Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Cyclist Safety
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
I suspect many are capable of texting and driving at the same time. It doesn't make it legal or sensible. Some can ride a unicycle and juggle 5 balls, we all have different capabilties.
Familiarity with the keypad - if they can touch type a text and drive with one hand is it much different to smoking or tuning a radio?
Does it increase the chance of a crash - yes. Does it increase the chance of a crash to a material effect - not neccesarily.
What about texting whilst sat in a traffic jam? What if the traffic hasn't moved for 30-minutes? Both still an offence.
Driving without due care and attention has always been an offence but the police didn't like it as they had to take people to court. Now they can fine you for not causing an issue but merely touching a phone. What about smoking? How do you light it whilst driving? Eating/drinking, how do you open it?
I see lots of awful driving but they aren't all on the phone or texting, they just have low skill levels.
I am all in favour of higher levels of driving skills. However picking very specific actions as the cause seems counter productive.
If they have an RTI and they are doing something that would have contributed to it then yes throw the book at them.
Which bit of it. Some of it is a fact of law.
Texting whislt sat in a traffic jam even if you have been stationary for 30-minutes is still an offence. That bit isn't wrong unless you are not in the UK.
People can ride a unicycle and juggle. That bit isn't wrong.
The fact that drivers have different skill levels?
Trust me, another 300 miles last night and saw one car nearly pull into another on the motorway for no reason other than they weren't aware the other car was there. They didn't appear to be texting or on the phone - just unable or to lazy to spot a car in the blind spot.
The other driver was crap for postiioning his car for as long as he did in that position.
One could have avoided the whole situation with better awareness of cars moving round him. The othe could have saved having the pants scared off him by better positioning of his own car although not technically at fault.
Drivers have different skill levels - fact. I suspect some could text and drive and not cause an incident.
Texting whilst driving is illeagl and therefore should not be done whilst at the wheel. It does not mean that some couldn't do it safely under cetain circumstances.
TimR - please confirm that you have never ever broken the speed limit. If you can't then please provide a list of laws that are OK to break and those that aren't in order that we can live up to your high moral standards.
There is no way you can drive and text without compromising safety significantly. Of course most people could get away with it most or nearly all of the time but the same would go for driving blind drunk or driving past the local infant school at 50mph at kicking out time - it would still be an incredibly stupid thing to do irrespective of it being illegal.
Because unicycling and juggling do not use the same part of the brain. Driving and using the phone is more like reading a book while reciting poety from memory. You just can't do the two at the same time. The fact that people think they can shows how completely unaware how it is affecting them while they do it.
Driving While Listening
If you admit that some people could get away with it most of the time it is a reasonable statement that a few could get away with it all of the time. Not sure blind drunk would be an equivalant.
So I am not that certain that the view point is that much different. I have said it is illegal and therefore shouldn't be done.
However I do feel that nit picking these things into specific laws is unnecessary as they were all caught under driving without due care and attention. I notice they are potentially implementing one for middle lane hogging. Why a specific law?
So as long as you don't use a phone, or hog a lane, or speed then the driving can be as crap as we like and that is fine?
Note that there is no specifc law about using a laptop for skype so is that Ok? What about a desktop plugged into an inverter and chatting on forums - no law. Nothing covering food blenders either.
Is the driving up to standard, that is surely what counts.
I note netiher of you confirmed that you hadn't done any speeding can you please do so. Speeding is abhorrent and has killed people apparently so please confirm you are not a potential murderer - or provide a list of laws that you see as optional and those you see as mandatory.
Cougie, I agree it is a privelege but a life ban for not causing an accident seems harsh. Presumably life ban for speeding, A orange/red light incident? Causing an RTI must be a life ban if not causing is one? Please confrim minor infringments that would receive a life ban?
M..eface
385,000 miles since last RTI (with a deer - no lights, no insurance)
Driving whilst texting?
i've dealt with two women putting on mascara in the vanity mirror on the sun visor with there face about an inch from it,man that had taped his gameboy into the gap on the steering wheel to carry on his game, man driving with two broken arms that were suspended out to the side. A man getting his passenger to change gear for him as he had had a previous stroke and couldn't use left arm.
A window cleaner riding his bike to carry his ladder side ways, a man riding standing up with one child on his saddle, one on the cross bar and one on the handle bars.
Since then people can be given a fixed penalty fine for careless driving so all those things you mention are covered.
As per the link I posted, mobile phones present a specific and unique hazard in that people are unaware that their brain is being distracted. They think they're driving perfectly well.
Using a laptop is obviously a distraction.
Aah I see you forgot to make a statement out speeding - I presume you condone murder then.
Do you want an academic answer about a study with only 29 people in it. People that were volunteers not a random selection. Were all male/female - this could have a massive difference. Were they all of a certain age. Did they even have dricing licences.
An academic study at a University, 29 volunteers, lets guess at students so average age 22, with less than 4 years dricing experience. Sound like a great study set for the average population.
They state that the vehicle speed was fixed and challenging - just like driving - not. Why not let the driver control the speed to suit the terrain. Why would they choose challenging - on my journey home last night 120-140mph would have been challegning. 70mph on the other hand was relaxed and a piece of cake.
So we have 29 students with less than 3 years driving experience being forced to drive at 120mph on a winding route. If they hit an imaginary guardrail or moved from the middle of the lane it was perceived a bad point.
Note IAM encourage you to move from the middle lane based on road condition, site lines, other traffic.
Note also that motorway driving uses 20% of brain power so more than 37% spare.
M..eface
I think you're still missing the point. They scanned the brains. Brains all work the same basic way. It has nothing to do with how much of your brain you use, what experience you have, what age you are.
The human brain just can't do it.
It's like arguing that a better driver aged 40 with no accidents who drives lots if miles is ok with more than 80mg of alcohol in their bloodstream.
Didn't your accident with the deer teach you anything?
I would suggest that motorway driving uses 100% of the part of the brain that is used when motorway driving. Leaving 0% spare.
This is particularly important when the part of your brain used to listen to phone calls switches off the part of your brain that is used during motorway driving.
TimR
You still haven't answered the question about speeding.
M..eface
Tim,
the question is have you ever broken the speed limit, and I don't mean been caught for it, I mean ever knowingly or unknowlighly gone above 30/40/50/50/70 as relevant. If you have then advise all those laws you deem as OK to break and all those you think aren't OK to break.
Then I can aim to live to your moral standards.
M..eface
meface -- Even if we agreed, for the sake of argument, that all your points are correct, where are you going with this? Are you saying we don't need additional laws or is there some other point? Sorry if I've misson something obvious...
Add to that people having a shave (electric), smoking, putting on a tie, lipstick, eating a pot noodle. Lorry driver pouring coffee from a dash mounted percolater. Feeding a baby a bottle in a rear facing child seat in the front. Disco dancing. Lighting a pipe. People like TImR speeding whilst complaining about other peoples actions.
That many of you moan about certain things other drivers do whilst doing things that are illegal yourselves.
Still no takers for the statement 'I have never broken the speed limit' or a list of laws that they feel are OK to break.
Not even FlatFooted is judge, jury and executioner.
There is outrage at texting but not speeding, outrage at drink driving but not bad driving.
What have any of you done to improve your driving skills since passing your test?
You are mixing up "getting away with it" with "acting in a safe and responsible manner". It's a massively increased risk however skilled you are. Whether you get away with it is largely luck, whether something happens whilst your brain is otherwise engaged, less to do with the skill of the driver as you suppose.
I replied several times explaining why they/we can't and why it is more dangerous than speeding.
You keep going back to the fact that speeding is dangerous, we all know that.
Both activities are illegal. Neither is more illegal than the other, both cause accidents.
I'm not being hypocritical or evangelically preaching that people must not use phones. I just answered your question which you don't seem to want me to do.
Getting away with it was your term.
It is an increased risk - agree - massively is just a subjective view point.
it is largely luck - why? surely skill has something to do with driving otherwise why do we make people take lessons.
When I get to the end of a journey I don't think bloody hell I was lucky. Maybe you do. I won't volunteer as your passenger then.
Where does stealing fit into your OK/Not OK scale?
Is drafting OK in a triathlon?
What about a hug from a loved one - outside assistance?
Not sure you have answered the question either you have given one poorly thought out study that only gave an average. If I told you I had read that study in depth and it said out of the 29 drivers 7 had no problems whatsover and 22 were atrocious resulting in a 37% average surely this would prove my case that some can and some can't.
Truth is I haven't but it has fewer assumptions than your view point on the study.
The point is surely what is the impact on the individuals driving quality. Due care and attention took care of that.
Crap driving is crap driving whether caused by low skill level, texting, phoning, poor car maintenance. I would rather see something that focussed on improving the output not breaching a singular regulation.
I have broken the speed limit in the past and am likely to do so at some point again in the future, mainly in national speed limits as I stick to in town speed limits. Both are breaking the law but I perceive one to be worst than the other through my own moral assessment (I am more likely to injure or kill a third party by speeding through a town than by doing 85 on a quiet motorway).
I do not text while driving as I perceive the risks to be unnacceptable as you cannot do so without taking your eyes off the road for seconds at a time when I perceive that you cannot be driving with due care and attention.
Of course personal perceptions of what laws are acceptable to break comes into it based upon your own moral compass, but there are some which should blindingly obvious to most of us. The problem is that they clearly are not blindingly obvious which is why specific laws are brought in for those that need it to be spelt out.
All just IMHO of course.
So you have used you own skill level to determine thge action has the same impact on others. I know a few blackberry users that can touch type. Do they need to take their eyes off the road?
I hope you don't retune your radio whilst driving.
But in general you have admitted that you are a very bad nasty person. That is fine with me.
I could not type a text and drive safely so I don't. If someone can do so without taking their eyes off the road at all then you have a good argument that it is no more dangerous than eating/drinking and driving with 1 hand.
As with most laws though, they are designed with the majority in mind rather than the exception (I am sure Lewis Hamilton is safer than me driving just over the speed limit but speed limits cannot take into account individual skill levels ).
Every car driver I have seen texting while I am cycling has been looking at their phone and causing a danger to those around them, so I am supportive of the law that should stop them from doing so.
Speeding is dangerous and we know why.
Texting and taking phone calls is dangerous BUT most people don't know why. They they think it is because they take their eyes off the road or because they're being distracted due to the nature of the call. As is evident by posts above.
It's not. The distraction is due to parts of your brain subconsciously shutting off. Subconsciously meaning you don't even know it's happening.
This is similar to how car drivers 'do not see' cyclists. Their eyes see them but their brains subconsciously ignore them because they are being 'distracted' by things the brain tells them are more important. Like the truck 50m behind the cyclist.
http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/
I am pretty sure looking at a phone screen rather than the road is dangerous regardless of scientific research!