Police error, complaint upheld, doing me anyway! Defend?!
Discussion
goldblum said:
Timsta said:
goldblum said:
Timsta said:
goldblum said:
Well done for getting away with it. Of course someone with some backbone might just have said fair cop and taken the punishment.
I would say that standing up to false allegations takes a fair bit of backbone.The definitive list will belong in a different thread I think. In this thread the Police (whilst totally wrong of course) have committed the far lesser crime IMO. Worse things happen, it's hardly the tip of an iceberg. If the police prevent some dick from causing an accident because he's distracted by his phone then I'm all for it.
thegoose said:
Apparently whether you're on the phone or not doesn't matter in the slightest - if you have it in your hand, you're guilty of the offence (even if, for example, you're moving it from your shirt pocket to the centre console in order that it doesn't distract you whilst driving). Seems ridiculous to me, but that's the law.
This happened to me the other week. Had the phone in my hand for just 21 seconds - got caught. Now got to do 'the course' & pay £85 for the 'privilege' of not having points on my licence.It's a stupid law when eating or drinking from a bottle is legal, as is changing a cd, programming the sat-nav etc yet having a phone in your hand is illegal.
Utterly stupid however the law is the law so what's the point of arguing?
There's is no point even though when i got caught I was the only other car on the road - apart from plod.
Annoyed? Yes. However I got caught so that's that. Sod all i can do about it.
goldblum said:
The definitive list will belong in a different thread I think. In this thread the Police (whilst totally wrong of course) have committed the far lesser crime IMO. Worse things happen, it's hardly the tip of an iceberg. If the police prevent some dick from causing an accident because he's distracted by his phone then I'm all for it.
How does touching your mobile cause an accident and/or turn you in to a dick?TX.
Terminator X said:
goldblum said:
The definitive list will belong in a different thread I think. In this thread the Police (whilst totally wrong of course) have committed the far lesser crime IMO. Worse things happen, it's hardly the tip of an iceberg. If the police prevent some dick from causing an accident because he's distracted by his phone then I'm all for it.
How does touching your mobile cause an accident and/or turn you in to a dick?TX.
The OP wasn't doing that though, he was using his phone, and that makes him a risk to anyone else on the road.
GC8 said:
Cleared in a court of law, but convicted in the PH kangaroo court.
Now, pass me that black cap!
No kangaroo court here mate, read the OP's opening comments and you tell me whether you think he was using his phone or not. He's used a technicality to worm out of a conviction, that's all. Good luck to him, bad luck to the sap he knocks off his pushbike because he's distracted.Now, pass me that black cap!
goldblum said:
No kangaroo court here mate, read the OP's opening comments and you tell me whether you think he was using his phone or not. He's used a technicality to worm out of a conviction, that's all. Good luck to him, bad luck to the sap he knocks off his pushbike because he's distracted.
Perhaps - but none of us were there.I'd agree that from the op's opening gambit a number of inferences could be drawn - however, offences in the criminal court must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt
If the officer embellished her account of the events then more fool her - although I don't see what the relevance of ticking an ethnicity box on a ticket has to do with the offence per se.
It's a game - cast enough doubt on one aspect of the incident and the rest is also questionable. That may (or may not) have been the case here.
The op won't get all his costs back though - it would probably have been cheaper to take the ticket - a hollow victory imo.
Id presumed that he was waffling because he wanted to try to convey what had happened whilst being paranoid that even touching a phone or even an iPod touch with wifi/Bluetooth, could be regarded as operating an wireless communication device, hence the evasive and unclear description (ie saying he wasn't operating it but not wanting to concede that he had touched it lest it be used against him).
This was probably fuelled by tales of 'taking it out of my shirt pocket' tickets and BV72s suggestion that the law would apply to iPods on this or another thread.
My view is clearer (although not necessarily right), that you are only driving if you are driving and you are only guilty if you were using it. Smartphones muddy the waters somewhat, but it was pretty poorly drawn legislation in the first place, without wally police officers trying to ticket people who have stopped and parked by the side of the road and the other nonsense which cannot all be 'only half the story'...
This was probably fuelled by tales of 'taking it out of my shirt pocket' tickets and BV72s suggestion that the law would apply to iPods on this or another thread.
My view is clearer (although not necessarily right), that you are only driving if you are driving and you are only guilty if you were using it. Smartphones muddy the waters somewhat, but it was pretty poorly drawn legislation in the first place, without wally police officers trying to ticket people who have stopped and parked by the side of the road and the other nonsense which cannot all be 'only half the story'...
Red 4 said:
goldblum said:
No kangaroo court here mate, read the OP's opening comments and you tell me whether you think he was using his phone or not. He's used a technicality to worm out of a conviction, that's all. Good luck to him, bad luck to the sap he knocks off his pushbike because he's distracted.
Perhaps - but none of us were there.I'd agree that from the op's opening gambit a number of inferences could be drawn - however, offences in the criminal court must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt
If the officer embellished her account of the events then more fool her - although I don't see what the relevance of ticking an ethnicity box on a ticket has to do with the offence per se.
It's a game - cast enough doubt on one aspect of the incident and the rest is also questionable. That may (or may not) have been the case here.
The op won't get all his costs back though - it would probably have been cheaper to take the ticket - a hollow victory imo.
Also the danger is the OP doesn't consider his escape seriously enough and sees his Pyrrhic victory as a green light for continuing to use his phone whilst driving. It's no longer a question of whether the stereo, talking to a passenger or using the phone is more dangerous than the other - a plethora of studies show a far stronger mental disconnect when using the phone than with other distractions.
Sadly, I suspect that it was the OP's hubris that carried him to court, and his hubris will see him continue to use his phone whilst driving.
goldblum said:
Sadly, I suspect that it was the OP's hubris that carried him to court, and his hubris will see him continue to use his phone whilst driving.
Maybe, maybe not.IME people will go to court if they feel they have been wronged - rightly so.
On the other hand there are also plenty of chancers out there who will just have a go, even if they know they were in the wrong.
The other category is people who have alot to lose - they know they were not wronged, they know the merits of their defence are minimal but perhaps they are looking at a disqualification (totting up or whatever).
The op was issued with a FPN apparently - if he was on 9 points he would have been reported - I'd still like to know how many points he has on his licence though - 'cos I'm nosey....
Pyrrhic victory?
Costly, but the cost on a motor trade policy at renewal could possibly make RKs fees seem small in comparison.
Had he been an HGV driver and not a motor trader then the conviction could have seen him hauled up in front of the TC leading to his vocational licence being revoked. In those circumstances the cost of his defence would've seen small even if he had had to pay for it all himself.
Costly, but the cost on a motor trade policy at renewal could possibly make RKs fees seem small in comparison.
Had he been an HGV driver and not a motor trader then the conviction could have seen him hauled up in front of the TC leading to his vocational licence being revoked. In those circumstances the cost of his defence would've seen small even if he had had to pay for it all himself.
goldblum said:
Well done for getting away with it. Of course someone with some backbone might just have said fair cop and taken the punishment.
Haha. ' fair cop'! How ironic is that?I would say the OP did show backbone here and did us all the favour of exposing yet another bent copper. If in doing so he got away with using his phone, so be it. A small price to pay.
goldblum said:
He's not a truck driver though. He's a small time trader with an interest in racing Porches. He uses his phone whilst he drives. I sincerely hope if he does it again he's caught and prosecuted as fully as possible.
Lovely sentiments, nice.Personal opinion is that using a phone while driving is inherently dangerous, but that doing so in hands rather than a cradle is insignificantly more so. Stupid law, but the rate of prosecution sort of justifies the stupidity. Sadly, it masks the underlying lack of concentration from the talking.
thegoose said:
I am amazed that everyone thinks it's OK for the police to decide for themselves whether they follow procedures or ignore them, and then go one further and deliberately make up false responses.
I don't. I've been on the receiving end of it. Some police officers haven't heard of GIGO (Garbage In = Garbage Out). They think they can put nonsense into their procedural sausage machines and what comes out is somehow legitimised by their magic procedures and that what comes out isn't nonsense.It could of course be assumed or thought that such adherence to procedure and the tiniest of facts somehow legitimises everything else they feed into the GIGO Police procedure sausage machine. A bit like some of the criticism with the police and CPS prosecuting Nigel Evans, former Deputy Speaker.
Cue dozens of police officers of various ranks studying their shoes repeating 'It can't be wrong, we followed procedures'.
Of course such 'mishaps' could indicate that the officers may have some personal grudge against those they're seeking to prosecute and persecute.
I wonder how many miles a year these bad apples do? They seem to get about a bit.
This thread has demonstrated that two wrongs do in fact make a right.
Still, good reminder to the police who post on here that
a) the police are not always right, even if this goes against everything their training told them
b) police do also lie sometimes (as do suspects of course)
c) I doubt the few individuals who have the tenacity to challenge are the only ones who have found a and b to be true.
All of which takes the shine off a service that should have people's respect.
Ian
Still, good reminder to the police who post on here that
a) the police are not always right, even if this goes against everything their training told them
b) police do also lie sometimes (as do suspects of course)
c) I doubt the few individuals who have the tenacity to challenge are the only ones who have found a and b to be true.
All of which takes the shine off a service that should have people's respect.
Ian
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff