Nicked on phone
Discussion
johnfm said:
I see the vociferous anti-mobile phone mob are in the house...
...amusing really.
Mobile phone ownership has increased dramatically over the last 10 years.
What are the stats over that period for collisions?
There are already laws to punish poor and dangerous driving. Not sure why there is a need to punish driving that isn't poor or dangerous because someone is using a phone or checking the time.
What next? Laws against changing radio station? Eating a chocolate bar?
I'd be very interested to see the data too. There are at least two points to note though (and this isn't a counter argument to you, just a comment on the likely reliability of the data). I imagine mobile phone usage before a crash is widely under reported and it's likely that mobile phones will pick up a lot of the slack created by the fall in use of CD's as well....amusing really.
Mobile phone ownership has increased dramatically over the last 10 years.
What are the stats over that period for collisions?
There are already laws to punish poor and dangerous driving. Not sure why there is a need to punish driving that isn't poor or dangerous because someone is using a phone or checking the time.
What next? Laws against changing radio station? Eating a chocolate bar?
marshalla said:
S110 says you must not use a mobile phone.
It defines a mobile phone as a handheld device which can perform interactive communications.
It doesn't say whether or not "using" only deals with the communications function, or if it covers all possible uses of the device.
Quite so - there's nothing in the legislation which provides that the device has to be performing an interactive communication function for it to be 'in use'. It defines a mobile phone as a handheld device which can perform interactive communications.
It doesn't say whether or not "using" only deals with the communications function, or if it covers all possible uses of the device.
Even ignoring the 'not in proper control' catch-all, until such time as a higher court decides that parliament intended for the term 'using' to only apply when the device was performing an interactive communication function, then anyone picking up a phone whilst driving to tell the time (or undertake some other non-communicative task) runs a serious risk of collecting a fine and some points.
SS2. said:
marshalla said:
S110 says you must not use a mobile phone.
It defines a mobile phone as a handheld device which can perform interactive communications.
It doesn't say whether or not "using" only deals with the communications function, or if it covers all possible uses of the device.
Quite so - there's nothing in the legislation which provides that the device has to be performing an interactive communication function for it to be 'in use'. It defines a mobile phone as a handheld device which can perform interactive communications.
It doesn't say whether or not "using" only deals with the communications function, or if it covers all possible uses of the device.
Even ignoring the 'not in proper control' catch-all, until such time as a higher court decides that parliament intended for the term 'using' to only apply when the device was performing an interactive communication function, then anyone picking up a phone whilst driving to tell the time (or undertake some other non-communicative task) runs a serious risk of collecting a fine and some points.
Parliament clearly meant any use and have not sought to make any changes to change that. Parliament meant "use" and Parliament wrote "use" then they debated it and passed it then enacted it.
It is unlikely any judge would pass the question up to a higher court because there is absolutely no ambiguity to be judged upon.
I can't see what the difficulty is.
There is a Scottish case. Brocklebank was cleared at first instance of using a mobile phone. He contended that the offence is not made out by simply holding the phone. The appellate court declined to interfere with that decision.
I don't think I've seen the judgment, so I'm unclear how authoritative the judgment is in Scotland, and in any event it would only be persuasive in the civilised world.
I don't think I've seen the judgment, so I'm unclear how authoritative the judgment is in Scotland, and in any event it would only be persuasive in the civilised world.
johnfm said:
I see the vociferous anti-mobile phone mob are in the house...
...amusing really.
Mobile phone ownership has increased dramatically over the last 10 years.
What are the stats over that period for collisions?
There are already laws to punish poor and dangerous driving. Not sure why there is a need to punish driving that isn't poor or dangerous because someone is using a phone or checking the time.
What next? Laws against changing radio station? Eating a chocolate bar?
Is there a law for anti-social driving? ...amusing really.
Mobile phone ownership has increased dramatically over the last 10 years.
What are the stats over that period for collisions?
There are already laws to punish poor and dangerous driving. Not sure why there is a need to punish driving that isn't poor or dangerous because someone is using a phone or checking the time.
What next? Laws against changing radio station? Eating a chocolate bar?
Maybe my experience is uncommon but I notice anti-social driving as a result of drivers being on their mobile phones every day. It's things like not noticing the traffic lights have changed, or car wandering/drifting at 15mph while driver seems to be contnuoulsy looking at his lap and holding something, or there being a massive gap to the car in front because some cretin is focussing on his mobile phone rather than keeping up with traffic.
Is it really that difficult for people not to behave like selfish twunts?
SS2. said:
tapereel said:
Parliament have had 10 years to make a change and in that time have amended the regulation once but are still to make the change suggested.
Perhaps I was being too cryptic, but that's the point I was making.Parliament have had 10 years to make a change and in that time have amended the regulation once but still didn't bother to make the change suggested because Parliament are satisfied the law is made as they intended it to be made.
Countdown said:
Is there a law for anti-social driving?
Maybe my experience is uncommon but I notice anti-social driving as a result of drivers being on their mobile phones every day. It's things like not noticing the traffic lights have changed, or car wandering/drifting at 15mph while driver seems to be contnuoulsy looking at his lap and holding something, or there being a massive gap to the car in front because some cretin is focussing on his mobile phone rather than keeping up with traffic.
Is it really that difficult for people not to behave like selfish twunts?
Sounds like undue care and attention to me...Maybe my experience is uncommon but I notice anti-social driving as a result of drivers being on their mobile phones every day. It's things like not noticing the traffic lights have changed, or car wandering/drifting at 15mph while driver seems to be contnuoulsy looking at his lap and holding something, or there being a massive gap to the car in front because some cretin is focussing on his mobile phone rather than keeping up with traffic.
Is it really that difficult for people not to behave like selfish twunts?
Countdown said:
AIUI DWDCA requires court, use of mobile phone can be dealt with via FPN which seems far more efficient for all concerned - no?
No. Unless they also intend to deal with people adjusting the radio, eating, drinking and smoking by FPN.My preference would be for evidence based policing. Mobile phone subscriptions have increased substantially in the last few years. Have collisions per mile driven increased to the same extent? I don't think there is correlation let alone causation in the accident data. It is yet another 'offence' with little or no basis in evidence.
Cue links to studies showing distraction and less attention during mobile phone use (even with a hands free). But are there more collisions?
johnfm said:
Countdown said:
AIUI DWDCA requires court, use of mobile phone can be dealt with via FPN which seems far more efficient for all concerned - no?
No. Unless they also intend to deal with people adjusting the radio, eating, drinking and smoking by FPN.johnfm said:
My preference would be for evidence based policing. Mobile phone subscriptions have increased substantially in the last few years. Have collisions per mile driven increased to the same extent? I don't think there is correlation let alone causation in the accident data. It is yet another 'offence' with little or no basis in evidence.
Cue links to studies showing distraction and less attention during mobile phone use (even with a hands free). But are there more collisions?
Hopefully this really doesn't need pointed out but avoiding collisions and fatalities aren't the only considerations of the law. Cue links to studies showing distraction and less attention during mobile phone use (even with a hands free). But are there more collisions?
tapereel said:
No perhaps it was I who was cryptic. Maybe I should have said:
Parliament have had 10 years to make a change and in that time have amended the regulation once but still didn't bother to make the change suggested because Parliament are satisfied the law is made as they intended it to be made.
The deck is stacked in their favour. Why exactly would they change the current legislation?Parliament have had 10 years to make a change and in that time have amended the regulation once but still didn't bother to make the change suggested because Parliament are satisfied the law is made as they intended it to be made.
PH really is a playground sometimes 
Some of the attacks on OP here is laughable.
yes, he's a bit of a tit but I think he knows that and whether he's on a wind up or not the pack mentality of a select few on here really is a bit of a shambles. Don't think you would all be chirping up like that face to face.
Some of the attacks on OP here is laughable.
yes, he's a bit of a tit but I think he knows that and whether he's on a wind up or not the pack mentality of a select few on here really is a bit of a shambles. Don't think you would all be chirping up like that face to face.
An iPhone (and iPod) fall under the definition of a handheld communication device so can be prosecuted for use irrespective of what it wa being used for (as is the case here). A Watch, however, is not itself a handheld communication device and is more similar to a Bluetooth ear piece in its function. Hence my question.
If a device being used behind the wheel didn't meet the specific requirements for the mobile phone legislation to apply (ie MP3 player), there's always the option to prosecute the driver for not being in proper control - the same legislation which has been used where a driver has been eating, drinking or reading whilst driving.
GCH said:
..or for using an iPhone which was in airplane mode at the time?
A mobile phone doesn't cease to be a mobile phone simply because airplane mode has been selected.GC8 said:
He wasn't, that's the whole point. Holding is not using. This doesn't mean that people don't get tickets for it, accompanied by 'we take this to mean' type bulls
t, but that isn't the same thing.
t, but that isn't the same thing.- you* despair? What about the rest of us that have to read your b******s
b) If he wasn't using the phone why was it in his hand?
This is looking more and more like idiot gets caught on mobile phone (for the second time, don't forget) and tries to weedle his way out of it. He's then defended by (incorrect) pedants like yourself.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff