Legal advice/bullying police?
Discussion
No 'telecommunications' on an iPhone with a satellite navigation application installed, in my opinion*. An Android phone on the other hand, which downloads data from Google maps, probably is a meeting this stretched definition, despite the fact that uses such as this are far beyond the scope of the law.
- of course, this all comes down to people with vested interests arguing about their opinion.
Zeeky said:
The reason for all the disagreement on this topic is different interpretations of legislation that is not clear as well as an apparent lack of authority to assist.
The following words need to be clarified.
"Device" Is an iphone one device or a unit comprising of different devices?
...Using... a device... which performs Does this mean capable of performing or actually performing during use?
...an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data... “interactive communication function” includes the following:
Is the inclusive list exhaustive? If so the first part of the definition is irrelevant, if not it is decisive.
...a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held
Held by the operator or artificially?
My own interpretation is that the "device" is the unit, "performs" means actually performing, the list is not exhaustive, satellite navigation is transmitting/receiving data and the device must be held by the operator.
If you hold the iphone in your hand whilst using the satnav function you are committing an offence.
Is it? Are you sure that each and every single poster is summarised in your statement? The following words need to be clarified.
"Device" Is an iphone one device or a unit comprising of different devices?
...Using... a device... which performs Does this mean capable of performing or actually performing during use?
...an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data... “interactive communication function” includes the following:
Is the inclusive list exhaustive? If so the first part of the definition is irrelevant, if not it is decisive.
...a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held
Held by the operator or artificially?
My own interpretation is that the "device" is the unit, "performs" means actually performing, the list is not exhaustive, satellite navigation is transmitting/receiving data and the device must be held by the operator.
If you hold the iphone in your hand whilst using the satnav function you are committing an offence.
Pistonwot said:
Typical bully-boy tactics from the UK Thug Force.
NEVER sign their infantile pieces of paper, as OP ststed the signature IS your acceptance.
They are a dirty, devious and dishonest bunch of thieves.
NEVER sign their infantile pieces of paper, as OP ststed the signature IS your acceptance.
They are a dirty, devious and dishonest bunch of thieves.
Up there with the cogent arguments put forward by the freepeople of the land!Dibble said:
Pistonwot said:
Typical bully-boy tactics from the UK Thug Force.
NEVER sign their infantile pieces of paper, as OP ststed the signature IS your acceptance.
They are a dirty, devious and dishonest bunch of thieves.
NEVER sign their infantile pieces of paper, as OP ststed the signature IS your acceptance.
They are a dirty, devious and dishonest bunch of thieves.
Up there with the cogent arguments put forward by the freepeople of the land!Entertaining reading.
C
Shaw Tarse said:
Pistonwot said:
Typical bully-boy tactics from the UK Thug Force.
NEVER sign their infantile pieces of paper, as OP ststed the signature IS your acceptance.
They are a dirty, devious and dishonest bunch of thieves.
So what do the rear windows of a Volvo taste like?NEVER sign their infantile pieces of paper, as OP ststed the signature IS your acceptance.
They are a dirty, devious and dishonest bunch of thieves.
I hold my hands up when Im wrong and show respect to all working Officers and ultimately respect every man/woman who is doing the job, even if I do happen to disagree now and again.
BUT,,,
Tell it like it is people, if youre being robbed dont say "Ooh, I was unlucky" No, you were robbed!
Sticking up for yourself and knowing where you Legally stand is something that is a neccessary fact of life now.
With the knowlege gained you become informed and avoid the risk of being had over and over and over due to your own ignorance.
Even when you have done nothing wrong the Police will still fit you up, as the OP has highlighted.
Dibble said:
Pistonwot said:
Typical bully-boy tactics from the UK Thug Force.
NEVER sign their infantile pieces of paper, as OP ststed the signature IS your acceptance.
They are a dirty, devious and dishonest bunch of thieves.
NEVER sign their infantile pieces of paper, as OP ststed the signature IS your acceptance.
They are a dirty, devious and dishonest bunch of thieves.
Up there with the cogent arguments put forward by the freepeople of the land!ferrariF50lover said:
Gareth79 said:
As mentioned it doesn't matter what purpose the phone is being used for - if the person is driving and it is being used the offence is committed. The legislation was deliberately open-ended so that it didn't need to list and prohibit all the purposes a phone could be used for.
There was a report where a comedian got off a ticket by claiming he was using a voice recording feature of the phone, but IMO the CPS was clueless about the actual law!
edit: As just pointed out, this assumes it was being used hand-held. The quote in the post "the officer told her that it is against the law to use any mobile device in any way whilst driving" is a little vague.
You couldn't be more wrong. It very specifically DOES matter for what purpose the phone is being used. "The law" requires that the phone be used for an 'interactive communication purpose', to constitute an offence. There was a report where a comedian got off a ticket by claiming he was using a voice recording feature of the phone, but IMO the CPS was clueless about the actual law!
edit: As just pointed out, this assumes it was being used hand-held. The quote in the post "the officer told her that it is against the law to use any mobile device in any way whilst driving" is a little vague.
"Interactive communication function" is only related to part (b) of all subsctions, which is for handheld devices which *are not* a "hand held mobile telephone" but *can* be used for communictions, ie. pagers, games consoles, or any other thing which they didn't want to define when making the legislation.
In the OP's case the law only needs to be read to this point:
110.—(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using—
(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or .
Yes, "use" can be argued, but if it is a hand-held mobile telephone then there is no point using (b).
Edited by Gareth79 on Monday 25th June 20:42
Pontoneer said:
daz3210 said:
But the law states use FOR INTERACTIVE COMMUNICATION. That suggests to me that you have to be communicating with a person, not a set of satellites.
Following instructions from a satnav is interactive communication : it tells you where to go , you then drive as directed and it comes up with new instructions based on your new position .Gareth79 said:
In this case, the "interactive communication function" is irrelevant because the OP has stated the person was using a mobile telephone which is caught in (1)(a).
"Interactive communication function" is only related to part (b) of all subsctions, which is for handheld devices which *are not* a "hand held mobile telephone" but *can* be used for communictions, ie. pagers, games consoles, or any other thing which they didn't want to define when making the legislation.
In the OP's case the law only needs to be read to this point:
110.—(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using—
(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or .
Yes, "use" can be argued, but if it is a hand-held mobile telephone then there is no point using (b).
a 'hand-held mobile telephone' is defined in paragraph 6."Interactive communication function" is only related to part (b) of all subsctions, which is for handheld devices which *are not* a "hand held mobile telephone" but *can* be used for communictions, ie. pagers, games consoles, or any other thing which they didn't want to define when making the legislation.
In the OP's case the law only needs to be read to this point:
110.—(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using—
(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or .
Yes, "use" can be argued, but if it is a hand-held mobile telephone then there is no point using (b).
(6) For the purposes of this regulation—
(a) 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;
It follows that "interactive communication function" relates to para 1 (a) through paragraph 6.
Even if an iphone is a 'mobile telephone it is not to be treated as a 'hand-held mobile telephone' for the purposes of this regulation unless it is, or must be, held to make a call or perform another interactive communication function.
Edited by Zeeky on Tuesday 26th June 01:18
Of course virtually everything a phone does uses data downloaded from the net, which is an interactive communication function if you ask it to do it.
The issue is distraction, more than what you are doing with the device. If you're distracted, you should be ticketed. I agree it's a terrible law, but then if they'd drafted it tightly it would have been rendered useless by technological progress by now.
The issue is distraction, more than what you are doing with the device. If you're distracted, you should be ticketed. I agree it's a terrible law, but then if they'd drafted it tightly it would have been rendered useless by technological progress by now.
Pistonwot said:
Typical bully-boy tactics from the UK Thug Force.
NEVER sign their infantile pieces of paper, as OP ststed the signature IS your acceptance.
They are a dirty, devious and dishonest bunch of thieves.
You do know that signing the ticket isn't admitting guilt right? Just signing to say you received the ticket. If you feel the officer is wrong, you can follow the instructions on the back and have the matter heard in court. NEVER sign their infantile pieces of paper, as OP ststed the signature IS your acceptance.
They are a dirty, devious and dishonest bunch of thieves.
Or, if you don't want to take the ticket, they can just report you and you'll get summonsed to court.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff