Using mobile phone when stopped/parked
Discussion
Landshark said:
....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!!)
She was "picked on" because she failed to comply exactly with what the Law requires.As the old saying goes: "Ignorance of the Law is no defence!"
I often wonder just how many of these phone calls whilst driving are so urgent that they couldn't have waited until the driver had reached their destination? - A pretty high proportion of them I suspect!
I remember a couple of years ago being stuck in a huge traffic jam which haddnt moved in a long while. Being stuck on a hill I applied the parking brake and put the autobox in park, the ignition was also off.
I decided to make a couple of calls to inform people that I would obviously be late.... 30 second later a panda car travelling in the opposite direction stops along side me and turns on his blue lights and siren. He tells me to pull out of the traffic and onto the pathway alongside and continues to move a load of cars to allow me to do this all the while causing the other carriageway to also come to a standstill.
He then has a go at me for using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a motorvehicle.
I did answer that the car couldnt be made any safer considering it was an automatic in park with the handbrake applied and the ignition off. He wouldnt hear any of it and stated that I would be getting 3 points and a fine.
He then found that he couldnt find any of his paperwork so took my name and address and told me that I would recieve it all by post, which never ever happened......
It all seemed completely ridiculous and following the letter of the law which given the circumstances which we were in, common sense should have said didnt apply....
I decided to make a couple of calls to inform people that I would obviously be late.... 30 second later a panda car travelling in the opposite direction stops along side me and turns on his blue lights and siren. He tells me to pull out of the traffic and onto the pathway alongside and continues to move a load of cars to allow me to do this all the while causing the other carriageway to also come to a standstill.
He then has a go at me for using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a motorvehicle.
I did answer that the car couldnt be made any safer considering it was an automatic in park with the handbrake applied and the ignition off. He wouldnt hear any of it and stated that I would be getting 3 points and a fine.
He then found that he couldnt find any of his paperwork so took my name and address and told me that I would recieve it all by post, which never ever happened......
It all seemed completely ridiculous and following the letter of the law which given the circumstances which we were in, common sense should have said didnt apply....
Landshark said:
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!!)
Because a driver in a stationary vehicle is a pretty soft target. No need to chase after them with the blues on.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.
Not all cars are the same.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.
You drive an automatic. You pull over, leave it in gear, start chatting and nudge the accelerator by accident. Next thing you're out in the path of a group of Nuns cycling to the orphanage with kittens in teir baskets.
Or: You pull over, leave your manual in gear with the clutch depressed (yes, people DO do silly things all the time) while taking a call. part way through the call, you mve your foot without thinking, same result as above.
The idea of "engine off" is that there can be no mistake and no discussion about whether the car was being driven at the time. "Keys out" is probably overkill.
The problem is poor wording of the legislation.
There is no doubt that the legislators' intention was not to have those stopped at the side of the road to be included in this legislation. They probably thought that driving meant what most of the public thinks it means, i.e. driving.
The definition changed from the normal, accepted reason during the initial stages of drink driving legislation. Instead of changing the law when offenders tried to get away with their offending by thrusting money into the hands of lawyers, the definition of driving was extended to include stopped, and even out of the car.
If you stop your car, switch everything off, get out, sit on a nearby wall and use your mobile phone, you can still be reported for this offence.
The police should use good sense in such cases but - although we don't know the full circs of this case so can't make a decision - some do not. One problem is that some like 'rules'. On commentator on here who says he is a serving officer, reckons that it is accepted that if a car is parked in a parking area then the person is not driving. This is, of course, rubbish.
If I was back at the desk in the process office I would reject any file where the driver had stopped in order to take the call. There then would be no danger from using a mobile.
Most, the vast majority, of drivers interpret the term driving as - well - the way the vast majority of people do. However, the legal term for driving has moved well away from the accepted term. Whilst the law should interpret words in the sense in which they are commonly used, this is not always so. A field, used to grow a crop, can be premises despite there being no building, permanent or otherwise, in it. I happen to believe that, in this case unlike mobile law, the intent of the legislators' was complied with. However, if the wording doesn't quite work, then change the wording and not do some Humpty Dumpty inspired corruption of the language.
There is no doubt that the legislators' intention was not to have those stopped at the side of the road to be included in this legislation. They probably thought that driving meant what most of the public thinks it means, i.e. driving.
The definition changed from the normal, accepted reason during the initial stages of drink driving legislation. Instead of changing the law when offenders tried to get away with their offending by thrusting money into the hands of lawyers, the definition of driving was extended to include stopped, and even out of the car.
If you stop your car, switch everything off, get out, sit on a nearby wall and use your mobile phone, you can still be reported for this offence.
The police should use good sense in such cases but - although we don't know the full circs of this case so can't make a decision - some do not. One problem is that some like 'rules'. On commentator on here who says he is a serving officer, reckons that it is accepted that if a car is parked in a parking area then the person is not driving. This is, of course, rubbish.
If I was back at the desk in the process office I would reject any file where the driver had stopped in order to take the call. There then would be no danger from using a mobile.
Most, the vast majority, of drivers interpret the term driving as - well - the way the vast majority of people do. However, the legal term for driving has moved well away from the accepted term. Whilst the law should interpret words in the sense in which they are commonly used, this is not always so. A field, used to grow a crop, can be premises despite there being no building, permanent or otherwise, in it. I happen to believe that, in this case unlike mobile law, the intent of the legislators' was complied with. However, if the wording doesn't quite work, then change the wording and not do some Humpty Dumpty inspired corruption of the language.
Rick101 said:
Our company policy (Railway) has recently been updated to reflect this.
No more talking on hands free. You must be stopped and engine off.
A large construction company where i used to work has taken to having the Bluetooth systems disabled in the reps cars and a policy of company phones in the boot. No more talking on hands free. You must be stopped and engine off.
Rick101 said:
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.
Yup but legislation is generally poorly written as a kneejerk reaction, See clamping/Parking eye, Dangerous dogs etc. Rarely does legislation take into account evolving technology.
I've heard about people being ticketed for this before. I have integrated hands free in the car but there are times when I really need to use the handset. If that is the case for some time now I have found somewhere to stop, Gearbox in Park, handbrake on, switch off, keys out and steering lock engaged then put the keys on the passenger seat before picking up the phone.
I'd hope that in this scenario I'd be safe from a ticket.
I'd hope that in this scenario I'd be safe from a ticket.
4rephill said:
Dixy said:
4rephill said:
She was "picked on" because she failed to comply exactly with what the Law requires.
Is anyone able to provide a link to the actual law.
I had hoped that someone with knowledge could put a link that they new was factual.
Nickyboy said:
Half the problem is people think just because they have stopped by the side of the road that makes it ok. Was this person safely stopped or like most just pulled up as soon as the phone rang regardless of the chaos they may have been causing around them
Page two and third time mentioned it. If they have stopped in a place that causes chaos, why not deal with it by the appropriate law, in that case unnecessary obstruction. It's a bit like Section 59 being used for speeding offences where the evidence of any speeding would prove to be a tad thin.
I'm is frankly s ridiculas law anyway that is not keeping up with technology...
How many cars now integrate closely with modern phones....
Of course no one will do anything about it as joe blogs will be out blaming the phone for killing someone when in reality it was the driver not judgimg whether to stop correctly.
How many cars now integrate closely with modern phones....
Of course no one will do anything about it as joe blogs will be out blaming the phone for killing someone when in reality it was the driver not judgimg whether to stop correctly.
hedgefinder said:
I remember a couple of years ago being stuck in a huge traffic jam which haddnt moved in a long while. Being stuck on a hill I applied the parking brake and put the autobox in park, the ignition was also off.
I decided to make a couple of calls to inform people that I would obviously be late.... 30 second later a panda car travelling in the opposite direction stops along side me and turns on his blue lights and siren. He tells me to pull out of the traffic and onto the pathway alongside and continues to move a load of cars to allow me to do this all the while causing the other carriageway to also come to a standstill.
He then has a go at me for using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a motorvehicle.
I did answer that the car couldnt be made any safer considering it was an automatic in park with the handbrake applied and the ignition off. He wouldnt hear any of it and stated that I would be getting 3 points and a fine.
He then found that he couldnt find any of his paperwork so took my name and address and told me that I would recieve it all by post, which never ever happened......
It all seemed completely ridiculous and following the letter of the law which given the circumstances which we were in, common sense should have said didnt apply....
On the flipside, I picked my daughter up from a concert at Alexandra Palace earlier on in the year and as you can imagine the traffic on the roads just outside the venue, was horrendous; crawling at a few mph, all stop start etc so I whip out my mobile and start surfing the net all whilst edging forward a few feet here and there, interspaced with not moving at all for short periods.I decided to make a couple of calls to inform people that I would obviously be late.... 30 second later a panda car travelling in the opposite direction stops along side me and turns on his blue lights and siren. He tells me to pull out of the traffic and onto the pathway alongside and continues to move a load of cars to allow me to do this all the while causing the other carriageway to also come to a standstill.
He then has a go at me for using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a motorvehicle.
I did answer that the car couldnt be made any safer considering it was an automatic in park with the handbrake applied and the ignition off. He wouldnt hear any of it and stated that I would be getting 3 points and a fine.
He then found that he couldnt find any of his paperwork so took my name and address and told me that I would recieve it all by post, which never ever happened......
It all seemed completely ridiculous and following the letter of the law which given the circumstances which we were in, common sense should have said didnt apply....
At first I didn't notice the Police van to my right on the opposite side of the road with the driver; being higher up, having a clear view of what I was doing, I looked up and the look on my face must have been priceless as he had a good old laugh at my expense, he motioned for me to put my phone away and then carried on driving.
HTP99 said:
On the flipside, I picked my daughter up from a concert at Alexandra Palace earlier on in the year and as you can imagine the traffic on the roads just outside the venue, was horrendous; crawling at a few mph, all stop start etc so I whip out my mobile and start surfing the net all whilst edging forward a few feet here and there, interspaced with not moving at all for short periods.
At first I didn't notice the Police van to my right on the opposite side of the road with the driver; being higher up, having a clear view of what I was doing, I looked up and the look on my face must have been priceless as he had a good old laugh at my expense, he motioned for me to put my phone away and then carried on driving.
Which sounds like it was exactly the right thing to do. At first I didn't notice the Police van to my right on the opposite side of the road with the driver; being higher up, having a clear view of what I was doing, I looked up and the look on my face must have been priceless as he had a good old laugh at my expense, he motioned for me to put my phone away and then carried on driving.
It's a badly drafted piece of legislation that addresses a perceived hole that never existed in the first place. Using a mobile could perfectly well have been charged under DWDCA, and that would have addressed the key issue of whether the use in question actually mattered a jot.
“Mobile telephones
110. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using—
(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).
(2) No person shall cause or permit any other person to drive a motor vehicle on a road while that other person is using—
(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).
(3) No person shall supervise a holder of a provisional licence if the person supervising is using—
(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4),
at a time when the provisional licence holder is driving a motor vehicle on a road.
(4) A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data.
(5) A person does not contravene a provision of this regulation if, at the time of the alleged contravention—
(a)he is using the telephone or other device to call the police, fire, ambulance or other emergency service on 112 or 999;
(b)he is acting in response to a genuine emergency; and
(c)it is unsafe or impracticable for him to cease driving in order to make the call (or, in the case of an alleged contravention of paragraph (3)(b), for the provisional licence holder to cease driving while the call was being made).
(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;
(b)a person supervises the holder of a provisional licence if he does so pursuant to a condition imposed on that licence holder prescribed under section 97(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (grant of provisional licence);
(c)“interactive communication function” includes the following:
(i)sending or receiving oral or written messages;
(ii)sending or receiving facsimile documents;
(iii)sending or receiving still or moving images; and
(iv)providing access to the internet;
(d)“two-way radio” means any wireless telegraphy apparatus which is designed or adapted—
(i)for the purpose of transmitting and receiving spoken messages; and
(ii)to operate on any frequency other than 880 MHz to 915 MHz, 925 MHz to 960 MHz, 1710 MHz to 1785 MHz, 1805 MHz to 1880 MHz, 1900 MHz to 1980 MHz or 2110 MHz to 2170 MHz; and
(e)“wireless telegraphy” has the same meaning as in section 19(1) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949(3).”
9mm said:
Derek Smith said:
.
If you stop your car, switch everything off, get out, sit on a nearby wall and use your mobile phone, you can still be reported for this offence.
Run that by me again!If you stop your car, switch everything off, get out, sit on a nearby wall and use your mobile phone, you can still be reported for this offence.
Driving starts when you start your journey and continues, with exceptions, until you stop.
There is case law which states that a person who stopped his car because he had cramp and was exercising to relieve it was driving as, once the cramp was eased, he would have resumed his journey. Another where a driver stopped to by flowers from a stall. He'd stopped the car, stopped the engine, exited, walked over to the stall: driving.
It doesn't take a lot of working out to realise why the word driving was extended to include these sorts of events for the drink drive legislation (since reworded and changed). However, when legislators use the word driving, it opens one of those metal things with worms in them.
So once in your car, your are driving until your reach your destination. If you stop for refs at a services then it is unlikely that you will fall under that definition. However, it is a matter of fact to be proved.
Do you feel lucky, punk? The sensible thing is to go handsfree.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff