5 ms·

> You keep implying that drivers distracting themselves with their phone whilst stopped in traffic are harmless, whereas it's very dangerous - that's precisely

> You keep implying that drivers distracting themselves with their phone whilst stopped in traffic are harmless, whereas it's very dangerous - that's precisely why the law was drafted to specifically make even just holding a phone whilst in control of a motor vehicle to be illegal. It's not dangerous at all. Checking a text message at a red light for significantly less duration than the red light is by definition harmless. > There's people like Mikey trying to make the world a bit better, and then there's people like you who make apologies for dangerous and illegal drivers. Maybe you should re-examine your attitude. I have no need. Mikey is in it for the ego and the guise of 'making the world a bit better'. Anyone who can't see that needs to take a step back and reexamine their assumptions.

ndsipa_pomu 8mo ago
You are utterly wrong. Checking a text message at a red light affects drivers' ability to focus and recognise what's going on around then. You might as well say that drinking a shot of whisky at a red light for significantly less duration than the red light is harmless. Mikey is absolutely not an egotist - you're just pushing some nasty little agenda of your own by trying to cast doubt on his reasons. His father was killed by a drunk driver and he now attempts to work with the police to catch drivers in illegal behaviour before someone else is hurt and killed. If you do much road cycling in the UK, it becomes painfully obvious that there's a significant proportion of drivers that do not know how to drive safely or how to pay sufficient attention to what they are doing. I use front and back cameras in an attempt to similarly record bad driving and submit it to the police - it's a small attempt to make the roads safer. I certainly don't put as much time and effort in as Mikey, but I know exactly where he is coming from and it's just ridiculous when people think he does it for the recognition. He is NOT that kind of guy.
- JCattheATM 8mo ago
  > You are utterly wrong. I'm not, so much as you are heavily biased. > Checking a text message at a red light affects drivers' ability to focus and recognise what's going on around then. This is nonsense. Cite some studies to support your point if you like, but I doubt you will find any. Most people can check a message responsibly. The countries that don't make doing so illegal don't tend to have worse accident rates. There's really nothing to support your belief. > Mikey is absolutely not an egotist He absolutely is. It's why he forces himself into situations. Not to mention he benfits financially from doing so. > he now attempts to work with the police He doesn't work 'with' the police, he forwards footage, that's it. > to catch drivers in illegal behaviour before someone else is hurt and killed. He catches some dangerous behavior, he also catches harmless behavior that is common and costs people money. I wish him all the worst. > I use front and back cameras in an attempt to similarly record bad driving and submit it to the police - it's a small attempt to make the roads safer. Are you ever worried about someone jacking the cameras if you have an accident?
  - ndsipa_pomu 8mo ago
    I am indeed biased (I walk/cycle and don't drive), but that is irrelevant. Studies show "up to 27 seconds" to fully re-focus after using a phone: https://www.science.org/content/article/talking-car-or-smartphone-impairs-driving-longer-you-think-2 https://www.science.org/content/article/talking-car-or-smart... Average of 23 seconds: https://www.cmtelematics.com/blog/the-distraction-hangover-proves-phone-distraction-behind-the-wheel-is-more-severe-than-projected/ https://www.cmtelematics.com/blog/the-distraction-hangover-p... Not sure if this is rigorous, but 34% of crashes occur within 60 seconds of phone distraction: https://www.onfocus.news/new-study-34-of-crashes-happen-within-60-seconds-of-phone-distraction/ https://www.onfocus.news/new-study-34-of-crashes-happen-with... The problem with trying to justify phone use when driving is the "normalisation" effect. People may start off being ultra careful with phone use, but unless there's some process to warn them, they end up using their phone more and more. One advantage of Mikey's shopping in of phone users is that it provides at least some negative adjustment of drivers' phone use. I won't address your remarks about Mikey as they are largely matters of opinion, though I seriously doubt that he makes anything more than pocket change from his work and likely that is swallowed up by the costs incurred with buying bike cams. As far as "working" with the police, that's very much the line that the police bring out for encouraging the public to submit video evidence of traffic offences. "Harmless behaviour that is common" - as discussed, the behaviour is not harmless which is precisely why the phone use law was introduced and why the police are interested in prosecuting for it. Luckily, it's only a fraction of drivers that do injure others due to phone use, but the same can be said for speeding etc. The idea is to try to prevent careless/dangerous driving that will predictably lead to a greater chance of a collision (NB not an accident as accidents are unavoidable and unpredictable). > Are you ever worried about someone jacking the cameras if you have an accident? Again, "accident" is better replaced with "collision" as "accident" implies that it's uncontrollable and "just one of those things", whereas the vast majority of collisions are due to driver behaviour such as lack of attention, speeding etc. (I tend to think of "accident" as something like a tree falling onto your vehicle). I've thought about what would happen if a driver did try to grab my cameras, but it would seem to be a very low probability event - I frequent https://road.cc https://road.cc and there's often rider submitted videos of terrible driving and there's very few where the driver has attempted to grab a camera and I can't think of any where they've been successful. I'm fairly tall and muscular, so I don't think I'd be an obvious target and I try to not react emotionally to close passes, though that does take some practise. My wife had one incident where she was shouting at a driver that dangerously obstructed her on a roundabout (i.e. he pulled straight out ahead of her when she was already on it) and he ended up going all the way round the roundabout in order to follow her. She was turning left just afterwards and he deliberately tried to swing the front of his car at her, either to scare, intimidate or injure her just after the corner - she shouted something like "it's on camera, b*ch" as she has trouble with emotional regulation. He then went ahead and pulled into a side road and exited his car, so he might have been about to assault her, but luckily her journey was about 50m further along at her mum's house, so she didn't find out. The police took her report and video seriously.

ndsipa_pomu 8mo ago

You are utterly wrong. Checking a text message at a red light affects drivers' ability to focus and recognise what's going on around then. You might as well say that drinking a shot of whisky at a red light for significantly less duration than the red light is harmless. Mikey is absolutely not an egotist - you're just pushing some nasty little agenda of your own by trying to cast doubt on his reasons. His father was killed by a drunk driver and he now attempts to work with the police to catch drivers in illegal behaviour before someone else is hurt and killed. If you do much road cycling in the UK, it becomes painfully obvious that there's a significant proportion of drivers that do not know how to drive safely or how to pay sufficient attention to what they are doing. I use front and back cameras in an attempt to similarly record bad driving and submit it to the police - it's a small attempt to make the roads safer. I certainly don't put as much time and effort in as Mikey, but I know exactly where he is coming from and it's just ridiculous when people think he does it for the recognition. He is NOT that kind of guy.

JCattheATM 8mo ago
> You are utterly wrong. I'm not, so much as you are heavily biased. > Checking a text message at a red light affects drivers' ability to focus and recognise what's going on around then. This is nonsense. Cite some studies to support your point if you like, but I doubt you will find any. Most people can check a message responsibly. The countries that don't make doing so illegal don't tend to have worse accident rates. There's really nothing to support your belief. > Mikey is absolutely not an egotist He absolutely is. It's why he forces himself into situations. Not to mention he benfits financially from doing so. > he now attempts to work with the police He doesn't work 'with' the police, he forwards footage, that's it. > to catch drivers in illegal behaviour before someone else is hurt and killed. He catches some dangerous behavior, he also catches harmless behavior that is common and costs people money. I wish him all the worst. > I use front and back cameras in an attempt to similarly record bad driving and submit it to the police - it's a small attempt to make the roads safer. Are you ever worried about someone jacking the cameras if you have an accident?
- ndsipa_pomu 8mo ago
  I am indeed biased (I walk/cycle and don't drive), but that is irrelevant. Studies show "up to 27 seconds" to fully re-focus after using a phone: https://www.science.org/content/article/talking-car-or-smartphone-impairs-driving-longer-you-think-2 https://www.science.org/content/article/talking-car-or-smart... Average of 23 seconds: https://www.cmtelematics.com/blog/the-distraction-hangover-proves-phone-distraction-behind-the-wheel-is-more-severe-than-projected/ https://www.cmtelematics.com/blog/the-distraction-hangover-p... Not sure if this is rigorous, but 34% of crashes occur within 60 seconds of phone distraction: https://www.onfocus.news/new-study-34-of-crashes-happen-within-60-seconds-of-phone-distraction/ https://www.onfocus.news/new-study-34-of-crashes-happen-with... The problem with trying to justify phone use when driving is the "normalisation" effect. People may start off being ultra careful with phone use, but unless there's some process to warn them, they end up using their phone more and more. One advantage of Mikey's shopping in of phone users is that it provides at least some negative adjustment of drivers' phone use. I won't address your remarks about Mikey as they are largely matters of opinion, though I seriously doubt that he makes anything more than pocket change from his work and likely that is swallowed up by the costs incurred with buying bike cams. As far as "working" with the police, that's very much the line that the police bring out for encouraging the public to submit video evidence of traffic offences. "Harmless behaviour that is common" - as discussed, the behaviour is not harmless which is precisely why the phone use law was introduced and why the police are interested in prosecuting for it. Luckily, it's only a fraction of drivers that do injure others due to phone use, but the same can be said for speeding etc. The idea is to try to prevent careless/dangerous driving that will predictably lead to a greater chance of a collision (NB not an accident as accidents are unavoidable and unpredictable). > Are you ever worried about someone jacking the cameras if you have an accident? Again, "accident" is better replaced with "collision" as "accident" implies that it's uncontrollable and "just one of those things", whereas the vast majority of collisions are due to driver behaviour such as lack of attention, speeding etc. (I tend to think of "accident" as something like a tree falling onto your vehicle). I've thought about what would happen if a driver did try to grab my cameras, but it would seem to be a very low probability event - I frequent https://road.cc https://road.cc and there's often rider submitted videos of terrible driving and there's very few where the driver has attempted to grab a camera and I can't think of any where they've been successful. I'm fairly tall and muscular, so I don't think I'd be an obvious target and I try to not react emotionally to close passes, though that does take some practise. My wife had one incident where she was shouting at a driver that dangerously obstructed her on a roundabout (i.e. he pulled straight out ahead of her when she was already on it) and he ended up going all the way round the roundabout in order to follow her. She was turning left just afterwards and he deliberately tried to swing the front of his car at her, either to scare, intimidate or injure her just after the corner - she shouted something like "it's on camera, b*ch" as she has trouble with emotional regulation. He then went ahead and pulled into a side road and exited his car, so he might have been about to assault her, but luckily her journey was about 50m further along at her mum's house, so she didn't find out. The police took her report and video seriously.