Using mobile phone when stopped/parked

[Who me ?]

Haven't read all the posts, but one thing I constantly see more vehicles parked ,engines off, hazards on and driver on phone. Problem is that the law on mobile use whilst driving has decreased that offence and created another hazard - stupid parking to answer a call . Perhaps BRAKE and the TV programs should start looking at the stats on accidents caused by mobile users on phone parked badly. Perhaps in honour of the comedy duo of legislators (Blair & Brown) we now need another knee jerk law on dangerous parking to answer a mobile call .

[R0G]

The law on using mobiles by the driver in a vehicle is a complete ass

Common sense would have been to ban the use of any mobile unless the hand/park brake was on and stopped in a safe place

[Alucidnation]

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!

And me.

[Eclassy]

surveyor said:

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.

This

We have just ordered a Citroen C1 which comes with a infotainment system which basically mirrors your phone onto the cars 7" screen. Apps like Apple Carplay and Android Auto do the same.

Its crazy that someone parked on the side of the road but with engine running is seen as a greater risk than somene basically using their phone through the cars screen just like they would if it was in hand.

Edited by Eclassy on Sunday 14th December 10:31

[Pit Pony]

swerni said:

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.

Have to agree with you 100%
Should be applied in the spirt of the law.

There should be a simple test in law. Would 12 members of the public think that the law was designed to stop people killing each other in cars, that are moving, or do they think it was designed to stop people killing each other when stationary in laybys? What do they think the MP's had in mind when they proposed the law ?

[9mm]

Derek Smith said:

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!

I presume you would like an explanation.

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.

It would be worth a day in court and a few points if I was ever prosecuted in the circumstances you describe.

Any police officer reporting someone in those circumstances would have to be a moron, sociopath, or both.

I see no need to go handsfree as my phone is switched off or in the glove compartment out of reach when I drive.

Any links to the case law you mention, and what alleged offences were reported?

[p1esk]

R0G said:

The law on using mobiles by the driver in a vehicle is a complete ass

Yes, I also think it's nonsense; and although I can't dispute the existence of the case law that Derek refers to, I think that is nonsense, too.

To any normal person you are driving when you are in the car, on the move, and responsible for controlling the vehicle. I would say it is also reasonable to accept that you're 'driving' when in a stationary traffic queue, awaiting the opportunity to move off again: but I don't think one should extend the concept of 'driving' much beyond that.

If it is true that we are now regarded as 'driving' if we stop the car, switch off the engine, get out and walk a few paces away, and then use a mobile phone, the law has become quite barmy and it does not deserve respect.

It's all very well to say that 'the law is the law' and that we should obey it at all times and in all respects, but would it not be better to have laws that are less strict, and have them widely respected and obeyed, rather than highly restrictive laws that seek to catch everybody for every minor misdemeanour?

The authoities are not able to do it at this time, but with the inexorable progress of technology, does it not lead us towards a day when there would no longer be any freedom to make our own judgements, and mistakes?

Edited by p1esk on Sunday 14th December 12:12

[Willy Nilly]

rambo19 said:

I reckon she stopped somewhere totally stupid, probably blocking traffic, see it all the time.

and then failed the attitude test.

[9mm]

Derek Smith said:

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!

I presume you would like an explanation.

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.

It would be worth a day in court and a few points if I was ever prosecuted in the circumstances you describe.

Any police officer reporting someone in those circumstances would have to be a moron, sociopath, or both.

I see no need to go handsfree as my phone is switched off or in the glove compartment out of reach when I drive.

Any links to the case law you mention, and what alleged offences were reported?

[HertsBiker]

Willy Nilly said:

rambo19 said:

I reckon she stopped somewhere totally stupid, probably blocking traffic, see it all the time.

and then failed the attitude test.

Probably, but the law should be impartial. And sensible in the first place.

[emmaT2014]

HertsBiker said:

Willy Nilly said:

rambo19 said:

I reckon she stopped somewhere totally stupid, probably blocking traffic, see it all the time.

and then failed the attitude test.

Probably, but the law should be impartial. And sensible in the first place.

It is. You can't use a hand held phone while driving, if you do you commit an offence.

[rewc]

emmaT2014 said:

It is. You can't use a hand held phone while driving, if you do you commit an offence.

what is your definition of driving?

[vonhosen]

9mm said:

Derek Smith said:

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!

I presume you would like an explanation.

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.

It would be worth a day in court and a few points if I was ever prosecuted in the circumstances you describe.

Any police officer reporting someone in those circumstances would have to be a moron, sociopath, or both.

I see no need to go handsfree as my phone is switched off or in the glove compartment out of reach when I drive.

Any links to the case law you mention, and what alleged offences were reported?

R v McDonagh 1974 is the principle test for whether someone is driving.

'Driving', 'using' & 'in charge of' shouldn't be confused with one another.

[allergictocheese]

vonhosen said:

R v McDonagh 1974 is the principle test for whether someone is driving.

'Driving', 'using' & 'in charge of' shouldn't be confused with one another.

I think you mean MacDonagh, Vonhosen! This introduced 3 main tests (paraphrasing);

1) Whether a person is driving is a matter of fact dependent on the degree and extent of their controlling the direction and movement of the vehicle

2) One test is whether the person is "in a substantial sense controlling the movement and direction of the car" (Ames v Macleod 1969)

3) If the test above are satisfied, it is still not certain. The activity in question still would need to fall into the ordinary meaning of "driving" in the English language.

Three more tests from later cases also have relevance to driving (although I don't think to Mobile phone legislation in this thread);

4) The essence of driving is the use of the driver's control in order to direct the movement of the vehicle however the movement is produced (Burgoyne v Phillips and Rowan v Merseyside Chief Constable 1985)

5) Whether the defendant himself deliberately set the vehicle in motion is an important factor (cases as above)

6) The length of time the steering or other controls were handled (Jones v Pratt)


There are also authorities on what would be termed 'continued driving', which consider when you are involved in acts which form part of your driving (for example, filling up with fuel or being stopped at traffic lights) which is what Derek Smith was alluding to earlier. I don't think they would typically apply to mobile phone legislation, for fairly obvious reasons. There is a cross-over between 'in-charge' and 'driving' and the authorities in this area seem to be concerned mainly with drink driving and unlicensed offences.

I can't think of many scenarios where you could be stood outside of your car with the engine off and be considered to have committed a 'driving' mobile phone offence.

[vonhosen]

See also Planton v DPP 2001 & DPP v Alderton 2003.

[rewc]

vonhosen said:

R v McDonagh 1974 is the principle test for whether someone is driving.

'Driving', 'using' & 'in charge of' shouldn't be confused with one another.

The Judge said "Although the word ‘drive’ must be given a wide meaning, the courts must be alert to see that the net is not thrown so widely that it includes activities which cannot be said to be driving a motor vehicle in any ordinary use of that word in the English language.’

In my opinion sitting in a car parked at the side of the road with the engine running handbrake on and out of gear does exactly that. It appears that the Police are desperate if prosecuting in those circumstances.
http://swarb.co.uk/regina-v-macdonagh-ca-1974/

[vonhosen]

rewc said:

vonhosen said:

R v McDonagh 1974 is the principle test for whether someone is driving.

'Driving', 'using' & 'in charge of' shouldn't be confused with one another.

The Judge said "Although the word ‘drive’ must be given a wide meaning, the courts must be alert to see that the net is not thrown so widely that it includes activities which cannot be said to be driving a motor vehicle in any ordinary use of that word in the English language.’

In my opinion sitting in a car parked at the side of the road with the engine running handbrake on and out of gear does exactly that. It appears that the Police are desperate if prosecuting in those circumstances.
http://swarb.co.uk/regina-v-macdonagh-ca-1974/

Look up the other two I mentioned as well, that are post MacDonagh.

Movement is only one factor in deciding if somebody is driving & if it isn't present they can still be said to be driving in some circumstances.

[vonhosen]

ash73 said:

I think the requirement to stop your engine is silly, in the current weather I'd want it running to keep the heating and lights on. If you're sitting in a car with the engine stopped you're still in charge anyhow, what's the difference?

In charge isn't driving, it's a different test.
Some legislation is about driving, some about in charge, some is about using. You apply the test & case law relative to the word used in the legislation.

[Variomatic]

ash73 said:

I think the requirement to stop your engine is silly, in the current weather I'd want it running to keep the heating and lights on. If you're in a car with the engine stopped you're still in charge anyhow, what's the difference?

The difference, as I posted before, is that a car with the engine stopped isn't going to unexpectedly move (under power) because the driver's done something silly like sitting with his foot on the clutch, or leaving his auto in drive.

If mobile use while driving is going to be against the law, then a line has to be drawn somewhere and "stopped, with engine off" is as good as any other and more sensible than some. I'm not convinced that the "keys out" requirement would be found to apply to mobile use if it was ever tested in court.


It's really no big deal to turn it off - there's a key (or sometimes button now) provided for just that purpose, and you no longer need to stand out front with a crank handle to get it going again.

If you're planning a phone call that's so long you need to keep the heater running then probably best to call back when you're sitting comfortably with a hot beverage, and if your car can't handle 10 or 20 minutes of sidelights with the engine off then probably time for a new battery!

[vonhosen]

ash73 said:

Oh I see, so they don't even need this "while driving" interpretation to catch someone drink driving while parked up, because that's already covered by being drunk "while in charge"?

How can you be driving if the car is parked up in neutral with the handbrake on, and won't respond to your immediate control inputs?

Look at the case law as a guide (but each case will be dealt with on the individual facts of that case).
To answer your question above, you can be stopped at traffic lights, handbrake on & out of gear. You are still driving.

Drunk driving & drunk in charge are different things with different sentencing.