Careless driving charge for texting on a bike

Hi there.

I just saw this news article and thought that it was a bit of a hoot.

Here's the article and then the link to it.

Cheers from Peter

Article:

Careless driving charge for texting on a bike

Module body

Mon Jul 26, 4:51 PM

By The Canadian Press
ADVERTISEMENT

OWEN SOUND, Ont. - You've heard about the dangers of texting behind
the wheel — here's a case of texting behind the handlebars.

Police in Owen Sound, Ont., say a 16-year-old boy was texting on his
cellphone while riding a bicycle Sunday morning.

The boy — who wasn't wearing a helmet — hit the rear of a parked
vehicle and was ejected from his bike, striking and smashing the
vehicle's rear window.

Police spokesman Stephen MacKinnon said it's the first time police
have seen a case of texting while biking.

"This is the first time I've heard of somebody being so enthralled in
texting that they've actually lost control, and weren't watching where
they're going and hit a parked car," he said.

Insp. MacKinnon said the boy was treated at hospital for some
scratches and was released.

But the errant rider is being charged with careless driving.

"There's a place for texting, but not when you're on the move,"
MacKinnon said.

He added walking while texting is also dangerous.

"You need to be careful and have your wits about you and what you're
doing, because you can walk into things as well as ride into things,"
MacKinnon said.

Link to article:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/1...exting_on_bike

On Jul 27, 12:43*am, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Hi there.

I just saw this news article and thought that it was a bit of a hoot.

Here's the article and then the link to it.

Cheers from Peter

Article:

Careless driving charge for texting on a bike

[snip]

So ... is Ontario holding cyclists to a HIGHER standard, now, than the
one to which they -- and others -- hold motorists ??

I don't mind the citation. I just wish it were applied to ALL who
pilot vehicles, while distracted.

On Jul 27, 1:08*pm, Neil Brooks wrote:

So ... is Ontario holding cyclists to a HIGHER standard, now, than the
one to which they -- and others -- hold motorists ??

I don't mind the citation. *I just wish it were applied to ALL who
pilot vehicles, while distracted.

I got distracted the other day by a couple of babes wearing greyhound
minis. Does that count?

JS

On Jul 27, 5:13*pm, James wrote:
On Jul 27, 1:08*pm, Neil Brooks wrote:

So ... is Ontario holding cyclists to a HIGHER standard, now, than the
one to which they -- and others -- hold motorists ??

I don't mind the citation. *I just wish it were applied to ALL who
pilot vehicles, while distracted.

I got distracted the other day by a couple of babes wearing greyhound
minis. *Does that count?

JS

If you have an accident when distracted.

On Jul 27, 4:47*pm, "
wrote:
On Jul 27, 5:13*pm, James wrote:

On Jul 27, 1:08*pm, Neil Brooks wrote:

So ... is Ontario holding cyclists to a HIGHER standard, now, than the
one to which they -- and others -- hold motorists ??

I don't mind the citation. *I just wish it were applied to ALL who
pilot vehicles, while distracted.

I got distracted the other day by a couple of babes wearing greyhound
minis. *Does that count?

JS

If you have an accident when distracted.

At this point ... maybe we should define "accident."

;-)

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:08:49 -0700 (PDT), Neil Brooks
wrote:

On Jul 27, 12:43Â*am, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
Hi there.

I just saw this news article and thought that it was a bit of a hoot.

Here's the article and then the link to it.

Cheers from Peter

Article:

Careless driving charge for texting on a bike

[snip]

So ... is Ontario holding cyclists to a HIGHER standard, now, than the
one to which they -- and others -- hold motorists ??

I don't mind the citation. I just wish it were applied to ALL who
pilot vehicles, while distracted.

Texting or phoning while driving a CAR in Ontario will also get you
charged - even without being involved in an accident.

wrote in message
news
Texting or phoning while driving a CAR in Ontario will also get you
charged - even without being involved in an accident.

Same here in Quebec. Though I don't think this applies to cyclists.

BTW nearly got clipped last week by a helmetless adolescent
texting his way over an overpass against traffic. Yelled at him but his
iPod was too
loud so I had to jump into the next lane. (not kidding...)

Fortunately the driver behind me wasn't texting,
saw the whole thing and slowed to allow me over.

Doubt if the kid saw or heard any of this.

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
Of course, the problem is that it's relatively difficult to catch a
motorist in the act.
We really should be mandating RF shielding in vehicles to stop
cellphones working inside them.
Whilst that would (possibly unfairly) restrict the passengers as well,
it seems to be the only effective way of preventing widespread abuse.

The problem is driver distraction and inattention, not cellphones or texting
per se. We should *not* mandate RF shielding on vehicles, as it serves no
useful purpose. We don't even need prohibitions on cellphones and texting,
since the real concern is already addressed as inattentive driving. For that
matter, we don't need no steenkin speeding statutes, since that should
already be covered by reckless. But laws, lawyers, and well meaning
legislators being what they are, we're saddled and burdened with all the
above and more.

On Jul 29, 10:31*am, "MikeWhy" wrote:
"Phil W Lee" wrote in messagenews:apo256p9nhf1a9qsu2ikn5rm2u0hq02ttf@4ax .com...

Of course, the problem is that it's relatively difficult to catch a
motorist in the act.
We really should be mandating RF shielding in vehicles to stop
cellphones working inside them.
Whilst that would (possibly unfairly) restrict the passengers as well,
it seems to be the only effective way of preventing widespread abuse.

The problem is driver distraction and inattention, not cellphones or texting
per se. We should *not* mandate RF shielding on vehicles, as it serves no
useful purpose. We don't even need prohibitions on cellphones and texting,
since the real concern is already addressed as inattentive driving. For that
matter, we don't need no steenkin speeding statutes, since that should
already be covered by reckless. But laws, lawyers, and well meaning
legislators being what they are, we're saddled and burdened with all the
above and more.

I agree with the notion that Distracted Driving statutes -- already on
the books, in many municipalities -- SHOULD be enforced.

The one that _I_ see that (other than drunk driving) seems to MOST
adversely affect driving, and for the longest period of time, IS the
cell phone.