Using mobile phone when stopped/parked

[Mk3Spitfire]

vonhosen said:

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

And one is much, much harder to get the CPS to run with.

[vonhosen]

ash73 said:

When most people are stopped at traffic lights they are not in neutral with the handbrake on, and they are in the middle of the road. I'm surprised it's not treated differently if someone is parked up, as there's good reason to have the engine running imo.

Plenty are sat in neutral with the handbrake on at red traffic lights.
As I said look at the case law for guidance (I've even given some examples).
In Planton v DPP the driver was sat stationary on a causeway with the engine running & lights on. He said he was waiting for the tide to go out. He was found to be driving by the appeal court.

[rewc]

Variomatic said:

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.

You are not likely to be prosecuted for eating a sandwhich or taking a swig from a can of coke in the same circumstances.How is using a phone any different? Perhaps not even making a call but checking received text messages?

[vonhosen]

rewc said:

Variomatic said:

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.

You are not likely to be prosecuted for eating a sandwhich or taking a swig from a can of coke in the same circumstances.How is using a phone any different? Perhaps not even making a call but checking received text messages?

There isn't a specific offence or eating a sandwich or taking a swig from a can whilst driving. Showing more than committing to those acts & driving is required. With hand held phone use showing that the driver was committing the act & driving is all that is required. It is a dedicated offence.

[karma mechanic]

Is it a hand-held mobile telephone if it is functioning as a GPS unit? Is a GPS unit that contains a SIM card and can receive and show traffic information also a telephone? (I believe some can make emergency calls). What if I reached out and touched the GPS unit to move it slightly in the mount? What about a mounted phone, what if I reached out and moved it in the mount in order to get a better view of its GPS information?

So many things to consider, but if the definition of driving allows me to be shopping in Sainsbury's then all probably moot.

[rewc]

vonhosen said:

rewc said:

Variomatic said:

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.

You are not likely to be prosecuted for eating a sandwhich or taking a swig from a can of coke in the same circumstances.How is using a phone any different? Perhaps not even making a call but checking received text messages?

There isn't a specific offence or eating a sandwich or taking a swig from a can whilst driving. Showing more than committing to those acts & driving is required. With hand held phone use showing that the driver was committing the act & driving is all that is required. It is a dedicated offence.

The question was asked not in regard to a dedicated offence but in reference to variomatic's "because the driver's done something silly like sitting with his foot on the clutch, or leaving his auto in drive."is it inherently more dangerous to be texting on a phone than eating a sandwich whilst parked with the engine running?

[Derek Smith]

vonhosen said:

In Planton v DPP the driver was sat stationary on a causeway with the engine running & lights on. He said he was waiting for the tide to go out. He was found to be driving by the appeal court.

Plenty of others.

The word driving is a legal term. No non lawyer would dream of suggesting that a person 'waiting for the tide to go out', e.g. waiting until a specific known time, some distance in the future, to be driving in the normal, accepted sense of the word.

It is almost certain that the legislators did not intend their law to protect the general public from people a driver in such circumstances who was making a phone call.

One might assume that the legislators expected the officers to use discretion and good sense.

Three things are required before a prosecution should go ahead: an offence, an offender and a reason. Anything less falls within the term of a police state.

[Variomatic]

rewc said:

The question was asked not in regard to a dedicated offence but in reference to variomatic's "because the driver's done something silly like sitting with his foot on the clutch, or leaving his auto in drive."is it inherently more dangerous to be texting on a phone than eating a sandwich whilst parked with the engine running?

No it probably isn't inherently more dangerous to be eating a sandwich in the same situation but, as Vh says, the rules are different.

Even if you were seen eating your sandwich while driving in the 3rd lane of the M6 at rush hour you wouldn't be automatically guilty of any offence - a court would have to be convinced that what you were doing ammounted to driving without due care or attention (or whatever the current offence description is).

Do the same with a mobile phone and you are (figuratively) going to jail, directly to jail, without passing Go and without collecting £200.

Like it or not, that's what having specific knee-jerk offences often does - it makes people guilty regardless of the circumstances.

[9mm]

Derek Smith said:

vonhosen said:

In Planton v DPP the driver was sat stationary on a causeway with the engine running & lights on. He said he was waiting for the tide to go out. He was found to be driving by the appeal court.

Plenty of others.

The word driving is a legal term. No non lawyer would dream of suggesting that a person 'waiting for the tide to go out', e.g. waiting until a specific known time, some distance in the future, to be driving in the normal, accepted sense of the word.

It is almost certain that the legislators did not intend their law to protect the general public from people a driver in such circumstances who was making a phone call.

One might assume that the legislators expected the officers to use discretion and good sense.

Three things are required before a prosecution should go ahead: an offence, an offender and a reason. Anything less falls within the term of a police state.

So what possible reason would support the prosecution of someone for using their mobile phone while driving, when at the time of the offence, they were sat on a wall, with the car ignition switched off?

[vonhosen]

Derek Smith said:

vonhosen said:

In Planton v DPP the driver was sat stationary on a causeway with the engine running & lights on. He said he was waiting for the tide to go out. He was found to be driving by the appeal court.

Plenty of others.

The word driving is a legal term. No non lawyer would dream of suggesting that a person 'waiting for the tide to go out', e.g. waiting until a specific known time, some distance in the future, to be driving in the normal, accepted sense of the word.

It is almost certain that the legislators did not intend their law to protect the general public from people a driver in such circumstances who was making a phone call.

One might assume that the legislators expected the officers to use discretion and good sense.

Three things are required before a prosecution should go ahead: an offence, an offender and a reason. Anything less falls within the term of a police state.

I agree, but people's interpretation of what constitutes an appropriate valid reason differ & wider societies may over the passage of time.

Equally people's interpretation of what legislators intend will differ & it will only get more accurately defined/refined when we get appeal court rulings. Of course it could still be outside the legislators intent even then, but then parliament can pass new laws to make it clearer if they so wish.

There isn't much case law (i.e. direction) in relation to whether driving for phone use should be viewed differently to say driving in relation to drink. drive.

[Derek Smith]

9mm said:

So what possible reason would support the prosecution of someone for using their mobile phone while driving, when at the time of the offence, they were sat on a wall, with the car ignition switched off?

If you look to the source of the extension of the term driving, we find drink drive. There was felt to be a need to block loopholes and rather than rewrite legislation, some judges felt it better to rewrite the OED. Only for the best possible reasons of course.

If the driver has parked their car, and is sitting on a wall, with the intention of driving away once the call has ended, they are still driving. So the offence is committed.

There was a rewording of the legislation relating to the protection of children and, as the MPs do, some wording was objected to (motives now becoming clear, perhaps). A paragraph was removed but this had the unfortunate affect of leaving in situ a power of arrest, one which required the offence to be committed in the view of the arresting officer. There was an additional power of arrest, one of reasonable suspicion.

Even those of limited intellect would realise that there were no circs where the original power could not be included in reasonable suspicion.

These two powers of arrest were often included in various examination set by the Central Planning Unit, the controlling quango for such things for all English/Welsh forces apart from the Mets. It was farcical and I decided to make a stand but the burk who set the questions was unmovable.

A bit of research - which took hours in those pre internet days - showed the this extra power of arrest was brought up in committee and the chair said that it would fall into disuse as the police would ignore something so silly.

It took a letter to the burk's superior to get it eliminated from examinations.

My feeling is that it is possible that MPs assumed that police officers would not be so pathetic as to report those drivers sensible enough to stop their cars in positions which caused no danger or congestion to make/receive a phone call.

It appears they might have been very wrong.

[WinstonWolf]

vonhosen said:

Derek Smith said:

vonhosen said:

In Planton v DPP the driver was sat stationary on a causeway with the engine running & lights on. He said he was waiting for the tide to go out. He was found to be driving by the appeal court.

Plenty of others.

The word driving is a legal term. No non lawyer would dream of suggesting that a person 'waiting for the tide to go out', e.g. waiting until a specific known time, some distance in the future, to be driving in the normal, accepted sense of the word.

It is almost certain that the legislators did not intend their law to protect the general public from people a driver in such circumstances who was making a phone call.

One might assume that the legislators expected the officers to use discretion and good sense.

Three things are required before a prosecution should go ahead: an offence, an offender and a reason. Anything less falls within the term of a police state.

I agree, but people's interpretation of what constitutes an appropriate valid reason differ & wider societies may over the passage of time.

Equally people's interpretation of what legislators intend will differ & it will only get more accurately defined/refined when we get appeal court rulings. Of course it could still be outside the legislators intent even then, but then parliament can pass new laws to make it clearer if they so wish.

There isn't much case law (i.e. direction) in relation to whether driving for phone use should be viewed differently to say driving in relation to drink. drive.

What is the benefit to society of prosecuting someone sat in a parked car with the handbrake applied and out of gear?

For the purpose of debate the vehicle is parked up completely safely without causing hindrance, the engine is merely running to provide heat...

[vonhosen]

WinstonWolf said:

vonhosen said:

Derek Smith said:

vonhosen said:

In Planton v DPP the driver was sat stationary on a causeway with the engine running & lights on. He said he was waiting for the tide to go out. He was found to be driving by the appeal court.

Plenty of others.

The word driving is a legal term. No non lawyer would dream of suggesting that a person 'waiting for the tide to go out', e.g. waiting until a specific known time, some distance in the future, to be driving in the normal, accepted sense of the word.

It is almost certain that the legislators did not intend their law to protect the general public from people a driver in such circumstances who was making a phone call.

One might assume that the legislators expected the officers to use discretion and good sense.

Three things are required before a prosecution should go ahead: an offence, an offender and a reason. Anything less falls within the term of a police state.

I agree, but people's interpretation of what constitutes an appropriate valid reason differ & wider societies may over the passage of time.

Equally people's interpretation of what legislators intend will differ & it will only get more accurately defined/refined when we get appeal court rulings. Of course it could still be outside the legislators intent even then, but then parliament can pass new laws to make it clearer if they so wish.

There isn't much case law (i.e. direction) in relation to whether driving for phone use should be viewed differently to say driving in relation to drink. drive.

What is the benefit to society of prosecuting someone sat in a parked car with the handbrake applied and out of gear?

For the purpose of debate the vehicle is parked up completely safely without causing hindrance, the engine is merely running to provide heat...

I'm not arguing there is one, just saying what the law is & because we all have different views you are going to see an inconsistent application where there is less direction on interpretation/application.

[WinstonWolf]

vonhosen said:

WinstonWolf said:

vonhosen said:

Derek Smith said:

vonhosen said:

In Planton v DPP the driver was sat stationary on a causeway with the engine running & lights on. He said he was waiting for the tide to go out. He was found to be driving by the appeal court.

Plenty of others.

The word driving is a legal term. No non lawyer would dream of suggesting that a person 'waiting for the tide to go out', e.g. waiting until a specific known time, some distance in the future, to be driving in the normal, accepted sense of the word.

It is almost certain that the legislators did not intend their law to protect the general public from people a driver in such circumstances who was making a phone call.

One might assume that the legislators expected the officers to use discretion and good sense.

Three things are required before a prosecution should go ahead: an offence, an offender and a reason. Anything less falls within the term of a police state.

I agree, but people's interpretation of what constitutes an appropriate valid reason differ & wider societies may over the passage of time.

Equally people's interpretation of what legislators intend will differ & it will only get more accurately defined/refined when we get appeal court rulings. Of course it could still be outside the legislators intent even then, but then parliament can pass new laws to make it clearer if they so wish.

There isn't much case law (i.e. direction) in relation to whether driving for phone use should be viewed differently to say driving in relation to drink. drive.

What is the benefit to society of prosecuting someone sat in a parked car with the handbrake applied and out of gear?

For the purpose of debate the vehicle is parked up completely safely without causing hindrance, the engine is merely running to provide heat...

I'm not arguing there is one, just saying what the law is.

You will understand why normal people frequently think the law is an ass then.

[p1esk]

Variomatic said:

rewc said:

The question was asked not in regard to a dedicated offence but in reference to variomatic's "because the driver's done something silly like sitting with his foot on the clutch, or leaving his auto in drive."is it inherently more dangerous to be texting on a phone than eating a sandwich whilst parked with the engine running?

No it probably isn't inherently more dangerous to be eating a sandwich in the same situation but, as Vh says, the rules are different.

Even if you were seen eating your sandwich while driving in the 3rd lane of the M6 at rush hour you wouldn't be automatically guilty of any offence - a court would have to be convinced that what you were doing ammounted to driving without due care or attention (or whatever the current offence description is).

Do the same with a mobile phone and you are (figuratively) going to jail, directly to jail, without passing Go and without collecting £200.

Like it or not, that's what having specific knee-jerk offences often does - it makes people guilty regardless of the circumstances.

...which is easy to do, but wrong. Justice does not lie there.

[mph1977]

karma mechanic said:

Is it a hand-held mobile telephone if it is functioning as a GPS unit? Is a GPS unit that contains a SIM card and can receive and show traffic information also a telephone? (I believe some can make emergency calls). What if I reached out and touched the GPS unit to move it slightly in the mount? What about a mounted phone, what if I reached out and moved it in the mount in order to get a better view of its GPS information?

So many things to consider, but if the definition of driving allows me to be shopping in Sainsbury's then all probably moot.

if it;s capable of transmitting and recieving GSM, 3G or 4 G signals it;s a phone for these purposes, anything else would just have to be prosecuted under driving without due care and attention / not in full control / careless driving ...

the legislation is in fact unnecessary but it;s a classic piece of Blair era knee jerk ' road safety legislation' along with the unenforcable in parts 'road safety act 2006 '

[Dammit]

Before they introduced the legislation how many people were actually prosecuted for driving without due care etc, when they had a phone clamped to the side of their heads whilst behind the wheel?

[Variomatic]

p1esk said:

...which is easy to do, but wrong. Justice does not lie there.

You'll get absolutely no argument from me on that one!

Sadly, it seems that we keep voting in gubmints who like to pass easy legislation (usually to be seen to be tough as a knee jerk reaction to Press-led "public" outrage) rather than leaving it to the justice system to apply existing laws in a sensible way, which might take more court time and cost more.

The end result is that the Sun and Daily Mail readers get what they demand then find they don't like it.

[herewego]

If I remember correctly the pressure for a specific mobile phone law came from the police. The only problem in my view is that the police could apply it better if they got out of their cars and stood at the side of the road. It's possible the police could occasionally misapply it just as with any other law. We don't know if it was misapplied in this case or not.

[allergictocheese]

Dammit said:

Before they introduced the legislation how many people were actually prosecuted for driving without due care etc, when they had a phone clamped to the side of their heads whilst behind the wheel?

Careless driving requires there to be a demonstrable fault with the driving itself. The more likely charge was (and still is used) not being on properly control. For that offence it isn't necessary to prove a fault with the driving. It is also used where the use of the phone is in question.