Reporting mobile use while driving

[glenn forger]

It's like saying prams are as dangerous as HGVs.

 

[Lemond]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Then why do you think one act is illegal and the other isn't?

 

[Lemond]

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]

You have no idea why driving while chatting on a mobile is illegal?

 

[Drago]

The punishment should be the same as for drink driving.

 

[benb]

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]

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]

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]

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.