3 ms·

> I am indeed biased (I walk/cycle and don't drive), but that is irrelevant. It's really not, not if it's informing your view more than fact and reason is. I

> I am indeed biased (I walk/cycle and don't drive), but that is irrelevant. It's really not, not if it's informing your view more than fact and reason is. I applaud you for providing some data (although none peer reviewed and published in standard journals from what I can see), but I have to be skeptical of their results. Look at rideshare drivers as a counter - they typically have their phones mounted, and see new jobs, texts etc as they come in. If phones were so damaging, don't you think rideshare drivers would be involved in more incidents than most, and an uptick in accidents since ride-sharing became normal? Nothing like that has happened, though. If the average is 23 seconds, I assume there's some elderly people skewing things, and the mode might be much closer to 5 or 10 seconds. The average in this case could very much be non-representative. > 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. You could say this for anything though. By all means have zero tolerance and harsh penalties for using a phone while the vehicle is in motion, but I think some places even have laws punishing using a phone in the drivers seat in a parked car, which is just ridiculous. > 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. Sure. > "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. I don't think you've made your case that the behavior is not harmless, and a more cynical guess at a motive might just be easy money. > The police took her report and video seriously. That's good.

ndsipa_pomu 8mo ago
> I don't think you've made your case that the behavior is not harmless, and a more cynical guess at a motive might just be easy money. Well, I've provided some evidence that demonstrates that phone use is far more distracting than people believe - it's similar in my mind to the various tests of human perception such as "The Invisible Gorilla" whereby the brain fools people into thinking that they are perceptive and can see obvious objects, but actually testing their perception shows up a big mismatch between their expectations and their actual performance. Presumably, the "easy money" you refer to is providing an incentive to police forces to prosecute phone using drivers, but the fines go to central government, not the local police forces, so apart from statistics, they have little incentive apart from the obvious traffic safety argument. Often, police forces seek to send a warning letter as it's easier for them to do so - that demonstrates that they are not focussing on fine revenues and are attempting to educate the problematic drivers. One aspect we haven't touched upon is that it is a lot easier to prosecute drivers for using a phone whilst in control of a vehicle rather than only prosecuting drivers using a phone whilst in motion. I don't have a problem with drivers who pull in to the side of the road to use their phone, though the law does state that they should turn off their engine to do so. The difference between that and being stuck in traffic is that they have control over when they choose to rejoin the traffic flow and won't just blindly follow what they think the driver in front is doing. This does remind me of an incident I had a while back. I was cycling along a dual carriageway and a tractor driver behind me used his horn aggressively (i.e. there was nothing that required the horn use) and then overtook. I passed him at the next set of lights at a roundabout and noticed that he was visibly using his phone, so of course the police got the full video (they require two minutes before and after incidents anyhow) and I was smugly satisfied to catch him out as aggressive behaviour can be down to interpretation, but not the phone use.
- JCattheATM 8mo ago
  > Well, I've provided some evidence that demonstrates that phone use is far more distracting than people believe But as I said, the average is not necessarily representative at all. Also, at least one of the sources would benefit from showing the problem to be bigger than it is. > they have little incentive apart from the obvious traffic safety argument. Do they not have ticket quotas like US cops?
  - ndsipa_pomu 8mo ago
    > Do they not have ticket quotas like US cops? I don't believe so. They've undoubtedly got various performance measures for the various police forces, but I don't think they have a simple arrest quota for individual officers. If they did have to ramp up their numbers, then I think it'd be an easy job for a cycling officer with a camera to go around and capture all the blatant phone use. Unfortunately, when Avon&Somerset police (my area) provide a positive response to video submissions, they use a standard phrase like "As a result of this report I can confirm a positive outcome in that the driver(s) identified in the submission(s) will receive either a warning letter, a fixed penalty or a prosecution." which doesn't provide much feedback as to what action they are taking (a warning letter is barely an action though I do think they're a good idea). I have also had responses where they also mention a possible NIP (notice of intended prosecution). As a counter-example of police just looking to make easy arrests, there plenty of reports on https://road.cc https://road.cc where certain forces (e.g. Lancashire) seem to bend over backwards to not take any action on cyclist submitted videos. It's a bit of a lottery as to which areas take things like close passes seriously or not.

ndsipa_pomu 8mo ago

> I don't think you've made your case that the behavior is not harmless, and a more cynical guess at a motive might just be easy money. Well, I've provided some evidence that demonstrates that phone use is far more distracting than people believe - it's similar in my mind to the various tests of human perception such as "The Invisible Gorilla" whereby the brain fools people into thinking that they are perceptive and can see obvious objects, but actually testing their perception shows up a big mismatch between their expectations and their actual performance. Presumably, the "easy money" you refer to is providing an incentive to police forces to prosecute phone using drivers, but the fines go to central government, not the local police forces, so apart from statistics, they have little incentive apart from the obvious traffic safety argument. Often, police forces seek to send a warning letter as it's easier for them to do so - that demonstrates that they are not focussing on fine revenues and are attempting to educate the problematic drivers. One aspect we haven't touched upon is that it is a lot easier to prosecute drivers for using a phone whilst in control of a vehicle rather than only prosecuting drivers using a phone whilst in motion. I don't have a problem with drivers who pull in to the side of the road to use their phone, though the law does state that they should turn off their engine to do so. The difference between that and being stuck in traffic is that they have control over when they choose to rejoin the traffic flow and won't just blindly follow what they think the driver in front is doing. This does remind me of an incident I had a while back. I was cycling along a dual carriageway and a tractor driver behind me used his horn aggressively (i.e. there was nothing that required the horn use) and then overtook. I passed him at the next set of lights at a roundabout and noticed that he was visibly using his phone, so of course the police got the full video (they require two minutes before and after incidents anyhow) and I was smugly satisfied to catch him out as aggressive behaviour can be down to interpretation, but not the phone use.

JCattheATM 8mo ago
> Well, I've provided some evidence that demonstrates that phone use is far more distracting than people believe But as I said, the average is not necessarily representative at all. Also, at least one of the sources would benefit from showing the problem to be bigger than it is. > they have little incentive apart from the obvious traffic safety argument. Do they not have ticket quotas like US cops?
- ndsipa_pomu 8mo ago
  > Do they not have ticket quotas like US cops? I don't believe so. They've undoubtedly got various performance measures for the various police forces, but I don't think they have a simple arrest quota for individual officers. If they did have to ramp up their numbers, then I think it'd be an easy job for a cycling officer with a camera to go around and capture all the blatant phone use. Unfortunately, when Avon&Somerset police (my area) provide a positive response to video submissions, they use a standard phrase like "As a result of this report I can confirm a positive outcome in that the driver(s) identified in the submission(s) will receive either a warning letter, a fixed penalty or a prosecution." which doesn't provide much feedback as to what action they are taking (a warning letter is barely an action though I do think they're a good idea). I have also had responses where they also mention a possible NIP (notice of intended prosecution). As a counter-example of police just looking to make easy arrests, there plenty of reports on https://road.cc https://road.cc where certain forces (e.g. Lancashire) seem to bend over backwards to not take any action on cyclist submitted videos. It's a bit of a lottery as to which areas take things like close passes seriously or not.