Taxi association warns drivers of "sneaky" cyclists with cameras catching law-breaking behaviour

wycombewheeler wrote:

Kids fighting in the back is likely more distracting than a hands free phone call, but obviously they will never legislate that multiple children cannot travel in a car with a single adult.

But they have legislated that they must be strapped in so can't really fight much.

essexian wrote:

While I can see what you are saying, you could say the same amount talking in the car, kids in the back being an pain and singing along to the radio. 

Its a difficult balance. Perhaps if you have an RTC while using the phone: hands free or not, then this should count against you?

 

There is extensive, peer reviewed research saying that a driver talking with vehicle occupants is not the same as when talking on the phone. Essentially, when talking with vehicle occupants, the driver will prioritise driving over the conversation when mental processing is required to deal with a situation on the road. Precisely the opposite is true when speaking on the phone while driving. There are papers on the TRL website you can see abstracts for if you want to check.

There's been a lot of research about the specific dangers of mobile phone use while driving, especially texting; interestingly, it's legal to use CB and two way radios while driving, because the simplex nature of two-way radio means the brain is freed from listening to the other person's speech (whilst driving, talking and thinking). Whether the freed attention from listening makes any significant difference can be debated. Research on divided attention suggests simplex communication is less cognitively demanding than full duplex conversation. 

Although the use of two-way radios while driving is not covered by the hand-held mobile phone regulations, there are more general rules you need to be aware of.

A driver could face prosecution while using a CB radio if its use caused a distraction or affected the standard of driving.

The offence of failing to have proper control of the vehicle is long-standing and may be used to deal with incidents where the driver has been distracted by any equipment, including CB radios.

It amazes me that there are so many people who seem incapable of living without permanently nattering on a phone. You see it in cars, people walking in the street. They talk for hours, and when you catch snippets it is usually banal nonsense.

I doubt I spend more than 5 minutes a month on the phone when out of the house, and not a lot more when at home.

My employer removed CB radios from their employee vehicles which had been fitted and used for decades, because the ubiquitous nature of mobile phone use allowed managers to contact employees by phone; I keep my phone switched off while driving, which annoys the crap out of my manager..

Mungecrundle wrote:

I commend this excellent initiative from the LTDA.

Reminding their members about regulations they may think are trivial, the possible consequences to their livelihoods and the ability of the Police to prosecute based on video footage submitted by members of the public. All wrapped up in a "Don't be a victim" messaging style rather than antagonising their members with a Nanny State dictat about how they must follow rules.

Hear, hear. It's sad to say, but it's possibly the only way they could successfully get a 'put your phones down' message without their audience refusing to read past the first couple of sentences.

Mungecrundle wrote:

I commend this excellent initiative from the LTDA. Reminding their members about regulations they may think are trivial, the possible consequences to their livelihoods and the ability of the Police to prosecute based on video footage submitted by members of the public. All wrapped up in a "Don't be a victim" messaging style rather than antagonising their members with a Nanny State dictat about how they must follow rules.

Personally, I'd rather that the message was put out by the traffic police. When taxi drivers hear about various of their colleagues losing their jobs and livelihoods because they can't keep to the rules, then they'll soon comply. Not that the LTDA issuing warnings is a bad thing, but ultimately, it's for the police to enforce the rules if traffic fatalities are to be reduced.

It's the wording of the delivery, 'sneaky cyclists',  why would someone pipe up and say 'smile, I'm recording you' risking injury from the  irate phone user, that could result in a close pass or an altercation. The reports are not taxi specific, it is anyone using a phone whilst behind the wheel of a vehicle. Dry your eyes princesses, if you don't like having your collar felt, don't do it.

 it is anyone using a phone whilst behind the wheel of a vehicle

Not In Lancashire it isn't!- no response or action from Lancashire Constabulary to these blatant cases of handheld phone use while driving

https://upride.cc/incident/yh66utp_audia1_handheldmobile/

https://upride.cc/incident/kd10wer_porsche_mobilephone/

By the LTDA emphasising the role of some cyclists with this police action, it does seem to engender a generalised hatred of cyclists by some non cycling drivers..

Bonk!
Punchline - a witch laughing her head off? 

That was the line that got me - seriously, fuck off. There's not a cabbie out there who doesn't know it's illegal...

How's a cabbie supposed to know when someone wants them without a phone? How on earth would they know where to go - do you expect them to memorise all the streets in a city?

Besides they're highly trained professionals who know the rules of the road like the back of their phone so they have the skill to use a phone while driving.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Besides they're highly trained professionals who know the rules of the road like the back of their phone so they have the skill to use a phone while driving.

This comes across as because they are a professional driver they are above the law. If I was a solicitor, I wouldn't get far with that defence in court! 

I other words, they use their phone so frequently, how are they supposed to know which offence the police are talking about?

Unknowingly would be, I don't know, parked at the side of the road, believing the engine was switched off when the auto-start cut in, but even then, a professional driver would know that a mistake had been made and correct it, rather than carry on.

This is a variation of "It's not fair, how was I supposed to know there was a speed camera there, those warning signs are there whether there is one or not. I'd have to spend all my time checking my speedo if I knew there were speed cameras around and that can cause accidents!!!!"

IanMSpencer wrote:

Unknowingly would be, I don't know, parked at the side of the road, believing the engine was switched off when the auto-start cut in...

Actually, no, an engine that has stopped turning (eg due to auto stop/start, or an electric or hybrid car at standstill) does not excuse phone use. The ignition (or whatever they call it for non-ICE motors) must be off.

Actually, that's what I've written - believing the engine was switched off only to discover it was auto-stopped is about the only plausible scenario I can come up with to be genuinely unwittingly breaking the law through an oversight. It's easy enough to do, especially if you are dealing with a customer.

Sriracha wrote:

The ignition (or whatever they call it for non-ICE motors) must be off.

Big friendly button?