“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.

  • leaskovski@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    57
    ·
    1 year ago

    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!

    • theplanlessman@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      One of those things is illegal, the other is not. One puts others at risk of injury and death, the other does not.

      • palordrolap@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Kwaker76@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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. Will always wear a helmet when cycling.

        • C4d@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.”

          That’s from Rule 59; link here

      • FlembleFabber
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I disagree, it improves your odds for surviving significantly

        • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          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!

      • dopplermopper@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • C4d@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

          • Tippon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • C4d@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Tippon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • C4d@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.