Netherlands Proposes Legislation To Ban Use Of Phones On Bicycles (npr.org)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Netherlands Proposes Legislation To Ban Use Of Phones On Bicycles (npr.org)

Posted by msmash on Friday September 28, 2018 @01:40PM from the common-sense dept.

The Dutch government is considering a proposal to ban the use of smartphones and other "mobile electronic devices" on bicycles. From a report: Infrastructure Minister Cora van Nieuwenhuizen published the draft legislation on Thursday, NL Times reports. If approved, it could go into effect in the summer of 2019. It is already illegal to use a phone while driving a motor vehicle in the Netherlands, the news site says. Offenders face a fine of more than $250. Biking is a widespread form of transportation in the Netherlands, and extending the telephone ban to bikes has been discussed for several years. In 2015, then-Infrastructure Minister Melanie Schultz van Haegen concluded that it would be impossible to enforce a ban on phone use on bikes, according to a 2016 story from Dutch News. But the following year, the government began reconsidering its position.

143 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

That's going to really tick off people by Crashmarik · 2018-09-28 13:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

That use them for GPS/Speedometer/Odometer or the control system for any kind of E-Bike.
1. Re:That's going to really tick off people by drinkypoo · 2018-09-28 13:57 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Are you allowed to use them in a cradle in the car there like you are here in California, so long as you aren't texting or doing more than the occasional touch? If so, perhaps you'll be able to use them on a cycle on the same basis.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
2. Re:That's going to really tick off people by balsy2001 · 2018-09-28 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  Or listen to music. Hard to tell what they mean by use in the article.
  
  --
  GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
3. Re:That's going to really tick off people by fahrbot-bot · 2018-09-28 14:18 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, but I've actually seen people swiping away on their smartphones while riding (and, also, walking their dogs - which makes me sad for the dogs) and I just think they're future Darwin Award winners ...
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
4. Re:That's going to really tick off people by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 14:25 · Score: 0
  
  Really? They come up with quite a sensible ban, and this is what you come up with? Never seen the people almost crash into you because they use the phone and don't pay attention to whatever is happening on the road?
5. Re: That's going to really tick off people by Cmdln+Daco · 2018-09-28 14:57 · Score: 1
  
  With headphones? As you blissfully bike along not listening to traffic noise?
6. Re:That's going to really tick off people by Brama · 2018-09-28 14:58 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That really is not a bad thing. You might want to hear what's going on around you if you are on a bike.
7. Re:That's going to really tick off people by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 16:00 · Score: 0
  
  If you're just glancing at the handlebar you won't be caught probably. Even better don't watch it because you shouldn't need to.
  Now, ebikes come with their own little things and they're just 80s/90s style displays, so not the same thing.
  I also think a dumb phone is fine, seems much safer to me than the 5" tablets. I don't need to watch my dumb phone to hang up! I need to watch my smart phone to do anything although I found a setting to hang up with power button. (now I lack a call button, this way I could select my contact before hand and then call it when moving)
  Driving the bike single handed is no big deal unless you want to arrest everyone that only has the front brake properly working.
  I like to smoke on the bicycle too. Fuck you, I think that's still legal at the wheel.
8. Re:That's going to really tick off people by tsa · 2018-09-28 16:32 · Score: 1
  
  This is mostly about people typing whatsapp messages while riding the bike. Especially young women do that so often it looks weird when you see one not doing it. They cause a lot of accidents and are a danger to themselves too. We really need to end this and the ban on using telephones on a bike is sort of the last straw that our government clings to in its efforts to end it. The problem is that there are more bicycles than people here in the Netherlands so the new law is hard to enforce.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
9. Re: That's going to really tick off people by tsa · 2018-09-28 16:33 · Score: 2
  
  Yes. An amazing amount of people do that here.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
10. Re: That's going to really tick off people by Evtim · 2018-09-28 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  Safely. I have 450000 km on a bike and I always listen to music.
  It's not that hard to be responsible...
11. Re: That's going to really tick off people by Evtim · 2018-09-28 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, typo... remove one zero...
12. Re: That's going to really tick off people by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 17:03 · Score: 0
  
  I listen with just my right earbud in, no problems. Some people use speakers as well.
13. Re:That's going to really tick off people by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 17:21 · Score: 0
  
  Where I live, the regulation states that "the driver is prohibited to engage in activities that may impede the ability to drive or comprehension of the traffic environment while driving, including using a telephone without a hands-free device and holding a telephone in hand while the vehicle is moving". Bicyclists fall under the term "driver". This seems to be quite sensible as it does not prohibit the use of phones for navigation, does not exclude bicycles or mopeds, allows talking when using a hands-free device, and prohibits texting ("using without hands-free device" / "holding a telephone in hand").
14. Re: That's going to really tick off people by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-28 17:34 · Score: 1
  
  If you can not hear traffic noise when wearing head phones, I suggest a consultation of your doctor, to figure what your problem is.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
15. Re:That's going to really tick off people by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 18:07 · Score: 0
  
  These laws still are ambiguous in that hands-free phoning is a major cause that may impede the ability to comprehend the traffic environment while driving. I think hands-free phoning may fall into the technical illegal but no one says anything about it. Car manufacturers just put all these goddamn buttons on the wheel and other shit, before anything could be decided about that.
  I think that afterall your cited wording maybe is something I don't disagree with even though I may disagree somewhat with the intent [to be clear I read it as : doesn't disallow hands-free, doesn't allow it]. My opinion though is you might do something with your hand (including only having one hand, or no feet and driving an automatic gearbox car?), more specifically I believe eating a sandwich is less dangerous than phoning hands free.
  Is bicyclist a "driver"? definitely so if called out specifically by your regulation, less so if there is a distinction between "operator of a vehicle" and "operator of a motor(ized) vehicle"
  
  , and prohibits texting ("using without hands-free device" / "holding a telephone in hand").
  My definitely non legal opinion is that phone calls on a dumb phone is a lot more mild. Albeit in practical terms banning some phones and not others is not very practical.
  I want to have a crazy legal opinion : that dumb phone calling on a bicycle is fine, that hands-free calling in a car with wind noises and people talking in the car is not fine, hands-free calling in a car in good conditions is fine, smartphone is never fine (unless you could somehow prove it was fine) and I don't know what to think whatsoever about manufacturers putting giant tablets in cars (and that shit gets into lower end and smaller cars all the time)
  The laws (on both sides of the Atlantic ocean?) said before the phones that the driver has to be the master of his vehicle or something to that effect.
16. Re: That's going to really tick off people by Hognoxious · 2018-09-28 18:08 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I don't think it needs a doctor to tell you that you're using the type that go over your ears (as opposed to in them) or you've got the sound up too high.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
17. Re:That's going to really tick off people by Niels · 2018-09-28 18:13 · Score: 2
  
  You can use your phone for listening to music, as a speedometer or even for calling as long as you are not holding it in your hand. That is already the case for cars and from 2019 for any vehicle. Which is a good thing. Besides the distraction of looking at other things than the traffic around you, you probably need both hands in case of an unexpected situation (using one hand to steer will cost you half of your break capacity for example).
  Background information: I am Dutch.
18. Re:That's going to really tick off people by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 18:26 · Score: 0
  
  No, the problem is that this is going after symptoms with a very broad brush. Worded like the proposal, you can't use any "electronic device" while on a bike, regardless of what you're doing with it. There already is a law against yapping on the phone (unless in a car kit) in the car, but that really doesn't help much, so now it's more of that same ineffective bullshit on a bike. Now with an even broader brush, banning more things including more legitimate things.
  What they ought to be doing is campaign for people to pay attention to the road while on the road, regardless of vehicle. Also because there's been studies that the problem is not "use of this or that device" but "not paying attention to the road". Indeed, the people who yap on phones behind the wheel are the same people that used to fidget with cassette players while behind the wheel. They're failing to pay attention to the road. Fix that, the whole problem goes away.
  So they would do much better to make driving instructors, even the "how to behave on a bike" classes given in highschools, stress "pay attention to the road". Make it another "bob" campaign, something like that. That has a chance of actually working. The way they're doing it now, it's just gonna mean yet more excessively high fines failing to change habits but sure providing yet another nice revenue stream. It's no coincidence that road fines are generally regarded as yet another unavoidable tax rather than a means to improve road safety, at least by the actual road users. It's how the government has consistently treated fining motorists. Now it's the bicyclists' turn.
19. Re: That's going to really tick off people by xonen · 2018-09-28 18:28 · Score: 1
  
  With headphones? As you blissfully bike along not listening to traffic noise?
  Ironically the law also covers (`mobile`) music devices. They are probably thinking ipods, or phones used for the music or whatever, but listening to an mp3 player (or more precisely: controlling the mp3 player) is also being forbidden, in effect also outlawing a 1980's walkman.
  I have double feelings about this law. Yes, some people bicycle while looking constant at their phone. But i bet people are getting fined for just checking the time, or making a normal phone call. I'm totally fine with people making phone calls on their bicycle, because it means they keep their eyes on the road. It's texting and chatting (or is that called 'apping' these days?) that's the issue, not phoning or casual screen use or interaction.
  
  --
  A glitch a day keeps the bugs away.
20. Re:That's going to really tick off people by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 18:41 · Score: 0
  
  Our laws define "driver" as an operator of any vehicle (motor vehicles, off-road vehicles, bicycles, mopeds), person who guides animals on the road, or a driver's ed teacher (two drivers in these cars - teacher and student). The laws here don't have to specifically allow hands-frees because "anything not prohibited is allowed".
21. Re: That's going to really tick off people by prefec2 · 2018-09-28 19:29 · Score: 1
  
  Do tou think politicians in the Netherlands are stupid? They use the stuff themselves. Therefore, it will be allowed to use it for specific uses when the device is not hand held.
22. Re:That's going to really tick off people by JaredOfEuropa · 2018-09-28 19:51 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You are allowed to use them if they are in a cradle, as is the case when driving a car. Mind, a copper can still do you for 'dangerous conduct' (Art. 5 WVW 1994) if he notices you spend an awful long time looking at the cell phone clipped to the dash instead of watching the road. I wonder if they will apply that law to bike riders as well.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
23. Re:That's going to really tick off people by hackertourist · 2018-09-28 19:58 · Score: 1
  
  Every e-bike has a control system and display built in, and they all include a speedometer.
  Satnav is the only real concern here.
24. Re: That's going to really tick off people by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 20:34 · Score: 0
  
  No, I think politicians EVERYWHERE are stupid. Restricting freedom on the grounds that something MIGHT happen is absolutely ridiculous.
  I hold my phone while riding all the time. Not constantly of course. I'm just very particular about what I listen to while wearing my headphones and I want to change to something I like a lot. That said, I only do that when not moving/moving at a slow pace or while on a trail with no cars around and no obstacles/intersections ahead. I would never, ever do that while riding in a crowded area or on a road with cars on it because that would be idiotic. Same thing as using a phone while driving--it's pretty safe to take a couple of seconds to look at a phone while driving on a straight road with no traffic in proximity and no driveways/intersections nearby. It's totally unsafe to do that with other cars a few feet away or when driving through a neighborhood with kids in it, assuming their helicopter mommies let them outside for more than 5 minutes a day in the first place.
  It's also perfectly safe to use your phone while stopped. Yet some states in the US (looking at you Georgia and Nevada, though there are others) have ridiculous laws that prohibit even this. Want to know how I know it's perfectly safe? Because those same states lack laws prohibiting any OTHER activity while stopped. I've personally witnessed a distracted driving accident caused by an overworked mother dealing with her obnoxious kids. No phone involved at all. Had there been no kids and a phone instead, why would that accident have been any more serious? Fortunately nobody was seriously injured, but had it been worse you can bet the media story on it would have mentioned a cell phone immediately were one a factor yet it would not mention the obnoxious kids as a proximate cause.
  Also, you do realize that when car radios were first invented there were shrill busybodies running amok screaming for them to be banned because they'd cause all kinds of accidents and distractions. Go look at newspaper archives from that era. It's instructional because of course while car radios have in fact caused some distraction, people learned to adapt and to keep the risk reasonable. The instructional part being "ignore people who want to ban stuff that people like because they're almost certainly idiots or control freaks".
  We already have laws in the US against negligent and overly risky behavior while riding a vehicle and I'd be willing to bet the Netherlands does too. Nobody needs more laws, not about this kind of stuff anyway.
  Do we teach people risk management? Do we teach them situational awareness? Do we teach them personal responsibility? Do we teach them that when doing any dangerous activity to always take a second and ask yourself "am I in control of this situation?" This would go a lot further than new laws, but of course teaching people to think and evaluate goes against what corporations and governments want out of their subjects, er, citizens.
25. Re: That's going to really tick off people by wonkey_monkey · 2018-09-28 20:40 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Should've got off your bike before typing that.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
26. Re: That's going to really tick off people by CrimsonAvenger · 2018-09-28 21:21 · Score: 1
  
  Do tou think politicians in the Netherlands are stupid?
  In a word, yes. But I think that of pretty much all politicians, so it's not like I think the ones in the Netherlands are stupider....
  
  They use the stuff themselves. Therefore, it will be allowed to use it for specific uses when the device is not hand held.
  Or they'll have a special exception for MP's. That being the normal way politicians deal with laws that would inconvenience themselves....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
27. Re:That's going to really tick off people by thegarbz · 2018-09-28 21:49 · Score: 1
  
  That use them for GPS/Speedometer/Odometer or the control system for any kind of E-Bike.
  No it won't. Ignore the newspeak. The only thing they are banning is the holding of a device in your hand. Just like in the cars the use of mobile phones is not banned and there's one glued to every windscreen in the Netherlands all showing the telltale TomTom Go colour scheme.
28. Re:That's going to really tick off people by thegarbz · 2018-09-28 21:54 · Score: 1
  
  Lol is that all? During the Pokemon craze there were people two handed playing pokemon while cycling down the road without holding on to the handlebars. I even one day saw some guy duel wielding phones on his bicycle (though at least he was on the bikepath).
29. Re: That's going to really tick off people by thegarbz · 2018-09-28 21:56 · Score: 1
  
  With headphones? As you blissfully bike along not listening to traffic noise?
  Why is traffic noise relevant? This is the Netherlands we're talking about. I can get to pretty much any place in my city on my bicycle without ever sharing the road with a car.
  That said you'd be mad to have headphones on in Amsterdam city during peak hour. The cyclists are a menace.
30. Re:That's going to really tick off people by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 22:05 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks.
  I don't think "anything not prohibited is allowed" is a leading principle in our laws and if it were then it's not widely known.. .. although needing a law for allowing every single little thing would be absurd.
  I don't know too much about legal theories. We learn in school that government and parliament make the laws, that's where most of the legal creativity is seated. Before that the Napoleonic Code did everything (not as a sacred text but something that we imagine has the size of a phone book or a few of them).
  I did research the issue to amend my ignorance. I thus learned that they prohibited in 2015 the use of "hands-free kits" which are specifically (as in the vernacular) headsets, bluetooth earpieces and such. Stuff integrated with the car speakers is allowed (or not prohibited) - they're legally considered to be allowed, the layman will think so.
  Our national mythology will remember that a national committee on road security, basing itself on studies from two public institutes emitted in 2013 an authoritative but consultative opinion that all forms of phoning at the wheel were dangerous. Well strike that, they were talking of old school "hands free", the ear piece used by pedestrian. An original study warned of this in 2007, national media ran with it and it imprinted me. But I remember details of people where denouncing the attention stealing. In the end, the government and then the law denounced the attention stealing caused by a speaker situated in your ear, even one, which causes you to not pay attention to your environment.
  sorry if I was too long!
  I thought even a decade ago that phoning hands free in a car would be done with voice going through speakers because well.. it was a decade ago not two decades ago. I saw it on TV? So I wonder if the government colluded with car manufacturers.ha! I don't need to wonder. they told us to buy bluetooth diesel cars to save the planet. now we need to buy bluetooth gasoline cars to save the planet and then they'll find out that gasoline with direct injection is bad for some gases and so if you bought two save-the-planet cars in a row you're still a murderer (which is somewhat true still according to me) and then you'll buy an electric car and they'll jack up the electricity rates.
31. Re:That's going to really tick off people by MrL0G1C · 2018-09-28 23:10 · Score: 1
  
  So, deaf people shouldn't ride bikes then? /Devil's advocate.
  
  --
  Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
32. Re:That's going to really tick off people by MrL0G1C · 2018-09-28 23:19 · Score: 1
  
  Do you have any statistical evidence to back that up or is it just simple sexism?
  
  --
  Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
33. Re: That's going to really tick off people by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-29 01:08 · Score: 0
  
  I use my phone while biking. Typically Iâ(TM)m listening to NPR or music. But, I keep the volume low, use only one ear, and use earphones like Appleâ(TM)s earpods that donâ(TM)t block outside noise.
34. Re: That's going to really tick off people by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-29 01:42 · Score: 0
  
  Try spending some time on the streets of Dutch towns and cities. You really need to keep your wits about you, e.g. narrow streets, pavements, turnings, bridges (over canals), and junctions every few metres, and often crowded with pedestrians, cyclists, and cars. It's a terrible idea to split your attention between your phone and what's going on around you over there.
35. Re: That's going to really tick off people by cayenne8 · 2018-09-29 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  I have earbuds that have modes to specifically pull in external noises in mixed with music...so that I can hear traffic around me, etc.
  But I mainly play music though my watch when on a bike, not liking to carry bulky smartphone with me when out exercising.
  My first thought on this headline was..."Seriously, this is a problem?"
  Do people actually talk on a phone when they are biking or exercising?
  Isn't that the time to get AWAY from the fucking phone??
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
36. Re: That's going to really tick off people by CohibaVancouver · 2018-09-29 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Some people use speakers as well.
  Man do I hate this. Sitting on my deck in the evening with a beer and a book and have to listen to inconsiderate cyclist after cyclist ride by blaring music from their backpack speakers.
  
  The absolute BEST is when I'm at the park with my kids and I get to listen to skinny white boys on bikes blaring gangsta rap about "fucking my nigga bitch whore."
  
  Is it really that difficult to just ride your damn bike?
37. Re: That's going to really tick off people by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-29 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  They don't bother applying any of the other traffic laws which bikes are supposed to follow,so why would they do it with this one?
38. Re:That's going to really tick off people by Crashmarik · 2018-09-29 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  Really should check before you post something so easily refuted.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
39. Re: That's going to really tick off people by bobby · 2018-09-29 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  A year or so ago I had a cop on a bike give me the finger because I blew my horn. It was where a trail crosses a road, and the trail has very clear multiple STOP signs. The cop did not stop nor even slow down. The trail emerges from behind a hill, trees, bushes. It's not possible to see them coming, and again, trail riders have a STOP sign. I also ride bikes occasionally, including on the aforementioned trail, and I take my safety very seriously. I would stop even if there was no stop sign. I just don't understand the mentality of a pedestrian or bicyclist barging out in front of 2 tons of moving steel and other stuff.
40. Re:That's going to really tick off people by Brama · 2018-09-29 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Probably not. You could make do with a bunch of extra mirrors I suppose, but it definitely seems like an extra risk.
41. Re: That's going to really tick off people by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-29 06:09 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is that in NL people are texting while biking. It can be really annoying.
  Biking in NL is a major means of transportation in urban areas and what you call "to get AWAY" happens mostly during a specially dedicated time (weekend/vacation) usually in natural areas.
42. Re:That's going to really tick off people by thegarbz · 2018-09-29 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. Exactly. TFA is off point with it's language. Mobile phones aren't banned in cars in this way either. They are specifically targetting people *holding* mobile phones.
  NL Times (The source for NPR) unfortunately aren't all that good with language with frequent spelling and grammatical issues in their articles. From the source, type this baby through google translate: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/b...
  "Artikel 61a van het Reglement Verkeersregels en Verkeerstekens 1990 (hierna: RVV 1990) wordt zodanig gewijzigd dat het voortaan voor iedereen die een oertuig bestuurt, dus ook voor fietsers, trambestuurders en bestuurders van alle gehandicaptenvoertuigen, verboden is om tijdens het rijden een mobiel elektronisch apparaat, zoals een mobiele telefoon vast te houden."
  That bold part is key. You're not allowed to "hold on" to the electronic device.
43. Re:That's going to really tick off people by thegarbz · 2018-09-29 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  And while complaining about NL Times' language a superfluous apostrophe slipped into the "its". Slashdot needs some kind of a Preview function. :-)
44. Re:That's going to really tick off people by thegarbz · 2018-09-29 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  That really is not a bad thing. You might want to hear what's going on around you if you are on a bike.
  Depends. If you were in America or Australia or any other place where you share the road with something big, metal and dangerous then yeah, you may want to hear it creep up on you. In much of the Netherlands you can get a lot of places without actually sharing space with a motor vehicle.
  I still don't recommend it though.
45. Re: That's going to really tick off people by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-29 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  I understand not bringing your phone when exercising, but when you're simply getting from A to B bringing a phone can be very handy.
46. Re: That's going to really tick off people by kraut · 2018-09-29 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  I don't understand the mentality of someone in charge of 2 tonnes of dangerous machine that hits the horn instead of the brake.
  
  --
  no taxation without representation!
47. Re: That's going to really tick off people by drinkypoo · 2018-09-29 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  I don't understand the mentality of someone in charge of 2 tonnes of dangerous machine that hits the horn instead of the brake.
  It might surprise you, but it's possible to apply both the horn and the brake at the same time, if one has even the slightest dexterity.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
48. Re: That's going to really tick off people by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-29 15:09 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, typo... remove one zero...
  I was impressed by your achievement until you took away a 0.
  Now you are just ORDINARY.
49. Re: That's going to really tick off people by Dayze!Confused · 2018-09-29 16:38 · Score: 1
  
  People have been doing the same thing with cars, the difference being that they'll crank the bass way up and not give a damn about anyone else. Is it really that difficult just to drive your damn car?
  
  --
  "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]
50. Re:That's going to really tick off people by Dayze!Confused · 2018-09-29 16:40 · Score: 1
  
  That's why we banned stereos from cars decades ago, it's a good idea to hear what's going on around you.
  
  --
  "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]
51. Re: That's going to really tick off people by CohibaVancouver · 2018-09-30 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  They too are inconsiderate dicks, but they rarely drive their car through a city park.
52. Re: That's going to really tick off people by dcw3 · 2018-09-30 23:22 · Score: 1
  
  I don't understand the mentality of someone in charge of 2 tonnes of dangerous machine that hits the horn instead of the brake.
  Then you're part of the problem. Nowhere did he say he didn't brake. He had the right of way, and clearly the cop was being an idiot by running the STOP sign, and should have been ticketed for doing so.
  
  --
  Just another day in Paradise
53. Re:That's going to really tick off people by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-30 23:34 · Score: 0
  
  So much for MrLOGIC, you should change your handle to MrSJW with that chip on your shoulder. Learn to fricking google, the answer is there.
Talking While Moving by mentil · 2018-09-28 13:58 · Score: 5, Funny

Next thing you know, Netherlands will ban talking on a phone while moving. Perhaps a technical solution can be found, like tethering phones to walls in houses; for convenience, small kiosks (with walls for privacy) can be put in various public places so you can use a phone when not at home. It'll be the next big thing!

--
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
1. Re: Talking While Moving by Cmdln+Daco · 2018-09-28 14:59 · Score: 1
  
  The gps can be used to sense the phone is in motion and grey out the Text and Phone icons.
2. Re: Talking While Moving by tsa · 2018-09-28 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  ...so you can't use it in the train, bus and as a passenger in a car.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
3. Re: Talking While Moving by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 18:58 · Score: 1
  
  So perfect then, so you wont annoy the other people in the train, bus and the car.
4. Re: Talking While Moving by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 23:59 · Score: 0
  
  But you can use a normal (non smart) phone and the old iPhones that didn't have a GPS yet!
5. Re: Talking While Moving by tsa · 2018-09-29 17:20 · Score: 1
  
  You got a point there.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
Ban Muslims instead by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 13:58 · Score: -1

Muslime raus.
Why not ban bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 14:15 · Score: -1, Troll

They're a nuisance and bike riders seem to feel that traffic laws don't apply to them.
1. Re:Why not ban bicycles by balsy2001 · 2018-09-28 14:35 · Score: 2
  
  I ride a lot. I find that many drivers dont understand the actual traffic laws as they pertain to bikes on the road. Granted there are differences between jurisdictions.
  
  --
  GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
2. Re: Why not ban bicycles by Cmdln+Daco · 2018-09-28 15:02 · Score: 1
  
  I almost never see cyclists, even the ones in their little outfits acting like they are Serious Cyclists, slow down let alone completely stop at stop signs. But that's the law, guys.
3. Re:Why not ban bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 15:43 · Score: 0
  
  Sounds like you're applying the experience with bikers you've had in your own country to an entirely different country. You clearly don't live or have ever been in the Netherlands. Here, have a read, specifically the bicycle bit: https://robertweetman.wordpress.com/2017/10/12/what-nobody-told-me-1/
4. Re:Why not ban bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 15:47 · Score: 0
  
  Where else outside of a Polish beach do you get to see sweaty middle-aged men in brightly colored spandex?
5. Re: Why not ban bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 15:52 · Score: -1
  
  I drive a lot. If I broke the laws cyclists did (and I studied them), I'd be busy driving on sidewalks, through crosswalks, through stop signs, through red lights, never signalling, oh, I would also have to remove all my reflectors and disable my DRLs for night time. I would also share lanes with other cars, and even share them with buses.
  Yes, cyclists in Ontario can't do those things. Except perhaps riding through crosswalks, that may have changed. Still a very dumb thing to do, since I look for people walking on the sidewalk, not 200 feet up it for a 50 km/h cyclist when I make a turn.
6. Re:Why not ban bicycles by pete6677 · 2018-09-28 15:54 · Score: 1
  
  The bike has the right of way at all times.
7. Re:Why not ban bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 15:59 · Score: 0
  
  But they don't have the right to blow through stop signs at intersections.
8. Re:Why not ban bicycles by tsa · 2018-09-28 16:35 · Score: 1
  
  You have clearly never been in the Netherlands.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
9. Re:Why not ban bicycles by tsa · 2018-09-28 16:35 · Score: 1
  
  No they haven't.
  
  --
  -- Cheers!
10. Re: Why not ban bicycles by balsy2001 · 2018-09-28 16:39 · Score: 1
  
  Not were I live, but most jurisdictions dont have the same laws. Where i am at, stop signs are yeild signs and stop lights are stop signs for cyclists. Its written into state law. Its called an Idaho Stop, see here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
  
  --
  GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
11. Re: Why not ban bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 17:01 · Score: 0
  
  This is why fast cyclists need to avoid bike lanes sometimes. Some lanes just beg you to get hit by cars turning right.
  Running a right light? I do that routinely because a bicycle always gets in front (so can do it much more often) and then has a much better view of everything. It works when there's well enough of a mercy period when all lights are red or when there's no cars at all. I may as well do to avoid negotiating a left turn with cars pumping their virtual horses on green light.
  In parts of the US they allow fucking cars to turn right on red lights, which is illegal for bicycles in my country (but they added some small signs to allow it at some lights, including the one place I was once berated by a couple cops in a car)
  They painted bus lanes in my town, and then painted bicycle signs on them so the law sort of asks me to share lanes with buses. But it's another thing where "common sense" is needed. Get out of the way, or ride faster than buses (thanks to the numerous stops in town arteries here) or get all the lane for yourself when there aren't any buses. I love it but would-be cyclists and other cyclists bitch about that.
  I flaunt the laws on lights but reflectors aren't mandatory afaik. Those in spokes may just mess with the spokes (and won't be seen by vehicles you care about!), reflectors may give a very false sense of security.
  Well I would also advise cyclists in an unsafe situation (crosswalks, dark, poor mechanics, drunk, or in scary crossings or traffic) to get on foot because that also costs nothing at all and can be done more often that getting on foot and pushing the car.
  Print material and text websites, videos, riding lessons (with a straight face, that exists for adults) can be a small partial solution and is all I can propose. For me I went from car driving to fast cycling so I just knew to ride the left lane for turning left, go into roundabouts with the cars, stop at the lights (this is still good in "heavy" areas and most so around highway exits) then learnt a more "liberal" and urban cycling too. (i.e. doing more shithead things but also slower)
12. Re: Why not ban bicycles by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-28 17:37 · Score: 1
  
  Stopping with a bicycle at a stop sign is probably in 90% of all cases pretty retarded. If there is no police around, obviously I don't stop, in the sense of the word "stop".
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
13. Re: Why not ban bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 17:48 · Score: 0
  
  Where you are also plays a role in cycling culture. I grew up in a place where bicyclists had to be banned from the sidewalks back when I was a young child, because they were running people over--I never got hit, but that was entirely because I was good at hearing oncoming bikes and getting out of the way...and was lucky enough to never have to dodge one where I'd have to try dodging into the road.
14. Re: Why not ban bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 18:21 · Score: 0
  
  I think I stop at stop signs. They're fairly rare where I live! See, they put lights everywhere instead, which are less formal for cyclists and make it more convenient by stopping lots of cars. Other places there's a painted "yield" marking, or a roundabout, or no markings at all.
  Where you will see a lot of stop signs is roads out of town and then you'll stop anyway because cars are doing 100 km/h or perhaps more.
15. Re: Why not ban bicycles by dunkelfalke · 2018-09-28 19:42 · Score: 1
  
  I do.
  It is not retarded because it shows to other cyclists that some people actually follow the traffic code. This puts peer pressure on those who don't.
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
16. Re: Why not ban bicycles by JaredOfEuropa · 2018-09-28 19:59 · Score: 1
  
  "Idaho stop" sounds like something nasty happening on a dark highway. "I got pulled over, and that bastard cop gave me an Idaho stop! I couldn't sit properly for a week..."
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
17. Re: Why not ban bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 21:02 · Score: 0
  
  >In parts of the US they allow fucking cars to turn right on red lights, which is illegal for bicycles in my country (but they added some small signs to allow it at some lights, including the one place I was once berated by a couple cops in a car)
  I think you're mistaking what I said. I said running red lights. As in turning left or driving straight through them. As for turning right, you are required to come to a complete stop prior to doing so (not doing that is running it), however, a lot of cars don't bother for right turns either so I'd be willing to overlook that one as it rarely results in the spectacular collision the other two maneuvers do.
  Can you imagine the amount of people who would die if cars drove at top speed straight through red lights all the time? Yet the invulnerable cyclist does it all the time.
  >They painted bus lanes in my town, and then painted bicycle signs on them so the law sort of asks me to share lanes with buses.
  They have done this for some streets in my city. The intent is you will command the entire lane or you will pull over to the right to allow faster traffic to pass, as is required by law in Ontario (HTA 147) in a dual purpose lane.
  >I flaunt the laws on lights but reflectors aren't mandatory afaik
  They are in Ontario. I bet they are also required where you live, also.
  https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08#BK123
  "(17) When on a highway at any time from one-half hour before sunset to one-half hour after sunrise and at any other time when, due to insufficient light or unfavourable atmospheric conditions, persons and vehicles on the highway are not clearly discernible at a distance of 150 metres or less, every motor assisted bicycle and bicycle (other than a unicycle) shall carry a lighted lamp displaying a white or amber light on its front and a lighted lamp displaying a red light or a reflector on its rear, and in addition white reflective material shall be placed on its front forks, and red reflective material covering a surface of not less than 250 millimetres in length and 25 millimetres in width shall be placed on its rear. 2015, c. 14, s. 21 (2)."
  Of course I'm modded down to -1, these are difficult pills to swallow for cyclists.
  >Print material and text websites, videos, riding lessons (with a straight face, that exists for adults) can be a small partial solution and is all I can propose
  I have a better idea. Mandatory licensing of cyclists. The fees can go towards paying for your bike lanes. They don't have to be particularly high like car fees are, I figure $5 a year would be plenty. But there is a reason why police in Ontario find against the driver in the majority of driver/cyclist collisions. I used to drive a route that took me along several roads popular with cyclists. I would literally thumbs up the cyclists that would drive according the the law (at least the important parts like NOT FUCKING TURNING LEFT THROUGH A RED LIGHT). I only needed to do this once a month. That's how little ability there seems to be to ride according to the law here.
18. Re: Why not ban bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 21:05 · Score: 0
  
  Police find against the cyclist, I should say.
  https://www.therecord.com/news-story/2591034-cyclists-at-fault-in-majority-of-bike-vehicle-collisions/
19. Re:Why not ban bicycles by thegarbz · 2018-09-28 21:52 · Score: 2
  
  They do legally as a base case in the Netherlands. If you hit a cyclist the car is automatically at fault. You'll need to go through the courts to prove otherwise. If the cyclist / pedestrian is under 14 you can't prove otherwise, you're just at fault.
20. Re: Why not ban bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 23:05 · Score: 0
  
  I'm the other guy that do. I do not even see or watch the stop sign itself, what matters is the continuous paint line. I have to say it's not there in my country at traffic lights, or crosswalks.
  I did get in an accident with a car while turning left and crossing a continuous line and got rear-ended in fact left-ended, at night. Where the medieval walls used to stand and which is now circling half the town center. Well, it's weird there was a hard line there just after that majorly known but not too big crossing. I figured I was more drunk than the car and let the car go. In truth I didn't know what to fucking do I could have asked the startled guy for a ride.
  I'm not an expert in USA road, do they use the double yellow for that? they do for "not cross road"
  I think you're not USA! I want to build a moral equivalency between stop sign/stop paint and paint line "absolutely do not cross".
  
  This puts peer pressure on those who don't.
  Sometimes I do this in a hypocritical way i.e. women and childs behind me at the red light then I'll stop. I'm kidding a bit. Proper lane placement is what I like doing because dead center is nice if you go as fast as the cars, dead right is nice if you go slow and/or want to let go a bus, heavy truck or firefighters or fast responders or main battle tanks etc. I do believe dead left is good for turning left (or possibly dead center of left lane), in my country cars have to go left to turn left and are only authorized to overtake on the right the cars that turn left. Good thing for me if you look both ahead and behind you and ahead left and behind left.
21. Re: Why not ban bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 23:44 · Score: 0
  
  Thanks.
  And when I read you and replied you you weren't modded to -1, so don't read too much in what a basement dweller did.
  
  They have done this for some streets in my city. The intent is you will command the entire lane or you will pull over to the right to allow faster traffic to pass, as is required by law in Ontario (HTA 147) in a dual purpose lane.
  This is what I want to get at, say, in English it's "share the lane" and in French "Partager la voie" (and that in Latin is "share the via"). I have to say I don't know the law, code, statute or rule which says this. (I don't intend to be a smart ass I speak French. Exact translation will be "share the way")
  I thank you (half heartedly) on the laws and statutes for lights and reflectors. In.. where I live, bikes somewhat often have reflectors on the sides but law says, active white light on the front and active red light on the red (decades of yellow light on the front on cars will make a yellow light on old bike acceptable).
  It's getting common to have cheap ass LED light now powered by primary battery (like AAA or CR2032) and they all can blink. If anything I should sell these lights. Blinking red is good and with these LED things must means it eat half power.
  Towns cops don't give a shit because all roads got lighted like mad unless you get out of town's neighboring town and then the rural cops will (possibly) bother you but they're not the same kind of cops... What I call the rural cops are very known to catch the drunkards and speeders. Well it's an eurowimp country.
22. Re: Why not ban bicycles by angel'o'sphere · 2018-09-29 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  I don't run the stop sign, but i don't stop in the sense that the bike is at rest and one foot is on the ground.
  I often stop in an "artistic way", the bike is at rest but I keep sitting/standing on the pedals.
  Yeah, but 90% of the time, I slow only down like a pedestrian and continue if there is no need to stop.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
23. Re:Why not ban bicycles by radja · 2018-09-29 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  this is not true. You're not automatically at fault. However, in a car you will be held responsible, since the cyclist is weaker than the car. In a collision between a car and a bicycle it's the car that makes it dangerous.
  
  --
  
  No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
  --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
24. Re:Why not ban bicycles by thegarbz · 2018-09-29 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  You're not automatically at fault. However, in a car you will be held responsible
  An English language distinction, not a legal distinction.
25. Re: Why not ban bicycles by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-29 09:38 · Score: 0
  
  I have yet to see a stop sign on a bike path.
Nannyland? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 14:15 · Score: -1

When the oceans rise, and Nannyland is 2 feet underwater, how will they grow tulips then? Hm? How?
1. Re:Nannyland? by balsy2001 · 2018-09-28 14:38 · Score: 1
  
  It isn’t nannyland when your behavior has the risk of injuring an uninvolved party. Almost certainly the actual regulation wont be as vague as the article, but the determination of overkill depends on what they actual mean by “use”.
  
  --
  GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
2. Re:Nannyland? by Brama · 2018-09-28 14:57 · Score: 1
  
  FYI, large parts of the Netherlands are already 2 feet + under sea level.
3. Re:Nannyland? by MrMr · 2018-09-29 02:17 · Score: 2
  
  Coastal defence in The Netherlands is regulated by law. It is maintained at mean sealevel+36ft, whatever the rise. We're also nannies about getting shit done.
And this is helpful? by Arzaboa · 2018-09-28 14:25 · Score: 1

If the Netherlands is anything like the rest of the countries on the planet I've seent, the problem isn't the lack of telling people to stay off their phone. The problem is that people tend to not pay any attention to the law, and common sense seems to be subjective.
Its very hard to police this on a mass scale as it just appears half of the people are talking to themselves. The pretense to pulling people over so far, isn't "They looked crazy to me judge, it looked like they were talking to themselves."
--
What sane person could live in this world and not be crazy? - Ursula K. Leguin
1. Re:And this is helpful? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 14:54 · Score: 0
  
  In sharp contrast to the US, laws actually tend to be enforced and honored, and police forces aren't completely (morally) corrupt. They're essentially Germans, sticklers for the rules.
2. Re: And this is helpful? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 17:26 · Score: 0
  
  Does not surprise me, nazis are all about rules and euros are nazis.
3. Re:And this is helpful? by Hognoxious · 2018-09-28 18:17 · Score: 1
  
  How is it hard? Hidden camera, hidden cop with a baton. When they see someone doing it the cop steps out and tells them to stop and issues a spot fine. If they don't stop the cop uses the baton.
  Increase fines for repeat offenders and/or confiscate the bike.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
4. Re:And this is helpful? by JaredOfEuropa · 2018-09-28 20:23 · Score: 1
  
  Offenders are easy to spot. The offense is not for 'making a call' but for 'holding a phone' while driving / cycling. And making a law against that is a good first step towards more awareness about the dangers. People here have a pretty strong faith in the overall fairness and usefulness of the law, so they reason: "If using a phone while cycling really was that dangerous, they would have made a law against it". Well, now we have.
  
  It's also good for motorists, even if it isn't policed particularly well. Over here, if there's an accident between a cyclist and a motorist, the motorist will pretty much always have to pay even if they are deemed not to have caused the accident. The reasoning is that motorists are "cagers"; well protected, and should therefore exercise maximum due caution towards more vulnerable road users. Also they always have insurance. But there are exceptions when a cyclist is shown to be particularly careless: riding without lights on a dark country road, for instance. And under this new law, perhaps riding while using a cell phone will also count as carelessness.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
5. Re:And this is helpful? by hankwang · 2018-09-28 21:19 · Score: 1
  
  Most likely it will be policed like how they deal running (biking) red lights and malfunctioning bike lights. Occasional police traps where everyone who's caught (by not noticing the very visible cops in time) gets fined. When they do red-light checks in my town it occasionally lead to severe traffic jams since the light timings are not at all designed to cope with the rush-hour bike traffic if everyone actually stops.
  But at least it sets a standard ... that you look around for cops while making traffic infractions. That you pay more attention to the traffic around you in the process is a nice side effect.
  
  --
  Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
6. Re: And this is helpful? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 21:36 · Score: 0
  
  Hitler ate food and breathed air. Do you usually breathe, by the way?
Cute. by Pig+Hogger · 2018-09-28 14:34 · Score: 1

Québec just did this some 4-5 months ago.
What do they mean? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 14:43 · Score: 0

I can no longer use my phone to listen to podcasts while I bike?
1. Re: What do they mean? by Cmdln+Daco · 2018-09-28 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  Do you have a speaker or open back headphones?
2. Re: What do they mean? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 15:14 · Score: 0
  
  I use the phone as a speaker, wear it on an upper arm band
Why not ban cars by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 14:52 · Score: 0

They're a nuisance and car drivers seem to feel that traffic laws don't apply to them.
1. Re:Why not ban cars by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 15:43 · Score: 0
  
  Um, because the economy would come to a sudden and grinding halt?
2. Re: Why not ban cars by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 21:05 · Score: 0
  
  Meh
I rode on glass shards by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 15:36 · Score: 0

I don't know how to back up my contacts yet. The application program called "Dumbphone assistant" looks perfect in term of GUI and showing contacts both on phone and SIM, there's two tabs (phone and.. SIM) and a check mark for common contacts. I would be done in seconds but it says 'Failed to save contact on SIM'
A friend was surprised when I told him I don't have Internet on the phone. It's not mandatory.
[The OS is not so bad (it's one of the few phones on the official Lineage list), the specs are high (dual core, 1GB RAM) but I wonder if I can underclock it.]
I wonder why copying contacts to SIM isn't built into the OS, nor the FM radio (I added it, and it requires root! works but fails at outputting sound on the phone's speaker, also the GUI is bad). What is included is the flashlight!
Wow, I got a very old aged OLED! You can see a few horizontal lines. It's not very bright, probably a factor for outdoors accidents but still serviceable. The colors are wrong but not overly so. It looks like what people do on purposes on desktops, laptops and sometimes phones : the "night time" display mode with an application like f.lux. The resolution is extremely high (1280x720) although it's just pissed away on thin sans serif fonts and symbolic icons.
1. Re:I rode on glass shards by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 15:42 · Score: 0
  
  Lost in copy paste was the part were I was riding on glass shards because I was reading some small text on an old SMS notification or trying to swipe at shit such as figuring out how to call someone. If this were my non flip dumbphone this wouldn't have happened!
Already the case elsewhere? by Corbets · 2018-09-28 16:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

I’m pretty sure it’s already illegal to talk on your phone while bicycling in Switzerland. Laws that apply to motorists apply to bicyclists, and you can lose your drivers license for actions on a bicycle, so I would expect that phone use - illegal in a car - is also illegal on a bike.
1. Re:Already the case elsewhere? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 17:29 · Score: 0
  
  Sometimes they do a law to forbid something that was already forbidden. For example in France it was forbidden to smoke in public closed places in 1991, then that got forgotten immediately (but ads for cigarette were verboten and ads for alcohol were stricter), then it was forbidden for real around 2009 or something.
  Maybe that tells more about France than anything. E.g. law doesn't give a shit about you smoking in public parks. But drinking in public parks used to be not allowed (by that I mean the very formal public parks!, closed at night) and now it seems they don't have much enforcement for that. Well, the 18 and 16-year-olds don't drink much if at all publicly in formal public parks in the middle of the day anyway. Jaywalking law was never enforced in my living memory.
  These shits are busy closing down on homeless with dogs instead and squatter homes and "artistic" or "musical" squats instead and also onerous security requirements on open air concerts because of the terrrists (which I don't give a shit about, they were defeated by Russia and Syria and I don't remember anything terrrrrist lately)
Nope by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 17:27 · Score: 0

Apparently you're not allowed to use any "electronic device" while on a bike. Wording it like that is said to "future-proof" the law.
So no, nothing about cradles, using GPSes, or whatnot. NO LOOKING AT THAT ELECTRONIC DEVICE, SIR.
1. Re: Nope by c6gunner · 2018-09-29 01:54 · Score: 2
  
  I suppose that technically makes it illegal for people with pacemakers to ride a bike.
2. Re:Nope by nospam007 · 2018-09-29 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  "Apparently you're not allowed to use any "electronic device" while on a bike. Wording it like that is said to "future-proof" the law."
  I have an electronic shifter and a wireless control unit.
  The law sucks.
3. Re:Nope by eneville · 2018-09-29 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  "Apparently you're not allowed to use any "electronic device" while on a bike. Wording it like that is said to "future-proof" the law."
  I have an electronic shifter and a wireless control unit.
  The law sucks.
  Are you /using/ it, or is the bike /using/ it?
  
  --
  Why UNIX?
4. Re:Nope by Askmum · 2018-10-01 18:43 · Score: 1
  
  Wording like that is not going to be used.
  
  Het is degene die een voertuig bestuurt verboden tijdens het rijden een mobiel elektronisch apparaat dat gebruikt kan worden voor communicatie of informatieverwerking vast te houden. Onder een mobiel elektronisch apparaat wordt in elk geval verstaan een mobiele telefoon, een tabletcomputer of een mediaspeler.
  roughly translates to: it is forbidden for everyone operating a vehicle to use or hold in your hand a mobile electronic device that can be used for communication or informationprocessing. A mobile electronic device does at least encompass a mobile phone, a tablet computer or a mediaplayer.
  
  Using your electronic shifter is not covered under this law. The wireless control unit might be, if you hold that in your hand.
Just not allowed in hand by Njovich · 2018-09-28 18:51 · Score: 4, Informative

The proposed ban only bans holding electronics in your hand while riding your bike. You can still use a headset, odometer, GPS, etc, just not in your hand while riding. You are allowed to use them when standing still. The same is already true for cars.
There are lots of kids texting while riding their bike on the public road, leading to an increase in accidents. Things like this are a common occurrence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
1. Re:Just not allowed in hand by dinfinity · 2018-09-29 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Things like this are a common occurrence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  
  Without taking away from your point that texting whilst cycling can be dangerous and can lead to accidents, the driver of the car is on the wrong side of the road and the accident is his fault.
  The parked car is an obstacle on his side of the road, which means that he should ensure that it is safe to pass it on the other side of the road before doing so. He clearly did not properly check that and would have created a similarly problematic situation if there would have been oncoming traffic of another kind.
2. Re:Just not allowed in hand by daid303 · 2018-09-29 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  Except that there is more then enough room for the bike to pass. Knowing these kinds of streets, they are about 2.5 car wide. You can also see that the driver stops as soon as he notices that he bike isn't noticing the car and moving properly to the side of the road, instead of trying to make a full pass.
3. Re:Just not allowed in hand by Njovich · 2018-09-29 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I should have made that clear, the car driver is 100% at fault there. Shit happens in traffic though, and it helps if you have focus on the road.
4. Re:Just not allowed in hand by drew_kime · 2018-09-29 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  Without taking away from your point that texting whilst cycling can be dangerous and can lead to accidents, the driver of the car is on the wrong side of the road and the accident is his fault.
  No it isn't.
  She wasn't visible until he'd already started pulling around the parked car. When she does enter line-of-sight, she's dressed in all black with a dark tree behind her, and didn't have her headlight on. (Standard advice for anyone riding open roads is to have head and tail lights on at all times, preferably strobing.)
  But the fact that she's made herself difficult to see isn't the main point. If she were driving a car while texting, no one would be arguing that she had right of way.
  When you're on a bike, you're harder to see and more vulnerable. You can't put your safety on drivers to be extra careful of you. You have to be more careful than when driving.
  
  --
  Nope, no sig
5. Re:Just not allowed in hand by dinfinity · 2018-09-30 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  When she does enter line-of-sight, she's dressed in all black with a dark tree behind her, and didn't have her headlight on.
  You have obviously never ridden a bicycle in the Netherlands. Pretty much nobody on a bicycle turns on their lights during the day. You look like an idiot if you do.
  Also: look at the movie again. The driver has seconds to see her coming. He is just banking on her passing him on the left side, for which there technically is (just about) enough space.
  Also: if "she was wearing black whilst cycling in front of a dark tree" is your defense, you should have your license revoked because you are legally blind.
  
  If she were driving a car while texting, no one would be arguing that she had right of way.
  Nonsense. The car is on the wrong side of the road and can only drive there if it is safe to do so. End of story.
6. Re:Just not allowed in hand by dinfinity · 2018-09-30 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Except that there is more then enough room for the bike to pass
  There is some room for the bike to pass, but definitely not 'more than enough'. At the end you can see that her front wheel is against the pavement as she lifts it up to reposition her bike to be able to pass the car after the incident.
  Yes, she could have probably passed the car if she was paying attention, but most drivers would just let the cyclist pass first before turning the corner and passing the parked car, especially if they see that they're dealing with a teenager (let alone a teenager on their phone). My guess is that the driver was simply not expecting the parked car to be there and made the wrong decision.
  
  You can also see that the driver stops as soon as he notices that he bike isn't noticing the car and moving properly to the side of the road
  Again: she has the right of way. I'm not trying to exonerate her, but you can't claim "but she could have moved out of my way" when you're on the wrong side of the road. Passing an obstacle in such a manner is considered to be a risky maneouvre, only to be performed when completely safe and always at the responsibility of the person passing the obstacle. The alternative is having to wait 5 seconds until the other side of the road is completely free, which is what the driver should have done. There is almost never a need to hurry, especially when piloting a ~1000kg vehicle.
7. Re:Just not allowed in hand by drew_kime · 2018-09-30 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  You have obviously never ridden a bicycle in the Netherlands. Pretty much nobody on a bicycle turns on their lights during the day. You look like an idiot if you do.
  No, I haven't. But if "you look like an idiot" is a good enough reason to not ride safely, I'm not too sympathetic.
  
  Also: if "she was wearing black whilst cycling in front of a dark tree" is your defense, you should have your license revoked because you are legally blind.
  What's the next thing I said after that? "But the fact that she's made herself difficult to see isn't the main point." Yeah, that was just bonus.
  
  If she were driving a car while texting, no one would be arguing that she had right of way.
  Nonsense. The car is on the wrong side of the road and can only drive there if it is safe to do so. End of story.
  He was stopped. She ran into him. Regardless of where he was on the road, she was the one driving unsafely.
  
  --
  Nope, no sig
8. Re:Just not allowed in hand by strikethree · 2018-10-01 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  I fail to see a problem here. Why does this require government intervention?
  
  --
  "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
9. Re:Just not allowed in hand by dinfinity · 2018-10-01 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  But if "you look like an idiot" is a good enough reason to not ride safely, I'm not too sympathetic.
  We don't need you to be. You're talking asinine shit about traffic situations you have no experience with. The point is that you were arguing 'she should have had her headlight on', which is an idiotic line of defense. Your 'standard advice' is bullshit and with regard to the strobing part even illegal in the Netherlands.
  
  What's the next thing I said after that?
  Irrelevant.
  If you think a blonde white girl on a white bicycle in a 30km/h zone in broad fucking daylight classifies as 'difficult to see', you are unfit to drive or judge situations including any vehicle other than a tricycle.
  
  she was the one driving unsafely
  Don't change the subject. She had the right of way and would also have if she were in a 'car while texting'. The driver of the car in this situation did not. End. Of. Story.
10. Re:Just not allowed in hand by Anonymous Coward · 2018-10-01 13:51 · Score: 0
  
  >>> You are allowed to use them when standing still. The same is already true for cars.
  Not in [some] Australian states such as NSW.
  You can't even HOLD a mobile phone in a car whilst stationary at traffic lights. During school holidays where double demerit points apply, you could be fined $500 and 10 demerit points for doing so. (You have 13 demerit points to start with, and they are removed after 3 years).
11. Re:Just not allowed in hand by drew_kime · 2018-10-02 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  The point is that you were arguing 'she should have had her headlight on', which is an idiotic line of defense. Your 'standard advice' is bullshit and with regard to the strobing part even illegal in the Netherlands.
  Didn't know that about the strobing light in the Netherlands. But as I said that's not the main defense for the driver, just an additional point that she wasn't being as careful as I would be.
  
  If you think a blonde white girl on a white bicycle in a 30km/h zone in broad fucking daylight classifies as 'difficult to see', you are unfit to drive or judge situations including any vehicle other than a tricycle.
  Cyclists are harder to see than cars. Dark clothes against a dark background are harder still. I'm not saying she's invisible, I'm saying that when I share the road with cars I go out of my way to be visible.
  
  She had the right of way and would also have if she were in a 'car while texting'. The driver of the car in this situation did not. End. Of. Story.
  Yes, she had right of way, which is in her favor. And she was texting instead of looking where she was going, which is against her. When weighing something like that, I go with which one is necessary and sufficient. If he's encroaching on her lane, but she's looking where she's going, there's still plenty of room to avoid the collision. If she's not looking, she could run into him even if he's not in her lane. It's not 100% her fault, but it's definitely not 0, either.
  
  --
  Nope, no sig
The population wouldn't stand for it by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 19:40 · Score: 1

I live in the Netherlands and don't have a car and I avoid public transport, so I bike a lot. And in fact many many people here bike a lot. The pet peeve is against bike racers acting rather uncivil in traffic, not mere bike riders. The adherence to traffic rules (they're not laws) is pretty good actually, though a little more freewheeling than what you'd do in a car, except in places like Amsterdam which is a permanent jam regardless of transport mode. Still a tad many people ride without lights in the dark though.
Personally I do break traffic rules if and when that's the safer course of action. Say, bike on pavement for 50 meters if that saves crossing a busy strreet twice. But when I do that I slow to walking pace, making sure not to inconvenience traffic on foot, that sort of thing. The youtube footage showing groups of cyclists misbehaving at high speed right through all other traffic in eg. New York, you really don't see that here. There's really no need, with plenty of dedicated lanes for bikes in most places. Also recall that the Netherlands is small a small place full of old towns and cities not designed for cars. It really makes much more sense to bike than to hop in a car here.
Who are they kidding? by Xenna · 2018-09-28 21:10 · Score: 2

In the Netherlands, people on bikes drive on the sidewalk (not allowed), fail to indicate direction change (not allowed), drive without lights after sundown (not allowed), drive intoxicated (not allowed) and drive on the wrong side of the road regularly (not allowed).
Neither of these common offenses is ever punished. The phone ban won't be either.
Only car drivers are ever punished and then only for offenses that can be easily policed with cameras.
1. Re:Who are they kidding? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 22:00 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Well, as a student I did get a hefty fine (~€200) for not having lights on before it was officially daytime. I never got a speeding ticket for my car that was that high, the closest I got was a parking ticket (€180). I never got a parking ticket on bicycle, though I did get it 'towed' and had to fetch it with the police later and got off with a warning. I also got stopped by the police for crossing a light in red on bicycle, though I argued my way out of that because that officer was regulating traffic further down the road and couldn't actually see the traffic light from the side I crossed. Taking the fine, I was in the queue with another 10+ cyclists that morning. I am also proud that I got flashed by an automated speed camera, though I never saw the fine :-). I also know of a student that spent the night in a police cell sobering up, charged with drunk driving (on a bicycle) and attempt to escape the police (drunk on the bicycle). He got off easy.
  Now, I never get any fines, I walk (and moved to a country were jaywalking is permitted). In short, if you take the bicycle as much as you would take the car, you may actually end up with the same number of fines.
  By the way, I think they should also outlaw walking whilst using phones so I don't have to dodge people on the sidewalk all the time.
2. Re:Who are they kidding? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-29 02:05 · Score: 0
  
  Good. People on bikes in the Netherlands probably kill someone every few years. People in cars kill people every day.
3. Re:Who are they kidding? by thegarbz · 2018-09-29 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  Actually they are punished all the time. The problem is police rarely focus on cyclists. Other than in a pedestrian zone in the city the only time I ever see police is driving down main roads / highways. The odd time I've seen a police anywhere near a bike track they were usually fining someone on a moped driving illegally without a speed limiter or in a moped free zone.
  But pretty much everyone I know in the Netherlands has gotten a fine at least once for not driving with a headlight.
4. Re:Who are they kidding? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-29 09:36 · Score: 0
  
  The difference is nowhere near as large as you think it is and moreover, it is shrinking. There is also a huge gap in sense of responsibility between the average cyclist and the average motorist.
Nope, you just never notice them Confirmation bias by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 22:54 · Score: 0

Look it up.
So do drivers. Don't hear you complaining. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-28 23:09 · Score: 0

Why is that? And, hey, I know you have done all of those things. You've usually gotten away with it, but you feel like having "paid for the roads" (you haven't, everyone pays for them, car or not) you are being "persecuted" because SOME drivers have been arrested for it.
text by anonieuweling · 2018-09-29 00:43 · Score: 1

Actual text of the proposal is at https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/b...
ARTIKEL I
Het Reglement verkeersregels en verkeerstekens 1990 wordt als volgt gewijzigd:
Artikel 61a komt te luiden:
Het is degene die een voertuig bestuurt verboden tijdens het rijden een mobiel
elektronisch apparaat dat gebruikt kan worden voor communicatie of
informatieverwerking vast te houden. Onder een mobiel elektronisch apparaat wordt in
elk geval verstaan een mobiele telefoon, een tabletcomputer of een mediaspeler.
ARTIKEL II
Dit besluit treedt in werking met ingang van 1 juli 2019.
Lasten en bevelen dat dit besluit met de daarbij behorende nota van toelichting in het
Staatsblad zal worden geplaatst.

I.e.: they ban the handholding of an electronic device that can be used for communication or data processing. They mean as such at least a mobile phone, a tablet computer or a media player.
But what about a boombox? Electronic in nature, can receive radio. And does not have to be powered on.
Could be illegal due to this proposed law...
1. Re:text by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-29 01:01 · Score: 0
  
  Achtung! Achtung! Die Polizei! Schnell, schnell!
2. Re:text by PPH · 2018-09-29 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  I.e.: they ban the handholding of an electronic device
  What about taking a call using a Bluetooth headset? Or listening to music with headphones? As long as you aren't holding the phone while cycling (or driving): Legal or not?
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
3. Re:text by Njovich · 2018-09-29 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  Bluetooth headsets and such would be legal. It's really about the hands. It sounds silly, but it's also the way it works with cars in the Netherlands, so it's pretty well established. Watching Netflix, chatting using voice controls, reading a newspaper, etc. while riding the bike (or even a car) would be fine. Technically you could even use a VR headset for gaming on your bike under this law as long as you don't use your hands for controlling it. Although the way you drive with a VR headset may quickly put you in violation of other rules and there are also some catch-all 'dangerous driving behaviour' rules.
4. Re:text by thegarbz · 2018-09-29 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Headsets and headphones aren't in your hands. Mind you the other day I saw a cyclist going down the bike path while carrying a 3x3 IKEA KALLAX. So maybe that law should be extended a bit.
5. Re:text by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-29 11:31 · Score: 0
  
  It's obvious what he was doing : carrying those pieces of wood from place A to place B. Next you would need to ban people walking with grocery bags, ban the postman, and ban people in suit and tie who carry a suitcase while speaking on the phone.
All About The D by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-29 02:12 · Score: 0

The Darwin Awards Laws.
aint no fixin' by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-29 02:14 · Score: -1

caynt feeyix styoopid.
MOSLIMS UIT ! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-29 04:22 · Score: 0

Uit, Uit, Uit!!!