A colleague has just arrived in the office, proclaiming to all that he has just been pulled by the fuzz and handed the statutory fine for holding a mobile phone whilst driving.
Suppressing the urge to laugh and shout "Good!", I merely stated my hope that this would encourage him not to do it again. Here's hoping.
ETA - he says he wasn't even using the phone at the time, just holding it. The mind boggles.
Last edited by: Alanović on Tue 5 Mar 13 at 10:05
|
>> he says he wasn't even using the phone at the time, just holding it.
Same should apply to smokers then.
|
If he wasn't making a call what was he doing? Texting or surfing while driving should double the fine/points.
He might also get a nasty shock from his insurer. This offence is regarded as more serious than a single speeding ticket.
|
|
Yesterday i had a car driving towards me at about 20 mph, the driver was looking down towards her lap i suspect texting. Very scary.
Last edited by: maltrap on Tue 5 Mar 13 at 10:28
|
|
Reading an inbound text or email perhaps? Unwise but not illegal, any more than reading a sat nav is not illegal
|
>> Reading an inbound text or email perhaps? Unwise but not illegal, any more than reading
>> a sat nav is not illegal
Are you sure?
From RoSPA -
The Law
On 1 December 2003, a law, "The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2003", came into force to prohibit drivers using a hand-held mobile phone, or similar device, while driving. It also made it an offence to "cause or permit" a driver to use a hand-held mobile phone while driving, or to use a hand-held mobile phone while supervising a driver who only has a provisional licence.
The penalties were initially a fixed penalty of £30 or a fine of up to £1,000 if the offender goes to court (£2,500 for drivers of goods vehicles or passenger carrying vehicles with 9 or more passenger seats). From 27th February 2007, the penalty for using a hand-held mobile phone whilst driving increased to £60 and three penalty points added to the drivers' licence.
The Definition of a Hand-Held Mobile Phone
The Regulation includes any "device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data".
It states that a "mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function". "interactive communication function" includes:
sending or receiving oral or written messages;
sending or receiving facsimile documents;
sending or receiving still or moving images; and
providing access to the internet
There are two exemptions:
2- way "press to talk" radios, such as used by the emergency services and taxi drivers
Using a hand-held phone for a genuine emergency call to 999 or 112 if it would be unsafe for the driver to stop.
The Definition of Driving
Under existing law a person may be regarded as "driving" a vehicle while the engine is running and the vehicle is stationary. The offence applies to all motor vehicles, including motorcycles, but not apply to pedal cycles.
goo.gl/1XRAQ
|
I've just had a look at the statute, which looks to have been cut and pasted by RoSPA above.
On the face of it, you have to be "using" the device, so a possible defence would be that you weren't using it.
But - it won't stop the copper issuing the FPN. And who is going to go to court on that? Like all FPNs, they are in practical terms summary justice.
In any case, how would you answer the question "so why were you holding it it you weren't using it?" in court? I wouldn't bet much on winning that one.
|
|
Summary Injustice - more like!
|
Having a phone in your hand is sufficient. There is a specific offence relating to phones which was intended to make it easier to prosecute. The statutory definition of a phone refers to 'receiving and transmitting' with exclusions for simple 2way radios (egPMR446).
A Sat Nav will no meet the definition as it is receive only.
Egregious use of Sat Nav or other devices such as MP3 can still be prosecuted as 'not in control' or the modern equivalent of driving without due care and attention.
|
|
Reading information from a mobile phone or device, held in a cradle - not the hand - is not illegal so far as I can see. On that basis it would be illegal to look at your ICE information panel or your car instruments!
|
>> Reading information from a mobile phone or device, held in a cradle - not the
>> hand - is not illegal so far as I can see. On that basis it
>> would be illegal to look at your ICE information panel or your car instruments!
A cradle will save you from the specific offence of using a handheld phone.
You could still be nicked under not in control if a Copper observed and thought you were too focussed on the VDU.
|
>> Reading an inbound text or email perhaps? Unwise but not illegal, any more than reading
>> a sat nav is not illegal
Nope, just holding it, not reading it nor operating it in any way. Just holding it whilst driving. Which is why the mind boggles. No conceivable reason for doing so, especially considering it's illegal.
|
>>Here's hoping.
Indeed.
>> just holding it. The mind boggles.
Does it? Never stopped at traffic lights and taken the opportunity to read a text? I have a hands free holder for my iphone, but the text is quite small to read. If a text or phone call arrives, I may take the phone out of my pocket and put it into the holder and use it 'safely'. A worthwhile warning that in fact 'just holding' is seen as 'using' for which thanks.
|
What is the law in the UK regarding mobile phone use in a handsfree holder?
Is it OK to touch the screen? What if using the phone as a radio (which I do quite often to stream) is this viewed differently from using the car radio?
It would be handy to know for later this month.
|
|
Sad, sad, people. Answering a phone is not compulsory, pretend it is your home phone and you are "out". The world will not end if you are out of touch with it for a few minutes.
|
|
Exactly, ON. I always used to put mine in the boot, but now I keep it in the cabin with me, but switched off, as a result of a road rage scare I had which I detailed on here a few years ago. It struck me that I might need to call the emergency services one day, and the phone wouldn't be much use to me in the boot.
|
|
But by the same token, that text or call may well prevent you from going somewhere that you no longer need to go to.
|
|
Vanishingly unlikely given the nature of the vast majority of my journeys. If that's not the case for others, then a cradle or headset is the answer.
|
The law is badly framed in this area anyway.
If you can't cope with a bit of distraction - phone, cigarette, argumentative passenger - while you are driving, you probably shouldn't be driving at all.
Very obviously indeed, whether you can answer or switch off a phone on the move depends on the surrounding conditions. In stop-start crawling traffic of the type so well known to urban drivers, you can answer and even make phone calls without the slightest risk. Youngsters can probably text too although I wouldn't try.
I seem to remember people arguing in one of the many pre-runs of this thread that the two-way radio used by taxis and minicabs is less distracting than a mobile. That's just cobblers. It's more distracting, not less.
I find the rabid respectability of some here strangely dispiriting.
|
On the contrary AC I'd regard the law as well framed for its specific purpose of making phone use an unequivocal offence. That's what Parliament decided it wanted after a hue and cry.
Even in stop/start urban traffice you can spot the dolts on their phones. Signs are weaving, failure to take opportunities, not being ready on green etc etc. The consequence might be less than a high speed smash but tail ending or catching a ped while not paying attention still ruin somebody's day.
If you tried to frame the law to allow calls in nose/tail traffic you'd certainly end up with a dog's dinner.
|
>> I'd regard the law as well framed for its specific purpose of making phone use an unequivocal offence. That's what Parliament decided it wanted after a hue and cry... If you tried to frame the law to allow calls in nose/tail traffic you'd certainly end up with a dog's dinner.
It's a dog's dinner now. Far too many relatively harmless things are being treated as 'unequivocal offences' thanks to Parliament's snivelling fear of hue and cry. Teachers lose their jobs for attempting to discipline spoiled hellions in their classes. Coarse councillors lose their jobs for making coarse jokes. Road systems are systematically damaged and sabotaged to suck up to whinging residents.
Seems to me that using a mobile while driving can constitute an offence, but very often doesn't.
|
I got one or two belts at school from teachers.Didn't tell the old man he would give me another one.>:)
I was told off at work few years ago now for calling a female love which is a Yorkshire expression here.The world gone mad.
|
>> The world gone mad.
Not mad Dutchie. Wimpish, pathetic and misguided. When 'caringness' is written into the statutes people have carte blanche to be as moronic and self-righteous as they like about issues that are utterly trivial. It's depressing.
One would like to see the parents of badly-behaved schoolchildren forced to go to 'parenting courses' where their own attitudes and behaviour would come under stern scrutiny. Instead they are allowed to persecute the minority of teachers who can tell the difference between ordinary nipperish mischief and a child who has been trained by nasty dumb parents to be nasty and disruptive.
Perhaps I am in danger of tabloid exaggeration here. There's a lot more of this soft villainy about than there used to be but it isn't wall to wall. Not yet anyway.
|
"If you can't cope with a bit of distraction..."
Today I drove from a petrol station to a supermarket, about 200 metres, 5 turns (using indicators), talking to the wife, both kids in the back (unrestrained) leaning forward, squeezing between the front seats, excitingly chattering to me, and I eventually reversed into a space, one hand on the wheel and the other holding a hot dog - without dribbling a single drop of ketchup down my t-shirt.
|
>> from a petrol station to a supermarket, about 200 metres, 5 turns (using indicators), talking to the wife, both kids in the back (unrestrained)
Most crashes happen within a quarter of a mile of home, it is said. But you are not the only parent who is training his children in bad - nay, criminal - driving. However I really can't believe that you are also training them to eat junk food to the peril of their waistlines and life expectancy.
So I can only assume that 'hot dog' and 'ketchup' have special coded meanings in BBD-speak. I wish I could add that the mind boggles, but I am ashamed to say that it doesn't.
|
Can't believe you broke my code AC.
Will your old lady be reversing into a space later on? Or head first?
|
>> "If you can't cope with a bit of distraction..."
>>
>> Today I drove from a petrol station to a supermarket, about 200 metres, 5 turns
>> (using indicators), talking to the wife, both kids in the back (unrestrained) leaning forward, squeezing
>> between the front seats, excitingly chattering to me, and I eventually reversed into a space,
>> one hand on the wheel and the other holding a hot dog - without dribbling
>> a single drop of ketchup down my t-shirt.
>>
Class.
|
|
Indeed, I have been saved 4 hours driving by a 20 second call just after I had set off.
|
Fined for holding mobile phone - it does happen - VxFan
