164
What’s driving Cycling Mikey, Britain’s most hated cyclist?
(www.thetimes.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
164 points (96.6% liked)
United Kingdom
4949 readers
66 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You got a source for this bit of rhetoric?
Edit
TL;DR of the responses is that they do not indeed have a source that verifies this. Colour me shocked.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-mobile-phones
“However, although the House of Lords in Pinner v Everett held that a person might still be driving even when they turned off the engine and got out of the car it is unlikely, other than in exceptional circumstances, to be appropriate to use section 41D to prosecute any person who in these circumstances made a phone call or accessed the internet. See Public Interest.”
The scenario involved someone who was suspected of being drunk driving but only after they had got out the car to have a look at their licence plate in the presence of the police.
It’s legal precedent. The decisions made in that way become law, and that ruling has been used several times since, and it could be used again, to convict someone in the exact manner I described.
It’s just an example, anyways. The point of it was to make you think about how arbitrary enforcement of the law could be used to oppress an individual who had done nothing wrong.
I am far more interested in having you address my actual argument itself, as a whole. I’m very open to changing my perspective if you can explain why using a handheld phone while stuck in a traffic jam is more dangerous than using a phone handsfree while driving.
I think you got me confused with another commenter. Also I believe I’ve already answered your question (comment with RoSPA in it).
Sorry, at this point I have no way of knowing who has written what, because the "Context" link is broken so I can't tell what any comment is in response to.
When there is suspicion of drink driving. Editorialising facts serves nothing other than to make your statements seem unreliable.
No, that’s not correct. It’s entirely about determining when you are, or not, driving. That’s why the course went to the House of Lords for a determination. This precedent establishes that “driving” can include when you’ve stopped and gotten out of the car, assuming that you intend to continue your journey.
See my previous comment: are you going to actually answer my question? Whether or not you think my statements are unreliable doesn’t matter.
You can answer that simple question without having to rely on anything I have stated.
That's not what the House decided at all. If you're going to misquote and misconstrue law and disregard the actual decision points there isn't really much merit for anyone else to discuss it with you. Like I said before, maybe you should actually read the case law and decisions lest people think you're deliberately perpetuating falsehoods and not simply missundertanding.
You didn't ask me a question? I've read through all your replies to me and none contain a question, are you confusing me with another commenter maybe?
Happy to restate the question:
Is using a handheld phone while stopped and stuck in traffic more dangerous than using a phone handsfree while driving at 60 miles an hour?
You never asked me that question, and it's nothing to do with what I was talking about (the law behind what constitutes being in control of a vehicle), soooo... I guess you really are just being disingenuous! Like I said, when you twist reality like this there is no merit to others engaging with you, so I'm outta here!
And now you’re running off, because you know fine well what the answer is and what that entails.
Instead of admitting that you’re wrong and reconsidering your perspective, you’re just hiding in deeper and deeper levels of denial to protect your ego.
Cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable, but the only lasting resolution is to reject your beliefs that do not stand up to scrutiny.
It’s easier in the short term to take the path which preserves your ego, but you’ll always be wrong, and it gets harder and harder to deny reality.
Every time you reject the truth it gets harder and harder for you to admit that you were wrong all along.
🤣🤣
Maybe you should have included the entire quotation:
I've bolded the parts you accidentally skipped when quoting, maybe next time quote a source that isn't disagreeing with you?
Unlikely doesn’t mean it can’t happen. It also says “exceptional circumstances”. That’s two caveats that explicitly confirm that they can do EXACTLY what I wrote, if it suits them.
Perhaps you should read the case law you're quoting, because the exceptional circumstances are quite well laid out.
Very clearly I have read it more carefully than you have, considering you’re continuing to misunderstand it.
Are you deflecting to arguing minutiae because you’re unable to refute my actual argument?
If you had actually read it, you'd understand that the extenuating circumstances (aka suspicion of drink driving) are what makes those decisions exceptional.
If you had actually any understanding of case law, you'd know to read the full decisions.
But since you're clearly just perpetuating nonsense, I myself will discontinue arguing with it.
I have read it. I have also read several cases which cite it. Citations of legal precedent aren't specific, they don’t have to have the original circumstances in common with the original case to use it as a precedent. Any ruling made in such a case can be used as precedent, for example, in British Pregnancy Advocacy Service v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care 2019, Pinner v Everett was cited in reference to how the phrase “first day of the pregnancy” should be interpreted, because Pinner v Everett contains precedent about how natural language should be interpreted.
It is completely understandable that you don’t know how legal precedent works, but I’d politely suggest that you should avoid getting into arguments about it on the internet, at least not without properly learning more about it first.
Projection is a helluva thang.