through to the people who feel that that having a camera strapped to their bonce or bike makes everything they do correct & everything the evil motorist does is wrong.


I haven't looked at every youtube channel for helmet cammers, but so far IMO only two meet that criteria.


----------



## Hip Priest (7 Nov 2013)

Phaeton said:


> It was a non event, it happens, get over it, move one, no it was not ideal, but if you don't want to have to deal with these moron's stop riding on the road.
> 
> Alan...



I thought it was a non-event too, until the overtake. The overtake was appalling.


----------



## sazzaa (7 Nov 2013)

Is it legal for a cyclist to be on the phone while cycling?


----------



## gaz (7 Nov 2013)

sazzaa said:


> Is it legal for a cyclist to be on the phone while cycling?


Technically no, there is no law/legislation that says cyclists must not use a mobile whilst cycling.

But, you could be done for not being in proper control of your vehicle.


----------



## Wooliferkins (9 Dec 2013)

I just put "Online crime incident reporting " into the search on Thames Valley Police site and a similar form is there, may be more common than we realise


----------



## Black Country Ste (10 Dec 2013)

Wooliferkins said:


> I just put "Online crime incident reporting " into the search on Thames Valley Police site and a similar form is there, may be more common than we realise


Yes, I reported a close pass I had from a bus in Kidlington back in July using TVP's online reporting system and had a response within a couple of hours. NFA but the reg would be logged.

If you've reported something within the previous twelve months then it can't be used.


----------



## Wooliferkins (10 Dec 2013)

Black Country Ste said:


> Yes, I reported a close pass I had from a bus in Kidlington back in July using TVP's online reporting system and had a response within a couple of hours. NFA but the reg would be logged.
> 
> If you've reported something within the previous twelve months then it can't be used.



The reporting form? Are you saying you can only make one report in a twelve month period?


----------



## gaz (10 Dec 2013)

Black Country Ste said:


> If you've reported something within the previous twelve months then it can't be used.


As per @Wooliferkins post, this needs explaining :S


----------



## Black Country Ste (11 Dec 2013)

Wooliferkins said:


> The reporting form? Are you saying you can only make one report in a twelve month period?



Via TVP's online form, yes. https://reportonline.thamesvalley.police.uk

In a set of declarations there's a question asking if you have "been a victim of a similar crime in the last 12 months" then to call 101/999 if yes.


----------



## slowmotion (11 Dec 2013)

In central London, you just have to assume that every driver is on their phone. Every one. The traffic moves so slowly that it's not too much of a problem usually . The Police don't seem to want to enforce the law so you just have to make allowances. On the motorway, it scares me. They drift slowly out of their lanes as you approach from behind, and then suddenly make a correction. I really think I would prefer to be amongst a bunch of drunk drivers. At least they are trying to drive.


----------



## Twelve Spokes (15 Dec 2013)

slowmotion said:


> In central London, you just have to assume that every driver is on their phone. Every one. The traffic moves so slowly that it's not too much of a problem usually . The Police don't seem to want to enforce the law so you just have to make allowances. On the motorway, it scares me. They drift slowly out of their lanes as you approach from behind, and then suddenly make a correction. I really think I would prefer to be amongst a bunch of drunk drivers. At least they are trying to drive.



Slowmotion,I wont travel on motorways,well for as much as I can avoid using them.You could also assume with motorists that they are also on some for of drug and I suspect some of the time this is true.Generally I just assume they will do something stupid and sometimes they don't let me down.

Generally it's got to be a concentration thing/reading ahead.Lack of this can result in a bad driver.IMHO


----------



## andrewpreston (8 Feb 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Has there been any update on the Frank Wrathall case? The trial was ongoing in July so ought to be concluded, or thereabouts, by now.
> 
> GC


Sentenced yesterday to 21 months in prison (he'll serve about 11) & a 4 year driving ban. According to his brief, his motor racing career is over. My heart bleeds.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Feb 2014)

he lied to the cops and tried the blame the cyclist, the worthless maggot.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Feb 2014)

Oh, and, don't bother:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vu1ZtSsRjg&feature=youtu.be


----------



## andrewpreston (8 Feb 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Oh, and, don't bother:
> 
> 
> View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vu1ZtSsRjg&feature=youtu.be



A couple of years ago I was driving down the Commercial Rd in the firm's van. The hands free failed and I was stupid enough to pick up the handset and say "I'll call you back, I' m driving". A Met officer saw me and I was given a ticket. Quite right too. I did wrong but there was no suggestion of any loss of control; the van was stationary. Seems yet again that plod picks the low hanging fruit. I stress again that I fully accept I was in the wrong & only post this to point out that either the officer's remarks are a load of old toffee or that many drivers are being ticketed without any legal reason. You can't have it both ways.

I actually believe he should have been ticketed.


----------



## GuardTwin (23 Feb 2014)

1 min into the video, people who pass close to me I tend to ignore but for the drivers who make my body react without me thinking twice I pop up onto youtube otherwise I will be posting none stop like mad or so it feels lol


----------



## Dark46 (3 Apr 2014)

I sware the problem is getting worse and some people don't even try to hid that they are on the phone. Just unbelievable


----------



## glenn forger (21 Apr 2014)

Yesterday a car ignored a give way sign as the driver chatted on a mobile and side swiped me. He ignored a three second blast on the Airzound and carried on. I was so furious I overtook and got in front, I was very close to pulling him from the car.

Suppose there was contact, I was wondering whether I could nick his keys and call the cops? I would do it with a drunk driver and stupid cretins who drive while chatting on a mobile are as distracted as drunk drivers. Reach in, nick the keys and tell the driver they'll get them back when the police arrive.


----------



## David Higson (19 Jun 2014)

I hope no-one uses their mobile whilst riding their bike. It's very easy to spot perpetrators in cars and feel all self righteous but I saw a cyclist on Monday pass through a major junction with mobile clamped to his ear whilst riding "no hands".. There's really no excuse for this.


----------



## benb (19 Jun 2014)

David Higson said:


> I hope no-one uses their mobile whilst riding their bike. It's very easy to spot perpetrators in cars and feel all self righteous but I saw a cyclist on Monday pass through a major junction with mobile clamped to his ear whilst riding "no hands".. There's really no excuse for this.



I hope you're not attempting to draw a moral equivalence.
I would never use a mobile while cycling, but let's not pretend it's as serious or dangerous as when a driver does it. It's not illegal on a bicycle anyway, although I would certainly say it's unwise.


----------



## David Higson (20 Jun 2014)

benb said:


> I hope you're not attempting to draw a moral equivalence.
> I would never use a mobile while cycling, but let's not pretend it's as serious or dangerous as when a driver does it. It's not illegal on a bicycle anyway, although I would certainly say it's unwise.



Actually, I would draw equivalence and I'm surprised that anyone would try to lessen the seriousness of not concentrating whilst using a road vehicle. Yes, a bicycle is just as lethal to certain other road users as any other mass travelling at a reasonably high velocity. A twelve stone man travelling at 20mph can crush a child's skull, Bicycles are subject to the very real rules and regulations of the road, just like the cars, trucks, buses and taxis that we all love so dearly. It exists on the same hard road that every other road vehicle does. Riding without due care and attention is equally as dangerous as driving without, both to the rider and to other road users. It presents a danger, not only to the individual but to everyone else who has to accommodate this wilful ignorance. The guy in question was in his own world, oblivious of oncoming motor traffic, other cyclists and pedestrians using the junction, (and presumably a good stretch of pothole infested road until he'd finished his call.) We've seen on here the results of hitting a careless pedestrian. One can only imagine the damage caused by a careless cyclist who hits a child or elderly person crossing the road because they were "out of it" using their smartphone. I've been riding and driving on the UK roads since the 1970's and I've seen some shocking ignorance of the Highway Code by drivers and cyclists alike. Just because we use an unlicensed and essentially untraceable vehicle does not mean that we are absolved of the rules of the road. I've seen cyclists routinely ignore the solid white lines at road junctions, red triangle warning signs, stop signs and speed limits (both zoned and mandatory) as well as the red traffic lights that are the mantra of the "get bikes off the road" movement. I've found myself ashamed to be associated with some cyclists just as I'm ashamed of the behaviour of some car drivers. In conclusion of this rant, yes, I do draw a moral equivalence in both kinds of idiocy. If we expect to be respected as road users, we should be bound by the same set of "morals" as everyone else.

http://road.cc/content/news/31118-teen-cyclist-fined-following-death-manchester-pensioner
Refers to a slightly different situation but underscores the responsibility of cyclists as road users.


----------



## uclown2002 (20 Jun 2014)




----------



## benb (20 Jun 2014)

David Higson said:


> Actually, I would draw equivalence and I'm surprised that anyone would try to lessen the seriousness of not concentrating whilst using a road vehicle. Yes, a bicycle is just as lethal to certain other road users as any other mass travelling at a reasonably high velocity. A twelve stone man travelling at 20mph can crush a child's skull, Bicycles are subject to the very real rules and regulations of the road, just like the cars, trucks, buses and taxis that we all love so dearly. It exists on the same hard road that every other road vehicle does. *Riding without due care and attention is equally as dangerous as driving without, both to the rider and to other road users*. It presents a danger, not only to the individual but to everyone else who has to accommodate this wilful ignorance. The guy in question was in his own world, oblivious of oncoming motor traffic, other cyclists and pedestrians using the junction, (and presumably a good stretch of pothole infested road until he'd finished his call.) We've seen on here the results of hitting a careless pedestrian. One can only imagine the damage caused by a careless cyclist who hits a child or elderly person crossing the road because they were "out of it" using their smartphone. I've been riding and driving on the UK roads since the 1970's and I've seen some shocking ignorance of the Highway Code by drivers and cyclists alike. Just because we use an unlicensed and essentially untraceable vehicle does not mean that we are absolved of the rules of the road. I've seen cyclists routinely ignore the solid white lines at road junctions, red triangle warning signs, stop signs and speed limits (both zoned and mandatory) as well as the red traffic lights that are the mantra of the "get bikes off the road" movement. I've found myself ashamed to be associated with some cyclists just as I'm ashamed of the behaviour of some car drivers. In conclusion of this rant, yes, I do draw a moral equivalence in both kinds of idiocy. If we expect to be respected as road users, we should be bound by the same set of "morals" as everyone else.
> 
> http://road.cc/content/news/31118-teen-cyclist-fined-following-death-manchester-pensioner
> Refers to a slightly different situation but underscores the responsibility of cyclists as road users.



Dangerous cycling is as dangerous to other road users as dangerous driving? Really?
Then please explain how drivers kill hundreds yet cyclists kill less than 1 a year on average.

To claim that cycling without paying attention as as serious as driving without paying attention is idiotic, and laughable.

And we're clearly not all bound by the same rules: driving while using a mobile is illegal, cycling while using a mobile is not. Amongst others,


----------



## Garethgas (20 Jun 2014)

benb said:


> Dangerous cycling is as dangerous to other road users as dangerous driving? Really?
> Then please explain how drivers kill hundreds yet cyclists kill less than 1 a year on average.
> 
> To claim that cycling without paying attention as as serious as driving without paying attention is idiotic, and laughable.
> ...



A cyclist on the phone, distracted, oblivious, swerves, a car about to overtakes swerves to compensate, hits an oncoming vehicle and kills the mum, dad and two children.
Now laugh.


----------



## benb (20 Jun 2014)

Garethgas said:


> A cyclist on the phone, distracted, oblivious, swerves, a car about to overtakes swerves to compensate, hits an oncoming vehicle and kills the mum, dad and two children.
> Now laugh.



Has that ever happened, ever?

If you have to resort to such hyperbolic caricatures and exaggerations, that tells you how bereft your "argument" is.


----------



## David Higson (23 Jun 2014)

benb said:


> Has that ever happened, ever?
> 
> If you have to resort to such hyperbolic caricatures and exaggerations, that tells you how bereft your "argument" is.



Clearly you didn't look at the link http://road.cc/content/news/31118-teen-cyclist-fined-following-death-manchester-pensioner
which refers to a slightly different situation (he wasn't using his phone but was equally distracted) but is an example of indirect action on behalf of a cyclist causing the death of someone else. I suppose that it may be difficult for some to draw inference between the similarities of the case but it exists just the same.

It is well to remember that not long ago, it wasn't illegal to drive whilst using a mobile phone. Indeed "Carphone Warehouse" used the principle as their company title. Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it isn't dangerous. It is only a matter of time before the first tragic accident involving a texting cyclist and a pedestrian hits the news. The numbers are irrelevant - death is death, however many. To state otherwise implies that were the reduction of cyclist death reduced to a mere handful, this would be acceptable.

Shoosmiths Solicitors recognise the potential of the offence whilst accepting the current state of the law...

https://www.eta.co.uk/cycling-and-the-law/#LAWFAQ12 ...
 
*Can I cycle while using my mobile phone?*
A bicycle is a vehicle, but according to the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, amended 2003, it is only illegal to drive a motor vehicle while using a mobile phone. There is nothing about bicycles in the phrasing so, in effect, cyclists are exempt from this extremely sensible law. *That doesn’t mean cycling while phoning or texting is not dangerous and you could be pulled over for a related ‘not-paying-due-care-and-attention’ offence.*

However, your replies such as "_To claim that cycling without paying attention as as serious as driving without paying attention is idiotic, and laughable"_. show a clear arrogance displayed by many who end up in court. Using the road without due care and attention, even as a careless pedestrian can cause accidents. I've said my piece and clearly you can't (or won't) see the point. I'll say no more on this topic.


----------



## glenn forger (23 Jun 2014)

LAST WORD!!

Saying a distracted cyclist is as dangerous as a distracted driver is saying that being hit by fifteen stone is the same as being hit by a ton and a half of metal. Laughable.


----------



## benb (23 Jun 2014)

I never said that dangerous cycling was OK, or didn't ever have consequences, just that it is by no measure as serious as dangerous driving.


----------



## gaz (26 Jun 2014)

Just in case this hasn't been said. It is worth noting that it is written in legislation that you are not allowed to drive whilst using a mobile device. The same can not be said for cycling, although it can be covered by another offense.


----------



## TheLondonCyclist (30 Jul 2014)

gaz said:


> Just in case this hasn't been said. It is worth noting that it is written in legislation that you are not allowed to drive whilst using a mobile device. The same can not be said for cycling, although it can be covered by another offense.


Unless you can prove it was a phone and not a black ice block or something for the side of their head, then it's pointless. lol Most phones are of black colour and it's hard for a camera to distinguished the very fine details as to what makes a mobile phone. It wouldn't hold up in court. Just speaking the truth.


----------



## Enis Baysal (1 Aug 2014)

Today this driver got a little too close for my liking...
Sent in my 1st police report due to finally having half decent recording equipment *SunnycamHD* definitely a good investment for daytime footage!


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgVchFsersw


----------



## glasgowcyclist (1 Aug 2014)

Enis Baysal said:


> Today this driver got a little too close for my liking...


 
Agreed, it was far too close and easily avoidable by waiting until you'd passed the obstruction.
If you don't mind a bit of constructive criticism, I didn't see any shoulder checks during that clip. There were at least three points where a quick look back would have been wise and would have alerted you to his approach.
Driver's still a muppet mind, however I don't expect you'll get anywhere reporting that to the police.
GC


----------



## Enis Baysal (1 Aug 2014)

I knew he was behind me already previously, (no excuse I know) but he had been tailgaiting me for a while down that road. I just gnored him and rode defensively.
But yes i need to get into the habit of doung my lifesavers I know^^ 
I hope the police do something..even if they only have a word.. these kinds of situations I say to myself "whats the bet a car door is going to open on me".


----------



## Jonathanbrsc (17 Aug 2014)

I was driving my car and a lady was having a right old conversation on her mobile even letting go of her wheel to gesticulate. I peeped my horn and she swore at me and carried on!


----------



## Dippydozy (21 Aug 2014)

Why only London? We have the same problem up here in Northumberland especially the rural areas. Great idea!


----------



## stopsnitchin (11 Sep 2014)

Close passes, fair enough, any kind of reckless driving that puts you in danger, also fair enough, some dick reporting you for being on the phone in stationary traffic is not on though. Some of you farkers are just snitching for the sake of it these days and really need to get a life.


----------



## stopsnitchin (11 Sep 2014)

Oh, you also blank out foul language on here, I see what kind of crowd this is, probably wasting my time with you lot then.


----------



## benb (11 Sep 2014)

stopsnitchin said:


> Close passes, fair enough, any kind of reckless driving that puts you in danger, also fair enough, some dick reporting you for being on the phone in stationary traffic is not on though. Some of you ****ers are just snitching for the sake of it these days and really need to get a life.



Welcome to the forum!

You say "snitching" I say "reporting a crime"
Let's hope if your house is ever burgled, any witnesses do not share your attitude to "snitching"


----------



## summerdays (11 Sep 2014)

You mean you haven't been waiting to go at a roundabout and realised the person you are giving way to, on your right isn't moving and is sat there looking down at their mobile? And that the queue is building up behind them. Or at a traffic light, then they end up going just as the light changes and other cars think I'm going as I would have got through if it wasn't for that person in front?

I've said it before, they don't only do it when they are stationary at traffic lights and you still need to be aware of what is going on whilst you are waiting at the traffic lights.


----------



## Spinney (11 Sep 2014)

stopsnitchin said:


> Oh, you also blank out foul language on here, I see what kind of crowd this is, probably wasting my time with you lot then.



It's a forum intended for everyone, including families. If you don't like the automatic swear filter, byeee!!!!


----------



## glasgowcyclist (11 Sep 2014)

stopsnitchin said:


> Close passes, fair enough, any kind of reckless driving that puts you in danger, also fair enough, some dick reporting you for being on the phone in stationary traffic is not on though. Some of you ****ers are just snitching for the sake of it these days and really need to get a life.


 
Is mobile use while driving something you're guilty of then?

GC


----------



## glenn forger (11 Sep 2014)

stopsnitchin said:


> Close passes, fair enough, any kind of reckless driving that puts you in danger, also fair enough, some dick reporting you for being on the phone in stationary traffic is not on though. Some of you ****ers are just snitching for the sake of it these days and really need to get a life.









Hope Fennell, a thirteen year old girl killed by a lorry driver texting while stationary who failed to notice her in front of his lorry when the lights changed:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ed-girlfriend-released-just-THREE-months.html

The driver, darren Foster, climbed back in his cab as the girl lay dying and tried to delete his texts:


----------



## Colby (17 Sep 2014)

Texting and driving is bad I had some cyiciest report me and I would of denied it but cops did get me red handed he's again I just got my truck out of the impound and now its back in iv bin caught tomany times on my phone. Here's my truck sitting in parking lot eating to be towed to impound again but they did tell me the last time they would impound it and I choose to do it any way and I got reported and caught red handed so I'm fine with punishment I do kinda deserve it lol


----------



## Lemond (19 Sep 2014)

benb said:


> Dangerous cycling is as dangerous to other road users as dangerous driving? Really?
> Then please explain how drivers kill hundreds yet cyclists kill less than 1 a year on average.
> 
> To claim that cycling without paying attention as as serious as driving without paying attention is idiotic, and laughable.
> ...



It's quite simple really: there are an awful lot more cars on the roads than bikes. 

But regardless of this, the dangers are exactly the same: you can drive into a pedestrian and kill them, and you can cycle into a pedestrian and kill them. 

And there's nothing remotely laughable about it.


----------



## Drago (19 Sep 2014)

Colby said:


> Texting and driving is bad I had some cyiciest report me and I would of denied it but cops did get me red handed he's again I just got my truck out of the impound and now its back in iv bin caught tomany times on my phone. Here's my truck sitting in parking lot eating to be towed to impound again but they did tell me the last time they would impound it and I choose to do it any way and I got reported and caught red handed so I'm fine with punishment I do kinda deserve it lol



Could you repeat that in English?


----------



## glenn forger (19 Sep 2014)

Lemond said:


> It's quite simple really: there are an awful lot more cars on the roads than bikes.
> 
> But regardless of this, the dangers are exactly the same: you can drive into a pedestrian and kill them, and you can cycle into a pedestrian and kill them.
> 
> And there's nothing remotely laughable about it.



The dangers are the same? Being hit by two tons of metal versus a fifteen stone human?


----------



## Drago (19 Sep 2014)

I'd have to lose a fair bit to be a mere 15 stones.


----------



## Lemond (19 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> The dangers are the same? Being hit by two tons of metal versus a fifteen stone human?



Either one could kill you if they hit you, so yes.


----------



## glenn forger (19 Sep 2014)

If you seriously think the dangers are the same you're dangerously deluded.


----------



## Lemond (19 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> If you seriously think the dangers are the same you're dangerously deluded.



The danger of death versus the danger of death. They kinda seem the same to me.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (19 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> If you seriously think the dangers are the same you're dangerously deluded.


Indeed, everyone knows cyclists can't damage people by hitting them, if they could we'd be talking about how terrible it is that they ride around one handed while drinking, or change their clothes on the move. They are like marshmallows with wheels.


----------



## glenn forger (19 Sep 2014)

Lemond said:


> The danger of death versus the danger of death. They kinda seem the same to me.



Drivers kill two thousand people a year, cyclists kill on average half a person a year.

If you seriously think two thousand is the same as 0.5 then may I interest you in some magic beans?


----------



## Lemond (19 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Drivers kill two thousand people a year, cyclists kill on average half a person a year.
> 
> If you seriously think two thousand is the same as 0.5 then may I interest you in some magic beans?



You're a real charmer, aren't you. Why not just say you disagree?


----------



## benb (19 Sep 2014)

Lemond said:


> It's quite simple really: there are an awful lot more cars on the roads than bikes.
> 
> But regardless of this, the dangers are exactly the same: you can drive into a pedestrian and kill them, and you can cycle into a pedestrian and kill them.
> 
> And there's nothing remotely laughable about it.



I suggest you educate yourself on basic physics, particularly kinetic energy.

Even taking the difference in modal share into account, motorised vehicles are orders of magnitude more dangerous to pedestrians than cycles.


----------



## Cuchilo (19 Sep 2014)

How much are these magic beans ?


----------



## glenn forger (19 Sep 2014)

It's like saying prams are as dangerous as HGVs.


----------



## Lemond (19 Sep 2014)

benb said:


> I suggest you educate yourself on basic physics, particularly kinetic energy.
> 
> Even taking the difference in modal share into account, motorised vehicles are orders of magnitude more dangerous to pedestrians than cycles.



But that's irrelevant to the point being made. If the actions of a driver using a mobile phone are considered to be dangerous, why doesn't that same logic apply to a cyclist? Why would you say it's not as serious or dangerous for a cyclist to use a mobile phone whilst riding compared to when a driver does it, when a cyclist could just as easily kill a pedestrian during a collision.

It may be an unlikely scenario statistically, but again that's not the point. Cyclists that use mobile phones are just as morally reprehensible as drivers that do the same.


----------



## Origamist (19 Sep 2014)

Lemond said:


> But that's irrelevant to the point being made. If the actions of a driver using a mobile phone are considered to be dangerous, why doesn't that same logic apply to a cyclist? Why would you say it's not as serious or dangerous for a cyclist to use a mobile phone whilst riding compared to when a driver does it, when a cyclist could just as easily kill a pedestrian during a collision.
> 
> It may be an unlikely scenario statistically, but again that's not the point. Cyclists that use mobile phones are just as morally reprehensible as drivers that do the same.


 
I get it.

In the same way that the morally repugnant, texting pedestrian who collided with me this lunchtime is equivalent to a driver who texts whilst in charge of a HGV and kills a child.


----------



## benb (19 Sep 2014)

Lemond said:


> But that's irrelevant to the point being made. If the actions of a driver using a mobile phone are considered to be dangerous, why doesn't that same logic apply to a cyclist? Why would you say it's not as serious or dangerous for a cyclist to use a mobile phone whilst riding compared to when a driver does it, when a cyclist could just as easily kill a pedestrian during a collision.
> 
> It may be an unlikely scenario statistically, but again that's not the point. Cyclists that use mobile phones are just as morally reprehensible as drivers that do the same.



Because they couldn't "just as easily" kill a pedestrian, due to the hugely different energy involved. If a pedestrian is struck by a car they are many times more likely to be injured or killed than if struck by a cycle.


----------



## Lemond (19 Sep 2014)

benb said:


> Because they couldn't "just as easily" kill a pedestrian, due to the hugely different energy involved. If a pedestrian is struck by a car they are many times more likely to be injured or killed than if struck by a cycle.



And yet that's just what happens. Cyclists hit pedestrians and kill them.


----------



## glenn forger (19 Sep 2014)

No, they don't. The risk posed to pedestrians by cyclists is on a par with the risk posed by bees or golfballs. Deaths caused by cyclists are astonishingly rare. Following your logic, bees are more dangerous than HGVs.


----------



## Lemond (19 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> No, they don't. The risk posed to pedestrians by cyclists is on a par with the risk posed by bees or golfballs. Deaths caused by cyclists are astonishingly rare. Following your logic, bees are more dangerous than HGVs.



You seem to be missing my point. This thread is about the use of mobile phones while driving and the dangers associated with such. One poster suggested that a driver using a phone is worse than cyclist doing the same. My argument is that they demonstrate equally poor judgement given that their actions could result in the same thing: death. I'm not interested in which scenario is more or less likely. In my view the driver and cyclist would be demonstrating equally reckless behaviour.


----------



## glenn forger (19 Sep 2014)

Then why do you think one act is illegal and the other isn't?


----------



## Lemond (19 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Then why do you think one act is illegal and the other isn't?



I have no idea and to be honest I don't care. It's irrelevant to the point I'm making.


----------



## glenn forger (19 Sep 2014)

You have no idea why driving while chatting on a mobile is illegal?


----------



## Drago (19 Sep 2014)

The punishment should be the same as for drink driving.


----------



## benb (19 Sep 2014)

Lemond said:


> You seem to be missing my point. This thread is about the use of mobile phones while driving and the dangers associated with such. One poster suggested that a driver using a phone is worse than cyclist doing the same. My argument is that they demonstrate equally poor judgement given that their actions could result in the same thing: death. I'm not interested in which scenario is more or less likely. In my view the driver and cyclist would be demonstrating equally reckless behaviour.



Logic fail.

If there are 2 actions, one of which is overwhelmingly more likely to result in harm to other people than the other, it's blindingly obvious that that action is more serious than the one which presents almost negligible risk of harm to others.

By your argument walking drunk is equally as dangerous and irresponsible to drunk driving an HGV, as both could lead to the death of someone else.


----------



## Lemond (19 Sep 2014)

benb said:


> Logic fail.
> 
> If there are 2 actions, one of which is overwhelmingly more likely to result in harm to other people than the other, it's blindingly obvious that that action is more serious than the one which presents almost negligible risk of harm to others.
> 
> By your argument walking drunk is equally as dangerous and irresponsible to drunk driving an HGV, as both could lead to the death of someone else.



We are going in circles here. I won't excuse cyclists riding without due care and attention just because probability and chance works in their favour. To me they demonstrate the same failings and selfish attitude as drivers that do the same. Reckless behaviour is reckless behaviour.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (19 Sep 2014)

I can understand where Lemond's coming from on this. 

If you've got lanes of traffic travelling along and someone in that flow is texting, that person's ability and awareness is impaired to a level similar to a drunk driver. This is true whether that texter is in a car or on a bicycle; the degree of impairment is at least the same.

GC


----------



## benb (19 Sep 2014)

Lemond said:


> We are going in circles here. I won't excuse cyclists riding without due care and attention just because probability and chance works in their favour. To me they demonstrate the same failings and selfish attitude as drivers that do the same. Reckless behaviour is reckless behaviour.



It's nothing to do with chance, but to do with the fact that a rider and bike only weighs 100kg and only travels at 20-30mph max.
Whereas a driver and car weigh 1,500kg and travel at double the speed of a cyclist.

A phoning or texting cyclist poses negligible risk to anyone but themselves, unlike a driver doing the same. Hence the cyclist doing it is not as serious a problem as a phoning or texting driver.


----------



## Lemond (19 Sep 2014)

benb said:


> It's nothing to do with chance, but to do with the fact that a rider and bike only weighs 100kg and only travels at 20-30mph max.
> Whereas a driver and car weigh 1,500kg and travel at double the speed of a cyclist.
> 
> A phoning or texting cyclist poses negligible risk to anyone but themselves, unlike a driver doing the same. Hence the cyclist doing it is not as serious a problem as a phoning or texting driver.



And yet cyclists do hit pedestrians and do kill them. You do accept this, don't you?


----------



## benb (19 Sep 2014)

Lemond said:


> And yet cyclists do hit pedestrians and do kill them. You do accept this, don't you?



At the rate of 0.5 per year (and not necessarily the result of reckless behaviour from the cyclist) so it's laughable to pretend they pose a serious risk.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (19 Sep 2014)

benb said:


> A phoning or texting cyclist poses negligible risk to anyone but themselves, unlike a driver doing the same. Hence the cyclist doing it is not as serious a problem as a phoning or texting driver.



While the cyclist is statistically less dangerous than the driver they don't pose a negligible risk to anyone but themselves unless they are riding along in a protected bubble where they can't interact with any other vehicles. If they are on a road, sharing it with large metal boxes then the consequences for their actions are greater, if they do something that causes the large metal boxes to have to take avoiding action then whatever is in the new path of the large metal boxes gets the consequence. The cyclist not only isn't the one to pay any price, but potentially they don't even realise what they've done. Ever head of the saying "I've never been in an accident, but I've seen plenty in my rear view mirror"?


----------



## Lemond (19 Sep 2014)

benb said:


> At the rate of 0.5 per year (and not necessarily the result of reckless behaviour from the cyclist) so it's laughable to pretend they pose a serious risk.



As I said before, I won't excuse cyclists riding without due care and attention just because probability and chance works in their favour.


----------



## glenn forger (19 Sep 2014)

Lemond said:


> the dangers are exactly the same




Only if you reckon two thousand is the same as 0.5.


----------



## Markymark (19 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Only if you reckon two thousand is the same as 0.5.


Is it only death or serious injury that's the risk? What about minor injury?


----------



## Lemond (19 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Only if you reckon two thousand is the same as 0.5.



I don't. But dead is dead, whether you're killed by a car or a bike.


----------



## benb (19 Sep 2014)

Lemond said:


> As I said before, I won't excuse cyclists riding without due care and attention just because probability and chance works in their favour.



It's not chance, it's physics.

I guess you also think that someone walking down the street drunk is as irresponsible and dangerous as someone driving an HGV when drunk?


----------



## benb (19 Sep 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> While the cyclist is statistically less dangerous than the driver they don't pose a negligible risk to anyone but themselves unless they are riding along in a protected bubble where they can't interact with any other vehicles. If they are on a road, sharing it with large metal boxes then the consequences for their actions are greater, if they do something that causes the large metal boxes to have to take avoiding action then whatever is in the new path of the large metal boxes gets the consequence. The cyclist not only isn't the one to pay any price, but potentially they don't even realise what they've done. Ever head of the saying "I've never been in an accident, but I've seen plenty in my rear view mirror"?



I would submit that that virtually never happens.
I certainly can't recall anything like that reported.


----------



## glenn forger (19 Sep 2014)

Lemond said:


> I don't. But dead is dead, whether you're killed by a car or a bike.



So you admit claiming that "the danger is the same" is hysterical hyperbole?


----------



## Lemond (19 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> So you admit claiming that "the danger is the same" is hysterical hyperbole?



What I believe is that a cyclist who uses a mobile phone while riding is every bit as reckless, stupid and selfish as a motorist doing the same.


----------



## benb (19 Sep 2014)

Lemond said:


> What I believe is that a cyclist who uses a mobile phone while riding is every bit as reckless, stupid and selfish as a motorist doing the same.



I suppose you're entitled to believe what you want, even if it is laughable nonsense.


----------



## glenn forger (19 Sep 2014)

Lemond said:


> What I believe is that a cyclist who uses a mobile phone while riding is every bit as reckless, stupid and selfish as a motorist doing the same.



Then you're either mad or both.


----------



## Lemond (19 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Then you're either mad or both.



Both what? Was there another insult you missed from your post?


----------



## w00hoo_kent (19 Sep 2014)

benb said:


> I would submit that that virtually never happens.
> I certainly can't recall anything like that reported.


There was a story linked on here last week where a teenager cut across a bus, it emergency stopped because of them and an OAP on the bus died from injuries sustained. That got reported because they tracked down the cyclist, they probably wouldn't if no one had died.

I think a lot of arguments on this forum are too happy to focus on death as being the only negative outcome that matters and any lesser consequences can be ignored. While they are unlikely to get reported and logged anywhere I'm not sure it's fair to discount anecdotal evidence with quite the vehemence that occurs when it is used just because there are no statistics to hand. Something doesn't have to be counted to actually exist.


----------



## noodle (22 Sep 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> There was a story linked on here last week where a teenager cut across a bus, it emergency stopped because of them and an OAP on the bus died from injuries sustained. That got reported because they tracked down the cyclist, they probably wouldn't if no one had died.
> 
> I think a lot of arguments on this forum are too happy to focus on death as being the only negative outcome that matters and any lesser consequences can be ignored. While they are unlikely to get reported and logged anywhere I'm not sure it's fair to discount anecdotal evidence with quite the vehemence that occurs when it is used just because there are no statistics to hand. Something doesn't have to be counted to actually exist.


but then pedants are denied the truth.....

cyclist on the phone, cyclist speeding, cyclist under the influence.......
one of three is illegal all have ramifications. would viewpoints be changed if it was illegal to use a mobile device while on a bike?


----------



## iamRayRay (26 Sep 2014)

Turning into a "big brother" nation, cameras everywhere!

Watched a short report yesterday on BBC1 looking at how certain crimes have been reported from head cameras of cyclists, mobile phone use was one of them and a bus driver was suspended because of it, however a duo on a moped stealing a mobile phone from a woman was also on there.

I'm partial to this, but it does frustrate me when driving and the guy infront is all over the shop because they're on the phone.


----------



## luckyfox (26 Sep 2014)

I'm not proud of it but due to losing two loved ones because of a driver texting I shout when i see them. It gets me so angry! I used to work at a Telecommunications company and it was written into the contract that if you drove off the site using your phone it was instant dismissal, never upheld of course.

How important is a text or call or social media update??


----------



## Mile195 (26 Sep 2014)

luckyfox said:


> I'm not proud of it but due to loosing two loved ones because of a driver texting I shout when i see them. It gets me so angry! I used to work at a Telecommunications company and it was written into the contract that if you drove off the site using your phone it was instant dismissal, never upheld of course.
> 
> How important is a text or call or social media update??


Not as important as playing a game apparently. I cycled past a guy in an astra van playing a game on his phone whilst on the moving, with little attempt to hide it. Phone calls at least they're looking out the windscreen, but texting or playing games is frankly reckless. I look forward to the day when it comes with an instant ban like drink driving.


----------



## Drago (26 Sep 2014)

Lemond said:


> What I believe is that a cyclist who uses a mobile phone while riding is every bit as reckless, stupid and selfish as a motorist doing the same.



Indeed. Why should motorists quit this activity if they see cyclists doing it. If we can't practice what we preach then we should go to Church over this matter.


----------



## luckyfox (26 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> Indeed. Why should motorists quit this activity if they see cyclists doing it. If we can't practice what we preach then we should go to Church over this matter.



I may be missing something... how on earth do you use a phone whilst cycling? I set Runkeeper going with a min delay before i put my helmet on and hide it away.


----------



## summerdays (26 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> Indeed. Why should motorists quit this activity if they see cyclists doing it. If we can't practice what we preach then we should go to Church over this matter.


So you are saying it's ok for drivers to jump the lights because they see cyclists doing it? Or that we can't complain about it because we have seen a cyclist do it?

Cyclists on the phone aren't as dangerous as drivers by a long shot. They are far more cut off from sounds inside the car than the cyclist who would at least be more aware of the traffic, and you can't cycle at any speed whilst on the phone, I have phoned Mr Summerdays when on a separate cycle path to give him some information and my speed noticeably slows, and I can only do a basic, hi, message, bye.


----------



## Mile195 (26 Sep 2014)

summerdays said:


> So you are saying it's ok for drivers to jump the lights because they see cyclists doing it? Or that we can't complain about it because we have seen a cyclist do it?
> 
> Cyclists on the phone aren't as dangerous as drivers by a long shot. They are far more cut off from sounds inside the car than the cyclist who would at least be more aware of the traffic, and you can't cycle at any speed whilst on the phone, I have phoned Mr Summerdays when on a separate cycle path to give him some information and my speed noticeably slows, and I can only do a basic, hi, message, bye.


And in addition, the cyclist on the phone is more of a danger to himself than anyone else. Yes - you could plough into a ped, but you're more likely to get hit by a car as you drift out of lane. A driver on the phone is unlikely to get hurt when he ploughs into whatever doesn't get out of his way, but his victim won't be so lucky.


----------



## glenn forger (29 Sep 2014)

*Crashes blamed on using a mobile rise 20% in just three years: RAC calls for crackdown on use at the wheel after overall accident rate drops *

*Crashes involving a mobile have risen by 20 per cent in the last three years *
*Fatalities in which mobiles have played a part have risen by five in a year *
*The RAC says mobile phone should be as 'unacceptable as drink-driving'*
*Using a phone behind the wheel lands drives three points and a £100 fine *


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...verall-accident-rate-drops.html#ixzz3EgOsMFyP 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## mgarl10024 (17 Oct 2014)

Whilst I understand that the argument that a driver on the phone can cause far more carnage than a cyclist, I expect all "road users" to focus 100% of their attention on the task of navigating safely - and as such my concern when seeing a driver using a phone stems from some of their attention being directed elsewhere. The same applies to a drunk driver. 
So, when I see a cyclist, as a "road user", on their phone, my concern is the same - some of their attention is directed elsewhere. They are not, dare I suggest it, fully fulfilling the responsibilities of being a "road user", regardless of the potential outcomes due to their tonnage.

In addition, Isn't there a further argument under the guise of 'wanting to be treated like a vehicle'? - Indeed a common complaint of cyclists is that they aren't treated as such, and defensive road positioning is designed to assert that status. Even if they are wrong, if most drivers believe/feel that all vehicles should not have a driver on the phone, doesn't this go against the image of cyclists as vehicles? Aren't cyclists on phones doing an injustice to the rest of us?

Disclaimer: I've only read about the last 5 pages of posts on this thread.


----------



## summerdays (17 Oct 2014)

Whilst I agree to some extent, cyclists are less likely to be texting, I certainly can't! And I don't think you are as distracted from the outside world because you aren't inside a metal cage, somehow the phone seems to gain more importance in the car than the surroundings, and that's using it as a passenger.


----------



## crazyjoe101 (17 Oct 2014)

The principle of you shouldn't be doing it whilst in charge of a vehicle applies equally to everyone until we start looking at the consequences of potential outcomes.

I get far more angry when I see a truck driver on their phone doing 20-30 along a residentual street than when I see a car driver doing it in gridlocked traffic, the same way I look at cyclists on the phone and think 'idiot', but look at motorists on the phone and think 'dangerous idiot'.


----------



## luckyfox (23 Oct 2014)

mgarl10024 said:


> I expect all "road users" to focus 100% of their attention on the task of navigating safely



here here!


----------



## The Jogger (7 Dec 2014)

Friday High St Ken, a woman driving a Volvo XC90 couldn't turn left into Holland Rd, changed her mind swung back out to go towards High St shopping part and near had me off. It was so close I could see the white samsung smart phone she was using on her lap during the move. I gave a few hand signals to her and she drove off giving me a dirty look...........................shortly after a police car drove past me which I caught at the lights, I gave reg no etc but they really did seem totally uninterested.


----------



## steveindenmark (7 Dec 2014)

Mile195 said:


> And in addition, the cyclist on the phone is more of a danger to himself than anyone else. Yes - you could plough into a ped, but you're more likely to get hit by a car as you drift out of lane. A driver on the phone is unlikely to get hurt when he ploughs into whatever doesn't get out of his way, but his victim won't be so lucky.



But you can just imagine how a driver feels if while using your phone, you ride into him and kill yourself. It may not be the drivers fault but it an awful thing to have to live with.

The bottom Line for all road users is if you want to use your phone STOP.


----------



## Silvio Diego (24 Feb 2015)

thanks for the link, going to report this guy caught yesterday:

View: http://youtu.be/-ArcgMoDvXs


----------



## MattDB (3 Mar 2015)

mr_cellophane said:


> Just got a mail back about the first one on here
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9GVhG7QVfo



How did you find out they were uninsured?


----------



## wam68 (3 Mar 2015)

Anonymous until the alleged offender pleads not guilty.


----------



## buggi (13 Mar 2015)

Saved to favourites thanks


----------



## redste (15 Mar 2015)

Sorry but I haven't got time to read through 39 pages. Anywhere to report mobile phone use in the Manchester area?


----------



## benb (16 Mar 2015)

redste said:


> Sorry but I haven't got time to read through 39 pages. Anywhere to report mobile phone use in the Manchester area?



Ring 101 or go in person to a police station.


----------



## Bewar3them00n (20 Apr 2015)

Looks like I'm going to have to get a Go Pro or something of that ilk!
I've had a few run ins with idiots in cars, one woman in a 4x4 almost creamed me whilst going round a round a bout ( she came from the road to me left in front of me at great speed, I managed to break and swerve) I go a "wheeeeee!" As she passed 1ft from my face thru the open window, and a "you wanna be more careful!" I got the last laugh as I caught her up in the morning school run traffic, took a picture of her number plate and straightened her on the Highway Code, she has avoided this route ever since thankfully.
I've been cycling on roads for about 34 years, and only been knocked off once, but I've seen countless idiots, on an almost daily basis, if getting a go pro and sending the evidence to the police can help correct a few attitudes, as well as the more obvious uses, then I'll be looking to pick something up soon


----------



## andyfraser (19 Jun 2015)

Sorry to resurrect this old thread but it came up when I was searching for some information.

@Bewar3them00n @benb My advice is don't both with a cam for the small things and don't both reporting it to the police. I caught a lorry driver on cam this morning using a mobile phone. I took two stills from the video. In one the number plate is clear. In the other it obvious that he's using a phone. The police aren't interested. They say the courts won't accept photos and video taken by members of the public. I think this is a disgrace. I'm starting to understand why people upload their videos to YouTube. It's incredibly frustrating when you feel like you're the only person who actually wants safe roads and law abiding road users.


----------



## benb (19 Jun 2015)

andyfraser said:


> Sorry to resurrect this old thread but it came up when I was searching for some information.
> 
> @Bewar3them00n @benb My advice is don't both with a cam for the small things and don't both reporting it to the police. I caught a lorry driver on cam this morning using a mobile phone. I took two stills from the video. In one the number plate is clear. In the other it obvious that he's using a phone. The police aren't interested. They say the courts won't accept photos and video taken by members of the public. I think this is a disgrace. I'm starting to understand why people upload their videos to YouTube. It's incredibly frustrating when you feel like you're the only person who actually wants safe roads and law abiding road users.



That's simply untrue, courts accept evidence like that all the time. It's just that the police in your case can't be arsed.
I'd be complaining to the PCC and the Chief Constable.


----------



## glenn forger (6 Jul 2015)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-33407779


----------



## glenn forger (6 Jul 2015)

I'm sure that posters here have tried reporting similar and been told by the cops they will do nothing?


----------



## ClichéGuevara (9 Aug 2015)

glenn forger said:


> I'm sure that posters here have tried reporting similar and been told by the cops they will do nothing?



Don't the Police have to record all reports and compile stats?

If they do, even if they do nothing now, wouldn't an increase in reports raise it up their list of priorities?


----------



## benborp (9 Aug 2015)

ClichéGuevara said:


> Don't the Police have to record all reports and compile stats?
> 
> If they do, even if they do nothing now, wouldn't an increase in reports raise it up their list of priorities?



Even in an area where apparently anti-social and dangerous road use were a local neighbourhood priority this behaviour, was dismissed without investigation because the video was not considered independent evidence (the relevant police unit didn't even watch it and dismissed the allegation unseen).

This attitude stems from advice that the Northamptonshire Deputy Chief Constable Suzette Davenport gave in 2012 to the then ACPO over concerns about a specific company collating video evidence. She conflated several issues, police forces applied the advice to cover a much wider range of circumstances and pretty much overnight helmetcam evidence became less than worthless. It could in fact be used to dismiss an allegation that reported otherwise would result in an investigation.

The situation has improved with many police forces in the last couple of years, but it doesn't surprise me that individual police forces, units or officers still use that erroneous advice to the defunct ACPO as a justification to avoid addressing this issue. Even if the local panel has raised such offences as being a priority. After several high profile prosecutions for 'minor', non-injury offences being covered in the national press it should now be easier to challenge such attitudes blocking attempts at prosecution.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Aug 2015)

I thought old bill said THEY had to witness it, it seems different forces have different rules and I suspect they are loath to grant cammers a pseudo-crime-detecting role.


----------



## steveindenmark (9 Aug 2015)

As an ex police officer I would have used it, even if it was to ring the owner up and question the driving.

This in itself can raise problems if headcam footage is not allowed in your force as evidence. But it was an awful piece of driving.


----------



## davefb (9 Aug 2015)

surely for mobiles.. its not the video cam evidence on it's own..

Its going 'were you using your phone?" 
"okay, lets look at the records"

and the fact the phone was being used is the evidence? guess I'm being naive..


----------



## Nortones2 (19 Oct 2015)

Carte blanche for the police to not deal with incidents, thanks to the cuts in funding. They'll end up just keeping warm in their dug-out, & to save the bother, they'll make the public pay for private investigators. Not entirely tongue in cheek!


----------



## glenn forger (3 Nov 2015)

*We can't afford to crack down on drivers on phone at the wheel, say police chiefs: Forces say chance of getting caught is 'less than it used to be' after cuts to officers *

*Cuts to number of patrol officers means drivers are getting away with crime*
*Campaigners described it as 'very concerning' and potentially dangerous*
*Official figures show an increase in motorists using mobiles at the wheel*
*Studies have shown using a phone is more dangerous than drink-driving*


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-caught-used-cuts-officers.html#ixzz3qQRCjVQn 


Prosecutions for using a phone at the wheel have fallen 47 per cent in five years, according figures from the RAC. There were 32,571 in 2009 but only 17,414 last year.


----------



## glenn forger (3 Nov 2015)

But both officers emphasised the reduction in the number of traffic police, which has fallen from 7,000 to 4,300 in the past decade while mobile phone use has soared.


----------



## Drago (3 Nov 2015)

andyfraser said:


> Sorry to resurrect this old thread but it came up when I was searching for some information.
> 
> @Bewar3them00n @benb My advice is don't both with a cam for the small things and don't both reporting it to the police. I caught a lorry driver on cam this morning using a mobile phone. I took two stills from the video. In one the number plate is clear. In the other it obvious that he's using a phone. The police aren't interested. They say the courts won't accept photos and video taken by members of the public. I think this is a disgrace. I'm starting to understand why people upload their videos to YouTube. It's incredibly frustrating when you feel like you're the only person who actually wants safe roads and law abiding road users.



Mr Fraser, you have been sadly misinformed. Most video footage that finds it way to court originates from the public domain. Police bodycam and official council CCTV footage makes up a minority.

Provided the provenance can be established - a simple and often pro forma statement from the person producing it is usually all that is required - then it's perfectly admissible and will be accepted as evidence. The bulk of evidential footage is private cctv, mobile phone, and increasingly dashcam and helmet cam. A colleague of mine recently recently managed to get a gentleman banned from driving the strength of dashcam footage from a witness, the first such result on our patch.

I would lodge a complaint with the organisation that told you that.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (3 Nov 2015)

Drago said:


> Mr Fraser, you have been sadly misinformed. Most video footage that finds it way to court originates from the public domain. Police bodycam and official council CCTV footage makes up a minority.
> 
> Provided the provenance can be established - a simple and often pro forma statement from the person producing it is usually all that is required - then it's perfectly admissible and will be accepted as evidence. The bulk of evidential footage is private cctv, mobile phone, and increasingly dashcam and helmet cam. A colleague of mine recently recently managed to get a gentleman banned from driving the strength of dashcam footage from a witness, the first such result on our patch.
> 
> I would lodge a complaint with the organisation that told you that.




Inspector Cox of Wiltshire suggests that even with evidence from cameras there needs to be further corroboration. See about 17:04:40 on this link http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3163e930-c769-4fef-9eb7-7656234fba3f

I have also heard stories of cyclists being told that their helmet cam footage is "not independent evidence" although this may be down to individual lazy arses rather than policy

GC


----------



## BlackPanther (16 Dec 2015)

I reported a white van man who pulled out in front of me about 4 weeks ago. As a overtook him at traffic lights I saw he was on his phone. When I got off my bike and told him what he'd just done he was still on his phone and he told me to f*** off. When I set off on green he was still on his phone. When I got home, I reported him. 2 officers came to my house the next day, saw the video from my helmet and rear facing camera showing all this and they said they'd 'have a word'.........I've heard nothing. The video could not have been clearer, nor could his attitude. 

This happened in the town centre with 100s of shoppers milling around. Talk about an accident waiting to happen!


----------



## Vikeonabike (21 Dec 2015)

I think the result from helmet cam footage varies from constabulary to constabulary. My own Constabulary are crap. Not interested unless someone is hurt. The constabulary (Lincolnshire) where I live are brilliant!


----------



## Ed Phelan (14 Jan 2016)

Down here in Sussex we have a police scheme which allows you to report anti-social driving; it seems like a great way to increase awareness - http://www.operationcrackdown.org/


----------



## glenn forger (28 Jan 2016)

https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...s-changes-to-penalties-for-use-whilst-driving


----------



## Arjimlad (25 Feb 2016)

Wondering what to do about the growing numbers of drivers who can't be trusted with a mobile phone. Drifting & dozing about as they complete that important text or FB message. A dangerous nuisance to cyclists and other road users.

Should I buy a video camera & film them, or get an air horn (not an Airzound) & shock them into awareness of the world outside of their windscreen? I used to have one on my bike as a lad and it was rather good.

Continued supine acceptance is no longer an option.


----------



## summerdays (25 Feb 2016)

Arjimlad said:


> Wondering what to do about the growing numbers of drivers who can't be trusted with a mobile phone. Drifting & dozing about as they complete that important text or FB message. A dangerous nuisance to cyclists and other road users.
> 
> Should I buy a video camera & film them, or get an air horn (not an Airzound) & shock them into awareness of the world outside of their windscreen? I used to have one on my bike as a lad and it was rather good.
> 
> Continued supine acceptance is no longer an option.


I know it's everywhere but if it's particularly bad at one place could you find out which police patch it is and then speak to one of the police for that patch or attend one of those meetings where they set the priorities. Sometimes you can influence what you would like them to focus on. 

Currently the chance of getting caught and then the level of the punishment is not sufficiently high to act as a deterrent!

Although it irritates me, I have got to the point where it's just so normal to see, though I have been known to shake my head and ask them to put it down.


----------



## Arjimlad (25 Feb 2016)

summerdays said:


> I know it's everywhere but if it's particularly bad at one place could you find out which police patch it is and then speak to one of the police for that patch or attend one of those meetings where they set the priorities. Sometimes you can influence what you would like them to focus on.
> 
> Currently the chance of getting caught and then the level of the punishment is not sufficiently high to act as a deterrent!
> 
> Although it irritates me, I have got to the point where it's just so normal to see, though I have been known to shake my head and ask them to put it down.



Queuing southbound down the A38 towards the M5 in the morning, there are many drivers who use it as an excuse to catch up on Facebook and such like. I could very well have a word with the local police about it.

Although when uniform are about, they will all be on their best behaviour and it really takes a cyclist's vantage point to catch these tools.


----------



## summerdays (25 Feb 2016)

I follow a couple of police Twitter accounts but I'm not sure if there is one for that area, the nearest I could get was ASPTheStokes, after that the next one up the A38 I think is ASPThornbury, not sure where their southern boundary would be.

It would be good if they would take camera evidence... At the moment the only ones I bother reporting are things like bus drivers.


----------



## bozmandb9 (25 Feb 2016)

Twenty Inch said:


> People in London can report mobile-phone-using drivers on the following form:
> 
> http://www.met.police.uk/roadsafelondon/
> 
> ...



Great link, though it doesn't mention anything about 'using a mobile phone whilst driving'. It does mention speeding or dangerous driving, which is what should be reported. I think the obsession with mobile phone use is wrong. According to official figures, it accounts for maybe up to 20 deaths per year, and this figure seems to have increased since it became a criminal offence. 

Bottom line is dangerous driving is dangerous driving, IF it's caused by mobile phone use, report the dangerous driving. If it's caused by smoking, report it, radio us, kids, whatever the cause, if it's dangerous driving, report it. Don't report somebody for dangerous driving it they are not, whether you personally approve of mobile phone use behind the wheel or not (and I should make the point that I don't), but to report somebody for dangerous driving purely on the basis that they are using a mobile phone, I would say is a false report.

According to official statistics, mobile phone distraction is a factor in 0.8% of accidents, nearly all are simply caused by driver error. 3.2% are caused by bad road layout. For full details see link below.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/8702111/How-do-accidents-happen.html

It's up to the Police to enforce the law, the link is useful to assist them in their duty, but it should be used properly.


----------



## bozmandb9 (25 Feb 2016)

Arjimlad said:


> Queuing southbound down the A38 towards the M5 in the morning, there are many drivers who use it as an excuse to catch up on Facebook and such like. I could very well have a word with the local police about it.
> 
> Although when uniform are about, they will all be on their best behaviour and it really takes a cyclist's vantage point to catch these tools.



I'm not defending people using their mobiles, but this sort of attitude isn't helpful. Should motorists be working with Police to enforce action against cyclists who don't have reflectors on their bikes and pedals after dusk (as per highway code) ? 

There's plenty of friction between motorists and cyclists already. 'Militant' cyclists trying to do the Police's job for them, and report any slight infraction will certainly not improve the situation. It probably won't help us with the Police either. If the Police are flooded with what appear to be malicious or petty reports, then they will have far less time or resources to follow up on the important ones, where cyclists are victims of aggressive/ dangerous driving.

This is important to me because I have been such a victim. I don't really give a stuff if somebody is on their phone, if it does not in any way endanger me, just as I don't care that the gits who assaulted me were not on a phone. Let's focus on what really matters.


----------



## Arjimlad (25 Feb 2016)

bozmandb9 said:


> I'm not defending people using their mobiles, but this sort of attitude isn't helpful. Should motorists be working with Police to enforce action against cyclists who don't have reflectors on their bikes and pedals after dusk (as per highway code) ?
> 
> There's plenty of friction between motorists and cyclists already. 'Militant' cyclists trying to do the Police's job for them, and report any slight infraction will certainly not improve the situation. It probably won't help us with the Police either. If the Police are flooded with what appear to be malicious or petty reports, then they will have far less time or resources to follow up on the important ones, where cyclists are victims of aggressive/ dangerous driving.
> 
> This is important to me because I have been such a victim. I don't really give a stuff if somebody is on their phone, if it does not in any way endanger me, just as I don't care that the gits who assaulted me were not on a phone. Let's focus on what really matters.



When I am filtering past all these cars and they are drifting about unpredictably then I perceive mobile phone abuse to be a problem. I don't think I'm being especially militant when, if I see someone paying less attention to the road than they should for my & others' safety, I ask them to mend their ways.


----------



## summerdays (25 Feb 2016)

Arjimlad said:


> When I am filtering past all these cars and they are drifting about unpredictably then I perceive mobile phone abuse to be a problem. I don't think I'm being especially militant when, if I see someone paying less attention to the road than they should for my & others' safety, I ask them to mend their ways.


I agree, if I see a car being driven in a slightly haphazard way, the first instinct is to look to see if a phone is the root cause!


----------



## bozmandb9 (26 Feb 2016)

summerdays said:


> I agree, if I see a car being driven in a slightly haphazard way, the first instinct is to look to see if a phone is the root cause!



Interesting one. So if it's haphazard because it's an elderly person it's Ok then? Or if it's somebody who is just a little lost? It seems, that what you're saying is that you will judge and report people based on your prejudice. 

Again, I'm not defending mobile phone use whilst driving, and I'm totally in favour of reporting DANGEROUS driving. Just saying, it's not for us to impose our judgement on drivers, any more than it is for them to judge us based on whether we happen to be wearing helmets, or sporting reflectors. 

Again, I refer you to the facts quoted in the link I posted. Is it possible that you will cause or have an accident based on paying more attention to trying to spot what drivers are doing in their car, when you should be focussed on what's ahead of and around you? Driver error causes two thirds of accidents whilst driving, and I suspect that 'rider error' accounts for a high number of cycling accidents too.


----------



## summerdays (26 Feb 2016)

bozmandb9 said:


> Interesting one. So if it's haphazard because it's an elderly person it's Ok then? Or if it's somebody who is just a little lost? It seems, that what you're saying is that you will judge and report people based on your prejudice.
> 
> Again, I'm not defending mobile phone use whilst driving, and I'm totally in favour of reporting DANGEROUS driving. Just saying, it's not for us to impose our judgement on drivers, any more than it is for them to judge us based on whether we happen to be wearing helmets, or sporting reflectors.
> 
> Again, I refer you to the facts quoted in the link I posted. Is it possible that you will cause or have an accident based on paying more attention to trying to spot what drivers are doing in their car, when you should be focussed on what's ahead of and around you? Driver error causes two thirds of accidents whilst driving, and I suspect that 'rider error' accounts for a high number of cycling accidents too.


Err ... you don't get that many elderly people driving buses? And it was professional drivers who I consider reporting, others I don't bother, I'd spend all day reporting drivers if I reported all the dodgy driving I see, (or not even driving, today there is a car I pass that can't fit onto it's drive way so parks across the path, and that meant an elderly person in a buggy had to go on the road to pass, I might report that one as I've chatted to the policemen who covers that patch quite frequently and I think he would have a word with them, as they are a repeat offender!).

Anyone I see using a phone is not concentrating on the road, I've seen them weaving, or sitting at the lights even when all the cars in front have gone, or just stopped in the middle of the road. You aren't do using on the road therefore you are a danger to yourself and more importantly to all the other road users.


----------



## summerdays (26 Feb 2016)

You imply that looking for drivers on their mobiles means you aren't focused on the road but I find that it's being aware of other road users and what they are doing helps to keep you safe so that you give more space to those who you know aren't paying attention.


----------



## bozmandb9 (26 Feb 2016)

summerdays said:


> Err ... you don't get that many elderly people driving buses? And it was professional drivers who I consider reporting, others I don't bother, I'd spend all day reporting drivers if I reported all the dodgy driving I see, (or not even driving, today there is a car I pass that can't fit onto it's drive way so parks across the path, and that meant an elderly person in a buggy had to go on the road to pass, I might report that one as I've chatted to the policemen who covers that patch quite frequently and I think he would have a word with them, as they are a repeat offender!).
> 
> Anyone I see using a phone is not concentrating on the road, I've seen them weaving, or sitting at the lights even when all the cars in front have gone, or just stopped in the middle of the road. You aren't do using on the road therefore you are a danger to yourself and more importantly to all the other road users.


I must be going blind or mind then, I can't see where you mentioned bus drivers!

Oh, and difficult to define not moving on the road as dangerous driving!

Anyway, not trying to wind anybody up here, just making the point that drivers aren't 'the enemy', and an antagonistic or aggressive approach towards them will only make the situation worse. A lot of drivers get really wound up about cyclists with head cams becoming self appointed judges of driving behaviour.

Again, I'm not 'on their side'. I'm just saying don't make the situation worse. I've been a victim of dangerous and aggressive driving, hence it's important to me that Police focus on the important cases, where the danger is severe, and/or injury has been done. Plus I'd rather we don't make the situation in the UK like it seems to be in Australia, with severe problems between drivers and cyclists.


----------



## benb (26 Feb 2016)

@bozmandb9 doesn't think illegal activity should be reported to the police.


----------



## bozmandb9 (26 Feb 2016)

benb said:


> @bozmandb9 doesn't think illegal activity should be reported to the police.



I think the reporting mechanism should be used as intended, i.e. to report dangerous driving. Are you trolling by any chance? Please see my recent comments if not, and please stop if you are.


----------



## benb (26 Feb 2016)

bozmandb9 said:


> I think the reporting mechanism should be used as intended, i.e. to report dangerous driving. Are you trolling by any chance? Please see my recent comments if not, and please stop if you are.



Using a mobile phone whilst driving is a specific offence. Reporting mechanisms are in place to report crime, are they not?
Someone disagreeing with you != trolling.


----------



## summerdays (26 Feb 2016)

summerdays said:


> ....It would be good if they would take camera evidence... At the moment the only ones I bother reporting are things like *bus drivers*.





bozmandb9 said:


> I must be going blind or mind then, I can't see where you mentioned bus drivers!
> 
> Oh, and difficult to define not moving on the road as dangerous driving!
> 
> ...


If they aren't moving but suddenly look up realise the traffic in front has moved they set off and do things like go through red traffic lights. And yes I have seen that.


----------



## jefmcg (26 Feb 2016)

summerdays said:


> If they aren't moving but suddenly look up realise the traffic in front has moved they set off and do things like go through red traffic lights. And yes I have seen that.


This is true, but it's not what makes mobiles so dangerous. People used to do the same with a newspaper or magazine*. What makes mobiles especially dangerous is they way they ping and distract you while you are moving

*there was a joke old joke - Dave Allen or similar - saying if the guy in front of you is reading a newspaper in a traffic jam, sound your horn loudly and then watch him drive straight into the car in front.


----------



## bozmandb9 (26 Feb 2016)

summerdays said:


> If they aren't moving but suddenly look up realise the traffic in front has moved they set off and do things like go through red traffic lights. And yes I have seen that.



That doesn't follow remotely. If however a driver goes through red lights, whatever the reason, that of course is dangerous driving, and worth reporting. Assuming he will do this as a consequence of looking at a mobile phone whilst stationary is an example of the potentially over zealous reporting I'm referring to.


----------



## bozmandb9 (26 Feb 2016)

benb said:


> Using a mobile phone whilst driving is a specific offence. Reporting mechanisms are in place to report crime, are they not?
> Someone disagreeing with you != trolling.



It seemed like a somewhat bizarre post, and designed to antagonise, not recognising the point of my posts. Have you ever exceeded the speed limit as a driver? Have you witnessed drivers doing so? Do you report every incident of speeding? Have you witnessed cyclists jumping red lights? Have you taken a full description and reported it to the Police? Have you ever encountered illegal downloading or broadcast of copyright materials? Do you report each incident? 

The point is, there are probably countless incidents of 'illegal activity' which we witness. If we did not exercise a modicum of discretion in reporting, we would waste a lot of our time, and the police systems would basically crash, preventing anybody from reporting more serious incidents which are more deserving of attention.


----------



## bozmandb9 (26 Feb 2016)

summerdays said:


> If they aren't moving but suddenly look up realise the traffic in front has moved they set off and do things like go through red traffic lights. And yes I have seen that.


I see now, I was replying to your subsequent post, and had not seen that earlier one. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## summerdays (26 Feb 2016)

bozmandb9 said:


> That doesn't follow remotely. If however a driver goes through red lights, whatever the reason, that of course is dangerous driving, and worth reporting. Assuming he will do this as a consequence of looking at a mobile phone whilst stationary is an example of the potentially over zealous reporting I'm referring to.


I didn't say I assume he will do it, I said I've seen it on multiple occasions. I didn't report it, but if an accident had occurred as a result I would hang around for the police and tell them about what behaviour I had witnessed. Just because an accident doesn't occur doesn't mean they are driving safely.


----------



## Origamist (26 Feb 2016)

bozmandb9 said:


> *Great link, though it doesn't mention anything about 'using a mobile phone whilst driving'. It does mention speeding or dangerous driving, which is what should be reported. I think the obsession with mobile phone use is wrong. According to official figures, it accounts for maybe up to 20 deaths per year, and this figure seems to have increased since it became a criminal offence. *
> 
> Bottom line is dangerous driving is dangerous driving, IF it's caused by mobile phone use, report the dangerous driving. If it's caused by smoking, report it, radio us, kids, whatever the cause, if it's dangerous driving, report it. Don't report somebody for dangerous driving it they are not, whether you personally approve of mobile phone use behind the wheel or not (and I should make the point that I don't), but to report somebody for dangerous driving purely on the basis that they are using a mobile phone, I would say is a false report.
> 
> ...



Perhaps understandably, you are not aware that RoadSafe's role and remit has changed since the OP as has the content of the web page.


----------



## benb (27 Feb 2016)

bozmandb9 said:


> It seemed like a somewhat bizarre post, and designed to antagonise, not recognising the point of my posts. Have you ever exceeded the speed limit as a driver? Have you witnessed drivers doing so? Do you report every incident of speeding? Have you witnessed cyclists jumping red lights? Have you taken a full description and reported it to the Police? Have you ever encountered illegal downloading or broadcast of copyright materials? Do you report each incident?
> 
> The point is, there are probably countless incidents of 'illegal activity' which we witness. If we did not exercise a modicum of discretion in reporting, we would waste a lot of our time, and the police systems would basically crash, preventing anybody from reporting more serious incidents which are more deserving of attention.



I can assure you any antagonism you experienced was not my intention. 

Mobile phone use when driving is an epidemic, because it's still socially acceptable. And the reason it's still socially acceptable is because people don't bother to do anything about it. 

I'd suggest that a driver who thinks it's ok to use their phone when stationary or slowly moving is the type of driver who thinks it's acceptable at other times. 

So yes, I think it's always worthwhile reporting mobile phone use.


----------



## Andrew_P (27 Feb 2016)

Mobile use is huge in my experience, unfortunately my camera is fixed. I think it has got worse since it was an offence at least when they could use it they used to have it at eyelevel on the wheel now its below on their lap to hide the use, as if it wasn't obvious anyway. If my camera was able to record use I would report every single one. I think it should have the same penalty as drink driving removal of the licence maybe 3 months for the first offence.


----------



## bozmandb9 (27 Feb 2016)

I must be frank and clear guys. On my ride today, I experienced a close pass, which really clarified things for me.

I don't give a flying F*** what people do within their car, except when it causes them to put my life, and that of my son who is riding with me, in jeopardy. 

This is the point I'm making. Don't focus on bs annoyances, focus on what's important. I'm sure each of us has experiences of drivers poor judgement which has put us at risk. Why not focus on that, and only that ffs. Not worry about whether other behaviours could lead to a dangerous situation.

In these times of Police cuts, surely it's better for us to help them to focus on catching the actual bad guys, the hit and run/ accident caused/ road rage/ dangerous overtake etc. Not the 'using mobile phone so could cause danger', since mobile phone use is one of many in car behaviours which could cause danger, and it's just totally pointless to focus on one, and ignore the others, especially when the figures show mobile phone use is a factor in incredibly few actual accidents (although the few it does factor in certainly garner lots of press).

That's in from me, I can't be any clearer, and if you still don't get what I'm saying you never will.


----------



## glenn forger (27 Feb 2016)

bozmandb9 said:


> the figures show mobile phone use is a factor in incredibly few actual accidents



What figures?


----------



## bozmandb9 (27 Feb 2016)

glenn forger said:


> What figures?





bozmandb9 said:


> According to official statistics, mobile phone distraction is a factor in 0.8% of accidents, nearly all are simply caused by driver error. 3.2% are caused by bad road layout. For full details see link below.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/8702111/How-do-accidents-happen.html


----------



## glenn forger (27 Feb 2016)

Texting while driving deaths have just overtaken drunk driving as the biggest killer of young Americans. Phone use is implicated in a quarter of all US road collisions. The roads are filled with enough terrible drivers as it is, idiots playing with phones are four times more likely to have a collision. And we're catching up, the latest figures aren't in yet:



> Department for Transport figures reveal that 378 accidents specifically involving mobile phone use were reported in 2012 — more than any year on record. Those accidents resulted in 548 casualties, including 17 deaths.
> 
> But motoring experts say that this figure gives a false impression of the true scale of the problem, as many cases involving phones are classed instead as an "in-vehicle distraction". In-vehicle distractions led to 9,012 accidents and 196 deaths between 2010 and 2012.
> 
> When these figures are combined the total number of deaths is 213, only 27 less than are caused by drink driving. And with the current steep decline of drink drive deaths, mobile phone distraction is expected to become the biggest cause of death on the roads by 2015.



http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/201...iggest-killer-on-british-roads-by-2015/53049/

Worse than drink driving. Drink drivers are scum, so are idiots playing with phones, and they're becoming more likely to hurt people than drink drivers are.


----------



## glenn forger (27 Feb 2016)

That's cos "In-car distractions" are listed separately.



> motoring experts say that this figure gives a false impression of the true scale of the problem, as many cases involving phones are classed instead as an "in-vehicle distraction". In-vehicle distractions led to 9,012 accidents and 196 deaths between 2010 and 2012.


----------



## summerdays (27 Feb 2016)

bozmandb9 said:


> I must be frank and clear guys. On my ride today, I experienced a close pass, which really clarified things for me.
> 
> I don't give a flying F*** what people do within their car, except when it causes them to put my life, and that of my son who is riding with me, in jeopardy.
> 
> ...


Do you not think it possible that some of those close passes that you are worried about are distracted by their mobile phones?


----------



## glenn forger (27 Feb 2016)

These criminal drivers are massively under-reported. Drivers are stationary and get rear-ended, it just goes through the insurance, no police involvement and no penalty for the driver playing with their phone.


----------



## benb (27 Feb 2016)

Mobile phone drivers ARE dangerous. 

The only explanation that comes to mind as to why @bozmandb9 tolerates mobile phone use when driving is that he does it.


----------



## summerdays (28 Feb 2016)

I've just passed a car (I'm in a car too on the motorway), which has mounted their phone on their mirror!


----------



## Andrew_P (28 Feb 2016)

summerdays said:


> I've just passed a car (I'm in a car too on the motorway), which has mounted their phone on their mirror!


I am amazed the EU does not follow some US states in that there is a total ban of anything attached to the windowscreen. Spme cars that pass me have those huge tablet phones bang in the middle and a Satnav on the other side with wires hanging down etc, farking madness really when you think about it, even without the distraction element the blind spots are farking ridiculous. Worst still I have seen them bang in the middle of the drivers eye line


----------



## Stinboy (28 Feb 2016)

summerdays said:


> I've just passed a car (I'm in a car too on the motorway), which has mounted their phone on their mirror!



I hope you weren't driving when you posted that


----------



## summerdays (28 Feb 2016)

Stinboy said:


> I hope you weren't driving when you posted that


Of course not.... I even checked Mr Summerdays phone for him when it went beep to find out what it was!


----------



## Absinthe Minded (2 Mar 2016)

Twenty Inch said:


> People in London can report mobile-phone-using drivers on the following form:
> 
> http://www.met.police.uk/roadsafelondon/
> 
> ...


Brilliant - many thanks for this.


----------



## Lonestar (26 Jun 2016)

Passed a cyclist on the return commute (last night) on the CS 3 who was happily staring into his phone.What a complete moron.


----------



## Roadrider48 (26 Jun 2016)

Lonestar said:


> Passed a cyclist on the return commute (last night) on the CS 3 who was happily staring into his phone.What a complete moron.


You do know, don't you, that cyclists are above any wrong doing.
It is impossible for a cyclist to act improperly- after all, they have Jesus on their side.
Just ask some of the people here, they'll put you right on that!


----------



## Lonestar (26 Jun 2016)

Roadrider48 said:


> You do know, don't you, that cyclists are above any wrong doing.
> It is impossible for a cyclist to act improperly- after all, they have Jesus on their side.
> Just ask some of the people here, they'll put you right on that!



Yes I do realise I am not perfect and I try to play the good guy and don't always get it right.That doesn't mean I jump the reds because it suits me and nobody else or use a mobile while cycling or walking up the street.

Then again I'm old enough now to know what happens when you (not you,me).Cycle like an idiot.


----------



## jefmcg (26 Jun 2016)

Roadrider48 said:


> You do know, don't you, that cyclists are above any wrong doing.
> It is impossible for a cyclist to act improperly- after all, they have Jesus on their side.
> Just ask some of the people here, they'll put you right on that!


The difference is that the cyclist is not breaking the law


----------



## Lonestar (26 Jun 2016)

jefmcg said:


> The difference is that the cyclist is not breaking the law



Yeah I forgot and of course this makes it ok.That's a pretty shocking and stupid assessment but then again why should I be surprised about the stupidity on here? More than once I've been overtaken by the latest red light jumping no lights clown on one of the Cycle Superhighways while he stares at his phone or is engaged in a call.


----------



## Roadrider48 (26 Jun 2016)

jefmcg said:


> The difference is that the cyclist is not breaking the law


I do know that....it was tongue in cheek post.
Don't let the EU stuff blind you to my fantasticness.


----------



## Roadrider48 (26 Jun 2016)

jefmcg said:


> I hadn't noticed that on my phone. No you are pointing it out, I'm putting you on ignore.


Ok ?????
Don't know how I have offended you but, OK.
Now you get put on ignore because you vote out. LOL's many, many times over.
Absolutely pathetic, childish behaviour. But the choice is yours, as it was mine to vote out.


----------



## glenn forger (26 Jun 2016)

Lonestar said:


> Yeah I forgot and of course this makes it ok.



It's got nothing to do with the thread. Your post added nothing, it was irrelevant and attention-seeking.


----------



## Roadrider48 (26 Jun 2016)

glenn forger said:


> It's got nothing to do with the thread. Your post added nothing, it was irrelevant and attention-seeking.


Like all your posts then, Glen, eh?


----------



## Roadrider48 (26 Jun 2016)

jefmcg said:


> Your signature and avatar are childishly gloating. Fine, do what you like. But for some reason you mentioned it in a post, for no reason I can comprehend. On that basis, I am not sure why you would think I'd be interested in anything else you have to say.


That's fine, you can do what ever you wish.
I just find it childishly amusing that you would put me on ignore because of my avatar and sig.
But if it offends you that much, press that button.
I am fully entitled to express my opinion just the same as anyone else and if you find that "childishly gloating" then that's your problem to deal with.
I make no apology for my viewpoint on this subject.
Funny though, isn't it. That a handful of you people seem to condone the manipulation of the democratic process to try and satisfy your own ends, but when anyone has a different viewpoint they are viewed as evil or, as you said "childishly gloating"


----------



## Lonestar (26 Jun 2016)

glenn forger said:


> It's got nothing to do with the thread. Your post added nothing, it was irrelevant and attention-seeking.



wtf are you talking about? I made a point and you responded with your pointless trolling.


----------



## Lonestar (21 Jul 2016)

*Mobile phones*
Using ANY mobile phone when driving is dangerous

Using a mobile phone, sat nav or any similar device whilst driving means that the driver’s attention is distracted from the road.

*The facts*

Studies show that drivers using a hands-free or handheld mobile phone are slower at recognising and reacting to hazards.
Even careful drivers can be distracted by a call or text – and a split-second lapse in concentration could result in a crash.
*The law*

It's illegal to use a handheld mobile when driving.
This includes using your mobile phone to follow a map, read a text or check social media. This applies even if you’re stopped at traffic lights or queuing in traffic.
You can only use a handheld phone if you are safely parked or need to call 999 or 112 in an emergency and it’s unsafe or impractical to stop.
If you’re caught using a handheld phone while driving, you’ll get 3 penalty points on your licence and a fine of £100. Points on your licence will result in higher insurance costs.
If you get just 6 points in the first two years after passing your test, you will lose your licence.
You may use a hands-free phone while driving but you can still be prosecuted if you’re not in proper control of your vehicle. The penalties are same as being caught using a handheld phone.
The penalties for driving carelessly or dangerously when using a handheld or hands-free phone can include disqualification, a large fine and up to two years imprisonment.
Mobile phones and drivingOpens new window

*THINK! Advice*


*Switch off before you drive off *


*Even if you’re using a hands-free phone you should avoid making or answering calls when driving*
All phone calls distract drivers' attention from the road.


*Park safely before using your mobile phone*
Do not park on the hard shoulder of the motorway.


*Don't call other people when they're driving*
If you call someone and they tell you they are driving, ask them to call you back when they have parked up safely.

Anyway back to the law which is ignored to suit by quite a few road users.


----------



## glenn forger (1 Aug 2016)




----------



## zach (10 Aug 2016)

Wondering now if should I report this chap?


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzImC0b0wB8


----------



## stoatsngroats (25 Aug 2016)

Twenty Inch said:


> People in London can report mobile-phone-using drivers on the following form:
> 
> http://www.met.police.uk/roadsafelondon/
> 
> ...


Something similar in Sussex, operation crackdown http://www.operationcrackdown.org/ I have used it a couple of times; and you can login after a short time see if any action was taken.


----------



## Psycolist (14 Sep 2016)

stoatsngroats said:


> Something similar in Sussex, operation crackdown http://www.operationcrackdown.org/ I have used it a couple if tunes; and you can login time see if any action was taken.


What sort of genre do they use, reggae, soul, rock, pop ? ? ?

P.S. On a serious note, I wish Essex had a similar process. Any one got any info, if they have, spread the word, any where in our good ol' UK, Does anyone have any skills at collating and sharing this info on a separate thread perhaps.


----------



## stoatsngroats (18 Sep 2016)

Psycolist said:


> What sort of genre do they use, reggae, soul, rock, pop ? ? ?


Thanks! (I edited it now!)


Psycolist said:


> P.S. On a serious note, I wish Essex had a similar process.


This might seem lng winded, and maybe not the best way, but https://www2.essex.police.uk/contact_us/reporting_anti-social_behaviou.aspx has some detailsabour Anti social behavour reporting n Essex...


----------



## Phaeton (14 Oct 2016)

*404 - Page not found*


----------



## Lonestar (14 Oct 2016)

Phaeton said:


> *404 - Page not found*



Something to do with the BBC...can't find the page now.Thanks.(Still looking)

*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37643994

https://twitter.com/bbcstories Second posting down on Twitter.

Surprised only twenty people per year are wiped out by these mobile phone wielding twats.Then again there is enough crap driving without these things.

http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/up...rash-in-guildford-after-car-hits-pedestrians/

The road in Guildford.I bet the driver couldn't give a fark either.

I see I'm slow with this it's been posted on a thread in chat.*


----------



## Velow (14 Nov 2016)

Week long crackdown in the UK
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37968722


----------



## glasgowcyclist (14 Nov 2016)

Velow said:


> Week long crackdown in the UK
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37968722




It's nowhere near enough but I suppose the lack of police resources restricts the length of time that can be spent on this. It should prove to be fruitful though if GMP Traffic's experience is anything to go by: caught twice in 45 minutes.


----------



## Lonestar (14 Nov 2016)

Good job.


----------



## Sixmile (6 Dec 2016)

40,000 or 22 per day caught within the last 5 years here in Northern Ireland.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...t-the-wheel-in-northern-ireland-35267999.html

It's scary that that's just the one's that have been caught. This is only the tip of the iceberg but well done to the PSNI at least for catching some of them.


----------



## david k (28 Dec 2016)

Don't report it whilst driving, wait until you stop


----------



## sheddy (28 Dec 2016)

Hertfordshire Police policy is to just send offenders on a one day course.
Your chance to have a say http://www.hertscommissioner.org/plan
(comments box at the end of online survey)


----------



## Tom B (10 Jun 2017)

GMP have announced a pilot scheme to use dashcam/helmet cam footage submissions from members of the public


View: https://twitter.com/gmptraffic/status/869873866562207749


----------



## Lonestar (15 Jul 2017)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/15/honolulu-plans-fines-looking-mobile-phone-crossing-road/

heh!


----------



## dhd.evans (18 Jul 2017)

Local rag picked up my video today. Wasn't asked for permission or comment mind...


----------



## Jackmaster (29 Jul 2017)

dhd.evans said:


> Local rag picked up my video today. Wasn't asked for permission or comment mind...


So isn't your name David Evans as in the article?

I saw a sign the other day saying you get 6 points now if caught. Is this true? See 100 people a day on their phones whilst driving. If I do why on earth can't the police or the CCTV that our country is full of?

I live on a road with a slight hill and a speed camera halfway down. 3 sets of lights 3/4 of a mile apart. Average speed has to be 40 MPH on the road at least. In a built up area so 30.

Bizarrely we have a dual carriage way that was 60 for years which has now been strangled and reduced to 40. Funnily enough the majority abide by this even though there is 0% of people crossing it as it isn't built up and no pavements!!

I'm a cyclist and a motorist. Never ceases to amaze me how many drivers are complete idiots racing to the next set of lights and how much effort it must take to indicate or switch on lights when conditions dictate!


----------



## GuyBoden (29 Aug 2017)

A construction company pickup driver slowly pulled out of a quiet side street T-junction without looking, while reading texts on his mobile. I had to swerve to avoid him, I was so annoyed I called him a F...cking idiot at his window, he drove on undeterred. I wouldn't be surprised if he did it on purpose.


----------



## Drago (29 Aug 2017)

A Foxtrot India would probably be a promotion for him.


----------



## Vantage (13 Sep 2017)

How easy it in your areas to report crap/selfish/dangerous driving?
I ask because a few months ago whilst on my way to pick up miniV, some bellend was driving literally inches from my rear mudguard.
GMP take reports of this nature via Operation Considerate. My attempt to use it to report the incident left me so infuriated that I simply gave up. The difficulty in editing a specific form in order to be filled in and sent back to them in particular had me swearing.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (13 Sep 2017)

Vantage said:


> How easy it in your areas to report crap/selfish/dangerous driving?
> I ask because a few months ago whilst on my way to pick up miniV, some bellend was driving literally inches from my rear mudguard.
> GMP take reports of this nature via Operation Considerate. My attempt to use it to report the incident left me so infuriated that I simply gave up. The difficulty in editing a specific form in order to be filled in and sent back to them in particular had me swearing.




There's no online option up here. If it's a bad enough incident I'll burn footage to DVD and hand it in, along with a covering statement, to my local police station. I also keep a copy on my iPod so I can show them at the time, rather than them having to wait until they check the DVD.


----------



## Lonestar (20 Sep 2017)

Seen mobile use quite a bit recently from cyclists/motorists/pedestrians.Obviously people put personal and other peoples safety right down the pan.


----------



## benb (21 Sep 2017)

Lonestar said:


> Seen mobile use quite a bit recently from cyclists/motorists/pedestrians.Obviously people put personal and other peoples safety right down the pan.



Are you suggesting pedestrians shouldn't use mobile phones?


----------



## 50K (22 Sep 2017)

one experience I had with a hampstead bored housewife in a landrover explorer (5 mins late taking kids to school) was a cut up at a bollard pinch point, luckily I managed to catch her in bumper to bumper traffic halfway up the hampstead hill, knocked on her window and she almost shat her pants (as she was facebooking at the time and must have thought I was a cop). So I told her where she was wrong, her repy was ''Well, I'm in the car, you are on the bike - You Be Careful!'' and shot off once the traffic had moved on ... Thats the attitude of some of these B**ches. Damn I wish I had that recorded ...


----------



## Drago (22 Sep 2017)

benb said:


> Are you suggesting pedestrians shouldn't use mobile phones?



Not when crossing the road etc.


----------



## Bimble (22 Sep 2017)

50K said:


> ... Thats the attitude of some of these B**ches.


I expect you mean "people" since it's women _and_ men who do it.


----------



## Lonestar (22 Sep 2017)

benb said:


> Are you suggesting pedestrians shouldn't use mobile phones?



When safety and braincells are lacking,yes.


----------



## Drago (22 Sep 2017)

From what I've seen the new 6 points penalty doesn't seem to be deterring people. Sooner its a banning offence on a par with drink driving, the better.


----------



## Lonestar (22 Sep 2017)

Drago said:


> From what I've seen the new 6 points penalty doesn't seem to be deterring people. Sooner its a banning offence on a par with drink driving, the better.



No I'm not really convinced either.


----------



## CanucksTraveller (22 Sep 2017)

No deterrent will work while it's socially acceptable, I can walk past a whole line of traffic of say, 20 cars on any given day and I'll see probably 3 to 4 drivers typing on phones. It takes a whole mindset and generational change, like drink driving did. At the moment, it's just seen by many as possibly a bit naughty, but something that everyone does.


----------



## kingrollo (3 Nov 2017)

CanucksTraveller said:


> No deterrent will work while it's socially acceptable, I can walk past a whole line of traffic of say, 20 cars on any given day and I'll see probably 3 to 4 drivers typing on phones. It takes a whole mindset and generational change, like drink driving did. At the moment, it's just seen by many as possibly a bit naughty, but something that everyone does.



IMO no deterrent will work - if you're never going to get caught. Part of the problem is people know they are unlikely to get caught.


----------



## raphael4 (19 Nov 2017)

What's the best value helmet camera? I want one of those tube shaped ones to make it look more inconspicuous, not the big boxy Go Pro style ones. 
Sharp night vision is particularly important in these winter months.


----------



## MartyBenji (4 Dec 2017)

kingrollo said:


> IMO no deterrent will work - if you're never going to get caught. Part of the problem is people know they are unlikely to get caught.



When walking along a 1/2 mile stretch of main road to my allotment I can guarantee seeing at least two drivers using their phones, even a bus driver once. There is very little chance of them getting caught until an accident happens.


----------



## ryanme (19 Jan 2018)

raphael4 said:


> What's the best value helmet camera? I want one of those tube shaped ones to make it look more inconspicuous, not the big boxy Go Pro style ones.
> Sharp night vision is particularly important in these winter months.




The new Go Pro is tiny ... still a box though I admit, and I do not think the night vision is amazing. 

My GF used a Roadhawk Ride when living in London in a previous life, nothing bad to say about it!


----------



## Drago (19 Jan 2018)

MartyBenji said:


> When walking along a 1/2 mile stretch of main road to my allotment I can guarantee seeing at least two drivers using their phones, even a bus driver once. There is very little chance of them getting caught until an accident happens.



Bus drivers on mobiles get well and truly dobbed in.

The scary thing is that half these people aren't simply talking on the phone, bit they're gazing down at it reading Twitbook or What space, and to be driving without looking is truly terrifying.


----------



## Tizme (2 Mar 2018)

Walking my dog the other afternoon I saw a woman pull out of her drive, youngster in the front seat next to her, another on the back seat, as she held her mobile up to her face talking, why couldn't she just have her conversation before she drove off - probably because she knew she had a 99.9% chance of not seeing a policeman at any time during her journey. In my last 2 years of regular cycle commuting (admittedly on "earlies" it would be around 5:30 am) I saw no more than half a dozen Police vehicles (and one of those managed to close pass me on an A road with a 50mph limit!).
I was really gutted when my headcam failed to pick out clearly the bus driver looking down at his mobile (clearly texting) as he approached a staggered cross-roads and about to turn right across the traffic


----------



## steveindenmark (27 Apr 2018)

Twice this week. I have had to shout at cyclists riding along the cycle path towards me to stop them riding into me. Texting whilst riding. Both times riding with no hands on the handlebars.

Its not just car drivers you need to look out for.


----------



## Lonestar (20 Jun 2018)

steveindenmark said:


> Twice this week. I have had to shout at cyclists riding along the cycle path towards me to stop them riding into me. Texting whilst riding. Both times riding with no hands on the handlebars.
> 
> Its not just car drivers you need to look out for.



Yeah get that on the CS 3 all the time.The most classic one was an idiot Boris Biker using her phone coming the opposite way by the mosque place with a BMW driver mixed up in it doing a right turn and the cyclist in front of me having to brake with me having three things to concentrate on.She will never know how near she was to causing an accident.Too bloody ignorant and selfish.


----------



## simongt (20 Jun 2018)

The worst thing about all this is that the perpetrators don't believe that they're doing anything wrong because that 'phone call / text is SO IMPORTANT it just can't wait. 
It won't be until they cause a serious injury / death as a direct result of their action that they even then, MIGHT consider that what they did was open to criticism.

Sad, but true I'm afraid - !


----------



## Lonestar (23 Jun 2018)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44584261

I know people are pretty thick sometimes but this is just plain ignorant if it was true.I find mobile phones so unsociable at work and generally it's the same people blabbing on them all day,Still not all my work colleagues are like this.


----------



## simongt (25 Jun 2018)

Lonestar said:


> .I find mobile phones so unsociable at work


Indeed. I find it so peculiar that where I work, at every break, there's a mad rush to folk's lockers so they can retrieve their cellphones just in case they MIGHT have missed something of world changing importance - ! 
Mine - ? Goes in my locker at the start of shift and that's where it stays 'til I knock off - !


----------



## Drago (25 Jun 2018)

People seem to have devolved a rather sad, psychological dependency on smart phones. Facetwotspace doesn't help either, the saddos compelled to check every 3 seconds in case they missed a photo of someone's lunch.


----------



## Lonestar (26 Jun 2018)

Drago said:


> People seem to have devolved a rather sad, psychological dependency on smart phones. Facetwotspace doesn't help either, the saddos compelled to check every 3 seconds in case they missed a photo of someone's lunch.



It does seem like that.



simongt said:


> Indeed. I find it so peculiar that where I work, at every break, there's a mad rush to folk's lockers so they can retrieve their cellphones just in case they MIGHT have missed something of world changing importance - !
> Mine - ? Goes in my locker at the start of shift and that's where it stays 'til I knock off - !



I never carry it unless im out all day.In other words local trips like the shops...etc...Also at work I rarely use it.

Yesterday I was cycling up Carnarvon Road Stratford (I was the victim of two deliberate dangerous passes in two weeks down this road,recently)where a halfwit in a Ford Mondeo with big headphones on was bugging me so I let him pass (I generally do because I don't trust those f-wits). As he passed I could see he was staring at a mobile phone screen in his right hand while he was driving.FFS!


----------



## Arjimlad (13 Jul 2018)

I put this in the Tales from Today's Commute but it might be better put here. I caught a BMW driver cruising slowly uphill in slow traffic, with his window down. As I overtook I saw he was using a handheld mobile but the dialling-out tone seemed to be coming from his car speakers. The camera was on my helmet so the film of this is crystal clear. I have uploaded it to Avon & Somerset's dashcam page and the driver is to receive a notice of intended prosecution. I don't know if it will be 3 points or 6, clearly it should be the latter.


----------



## Tizme (13 Aug 2018)

Arjimlad said:


> I put this in the Tales from Today's Commute but it might be better put here. I caught a BMW driver cruising slowly uphill in slow traffic, with his window down. As I overtook I saw he was using a handheld mobile but the dialling-out tone seemed to be coming from his car speakers. The camera was on my helmet so the film of this is crystal clear. I have uploaded it to Avon & Somerset's dashcam page and the driver is to receive a notice of intended prosecution. I don't know if it will be 3 points or 6, clearly it should be the latter.



Good for you, cycling home from work one evening having just negotiated a staggered crossroads I noticed a bus turning into the road I had just exited with the driver looking down at, at first glance, his right ankle, it was only as I went passed I realised he was actually texting! I was disappointed when I checked the video from my headcam that it had failed to pick it up or it would have been sent straight to the bus company.


----------



## Arjimlad (13 Aug 2018)

Tizme said:


> Good for you, cycling home from work one evening having just negotiated a staggered crossroads I noticed a bus turning into the road I had just exited with the driver looking down at, at first glance, his right ankle, it was only as I went passed I realised he was actually texting! I was disappointed when I checked the video from my headcam that it had failed to pick it up or it would have been sent straight to the bus company.



Pleased to report that I have had two local phone abusers receiving notices of intended prosecution including the chap above. The second was driving a large SUV in slow-moving traffic & drifting towards the kerb where cyclists were filtering on the left. Having the camera on the helmet seems to do a reasonable job of catching this sort of thing and Avon & Somerset police seem to be happy to use the footage.


----------



## Electric_Andy (14 Mar 2019)

I didn't know where to put this so sorry if wrong place. This week whilst commuting (motorbike not bicycle) I was sat behind an idiot at some lights who was in full blown conversation on his mobile. The lights changed and he continued to talk on the phone for about 2 minutes.

Then yesterday another idiot was pulling out of a car park, phone to his ear, didn't even look and pulled out straight in front of me. Luckily I saw it coming and stopped. I leaned on the horn, waited for him to look up and my a phone gesture with my hand and shouted get off your effing phone. To my surprise he mouthed "yeah I know" and continued his conversation.

It's still worrying that even with the threat of points and a fine, people still use mobiles when driving, and don't even seem to care. We know they don't care about other people's safety, but you would think at the very least they would be afraid to get caught.


----------



## Phaeton (14 Mar 2019)

Electric_Andy said:


> It's still worrying that even with the threat of points and a fine, people still use mobiles when driving, and don't even seem to care. We know they don't care about other people's safety, but you would think at the very least they would be afraid to get caught.


But whose going to catch them? I regularly drive home & never see a Police vehicle for a full week, other than the odd occasional with blues & two's on


----------



## Electric_Andy (14 Mar 2019)

Phaeton said:


> But whose going to catch them? I regularly drive home & never see a Police vehicle for a full week, other than the odd occasional with blues & two's on


I see quite a few, but you're right, there can't be many people being caught otherwise it wouldn't be such a widespread problem. I suppose even an instant ban would not deter some people if they think they're never going to get caught


----------



## Freds Dad (14 Mar 2019)

People don't seem to realise how dangerous it is to use a mobile whilst driving. I see at 5 a day while out and about. The favourite way now seems to be having the phone in their lap so they can text while stopped at traffic lights. Its when the traffic in front of them moves off and they are still sat there that you realise what they are doing.

I would crush the phone of anyone caught and with the latest models costing over £500 it may make offenders realise.


----------



## Phaeton (14 Mar 2019)

Freds Dad said:


> I would crush the phone of anyone caught and with the latest models costing over £500 it may make offenders realise.


I have differing views but I obey the law, but if you are going to impose it then do it properly, confiscate the vehicle with immediate effect.


----------



## TheCyclingRooster (14 Mar 2019)

When eventually their total complacency overtakes them and they are stopped by the police or GOD forgive they are involved in an accident the vehicle should be confiscated there and then - irrespective of whom it belongs to.
The service provider should be instructed to close the account and the mobile phone should be technologically fried therefore rendering it a useless piece of junk.
The fine should be increased so as to represent the equivalent of one months wages/income and if unemployed it should be taken from any received benefits.
I have been a victim of a brain dead young woman albeit not whilst riding my bikes - the police did absolutely nothing - not even checking her call-log.

Scenario - year 2000 - Wet road and still raining in Warrington town centre I was stationary with the handbrake on waiting for a gap in traffic when her car rammed the back of my Ford Sierra Estate which resulted in it being shunted twenty feet and into oncoming traffic colliding with a car that was being driven by a young lady on her way to an anti-natal clinic half a mile further up the road.


----------



## Electric_Andy (14 Mar 2019)

I've heard (anecdotally) that there are still grey areas surrounding phone use. For example if someone is fiddling with their phone on a mount, with satnav or music, then it's not really the same offense but you can still be done for driving without due care - I believe this falls under the same category as when a driver was given a ticket for eating a kitkat at the wheel. It's all about proving what they were doing, and I suppose they haven't the resources to look into every possible case. If it goes to court and they don't have enough evidence then it's a waste of their time and resources. 

So, crushing someone's car or expensive phone could only really be done if the Police had it on camera and it was clear.

I think crushing the phone would be a great deterrent. It would cause a significant financial loss, not to mention the time and annoyance of negotiating cancellations, losing people's details etc which is probably more important to some than money


----------



## Freds Dad (15 Mar 2019)

We need Chief Inspector @Drago to confirm this.


----------



## Phaeton (15 Mar 2019)

Freds Dad said:


> We need Chief Inspector @Drago to confirm this.


Pretty sure he covered it earlier in the thread, but can't be bothered to look, it's a none starter


----------



## CXRAndy (23 Jun 2019)

Told off a woman yesterday for using her phone whilst waiting at a junction. She really didn't get it, that not moving isn't the same as parked. She however did put her phone away when I said I was more than happy to record her using it and pass it to the police. I got the proverbial flicked V when she drove away. Maybe she will hesitate using her phone next time


----------



## Arjimlad (26 Jun 2019)

Two from one ride on Monday. Dashcam review officers "seeking to prosecute".

The first an executive in slow moving traffic.







The second a young driver waiting in a queue with the car in gear, footbrake on, eating from a packet on her lap and keeping up with social media on her handheld phone. She may be young enough to lose her licence for this one offence but needs re-education.


----------



## benb (26 Jun 2019)

Nice work, keep it up


----------



## Arjimlad (1 Jul 2019)

One from this morning. Using it whilst stationary at the lights then still using it 30 seconds later when she drove past me. Advisory letter going out.


----------



## Arjimlad (1 Jul 2019)

One from last Thursday's journey home - dashcam police "seeking to prosecute".



And another from the same journey, dashcam officers also "seeking to prosecute" (surprising despite the poor footage) - phone on the wheel, no seat belts on her or the child in the front seat, no MOT either.


----------



## Blue Hills (1 Jul 2019)

Quick question - apologies if answered upthread - is it illegal these days to use a phone behind the wheel if stationary?

(i stress I'm not a driver these days so not contemplating any dodgy driving)


----------



## Phaeton (1 Jul 2019)

Blue Hills said:


> Quick question - apologies if answered upthread - is it illegal these days to use a phone behind the wheel if stationary?
> (i stress I'm not a driver these days so not contemplating any dodgy driving)


Theoretically yes, if you are in charge of a vehicle & on the phone you are liable, even to extent that if you are pulled over at the side of the road, not in gear, handbrake on with the engine switched off you could still be prosecuted, although I think that has yet to be tested in court.


----------



## Drago (1 Jul 2019)

Unless you are parked lawfully, handbrake applied, and engine off, and (ideally, to remove all doubt that your are at that moment in charge) keys out of the ignition, your license can expect a swift punch in the kindneys from the Sweeney. Exception is when calling 999 in an emergency.


----------



## Arjimlad (1 Jul 2019)

Avon & Somerset send out a NIP if the driver is stationary, usually in traffic or at a red light. They're distracted & in charge of a car. Today's example shows how drivers will set off whilst their attention is still held by their phone.


----------



## Drago (1 Jul 2019)

No need to NIP for mobile phone use, its ism't a CHAMPSDG offence. They'll get a name the driver form, and once they've returned that they'll get a court date.


----------



## Arjimlad (2 Jul 2019)

Drago said:


> No need to NIP for mobile phone use, its ism't a CHAMPSDG offence. They'll get a name the driver form, and once they've returned that they'll get a court date.



Ah. Here's hoping. I cannot get an answer from them as to whether any 3rd party camera footage has ever resulted in a prosecution for mobile phone use. One reviewing officer said that they put them forward for prosecution but get knocked back every time. Seems odd when the Met are dishing out FPN and convictions based on this evidence according to more prolific London-based cyclists. At least they get proper feedback. Why do you mention CHAMPSDG - I thought that was a list of animals for reportable collisions? I think I was saying NIP thinking of the name the driver form.


----------



## Drago (2 Jul 2019)

Ah blimey, it's an acronym denoting classes off offences that are notifiable, recordable, or NIP able...but after 3 decades I cant remember half of them! Sorry!

Certainly here in poshshire they do, albeit I suspect infrequently. First county in the UK to get a driver banned on the basis of dashcam footage, so they occasionally do something right.

Keep up the good work


----------



## benb (2 Jul 2019)

Arjimlad said:


> Why do you mention CHAMPSDG - I thought that was a list of animals for reportable collisions?


You are correct. Cow, Horse, Ass, Mule, Pig, Sheep, Dog, Goat.

Mobile phone offences do not require a NIP, but it's got nothing to do with CHAMPSDG.

Offences that require a NIP are dangerous driving, careless driving, speeding and disobeying traffic signs and traffic signals. Anything involving a collision or an injury do not require a NIP.


----------



## Arjimlad (2 Jul 2019)

Just had an informative chat. I am emailing two superintendents. I am asking whether A&S Police actually ever prosecute third-party reported mobile phone abuse. The Dashcam officers say "seeking to prosecute" but apparently the Criminal Justice department usually does not prosecute. It is very much at odds with what others are achieving in London. I think I misunderstood "seeking to prosecute" as NIP.


----------



## Drago (2 Jul 2019)

benb said:


> You are correct. Cow, Horse, Ass, Mule, Pig, Sheep, Dog, Goat.
> 
> Mobile phone offences do not require a NIP, but it's got nothing to do with CHAMPSDG.
> 
> Offences that require a NIP are dangerous driving, careless driving, speeding and disobeying traffic signs and traffic signals. Anything involving a collision or an injury do not require a NIP.



Ah, that's it. Was rather off beam! I recall saying "chimpspg", sniggering, getting shouted at by the trainer....


I don't know what A and S are set up, but Justice Departments are administrative. Decisions to prosecute rests with the police for summary and admitted either way offences, or the CPS for indictable or non admitted either way offences (with a few exceptions to that rule, such as where racially aggravated, etc). The civilians in between prepare files for court and push paper, they play no part in the decision making process. 

All motoring offences up to careless and dangerous (in the case of dangerous, where admitted, but at the lower end of the scale) are solely the decision of the police to charge or summons, so don't let the superninetendo's give you any guff - the investigating officers supervisor makes the decision on prosecution, and no one else. No one then has the authority to countermand that decision, although the CPS has several mechanisms by which they can then halt the process wt the first hearing. If Avon and Somerset aren't charging, it's because a police officer somewhere is making the decision not to - that decision could likely be a policy one made by the scrambled egg ranks, but it is nevertheless a decision that only the police can make.


----------



## Arjimlad (2 Jul 2019)

Drago said:


> Ah, that's it. Was rather off beam! I recall saying "chimpspg", sniggering, getting shouted at by the trainer....
> 
> 
> I don't know what A and S are set up, but Justice Departments are administrative. Decisions to prosecute rests with the police for summary and admitted either way offences, or the CPS for indictable or non admitted either way offences (with a few exceptions to that rule, such as where racially aggravated, etc). The civilians in between prepare files for court and push paper, they play no part in the decision making process.
> ...



Thanks - that's very helpful and I think it chimes with what I am given to understand. The dashcam review officers are not of the same mind as the decision making officers.


----------



## Arjimlad (9 Jul 2019)

Got another "seeking to prosecute" outcome but this one came with a crime reference number. Very clear footage of interaction with the phone in a moving car.

They are sending a NIP to have the driver identified.


----------



## RoadRider400 (10 Jul 2019)

Great work mate.
How do the drivers react to this? Do you tell them that you are going for prosecutions?
I presume you need to get a photo of number plate too?
Wouldnt it be great if this was rolled out as a national scheme whereby cyclists and pedestrians can submit such videos and the drivers get heavily punished and fast tracked to court with minimal input from the police. High fines could then offset any admin costs of the court.


----------



## Drago (10 Jul 2019)

Ha ha, brilliant! They should give you a job doing nothing but that. In fact, employing a single copper to ride about in plain clothes doing nothing but that would be white cost effective if they're serious about casualty reduction.


----------



## Phaeton (10 Jul 2019)

A self funding post, target them with 20 kills a day, have to have photo of driver with phone in hand along with registration plate, 20 x £200 = £4,000 a day, 5 days a week £20,000, 46 weeks a year (taking into account 6 weeks holiday) = £920,000 a year. I'd take that on a 10% margin as self employed.


----------



## Arjimlad (10 Jul 2019)

RoadRider400 said:


> Great work mate.
> How do the drivers react to this? Do you tell them that you are going for prosecutions?
> I presume you need to get a photo of number plate too?
> Wouldnt it be great if this was rolled out as a national scheme whereby cyclists and pedestrians can submit such videos and the drivers get heavily punished and fast tracked to court with minimal input from the police. High fines could then offset any admin costs of the court.



I spotted her doing this as I emerged from a side road. Drawing up behind the car gave me a clear shot of the number plate.

I asked if she needed a little official encouragement to put the phone away whilst driving, she said no thanks, she was fine, and carried on. I asked if she thought she could be safely trusted with a phone and a car at the same time and she said yes and carried on. I explained how it was hazardous for people like me and she wound up her window and carried on. So I uploaded the footage.

Last time I had a conversation the bloke was very apologetic and put the phone away (not just down) immediately. So I didn't report him.

The Met seem very ready to use footage like this to send out some sort of fixed penalty with six points & £200 fine. Avon & Somerset seem a bit less bullish about it.


----------



## Arjimlad (10 Jul 2019)

Drago said:


> Ha ha, brilliant! They should give you a job doing nothing but that. In fact, employing a single copper to ride about in plain clothes doing nothing but that would be white cost effective if they're serious about casualty reduction.



Just in one square mile I could probably catch more than ten per day doing this, without too much trouble.


----------



## RoadRider400 (10 Jul 2019)

Arjimlad said:


> I asked if she needed a little official encouragement to put the phone away whilst driving, she said no thanks, she was fine, and carried on. I asked if she thought she could be safely trusted with a phone and a car at the same time and she said yes and carried on. I explained how it was hazardous for people like me and she wound up her window and carried on. So I uploaded the footage.



Oh to be a fly on the wall then the paperwork arrives through her door. No doubt she is totally oblivous right now.
What camera are you using by the way? I have been thinking about getting one for a while but need it good enough to clearly pick up number plates.


----------



## Arjimlad (10 Jul 2019)

RoadRider400 said:


> Oh to be a fly on the wall then the paperwork arrives through her door. No doubt she is totally oblivous right now.
> What camera are you using by the way? I have been thinking about getting one for a while but need it good enough to clearly pick up number plates.



I have a Drift Stealth 2 - the modern equivalent (with better battery) is a Ghost X. It has to be on the helmet to catch these images. 

It's on the side of the helmet on a self-adhesive mount rather than on the front, so hoping if I come off it'll be brushed off rather than forced into my bonce.


----------



## Arjimlad (15 Jul 2019)

Just past my street, school run time, school run Mum tapping away whilst driving behind a kid on a bike. Reported.


----------



## Drago (15 Jul 2019)

Ha! An Audi again!

Mrs D drove me back from Kent yesterday, leaving me free to observe those around us. One guy driving like a tool, weaving in and out of lanes on the M25, and as we drew closer I could see he was playing with his phone...

What is it that makes people so psychologically weak that they can't go a whole car journey without checking Twitbook or their text messages? Some kind of psychometric screening as part of the driving test would make the world a safer place.

Keep up the good work Mr Lad.


----------



## Arjimlad (16 Jul 2019)

We are plagued with them, but I think I should report where possible as they are more likely to crash than the rest.

After all, the police will at least send a warning on most of the reports I send in so here's hoping it will do some good.


----------



## Drago (16 Jul 2019)

The irony is that half these cars have hands free built in, so there's no excuse even when talking. Even my 15 year old Smart has hands free.


----------



## Arjimlad (23 Jul 2019)

Arjimlad said:


> View attachment 475596
> 
> 
> Just past my street, school run time, school run Mum tapping away whilst driving behind a kid on a bike. Reported.


Footage not clear enough for any further action unfortunately.


----------



## Arjimlad (23 Jul 2019)

The dashcam officers are seeking to prosecute this phone addict I reported last week. The obviously consider the footage clear enough.


----------



## Bman (2 Aug 2019)

I found this site recently that has the right idea:

https://www.nextbase.com/en-gb/national-dash-cam-safety-portal/

I want to start reporting again and am looking for the best channel to do it. My local bobbies don't subscribe to this particular website but have their own web form to use to report these incidents but they seem to require a driver description:

https://www.herts.police.uk/Report/Report-Shared/Report-anti-social-driving-with-video-evidence

My footage mostly consists of bad, or close overtakes and almost never captures a driver description. 

Or is the answer a rear camera?


----------



## Arjimlad (12 Aug 2019)

Reported from this evening.. drifting along next to the cycle paint, two fingers on the steering wheel, the phone receiving full attention.


----------



## Blue Hills (13 Aug 2019)

For info

BBC News - Hands-free phone ban for drivers 'should be considered'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49320473


----------



## glasgowcyclist (13 Aug 2019)

Blue Hills said:


> For info
> 
> BBC News - Hands-free phone ban for drivers 'should be considered'
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49320473



Excellent, bring it on.


----------



## HLaB (13 Aug 2019)

Blue Hills said:


> For info
> 
> BBC News - Hands-free phone ban for drivers 'should be considered'
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49320473


Good stuff IMO but other than the erratic driving how do you enforce it ?


----------



## Scaleyback (14 Aug 2019)

Bman said:


> I found this site recently that has the right idea:
> 
> https://www.nextbase.com/en-gb/national-dash-cam-safety-portal/



I have a Nextbase dashcam and submitted a video of reckless driving to the
portal you link to. Unfortunately, I had no confirmation of receipt and no feedback. This was many months ago now so who knows if I was wasting
my time ?
My county North Yorkshire invites video footage by vulnerable road users
To Operation Spartan. https://northyorkshire.police.uk/do-it-online/road-policing/traffic-bureau/ This seems to have ‘teeth’ as I reported elsewhere
here I submitted video evidence I caught whilst cycling and OpSpartan
have notified me of ‘intention to prosecute’

‘Bman’ also says “ or is the answer a rear camera ‘

I cycle thousands of miles a year on our largely rural North Yorkshire roads
and I have front & rear cameras when cycling. As well as driving that imo needs
Police involvement I have also sent video footage to a few firms/companies (identified by their vehicle livery and their number plates) who put me at risk for whatever reason. I do it respectfully and ask them to remind their drivers of the laws pertaining to driving around cyclists. I have received 100% support and assurance by all firms/companies contacted that they will undertake this.

Some reading this may ‘typecast’ me as an old (I am 72) vengeful, embittered vigilante ? if so read on . . . I lost my son (at age 21) many years ago now in a RTA. He was a back seat passenger in a car that was hit head on by someone overtaking. I feel I owe it to every parent/partner/brother/sister out there to help make the roads a safer place in whatever small way I can. I have no wish for
drivers to lose their licence and/or job but sadly if their employers or the law deems that is necessary then the roads will in some small way be a safer place.

My apologies for this weighty ‘tome’

Drive safely.


----------



## Drago (14 Aug 2019)

I say stick it to them. It's entirely their decision to break the law, and if they don't like the licence losing jobless consequences then that's tough - they should have thought about that before driving like tools. The people they endanger often lose a lot more than mere jobs.

So keep grassing them up, and keep publishing the results here so I can revel in the schadenfreude, cos it's no less than these eejuts deserve.


----------



## Zanelad (14 Aug 2019)

Drago said:


> I say stick it to them. It's entirely their decision to break the law, and if they don't like the licence losing jobless consequences then that's tough - they should have thought about that before driving like tools. The people they endanger often lose a lot more than mere jobs.
> 
> So keep grassing them up, and keep publishing the results here so I can revel in the schadenfreude, cos it's no less than these eejuts deserve.



I agree, but then the courts let them off cos of the "hardship". See today's story about Steve Coogan amassing twelve points, for speeding I believe. He then pleads to the court about the problems he'll face making a bloody TV programme if he looses his licence. Should he not have though about that before speeding?

He reels out crap about others being affected. Tough. Others are affected by our actions. It's a shame that we only consider them as a way of helping us to evade justice.

fark 'em. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (14 Aug 2019)

HLaB said:


> Good stuff IMO but other than the erratic driving how do you enforce it ?




It's not much different from enforcing drink driving laws. You can't always tell that a driver is over the limit unless some aspect of his driving alerts your suspicion and you then do a breath test.
I see this being enforced in a similar way: routine phone check for drivers after every collision. Erratic driving, where drink detected or not, routine phone check for driver.


----------



## Arjimlad (14 Aug 2019)

I was informed by the Police on making an enquiry, that

"_Although the footage shows a driver with a phone in their hand, this does not prove the offence, when considering bringing a charge against anyone, we have to ensure they can prove the offence. In the case of the mobile phone legislation, it states that not only do they have to be holding a hand held device but we must also prove that a telecommunication also occurred, such as a telephone call, text, using maps etc. If a telecommunication cannot be proved then the legislation signposts to other offences. 

As I am sure you can appreciate Dashcam footage can show a phone in someone’s hand but the majority of the time it does not show if a telecommunication has been committed, in these cases we will look to see if other offences can be brought and when the evidence is there we will continue with a prosecution for ‘Driving without Due Care and attention’, ‘not in proper control’ or ‘careless driving’ etc, which can have the same potential sanctions as the mobile phone offence. 

What I can assure you, is that we have prosecuted some drivers for ‘using a handheld mobile phone/device whilst driving’ when we have the evidence to support this. There has been a recent case heard in the High Court, that is now case law, which supports the Constabulary’s stance which you may be interested in reading DPP v Barreto_."

Now, that case is interesting and I can see that the Police's approach is correct (albeit presuming that the driver will allege that no telecommunication was taking place).

Therefore we must hope for a change in the legislation. I was told that if a helmet camera report of mobile phone use wasn't sufficiently clear to support prosecution under the mobile phone laws, and in the absence of other offences such as careless driving, the registered keeper is sent a warning/advisory letter.


----------



## Scaleyback (14 Aug 2019)

Arjimlad said:


> I was informed by the Police on making an enquiry, that
> 
> "_Although the footage shows a driver with a phone in their hand, this does not prove the offence, when considering bringing a charge against anyone, we have to ensure they can prove the offence. In the case of the mobile phone legislation, it states that not only do they have to be holding a hand held device but we must also prove that a telecommunication also occurred, such as a telephone call, text, using maps etc. If a telecommunication cannot be proved then the legislation signposts to other offences. _



Really, really ! I am not doubting you Arjimlad but is this really  an official police stance ? So how do they prove (or maybe they cannot be bothered) that a “telecommunication also occurred” I suppose if they have the Reg plate and can ascertain who was driving then they can check their mobile phone usage ?
If they have their phone in hand and are looking at it, would they be looking at a blank screen ? If so then legislate a new offence, idiot in charge of a motor vehicle.


----------



## benb (14 Aug 2019)

Zanelad said:


> See today's story about Steve Coogan amassing twelve points, for speeding I believe. He then pleads to the court about the problems he'll face making a bloody TV programme if he looses his licence.



FFS. I'm pretty sure he could afford to hire a driver. I like Coogan and think he's very funny, but that's taking the piss.


----------



## benb (14 Aug 2019)

Arjimlad said:


> I was informed by the Police on making an enquiry, that
> 
> "_Although the footage shows a driver with a phone in their hand, this does not prove the offence, when considering bringing a charge against anyone, we have to ensure they can prove the offence. In the case of the mobile phone legislation, it states that not only do they have to be holding a hand held device but we must also prove that a telecommunication also occurred, such as a telephone call, text, using maps etc. If a telecommunication cannot be proved then the legislation signposts to other offences.
> 
> ...



They are wilfully misinterpreting the legislation. Lazy policing.
The legislation states that the offence is committed if you are "using" a mobile phone or other "hand-held device that performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data" [excludes 2-way radios]

What constitutes "use" is not defined in the legislation, and is up to the prosecution to make the case for, but there are plenty of cases where people have been prosecuted simply for holding a phone, so at least some magistrates have concluded that the act of holding it constitutes use.

From the link above:


> The particular use to which the mobile phone must be put is not defined as an element of the offence. The prosecution must merely prove that the phone or the other device was hand-held by the person at some point during its use at a time when the person was driving a vehicle on a road.


----------



## Arjimlad (14 Aug 2019)

benb said:


> They are wilfully misinterpreting the legislation. Lazy policing.
> The legislation states that the offence is committed if you are "using" a mobile phone or other "hand-held device that performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data" [excludes 2-way radios]
> 
> What constitutes "use" is not defined in the legislation, and is up to the prosecution to make the case for, but there are plenty of cases where people have been prosecuted simply for holding a phone, so at least some magistrates have concluded that the act of holding it constitutes use.
> ...



Sadly, the Barreto case has put a stop to that interpretation.

http://www.counsel.direct/news/dpp-barreto-2019-ewhc


----------



## Arjimlad (14 Aug 2019)

Scaleyback said:


> Really, really ! I am not doubting you Arjimlad but is this really  an official police stance ? So how do they prove (or maybe they cannot be bothered) that a “telecommunication also occurred” I suppose if they have the Reg plate and can ascertain who was driving then they can check their mobile phone usage ?
> If they have their phone in hand and are looking at it, would they be looking at a blank screen ? Is so then legislate a new offence, idiot in charge of a motor vehicle.



I agree it is useless, and an amendment of the legislation is required. The Met appear to take a more bullish view, sending out 6 points and £200 fine fixed penalty notices which the driver can dispute if they feel lucky.. at which point the CPS could seek disclosure of mobile phone records.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (14 Aug 2019)

benb said:


> FFS. I'm pretty sure he could afford to hire a driver. I like Coogan and think he's very funny, but that's taking the piss.



He claimed that his character would still need to be able to drive as that was the basis for the programme being shot; a travelogue. He claimed exceptional hardship for the other 15 - 20 professionals who were booked for the show and who'd have difficulty finding another job if his show was cancelled.

Fine, defer his sentence of a 6-month disqualification until his recording has finished.

From The Independent: 
_Coogan said: “The whole nature of the series is that it is a travelogue and it’s an artistic thing that he drives and that defines his character. You couldn’t put him on a train because that not who he is – it’s part of his character that he drives."


The comedian said the camera shots could not be faked because he has to be seen driving the vehicle himself.
_


----------



## KneesUp (14 Aug 2019)

Blue Hills said:


> For info
> 
> BBC News - Hands-free phone ban for drivers 'should be considered'
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49320473


I'm not too sure about this really. Our car has what we call a 'huft' fitted (because it's referred to as the HFT - hands free telephone - in the manual and the kid wanted to read the manual, and here we are years later still calling it the huft) We don't use it much, but it's very useful and no more distracting than talking to a passenger - you just press a button on the steering wheel and say 'Call Mrs Knees' and it does, and her lovely tones come drifting through the speakers, more melodious than any music you've heard or dreamt of, asking what I want now. Neither of us make outgoing calls much though, it's generally used for incoming calls, and even then not very often. I guess the trick is to make sure the caller knows you are driving, so you might not reply briefly if, say, you are at a busy junction or something. I guess most people give too much attention to the call, and this is why we can't have nice things.


----------



## Arjimlad (14 Aug 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> He claimed that his character would still need to be able to drive as that was the basis for the programme being shot; a travelogue. He claimed exceptional hardship for the other 15 - 20 professionals who were booked for the show and who'd have difficulty finding another job if his show was cancelled.
> 
> Fine, defer his sentence of a 6-month disqualification until his recording has finished.
> 
> ...



A man of his resources could have rented a chauffeur, and as for Alan Partridge, have they not heard of a green screen ?


----------



## Scaleyback (14 Aug 2019)

Arjimlad said:


> Sadly, the Barreto case has put a stop to that interpretation.
> 
> http://www.counsel.direct/news/dpp-barreto-2019-ewhc



This seems like all the idiots are not charging around in cars whilst 'ebaying' etc. Some of the idiots are 'out there' drafting legislation.
I simply cannot believe that when drafting this law they decided to exclude using the mobile to make video. Of course they didn't, they
simply overlooked this use of the device. As you so rightly say different police forces are going to interpret the legislation . . . err differently.
Who coined the phrase "the law is an ass" ?


----------



## Drago (14 Aug 2019)

Probably because when the law as draughted video recording phones weren't a thing.


----------



## Scaleyback (14 Aug 2019)

Drago said:


> Probably because when the law as draughted video recording phones weren't a thing.



Hmm ? Seems first laws relating to driving while using mobile or handheld devices came out in 2003. Much changed since of course. Phones able to take videos have also been around since about that time.


----------



## Drago (14 Aug 2019)

The laws were proposed, I think, in the nineties and took a while to become law. By the time they did were were living on the moon and all had pet robots.


----------



## aferris2 (14 Aug 2019)

It seems that the law is trying to make some uses of a phone legal so has got itself stuck trying to work out how to define what is and is not allowed. The Australian system seems far simpler. You can't touch the phone at all while riding or driving. Haven't found the actual legal documents but this seems to sum it up fairly well.


----------



## Arjimlad (13 Sep 2019)

Avon & Somerset's policy has just changed.

Henceforth, they will merely acknowledge receipt of a report and will not provide any information/feedback whatsoever on whether they have sought to prosecute, sent a warning letter, or rolled it up & smoked it.

They say that they spend far too much time on the ins & outs of why and what and why not, when reporting back to those members of the public who are concerned enough about dangerous driving to go to the bother of reporting it.

I have made a complaint about this policy. It is especially offensive when reporting the few drivers who deliberately choose to terrify/endanger cyclists.


----------



## Drago (13 Sep 2019)

What's the motivation for honest citizens to report wrong doers if they're not finding out whether or not they were prosecuted?


----------



## Arjimlad (13 Sep 2019)

@Drago quite. Previously they just said "seeking to prosecute" or "sent a warning letter" which was Spartan enough.

Is it really too much trouble to inform members of the public who are concerned enough (for themselves and for the rest of the community) to report these dangerous drivers, of the outcomes of their complaints to the Police ?


----------



## Drago (13 Sep 2019)

Nope, I don't think its unreasonable at all. Victims and witnesses of other crimes get that courtesy, and I can't understand why victims of road crime are considered second class in this regard.


----------



## Arjimlad (19 Sep 2019)

"Please be aware that the processing of Dash Cam footage has now moved and sits with my team, on taking over this process a review of the policy was made and I can confirm that part of this was to liaise with the Data Protection Team, who have confirm that we should not be releasing information that is personal to any third party, which would include and decision on whether a prosecution will take place or not against the person who has been identified in the footage. Therefore I would like to reassure you that it is not ‘too much trouble to keep you updated’ it is ensuring that we are abiding by the law. 

Therefore anyone who submits footage will receive a reply, thanking them for their submission which will be reviewed by a member of the Police.

In regards to other forces policies, I will refrain from comment as it is for that force to decide what their policy will be."


----------



## Drago (19 Sep 2019)

They're talking out of their arrisses. If a witness cannot be informed of a prosecution or otherwise, then how do witnesses ever get told to appear in Court? 

They're making this up as they go along. If they can't inform a witness when someone is to be prosecuted, then how do they inform hundreds of thousands of people when they allow such information to be printed in the papers? 

I would report the Data Protection Team (which they don't actually have, BTW) to the Chief Freemason for allowing information li,e this to be leaked to the public. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-49516942 thereby breaking their own rules.

Out of sheer badness, if they said that to me I'd query it with the ICO.


----------



## Arjimlad (19 Sep 2019)

Thanks @Drago .

The reason they are trotting out to other cyclists is down to numbers/resources only. Conflicting stories from within one department. I think GDPR is being used as a cop-out. I do not intend to leave the matter there.


----------



## Drago (19 Sep 2019)

I knew we could rely on you Jim


----------



## Arjimlad (20 Sep 2019)

The policy of refusing to release information to the complainant/victim on the outcome of a complaint about careless/dangerous driving via the “dashcam” upload facility is being justified to me by A&S staff by reference to unwarranted concerns about the GDPR and supporting legislation.

It has been justified to others who have made similar complaints as being too onerous, for resourcing reasons with no mention of the GDPR.

I do not address resourcing reasons in this submission because those have not been mentioned to me.

*Is a vehicle registration number “personal data”? *


The complainant does not have the facility to join up the registration number with any other data to identify a natural person.

The only information the complainant has is the registration number of the vehicle. That is, at best _indirect_ personal data. It is on public display at all times when the vehicle is not on private property.

The complainant cannot identify a natural person from the registration number of the vehicle. The information of itself is not specific to the social identity of a single natural person.

The complainant does not have access to the recorded details of the registered keeper of the vehicle, nor have they any mechanism to require the registered keeper to confirm the identity of the driver at that point in time. That is only available to the State, or to others who have a genuine need to know and who pay the appropriate fee to the DVLA.

Confirming whether a decision has been made to seek prosecution cannot be said to amount to the release of data in respect of an identifiable natural person _in the hands of the complainant._

Furthermore, the release of that information is reasonably necessary for the purposes of the detection of crime, and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

*Preservation of evidence*

The complainant needs to be informed whether it is necessary to preserve the video evidence of their whole journey and if so for how long. Unless the complainant knows that a prosecution is underway, he/she will not be alerted to the need to preserve significant amounts of video footage. It is not practicable for the complainant to retain video evidence for every report made just in case a prosecution has been embarked upon.


*Called as a witness ? *

The complainant also needs to know if and when he/she will or may be called as a witness.

It is not seriously arguable that informing the complainant that a prosecution is being sought or commenced, and therefore that he/she may be called as a witness amounts to a breach of the driver’s data protection rights for the reasons set out above.

If it is against GDPR to inform the complainant of a prosecution, no witness could be informed of the identity of any defendant.

No witness could be called to court, if informing them of the fact of a prosecution of a driver would breach the driver’s data rights. That is clearly nonsensical. In that event, the witness will be told the Defendant’s name as well as already knowing their registration number. Such a suggestion offends against the principle of justice being public.


*The Code of Practice for Victims of Crime*

In those cases where the complainant has suffered physical injury, alarm or distress as a result of allegedly dangerous driving, he/she should be entitled to the protections afforded by the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime. These include the right to be kept informed about the progress of any investigation, and should the matter be dropped, to be informed of the reasons why, and to make representations or complaint about decisions made.

It would be easy for the dashcam reporting site to include a box for the complainant to tick to confirm whether the incident caused injury, alarm or distress. I accept that this would not apply to those instances where I have reported handheld mobile phone users, or where I have observed careless driving which has not personally affected me.

However, where I have been passed too close, or wilfully tailgated by an angry driver, such occasions can cause considerable alarm and distress.

I have reported a number of such matters. The most recent one is under reference IOR-G3QYB relating to WV65 LBP when I suffered a ridiculously close pass on 10th September 2019. Under the new regime I have no indication of whether any action whatsoever has taken place.

The most serious recent one is under reference IOR-REZJ6 relating to KP57 PAO on 16th July 2019, when I suffered deliberate harassment from a tailgating angry driver who refused to drive at a safe distance from my rear wheel. He deliberately drove as close to me as is possible without actually knocking me off, using his car to intimidate and bully me.

I would invite you to review the footage of that occasion which left me shaking and unable to sleep. It would put a large number of people off ever cycling on public roads. That submission was handled under the old regime, and I have been informed that a prosecution is being sought. Exceptionally, SSSSS (manager) has kindly confirmed that a notice to identify the driver was sent, and on 11th September 2019, that the case was still ongoing and live. I would be most upset and surprised were nothing to be done about this incident of dangerous intimidation by an unfit careless driver.

Careless and dangerous driving are not always “victimless crimes” even in cases where no physical injury is caused.

I look forward to hearing from you.


----------



## Drago (20 Sep 2019)

Well worded, Sir.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (21 Sep 2019)

@Arjimlad It’s also worth noting that a number of forces, with particular regard to drunk drivers, have embarked on a policy of publicly naming and shaming suspects who have been charged. See https://www.northants.police.uk/new...nk-driving-named-as-part-of-summer-campaign8/

The GDPR excuse being offered to you is bollocks (as you already know).


----------



## Arjimlad (1 Oct 2019)

I tailed a young driver this evening, drifting along in slow moving traffic.

Like many I also saw, he was distracted by tapping away on a handheld mobile phone & not keeping up.

I saw very clearly that he was repeatedly using the calculator on his phone to work out 21 divided by 2. Over & over again. As if he didn't trust the answer.

What hope is there for our road safety when this calibre of idiot can get a driving licence ? 

I have of course uploaded the footage to the mushroom window-dressing department of Avon & Somerset Constabulary for them to file.


----------



## Arjimlad (8 Oct 2019)

Tonight's specially gifted clot was scrolling through Instagram as he held up the slow-moving traffic..


----------



## Arjimlad (18 Oct 2019)

Missing the green light to send that text...


----------



## Signum-GB (3 Jan 2020)

Is there a crime link for Edinburgh if anyone on this forum knows of one? Ie for mobile use, dangerous driving etc.


----------



## cyberknight (4 Jan 2020)

Drago said:


> What's the motivation for honest citizens to report wrong doers if they're not finding out whether or not they were prosecuted?


Bit of a thread ressurection  
Reported a chap driving past junior school when i was about to pick up mini ck 2.
I had the time , date, vehicle, name and number as it was plasrted over the side of the van local one man builder and the plod said they would not proceed with any investigation as they did not witness it.


----------



## sheddy (4 Jan 2020)

They should at least send a warning letter to the reg keeper.


----------



## BoldonLad (4 Jan 2020)

yello said:


> Interestingly, the French have just introduced a fine of €1500 and 3 points for driving whilst.... wait for it.... watching a film!
> 
> Surely there's some generic law that'd do the trick. Do people really need to be told that it's dangerous to drive whilst doing a jigsaw puzzle? (No need to answer that btw)
> 
> The fine for driving whilst on a mobile has also been raised to €1500 and 3 points.


I don’t know about France, but, in UK, there where already existing laws to cover things like mobile phone use. Those laws where ( and still are) not enforced. Only a Politician could imagine that introducing yet another law (which is not enforced) would solve the problem.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Jan 2020)

Signum-GB said:


> Is there a crime link for Edinburgh if anyone on this forum knows of one? Ie for mobile use, dangerous driving etc.



None in Scotland, you report it in person or via 101and take pot luck. Chances are the cop assigned to it will not GAF.


----------



## Signum-GB (7 Jan 2020)

glasgowcyclist said:


> None in Scotland, you report it in person or via 101and take pot luck. Chances are the cop assigned to it will not GAF.



Always the case here. As I have dialled 101 when on the motorway and seen a driver texting and driving for the best part of a few miles. Then they want all your details and I can't be bothered with that.


----------



## Twowheeledthompson (14 Jan 2020)

Thanks for this!


----------



## Arjimlad (26 Feb 2020)

Been banging in those reports to A&S Police. Although I try to catch what they're actually viewing on the phones it is not always clear. However, the Police say they will either warn a phone user, or where the actual use of the phone for an interactive communication is shown, prosecute. Other than that we get told nothing about the consequences of reports where we are simply witnesses (including scary close passes, unfortunately).

One driver (top left in this photo) I reported for phone use and a close pass gave me a very hard stare a week or so later, as she passed me, minus her mobile phone, leaving me oodles of room. Job jobbed !


----------



## Cycling_Samurai (2 Mar 2021)

I see people on the phone, glued to their face often. I have been shocked to pass other people riding bicycles doing the same thing!


----------



## Blue Hills (2 Mar 2021)

Cycling_Samurai said:


> I see people on the phone, glued to their face often. I have been shocked to pass other people riding bicycles doing the same thing!


yes that and obviously using a hand-held phone as a GPS. Pretty sure some of those are going to get smashed. Though I can see some smashing themselves in an effort to protect the beloved thing if they have an off/collision.


----------



## Milkfloat (2 Mar 2021)

Cycling_Samurai said:


> I see people on the phone, glued to their face often. I have been shocked to pass other people riding bicycles doing the same thing!


Whilst I don't do it myself - the risk to others by using a phone when driving is many orders of magnitude larger than when cycling.


----------



## shep (2 Mar 2021)

Arjimlad said:


> Been banging in those reports to A&S Police. Although I try to catch what they're actually viewing on the phones it is not always clear. However, the Police say they will either warn a phone user, or where the actual use of the phone for an interactive communication is shown, prosecute. Other than that we get told nothing about the consequences of reports where we are simply witnesses (including scary close passes, unfortunately).
> 
> One driver (top left in this photo) I reported for phone use and a close pass gave me a very hard stare a week or so later, as she passed me, minus her mobile phone, leaving me oodles of room. Job jobbed !
> 
> View attachment 506041


I'm surprised you've never had your head kicked in!

Do you photograph builder's vans full of young fella's or just single people?

You on a pushbike or motorbike?


----------



## Bazzer (2 Mar 2021)

shep said:


> I'm surprised you've never had your head kicked in!
> 
> Do you photograph builder's vans full of young fella's or just single people?
> 
> You on a pushbike or motorbike?


You do realise video cameras attached to helmets or bikes pick up all sorts of transgressions?


----------



## shep (2 Mar 2021)

Bazzer said:


> You do realise video cameras attached to helmets or bikes pick up all sorts of transgressions?


I'm sure they do, 

I'm just pointing out some people would take a rather dim view of being recorded by a 'civilian' and reported to the Police.

Cyclist's have a bad time as it is without people like this making it worse, I didn't realise this sort of thing existed?

Jeez.


----------



## CanucksTraveller (2 Mar 2021)

It's a strange world where there is lawful recording of unlawful and dangerous behaviour going on, and yet some see the _recording_ part as the bad / remarkable bit of that scenario. So bad in fact, that violence could even be an expected outcome. 
We really do have things the wrong way around in society don't we.


----------



## Drago (2 Mar 2021)

shep said:


> I'm sure they do,
> 
> I'm just pointing out some people would take a rather dim view of being recorded by a 'civilian' and reported to the Police.
> 
> ...


Any hairy arrised builder wants to take a dim view of my bike cam catching them doing something they shouldn't is very welcome to come have a chat. I won't be quivering with fear.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (2 Mar 2021)

shep said:


> I'm sure they do,
> 
> I'm just pointing out some people would take a rather dim view of being recorded by a 'civilian' and reported to the Police.
> 
> ...



Wait till you hear about Cycling Mikey (possibly still a member here) who in 2019 alone reported 360 drivers. His videos submitted to the police have brought about 869 penalty points and £52,769 in fines+costs so far, with 6 drivers disqualified. 

The guy is doing a public service!


----------



## toffee (2 Mar 2021)

shep said:


> I'm sure they do,
> 
> I'm just pointing out some people would take a rather dim view of being recorded by a 'civilian' and reported to the Police.
> 
> ...


You're never watched cyclingmikey?


View: https://youtu.be/rxu1vW-D-uI


----------



## BoldonLad (2 Mar 2021)

CanucksTraveller said:


> It's a strange world where there is lawful recording of unlawful and dangerous behaviour going on, and yet some see the _recording_ part as the bad / remarkable bit of that scenario. So bad in fact, that violence could even be an expected outcome.
> We really do have things the wrong way around in society don't we.



Very true, but, fortunately, not everyone takes that view.

Recently, whilst out cycling with Mrs @BoldonLad, we had a "close pass", by a tipper lorry. Not close enough to be really scary, but, certainly too close for comfort.

The incident was clearly recorded on my camera, complete with Company name and Reg No of the vehicle.

Rather than send the footage to the Police, I decided to send it to the Company, via Email.

I received a very polite, and, apologetic reply, and, a promise that the incident had been brought to the driver's attention, with a view to avoiding a repeat.

Of course, we will never know if the message takes hold.


----------



## Milkfloat (2 Mar 2021)

BoldonLad said:


> Of course, we will never know if the message takes hold.



Or more likely never delivered. The company involved is the last place I would expect to see a reaction. The Police and Transport Commissioner should be the first people to contact.


----------



## BoldonLad (2 Mar 2021)

Milkfloat said:


> Or more likely never delivered. The company involved is the last place I would expect to see a reaction. The Police and Transport Commissioner should be the first people to contact.



Yes, would broadly agree, and, had it been scarily close, that would have been my course of action, since it was a "oops... bit close that", I decided to give him (the driver) the benefit of the doubt....


----------



## Arjimlad (2 Mar 2021)

If I have good evidence to show that a driver cannot be safely trusted with a mobile phone, and do nothing with it and he or she goes on to injure somebody... 

Damn right I'll send it in. I don't engage with the majority of these people. They can learn some self discipline the easy way rather than the hard way.


----------



## Arjimlad (2 Mar 2021)

shep said:


> I'm sure they do,
> 
> I'm just pointing out some people would take a rather dim view of being recorded by a 'civilian' and reported to the Police.
> 
> ...


Why would I announce it? Film and ride on.. 

I quite agree we have a hard enough time staying safe on the road without some idiot who can't leave the phone alone at the wheel driving distracted. 

Haven't you seen these people staring down into their laps rather than looking out of the big window? The many reports of drivers killing and injuring people when they crash?

This is my local area and the next victim could be one of my friends or family. It'd be wrong to sit on the evidence.


----------



## Drago (2 Mar 2021)

The more you grass the happier I am Jim. You keep at it m'boy.


----------



## matticus (2 Mar 2021)

The police seem to be very much behind this sort of thing:
https://www.itv.com/news/westcountr...to-catch-dangerous-drivers-on-camera-in-devon

(apologies if posted before - I've missed the first 51 pages of this thread!)


----------



## Arjimlad (2 Mar 2021)

matticus said:


> The police seem to be very much behind this sort of thing:
> https://www.itv.com/news/westcountr...to-catch-dangerous-drivers-on-camera-in-devon
> 
> (apologies if posted before - I've missed the first 51 pages of this thread!)


A cycling club in Portishead has obtained funding for cameras for its riders too, I think the police see this as a way to catch dangerous drivers & deal with them at times when officer numbers are ever decreasing. I like to hope that some of the 180 drivers the police have contacted following my reports will have upped their game.


----------



## shep (2 Mar 2021)

Drago said:


> Any hairy arrised builder wants to take a dim view of my bike cam catching them doing something they shouldn't is very welcome to come have a chat. I won't be quivering with fear.


To be fair though you are 6 foot 4 and love the weights, as you're fond of telling us, so I doubt you would. 

I detest people like this!

Get a job as a plod if you're that keen, not you Drago as I believe you were one.


----------



## Cycling_Samurai (2 Mar 2021)

Milkfloat said:


> Whilst I don't do it myself - the risk to others by using a phone when driving is many orders of magnitude larger than when cycling.


That is very true. But there are already enough dangers on the road that staring at your phone whilst pedalling along in a bike lane is asinine.


----------



## shep (2 Mar 2021)

BoldonLad said:


> Very true, but, fortunately, not everyone takes that view.
> 
> Recently, whilst out cycling with Mrs @BoldonLad, we had a "close pass", by a tipper lorry. Not close enough to be really scary, but, certainly too close for comfort.
> 
> ...


You haven't gone out of your way to 'catch ' people and make it a quest though have you, that's what I think is sad.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (2 Mar 2021)

shep said:


> You haven't gone out of your way to 'catch ' people and make it a quest though have you, that's what I think is sad.



Believe me, road crime is so prevalent that nobody needs to go out of their way to capture it.


----------



## shep (2 Mar 2021)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Believe me, road crime is so prevalent that nobody needs to go out of their way to capture it.


Buying a camera and recording stuff is pretty much ' going out of your way ' then there's reporting it.


----------



## Arjimlad (2 Mar 2021)

shep said:


> You haven't gone out of your way to 'catch ' people and make it a quest though have you, that's what I think is sad.



I don't go "out of my way" - simply got a camera because of too many close calls & I wanted to have evidence if the worst happened. Why all the hate ?


----------



## shep (2 Mar 2021)

Arjimlad said:


> I don't go "out of my way" - simply got a camera because of too many close calls & I wanted to have evidence if the worst happened. Why all the hate ?


It's not just 'close calls' though is it, you're actively recording people in their cars and then reporting them to the Police. 

That's not going out of your way?


----------



## sheddy (2 Mar 2021)

Are the PCCs up for election in May ? 

Maybe an opportunity to ask candidates about vehicle crime?


----------



## Bazzer (2 Mar 2021)

shep said:


> I'm sure they do,
> 
> I'm just pointing out some people would take a rather dim view of being recorded by a 'civilian' and reported to the Police.
> 
> ...


I have a record on my computer of every registration number I have reported; red light runners, driving in the cycle lane, close passers. In fact anything I think, or have learned from experience, the police will take action on. It's quite a list.
Why should a motorist think they can get away with for example close passing? It could be one of my daughters, or indeed your daughter, (if she cycles), who has a bad experience and gets put off cycling.
When regularly commuting and with weekend riding I would be cycling around 100 - 120 miles a week. There would be on average an incident a week, which to my mind is appalling, given I cycled outside peak periods. - Often leaving home at 5.30am.
I don't go looking for law breakers. There are plenty making themselves visible.
Edited to add: The 10/15 minutes it takes to clip the video, prepare a witness statement and electronically submit it, is no inconvenience.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (2 Mar 2021)

shep said:


> Buying a camera and recording stuff is pretty much ' going out of your way ' then there's reporting it.



My bike camera is there for the same reason as the hundreds of thousands of drivers using dashcams; to provide evidence in the event of a collision where the other party denies liability or lies about the circumstances.

It’s fit and forget unless something endangers me or someone else in a way that ought to have police involvement. I don’t go around looking for things any more than the average driver with a dashcam. 

It’s no more “going out of my way” than fitting a security camera to my house in case someone breaks in.

Why are some folk so tetchy about cyclists using this when so many drivers choose to do the same and bus/lorry companies fit them as standard? Have you never seen police appeals where footage from a bus or lorry was used to educate the public or seek witnesses?


----------



## Drago (2 Mar 2021)

shep said:


> To be fair though you are 6 foot 4 and love the weights, as you're fond of telling us, so I doubt you would.



I am indeed. Enough people on the forum have met me to tell you thr truth of that.

Strangely enough though, for some very strange reason these gobby sorts don't seem keen to front up to me. Can't think why. To be honest, i like a quiet life and would be happy if it remained that way, but if any aggrieved motorists wants a piece of me then the need only read my signature to undetstand my view on the world.


----------



## shep (2 Mar 2021)

I'm sure you are mate,

I don't really understand the signature comment but that doesn't really matter.


----------



## shep (2 Mar 2021)

glasgowcyclist said:


> My bike camera is there for the same reason as the hundreds of thousands of drivers using dashcams; to provide evidence in the event of a collision where the other party denies liability or lies about the circumstances.
> 
> It’s fit and forget unless something endangers me or someone else in a way that ought to have police involvement. I don’t go around looking for things any more than the average driver with a dashcam.
> 
> ...


I think we've gone off on a tangent here as usual, my comments are directed at someone who actively seeks out car drivers he feels are breaking the law, record's them an then reports them to the Police. 

Wear what you like, film what you like and if involved in an accident or witness one feel free to use the recording as proof. 

If however you want to be a Traffic Cop, change jobs!
As always this is only my opinion and if you disagree that's fine.


----------



## Arjimlad (2 Mar 2021)

I prefer to see it as taking the opportunity to try to change a dangerous habit. I don't go out of my way, these are the roads I use to commute and as I filter past, the phone users make themselves obvious by their distracted driving. It's very easy to spot.


----------



## shep (2 Mar 2021)

Arjimlad said:


> I prefer to see it as taking the opportunity to try to change a dangerous habit. I don't go out of my way, these are the roads I use to commute and as I filter past, the phone users make themselves obvious by their distracted driving. It's very easy to spot.


One question then, how do you not 'go out of your way ' to report them?

You have also said you try and 'capture ' their screen?

Just admit what you're doing, you're obviously proud.


----------



## Arjimlad (2 Mar 2021)

shep said:


> One question then, how do you not 'go out of your way ' to report them?
> 
> You have also said you try and 'capture ' their screen?
> 
> Just admit what you're doing, you're obviously proud.



I take the opportunity to report them as it may lead to behaviour change and safer roads. These people pose a danger to me and others. Maybe you don't think it's all that hazardous but we're both entitled to our own opinions here.


----------



## Poacher (2 Mar 2021)

Has anyone else drawn their own conclusions about the reason for @shep getting bent out of shape over law-breaking drivers being reported to the police?


----------



## matticus (2 Mar 2021)

shep said:


> One question then, how do you not 'go out of your way ' to report them?
> 
> You have also said you try and 'capture ' their screen?
> 
> Just admit what you're doing, you're obviously proud.


So what you seem to be saying is that if we witness crime (anywhere, anyhoo) it's better to just walk on by? What's wrong with helping a prosecution along?

Or are you the sort who just grumbles about some litterers (or dangerous drivers) to the wife when you get home?


----------



## shep (2 Mar 2021)

Arjimlad said:


> we're both entitled to our own opinions here.


We are.👍


----------



## shep (2 Mar 2021)

matticus said:


> So what you seem to be saying is that if we witness crime (anywhere, anyhoo) it's better to just walk on by? What's wrong with helping a prosecution along?
> 
> Or are you the sort who just grumbles about some litterers (or dangerous drivers) to the wife when you get home?


And you think that's what I've said?

You think riding along on your bike, purposely capturing people on their phones and then reporting them to the Police is 'helping the prosecution along '?
I don't waste my breath moaning to anyone about people 'littering ' .


----------



## shep (2 Mar 2021)

Poacher said:


> Has anyone else drawn their own conclusions about the reason for @shep getting bent out of shape over law-breaking drivers being reported to the police?


I don't like sneaky, sly reporting types that's all.

Knock on the car window and challenge them if you're that concerned, I had the same feelings about reporting Covid rule breakers.


----------



## Drago (2 Mar 2021)

shep said:


> I don't like sneaky, sly reporting types that's all.


I love 'em!

Their "victims" are architects of their own downfall. If they don't like being held responsible for their behaviour then thats their problem.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (2 Mar 2021)

There is a video above of someone 'calling out' a motorist who is texting (probably) on his phone
but the car is stationary in a queue
but it is illegal
clearly

but it is kinda borderline - who is he endangering??? (funny how often it is a 'he' though??)
but the camera person did go out of his way to 'out' the offender

personally I think this is excessive - who was that person endangering?? - was his handbrake on - was his car in neutral??
still illegal - but......

HOWEVER
reporting someone doing the same thing while the car is moving - especially at a deadly speed which is, as we know, not all that fast - is a totally different matter

this attitude of 'grassing on someone is always wrong' is just dumb - if someone brutally murdered your wife/husband and you shopped the murderer to the cops - is that wrong???


'someone I know' saw a person throw a proper petrol bomb at the window of a house opposite due to a perceived slight
luckily the morons with the petrol bombs used plastic bottles against double glazed windows so just created a fire in the front garden

but when the cops came round he wouldn't tell the then who it was ALTHOUGH HE KNEW!!!



and - to cap it all

THE PEOPLE IN THE HOUSE WERE RELATIVES OF HIS AND WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF A KIDS PARTY!!!!!!

but you don't grass


his wife nearly killed him - not physically - but she has a rather loud way with words!!!!!!

working with that kind of attitude - reporting someone for potentially killing someone with 2 tons of metal because you are texting your sister "being wrong" become understandable
moronic
but understandable

Politicians need to understand the material they are working with - the Police already know by long experience!!!


----------



## shep (2 Mar 2021)

Drago said:


> I love 'em!


That's why we're all different I guess.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (2 Mar 2021)

shep said:


> If however you want to be a Traffic Cop, change jobs!



If police numbers hadn’t been so severely slashed, we might have enough traffic cops to be a greater deterrent but we don’t. And that makes the famous quote of Sir Robert Peel (founder of the Metropolitan Police) all the more relevant today: "_The police are the public and the public are the police._"

You’ll find that most police forces in England actively promote what you seem so disapproving of, with portals specifically set up to accept uploading of dashcam and helmet cam evidence. Cycling Mikey has provided evidence that has taken 6 dangerous drivers off our roads. He should be commended not criticised.


----------



## Drago (2 Mar 2021)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> but it is kinda borderline - who is he endangering??? (funny how often it is a 'he' though??)


It doesn't matter. It's unlawful. Let them pinch and inch there, an pretty soon they'll be pinching an inch elsewhere, and then another, and another, and before you know it there is no incentive to obey.

In any event, you can almost guarantee that instead of having the handbrake applied as a stationary vehicle should, they'll be blithely holding the car stationary with their right foot - they're not in proper control, their hands are not readily available to resume control, _and_ aren't paying proper attention. Not a good combination.


----------



## Arjimlad (2 Mar 2021)

The ones I catch on film drifting along in slow moving traffic gazing lovingly at their phones would be, for the most part, quite incapable of ignoring an incoming text or call on the motorway, or on the A-road I am cycling home along, and we all know how those can end up. Self defence is as good a reason as any to report them.


----------



## PaulSB (2 Mar 2021)

BoldonLad said:


> Very true, but, fortunately, not everyone takes that view.
> 
> Recently, whilst out cycling with Mrs @BoldonLad, we had a "close pass", by a tipper lorry. Not close enough to be really scary, but, certainly too close for comfort.
> 
> ...


A very civilised and I would suggest effective way to deal with the situation. Far more likely to have a positive outcome than reporting to the police.


----------



## Milkfloat (3 Mar 2021)

PaulSB said:


> A very civilised and I would suggest effective way to deal with the situation. Far more likely to have a positive outcome than reporting to the police.


You forgot the winky smilie.


----------



## matticus (3 Mar 2021)

shep said:


> I don't like sneaky, sly reporting types that's all.
> 
> Knock on the car window and challenge them if you're that concerned, I had the same feelings about reporting Covid rule breakers.


I've done exactly that - knocked on windows - a few times. So far, they've got the point, and I haven't received any violence. Will it always end so well? Dunno. I might decide that "slyly reporting" them to the police for a crime is the way to go.

Likewise there will be cyclists who totally lack confidence in any kind of confrontation (could be for many reasons); should they just turn a blind eye (as Shep recommends), or is it ok to tell the Police instead (as the Police are recommending)?

EDIT: forgot to say! Far more common are the instances where it's _impossible _to catch them and knock on the window. Shep, have you noticed that cars can be much faster than bikes? and attempting pursuit of a moving vehicle is a lot more dangerous for a cyclist than for a driver using their mobile phone.


----------



## Arjimlad (3 Mar 2021)

I have spoken to some drivers seen using their phones, in some cases that's meant I haven't gone on to report them. In other cases when they don't give a proverbial about it I have gone on to report them. Other times I can't be bothered with the confrontation or don't think the driver will engage in a polite conversation. Or as you say @matticus the opportunity for a chat does not arise. I will always try to discuss a close pass with the driver but again, the chances of catching up are often slim. 

The police can decide what to do about it then. For all I know, they're driving uninsured, or have six points already for mobile phone use and need further encouragement to put it away whilst behind the wheel.


----------



## shep (3 Mar 2021)

matticus said:


> I've done exactly that - knocked on windows - a few times. So far, they've got the point, and I haven't received any violence. Will it always end so well? Dunno. I might decide that "slyly reporting" them to the police for a crime is the way to go.
> 
> Likewise there will be cyclists who totally lack confidence in any kind of confrontation (could be for many reasons); should they just turn a blind eye (as Shep recommends), or is it ok to tell the Police instead (as the Police are recommending)?
> 
> EDIT: forgot to say! Far more common are the instances where it's _impossible _to catch them and knock on the window. Shep, have you noticed that cars can be much faster than bikes? and attempting pursuit of a moving vehicle is a lot more dangerous for a cyclist than for a driver using their mobile phone.


The fella above seems to be able to catch them, film them and even attempt to capture who their talking to!

I just don't get the compulsion to be some kind of 'phone vigilante' myself, as already said witnessing a crime going about your daily business is one thing but this is different.

Carry on for me, I don't use my phone when driving so won't ever be 'caught'.

As with all open forums, I'm giving my opinion on a subject raised, I don't tell people what they should or shouldn't do.


----------



## matticus (3 Mar 2021)

shep said:


> I just don't get the compulsion to be some kind of 'phone vigilante' myself, as already said witnessing a crime going about your daily business is one thing but this is different.


On any decent length road trip you will see illegal mobile phone usage. So yup, I am witnessing crime while going about my daily business.


----------



## shep (3 Mar 2021)

Arjimlad said:


> I have spoken to some drivers seen using their phones, in some cases that's meant I haven't gone on to report them. In other cases when they don't give a proverbial about it I have gone on to report them. Other times I can't be bothered with the confrontation or don't think the driver will engage in a polite conversation. Or as you say @matticus the opportunity for a chat does not arise. I will always try to discuss a close pass with the driver but again, the chances of catching up are often slim.
> 
> The police can decide what to do about it then. For all I know, they're driving uninsured, or have six points already for mobile phone use and need further encouragement to put it away whilst behind the wheel.


As a matter of interest, why do you feel this is your duty?

Just a being 'good citizen' or is there a deeper reason?

Just curious.


----------



## shep (3 Mar 2021)

matticus said:


> On any decent length road trip you will see illegal mobile phone usage. So yup, I am witnessing crime while going about my daily business.


I suppose I tend to ride in rural areas as much as possible so rarely see rows of slow traffic and the associated phone users whilst on my bike, I obviously witness the same as you when driving or riding my Motorcycle but don't have a camera so wouldn't have the opportunity to film.

I often see people 'stuck' at lights when they change due to being on their phone but wouldn't be arsed to report them.

Everyone's different.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (3 Mar 2021)

shep said:


> I just don't get the compulsion to be some kind of 'phone vigilante'



A vigilante is someone who enforces law and punishment without lawful authority. That's not happening here.

You really do appear to have a problem with people on bikes assisting the police in making their environment safer, using pejoratives like sneaky, sly, and vigilante to mischaracterise what's happening. 

In my experience, the people who are of that frame of mind are those who resent the increased risk of themselves being caught offending in some way.


----------



## Arjimlad (3 Mar 2021)

shep said:


> As a matter of interest, why do you feel this is your duty?
> 
> Just a being 'good citizen' or is there a deeper reason?
> 
> Just curious.



I don't see it at all as a "duty".

I'm chiefly motivated by self-interest - a minority of drivers are driving without due care and attention on the same roads my family & I cycle on, and I have the opportunity to try to mitigate the risk they pose to us by reporting their behaviour or speaking to them. If someone breaks the habit & puts the phone down then that's one safer driver around me & my loved ones (as well as the rest of my community).

If they tell their chums that some sly sneaky cyclist grassed them up whilst they were checking Instagram, or because they passed him dangerously close, then their chums might be more careful as well. And so it spreads.

This incident happened quite close to where I live. My friend remembers attending as a firefighter and having to cut the drivers out of their vehicles. There but for the grace of God....

"To know that all of this could have been avoided if the driver of the other car hadn’t been distracted is just heartbreaking," said Iain."

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/...wpUCjsIYa8wqvCCgks30BXnmqNR84-2h83PIsVRmm1Pmg


----------



## BoldonLad (3 Mar 2021)

shep said:


> I suppose I tend to ride in rural areas as much as possible so rarely see rows of slow traffic and the associated phone users whilst on my bike, I obviously witness the same as you when driving or riding my Motorcycle but don't have a camera so wouldn't have the opportunity to film.
> 
> I often see people 'stuck' at lights when they change due to being on their phone but wouldn't be arsed to report them.
> 
> Everyone's different.



As you say, everyone is different, and, we all have different opinions.

Personally, I like the area where I live, cycle and drive to be clean (ie litter free and dog cr*p free), and safe.

I want the Police and/or Local authority to enforce the laws, so:

If I see fly-tipping, I report it

If I see littering, I report it

If while cycling, I suffer a close pass, and, it happens to be recorded, I report it

If while driving, I happen to witness dangerous behaviour, and, it happens to be recorded, I report it.

If I. witness dog fouling, I report it.

It does little to stem the tide of idiocy, but, I feel, I am doing bit.


----------



## Poacher (3 Mar 2021)

Arjimlad said:


> This incident happened quite close to where I live. My friend remembers attending as a firefighter and having to cut the drivers out of their vehicles. There but for the grace of God....
> 
> "To know that all of this could have been avoided if the driver of the other car hadn’t been distracted is just heartbreaking," said Iain."
> 
> https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/...wpUCjsIYa8wqvCCgks30BXnmqNR84-2h83PIsVRmm1Pmg


Another very pertinent quote from that report:
“I would also really urge every single driver to invest in a dash cam.
We’ve had a real battle to get to where we are and a lot of it depended on witnesses coming forward.
A dashcam could have helped show what really happened and the process would have gone a lot quicker.
If I had my way, they would be made mandatory.”


----------



## sheddy (3 Mar 2021)

Cell phones used by motorists cause KSIs, every week.

Maybe ask your PCC candidates in the elections what they will do rather than bleating about grassing up motons.


----------



## shep (3 Mar 2021)

sheddy said:


> Cell phones used by motorists cause KSIs, every week.
> 
> Maybe ask your PCC candidates in the elections what they will do rather than bleating about grassing up motons.


I assume you're addressing me?

I'm not 'bleating' I'm expressing an opinion, like lots do on here on many subjects.

I haven't a clue what PCC candidates are and what the election reference is and what KSI means?


----------



## matticus (3 Mar 2021)

*Killed or Seriously Injured*
(it's a standard term in road safety and accident data)

That's what phone-using drivers are doing; to people like you and me, just going about our daily business on the roads.


----------



## shep (3 Mar 2021)

BoldonLad said:


> As you say, everyone is different, and, we all have different opinions.
> 
> Personally, I like the area where I live, cycle and drive to be clean (ie litter free and dog cr*p free), and safe.
> 
> ...


I agree with lots you say, If I saw people fly tipping I would confront them, I've spoken to people who let their Dog crap on the pavement and don't get it up.

I wouldn't know where to 'report' any of the above to though, I assume you see all these people doing this or just the after effects?

You must be a very busy Man.


----------



## shep (3 Mar 2021)

matticus said:


> *Killed or Seriously Injured*
> (it's a standard term in road safety and accident data)
> 
> That's what phone-using drivers are doing; to people like you and me, just going about our daily business on the roads.


Cheers, 

I've heard of RTA before but not that one, what does the other stuff mean?


----------



## matticus (3 Mar 2021)

Probably Police and Crime Commisioners. I think ...

(*KSI *stats are important because RTA counts include "fender-benders" and other crashes where only property is damaged.)


----------



## shep (3 Mar 2021)

matticus said:


> Probably Police and Crime Commisioners. I think ...
> 
> (*KSI *stats are important because RTA counts include "fender-benders" and other crashes where only property is damaged.)


Nice one, every day's a school day on here.


----------



## BoldonLad (3 Mar 2021)

shep said:


> I agree with lots you say, If I saw people fly tipping I would confront them, I've spoken to people who let their Dog crap on the pavement and don't get it up.
> 
> I wouldn't know where to 'report' any of the above to though, I assume you see all these people doing this or just the after effects?
> 
> You must be a very busy Man.



In my area, you can report fly tipping, dog fouling and litter on the Council website. They are usually prompt about dealing with it. 

I don’t make it my life’s work to report these things, but, if I happen to see them on my daily walking or cycling outings (only one per day, in my local area, at the moment, can’t upset the Covid Stasi), then, I report them. 😊


----------



## shep (3 Mar 2021)

BoldonLad said:


> In my area, you can report fly tipping, dog fouling and litter on the Council website. They are usually prompt about dealing with it.
> 
> I don’t make it my life’s work to report these things, but, if I happen to see them on my daily walking or cycling outings (only one per day, in my local area, at the moment, can’t upset the Covid Stasi), then, I report them. 😊


Fly tipping is a real pi**er and really annoys me, the amount in country lanes is getting worse.

I suppose, in hindsight, Phone use in cars is worse than fly tipping, odd how certain things annoy people more than others.


----------



## cougie uk (3 Mar 2021)

Phone use in vehicles definitely kills. Fly tipping not so much. 

I've reported both. The more phone users get prosecuted the quicker the message gets through. Everyone wins.


----------



## BoldonLad (3 Mar 2021)

shep said:


> Fly tipping is a real pi**er and really annoys me, the amount in country lanes is getting worse.
> 
> I suppose, in hindsight, Phone use in cars is worse than fly tipping, *odd how certain things annoy people more than others.*



Quite. Just as we all have different opinions, we all have different "pet hates", mine is dog fouling.


----------



## Ste T. (3 Mar 2021)

shep said:


> As a matter of interest, why do you feel this is your duty?
> 
> Just a being 'good citizen' or is there a deeper reason?
> 
> Just curious.


Perhaps because this thread is 11 years old and you still see idiots all day every day doing it, including what I find the most amazing, people who's job requires a licence. 🤔


----------



## MickytheHippo (14 May 2021)

because drivers no longer consider it an actual crime, when did you see anyone charged with it as an offence unless it was a contributary factor in an accident


----------



## All uphill (14 May 2021)

Because I want anyone, child or adult, to be able to choose cycling as a safe and enjoyable way to get around.

I also actively campaign for better cycling and walking infrastructure.


----------



## mustang1 (14 May 2021)

I got caught using this. I saw some dude on the phone, so I used my phone to report the dude. In return the dude dobbed me in. What a catch 22. Grrr.

Kidding (Sheesh does everything have to be a joke around here?). Nice one.


----------



## Arjimlad (14 May 2021)

MickytheHippo said:


> because drivers no longer consider it an actual crime, when did you see anyone charged with it as an offence unless it was a contributary factor in an accident



CyclingMikey reports a good number of drivers convicted of this offence, based upon his clear video submissions of their use of handheld mobile phones for all sorts of interactive communications. I expect some of those who I have reported will have had prosecutions for not being in proper control, if not for the actual phone use as my footage rarely shows what they are actually doing with the handheld device. Footage I submit does frequently show them rolling along with it in their hands though. The law is due to change this year to make it easier to prosecute.


----------



## kingrollo (27 Sep 2021)

upsidedown said:


> Looks good, wish they did something like that in the Midlands.


You can upload video footage to most police forces using the nexbase portal 

I can't see that reporting without footage will lead to anything - if that's what the link above allows.


----------



## sasquath (27 Sep 2021)

Don't forget to NOT put submitted footage on YouTube or such as it invalidates it as evidence.


----------



## shep (27 Sep 2021)

kingrollo said:


> You can upload video footage to most police forces using the nexbase portal
> 
> I can't see that reporting without footage will lead to anything - if that's what the link above allows.


I understand it's a criminal offence but would you be happy dobbing someone in and they then lose their livelihood thanks to you?


----------



## sasquath (27 Sep 2021)

shep said:


> I understand it's a criminal offence but would you be happy dobbing someone in and they then lose their livelihood thanks to you?


Yes, rather them loosing livelihood than someone else loosing heath or life!


----------



## cougie uk (27 Sep 2021)

shep said:


> I understand it's a criminal offence but would you be happy dobbing someone in and they then lose their livelihood thanks to you?


If their livelihood depends on a driving licence - then they should stick to the rules that lets them have that licence. 
I'd happily dob them in. I prefer safer roads.


----------



## MuelNado (27 Sep 2021)

shep said:


> I understand it's a criminal offence but would you be happy dobbing someone in and they then lose their livelihood thanks to you?



Flip it around. How would you feel if you didn't report the person and then read they'd gone on to kill someone while on their phone?

"Dobbing someone in"? Are we supposed to look the other way because it's not OK to report someone in a kind of prison/playground rules mentality? Does the same apply if the driver is clearly drunk behind the wheel?

I'd feel fine personally. In the last month, I've seen numerous drivers on their phones while moving; a delivery driver nearly reversed into me (also threatened to kill me in the exchange we had about him being on his phone) and a cabbie cut across me in traffic. Neither were aware of me because neither was concentrating on driving. If not for my actions in avoiding them, I'd have had two pretty nasty accidents; both because of two morons that thought their usage of a phone was more important than the lives of pedestrians, cyclists, and fellow drivers. 

If that person cared about keeping their job, they wouldn't chance being caught on their phone when driving. There's no excuse to be on it when driving. EVER. It is THEIR action that's cost them their employment, not mine.


----------



## Chief Broom (27 Sep 2021)

In the Highlands theres hardly any coppers so car phone use is very very common. I see so many drivers on the phone anyone would think its legal....


----------



## Alex321 (27 Sep 2021)

shep said:


> I understand it's a criminal offence but would you be happy dobbing someone in and they then lose their livelihood thanks to you?


If their livelihood depends on them breaking the law, then absolutely.

If their livelihood depends on them having a driving licence, then it is even more stupid of them to risk losing it by that action, so still yes.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (27 Sep 2021)

shep said:


> I understand it's a criminal offence but would you be happy dobbing someone in and they then lose their livelihood thanks to you?



Yes, in a heartbeat.

Here’s why…

https://www.sussex.police.uk/news/s...driver-jailed-after-crashing-into-van-on-a27/

_This shocking video shows the moment a lorry driver – distracted by his mobile phone – crashes into the back of a van on the A27, seriously injuring three people._​​_The footage was captured by two cameras fitted to the vehicle driven by Derek Holland, 59, of Sutton Avenue, Seaford._​​_It was reviewed by detectives, who recorded 42 separate incidents of poor driving during his four-hour journey prior to the collision near Lewes, about 10.55am on 10 August 2020._​​_
View: https://youtu.be/ReuEegwZiBY
_​
​


----------



## shep (28 Sep 2021)

Fair enough, just getting the measure of folk. Cheers.


----------



## C R (28 Sep 2021)

shep said:


> Fair enough, just getting the measure of folk. Cheers.


So driving around endangering others is hunky dory, but doing something about it is not?


----------



## All uphill (28 Sep 2021)

shep said:


> Fair enough, just getting the measure of folk. Cheers.


So tell us,@shep , what do you think?

Is it okay or not to report these things.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (28 Sep 2021)

My brother-in-law once commented "well you don't grass on people' in a similar conversation about a more serious (sorry - even more serious) offence

My wife and I made it clear that we damn well do!

I wouldn't report someone who was messing with a phone for a few seconds while at a red traffic light as the car is stable. However, it is clearly an offence. But if I had them on film moving off like that I would report it.

ALthough as I don;t have a suitable camera it is a moot point at the moment!


----------



## shep (28 Sep 2021)

All uphill said:


> So tell us,@shep , what do you think?
> 
> Is it okay or not to report these things.


I wouldn't but it's up to the individual.


----------



## All uphill (28 Sep 2021)

shep said:


> I wouldn't but it's up to the individual.


Thanks for answering. 

Could I also ask why you wouldn't?


----------



## shep (28 Sep 2021)

All uphill said:


> Thanks for answering.
> 
> Could I also ask why you wouldn't?


You can, I'm not that sort.

As I've said before, each to their own.

Don't bombard me with a bunch of scenarios either cos I just won't reply to you, you go around reporting people and I don't.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (28 Sep 2021)

These people who use phones at the wheel are as bad as drunk drivers and the sooner it becomes just as socially unacceptable the better.

I can't imagine what justification a person can have in not reporting, that would leave them content to allow the lives of others be put at such risk.

I suppose it's just the measure of some folk.


----------



## Johnno260 (28 Sep 2021)

If you break the law and suffer the consequences then the only person to blame is themselves, if their license is so important then they shouldn't take it for granted it's a privilege not a right.


----------



## kingrollo (28 Sep 2021)

shep said:


> I understand it's a criminal offence but would you be happy dobbing someone in and they then lose their livelihood thanks to you?



No problem. I have done.

They don't have to drive using a mobile phone.


----------



## cougie uk (28 Sep 2021)

All uphill said:


> Thanks for answering.
> 
> Could I also ask why you wouldn't?


Shep sounds like the person who doesn't care for the safety of others. 
Good to get the measure of him.


----------



## sasquath (28 Sep 2021)

cougie uk said:


> Shep sounds like the person who doesn't care for the safety of others.
> Good to get the measure of him.


No, he just hates authority (or plods) so much he will rather see people mowed down by mobile phone staring moron behind the wheel than report him.


----------



## Arjimlad (28 Sep 2021)

I think we need to understand that people may have different attitudes to authority/the police depending on all sorts of factors. My own experience is broadly positive but that's far from everyone's. 

My friend, a respectable professional, faced a crown court trial for GBH after the police interviewed everyone on the opposing rugby team and nobody from his own team, for example. 

I have another friend who cuts people, dead or alive, out of the wreckage of vehicles after collisions caused by dangerous drivers. He's really supportive of dashcam reporting. 

People in my local community have been killed or had life-changing injuries due to reckless driving and phone distraction, and any one of them could've been me or my family. There but for the grace of God..

But I do realise that for many, their experience culture or background may mean that they wouldn't report anything at all unless they were fully personally affected, and even then they might take other routes to deal with the situation.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (29 Sep 2021)

Arjimlad said:


> I think we need to understand that people may have different attitudes to authority/the police depending on all sorts of factors. My own experience is broadly positive but that's far from everyone's.
> 
> My friend, a respectable professional, faced a crown court trial for GBH after the police interviewed everyone on the opposing rugby team and nobody from his own team, for example.
> 
> ...




Some of that may be true for a few people who do not want to involve the police through a lack of trust but it's not the case here, judging by the language used. In this instance, the only concern expressed is about the loss of livelihood for the offender. 

In my view, that attitude is inexcusable.


----------



## Arjimlad (29 Sep 2021)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Some of that may be true for a few people who do not want to involve the police through a lack of trust but it's not the case here, judging by the language used. In this instance, the only concern expressed is about the loss of livelihood for the offender.
> 
> In my view, that attitude is inexcusable.



It ignores the wider community aspect. Like it or not we live in a society and Peelian principles suggest that members of a society should do their bit for law & order. 

We both agree that reporting dangerous driving makes the roads safer for everybody, not just the person reporting. If I fail to report someone who could be encouraged to give up their mobile phone when driving, by the fear of consequences or whatever, and they go on to maim or kill someone... especially when Avon & Somerset have made it so easy to file the report. 

I know it's worse in Scotland.


----------



## simongt (29 Sep 2021)

Although the 'using a handheld phone whilst driving' nuts can always plead 'extreme circumstances' if they get banned like the jerk who was caught eight times and did just that - until he killed a cyclist on the ninth occasion. Does the blame has to go onto the weak magistratial system - ?


----------



## Alex321 (29 Sep 2021)

simongt said:


> Although the 'using a handheld phone whilst driving' nuts can always plead 'extreme circumstances' if they get banned like the jerk who was caught eight times and did just that - until he killed a cyclist on the ninth occasion. Does the blame has to go onto the weak magistratial system - ?


Yes.

You should only be able to make that plea once, at most. And it really should need to be much more extreme even then - risk to life level, not just risk to income.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (29 Sep 2021)

Alex321 said:


> Yes.
> 
> You should only be able to make that plea once, at most. And it really should need to be much more extreme even then - risk to life level, not just risk to income.


There is at least one court which sees it the right way.

_Losing your job because you’ve been caught speeding is not exceptional hardship, York magistrates told a motorist as they banned him from driving for six months._​​_They were sentencing Adam Martyn Wilson, 39, for doing 55 mph in a 30 mph zone – his third speeding conviction within three years._​​_He told the court “I am trying to watch my speed”._​​_The convictions meant he would be disqualified under the totting up procedure as it gave him at least 12 points on his licence._​​_Self-employed Wilson, who lives in Byram Park Road, Knottingley near Selby, appealed to his local court to let him keep his licence on the grounds he would suffer “exceptional” hardship if he couldn’t drive._​​_He claimed that if he couldn’t drive, he would lose his work and his home as he would be unable to pay his mortgage._​​_“I am very dependent on my driving licence,” he told them._​​_Magistrates told him: “It is normal hardship for someone who loses their licence to lose their job if their job requires them to drive.” 😍😍😍_​


----------



## simongt (30 Sep 2021)

York & Selby, tougher magistrates oop North - !


----------



## KnittyNorah (30 Sep 2021)

glasgowcyclist said:


> There is at least one court which sees it the right way.



When
'Magistrates asked him why he hadn’t taken the warning of the previous two speeding convictions to change his driving style.'
he didn't know what to say. 

He is a criminal fool and a dangerous one at that. The magistrates displayed common sense and a respect for the safety of others in the community.


----------



## DRM (30 Sep 2021)

simongt said:


> York & Selby, tougher magistrates oop North - !


Since when was Knottingley near to Selby, has there been some kind of seismic land slip event I’m unaware of


----------



## neil_merseyside (30 Sep 2021)

DRM said:


> Since when was Knottingley near to Selby, has there been some kind of seismic land slip event I’m unaware of


11 miles is hardly seismic?


----------



## DRM (30 Sep 2021)

neil_merseyside said:


> 11 miles is hardly seismic?


It’s near to Pontefract, it’s not even in the same postcode area as Selby, or the same county, it’s part of Wakefield and the five towns


----------



## BoldonLad (30 Sep 2021)

shep said:


> I understand it's a criminal offence but would you be happy dobbing someone in and *they then lose their livelihood thanks to you?*



They lose their livelihood due the their own selfish and dangerous actions, not due to the person who "dobs them in". The technology to make hands free calls is readily and inexpensively available, if you must use the phone whilst driving. There is no excuse.


----------



## cougie uk (30 Sep 2021)

BoldonLad said:


> They lose their livelihood due the their own selfish and dangerous actions, not due to the person who "dobs them in". The technology to make hands free calls is readily and inexpensively available, if you must use the phone whilst driving. There is no excuse.


My company went as far as to stop hands free calls too. You're just as distracted. People are a valuable resource - we weren't even to talk to suppliers if we could tell they were driving. We would ask them to call back once they were parked.


----------



## BoldonLad (30 Sep 2021)

simongt said:


> Although the* 'using a handheld phone whilst driving' nuts can always plead 'extreme circumstances' *if they get banned like the jerk who was caught eight times and did just that - until he killed a cyclist on the ninth occasion. Does the blame has to go onto the weak magistratial system - ?



The technology to use the phone "hands free is readily, and, inexpensively available" I can see no possible excuse for using a hand-held phone, whilst driving.


cougie uk said:


> My company went as far as *to stop hands free calls too*. *You're just as distracted.* People are a valuable resource - we weren't even to talk to suppliers if we could tell they were driving. We would ask them to call back once they were parked.



I would agree 100%. Personally, I do not use phone when driving (although my car does have built-in hands free). But, at present, using hands free is not illegal, and, hence, not reportable (the subject of the thread). Still possible to report resultant bad driving however (ie without due care etc).


----------



## RoadRider400 (30 Sep 2021)

shep said:


> I understand it's a criminal offence but would you be happy dobbing someone in and they then lose their livelihood thanks to you?



How far do you take this logic? If somebody gets 20 years for murder and consequently loses their job, is that also the fault of the person that dobbed them in?


----------



## sasquath (30 Sep 2021)

cougie uk said:


> My company went as far as to stop hands free calls too. You're just as distracted. People are a valuable resource - we weren't even to talk to suppliers if we could tell they were driving. We would ask them to call back once they were parked.


yep, mythbusters did a test. They drove in reverse around obstacle course while talking over hands free, then tried to match result under influence of alcohol. 3 to 5 pints of american beer to be as bad behind the wheel as while talking hands free over the phone. If i remember correctly it was over California and UK limit, which are one of the highest in the world btw... I'm having trouble walking straight with that much alcohol in me


----------



## cougie uk (30 Sep 2021)

My wife always used to use hands free. It was only when we were waiting at a red light and a woman in a Landover screeched to a halt half way past us into the junction. She had been on a hands free call too - you could hear it. 

My wife no longer uses hands free.


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (30 Sep 2021)

Some years ago my partner insisted on knowing where I was so NEEDED to know where I was and when I would be home
I was a teacher so leaving time and traffic were variable

but every day she NEEDED to ring and find out where I was

I had a hands free thingy but I realised that if I was driving I could not talk on the phone and drive AND concentrate on the driving

My partner went crazy because I started refusing to answer and if she rang then I waited until I reached a layby and then rang back

because when I was talking on the hands free then I KNEW I was not concentrating on the driving
and I was in control of close of 2 tons of metal hurtling down the road at 70 mph!!!!

the concept of talking on a phone - whether hands free or not - become unacceptable

if you have people driving to remote sites or clients - then you need to structure your organisation so that they are free to drive uninterrupted.

Most organisations used to do it before mobile phones existed - they can do it now
many years ago I travelled some miles up the M6 in a car driven by an senior manager and his phoen rang
fully installed hands free phone
he engaged in a complex detailed discussion about a serious business issue
he had no real clue about when was happening on the road ahead - he stayed behind the car in front - but if the car had braked I would bet he would have gone directly into the back of it

I do not believe that anyone on a hand free phone can possibly be concentrating on tje road and traffic as much as they need to


----------



## Badger_Boom (1 Oct 2021)

ebikeerwidnes said:


> I do not believe that anyone on a hand free phone can possibly be concentrating on tje road and traffic as much as they need to


My employer forbids the taking of hands-free calls while behind the wheel. They would rather we concentrated on the driving, and also encourage ending calls if we realise the recipient is driving.

I’m sure I read somewhere that talking to a passenger is considered less risky; apparently the brain handles talking to another person differently to a disembodied voice.


----------



## PaulSB (1 Oct 2021)

@ebikeerwidnes my wife used to call me at times when she knew I was likely to be driving. It was always "What time will you be home?" or "Can you pick up some milk?"

I never understood this because if I used the phone while she was in the car she would object.

I've held handsfree conversations while driving. I know it was wrong, my concentration would simply be autopilot at best but I wouldn't dream of it now.


----------



## DaveReading (1 Oct 2021)

Badger_Boom said:


> I’m sure I read somewhere that talking to a passenger is considered less risky; apparently the brain handles talking to another person differently to a disembodied voice.



That, plus the fact that the person you're talking to can see when conditions are such that you need to devote all your attention to the road..


----------



## ebikeerwidnes (1 Oct 2021)

DaveReading said:


> That, plus the fact that the person you're talking to can see when conditions are such that you need to devote all your attention to the road..


I've read that as well - seems to agree with how it feels to me


----------



## sasquath (1 Oct 2021)

There's simple safe solution for overly paranoid partners that have to know where we are.
Google maps allows to share current live location, like Strava premium beacon feature, but free. Used it when I was motorcycling.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (1 Oct 2021)

sasquath said:


> yep, mythbusters did a test. They drove in reverse around obstacle course while talking over hands free, then tried to match result under influence of alcohol. 3 to 5 pints of american beer to be as bad behind the wheel as while talking hands free over the phone. If i remember correctly it was over California and UK limit, which are one of the highest in the world btw... I'm having trouble walking straight with that much alcohol in me


More formal studies have been done and conclude that hands-free use while driving results in worse response times than drink driving.








(edit to remove superfluous word)


----------



## simongt (1 Oct 2021)

BoldonLad said:


> Personally, I do not use phone when driving


Unfortunately my son uses hands free when driving his car and also his artic. Whilst I'm not keen on the idea of any distraction when driving; e.g., a call that that takes more than about half a minute or more, even with today's techno, it's often very hard to make out what he's saying.


----------



## Arjimlad (1 Oct 2021)

https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...s-in-great-britain-pedal-cycle-factsheet-2020

2015-2020 2 cyclists were killed, and 83 seriously injured every week. As I read the stats, 94.5% of these cases involved at least one motor vehicle. We must continue to act when we witness dangerous driving if these figures are to change.


----------



## BoldonLad (1 Oct 2021)

simongt said:


> Unfortunately my son uses hands free when driving his car and also his artic. Whilst I'm not keen on the idea of any distraction when driving; e.g., a call that that takes more than about half a minute or more, even with today's techno, it's often very hard to make out what he's saying.



Yes, my offspring use hands free sometimes. Myself and wife try to actively discourage it (ie nag them), and always cut calls short, if we realise they are driving. Since they are aged 45 - 50, it is rather difficult to. stop their pocket money now, if they don't do as they are told (or asked).


----------



## neil_merseyside (1 Oct 2021)

I commented to a friend that his handsfree call demonstrated that it was the distraction that was the problem rather than just holding th phone, he was frankly upset and claimed he was just fine and hadn't done anything wrong! The other 2 passengers backed me up - and each of us spotted a different failing (holding gear too long, closing on traffic, late lane change, early return from lane). He's still a friend but it was a bit touch and go... Could have been much worse as the other passengers he lives with 😄.


----------



## shep (29 Oct 2021)

sasquath said:


> No, he just hates authority (or plods) so much he will rather see people mowed down by mobile phone staring moron behind the wheel than report him.


Sorry for the delay in replying I was banned for a Month following my last reply (I assume) I don't dislike either authority or the Police, my Son is a Prison Officer.
I assume all these photographs that are being taken by cyclists are of people in stationary traffic queues? 

In my opinion if someone looks at their phone whilst stopped in a queue I wouldn't want to report them to the Police and they lose their licence, I've not said anyone else shouldn't do it.


----------



## shep (29 Oct 2021)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Some of that may be true for a few people who do not want to involve the police through a lack of trust but it's not the case here, judging by the language used. In this instance, the only concern expressed is about the loss of livelihood for the offender.
> 
> In my view, that attitude is inexcusable.


Again, conclusion jumping. 

Haven't had the chance to explain due to being banned, no issues with the Police at all.


----------



## Biker man (29 Oct 2021)

Twenty Inch said:


> People in London can report mobile-phone-using drivers on the following form:
> 
> http://www.met.police.uk/roadsafelondon/
> 
> ...


I have reported many things to the police they take no notice .


----------



## CanucksTraveller (29 Oct 2021)

shep said:


> I assume all these photographs that are being taken by cyclists are of people in stationary traffic queues?


I really dislike this concept that when you're stationary, no harm is going to come from reading your phone. 
A friend of mine had an unbelievably stupid collision in the US (where it's extremely common and largely perfectly acceptable to use phones, and even text while driving). He was stationary at a red traffic signal waiting to turn left, across traffic, and he was reading emails on his phone while waiting. The next thing he knew was that there was a horn blast behind him. Slightly startled, he looked up, saw the light was green and immediately set off left, and he struck a glancing blow to a car which was coming through the junction, thankfully not fast. _A 2 ton car_, and he didn't register it because he was startled and his brain was not taking in the key information and processing / prioritising it correctly. 
He later explained that he felt pressured by the horn behind to go quickly, and simply hadn't registered the vehicle until just as he struck it. He did reflect later that if he was observing the junction he would have seen the car easily, and early, in fact he couldn't have failed to. He is in the airline safety industry by the way and he uses that mistake to illustrate how distraction from the task in hand can overwhelm and delay the brain's ability to process even obvious information, so good on him for being honest, especially in a country where that kind of distracted driving is a norm. 

When you're stationary in a car you need to be observing, looking at what's going on around you, ready and prepared to set off. Not reading texts and oblivious to that pedestrian or that cyclist that wasn't there previously and has now appeared in the time that you've been reading. Advanced driving courses teach this pre-set off observation for a reason. Things develop at junctions etc, the scene changes and the driver needs to be awake to it. It's right that the use of phones when stationary is punishable because it can and does cause collisions.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (29 Oct 2021)

shep said:


> Again, conclusion jumping.



A reasonable conclusion, given what you wrote.




shep said:


> Haven't had the chance to explain due to being banned, no issues with the Police at all.



I didn't say you had.


----------



## Alex321 (29 Oct 2021)

shep said:


> Sorry for the delay in replying I was banned for a Month following my last reply (I assume) I don't dislike either authority or the Police, my Son is a Prison Officer.
> I assume all these photographs that are being taken by cyclists are of people in stationary traffic queues?


Why assume that? Many cyclists have GoPros or similar, running all the time, and can just take screenshots from that.



> In my opinion if someone looks at their phone whilst stopped in a queue I wouldn't want to report them to the Police and they lose their licence, I've not said anyone else shouldn't do it.



While I can see the point that it is not as bad when stationary, you still need to be paying attention if in a queue. If you are going to use your phone in your hand, you should pull off to the side and stop properly (according to the law you should turn off your engine, but I would accept that much isn't necessary).


----------



## shep (29 Oct 2021)

Alex321 said:


> Why assume that? Many cyclists have GoPros or similar, running all the time, and can just take screenshots from that.
> 
> 
> 
> While I can see the point that it is not as bad when stationary, you still need to be paying attention if in a queue. If you are going to use your phone in your hand, you should pull off to the side and stop properly (according to the law you should turn off your engine, but I would accept that much isn't necessary).


Listen, due to how things work on here it appears if you disagree with 'the norm' you're reported for trolling then banned so I simply came back to put the record straight and the thread is going on ignore.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (29 Oct 2021)

shep said:


> Listen, due to how things work on here it appears if you disagree with 'the norm' you're reported for trolling then banned so I simply came back to put the record straight and the thread is going on ignore.


So it's someone else's fault when the texting driver gets banned and it's someone else's fault that you broke the forum rules and got banned. 

I can see a pattern here.

(And a month-long ban on here isn't for a mere disagreement of views.)


----------



## sasquath (29 Oct 2021)

shep said:


> I assume all these photographs that are being taken by cyclists are of people in stationary traffic queues?


No, only 4 mobile phone use I reported were:
While turning rigt on a junction, c***t cut me up.
While zigzagging on motorway, I asked passenger to start recording.
While creeping at 10mph in a queue and drifting into the cycle lane.
After near miss on dual carrige way when van driver on his phone tried to occupy same space as me during lane change.


----------



## Poacher (29 Oct 2021)

shep said:


> Sorry for the delay in replying I was banned for a Month following my last reply


Ah, _that_ explains why much of this forum has been so bland and boring lately.
I'm sure I speak for the majority here when I say welcome back. We've missed your rational, well-considered and indeed deeply considerate input to this and many other threads.
Those responsible for your unjustified exile should hang their heads in shame.


----------



## DaveReading (30 Oct 2021)

Poacher said:


> I'm sure I speak for the majority here when I say welcome back. We've missed your rational, well-considered and indeed deeply considerate input to this and many other threads.



I seem to have missed that poll.


----------



## C R (30 Oct 2021)

DaveReading said:


> I seem to have missed that poll.


I think @Poacher's tongue may have been burning a hole in their cheek.


----------



## Poacher (30 Oct 2021)

DaveReading said:


> I seem to have missed that poll.


How very dare you? You must be one of they metropolitan elite I keep hearing about.
Everyone I talk to in 'spoons agrees with shep, because they live in the _real_ world.


----------



## Arjimlad (30 Oct 2021)

Those who think that driver distraction by mobile phone use in slow-moving or stationary traffic is harmless, should look at the case of Hope Fennell, it is quite harrowing. Try sharing that view with her poor Mother. 

To imagine that the people who fiddle with their phones in such traffic will somehow have the self-discipline to put them away in moving traffic is rather naïve. The easiest time for anyone to catch them is when they're not on the move. Ideally, once detected the offence can be prosecuted and the driver disciplined into putting the phone away. Making the roads safer for everyone.


----------



## Etern4l (13 Feb 2022)

Arjimlad said:


> Those who think that driver distraction by mobile phone use in slow-moving or stationary traffic is harmless, should look at the case of Hope Fennell, it is quite harrowing. Try sharing that view with her poor Mother.
> 
> To imagine that the people who fiddle with their phones in such traffic will somehow have the self-discipline to put them away in moving traffic is rather naïve. The easiest time for anyone to catch them is when they're not on the move. Ideally, once detected the offence can be prosecuted and the driver disciplined into putting the phone away. Making the roads safer for everyone.



If you look at the stats, the impact of all phone use on KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) is just noise in the grand scheme of things: about 150 of 30,000 per year, not to mention the specific case of stationary use, in which case I guess we are talking about single digits per year. 

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/how-would-you-improve-central-london-cycling.239285/post-6662940

Of course, someone could say that even one KSI case a decade is too much, in which case we should take immediate steps to prevent these by by banning all road traffic including cycling, failing that absolutely eliminate any potentially distracting factors such as music, other passengers in the car etc.. Arguably banning cycling on shared public roads would also be extremely helpful in bringing the KSI numbers down!


----------



## DaveReading (13 Feb 2022)

Etern4l said:


> Arguably banning cycling on shared public roads would be extremely helpful in bringing the KSI numbers down.


Why stop there? Just make cycling illegal everywhere - that would do wonders for the KSI figures!


----------



## Badger_Boom (14 Feb 2022)

Etern4l said:


> If you look at the stats, the impact of all phone use on KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) is just noise in the grand scheme of things: about 150 of 30,000 per year, not to mention the specific case of stationary use, in which case I guess we are talking about single digits per year.


I thought there was plenty of scientific evidence that the specific types of distraction from operating hand held mobile devices, or even just talking on a hands-free phone (as opposed to conversing with a 'real' passenger) was pretty dangerous?


----------



## Alex321 (14 Feb 2022)

Badger_Boom said:


> I thought there was plenty of scientific evidence that the specific types of distraction from operating hand held mobile devices, or even just talking on a hands-free phone (as opposed to conversing with a 'real' passenger) was pretty dangerous?


There is.

But the stats still show the number of KSI accidents caused by it is pretty small. It doesn't matter how dangerous something is, if very few people do it, then it will have little impact statistically. And while there are far too many people who do use handheld phones while driving, most of them are doing so in slow moving environments where the smashes they cause will relatvely rarely result in death or serious injury.


----------



## DaveReading (14 Feb 2022)

Clearly the idiots I see with phone in hand on the M4 must have put them away by the time they cross the Severn ...


----------



## Milkfloat (14 Feb 2022)

I imagine that it is very difficult to prove that someone was on the phone when they were involved in a KSI incident, so I assume that the stats are vastly different to reality.


----------



## Roseland triker (14 Feb 2022)

DaveReading said:


> Clearly the idiots I see with phone in hand on the M4 must have put them away by the time they cross the Severn ...


You ride on the motorway?


----------



## DaveReading (14 Feb 2022)

Roseland triker said:


> You ride on the motorway?


You mean it's OK to drive while you're on the phone, provided there are no cyclists nearby ???


----------



## Roseland triker (14 Feb 2022)

DaveReading said:


> You mean it's OK to drive while you're on the phone, provided there are no cyclists nearby ???


Yeah sure on the motorway that's what the barriers are for right? Keep you in lane???


----------



## Etern4l (14 Feb 2022)

Badger_Boom said:


> I thought there was plenty of scientific evidence that the specific types of distraction from operating hand held mobile devices, or even just talking on a hands-free phone (as opposed to conversing with a 'real' passenger) was pretty dangerous?



Would be particularly interesting to see a study which shows the difference in accident risk between using a handsfree phone, and interacting with a rowdy kid in the back, or having an argument with the passenger.



Alex321 said:


> There is.
> 
> But the stats still show the number of KSI accidents caused by it is pretty small. It doesn't matter how dangerous something is, if very few people do it, then it will have little impact statistically. And while there are far too many people who do use handheld phones while driving, most of them are doing so in slow moving environments where the smashes they cause will relatvely rarely result in death or serious injury.



That's possible. It's a nice theory, but nothing more than that. Someone else could argue that if very few people used their phone in the car, you'd hardly ever see this phenomenon, and YouTube vigilantes would be out of work. Handheld phone use is very visible and would often be caught by the omnipresent CCTV and reported by witnesses.

There is also a degree of distraction being caused: a handheld phone is more distracting than a hands-free, I guess most people would agree. If we are banning handsfree phones, by the same token we should ban passengers from cars, as they can cause uncontrolled and sometimes severe distractions. Another question is whether the accident risk is caused by phones unconditionally, or only when used by certain people or by people in a certain state of mind being subjected to additional distractions (including the phone). We have entered the era of smart voice assistants and AI technologies, we don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water. There should be better solutions. Various forms of driver monitoring, driving assistance and self-driving cars spring to mind.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (14 Feb 2022)

From USA


The National Safety Council reports that cell phone use while driving leads to 1.6 million crashes each year.
Nearly 390,000 injuries occur each year from accidents caused by texting while driving.
1 out of every 4 car accidents in the United States is caused by texting and driving. 
Texting while driving is 6x more likely to cause an accident than driving drunk.
Answering a text takes away your attention for about five seconds. Traveling at 55 mph, that's enough time to travel the length of a football field.
Texting while driving causes a 400 percent increase in time spent with eyes off the road.
Of all cell phone related tasks, texting is by far the most dangerous activity.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (14 Feb 2022)

Research shows the response time of a driver using a smartphone to access social media, emails or texts slows by around 37.5% (far more than after marijuana or moderate alcohol use).


----------



## Etern4l (14 Feb 2022)

Literally not even looking at plain text factoids without proper source references. Also, some people are incapable of processing finer points such as "completely stationary phone use might not be the same as texting while driving 55mph" or "handsfree phone use is not the same as texting while driving 55mph". Thank goodness for the ignore list.


----------



## DaveReading (14 Feb 2022)

Roseland triker said:


> Yeah sure on the motorway that's what the barriers are for right? Keep you in lane???


OMG, we've got another one here ...


----------



## CanucksTraveller (14 Feb 2022)

Etern4l said:


> Thank goodness for the ignore list.


Indeed. Goodnight.


----------



## Alex321 (15 Feb 2022)

DaveReading said:


> You mean it's OK to drive while you're on the phone, provided there are no cyclists nearby ???


Where on earth do you get that ludicrous suggestion from?

I cannot see any way in which a reasonable person could possibly infer that meaning from what he said.

Though I would also wonder where he got the idea you might be riding when you see these people.


----------



## Alex321 (15 Feb 2022)

DaveReading said:


> Clearly the idiots I see with phone in hand on the M4 must have put them away by the time they cross the Severn ...


Why do you believe that likely?


----------



## PaulSB (15 Feb 2022)

I wonder how much longer the troll will be around?


----------



## cyberknight (15 Feb 2022)

Ming the Merciless said:


> From USA
> 
> 
> The National Safety Council reports that cell phone use while driving leads to 1.6 million crashes each year.
> ...


if they cant keep themselves from shooting each other i doubt they will take the right to blab whilst pootling down the road either


----------



## shep (15 Feb 2022)

PaulSB said:


> I wonder how much longer the troll will be around?


A Troll because he has a different opinion to others on the subject?

It's called dissagreeing.


----------



## DaveReading (15 Feb 2022)

Alex321 said:


> Why do you believe that likely?


If a poster based in South Wales asserts that most mobile use is in slow moving environments, that may well be true there, but it doesn't match my experience further east on the same motorway.


----------



## Etern4l (15 Feb 2022)

CanucksTraveller said:


> Indeed. Goodnight.



Having reviewed your recent postings, very happy to reciprocate. Adieu!


----------



## Alex321 (15 Feb 2022)

DaveReading said:


> If a poster based in South Wales asserts that most mobile use is in slow moving environments, that may well be true there, but it doesn't match my experience further east on the same motorway.


Perhaps you need to review your understanding of the word "most".

I know perfectly well that there are idiots using mobile phones while driving in pretty well all circumstances. But I see people with phones to their ears more often in city traffic than on the open road (including motorways).


----------



## Roseland triker (15 Feb 2022)

Alex321 said:


> Perhaps you need to review your understanding of the word "most".
> 
> I know perfectly well that there are idiots using mobile phones while driving in pretty well all circumstances. But I see people with phones to their ears more often in city traffic than on the open road (including motorways).


So get a 4x4 with bull bars and ram them


----------



## DaveReading (15 Feb 2022)

Alex321 said:


> Perhaps you need to review your understanding of the word "most".
> 
> I know perfectly well that there are idiots using mobile phones while driving in pretty well all circumstances. But I see people with phones to their ears more often in city traffic than on the open road (including motorways).


Fine - I think we have simply established that our respective experiences differ. That's life.

And I think I'll pass on the English lesson, thanks.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (15 Feb 2022)

Is the penalty for using a phone whilst driving the same as that for drink driving? If not it ought to be.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (15 Feb 2022)

“In the UK sample, there was a range of different types of secondary task observed during driving, with nearly three-quarters of the trips viewed containing at least one secondary task interaction (73%). Almost all drivers (92%) engaged in a non-driving-related task in at least one out of the 15 trips coded for them, showing that distraction from the driving task is a frequent and common occurrence. Mobile phone use was the most common secondary task in terms of proportion of drivers engaging with it (69%).”

69% of drivers using mobile phones in the UDrive research where they mounted multiple cameras in cars. So, despite knowing they were being filmed, from multiple angles, they still used their phones!


----------



## Ming the Merciless (15 Feb 2022)

Plus look at how long they were using their phones

“The duration of a single phone interaction varied from less than one second to in excess of 40 minutes. Most distractions due to phones were a prolonged activity with only 40% of all phone interactions lasting less than 2 minutes (28% of interactions lasted less than 30 seconds and 12% of interactions lasted less than 10 seconds).”


----------



## Ming the Merciless (15 Feb 2022)

Hands free phone calls considerably longer 

“The mean duration for a hands-free conversation was considerably longer than for a handheld conversation (243 seconds vs. 77 seconds). Furthermore, only 3 of 11 handheld phone calls lasted for longer than 90 seconds. In contrast, only 2 of 9 hands-free calls were shorter than 90 seconds. The longest hands-free call lasted for over 13 minutes, compared to 4 minutes for a handheld call. This may suggest that drivers are aware that handheld phone use is illegal, and thus try to keep these types of calls brief, to minimise the chances of being observed or caught.”


----------



## Alex321 (15 Feb 2022)

Ming the Merciless said:


> Is the penalty for using a phone whilst driving the same as that for drink driving? If not it ought to be.


No, it isn't.

6 points max penalty (which does mean loss of licence if you have had a full licence for less than 2 years, or if that accumulates 12 points), while drink driving is an automatic loss of licence (in theory!).

And yes, it probably should be.


----------



## Alex321 (15 Feb 2022)

DaveReading said:


> Fine - I think we have simply established that our respective experiences differ. That's life.


Fair enough, though I have to say it does surprise me very much that you don't see more people with handheld mobiles in an urban environment than on the motorway. I've certainly seen too many on the motorway as well, but not nearly as often.

Though that could be down to observation as much as anything. I don't tend to peer into vehicles I'm passing or that are passing me on the motorway, I'm concentrating on the road and traffic ahead. While in stop start traffic, I will look around a lot more - and other vehicles are often passing sideways across my path at junctions.

If somebody is driving erratically on the motorway, then I'll more often take a look, but that is relatively rare IME.


----------



## Alex321 (15 Feb 2022)

Ming the Merciless said:


> Hands free phone calls considerably longer
> 
> “The mean duration for a hands-free conversation was considerably longer than for a handheld conversation (243 seconds vs. 77 seconds). Furthermore, only 3 of 11 handheld phone calls lasted for longer than 90 seconds. In contrast, only 2 of 9 hands-free calls were shorter than 90 seconds. The longest hands-free call lasted for over 13 minutes, compared to 4 minutes for a handheld call. This may suggest that drivers are aware that handheld phone use is illegal, and thus try to keep these types of calls brief, to minimise the chances of being observed or caught.”


I do *occasionally* make or receive hands-free calls, but I can't recall the last time one will have lasted anywhere near 90 seconds. They are almost always just a quick ETA call. And when I say occasionally, I doubt it is as many as half a dozen per year.


----------



## Badger_Boom (15 Feb 2022)

I just leave mine on the factory 'do not disturb when driving' setting. Which suits my employer who 'banned' all mobile calls when driving years ago, off the back of articles like this one.

All of the above discussion makes me wonder how on earth we managed to exist before mobile technology become so ubiquitous. I know I'm rapidly heading into old fartdom but I don't get the need to constantly 'update' each other with our whereabouts and remember having to drive from sites to a phone box to make important calls. We seem to have allowed the technology to force us into a position where we MUST be instantly available to anyone at any hour of the day or night.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (15 Feb 2022)

I know, and all the shock horror what if scenarios people come up with if you say you go for a bike ride without a phone. Far too many mobile phone addicts out there.


----------



## Alex321 (15 Feb 2022)

Ming the Merciless said:


> I know, and all the shock horror what if scenarios people come up with if you say you go for a bike ride without a phone. Far too many mobile phone addicts out there.


I wouldn't describe myself as a mobile phone addict, but I still wouldn't go on a bike ride more than a mile or two from home without it in my pocket.

It very rarely comes out of that pocket, but it is there on those rare occasions I need it (or want!) it. There is no inconvenience to me in carrying it, just sitting in the pocket of my jersey.


----------



## Etern4l (15 Feb 2022)

Alex321 said:


> I wouldn't describe myself as a mobile phone addict, but I still wouldn't go on a bike ride more than a mile or two from home without it in my pocket.
> 
> It very rarely comes out of that pocket, but it is there on those rare occasions I need it (or want!) it. There is no inconvenience to me in carrying it, just sitting in the pocket of my jersey.


I use the phone all the time when travelling (within the legal boundaries of course) : navigation, calls, audio books, music, I'm planning to start streaming my rides. Phones are an awesome tool. Never had an accident, close call, or any other issue, and it likely saved me during a recent Grand Union Canal assault. To ban hands-free use in cars would be a rather backward act (and then of course there would be little reason not to ban passengers from speaking, or phone use during cycling as well: nightmare scenarios for most people).


----------



## Ming the Merciless (15 Feb 2022)

Alex321 said:


> I wouldn't describe myself as a mobile phone addict, but I still wouldn't go on a bike ride more than a mile or two from home without it in my pocket.



Doesn’t your behaviour strike you as odd, that you won’t go more than a mile without a phone? For instance you wouldn’t dare ride to the shops a couple of miles away without your phone.


----------



## Alex321 (15 Feb 2022)

Ming the Merciless said:


> Doesn’t your behaviour strike you as odd, that you won’t go more than a mile without a phone? For instance you wouldn’t dare ride to the shops a couple of miles away without your phone.


That isn't quite what I said.

There is nothing about "dare" in it, but the only time I don't just pop it in my jersey pocket is when I'm going on such a short ride that I don't bother putting cycling kit on. Which generally means rides where I'm going less than a mile from home.

I wouldn't currently go to the shops without it for two reasons - 1 I pay for most things using it as a contactless card, and 2 most ti
mes I am heading for the shops on my bike it is to get something my wife has asked for, and I want to be able to phone back for instructions if it is out of stock. I also rarely ride just to go to the shops, with the exception of the half mile to the local garage to get the newspaper.

But carrying it doesn't mean I'm "addicted" to it, nor do I see it as even slightly odd. Other than when stopping to buy something, it very rarely comes out of my pocket, but is there if I need it. No different in principle to carrying those spare inner tubes and multi tool in my saddle bag.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (15 Feb 2022)

View: https://youtu.be/ReuEegwZiBY


----------



## Alex321 (15 Feb 2022)

Etern4l said:


> I use the phone all the time when travelling (within the legal boundaries of course) : navigation, calls, audio books, music, I'm planning to start streaming my rides. Phones are an awesome tool. Never had an accident, close call, or any other issue, and it likely saved me during a recent Grand Union Canal assault.


I did use it for navigation and as a cycle computer for a bit over a year, until I got my Wahoo.

I really don't like to have music or anything similar when riding, I prefer to just hear what is around me.

For me, the phone is just a tool.



Etern4l said:


> To ban hands-free use in cars would be a rather backward act (and then of course there would be little reason not to ban passengers from speaking, or phone use during cycling as well: nightmare scenarios for most people).



There is a big difference between talking to a passenger and talking to somebody over the phone. The passenger can see the same as you can, and shouldn't keep distracting you if things are needing your attention.

But having said that, I would tend to agree that hands-free use should not be banned - if you are going to do that then you probably do need to also ban changing anything on the radio/cd/mp3 player while driving, or indeed anything that requires you to poke the screen while looking at it.

I know there have been studies showing that reaction times are almost as affected by hands free use as by handheld use, but it isn't just about raw reaction time. If you are using the phone hand-held, then you only have one hand free for the controls, so in a fast-developing situation, you cannot have as effective control of the vehicle as quickly even after reacting.


----------



## Etern4l (15 Feb 2022)

Alex321 said:


> I did use it for navigation and as a cycle computer for a bit over a year, until I got my Wahoo.
> 
> I really don't like to have music or anything similar when riding, I prefer to just hear what is around me.
> 
> ...


Exactly, just an indespensible tool. 

Passengers being aware of the situation on the road is a huge assumption IMHO. Really depends on the passengers, with the ones in the back seat less likely to be aware. On the other hand, the driver controls the conversation and can hang up if required. You can't hang up a passenger. 

There are also studies which show that phone use is basically harmless because drivers adapt well to using them. Those tend to be dismissed by agenda-driven audience as politically incorrect. Note that the fact that an accident occurred while a person was using a phone, does not automatically imply it would not have occurred otherwise, although people seem to routinely make this inaccurate inference.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (15 Feb 2022)

Ming the Merciless said:


> View: https://youtu.be/ReuEegwZiBY




Awful to watch but should be screened regularly at peak viewing times.

This infographic is useful too:


----------



## classic33 (15 Feb 2022)

If the phone use wasn't an issue in the cause of the accident, it would be recorded and on record.
Care to share that?


----------



## DRM (15 Feb 2022)

Alex321 said:


> I wouldn't describe myself as a mobile phone addict, but I still wouldn't go on a bike ride more than a mile or two from home without it in my pocket.
> 
> It very rarely comes out of that pocket, but it is there on those rare occasions I need it (or want!) it. There is no inconvenience to me in carrying it, just sitting in the pocket of my jersey.


Me neither, especially after hearing it ring pulled up to answer it to hear Mrs DRM saying get back home, her mum has fallen, and was on her way to hospital, you never know when you may need your phone


----------



## DRM (15 Feb 2022)

In my experience, on all roads having done a lot of miles, I'm sick of idiots weaving, slowing, speeding up, going through red lights, still sitting there on a green light, and generally being totally oblivious to anything and everything around them because they just have to use their mobile and stuff everyone else


----------



## Ming the Merciless (15 Feb 2022)

DRM said:


> In my experience, on all roads having done a lot of miles, I'm sick of idiots weaving, slowing, speeding up, going through red lights, still sitting there on a green light, and generally being totally oblivious to anything and everything around them because they just have to use their mobile and stuff everyone else



Yep, car phone zombies , a serious danger to everyone around them.


----------



## lazybloke (15 Feb 2022)

Etern4l said:


> I use the phone all the time when travelling (within the legal boundaries of course) : navigation, calls, audio books, music, I'm planning to start streaming my rides. Phones are an awesome tool. Never had an accident, close call, or any other issue, and it likely saved me during a recent Grand Union Canal assault. *T*o ban hands-free use in cars would be a rather backward act (and *then of course there would be little reason not to ban passengers from speaking, or phone use during cycling as well*: nightmare scenarios for most people).


If research shows hands-free phones are a distraction, then banning their use in cars makes a whole lot of sense.
But I'd like you explain your starting point that such a ban would also have to apply to cycling.

Phone bans are about removing a distraction, because even a slow car is a lethal weapon in the hands of a distracted driver. 
A bike doesn't have nearly the same kinetic energy; a distracted cyclist does not present the same danger. 

The occasional deaths caused by cyclists tend to result from "wanton driving", ie reckless racing, not from being distracted.



Scenario - residential road:
A slowish bike ride might be 85 kg of weight moving at 10 mph.
A slowish car ride might be 1500kg of weight moving at 30 mph.

If you do the maths, the car has almost 159x more kinetic energy.


----------



## Etern4l (15 Feb 2022)

lazybloke said:


> The occasional deaths caused by cyclists tend to result from "wanton driving",


Any solid official data to back this up? Is there even a strict enough definition of "wanton driving/cycling"?

If you think a moments' worth of distraction cannot kill or maim a cyclist, if not a pedestrian, you probably haven't cycled in London much. A London cyclist is in constant collision avoidance mode unless riding in a segregated cycle lane. Perhaps, counter-intutiively, cyclists have more than enough kinetic energy to maim or kill pedestrians:

Cyclist Charlie Alliston guilty over pedestrian's death

10-14mph doesn't really seem like wanton cycling.


----------



## classic33 (15 Feb 2022)

Etern4l said:


> Any solid official data to back this up?
> 
> If you think a moments' distraction cannot kill or maim, you probably haven't cycled in London much. A London cyclist is in constant collision avoidance mode unless riding on a segregated cycle lane. Perhaps, counter-intutiively, cyclists have more than enough kinetic energy to maim or kill pedestrians:
> 
> ...


He wasn't using a mobile phone at the time though.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (15 Feb 2022)

Etern4l said:


> Any solid official data to back this up?



Check out of office for national statistics data. There were two pedestrian deaths caused by cycling collisions between 2013-2020. So rare, the cases made the national papers and bbc, itv etc. It’d be hard to miss unless you don’t watch or read the news.


----------



## lazybloke (16 Feb 2022)

Etern4l said:


> Any solid official data to back this up? Is there even a strict enough definition of "wanton driving/cycling"?
> 
> *If you think a moments' worth of distraction cannot kill or maim a cyclist, if not a pedestrian, you probably haven't cycled in London much. *A London cyclist is in constant collision avoidance mode unless riding in a segregated cycle lane. Perhaps, counter-intutiively, cyclists have more than enough kinetic energy to maim or kill pedestrians:
> 
> ...


Nothing in the Alliston cases changes the fact that a car has many times more energy than a bike; thus a distracted driver is typically a far greater danger than a distracted cyclist.
The equation for kinetic energy provides my "solid official data". 

As for understanding "wanton cycling", the sentencing notes are a good place to start: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content...-remarks-hhj-wendy-joseph-qc-r-v-alliston.pdf


----------



## DaveReading (16 Feb 2022)

lazybloke said:


> Nothing in the Alliston cases changes the fact that a car has many times more energy than a bike; thus a distracted driver is typically a far greater danger than a distracted cyclist.
> The equation for kinetic energy provides my "solid official data".
> 
> As for understanding "wanton cycling", the sentencing notes are a good place to start: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content...-remarks-hhj-wendy-joseph-qc-r-v-alliston.pdf


Admit it - you're just letting the facts get in the way of a good story ...


----------



## Ming the Merciless (16 Feb 2022)

Oh gawd, is he still trying to convince everyone that using a phone whilst driving is a safe responsible thing to do? Instead of the reckless , dangerous activity it is.


----------



## Etern4l (16 Feb 2022)

lazybloke said:


> Nothing in the Alliston cases changes the fact that a car has many times more energy than a bike; thus a distracted driver is typically a far greater danger than a distracted cyclist.
> The equation for kinetic energy provides my "solid official data".
> 
> As for understanding "wanton cycling", the sentencing notes are a good place to start: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content...-remarks-hhj-wendy-joseph-qc-r-v-alliston.pdf



The equation is just a loosely related model. If you don't understand the difference, further discussion is futile. Just to be clear, your theory sounds plausible, but without supporting data it's just that.

OK guys - keep spamming the police with reports of people sitting in their stationary cars on the phone. Super easy way for the police to pad their conviction stats in an attempt to demonstrate their usefulness. Do post these things on YouTube, people being harrassed by cyclists for marginal infractions is hilarious stuff (to be fair, only CyclingMikey has these kinds of videos that I have seen). I'm sure it goes a long way towards spreading the love of cycling and cyclists.

Definitely advocate for more restrictions on phone use in cars only. The relevant rules of thumb are "if it is possibly related to at least one death caused by a car a decade, then it deserves a ban (the equivalent logic does not apply to cycling because) ", and "doesn't matter if this could also apply to cyclists, cyclists have much lower kinetic energy". This will certainly seem super-reasonable to everybody.

I just hope all this is done after all the close passes and other cases of actual dangerous driving are meticulously reported and eliminated from the streets, while drivers would not even think of parking in cycle lanes as that would pretty much guarantee a "community report" and a ticket. One can dream.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (16 Feb 2022)

Now he’s denying the laws of physics 😂


----------



## Ming the Merciless (16 Feb 2022)

It’s right, that drivers breaking the law and putting vulnerable road users at significant risk of harm, should expect to be filmed at any point, and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.


----------



## simongt (16 Feb 2022)

Ming the Merciless said:


> Now he’s denying the laws of physics 😂


As do boot huggers at 60mph because they always have perfectly timed reactions and instant brakes - !


----------



## lazybloke (16 Feb 2022)

Ming the Merciless said:


> Now he’s denying the laws of physics 😂


One can only hope that the kinetic energy equation will one day be solved!


----------



## Ming the Merciless (16 Feb 2022)

simongt said:


> As do boot huggers at 60mph because they always have perfectly timed reactions and instant brakes - !



It’s alright they are using the Virtual Reality app on their phone to drive that close, because they stupidly think it’s ok.


----------



## Arjimlad (28 Feb 2022)

Passed a driver waiting at lights, mobile phone in his right hand this morning. I filtered to a point a couple of cars ahead of him.

After the lights changed, he passed me - phone still in his right hand and not in proper control of his car. I think the footage is good enough to report although at the moment it is likely to be dealt with by a warning letter like this one


----------



## Ming the Merciless (28 Feb 2022)

Arjimlad said:


> Passed a driver waiting at lights, mobile phone in his right hand this morning. I filtered to a point a couple of cars ahead of him.
> 
> After the lights changed, he passed me - phone still in his right hand and not in proper control of his car. I think the footage is good enough to report although at the moment it is likely to be dealt with by a warning letter like this one



Still worth reporting. One more driver who knows they are on a warning.


----------



## Arjimlad (28 Feb 2022)

Ming the Merciless said:


> Still worth reporting. One more driver who knows they are on a warning.


I wholeheartedly agree. May spur him to change, may not but it's worth a try. Roll on 25th March.


----------



## Alex321 (28 Feb 2022)

Arjimlad said:


> Passed a driver waiting at lights, mobile phone in his right hand this morning. I filtered to a point a couple of cars ahead of him.
> 
> After the lights changed, he passed me - phone still in his right hand and not in proper control of his car. I think the footage is good enough to report although at the moment it is likely to be dealt with by a warning letter like this one


Very likely.

Though I do wonder at that letter. Why do they believe the law is "being updated to ban hands-free calls" - it isn't. The law is being updated, to ban all forms of handheld device usage, not just communications functions as at present. But hands free will still be permitted.

And I am also dubious about their claim that "you are just as likely to crash using hands-free phones as hand-held". Yes, the distraction level is the same, but with hand-held, you also have the fact that you only have one hand available to operate the vehicle, which can make a vital difference in split-second situations.


----------



## Arjimlad (28 Feb 2022)

Alex321 said:


> Very likely.
> 
> Though I do wonder at that letter. Why do they believe the law is "being updated to ban hands-free calls" - it isn't. The law is being updated, to ban all forms of handheld device usage, not just communications functions as at present. But hands free will still be permitted.
> 
> And I am also dubious about their claim that "you are just as likely to crash using hands-free phones as hand-held". Yes, the distraction level is the same, but with hand-held, you also have the fact that you only have one hand available to operate the vehicle, which can make a vital difference in split-second situations.


Correct, the letter was supplied a little while ago now and I am sure it will have been updated.


----------



## stowie (29 Jun 2022)

Etern4l said:


> The equation is just a loosely related model. If you don't understand the difference, further discussion is futile. Just to be clear, your theory sounds plausible, but without supporting data it's just that.



Take it up with Gottfried Leibniz whose experimental data showed the relationship between Kinetic energy, mass and velocity. The formula has been proven since the 17thC, unless the object in question is traveling close to the speed of light when classical physics models aren't adequate. I doubt many drivers get to speeds where classical physics is no longer a good model.



Etern4l said:


> OK guys - keep spamming the police with reports of people sitting in their stationary cars on the phone. Super easy way for the police to pad their conviction stats in an attempt to demonstrate their usefulness. Do post these things on YouTube, people being harrassed by cyclists for marginal infractions is hilarious stuff (to be fair, only CyclingMikey has these kinds of videos that I have seen). I'm sure it goes a long way towards spreading the love of cycling and cyclists.





Etern4l said:


> Definitely advocate for more restrictions on phone use in cars only. The relevant rules of thumb are "if it is possibly related to at least one death caused by a car a decade, then it deserves a ban (the equivalent logic does not apply to cycling because) ", and "doesn't matter if this could also apply to cyclists, cyclists have much lower kinetic energy". This will certainly seem super-reasonable to everybody.
> 
> I just hope all this is done after all the close passes and other cases of actual dangerous driving are meticulously reported and eliminated from the streets, while drivers would not even think of parking in cycle lanes as that would pretty much guarantee a "community report" and a ticket. One can dream.



These are kind of related. Firstly, someone using a mobile phone when the car is stationary in traffic is losing awareness of their surroundings plus it is highly unlikely they are going to stop using the phone when they start moving again, as whatever they are doing on the phone is unlikely to be timed with traffic. I think we have all seen the scenario where the lights go green and a driver is completely stationary and utterly unaware of their surroundings having been buried in their phone. They get beeped and suddenly surge forward as they are transfer attention from phone to road. There is no way they will have the awareness of their surroundings required for operating a car especially in a heavily populated urban area. In fact, I have witnessed a pedestrian get hit by a driver doing exactly this, and they were right in front of the car! Luckily not hurt, but it shows how distracting mobile phone use actually is.

If someone is either unwilling or too stupid to stop mobile phone use whilst in charge of a vehicle, then it is highly likely they are also pretty willing to commit a wide range of other violations you mention above - which often carry a smaller penalty if caught. That is, mobile phone use whilst driving would seem to me to be a strong indicator that the driver will have very poor standards in other aspects of driving.

Bike Cammers like cycling Mikey are making an offence that is unlikely to be detected into one where hopefully drivers will realise they may get caught and this will modify behaviour.


----------



## cougie uk (29 Jun 2022)

Muppets on phones also contribute to congestion. You can tell who is on their phone as they're often blocking traffic as the cars in front have set off without them noticing.


----------



## newfhouse (29 Jun 2022)

cougie uk said:


> Muppets on phones also contribute to congestion. You can tell who is on their phone as they're often blocking traffic as the cars in front have set off without them noticing.



Known colloquially as the WhatsApp Gap.


----------



## kingrollo (29 Jun 2022)

upsidedown said:


> Looks good, wish they did something like that in the Midlands.



They do.

Just upload video footage or photos to the nextbase portal - choosing west Midlands (or other force) and they will investigate.


----------



## simongt (3 Jul 2022)

Yesterday, passed a car at traffic lights in which the lady driver was looking down to her lap. No, she wasn't texting, she was filing her nails - !


----------



## Chislenko (4 Jul 2022)

Haven't read all this thread and I apologise if it has been previously mentioned but I feel that cyclists on mobiles should be similarly prosecuted.

I don't think we can call out one group of wrong-doers whilst there are plenty of cyclists guilty of the same offence.


----------



## Arjimlad (4 Jul 2022)

Chislenko said:


> Haven't read all this thread and I apologise if it has been previously mentioned but I feel that cyclists on mobiles should be similarly prosecuted.
> 
> I don't think we can call out one group of wrong-doers whilst there are plenty of cyclists guilty of the same offence.



I don't usually use my mobile on the bike personally, but : - 

1. It is not yet illegal to use a phone whilst cycling so there's no offence to report; and
2. Most importantly, it does not pose the same danger to others (the chief danger is to oneself!) so is not as serious; 
3. Just because some cyclists aren't breaking the law by looking at their phones whilst cycling, is not a reason I would accept to fail to report a driver for posing a danger of serious harm to myself and others by mobile phone distraction; and
4. I don't accept the "grouping" of drivers or cyclists, I'm not responsible for bad cyclists in the same way I'm not responsible, as a careful driver, for bad drivers. 

This recent report underlined the serious risks distracted driving poses to other road users. 

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/hgv-driver-almost-leg-amputated-7273313


----------



## Alex321 (4 Jul 2022)

Arjimlad said:


> I don't usually use my mobile on the bike personally, but : -
> 
> 1. It is not yet illegal to use a phone whilst cycling so there's no offence to report; and
> 2. Most importantly, it does not pose the same danger to others (the chief danger is to oneself!) so is not as serious;
> ...



While there may not be a specific offence of using a phone while cycling, you can perfectly well be done for Careless or inconsiderate cycling (section 28 Road Traffic Act).

TBH, while there isn't as much danger to other road users, I feel the use of a hand held mobile is going to affect your cycling even more than it does driving.


----------



## Arjimlad (4 Jul 2022)

Alex321 said:


> While there may not be a specific offence of using a phone while cycling, you can perfectly well be done for Careless or inconsiderate cycling (section 28 Road Traffic Act).
> 
> TBH, while there isn't as much danger to other road users, I feel the use of a hand held mobile is going to affect your cycling even more than it does driving.



Yes, I've always pulled over, save on family rides on off-road trails when I've used the phone camera here & there. Thanks for clarifying the potential offence.


----------

