Police officer texting whilst driving
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshi...
This is getting ridiculous now, law makers REALLY need to get a grip on it. Needs to be stigmatised and punished like drink driving with instant and long bans.
Mind you, if those enforcing the law are doing it, what hope is there?
This is getting ridiculous now, law makers REALLY need to get a grip on it. Needs to be stigmatised and punished like drink driving with instant and long bans.
Mind you, if those enforcing the law are doing it, what hope is there?
"Those" being this one officer.
This is the problem with trenchant anti-Police rhetoric - isolated instances of coppers doing wrong = implication that whole system is rotten to the core.
Ordinary folk aren't held up to anything like this unrealistic standard - we can all break the Law and it doesn't reflect at all on anyone else.
This cop did a stupid thing, broke the Law, and one should expect him to suffer the same punishment as a member of the public, on top of whatever is deemed appropriate professionally given the circumstances. End of.
This is the problem with trenchant anti-Police rhetoric - isolated instances of coppers doing wrong = implication that whole system is rotten to the core.
Ordinary folk aren't held up to anything like this unrealistic standard - we can all break the Law and it doesn't reflect at all on anyone else.
This cop did a stupid thing, broke the Law, and one should expect him to suffer the same punishment as a member of the public, on top of whatever is deemed appropriate professionally given the circumstances. End of.
I've watched the vid a few times now and I'm not 100% sure it is a mobile. It's not very good footage, and it may the officers pocket/tetra set. Address and call details are sent to these when an officer is dispatched and whilst still not good, if he was checking this then it's perhaps not as bad as sending a txt. If he was on a mobile, then hopefully he will be dealt with appropriately. The same as anyone else would be. Stupid, stupid thing to do if that is txting.
Mk3Spitfire said:
I've watched the vid a few times now and I'm not 100% sure it is a mobile. It's not very good footage, and it may the officers pocket/tetra set.
Facepalm!I saw this thread and decides not to post as others had posted my thoughts. Police are human, he made a mistake and the issue is already being dealt with appropriately. This is what most of us who want police accountability ask for.
But then you go and see a post like quoted above from a supposedly serving police officer and one despairs. Why make excuses for the officer when it doesnt seem like he is making one for himself. Are police officers not human who can make mistakes?
Even if he was not texting and was just looking at address and call details on his tetra set,were his actions any less dangerous than a trucker reading delivery details of his company issued tablet.
If this officer crashed into the back of a young lady stopped at a red light killing her instantly, I am sure you will be asking for him to be let off on the technicality that it was a tetra set and not a hand held mobile phone.
Eclassy said:
Mk3Spitfire said:
I've watched the vid a few times now and I'm not 100% sure it is a mobile. It's not very good footage, and it may the officers pocket/tetra set.
Facepalm!I saw this thread and decides not to post as others had posted my thoughts. Police are human, he made a mistake and the issue is already being dealt with appropriately. This is what most of us who want police accountability ask for.
But then you go and see a post like quoted above from a supposedly serving police officer and one despairs. Why make excuses for the officer when it doesnt seem like he is making one for himself. Are police officers not human who can make mistakes?
Even if he was not texting and was just looking at address and call details on his tetra set,were his actions any less dangerous than a trucker reading delivery details of his company issued tablet.
If this officer crashed into the back of a young lady stopped at a red light killing her instantly, I am sure you will be asking for him to be let off on the technicality that it was a tetra set and not a hand held mobile phone.
Please refrain from quoting me in future. And if you must, don't pick and chose which bits you want to include to suit your own pathetic agendas.
Thank god you did decide to post something, as we all know how valuable your contributions are.
Edited by Mk3Spitfire on Wednesday 2nd December 07:43
Rovinghawk said:
Mk3Spitfire said:
I've watched the vid a few times now and I'm not 100% sure it is a mobile............ it may the officers pocket/tetra set.
A difference that makes no difference.The only difference would be if it falls or doesn't fall within the mobile phone legislation - I'm not familiar with the device Mk3Spitfire is referring to. Even if it doesn't count as a mobile, it's still poor perception-wise.
If the driver is judged to be driving without due care, it doesn't matter what the device is.
If the driver is judged to be driving without due care, it doesn't matter what the device is.
La Liga said:
The only difference would be if it falls or doesn't fall within the mobile phone legislation - I'm not familiar with the device Mk3Spitfire is referring to. Even if it doesn't count as a mobile, it's still poor perception-wise.
If the driver is judged to be driving without due care, it doesn't matter what the device is.
Theyre no different to a mobile to use with a keypad and screen - bit like an old Nokia they dont class as mobile phones but are equally as distracting and dangerous to use on the moveIf the driver is judged to be driving without due care, it doesn't matter what the device is.
Rovinghawk said:
If it's a hand-held electronic device then I'd suggest it's within the scope.
It's not whether it's an 'electronic device' or not - an iPod / dictaphone phone are electronic devices - it's whether or not it 'performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data'. Legislation said:
'interactive communication function' includes the following:
(i)sending or receiving oral or written messages;
(ii)sending or receiving facsimile documents;
(iii)sending or receiving still or moving images; and
(iv)providing access to the internet;
The way I read that is the 'and' means it needs to have (iv) along with any of the proceeding to fall foul of the law, although I'm not certain on that. Agt would be ideal to answer the question. (i)sending or receiving oral or written messages;
(ii)sending or receiving facsimile documents;
(iii)sending or receiving still or moving images; and
(iv)providing access to the internet;
Mk3Spitfire said:
I've watched the vid a few times now and I'm not 100% sure it is a mobile. It's not very good footage, and it may the officers pocket/tetra set. Address and call details are sent to these when an officer is dispatched and whilst still not good, if he was checking this then it's perhaps not as bad as sending a txt. If he was on a mobile, then hopefully he will be dealt with appropriately. The same as anyone else would be. Stupid, stupid thing to do if that is txting.
I'm a little surprised that Police are issued with something that would work like that tbh.Whilst I seldom agree with what eclassy says from what I can remember of what he says, on this one I think he has a fair point - it would be disappointing to see anyone saying this is acceptable on the technicality that it isn't a mobile phone.
Why would you agree with him? He's making a non-existing point by selectively misquoting someone who was raising a point.
It's either falls within the mobile phone legislation or it doesn't.
If it doesn't there's the option for 'not being in proper control of a vehicle' and the driving standard offence of 'due care and attention', should the evidence be sufficient for those.
It's either falls within the mobile phone legislation or it doesn't.
If it doesn't there's the option for 'not being in proper control of a vehicle' and the driving standard offence of 'due care and attention', should the evidence be sufficient for those.
La Liga said:
Legislation said:
'interactive communication function' includes the following:
(i)sending or receiving oral or written messages;
(ii)sending or receiving facsimile documents;
(iii)sending or receiving still or moving images; and
(iv)providing access to the internet;
The way I read that is the 'and' means it needs to have (iv) along with any of the proceeding to fall foul of the law, although I'm not certain on that. Agt would be ideal to answer the question. (i)sending or receiving oral or written messages;
(ii)sending or receiving facsimile documents;
(iii)sending or receiving still or moving images; and
(iv)providing access to the internet;
IANAL
Bert
La Liga said:
Why would you agree with him? He's making a non-existing point by selectively misquoting someone who was raising a point.
It's either falls within the mobile phone legislation or it doesn't.
If it doesn't there's the option for 'not being in proper control of a vehicle' and the driving standard offence of 'due care and attention', should the evidence be sufficient for those.
The way I interpreted Mk3's post was that if he was on a mobile take action, if it was a "tetra" it's not a mobile so that's OK.It's either falls within the mobile phone legislation or it doesn't.
If it doesn't there's the option for 'not being in proper control of a vehicle' and the driving standard offence of 'due care and attention', should the evidence be sufficient for those.
Not sure if that's how it was intended or if it's simply how I read it, but it seems weird if Police are sending details on where to go next to handheld devices that work like a mobile phone so are in all but name.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff