Using hand held mobile phone as "sat nav" whilst driving.

[Zeeky]

agtlaw said:

Zeeky said:

If the the phone is in a cradle the driver can create and send a text without contravening the regulation.

bizarre opinion. Completely wrong of course.

So if a device is holding the phone rather than the driver then the phone is "hand-held" for the purpose of the regulation?

You believe it bizarre to suggest that the driver has to hold the phone rather than it being attached to the vehicle?

[Bordtea]

Yeh I think the law needs updating on this issue. I've got a window mount for my galaxy s2 that I do actually use from time to time as a sat nav, but when I'm not I still put it there anyway and could theoretically be texting/playing games/browsing facebook all day and theoretically have committed no crime

[agtlaw]

Zeeky said:

You believe it bizarre to suggest that the driver has to hold the phone rather than it being attached to the vehicle?

Exactly. Text whilst driving and you deserve 3 points. Only a complete idiot would think it legal to text whilst driving if the phone is in a cradle.

[Zeeky]

agtlaw said:

Zeeky said:

You believe it bizarre to suggest that the driver has to hold the phone rather than it being attached to the vehicle?

Exactly. Text whilst driving and you deserve 3 points. Only a complete idiot would think it legal to text whilst driving if the phone is in a cradle.

I didn't suggest it was legal. I stated it wasn't a contravention of the regulation. Are you stating that it is a contravention of reg 110 to text without holding the phone?

[Red Devil]

once said:

... 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.

Apparently not - http://www.thelocal.se/22272/20090924/

[once]

Red Devil said:

once said:

... 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.

Apparently not - http://www.thelocal.se/22272/20090924/

What a wker.

[agtlaw]

Zeeky said:

I didn't suggest it was legal. I stated it wasn't a contravention of the regulation. Are you stating that it is a contravention of reg 110 to text without holding the phone?

As you know, Regs 104 and 110 have the same penalty. If issue is taken with a 110 prosecution then the CPS will apply under s.123 MCA to amend (Shorpe Justices ex parte McPhee is applicable if 6+ months have passed).

The only question is whether you get 3pp under reg 104 or reg 110. Either way, you get 3 points. Comprende?

[Zeeky]

It follows that I was correct in my statement that sending a text whilst fixed in a cradle would not be a contravention of the regulation under discussion (110). Of course all mobile phone use might contravene 104 but that isn't the point. The discussion is the meaning of 110 and pressing buttons on a phone fixed in a cradle cannot be a contravention unless the cradle constitutes 'holding' and I am not aware of it ever having done so.



As far as 104 is concerned if you pull up at a set of traffic lights that you know stay red for 2 minutes and whilst stationary with the handbrake on, you knock out a text it would be bizarre to suggest that this would be any different to fiddling with the controls of your car stereo in terms of 'deserving' 3 points.


Surely only a complete idiot would suggest that all texting when driving is a contravention of 104.

[streaky]

A study by TRL for the IAM gave the following, surprising and interesting, delays in reaction time from 28 drivers aged 18 to 25 tested in a simulator:

Engaging in a hand-held telephone call - 46%

Using Facebook - 38%

Texting - 37%

Engaging in a hands-free telephone call - 26%

Driving under the influence of cannabis - 21%

Driving on the UK drink-drive level - 12%

Clearly though, it would be wrong to conclude that a 'drunk driver' is much safer than one who is making a 'phone call, as the survey measured reaction time only.

Streaky

[once]

streaky said:

A study by TRL for the IAM gave the following, surprising and interesting, delays in reaction time from 28 drivers aged 18 to 25 tested in a simulator:

Engaging in a hand-held telephone call - 46%

Using Facebook - 38%

Texting - 37%

Engaging in a hands-free telephone call - 26%

Driving under the influence of cannabis - 21%

Driving on the UK drink-drive level - 12%

Clearly though, it would be wrong to conclude that a 'drunk driver' is much safer than one who is making a 'phone call, as the survey measured reaction time only.

Streaky

That's really interesting stuff, Streaky. I wonder what they would have made of people who insist on turning to look at their passengers when they are talking to them?

But the one I can't get my head around is drinking coffee while driving. Can't imagine what that might do to reaction times...

[streaky]

once said:

... the one I can't get my head around is drinking coffee while driving. Can't imagine what that might do to reaction times...

Drinking slows reactions.
Caffeine speeds reactions.

Therefore, they cancel each other out.

Streaky

[once]

streaky said:

Drinking slows reactions.
Caffeine speeds reactions.

Therefore, they cancel each other out.

Streaky

That's utterly brilliant!

So if I load up the cupholders with double strength espresso I can enjoy a few drinks or a joint without any ill effects?

We may be on to something here... ;-) Like the way you're thinking.

[CDP]

Derek Smith said:

CDP said:

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?

To take your last point first, that is indeed possible. I take it you have never met superintendents. It is not an offence that is charged often enough in my view.

You do not have to be illegally parked. Driving is a term that has been modified over the years. The last time it was of interest to me was nearly ten years ago so I assume it has been modified since. However, driving is a continuing act that does not stop if you just stop the car. There must be something else to show that you are not driving.

There was a case where a person stopped a car, got out, went up to a stall selling flowers, bought some and then was found to be still driving. This under the DD legislation. For that particular bit of legislation it makes perfect sense. I beleive there was one on my ground where a chap queued to buy chips and was found to be driving.

The problem is that there is no word to encapsulate, for instance, sitting in a car at a set of lights as opposed to stopped at the side of the road. The vehicle is not moving in both cases but there is a likelihood that the car in the traffic queue will be required to be moved in a little while. Can you come up with such a word?

Statutes have, historically, been poorly worded and have often required 'clarification'. There is even a little publication of the HO that comes around regularly which often includes directions to, in effect, ignore what was written.

For a short while, which was too long, I had to write comments on new legislation, a Criminal Law Act was the biggest that I had to do. After some problems with the wording I took it to a judge to ask his point of view as much would have been produced in front of him at a trial or hearing. I told his clerk that it required 30 minutes of his boss's time.

As soon as I told him what the act was he said I should not worry as the legislation was so poorly worded, so contradictory, that it would be replaced within a few weeks. It took months because, I was told, the HomeSec would not accept that he was talking rubbish and contradicting established legal principles. I was then invited for lunch by the resident judge.

This was a HomsSec. A poor one, in my opinion the worst this country has seen in my time, but still a HomeSec. The legislation, it was major legislation as well, was unworkable.

We all make mistakes. But then we all do not have loads of advisors, well up on legal matters, o refer to.

From time to time I've pulled into a layby or parked legally on the roadside, put the handbrake on, switched the engine off and usually removed the seat belt (presumably another offence?). Call made and completed while legally parked then drive away.

People have been convicted for that? How did it get through the court, or didn't it?

From what you say above even getting out of the car and locking it to make the call would not be sufficient.

Just interested to find out at what point we are considered not to be driving or does it cover all the time we are in possession of car keys?

[mjb1]

streaky said:

A study by TRL for the IAM gave the following, surprising and interesting, delays in reaction time from 28 drivers aged 18 to 25 tested in a simulator:

Engaging in a hand-held telephone call - 46%

Using Facebook - 38%

Texting - 37%

Engaging in a hands-free telephone call - 26%

Driving under the influence of cannabis - 21%

Driving on the UK drink-drive level - 12%

Clearly though, it would be wrong to conclude that a 'drunk driver' is much safer than one who is making a 'phone call, as the survey measured reaction time only.

Streaky

I don't know about that - given some of the appalling driving I've witnessed by people on mobile phones. When you see a pissed driver on the road, chances are that they are well above the UK drink drive level. Lots of people still drive after 1 or 2 pints (strictly, not metaphorically!), and as another road user you probably don't notice the difference in their driving ability.

Those figures you've given look pretty reasonable to me.