“In four years Mike van Erp has filmed 1,400 drivers using their phones, leading to 1,800 penalty points, £110,000 of fines — and him being assaulted by disgruntled motorists. Is he a road safety hero or just a darned nuisance? Nick Rufford joins him on patrol”
I’ve watched a few of his videos. I should be surprised that he catches so many drivers in their phones, but in and around London? Not surprised at all.
I wouldn’t be bothered if he was reporting drivers putting people’s life in danger, but people stuck in a traffic jam checking their phone? Many people rely on driving for their work of for their independence, I don’t think that the state should take that away from people just because they held their phone for a second in a traffic jam. If you’ve got your handbrake on then I really don’t see what the issue is.
I have very little sympathy for people who were using their phones while actively driving, especially if they’re looking at their screens to use them, but honestly the law as it stands is too strict imo.
Like, if you’re driving and you get a call on your phone, and your friend hands it to you so you can put it on your magnetic hands free mount, you could get 6 penalty points just for that brief moment of handling the phone.
Either way, the guy sure as hell isn’t a hero, he’s a tool of the oppression of the state
If being able to drive is so critical to personal freedom or for work, there’s all the more reason to ensure performance and compliance with the law.
Compliance with the law is assured by connecting up the phone to an appropriate system or leaving it well alone. Rather than taking the phone from the friend in your scenario, ask them to deal with it.
Do you intervene when the safety law is broken, or do you wait until after an incident has occurred?
Road safety laws are there for a reason. Many are written in blood.
What additional danger is posed by someone distracted by their phone stopped in traffic if they’re holding it in their hand, as opposed to it being on a hands-free mount?
The main difference is the tendency to take your eyes off the road to look at your phone and the tendency to want to interact with the screen and any buttons; more likely in the hand held scenario.
Some studies have shown that driving while taking a call was distracting whether or not a handheld or hands-free phone was used, but as I understand things it was felt that enforcing an outright ban on using a mobile phone would be more difficult than banning the use of a handheld phone.
Source: the lovely people at RoSPA - a pdf link to one of their factsheets is here
I first came across them when trying to understand the evidence base for booster seats and the age / weight cut-offs that were being used; enormously helpful people.
Thanks for your comment. I think everyone is really taking my comments out of context.
My point is that the law is objectively bullshit. If the reason for banning phone use was to reduce accidents caused by phones, then why would there be an explicit ban on using phones even while completely stopped, which has a very minor risk to safety, but at the same time, there’s an explicit allowance for the use of handsfree phones, which has a much, much higher risk to safety? It doesn’t make sense at all if you look at it from that perspective.
I think that the laws of our society should be just and sensible. If they’re arbitrary, then they’re bad laws and should be revised.
You’re not completely stopped in traffic though are you, that traffic could start moving again at any moment and you not being fully cognizant of your surroundings when that happens can cause dangers for other road users.
The legal system is adversarial. Each side is incentivised to submit the best possible case on behalf of the client. Ideas and definitions get tested to the limit - and eventually a line has to be drawn; this may or may not set a precedent and any precedent may or may not require specific context or circumstance. Public interest plays a role. It may seem arbitrary at times but that’s how it works. Society does not want dangerous intoxicated or distracted drivers on the road.
The problem with this idea is that lawyers are expensive and poor people can’t really afford good representation. So if we have a legal system where it’s possible for people to get mired in expensive, lengthy legal disputes, where even if you’re innocent then your life can be destroyed by the struggle of it, then that’s essentially establishing a system where law is used to serve wealthy people at the expense of the poor. And that is exactly what we do have.
We need to start by admitting that there is something wrong with the system and come up with an alternative that works for all of us, so that means discussing ideas and building consensus.
Anyone who thinks they have a solution to our problems single-handedly without working with others to come up with it is guaranteed to miss lots of things
If people rely on driving for their work or independence, they should not be using their phones while driving. It’s not hard. A friend of mine is a train driver and you can imagine that being caught using your phone in that job is instant dismissal. His solution is to turn the phone off and put it in his bag, therefore there can be no temptation to use the phone and absolute proof in the case of an incident that phone usage wasn’t part of it. If a motorist can’t resist the temptation to use their phone, they should be doing the same.
The overwhelming majority of people ‘caught’ by Mikey seem to be using social media, not taking urgent work calls.
It is still dangerous to use the phone in traffic jams, because what phone users do while texting or doing Instagram is to be looking down while using their peripheral vision to see if traffic is moving, or even less. So they see a movement and move off, not having seen the pedestrian crossing through the gaps. I’ve witnessed a crash caused by such a distracted driver - albeit it was in Houston - the phone user next to us heard a car horn from behind and without looking just went and hit the car in front. Had there been someone crossing the road in front they would have been crushed.
Being in a traffic jam is still actively driving. Mikey might not be a hero, but calling him a “tool of the oppression of the state” is severely overegging the pudding, when to avoid such “oppression” all you have to do is not use your phone and pay attention to driving.
I’m not discussing whether it’s hard to avoid texting while driving or anything like that. Obviously, it’s not hard. Phones are a distraction to drivers, and distractions are dangerous while driving.
With all of that said, however, I believe that The laws of society should be just. It wasn’t so long ago that people were hanged for stealing a loaf of bread. While that’s clearly a more extreme punishment, my point simply is that I’m interested only in whether the punishment, loss of one’s livelihood, fits the crime - using a phone while completely stopped. I haven’t yet been convinced of that.
Under the law, if you pull into a lay-by, stop the car, turn off the engine, remove the key, and leave the car to take a phone call, you can still be charged and found guilty of using a phone “while driving”. If you don’t think that is an absurd overreach, then honestly, I have nothing more to discuss with you - we would have such radically different values that we could never reach consensus. Edit: The source for this claim is from CPS legal guidance which states: “…a person might still be driving even when they turned off the engine and got out of the car”, but admits that it would be “unlikely” to be prosecuted, but this is just one example demonstrating how selective enforcement means that we are all capable of having our lives completely destroyed by the state, all under colour of law, should they choose it.
There are countless things which could distract drivers in stopped traffic and we do not regulate most of them. We don’t ban listening to any kind of media, we don’t ban conversation within the vehicle, we don’t ban the use of two-way communication radios. But if you’re stopped in traffic, listening to Spotify and a song comes on that you’re not a fan of and you dare to press “skip”? That’s you half-way to losing your job if it’s your unlucky day.
The only question I have is: Is that justice? That’s the only point I want to discuss.
Under the law, if you pull into a lay-by, stop the car, turn off the engine, remove the key, and leave the car to take a phone call, you can still be charged and found guilty of using a phone “while driving”.
You got a source for this bit of rhetoric?
Edit
TL;DR of the responses is that they do not indeed have a source that verifies this. Colour me shocked.
Maybe you should have included the entire quotation:
However, although the House of Lords in Pinner v Everett held that a person might still be driving even when they turned off the engine and got out of the car it is unlikely, other than in exceptional circumstances, to be appropriate to use section 41D to prosecute any person who in these circumstances made a phone call or accessed the internet
I’ve bolded the parts you accidentally skipped when quoting, maybe next time quote a source that isn’t disagreeing with you?
Unlikely doesn’t mean it can’t happen. It also says “exceptional circumstances”. That’s two caveats that explicitly confirm that they can do EXACTLY what I wrote, if it suits them.
If you had actually read it, you’d understand that the extenuating circumstances (aka suspicion of drink driving) are what makes those decisions exceptional.
If you had actually any understanding of case law, you’d know to read the full decisions.
But since you’re clearly just perpetuating nonsense, I myself will discontinue arguing with it.
I have read it. I have also read several cases which cite it. Citations of legal precedent aren’t specific, they don’t have to have the original circumstances in common with the original case to use it as a precedent. Any ruling made in such a case can be used as precedent, for example, in British Pregnancy Advocacy Service v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care 2019, Pinner v Everett was cited in reference to how the phrase “first day of the pregnancy” should be interpreted, because Pinner v Everett contains precedent about how natural language should be interpreted.
It is completely understandable that you don’t know how legal precedent works, but I’d politely suggest that you should avoid getting into arguments about it on the internet, at least not without properly learning more about it first.
“However, although the House of Lords in Pinner v Everett held that a person might still be driving even when they turned off the engine and got out of the car it is unlikely, other than in exceptional circumstances, to be appropriate to use section 41D to prosecute any person who in these circumstances made a phone call or accessed the internet. See Public Interest.”
The scenario involved someone who was suspected of being drunk driving but only after they had got out the car to have a look at their licence plate in the presence of the police.
It’s legal precedent. The decisions made in that way become law, and that ruling has been used several times since, and it could be used again, to convict someone in the exact manner I described.
It’s just an example, anyways. The point of it was to make you think about how arbitrary enforcement of the law could be used to oppress an individual who had done nothing wrong.
I am far more interested in having you address my actual argument itself, as a whole. I’m very open to changing my perspective if you can explain why using a handheld phone while stuck in a traffic jam is more dangerous than using a phone handsfree while driving.
No, that’s not correct. It’s entirely about determining when you are, or not, driving. That’s why the course went to the House of Lords for a determination. This precedent establishes that “driving” can include when you’ve stopped and gotten out of the car, assuming that you intend to continue your journey.
See my previous comment: are you going to actually answer my question? Whether or not you think my statements are unreliable doesn’t matter.
You can answer that simple question without having to rely on anything I have stated.
It’s entirely about determining when you are, or not, driving. That’s why the course went to the House of Lords for a determination. This precedent establishes that “driving” can include when you’ve stopped and gotten out of the car, assuming that you intend to continue your journey
That’s not what the House decided at all. If you’re going to misquote and misconstrue law and disregard the actual decision points there isn’t really much merit for anyone else to discuss it with you. Like I said before, maybe you should actually read the case law and decisions lest people think you’re deliberately perpetuating falsehoods and not simply missundertanding.
See my previous comment: are you going to actually answer my question? Whether or not you think my statements are unreliable doesn’t matter.
You didn’t ask me a question? I’ve read through all your replies to me and none contain a question, are you confusing me with another commenter maybe?
You never asked me that question, and it’s nothing to do with what I was talking about (the law behind what constitutes being in control of a vehicle), soooo… I guess you really are just being disingenuous! Like I said, when you twist reality like this there is no merit to others engaging with you, so I’m outta here!
And now you’re running off, because you know fine well what the answer is and what that entails.
Instead of admitting that you’re wrong and reconsidering your perspective, you’re just hiding in deeper and deeper levels of denial to protect your ego.
Cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable, but the only lasting resolution is to reject your beliefs that do not stand up to scrutiny.
It’s easier in the short term to take the path which preserves your ego, but you’ll always be wrong, and it gets harder and harder to deny reality.
Every time you reject the truth it gets harder and harder for you to admit that you were wrong all along.
Sorry, at this point I have no way of knowing who has written what, because the “Context” link is broken so I can’t tell what any comment is in response to.
Has Mikey gotten anybody in trouble who’s pulled into a lay-by, stopped the car, turned off the engine, removed the key, and left the car to take a phone call? If not, I don’t see what your beef is with him.
Remember that bit in my comment about “all I want to discuss is whether or not that is justice”?
I don’t have a “beef” with Mikey, he’s somewhat neutral as far as I’m concerned. Why do you care about that in comparison to the real question I asked? Surely if there’s injustice in our legal system that’s more important than whether or not some random internet weirdo likes some other internet weirdo?
Under the law, if you pull into a lay-by, stop the car, turn off the engine, remove the key, and leave the car to take a phone call, you can still be charged and found guilty of using a phone “while driving”.
Don’t be absurd. There is exactly one case where this was discussed and it was a suspected drink driver who had been observed to be driving and in motion (look up the case here: vlex.co.uk/vid/pinner-v-everett-793596681). There are exactly 0 prosecutions for driving offences for people who weren’t actually in their car and driving when the alleged offence took place.
Also two way radios are banned if they are hand held. The rules are the same for two way radios - they must be hands-free.
“Most drivers are aware that it’s an offence to use a hand-held mobile phone while driving. This also applies to any “interactive communications device”, but an exemption applies for two way radios”
Also, there’s more than one case where Pinner v Everett has been used as precedent, you can see on the very page that you linked that the precedent has been cited in 131 cases, and the original link I shared has CPS reference it and state that it can use it as precedent for mobile phone use, and I think that the Crown Prosecution Service might know a bit more than we do about prosecution than we do. But sure, by all means, keep arguing with me about it in the comments.
Well I stand corrected on 2 way radios (one of those differences between Manx and English law - I know first hand that 2 way radios have to be hands-free here).
Have any of those Pinner v Everett cases been for mobile phone use, or similar? Or has it all been to do with drink driving - certainly the list of citations that site gives for free were all about failure to provide a sample. Drink driving is a completely different kettle of fish because you can prove an offence on someone not in a car if you’ve observed them driving five minutes ago, because you remain over the limit for a considerable period of time. Given how many driving offences are prosecuted, 131 cases since 1969 (over 50 years ago) is a vanishingly tiny proportion of cases.
Lots of things “can” happen but a prosecution of someone for using a mobile phone in a layby with the keys out the ignition is has about as likely as my underwear teleporting one foot to the left unexpectedly.
Why are you expecting me to look through hundreds of citations to find a case about mobile phone use when the CPS outright states that it could be used for that purpose? If you want to argue it then get in touch with them.
Also, 131 citations is quite a lot. There are around 11,000 rulings from the House of Lords, and maybe only 2000 or so of the rulings have more than 130 citations.
Anyways, all of that aside - is using a handheld phone while stuck in traffic more dangerous than using a handsfree phone while travelling at 60 miles an hour?
Anyways, all of that aside - is using a handheld phone while stuck in traffic more dangerous than using a handsfree phone while travelling at 60 miles an hour?
That I don’t know. However, using a hand held phone in a traffic jam is certainly hazardous, as my Houston ramming incident demonstrated. (CyclingMikey has also several videoed incidents of people driving very badly in traffic jams while using hand held phones, putting vulnerable road users such as pedestrians at risk).
Personally I think all mobile phone use behind the wheel should be banned including hands-free, but legislation is often the art of the possible and lines have to be drawn somewhere (e.g. why is the speed limit in urban areas 30 mph, not 31 or 35 or 25? At some point someone has to draw that line. Enforcability would also be a factor, and when considering a change in the law, and it would be very hard to enforce a ban on hands free phone use).
Hands-free phone calls have been shown to cause additional risk, much more so than just talking to a passenger (there are a number of reasons why this is so, some of it is the brutal compression from the codec reducing intelligibility added to the limited audio bandwidth also reducing intelligibility, which means more mental effort must be spent on a phone call than just talking to a passenger). Using a hands free phone at 60 mph might be less likely to be a factor in a crash than going on Instagram heads down on a hand held phone in a traffic jam, but risk = probability x consequences and the consequences of having a distraction incident at 60 mph will be more severe even if the probability is lower.
I think we don’t take driving as seriously as we should, we put vulnerable 3rd party road users in a lot of danger by not devoting our full attention to driving. Everyone Mikey catches quite honestly deserves what they got - if they can’t take driving seriously they need to have their driving licences taken away. If you can’t resist the temptation to use your phone turn the damn thing off and put it in your bag in the back seat.
There’s not much here that I really disagree with - don’t mistake my position on this issue, I’m not trying to argue that it’s okay to use phones while driving.
The main thing really bothering me is that you very quickly brushed past the fact that if the law was truly designed to maximize safety, they would outlaw the use of handsfree phones.
Doesn’t that bother you? The knowledge that the law, ostensibly for public safety, has been compromised without a really compelling reason?
And the “enforcability” argument is really weak, IMO - there are countless laws on the books which are difficult to enforce, some much moreso than the use of handsfree devices while driving, and it hasn’t stopped those from being implemented and prosecuted.
The real reason, and it’s the same reason as to why 2-way radios are allowed, is because it would negatively impact businesses, and business is far more important to the UK government than the lives of it’s citizens.
No, two way radios are by and large used by the police, ambulance and fire (and certainly when it comes to the police, they like to exempt themselves from legislation they find inconvenient - e.g. for the longest time, motorcycle visor tints were illegal unless you were the police in which case they were just fine!)
Also, alas, politics/legislation is the art of the possible, and perfect is the enemy of the good. Doing nothing because it would be politically impossible to ban all phone use while driving is a worse state of affairs than at least banning handheld phone usage. Of course it bothers me as I’m frequently a vulnerable road user (I own several motorcycles, and do all my local journeys on a pushbike or walk, and I’ve been hit by drivers whose standard of observation has been piss poor) but at the same time I have to recognise that at least a ban on handheld phone use will reduce my chance of getting hit, even if (at the moment) all phone usage isn’t banned, and so while it is not perfect it is better than nothing. And more power to Mikey for dobbing people in.
If the intent was to exempt emergency services then they would have exempted emergency services.
Two way radios are primarily used by taxi firms.
And your last point is weak, there are infinite possibilities we have between the status quo and nothing at all. Clearly I’m not arguing that there should be a free for all on phone use while driving.
Very few taxi firms, the practise has largely died out. I can’t tell you the last time I got into a taxi with a handheld radio in it. One taxi firm here still has a large dipole on the roof of their building, but AFAIK they no longer use it.
Is he a road safety hero or just a darned nuisance?
It’s a funny old world where someone reporting people for committing crimes is a “nuisance”. I presume it’s because it’s the sacred art of driving, rather than littering or not picking up dog poo.
Honestly, someone who did the same for littering would probably get a similar reaction. To a lot of people this is turning a minor infraction into a bigger deal.
Think of those nosy neighbors that watch out the window and call the cops on any minor violation. Yeah its illegal but some people take reporting to an obnoxious level.
I don't understand why someone who likes to pick out people driving with their phone, fails to wear s helmet give that he has a high probability of being run over by the same people he is pissing off. Odd!
Ooh, this is a classic internet flame war, I haven’t seen this one in awhile. I’m basically obligated by internet history to ask you for proof that it improves your odds of surviving, but instead I’m going to ask you how much RAM Emacs uses on your machine. That should help resolve this argument!
There are situations where it turns out to have been detrimental to have been wearing a seatbelt in a car too. Doesn't mean it's not a good idea in general.
A helmet might not help much if he goes under the wheels of anything that can be measured in tonnes, but it'll help if he gets nudged (or slips) and tries an unexpected game of tarmac headbutt.
Yes; circumstances matter. The Highway Code gets around all of this by stating (note it’s a should not a must):
“You should wear a cycle helmet that conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened. Evidence suggests that a correctly fitted helmet will reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances.”
Agreed. My wife came off her bike while we were riding together and if she hadn’t been wearing a helmet I don’t even want to think about the outcome. As it was she was knocked out cold, and lost her memory for several hours. There was a huge dent in her cycle helmet that would have been in her head instead if she hadn’t been wearing it. I will always wear a helmet when cycling.
Wearing a helmet might also might make some drivers drive closer to you and with less care. So it might help make some accidents less severe, but it also might make the chance of a serious accident more likely. It’s not as straightforward as many seem to think.
No it’s more like, they look vulnerable as they aren’t wearing a helmet I’ll give them some extra room. I was amazed by the extra space I got when cycling with a child seat on the back of my bike.
The folks being caught on their phones only have themselves to blame; the law is clear.
As for the prospect of taking revenge on the cyclist, the very thought is heinous - and helmet or not the liability for any injury would rest wholly with the driver.
helmet or not the liability for any injury would rest wholly with the driver.
I doubt that he’d find the fact that the liability rests with the driver comforting if he had a brain injury, or even died, because he didn’t wear a helmet.
There’s a saying in motorcycling - ‘The graveyard is full of people who had the right of way’. It’s a similar idea, in that it doesn’t matter who was right, or who gets the blame, if you’re dead.
I’m trying to draw a distinction here between a typical collision and a driver taking revenge on a cyclist. The argument of contributory negligence is unlikely to survive intact if it can be shown that the driver deliberately drove into the cyclist with intent to harm. Contributory negligence is however very real in more normal circumstances if it can be shown that an appropriately specified and correctly worn helmet would have made a difference.
As for the graveyards saying, that’s very true. And very sad. I don’t think it was intended to be about someone actually trying to kill you, more about learning to be calm, to let things go and walk / cycle / drive defensively. Words to live by. I know too many who’ve died doing it the other way.
I’m not talking about contributory negligence, I’m agreeing with the original comment. If the cyclist is putting himself in a position where some moron in a car might want to take revenge, he’s daft not to wear a helmet.
There could be all the evidence in the world showing that it was the driver’s fault, but the cyclist would be just as dead.
Whether you think the cyclist is right or wrong, all it takes is a moment of madness from the wrong driver, and he’s knocked off his bike. It could be as simple as getting clipped by a mirror, and if he hits his head, he could be killed or seriously injured just from not wearing a helmet. I can’t understand why someone would put themselves in that position.
I don’t think we’re disagreeing all that much; I think we (or at least I) an reading more into the comment than what is actually there.
Right.
I would wear a helmet; I would also avoid having a camera mounted to said helmet as they’re quite robust and the forces of an impact could drive it (or the mount) though the helmet and into my skull. I suspect by the time someone is around to dig it out I’d be long dead.
The Highway Code does however say that one should (rather than must) wear one. Individual freedoms, choices (and consequences). I’m sure folk have advised CyclingMikey to wear a helmet.
As long as we’re not empowering or enabling maliciousness (or sending the message that the threat of violence should be used to silence) I think we’re good.
Add comment