No phones on bikes!

[Mr. Pink]

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/27/652139784/netherlands-proposes-legislation-to-ban-use-of-phones-on-bicycles

[Cicli]

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/27/652139784/netherlands-proposes-legislation-to-ban-use-of-phones-on-bicycles

Shouldn’t this be a given?
People are stupid.

[stev0]

Having spent some extended time in NL, I can report that people manage to (and very regularly) do all manner of amazing things while riding a bike. They should ban mopeds in the bike lanes while they're at it!

Texting while biking and eating fries while holding an umbrella might be the most impressive/dumb thing I've seen. :eek:

[Jaybee]

That father's sense of perspective is amazing. He lost his son to his son's poor choice, shows empathy for the driver, and works to prevent others from making the same poor choice. What a good person.

[Plum Hill]

What constitutes “other mobile electronic devices”?
A GPS would fit that definition.

[coreyaugustus]

Why don't we just ban use of phones while in the street, period? Drivers, obviously. Cyclists, I'm impressed but it's dangerous so no. Pedestrians crossing the road, no phone. Eyes open and up, people.
Look alive, stay alive.

[bicycletricycle]

We probably have to balance likely damages to other people with the limitation of freedoms for the individual. A distracted cyclist is less dangerous than a distracted car driver, a distracted pedestrian is less dangerous than a distracted cyclist, etc.

I can see why people want cyclist to be safer, we can easily hurt pedestrians, other cyclists and possibly car drivers (by causing them to swerve, etc). I think that the risk of unsafe cycling is almost entirely a risk to the unsafe cyclist themselves and thus they should be left alone to be unsafe if they like.

[joosttx]

Having spent some extended time in NL, I can report that people manage to (and very regularly) do all manner of amazing things while riding a bike. They should ban mopeds in the bike lanes while they're at it!

Texting while biking and eating fries while holding an umbrella might be the most impressive/dumb thing I've seen. :eek:

I went there too. The Dutch are amazing multi-taskers when riding a bike

[Mikej]

Dude , we don’t even ban F550 drivers from using phones - or at least enforcing it is the hard part!

[merlinmurph]

Interesting stat. N+1 is alive and well in the Netherlands.


There are more bikes than people in the Netherlands, and bike rides account for more than 25 percent of all trips made by Dutch residents, according to government statistics. That is by far the highest percentage of any country, the government says.

[cachagua]

Why don't we just ban use of phones while in the street, period?


That is a beautiful thing to imagine. I think of cigarettes -- bars and restaurants banned them, then most other public businesses, workplaces, finally parks and in some cases whole communities... and any more, most people pretty much do it only at home. And even there they have a certain feeling of low-grade shame about it. Smoking has become a little like wiping your butt, you have to do it but you don't want anybody to know you do it, and you certainly don't want them to watch!

I would love to see using your telephone become exactly like that. Okay, not exactly like that, because you can quit smoking. But if you had a similar impulse to hide using your phone from people...

Never actually happen, of course, but it's very pleasant to imagine.


The risk of unsafe cycling is almost entirely a risk to the unsafe cyclist themselves and thus they should be left alone to be unsafe if they like.

Theoretically, alright, but that makes a different category of bicycles/bike riders, which continues a precedent that's already problematic in a number of ways. I think in general it's better to treat traffic as traffic, and not break it down numerous smaller categories.

Also, leaving people free to bung themselves up if they want, as long as they don't bung anyone else up in the process, ignores the social costs of having bunged-up people -- health care and handicapped-accommodation costs are part of the price for that libertarian ideal, and we have to decide whether as a society we're willing to subsidize preventable mistakes.

Opt-in social responsibility, on the one hand, or on the other, fascism? It's a legitimately difficult choice.

[adub]

I can steer my bike with my knee whilst texting with both hands!

[Bruce K]

Good luck with that idea

With all the game theory being programmed in and the “parenting by screen time” it is highly unlikely to succeed.

The middle schoolers I teach would rather risk having their phones confiscated than actually go the day without them. Some can’t even bring themselves to put them in the”parking lot” (plastic bin) for the duration of 1 class.

Then add the parents who text their children in the middle of the school day/ class and we are lost on any sane restriction of phone usage.

BK

[sg8357]

So a Dutch kickstarter would be a umbrella that attaches to your bars,
brolly has integrated fritte and mayo holders.

[cachagua]

Middle schoolers... rather risk having their phones confiscated than actually go the day without them. Some can’t even bring themselves to put them in the”parking lot” for the duration of 1 class... Parents who text their children in the middle of the school day...



That's absolutely horrendous. I wouldn't be able to stand it. Sometimes I miss teaching, but maybe I was lucky to stop when I did... I would have done something that got me fired. --Arrested!

I admire your dedication and persistence for staying with it in an environment like that.

But there is this: we will never, never get any grip on cell phone use while driving as long as we raise kids like that.

[bicycletricycle]

[QUOTE=Theoretically, alright, but that makes a different category of bicycles/bike riders, which continues a precedent that's already problematic in a number of ways. I think in general it's better to treat traffic as traffic, and not break it down numerous smaller categories.

Also, leaving people free to bung themselves up if they want, as long as they don't bung anyone else up in the process, ignores the social costs of having bunged-up people -- health care and handicapped-accommodation costs are part of the price for that libertarian ideal, and we have to decide whether as a society we're willing to subsidize preventable mistakes.

Opt-in social responsibility, on the one hand, or on the other, fascism? It's a legitimately difficult choice.[/QUOTE]



This is why the forced socialization of the costs of individuals care is a dangerous idea, it is then used as an argument to slowly remove the individuals autonomy. If you force strangers to pay for your care then you also give them to right to tell you how to live. I have no idea why fascism is mentioned here.

[GregL]

Good luck with that idea

With all the game theory being programmed in and the “parenting by screen time” it is highly unlikely to succeed.

The middle schoolers I teach would rather risk having their phones confiscated than actually go the day without them. Some can’t even bring themselves to put them in the”parking lot” (plastic bin) for the duration of 1 class.

Then add the parents who text their children in the middle of the school day/ class and we are lost on any sane restriction of phone usage.

BK
It's getting even worse. My company works on classified Government programs. Employees often work in facilities where cell phones and internet access are not permitted. The new generation of young employees complain about these restrictions. They can't imagine not "being connected."

Greg

[Black Dog]

This is why the forced socialization of the costs of individuals care is a dangerous idea, it is then used as an argument to slowly remove the individuals autonomy. If you force strangers to pay for your care then you also give them to right to tell you how to live. I have no idea why fascism is mentioned here.

We all pay for things that help others, like roads or any public infrastructure. We have rules that limit rights and freedoms once they start to infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. Healthcare as public infrastructure does not dramatically alter the rules by which we let people live where it is a reality, like here in Canada. We have seatbelt laws, motercycle helmet laws, even bicycle helmet laws for people under 18 (this one is never inforced btw). Other than that people are free to do as many dumb and dangerous things as they want. It is not a slippery slope. We are even allowed to sell sugar drinks and foods with trans-fats. We accept that stupid behavior is going to cost us all a little bit. Worth it for the win win of freedom and universal healthcare.

[Joxster]

What's the problem???? :p:p:p:p

[PaMtbRider]

One of the things I applaud my company for is there cell phone policy. Instead of doing something ridiculous like banning all cell phone use, their policy is you cannot not walk while using the phone. If you need to text or talk you must be standing still.

[marciero]

What constitutes “other mobile electronic devices”?
A GPS would fit that definition.

The law could easily be written to exclude them by, for example, defining "mobile" as being not attached to the bike. But this raises the question- How is a gps different than a phone-especially if the phone is on a handlebar mount? Even if not on a mount, the issue here seems to be one of distraction rather than loss of control. I dispute that, as is argued in the story, using a phone on a bike is even remotely as dangerous as using one in a car.

[oldpotatoe]

Isn't this a pic posted by a forum-ite? Hmmmm:)

[marciero]

Isn't this a pic posted by a forum-ite? Hmmmm:)

Has to be wei-pal, I'm guessing

[bicycletricycle]

It is slways a slippery slope. The Alfie Evans case is literally a death panel in action, Seattle sugary drink tax, seatbelt laws, helmet laws. More and more limitations on “stupid behavior”. Did we not learn the lesson of prohibition?

We all pay for things that help others, like roads or any public infrastructure. We have rules that limit rights and freedoms once they start to infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. Healthcare as public infrastructure does not dramatically alter the rules by which we let people live where it is a reality, like here in Canada. We have seatbelt laws, motercycle helmet laws, even bicycle helmet laws for people under 18 (this one is never inforced btw). Other than that people are free to do as many dumb and dangerous things as they want. It is not a slippery slope. We are even allowed to sell sugar drinks and foods with trans-fats. We accept that stupid behavior is going to cost us all a little bit. Worth it for the win win of freedom and universal healthcare.

[oldpotatoe]

Has to be wei-pal, I'm guessing

DOH!!:eek:

[BikeNY]

But this raises the question- How is a gps different than a phone-especially if the phone is on a handlebar mount? Even if not on a mount, the issue here seems to be one of distraction rather than loss of control. I dispute that, as is argued in the story, using a phone on a bike is even remotely as dangerous as using one in a car.

There is a HUGE difference between a GPS and a Smartphone. If the phone is mounted on your handlebars and being used for navigation, not much different, but the that's not what we are talking about here. The issue, like you say is being distracted, by texting, talking on the phone, selecting the next song for your playlist, etc. That's the difference.

And I agree, using a phone on a bike is nowhere near as dangerous as using one in a car.

[boomforeal]

"Cyclists were excluded from the initial ban because of their lower speeds, Van Niewenhuizen said. 'But in fact, using a phone is just as dangerous on a bike as it is in a car,' she said. 'The fact is that whenever you're on the road you should be paying full attention and not doing anything at all on a phone.'

this is ridiculous, patently and obviously untrue

however, if it makes it feasible to ban driving while using a phone, i'm all for rolling bikes and peds into the mix

the mechanism would be easy: require manufacturers to build phones that disable their interface while in motion. need directions or to change the song? pull over

the downside is we'd have to look out the window on the bus, converse with our fellow passengers on trains, play eye-spy with our kids on road trips...

oh the horror!

[marciero]

There is a HUGE difference between a GPS and a Smartphone. If the phone is mounted on your handlebars and being used for navigation, not much different, but the that's not what we are talking about here. The issue, like you say is being distracted, by texting, talking on the phone, selecting the next song for your playlist, etc. That's the difference.

And I agree, using a phone on a bike is nowhere near as dangerous as using one in a car.

I'd argue that gps functionality and UX mimics smart phone in many ways. This is by design. Swiping or paging through different screens on your gps, zooming in/out on the map page, re-routing, etc all divert your eyes just as selecting a song or even texting does on your phone. Both require hands too. In fact, every gps function-even simple turn-by-turn navigation, requires your eyes. By contrast, you can talk on the phone while keeping your eyes on the road.

[Jaybee]

Good luck with that idea

With all the game theory being programmed in and the “parenting by screen time” it is highly unlikely to succeed.

The middle schoolers I teach would rather risk having their phones confiscated than actually go the day without them. Some can’t even bring themselves to put them in the”parking lot” (plastic bin) for the duration of 1 class.

Then add the parents who text their children in the middle of the school day/ class and we are lost on any sane restriction of phone usage.

BK


My oldest is in kindergarten this year. They have 2 hours of school-sanctioned screen time per week on a school-provided device. They play counting and music games. At least half of her classmates have their own tablets at home.

Given that the neurochemical pathways being reinforced here are essentially the same as sugar, cocaine, gambling, I think this battle is already lost. It will take a serious MADD-style social activist movement to reverse the tide.

[Black Dog]

I'd argue that gps functionality and UX mimics smart phone in many ways. This is by design. Swiping or paging through different screens on your gps, zooming in/out on the map page, re-routing, etc all divert your eyes just as selecting a song or even texting does on your phone. Both require hands too. In fact, every gps function-even simple turn-by-turn navigation, requires your eyes. By contrast, you can talk on the phone while keeping your eyes on the road.

Not so much, talking on a phone takes your mind off driving, even when looking at the road people miss obvious dangers in front of their eyes while in conversation with someone not in the car.

[boomforeal]

Given that the neurochemical pathways being reinforced here are essentially the same as sugar, cocaine, gambling, I think this battle is already lost. It will take a serious MADD-style social activist movement to reverse the tide.

my parents gave my son an ipad for his 3rd birthday. i told them they could have it back and return it, or it would be going in the trash. 8 years later watching his peers struggle with their screen addictions, i realize i had no idea how pernicious an impact unfettered access to a screen could be for a young child :-(

https://i.gifer.com/Xqv.gif