If I poke about with a mobile phone in my hand whilst driving, obviously I'm going to jail.
If it's in a holder so I don't handle it, but still poke at it, then obviously, I'm going to jail.
If it's in a holder and running a satnav app, and I poke at it, am I going to jail?
Last edited by: Crankcase on Thu 3 Mar 11 at 09:25
|
No, jails are already full.
Every day I see good number of people still speaking on handheld mobiles while driving. Obviously they didn't go to jail yet.
|
>>Every day I see good number of people still speaking on handheld mobiles while driving.
I see plenty, every day.
|
This is a discuss with the judge I think.
You can still be charged with a driving offence when you poke the Sat Nav and crash, its just that poking the sat nav is not a specific offence, like phoning the wife is.
|
>> its just that poking the sat nav is not a specific offence, like
>> phoning the wife is.
>>
It's only a matter of time before phoning the sat nav and pok...no wait.
|
|
I left that hook line in for BBD, but I wasn't expecting......
|
>> I left that hook line in for BBD, but I wasn't expecting......
>>
No, but the wife is.
I'm here till Thursday.
I guess what I was getting at was - I would be a foolish man to blatantly use a mobile phone if I were in a traffic jam with a policeman stopped behind me, for example, but would I be foolish to adjust the satnav in similar circumstances, if it were running on a phone?
I think the legal answer might vary, but the pragmatic one might be not to do it at all. If in doubt and all that.
Just wondered what yer ackshual law says.
|
|
I don't think the existing law specifically refers to phones, I think it's something like 'portable electronic devices', presumably to cover sat navs, iPods etc.
|
The use of a hand-held phone or similar hand-held device while driving is now prohibited. A hand-held device is something that "is or must be held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function".
A device is "similar" to a mobile phone if it performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data. Examples of interactive communication functions are sending and receiving spoken or written messages, sending or receiving still or moving images and providing access to the internet.
That is not a Sat Nav. Unless its a Sat Nav app on a phone.
|
>> I don't think the existing law specifically refers to phones, I think it's something like
>> 'portable electronic devices', presumably to cover sat navs, iPods etc.
>>
No, the specfic law refers to hand-held communcations devices, which is taken to mean mobile phones, but could be walkie-talkies (so how do the Top Gear presenters get away with it?) etc.
This is why prosecutions, like the one aganst Jimmy Carr, sometimes fail as his brief was able to argue that he wasn't using it as a communications device. he could have course have been prosecuted under a more general law like careless driving etc, but then they've got to prove that he was careless.
|
>> >> I don't think the existing law specifically refers to phones, I think it's something
>> like
>> >> 'portable electronic devices', presumably to cover sat navs, iPods etc.
>> >>
>> No, the specfic law refers to hand-held communcations devices, which is taken to mean mobile
>> phones, but could be walkie-talkies (so how do the Top Gear presenters get away with
>> it?) etc.
>>
>> This is why prosecutions, like the one aganst Jimmy Carr, sometimes fail as his brief
>> was able to argue that he wasn't using it as a communications device. he could
>> have course have been prosecuted under a more general law like careless driving etc, but
>> then they've got to prove that he was careless.
>>
Fair enough, I thought they'd deliberately made it fairly general - although don't some of the more fancy sat navs upload and download live data, or am I dreaming?
|
>> No, the specfic law refers to hand-held communcations devices, which is taken to mean mobile
>> phones, but could be walkie-talkies (so how do the Top Gear presenters get away with
>> it?) etc.
No time to check now but I think the 'specific offence' law is limited to devices operating on the frequencies allocated for mobiles. Thus walkie talkies (eg PMR446) are OK - though not exempt from a due care charge.
Taking that on a stage the frequency thing might also cover satnav as the downlinks from the GPS constellation are outside mobile frequencies.
OTOH if challenged it might be better to accept £60/3points for the mobile offence rather than cop a due care conviction with a greater penalty 'cos the bench thought you were a clever dick.
|
>> If it's in a holder and running a satnav app, and I poke at it,
>> am I going to jail?
>>
As Zero said, this is probably a "This is a discuss with the judge I think. You can still be charged with a driving offence when you poke the Sat Nav"
Jimmy Carr found an expensive but successful way, to discuss a similar situation with a judge, was to appoint Nick Freeman to do the talking for him
www.policespecials.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=99565
But he failed in a different case here
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242649/Comedian-Jimmy-Carr-pay-3500-hes-guilty-speeding.html
Last edited by: Suppose on Thu 3 Mar 11 at 10:28
|
|
Couldn't they prosecute one for DC&A anyway, if they thought that poking the SatNav was affecting one's driving?
|
|
If you use a mobile in as stationary car,the police expect the engine to be turned off,otherwise they may prosecute you.
|
>> If you use a mobile in as stationary car,the police expect the engine to be
>> turned off,otherwise they may prosecute you.
>>
Is there not also a requirement that the car should be parked somewhere safely in a specified manner?
|
>> Couldn't they prosecute one for DC&A anyway, if they thought that poking the SatNav was
>> affecting one's driving?
>>
yes, that is what they should/would do if a specific offence was not available.
|
>> If it's in a holder so I don't handle it, but still poke at it,
>> then obviously, I'm going to jail.
>>
You can legally do that.
|
>> You can legally do that.
>
Not quite, there is no specific poking sat nav offence, but you can still be prosecuted for doing it.
|
>> Not quite, there is no specific poking sat nav offence, but you can still be
>> prosecuted for doing it.
>>
No you can't. If that were true, it would be illegal to press the button to turn on your heated rear window, adjust the heater or retune the radio.
|
Yes you can,
You can be done for driving with due care and attention for fiddling with your sat nav. And your car radio.
|
>> Yes you can,
>>
>> You can be done for driving with due care and attention for fiddling with your
>> sat nav. And your car radio.
>>
"You can be done for driving withOUT due care and attention for fiddling with your sat nav. And your car radio."
|
>> You can be done for driving with due care and attention for fiddling with your
>> sat nav. And your car radio.
>>
Well, you can be done for anything, but if the Officer stood up in court and said "I saw the defendant press a button on his sat nav or change the radio channel" do you think the defendant would be found guilty?
I don't know, maybe they would?
|
>> I don't know, maybe they would?
>>
Yes.
|
>> Well, you can be done for anything, but if the Officer stood up in court
>> and said "I saw the defendant press a button on his sat nav or change
>> the radio channel" do you think the defendant would be found guilty?
>>
>> I don't know, maybe they would?
Probably, if they said "I saw the driver pressing buttons on his SatNav, and was of the opinion that by doing so he was not paying due care and attention to his driving"
I imagine that, without strong proof to the contrary, the court would likely take the officer's word for it (as I imagine they have to do in a lot of cases).
|
>> Probably, if they said "I saw the driver pressing buttons on his SatNav, and was
>> of the opinion that by doing so he was not paying due care and attention
>> to his driving"
>>
There would have to be some specific driving issue, like "he veered across the lane markings", "hit the kerb" or something similar. But you could be done for that on its own, as Katie Price recently was, the pressing of buttons is irrelevant.
|
Not the case.
You can be done for DC&A while eating a sandwich for example, even tho there may have been nothing wrong with your driving in any way.
|
>> You can be done for DC&A while eating a sandwich for example, even tho there
>> may have been nothing wrong with your driving in any way.
Pretty sure that is not correct - Careless Driving is just that. The fact that you are eating a sandwich does not in itself constitute careless driving. You would have to be driving erratically or go through a red light or some such to be charged with the offence
|
|
Further earlier post I think the offence would be driving without proper control of a vehicle, a lesser offence with a fixed penalty 3 points.
|
Plenty of over-zealous unwarranted interference here!
In December 2003 Sarah McCaffery (above) was stopped by police who thought she was using her mobile phone while making a left turn in her Ford Ka.
In fact, she was doing nothing more sinister than eating an apple. Police nevertheless issued her with a £30 ticket, saying she was not in proper control of her car. The 23-year-old from Hebburn, in the North-East, decided to fight back and appealed, but was nevertheless convicted by magistrates.
Her solicitor said the case was “nonsensical” as she had carried out the manoeuvre “perfectly” but the chairman of the bench said: “We accept that there are times when you can drive with one hand but, in holding an apple while negotiating a left-hand turn, we consider you not to have been in full control.”
Stranger still was the case of a man fined for blowing his nose. When Michael Mancini found himself stuck in a queue of traffic with a runny nose, he instinctively reached for his handkerchief.
The simple act of pulling out a tissue and blowing his nose earned him a £60 fine because he was “not in proper control of his vehicle”.
Policeman Stuart Gray (known as PC Shiny Buttons because of his zealous approach) also handed out three penalty points, even though Mancini had the handbrake on at the time.
The case echoes that of salesman Keith Pemberton, from Cheshire, who was fined £60 for eating a sandwich at the wheel in March 2007. In 2008, Ediri Tsekiri was fined £60 in Liverpool for not being in control of her vehicle.
She, too, was eating a sandwich. Company director Gary Saunders was stopped in the same city for laughing while driving in 2009, but escaped with a ticking-off.
Motoring, clearly, is not a laughing matter - but justice can prevail. Mr Mancini took his protest to court and the procurator fiscal in Ayr decided not to prosecute. “I knew it would cost me hiring a lawyer but it was worth it out of principle,” said Mr Mancini.
Kevin Story was spotted by police munching a KitKat on the M3 and (are the words beginning to sound familiar?) issued with a fine for “not being in control of his vehicle”. Police later gave him a break and said the fine would be quashed as it was “inappropriate”.
Hampshire’s Assistant Chief Constable Colin Smith said: “We accept that the issue of a fixed penalty ticket, while intended to promote road safety, was inappropriate action by a well-meaning policeman.
"Officers usually deal sensitively and with common sense. If we are found to be over-zealous, we are more than happy to admit that officers are human and sometimes make mistakes.”
Last edited by: Perky Penguin on Fri 4 Mar 11 at 11:36
|
>> Pretty sure that is not correct - Careless Driving is just that. The fact that
>> you are eating a sandwich does not in itself constitute careless driving. You would have
>> to be driving erratically or go through a red light or some such to be
>> charged with the offence
>>
www.motordefenceteam.co.uk/offence-guide/careless-driving.htm
While this is generally referred to as careless driving, the Road Traffic Act 1988 creates two offences:
1. Careless Driving; and
2. Inconsiderate Driving.
For offences committed prior to 24 September 2007 the prosecution need to prove that your driving fell below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver in all the circumstances. Additionally, inconsiderate driving would be proved if other persons were inconvenienced as a result of the manner of driving. Breach of the Highway Code is a standard example of driving without due care and attention.
From 24 September 2007 the definitions were updated. For careless driving it is still necessary to show that your driving fell below that expected of a competent driver, but they specifically look at the circumstances surrounding the offence and overall that you either knew or should have known of. For inconsiderate driving they have to show that someone was actually inconvenienced.
As a result of changes to the Highway Code on 28 September 2007 accidents caused as a result of distractions such as smoking, changing a CD/tape or eating/drinking are likely to be prosecuted as careless driving. Without a good explanation you may be convicted based on the results of the driving without further evidence, e.g. where a vehicle collided with a pole or landed in a ditch for no apparent reason.
www.driving-law.co.uk/offences/careless_driving.asp
The following are examples of driving which may amount to driving without due care and attention:
* overtaking on the inside;
* driving inappropriately close to another vehicle;
* driving through a red light;
* emerging from a side road into the path of another vehicle;
Conduct whilst driving, such as:
* using a hand held mobile telephone while the vehicle is moving;
* tuning a car radio;
* reading a newspaper/map;
* selecting and lighting a cigarette/cigar/pipe;
* talking to and looking at a passenger;
The above examples are merely indicative of what can amount to careless driving.
|
>> * overtaking on the inside
Dunno about anyone else, but whenever I do this (slaps self on wrist) I am using far more care and attention than normal.
|
>> The following are examples of driving which may amount to driving without due care and
>> attention:
>>
>> * overtaking on the inside;
I understood that overtaking on the inside was only an offence if the driver changed lanes in order to overtake on the inside.
>> * talking to and looking at a passenger;
I find it strange that some people cannot hold a conversation whilst driving without looking at the person to whom they are speaking.
|
|
I don't undertake (or overtake in the inside if you wish). Its just that the bloke in the outer lane is traveling slower than me. Thats his fault,. he shouldn't be there.
|
>> I understood that overtaking on the inside was only an offence if the driver changed
>> lanes in order to overtake on the inside.
>>
Highway Code
163
Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so. You should
# only overtake on the left if the vehicle in front is signalling to turn right, and there is room to do so
# stay in your lane if traffic is moving slowly in queues. If the queue on your right is moving more slowly than you are, you may pass on the left
|
>> As a result of changes to the Highway Code on 28 September 2007 accidents caused
>> as a result of distractions such as smoking, changing a CD/tape or eating/drinking are likely
>> to be prosecuted as careless driving. Without a good explanation you may be convicted based
>> on the results of the driving without further evidence, e.g. where a vehicle collided with
>> a pole or landed in a ditch for no apparent reason.
>>
Right, but the key thing there is "accidents caused..."
There's no suggestion that the distraction itself is an offence.
The problem with the law is that nothing is black and white, and that's compounded by the Police making stuff up on the spot and issuing fixed penalties, and Magistrates making random decisions.
If the facts were analysed in a higher court then these actions would never lead to convictions, but few people are prepared, or can afford, to tak a trivial case to a higher court.
Last edited by: Bill Payer on Fri 4 Mar 11 at 16:35
|
>> You can be done for DC&A while eating a sandwich for example, even tho there
>> may have been nothing wrong with your driving in any way.
>>
I'm aware of a guy, not a million miles from me, who got a fixed penalty for doing that. But that's not the same as being convicted by a court.
|
The guy would have been charged with Not Being in Proper Control of a Road Vehicle. which carries the same penalty as using a hand held mobile phone.
Careless Driving, often known as Driving Without Due Care and Attention, does require actual bad driving
|
|
Are hand-signals now illegal?
|
phone satnav and the law - movilogo
