> I don't think you've made your case that the behavior is not harmless, and a more cynical guess at a motive might just be easy money.
Well, I've provided some evidence that demonstrates that phone use is far more distracting than people believe - it's similar in my mind to the various tests of human perception such as "The Invisible Gorilla" whereby the brain fools people into thinking that they are perceptive and can see obvious objects, but actually testing their perception shows up a big mismatch between their expectations and their actual performance.
Presumably, the "easy money" you refer to is providing an incentive to police forces to prosecute phone using drivers, but the fines go to central government, not the local police forces, so apart from statistics, they have little incentive apart from the obvious traffic safety argument. Often, police forces seek to send a warning letter as it's easier for them to do so - that demonstrates that they are not focussing on fine revenues and are attempting to educate the problematic drivers.
One aspect we haven't touched upon is that it is a lot easier to prosecute drivers for using a phone whilst in control of a vehicle rather than only prosecuting drivers using a phone whilst in motion. I don't have a problem with drivers who pull in to the side of the road to use their phone, though the law does state that they should turn off their engine to do so. The difference between that and being stuck in traffic is that they have control over when they choose to rejoin the traffic flow and won't just blindly follow what they think the driver in front is doing.
This does remind me of an incident I had a while back. I was cycling along a dual carriageway and a tractor driver behind me used his horn aggressively (i.e. there was nothing that required the horn use) and then overtook. I passed him at the next set of lights at a roundabout and noticed that he was visibly using his phone, so of course the police got the full video (they require two minutes before and after incidents anyhow) and I was smugly satisfied to catch him out as aggressive behaviour can be down to interpretation, but not the phone use.
> Well, I've provided some evidence that demonstrates that phone use is far more distracting than people believe
But as I said, the average is not necessarily representative at all. Also, at least one of the sources would benefit from showing the problem to be bigger than it is.
> they have little incentive apart from the obvious traffic safety argument.
I don't believe so. They've undoubtedly got various performance measures for the various police forces, but I don't think they have a simple arrest quota for individual officers. If they did have to ramp up their numbers, then I think it'd be an easy job for a cycling officer with a camera to go around and capture all the blatant phone use. Unfortunately, when Avon&Somerset police (my area) provide a positive response to video submissions, they use a standard phrase like "As a result of this report I can confirm a positive outcome in that the driver(s) identified in the submission(s) will receive either a warning letter, a fixed penalty or a prosecution." which doesn't provide much feedback as to what action they are taking (a warning letter is barely an action though I do think they're a good idea). I have also had responses where they also mention a possible NIP (notice of intended prosecution).
As a counter-example of police just looking to make easy arrests, there plenty of reports on https://road.cc where certain forces (e.g. Lancashire) seem to bend over backwards to not take any action on cyclist submitted videos. It's a bit of a lottery as to which areas take things like close passes seriously or not.
Well, I've provided some evidence that demonstrates that phone use is far more distracting than people believe - it's similar in my mind to the various tests of human perception such as "The Invisible Gorilla" whereby the brain fools people into thinking that they are perceptive and can see obvious objects, but actually testing their perception shows up a big mismatch between their expectations and their actual performance.
Presumably, the "easy money" you refer to is providing an incentive to police forces to prosecute phone using drivers, but the fines go to central government, not the local police forces, so apart from statistics, they have little incentive apart from the obvious traffic safety argument. Often, police forces seek to send a warning letter as it's easier for them to do so - that demonstrates that they are not focussing on fine revenues and are attempting to educate the problematic drivers.
One aspect we haven't touched upon is that it is a lot easier to prosecute drivers for using a phone whilst in control of a vehicle rather than only prosecuting drivers using a phone whilst in motion. I don't have a problem with drivers who pull in to the side of the road to use their phone, though the law does state that they should turn off their engine to do so. The difference between that and being stuck in traffic is that they have control over when they choose to rejoin the traffic flow and won't just blindly follow what they think the driver in front is doing.
This does remind me of an incident I had a while back. I was cycling along a dual carriageway and a tractor driver behind me used his horn aggressively (i.e. there was nothing that required the horn use) and then overtook. I passed him at the next set of lights at a roundabout and noticed that he was visibly using his phone, so of course the police got the full video (they require two minutes before and after incidents anyhow) and I was smugly satisfied to catch him out as aggressive behaviour can be down to interpretation, but not the phone use.