Recent appeal to High Court has held that the law on using a hand held phone while driving does not extend to use of the camera function:
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/19-07-31-DPP-v-Barreto-Ref.-CO2702019-Judgment.pdf
Key phrase in judgement I think is this:
my view of the regulation that it is the use of the phone or device (while held) for the purpose of a call or other interactive communication that is prohibited, not all use of the phone.
The court goes on to observe that this is not a green light for all and any filming with mobile; other offences such as careless or dangerous driving are still available.
I presume it's also possible that the DPP will take it further.....
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 11 Aug 19 at 11:12
|
I can't imagine they won't close that loophole pdq
EDIT: I've not read the judgement but I suppose it could even mean that video calls were OK.
Last edited by: smokie on Sun 11 Aug 19 at 12:50
|
>> I can't imagine they won't close that loophole pdq
>>
>> EDIT: I've not read the judgement but I suppose it could even mean that video
>> calls were OK.
>>
Wouldn't that come under "interactive communication"?
|
>> I can't imagine they won't close that loophole pdq
>>
>
Why? Such activity is clearly covered by DWDC&A, which has a much broader range of penalties, and I doubt there is a judge in the land who wouldn't consider videoing with a phone camera while driving as anything other than slam dunk conviction
|
|
Ah yeah, didn't think of that... so they just need to make sure the right charge is brought.
|
>>I doubt there is a judge in the land who wouldn't consider videoing
>> with a phone camera while driving as anything other than slam dunk conviction
It would seem the one in the OP doesn't agree with that.
|
>> >>I doubt there is a judge in the land who wouldn't consider videoing
>> >> with a phone camera while driving as anything other than slam dunk conviction
>>
>> It would seem the one in the OP doesn't agree with that.
That exactly what he was agreeing with.
|
|
I suspect that half the problem is that most judges will not know what a mobile phone is and those that do will never have seen one with a camera, video or otherwise, let alone, "apps"!
|
>> I suspect that half the problem is that most judges will not know what a
>> mobile phone is and those that do will never have seen one with a camera,
>> video or otherwise, let alone, "apps"
If they don't I'm sure their kids could explain.....
|
...>> I suspect that half the problem is that most judges will not know what a
>> mobile phone is and those that do will never have seen one with a camera,
>> video or otherwise, let alone, "apps"!
>>
..of course they know all about them; how the hell else would they get onto Grindr......
|
Meanwhile, in another part of the jungle, a committee of MPs is suggesting hands free should be banned:
www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/redefine-mobile-phone-driving-offence-mps-urge/5101143.article
|
|
I wouldn't speculate on how dangerous a hands free conversation might be, but it cannot be the same risk as holding the phone in your hand, despite what safety campaigners claim.
|
|
Why not? It is surely being involved in a conversation that brings the inattention. Holding something other than a phone is after all not subject to a penalty. Driving is a succession of taking your hands off the wheel for the gear stick and other controls. No it engaging with someone not present in a complex conversation that is the danger.
|
>> No it engaging with someone not present in a complex conversation that is the
>> danger.
>>
Totally agree, It's the nature and length of the call that makes it dangerous , I am happy to do the quick call to / from family to arrange shopping meet ups etc with a text me the details later type ending but will not take business calls / join conference calls etc.
Same is true if there are others in car I will zone out of conversations with an I'm watching the road type comment if it gets intense.
Kids were always taught not to do things that might distract the driver.
|
I am sure that concentration would be less if on a call but tbh I don't personally consider a hands-free call *that* dangerous most of the time. Not as bad as fiddling with satnav or the radio. And I can't decide about driving with headphones on. I know when I have mine in, they block out everything else (I tend to use buds).
I would pause or leave a call if the driving really required that much attention but I suppose different people are different, and we now have to legislate where common sense used to prevail.
|
|
When this came out on the news, we were talking about this at work. I think I was the only person that's never used a hands free kit. Never really seen the need, for me anyway.
|
. And I can't decide about driving with headphones
>> on. I know when I have mine in, they block out everything else (I tend
>> to use buds).
>>
>>
I think I'd find them very distracting. Mind you they appear to be very popular with bus drivers from what I've seen.
|
>> I am sure that concentration would be less if on a call but tbh I
>> don't personally consider a hands-free call *that* dangerous most of the time.
I'm fine with hands-free calls that are about taking/leaving simple messages, advising I'm running late or similar. I wouldn't even think about trying to talk somebody through Universal Credit while behind the wheel, never mind mission/business critical stuff if I worked in private sector. A social call to my Mother might stretch it too if she decided, as was her wont, to get argumentative.
Sat-nav, complex radio commands or faffing with Amazon music playlists with phone in window clamp stretch it too.
Happy on train or (just) walking London streets in buds or noise cancelling headphones. Nothing more.
|
Excellent, lets take one law that we dont enforce, and turn it into a law that is practically undetectable and hence unenforceable
Idiots.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 13 Aug 19 at 20:33
|
>> Excellent, lets take one law that we dont enforce, and turn it into a law
>> that is practically undetectable and hence unenforceable
>>
>> Idiots.
I think you have it spot on.
|
|
It is potentially detectable, but only as a post accident investigation - i.e. forensic examination of a phone, too late then though.
|
So they have a bit of kit that can detect bluetooth and cell phone communication. What it can't tell you is whether it's voice, streaming audio or traffic data, which vehicle it emanates from or if it's the driver or a passenger. What it can do is illuminate a sign to annoy everyone.
And my local force (Hampshire) has spent taxpayers money on this? Someone needs a hefty slap around the ears!!
|
Phone Cameras and the Law - smokie
