Using mobile phone when stopped/parked
Discussion
Quite an interesting case on the local news programme tonight. A motorist has just been fined £100 and hit with 3 points for using her phone while driving. On the face of it, sounds right.
According to the news item she was stopped at the side of the road, handbrake on but engine running. That (apparently) is an offence; she should have switched the engine off and removed the key from the ignition the reporter said. I'm sure this isn't the first such conviction in the country in these circumstances, but it seems a bit harsh to me. The police have discretion apparently, but clearly didn't consider it appropriate to exercise it on this occasion. I always stop to use the phone, but don't always cut the engine off - obviously will in future though.
So, was she fairly treated; what's the PH view?
According to the news item she was stopped at the side of the road, handbrake on but engine running. That (apparently) is an offence; she should have switched the engine off and removed the key from the ignition the reporter said. I'm sure this isn't the first such conviction in the country in these circumstances, but it seems a bit harsh to me. The police have discretion apparently, but clearly didn't consider it appropriate to exercise it on this occasion. I always stop to use the phone, but don't always cut the engine off - obviously will in future though.
So, was she fairly treated; what's the PH view?
Mr E said:
If you have keyless go and stop/start; when does the law determine that you are not in charge of the car?
This is the same for my BMW 130i I do not need to have the key in the slot for it to start.What if I were to hand the officer the key and show him / her the empty ignition slot would I be exempt?
Not that it matters as I have BT but it does beg the question that the law states one thing yet cars are not always the same.
It's very sad when a brilliant (yes really) law is perverted like this. Where is the harm in leaving the engine running when stationary? Plod should be ashamed.
If I stop my motorcycle and remove lid, hang it on handle bar, but do not switch off the engine, is this going to get me done? Bearing in mind you couldn't ride with the lid like that, or even with it off my head...
What about if you got out of your car, left the engine running and used the phone? Are you in charge?
This law must not be trivialised by foolish officers.
If I stop my motorcycle and remove lid, hang it on handle bar, but do not switch off the engine, is this going to get me done? Bearing in mind you couldn't ride with the lid like that, or even with it off my head...
What about if you got out of your car, left the engine running and used the phone? Are you in charge?
This law must not be trivialised by foolish officers.
HertsBiker said:
It's very sad when a brilliant (yes really) law is perverted like this. Where is the harm in leaving the engine running when stationary? Plod should be ashamed.
If I stop my motorcycle and remove lid, hang it on handle bar, but do not switch off the engine, is this going to get me done? Bearing in mind you couldn't ride with the lid like that, or even with it off my head...
What about if you got out of your car, left the engine running and used the phone? Are you in charge?
This law must not be trivialised by foolish officers.
The law has been 'trivialised' by the judiciary here. The precedent with regard to the principle of it all comes from the way in which 'driving' is treated for drink driving.If I stop my motorcycle and remove lid, hang it on handle bar, but do not switch off the engine, is this going to get me done? Bearing in mind you couldn't ride with the lid like that, or even with it off my head...
What about if you got out of your car, left the engine running and used the phone? Are you in charge?
This law must not be trivialised by foolish officers.
Our company policy (Railway) has recently been updated to reflect this.
No more talking on hands free. You must be stopped and engine off.
Whilst I agree it's a safe way to do things, it's shameful that the Police are taking the opportunity of as easy catch. The PCC's should be implementing some common sense policing.
No more talking on hands free. You must be stopped and engine off.
Whilst I agree it's a safe way to do things, it's shameful that the Police are taking the opportunity of as easy catch. The PCC's should be implementing some common sense policing.
Does seem rather harsh on the face of it, but I do wonder if she took the 'Haven't you got anything better to do' etc tack.
IME some people will accept words of advice & others just want to argue the toss. Guess who gets a ticket.
The other possibility could be was there a clampdown on mobile phone usage in the area at the time?
IME some people will accept words of advice & others just want to argue the toss. Guess who gets a ticket.
The other possibility could be was there a clampdown on mobile phone usage in the area at the time?
Escort3500 said:
Quite an interesting case on the local news programme tonight. A motorist has just been fined £100 and hit with 3 points for using her phone while driving. On the face of it, sounds right.
According to the news item she was stopped at the side of the road, handbrake on but engine running. That (apparently) is an offence; she should have switched the engine off and removed the key from the ignition the reporter said. I'm sure this isn't the first such conviction in the country in these circumstances, but it seems a bit harsh to me. The police have discretion apparently, but clearly didn't consider it appropriate to exercise it on this occasion. I always stop to use the phone, but don't always cut the engine off - obviously will in future though.
So, was she fairly treated; what's the PH view?
I didn't know you were also supposed to remove the key from the ignition, and I doubt if that bit is true; but I did understand that you're supposed to be stopped and have the engine switched off before using a hand-held phone.According to the news item she was stopped at the side of the road, handbrake on but engine running. That (apparently) is an offence; she should have switched the engine off and removed the key from the ignition the reporter said. I'm sure this isn't the first such conviction in the country in these circumstances, but it seems a bit harsh to me. The police have discretion apparently, but clearly didn't consider it appropriate to exercise it on this occasion. I always stop to use the phone, but don't always cut the engine off - obviously will in future though.
So, was she fairly treated; what's the PH view?
In my view she was treated harshly: it wasn't sensible policing.
p1esk said:
Escort3500 said:
Quite an interesting case on the local news programme tonight. A motorist has just been fined £100 and hit with 3 points for using her phone while driving. On the face of it, sounds right.
According to the news item she was stopped at the side of the road, handbrake on but engine running. That (apparently) is an offence; she should have switched the engine off and removed the key from the ignition the reporter said. I'm sure this isn't the first such conviction in the country in these circumstances, but it seems a bit harsh to me. The police have discretion apparently, but clearly didn't consider it appropriate to exercise it on this occasion. I always stop to use the phone, but don't always cut the engine off - obviously will in future though.
So, was she fairly treated; what's the PH view?
I didn't know you were also supposed to remove the key from the ignition, and I doubt if that bit is true; but I did understand that you're supposed to be stopped and have the engine switched off before using a hand-held phone.According to the news item she was stopped at the side of the road, handbrake on but engine running. That (apparently) is an offence; she should have switched the engine off and removed the key from the ignition the reporter said. I'm sure this isn't the first such conviction in the country in these circumstances, but it seems a bit harsh to me. The police have discretion apparently, but clearly didn't consider it appropriate to exercise it on this occasion. I always stop to use the phone, but don't always cut the engine off - obviously will in future though.
So, was she fairly treated; what's the PH view?
In my view she was treated harshly: it wasn't sensible policing.
HertsBiker said:
It's very sad when a brilliant (yes really) law is perverted like this. Where is the harm in leaving the engine running when stationary? Plod should be ashamed.
If I stop my motorcycle and remove lid, hang it on handle bar, but do not switch off the engine, is this going to get me done? Bearing in mind you couldn't ride with the lid like that, or even with it off my head...
What about if you got out of your car, left the engine running and used the phone? Are you in charge?
This law must not be trivialised by foolish officers.
Given the reported facts in the OPs post, I would be concerned that you may be deemed to be in charge of your motorcycle without a helmet.If I stop my motorcycle and remove lid, hang it on handle bar, but do not switch off the engine, is this going to get me done? Bearing in mind you couldn't ride with the lid like that, or even with it off my head...
What about if you got out of your car, left the engine running and used the phone? Are you in charge?
This law must not be trivialised by foolish officers.
g3org3y said:
HertsBiker said:
Plod should be ashamed.
(Edit to add - assuming she was stopped appropriately in a safe position)Indeed. If I was in the woman's position I would have failed the attitude test in spectacular fashion.
...and sorry, Carl; but I don't think the current state of the mobile phone law is brilliant. To my mind it is quite illogical, and from what I see when I'm out on my travels, it is not widely respected.
In a way it is a bit like the law relating to speed limits: you may be perfectly safe in what you're doing, even if well over the speed limit, but you get nicked all the same. With phone usage, you might also be maintaining proper control and quite safe, but you can still get nicked.
It simply makes prosecutions easier for the police; it saves them having to prove that undue risk was being introduced by speeding or phone use. Fortunately, there is some room for discretion by police officers in each case, and all credit to those who use their discretion reasonably. i suppose we should at least be thankful for that.
WinstonWolf said:
p1esk said:
Escort3500 said:
Quite an interesting case on the local news programme tonight. A motorist has just been fined £100 and hit with 3 points for using her phone while driving. On the face of it, sounds right.
According to the news item she was stopped at the side of the road, handbrake on but engine running. That (apparently) is an offence; she should have switched the engine off and removed the key from the ignition the reporter said. I'm sure this isn't the first such conviction in the country in these circumstances, but it seems a bit harsh to me. The police have discretion apparently, but clearly didn't consider it appropriate to exercise it on this occasion. I always stop to use the phone, but don't always cut the engine off - obviously will in future though.
So, was she fairly treated; what's the PH view?
I didn't know you were also supposed to remove the key from the ignition, and I doubt if that bit is true; but I did understand that you're supposed to be stopped and have the engine switched off before using a hand-held phone.According to the news item she was stopped at the side of the road, handbrake on but engine running. That (apparently) is an offence; she should have switched the engine off and removed the key from the ignition the reporter said. I'm sure this isn't the first such conviction in the country in these circumstances, but it seems a bit harsh to me. The police have discretion apparently, but clearly didn't consider it appropriate to exercise it on this occasion. I always stop to use the phone, but don't always cut the engine off - obviously will in future though.
So, was she fairly treated; what's the PH view?
In my view she was treated harshly: it wasn't sensible policing.
But as g3orgy said above I'd have had difficulty conversing in a suitably humble manner in these circumstances. Firm but polite one hopes.
More than one person has looked at the letter of the law rather than the intent here. It's things like this which brings the police and the judiciary into ridicule. A member of the public criminalised whilst the original targets of the legislation carry on regardless flicking the forked fingers.
Assuming the parking was appropriate of course, and if not, then why not deal with this under unnecessary obstruction law?
paintman said:
Does seem rather harsh on the face of it, but I do wonder if she took the 'Haven't you got anything better to do' etc tack.
IME some people will accept words of advice & others just want to argue the toss. Guess who gets a ticket.
The other possibility could be was there a clampdown on mobile phone usage in the area at the time?
I don't know of course, but from the way she interviewed on the news clip I didn't get the impression she was Mrs Angry. She's a care worker and was parked/stopped in what looked like a fairly quiet side street to call her next client when the WPC came along and knicked her. The woman was quite philosophical and said she wasn't going to appeal the ticket, and just wanted to warn others about the way the law is applied. Usual "it is the law" statement form the force when asked to comment.IME some people will accept words of advice & others just want to argue the toss. Guess who gets a ticket.
The other possibility could be was there a clampdown on mobile phone usage in the area at the time?
On the face of it she does seem to have been treated rather harshly; surely a quiet word about the legal implications of what she was doing would have been appropriate.
^Whilst I largely agree with the sentiment there, I also agree with another poster who pointed out that the law is very widely ignored.
A lady drove out of the railway station car park onto the A205 this morning, holding her iPhone in the same hand as the top of the steering wheel in order to keep texting as she pulled into two lanes of fast moving traffic.
Someone else mentioned drink driving, and I think there is a parallel here - in that no-one will respect the law and leave the phone alone until it's an automatic 12 month ban for using the phone whilst the ignition is on.
A lady drove out of the railway station car park onto the A205 this morning, holding her iPhone in the same hand as the top of the steering wheel in order to keep texting as she pulled into two lanes of fast moving traffic.
Someone else mentioned drink driving, and I think there is a parallel here - in that no-one will respect the law and leave the phone alone until it's an automatic 12 month ban for using the phone whilst the ignition is on.
Only one side of the story of course!
Driving is where you would have control of the steering braking and propulsion of a vehicle.
Would be harsh to do as the OP shows if that's actually happen.
The amount of people on the phone whilst driving, you wonder why pick a person like the op when there are so many other blatant ones about (me, no I wasn't on the phone!!)
Driving is where you would have control of the steering braking and propulsion of a vehicle.
Would be harsh to do as the OP shows if that's actually happen.
The amount of people on the phone whilst driving, you wonder why pick a person like the op when there are so many other blatant ones about (me, no I wasn't on the phone!!)
rambo19 said:
I reckon she stopped somewhere totally stupid, probably blocking traffic, see it all the time.
If that is the case then why not use perfectly appropriate laws to deal with that offence? For example offence of unnecessary obstuction.Of course offence of mobile use can be dealt with by FPN, the obstruction offence has to be up before the beak.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff