Using hand held mobile phone as "sat nav" whilst driving.
Discussion
Durzel said:
Ms Demeanor said:
Your views please...?
This is becoming an increasing problem. Phones have so many functions. What about Iphone with Ipod on it connected up to car stereo - changing tracks....
Do you think you have to be using a phone as a phone (texting/calling) to be guilty?
"Interactive communication function..." ?
Just to turn this on its head.. TomTom has for some time been able to be used "for interactive communication functions", that is to say you can send and receive text messages, calls, etc. Granted you can use voice commands to do this, but you can also use the touchscreen. This is becoming an increasing problem. Phones have so many functions. What about Iphone with Ipod on it connected up to car stereo - changing tracks....
Do you think you have to be using a phone as a phone (texting/calling) to be guilty?
"Interactive communication function..." ?
In this capacity how is a TomTom not functioning as a phone?
Also would a bluetooth hand held handset count as a phone?
Of course most of these issues could be dealt with under the driving without due care and attention legislation (whatever the correct name is).
Durzel said:
Just to turn this on its head.. TomTom has for some time been able to be used "for interactive communication functions", that is to say you can send and receive text messages, calls, etc. Granted you can use voice commands to do this, but you can also use the touchscreen.
In this capacity how is a TomTom not functioning as a phone?
I don't have a sat nav so i am pretty ignorant as to what they can and cannot do - but thats madness. So you can read a text via sat nav and not be guilty of the same offence - even if you hold it...It might be interactive but its not a phone! You might be guilty of not having a proper view of the road ahead if you read a text on sat nav - but thats a different offence - is that different/worse than looking at the image of the map?In this capacity how is a TomTom not functioning as a phone?
CDP said:
I was wondering about Tomtoms too. Not that I've used mine much since I had an Android phone.
Also would a bluetooth hand held handset count as a phone?
Of course most of these issues could be dealt with under the driving without due care and attention legislation (whatever the correct name is).
Only if the standard of your driving is negligent/affected. Mere using is enough for the phone offence - due care is more than that. The not being in proper control is the one the plod normally go for if its not a phone that you are fiddling with...!Also would a bluetooth hand held handset count as a phone?
Of course most of these issues could be dealt with under the driving without due care and attention legislation (whatever the correct name is).
Ms Demeanor said:
Average plod think having a phone anywhere other than in the boot is an offence.
I think average man in the street is being lulled into thinking that if they are not using it "as a phone" they are not guilty. The legislation is appallingly out of date and needs to be updated to deal with all these functions....
I have to disagree, I believe the average man in the street knows exactly what the offence entails and that all they are trying to do is worm their way out of it. Whether people agree with it or not you can not hold a mobile phone whilst driving no matter what you are doing with it.(excluding emergency services type calls)I think average man in the street is being lulled into thinking that if they are not using it "as a phone" they are not guilty. The legislation is appallingly out of date and needs to be updated to deal with all these functions....
Ms Demeanor said:
Your views please...?
This is becoming an increasing problem. Phones have so many functions. What about Iphone with Ipod on it connected up to car stereo - changing tracks....
Do you think you have to be using a phone as a phone (texting/calling) to be guilty?
"Interactive communication function..." ?
The legislation specifically mentions handheld phones , PDA's and other similar devices which might affect your ability to control the vehicle - so handheld use of any of them whilst driving is unlawful .This is becoming an increasing problem. Phones have so many functions. What about Iphone with Ipod on it connected up to car stereo - changing tracks....
Do you think you have to be using a phone as a phone (texting/calling) to be guilty?
"Interactive communication function..." ?
barker22 said:
Ms Demeanor said:
Average plod think having a phone anywhere other than in the boot is an offence.
I think average man in the street is being lulled into thinking that if they are not using it "as a phone" they are not guilty. The legislation is appallingly out of date and needs to be updated to deal with all these functions....
I have to disagree, I believe the average man in the street knows exactly what the offence entails and that all they are trying to do is worm their way out of it. Whether people agree with it or not you can not hold a mobile phone whilst driving no matter what you are doing with it.(excluding emergency services type calls)I think average man in the street is being lulled into thinking that if they are not using it "as a phone" they are not guilty. The legislation is appallingly out of date and needs to be updated to deal with all these functions....
R0G said:
Ms Demeanor said:
I would hope if you read through all the posts you would appreciate how complicated this area law is
Would you agree with me that making a law which stated no electronic communication when driving is better?Sorry, being flippant but that's why laws end up being so complicated.
The device needs to be handheld whilst using its interactive communication ability, on my reading of the legislation.
Tom Toms are not hand held for the purposes of the regulation, on my reading. Nor would using your phone in a fixed position purely as an MP3 player connected to your stereo. Or being able to use that phone hands free.
If the legislation meant any device capable of being hand held, it would have said so.
Tom Toms are not hand held for the purposes of the regulation, on my reading. Nor would using your phone in a fixed position purely as an MP3 player connected to your stereo. Or being able to use that phone hands free.
If the legislation meant any device capable of being hand held, it would have said so.
Ms Demeanor said:
Agreed. The best bet at the moment is do not hold it!
But the legislation states; No person shall drive a motor on a road if he is using a (i)"hand held" mobile telephone..
That does not necessarily mean it has to be held in your hand at the time you are using it if you read it carefully. The phone is still a hand held mobile phone (its designed to be held in your hand) even when its in a holder?
The issue of hand held is too vague. What's a legitimate hands free device?? I had a chap with a bit of velcro on his seat belt and a bit of velcro on his phone. He would stick the phone to the velcro on getting in and buckling up and then use it on speaker phone without ever holding it. I wanted to run it as a trial but he had no money to instruct.
I thought it was legally accepted that a mobile phone in a holder was OK - because whilst it's in cradle, at that point it is not actually handheld? Or does that argument still require Nick Freeman?But the legislation states; No person shall drive a motor on a road if he is using a (i)"hand held" mobile telephone..
That does not necessarily mean it has to be held in your hand at the time you are using it if you read it carefully. The phone is still a hand held mobile phone (its designed to be held in your hand) even when its in a holder?
The issue of hand held is too vague. What's a legitimate hands free device?? I had a chap with a bit of velcro on his seat belt and a bit of velcro on his phone. He would stick the phone to the velcro on getting in and buckling up and then use it on speaker phone without ever holding it. I wanted to run it as a trial but he had no money to instruct.
The way I see it is that holding a mobile phone whilst driving (even using it for another function) is sufficient for the specific mobile phone offence, but operating a satnav or doing some other distracting thing can still be dealt with by 'without due care and attention'? Not even sure why the phone specific offence is needed, it should all come under due care. I guess the fixed penalty approach reduces the burden on the court system.
pitmansboots said:
Ms Demeanor said:
Average plod think having a phone anywhere other than in the boot is an offence.
I think average man in the street is being lulled into thinking that if they are not using it "as a phone" they are not guilty. The legislation is appallingly out of date and needs to be updated to deal with all these functions....
Why does the legislation need updating?I think average man in the street is being lulled into thinking that if they are not using it "as a phone" they are not guilty. The legislation is appallingly out of date and needs to be updated to deal with all these functions....
it says "..the legislation states; No person shall drive a motor on a road if he is using a (i)"hand held" mobile telephone."
As it is written it covers any use and as I understand it from the persons who wrote the legislation this is the intent.
Why would it be necessary to put in a list of individual applications that cannot be used? Write the legislation in a way that needs no updating and bars all use; that makes perfect sense.
Jimmy Carr was lucky, as the CPS solicitor says; that isn't likely to occur again.
Further, we have had cases where drivers have been penalised for eating sweets under other legislation. This, it seems to me, is a much more sensible way to go. Any hand held device that requires some form of manipulation could come in as careless. There seems little need for the mobile phone legislation. It was a knee-jerk, something that looked good in the press.
Ms Demeanor said:
That was Jimmy Carr. It was in the mags court so did not set a precedent that would bind any other court(unfortunately).
I have come up against the prosecutor that lost that case and she has stated "I will never lose another like that again!!" It is not up to her going forward but she took it hard.
Every element of respect and admiration I once had for your posts has disappeared with one cliche! I have come up against the prosecutor that lost that case and she has stated "I will never lose another like that again!!" It is not up to her going forward but she took it hard.
10PenceShort said:
The device needs to be handheld whilst using its interactive communication ability, on my reading of the legislation.
Tom Toms are not hand held for the purposes of the regulation, on my reading. Nor would using your phone in a fixed position purely as an MP3 player connected to your stereo. Or being able to use that phone hands free.
If the legislation meant any device capable of being hand held, it would have said so.
Wasn't how I read it; that would imply I could park up, dial, pop phone on speaker and drive off.Tom Toms are not hand held for the purposes of the regulation, on my reading. Nor would using your phone in a fixed position purely as an MP3 player connected to your stereo. Or being able to use that phone hands free.
If the legislation meant any device capable of being hand held, it would have said so.
Pretty sure I'd be ticketed for that.
In fact I'm sure the last time I read it (not googling on a phone
so forgive recollection) you could be fined for reading a kindle parked up with the engine on for the heater.Iirc (as I say memory may be faulty) this particular legislation relies heavilly on discretion on the part of the police.
roachcoach said:
10PenceShort said:
The device needs to be handheld whilst using its interactive communication ability, on my reading of the legislation.
Tom Toms are not hand held for the purposes of the regulation, on my reading. Nor would using your phone in a fixed position purely as an MP3 player connected to your stereo. Or being able to use that phone hands free.
If the legislation meant any device capable of being hand held, it would have said so.
Wasn't how I read it; that would imply I could park up, dial, pop phone on speaker and drive off.Tom Toms are not hand held for the purposes of the regulation, on my reading. Nor would using your phone in a fixed position purely as an MP3 player connected to your stereo. Or being able to use that phone hands free.
If the legislation meant any device capable of being hand held, it would have said so.
Pretty sure I'd be ticketed for that.
In fact I'm sure the last time I read it (not googling on a phone
so forgive recollection) you could be fined for reading a kindle parked up with the engine on for the heater.Iirc (as I say memory may be faulty) this particular legislation relies heavilly on discretion on the part of the police.
Regarding "hand-held", paragraph 110(6)(a) of the Regulations says: "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".
In paragraph 110(1)(a) cited above, "hand-held ..." refers to the action of holding the device. It is not a definition of the device. That is "mobile ...", per 110(6)(a).
The use of any device that is not - at the time - held in the hand is not subject to the Regulations. It matters not whether it is in a cradle, on the passenger seat, or stuck with parcel tape to the driver's ear.
Streaky
PS - I'll pass on repeating either story referred to earlier, but will comment that it was not the "importance" of the individual that mattered, but the fact that their evidence would have likely carried more weight in court than the police officer's - S
In paragraph 110(1)(a) cited above, "hand-held ..." refers to the action of holding the device. It is not a definition of the device. That is "mobile ...", per 110(6)(a).
The use of any device that is not - at the time - held in the hand is not subject to the Regulations. It matters not whether it is in a cradle, on the passenger seat, or stuck with parcel tape to the driver's ear.
Streaky
PS - I'll pass on repeating either story referred to earlier, but will comment that it was not the "importance" of the individual that mattered, but the fact that their evidence would have likely carried more weight in court than the police officer's - S
Derek Smith said:
One thing that does need updating is driving. Some BiB on here have said that they have reported drivers who have pulled into the side of the road, switched off their engines and then answered their phones. Whilst this comes within the definition of 'driving', particularly as decided under the DD legislation, it is clearly not what the legislators wanted.
If I was pulled on that one I think I'd be consulting a lawyer. I can only assume they would have to be illegally parked for the police to make that one stick. At what point are you not driving? Do you actually have to get out of the car?Can the police be guilty of wasting police time, if that is actually an offence?
CDP said:
Derek Smith said:
One thing that does need updating is driving. Some BiB on here have said that they have reported drivers who have pulled into the side of the road, switched off their engines and then answered their phones. Whilst this comes within the definition of 'driving', particularly as decided under the DD legislation, it is clearly not what the legislators wanted.
If I was pulled on that one I think I'd be consulting a lawyer. I can only assume they would have to be illegally parked for the police to make that one stick. At what point are you not driving? Do you actually have to get out of the car?Can the police be guilty of wasting police time, if that is actually an offence?
Streaky
It seems to me that there are two separate issues here - the law and common sense.
Let's do the legal stuff first. I can see that there is scope for lawyers to argue this one. Technology has moved on since the legislation was passed, and it does look as if the law is out of date. Phones are no longer just for making calls and texting. They can do all sorts of other things from being a sat nav to playing angry birds. So I can see someone mounting a defence based on the fact that using a phone as a sat nav does not constitute "interactive communication". Who am I communicating with?
If this was a big enough road safety problem, I could well imagine that the Government will amend it the next time it has a bill slot for this particular piece of legislation.
That's how legislation works. It is amended over time to keep it up to date. There's sometimes a bit of a lag while the legislation catches up, especially with fast-moving technology. It is actually quite a long-winded process to change a law. That's nobody's fault. Just the way it is.
In the meantime, if this was ever tested at court I suspect that the police and CPS might have to rely on general offences such as driving without due care. As far as I can see this is a mostly hypothetical question. I'm not aware that it comes up much, because ...
... the common sense approach is that, whatever the law says, it's clearly not a good idea to be fiddling with anything that could distract you from the serious business of driving. That includes phones, cups of coffee, your passenger or your own anatomy. That last bit is a joke, by the way.
And, no, it's not a defence to say that "I had no choice because I needed a sat nav and I didn't have a windscreen mount for it". Those are arguments of convenience, not of necessity. Either don't use the sat nav at all or go and buy a holder that would allow you to use it hands free. You can't say that I didn't break the law when I robbed the bank because I needed the money and it was two days until payday.
And if we use a bit of common sense we can easily see that the law isn't there to spoil our fun. It's not an intellectual puzzle to see if we can find a smartarse way round it. It's there to stop people from killing themselves and (more importantly) other people by trying to drive while distracted.
All in all, I can't really see a problem here. Surely everyone can see that using a mobile device whilst driving is a stoopid thing to do. And if the law hasn't quite caught up with all that mobile phones can do these days, don't we just apply a bit of common sense without the need for a law to tell us to? And, unless I've missed it, I don't see many crashes reported where someone was using a mobile phone as a satnav.
Maybe we ought to give drivers a bit of credit for having some common sense without needing to be told?
Let's do the legal stuff first. I can see that there is scope for lawyers to argue this one. Technology has moved on since the legislation was passed, and it does look as if the law is out of date. Phones are no longer just for making calls and texting. They can do all sorts of other things from being a sat nav to playing angry birds. So I can see someone mounting a defence based on the fact that using a phone as a sat nav does not constitute "interactive communication". Who am I communicating with?
If this was a big enough road safety problem, I could well imagine that the Government will amend it the next time it has a bill slot for this particular piece of legislation.
That's how legislation works. It is amended over time to keep it up to date. There's sometimes a bit of a lag while the legislation catches up, especially with fast-moving technology. It is actually quite a long-winded process to change a law. That's nobody's fault. Just the way it is.
In the meantime, if this was ever tested at court I suspect that the police and CPS might have to rely on general offences such as driving without due care. As far as I can see this is a mostly hypothetical question. I'm not aware that it comes up much, because ...
... the common sense approach is that, whatever the law says, it's clearly not a good idea to be fiddling with anything that could distract you from the serious business of driving. That includes phones, cups of coffee, your passenger or your own anatomy. That last bit is a joke, by the way.
And, no, it's not a defence to say that "I had no choice because I needed a sat nav and I didn't have a windscreen mount for it". Those are arguments of convenience, not of necessity. Either don't use the sat nav at all or go and buy a holder that would allow you to use it hands free. You can't say that I didn't break the law when I robbed the bank because I needed the money and it was two days until payday.
And if we use a bit of common sense we can easily see that the law isn't there to spoil our fun. It's not an intellectual puzzle to see if we can find a smartarse way round it. It's there to stop people from killing themselves and (more importantly) other people by trying to drive while distracted.
All in all, I can't really see a problem here. Surely everyone can see that using a mobile device whilst driving is a stoopid thing to do. And if the law hasn't quite caught up with all that mobile phones can do these days, don't we just apply a bit of common sense without the need for a law to tell us to? And, unless I've missed it, I don't see many crashes reported where someone was using a mobile phone as a satnav.
Maybe we ought to give drivers a bit of credit for having some common sense without needing to be told?
streaky said:
f a different definition of "driving" had been intended (from that already established), one would have been defined in the Regulations.
Streaky
Streaky,Streaky
I thought you'd met MPs.
Do you think you can give a rough estimate how many MPs know what the legal definition of driving is without using the word none?
I had to prepare proformas for an update in regs. I understand how to interpret statutes, or at least I know my limitations. I noted that the wording had changed on one particular paragraph and the way I understood it if wording changes then it is implicit that be some form of change is intended. I interpreted it literally, ran it past the CPS and even mentioned it to a judge, all of whom agreed with my interpretation. My proforma was used by at least seven other forces.
The HO then came back, some months and some cases later, and stated that the interpretation was wrong and that the HomeSec did not fully realise the implication of the change. This was the HomeSec whom, one would have thought, had legal advisers and such. The problem with advisers is that you have to listen to them.
I admire your faith in MPs. I do not necessarily share it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff