Reporting mobile use while driving

[Lemond]

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]

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]

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]

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]

the dangers are exactly the same

Only if you reckon two thousand is the same as 0.5.

 

[Markymark]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Then you're either mad or both.

Both what? Was there another insult you missed from your post?

 

[w00hoo_kent]

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.