Filmed by cyclist touching a device

jsrose

Ok so an update - firstly i have a SJPN that i need to plea by 2 November.  I have tried to log in but it is not accepting my case URN.  I have also tried to view the evidence via an email they sent me - but it has been removed and i can’t access it

Also i paid £200 in a panic in September to The Court and yesterday i have received it refunded.

I’m confused as i haven’t sent my plea in yet.  

Keep_pedalling

giraffe69 said:

Perhaps the reason drivers may be fined and given points is that mobile phones reduce their attention span, increase their reaction time etc and make accidents more likely. Not sure why this doesn't also apply to 

Probably because a cyclist is highly unlikely to kill anyone other than themselves. The real question is why so many people have to constantly check their phones while doing important other stuff.

user1977

Keep_pedalling said:

giraffe69 said:

Perhaps the reason drivers may be fined and given points is that mobile phones reduce their attention span, increase their reaction time etc and make accidents more likely. Not sure why this doesn't also apply to 

Probably because a cyclist is highly unlikely to kill anyone other than themselves.

Indeed - as with various other things, there's a hierarchy of road users and the risk they pose. I'm sure many road traffic collisions are caused by pedestrians, but that doesn't mean pedestrians have to pass a test, have insurance, are prohibited from walking while drunk or on the phone, etc. At the other end, HGV and bus drivers need to comply with requirements which drivers of lighter vehicles don't - tachographs etc.

user1977

giraffe69 said:

In regard to the offence if there is video evidence of you touching the phone whether stationary or not what will be the basis of your not guilty plea?

As I pointed out above, there isn't an offence of "touching" a phone. You aren't deemed to be "using a handheld device" unless you are actually holding it.

fred990

Keep_pedalling said:

Probably because a cyclist is highly unlikely to kill anyone other than themselves. The real question is why so many people have to constantly check their phones while doing important other stuff.

This.

As a keen cyclist, motorcyclist and driver I'm also constantly baffled by the obsessive use of mobile phones on the roads.

Surely fines and points are simply a voluntary tax?

Along with speeding, red lights etc...

prowla

Keep_pedalling said:

giraffe69 said:

Perhaps the reason drivers may be fined and given points is that mobile phones reduce their attention span, increase their reaction time etc and make accidents more likely. Not sure why this doesn't also apply to 

Probably because a cyclist is highly unlikely to kill anyone other than themselves. The real question is why so many people have to constantly check their phones while doing important other stuff.

user1977 said:

Keep_pedalling said:

giraffe69 said:

Perhaps the reason drivers may be fined and given points is that mobile phones reduce their attention span, increase their reaction time etc and make accidents more likely. Not sure why this doesn't also apply to 

Probably because a cyclist is highly unlikely to kill anyone other than themselves.

Indeed - as with various other things, there's a hierarchy of road users and the risk they pose. I'm sure many road traffic collisions are caused by pedestrians, but that doesn't mean pedestrians have to pass a test, have insurance, are prohibited from walking while drunk or on the phone, etc. At the other end, HGV and bus drivers need to comply with requirements which drivers of lighter vehicles don't - tachographs etc.

fred990 said:

Keep_pedalling said:

Probably because a cyclist is highly unlikely to kill anyone other than themselves. The real question is why so many people have to constantly check their phones while doing important other stuff.

This.

As a keen cyclist, motorcyclist and driver I'm also constantly baffled by the obsessive use of mobile phones on the roads.

Surely fines and points are simply a voluntary tax?

Along with speeding, red lights etc...

The arrogance of the self-absorbed and ignorant can be quite baffling.

Is it any better for the other road users if the cyclist causes someone else to be the instrument of their death?

Or if they cause a non-fatal accident?

I'm not excusing bad driving, but there's a duty of care requirement and a need for common-sense for all road users.

user1977

prowla said:

Keep_pedalling said:

giraffe69 said:

Perhaps the reason drivers may be fined and given points is that mobile phones reduce their attention span, increase their reaction time etc and make accidents more likely. Not sure why this doesn't also apply to 

Probably because a cyclist is highly unlikely to kill anyone other than themselves. The real question is why so many people have to constantly check their phones while doing important other stuff.

user1977 said:

Keep_pedalling said:

giraffe69 said:

Perhaps the reason drivers may be fined and given points is that mobile phones reduce their attention span, increase their reaction time etc and make accidents more likely. Not sure why this doesn't also apply to 

Probably because a cyclist is highly unlikely to kill anyone other than themselves.

Indeed - as with various other things, there's a hierarchy of road users and the risk they pose. I'm sure many road traffic collisions are caused by pedestrians, but that doesn't mean pedestrians have to pass a test, have insurance, are prohibited from walking while drunk or on the phone, etc. At the other end, HGV and bus drivers need to comply with requirements which drivers of lighter vehicles don't - tachographs etc.

fred990 said:

Keep_pedalling said:

Probably because a cyclist is highly unlikely to kill anyone other than themselves. The real question is why so many people have to constantly check their phones while doing important other stuff.

This.

As a keen cyclist, motorcyclist and driver I'm also constantly baffled by the obsessive use of mobile phones on the roads.

Surely fines and points are simply a voluntary tax?

Along with speeding, red lights etc...

but there's a duty of carerequirement and a need for common-sense for all road users.

Of course. But there are different offences which apply to each category of road user. Cyclists are still subject to the catch-all offence of careless cycling, if their mobile phone use is deemed to constitute such.

jsrose

Thanks for your responses - as I’m unable to log on with my Case URN - plus the fact that the evidence has been removed from an email i was sent - what do you think will happen?  Plea is needed by 2 November but postal strikes all next week?  Really hoping case will be dropped and I’m getting my £200 back.

DanDare999

jsrose said:

Thanks for your responses - as I’m unable to log on with my Case URN - plus the fact that the evidence has been removed from an email i was sent - what do you think will happen?  Plea is needed by 2 November but postal strikes all next week?  Really hoping case will be dropped and I’m getting my £200 back.

What lead you to playing £200, a fixed penalty notice?

MalMonroe

jsrose said:

Ok so an update - firstly i have a SJPN that i need to plea by 2 November.  I have tried to log in but it is not accepting my case URN.  I have also tried to view the evidence via an email they sent me - but it has been removed and i can’t access it

Also i paid £200 in a panic in September to The Court and yesterday i have received it refunded.

I’m confused as i haven’t sent my plea in yet.  

Hi, I'm confused too.

You said -

". . . I’m unable to log on with my Case URN - plus the fact that the evidence has been removed from an email i was sent - what do you think will happen?  Plea is needed by 2 November but postal strikes all next week?  Really hoping case will be dropped and I’m getting my £200 back."

You can't access any of the information. You paid £200 in September and you're received a refund? What was the £200 for?  The fact that it's been refunded is a little weird.

And why is everything in such a big rush? Court cases usually take a while to be processed before they actually issue a date.

If you want to make a defence - which I certainly would - then you need to be able to see ALL the 'evidence' against you. Have you had sight of it at all? Only when you've seen that can you prepare any kind of comprehensive case.

And why are the police simply taking the cyclist's photographic evidence as proof positive of any offence having been committed? How near to your vehicle was this cyclist and didn't you notice him filming you at all?  

The police will be able to obtain information from your phone to either prove or disprove whether or not you were actually using the phone at any time, surely?

If it were me, given the confusion surrounding this case, I'd be phoning the court (there will be a number somewhere on the information you've been sent, there always is on court documents. If you can't find it, you can use the information in this link to find it - https://www.gov.uk/find-court-tribunal) and telling them that you cannot access the evidence that you have been sent and you want to make a defence but you are unable to do so since you don't have the information necessary.

After that you could try contacting Citizens Advice for some help. 

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/finding-free-or-affordable-legal-help/

(Are you sure that this is a real thing, though? It really does seem very fishy to me.)