Nicked on phone

[GC8]

Hackney said:

You were trying to get advice on something and (most) posters have replied saying you've been caught bang to rights - on the basis you were caught "using a handheld defice", rather than "being on the phone"

But they were wrong...

[p1esk]

Google [bot] said:

Steady on, the forum isn't changing, you just don't like what you're hearing.

But I don't think you are telling the truth, and I think it's typical of folk that use their phones when driving/sitting to not see it as an issue when it really, really is.

Well I can't prove it, but I get the impression that the forum is changing. It seems as if posters are becoming less inclined to respect opinions that conflict with their own views, so we're getting tiresome and unhelpful arguments, and in some cases rudeness, which spoils the atmosphere here.

In this instance you appear to be calling the OP a liar, so do you have some means of proving that to be the case?

[p1esk]

George111 said:

hosedoctor said:

As the OP on this I have to say that I'm not that surprised at all the negative replies on this,but I was only asking for a bit of advice,why do all the self righteous dick heads have to pile in with their clever comments,so no one has ever done anything wrong in a car! Why do people assume I'm lying when I say I was checking the time,to clarify I was in a 2015 Porsche and yes it does have a clock,yes it has Bluetooth! I was looking at my phone for the time to see how my watch was keeping time! It's no big deal really is it girls,but oh no some of you have to sit in your mum and dads spare room with your graphic novels spouting crap! This site used to be good but I'm afraid that as soon as anyone puts something on here that they don't like/agree with they start.

Listen chap, if I act like a weapons grade prat I don't come on PH and shout about it, because, guess what, I'd be told I'm a weapons grade prat !

You've been stupid enough to ask a really stupid question and you've been called out for it. What you did was stupid - I and others don't believe your story and your latest statement about your watch sounds even less believable.

Suck it up, learn from it, use Bluetooth and a phone holder, or like many people, put your phone away when driving and focus on the important job you're supposed to be doing.

Maybe the latest comments by the OP are a response to the treatment he's received here. I mean to say, do the rest of us comply with the law at all times while driving? I know I don't, so I don't rush to criticise others when they've been caught doing something that very likely didn't matter that much.

[CAPP0]

hosedoctor said:

CAPP0 said:

IMO:

hosedoctor said:

BOF said:

One month suspension for first detected offence of using phone while driving.

Second offence - twelve months suspension.

End of story?

BOF

Is that what they hand out now? Or just your opinion??

I wasn't trying to be argumentative I was asking if that was what is right,if you look at BOF does he would probably know better than most on here,that's why I asked the question in the first place.

Sorry, misunderstanding, I wasn't querying your post, I was just saying that IMO, use of the phone should be an instant ban, for first offence. There is no way it's going to stop otherwise. Just as in the 50s/60s, everyone drank and drove, until mandatory bans came in, this is the only way this phenomenon will change.

[CAPP0]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Not a quartz then?

[SS2.]

GC8 said:

Most of the advice here is rubbish/ignorant. Holding a phone is not an offence, according to the specialist legal advice that I have received.

The relevant legislation doesn't define 'use'.

Has legal precedent been established that does ?

[mygoldfishbowl]

GC8 said:

Hackney said:

You were trying to get advice on something and (most) posters have replied saying you've been caught bang to rights - on the basis you were caught "using a handheld defice", rather than "being on the phone"

But they were wrong...

Instead of just blurting that that out why don't you explain why they were wrong? Otherwise there's no point you posting, any idiot can blurt out "But they were wrong" but if the statement isn't supported it means pretty much nothing.

[Swampy1982]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Can afford 2015 porker, can't afford accurate watch...

[GC8]

mygoldfishbowl said:

GC8 said:

Hackney said:

You were trying to get advice on something and (most) posters have replied saying you've been caught bang to rights - on the basis you were caught "using a handheld defice", rather than "being on the phone"

But they were wrong...

Instead of just blurting that that out why don't you explain why they were wrong? Otherwise there's no point you posting, any idiot can blurt out "But they were wrong" but if the statement isn't supported it means pretty much nothing.

I have in previous posts.

Of course, this doesn't mean that people don't get conditional offers when they weren't actually breaking the law.

[pinchmeimdreamin]

GC8 said:

I have in previous posts.

Of course, this doesn't mean that people don't get conditional offers when they weren't actually breaking the law.

Actually all you did was tell someone to go check a lawyers website who's FAQ's say if you are willing to take a risk you may win.

You haven't shown any case law / Legislation to prove your point.

[GC8]

Wake up!

[pinchmeimdreamin]

I'm Awake

GC8 said:

talksthetorque said:

GC8 said:

Contact Emma Patterson at Patterson Law. Most of the advice here is rubbish/ignorant. Holding a phone is not an offence, according to the specialist legal advice that I have received.

Do tell. Just to save us all bothering Emma.

Don't be such an arse. Google the company website, read the advice in the FAQ then STFU.

[Countdown]

GC8 said:

Hackney said:

You were trying to get advice on something and (most) posters have replied saying you've been caught bang to rights - on the basis you were caught "using a handheld defice", rather than "being on the phone"

But they were wrong...

As are you.

If you call Sebastian on 07795 456892 he'll tell you why.

[Red Devil]

talksthetorque said:

That takes me to a blog with over 50 posts.
I could work my way through them but as this is a forum with a question asking for advice perhaps you'd like to link to the exact bit in question to be helpful,rather than being condescending and aggressive?

[quote]
Oh ffs!

You don't need to. The second one posted by admin is the place to start then follow the links which deal with several of the most common scenarios. It's really not that difficult.

[George111]

p1esk said:

George111 said:

hosedoctor said:

As the OP on this I have to say that I'm not that surprised at all the negative replies on this,but I was only asking for a bit of advice,why do all the self righteous dick heads have to pile in with their clever comments,so no one has ever done anything wrong in a car! Why do people assume I'm lying when I say I was checking the time,to clarify I was in a 2015 Porsche and yes it does have a clock,yes it has Bluetooth! I was looking at my phone for the time to see how my watch was keeping time! It's no big deal really is it girls,but oh no some of you have to sit in your mum and dads spare room with your graphic novels spouting crap! This site used to be good but I'm afraid that as soon as anyone puts something on here that they don't like/agree with they start.

Listen chap, if I act like a weapons grade prat I don't come on PH and shout about it, because, guess what, I'd be told I'm a weapons grade prat !

You've been stupid enough to ask a really stupid question and you've been called out for it. What you did was stupid - I and others don't believe your story and your latest statement about your watch sounds even less believable.

Suck it up, learn from it, use Bluetooth and a phone holder, or like many people, put your phone away when driving and focus on the important job you're supposed to be doing.

Maybe the latest comments by the OP are a response to the treatment he's received here. I mean to say, do the rest of us comply with the law at all times while driving? I know I don't, so I don't rush to criticise others when they've been caught doing something that very likely didn't matter that much.

I look where I'm going, I don't use a phone which causes me to look down for long periods of time, no. I'm also not distracted doing something else whilst I should be driving. If you do then shame on you too.

Driving isn't given the importance it should be given by many people these days. None of us are perfect, we can all make mistakes so you need to minimise the opportunity for mistakes by paying attention and looking where you're going. Not difficult is it ?

And coming on PH and saying he's been caught *twice* using a phone does mark him out as one of the idiots on the roads, so if he gets the hump with the way he gets treated here then tough . . . . about time he learnt to pay attention to what he's doing !

[talksthetorque]

Red Devil said:

talksthetorque said:

That takes me to a blog with over 50 posts.
I could work my way through them but as this is a forum with a question asking for advice perhaps you'd like to link to the exact bit in question to be helpful,rather than being condescending and aggressive?

Oh ffs!

You don't need to. The second one posted by admin is the place to start then follow the links which deal with several of the most common scenarios. It's really not that difficult.

If it's not that difficult why didn't GC8 or yourself post a link?

Is not that difficult to post a link.

The nearest I can find is 'looking at the phone not using it'
And it says this in the middle:

Vague difficult to find link said:

If you take the matter to court and lose you will be at risk of a higher fine and court costs. That’s the gamble.

Hardly conclusive.

GC8 is either trolling - or perhaps he made a statement and then can't back it up and is just being obtuse.

You were being as little help as he was.

All the definitions I've seen ( see my post with a link at the start of the thread and the post before italso with a link ) define what a handheld device is, but the 'use' definition is never defined so clearly.
If you can post an authoritative link on that then great.

Or maybe just disagree and post a huffy wave in the general direction of some more inconclusive stuff.

[Megaflow]

talksthetorque said:

CoolHands said:

I don't use bluetooth so have no idea - but people using bluetooth presumably you still have to touch the screen to dial contacts so isn't that an offence? I presume not all phones have siri type thing where you can use instructions to dial.

Infotainment systems in newer cars now upload the list of recent calls and the phone book from your phone when you connect.
When I say newer, our 56 reg car does this.
you can then scroll through using either the buttons on the dash, or the steering wheel controls.

Edited by talksthetorque on Sunday 28th August 11:26

My Mondeo has a full list of last in, last out, missed calls, the phone book etc, all on the screen in the instruments, and I call scroll through all of it without taking my hands off the wheel using the steering wheel controls. Once you get used to the layout of the system, you don't even need to look at for any longer than you'd glance at any other instrumentation.

[steve-5snwi]

I usually pair mine up with Bluetooth then just shout at Siri to dial a number or tell the time and it comes through the car speakers.

[4rephill]

Hmmm....... I'm not sure which is funnier!

This most excellent exchange:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

..........Or the OP trying to convince us all that whilst driving a reasonably high powered car, the most urgent and important thing for them to do was to see how far out their watch, car-clock and phone clock were to each other!

hosedoctor: Take it all the way to court and explain how it was suddenly critical to check the time keeping capabilities of all of your various time pieces whilst driving your car, then come back and let us all know how you got on - It would be interesting to know if that defence works!

[Red Devil]

talksthetorque said:

Red Devil said:

talksthetorque said:

That takes me to a blog with over 50 posts.
I could work my way through them but as this is a forum with a question asking for advice perhaps you'd like to link to the exact bit in question to be helpful,rather than being condescending and aggressive?

Oh ffs!

You don't need to. The second one posted by admin is the place to start then follow the links which deal with several of the most common scenarios. It's really not that difficult.

If it's not that difficult why didn't GC8 or yourself post a link?

Is not that difficult to post a link.

I can't speak for GC8, but I take exception to the inference that I have some obligation to do things which intelligent adults can do for themselves via Gordon Brown's Intergalactic Websphere*, especially after the name of the firm concerned has already been posted.

 * pace Andrew Neil

talksthetorque said:

The nearest I can find is 'looking at the phone not using it'
And it says this in the middle:

Vague difficult to find link said:

If you take the matter to court and lose you will be at risk of a higher fine and court costs. That’s the gamble.

Hardly conclusive.

The wording you have quoted comes directly from the embedded link entitled 'I was holding a phone, not using it'. I guess it wasn't that difficult for you to find after all.

talksthetorque said:

GC8 is either trolling - or perhaps he made a statement and then can't back it up and is just being obtuse.

You were being as little help as he was.

All the definitions I've seen ( see my post with a link at the start of the thread and the post before italso with a link ) define what a handheld device is, but the 'use' definition is never defined so clearly.
If you can post an authoritative link on that then great.

Or maybe just disagree and post a huffy wave in the general direction of some more inconclusive stuff.

I'm afraid you're going going to have to put up with the fact that you're not going to get a definitive answer because it is for a court to interpret the meaning of legislation (a link to which was posted before you got involved in this thread) .

The OP would have nothing to lose by calling Emma or Paula, or using the free 'ask a question' service. One thing I'm fairly confident of is that, if the circumstances described by the OP are true, any decent specialist motoring solicitor could very probably succeed in getting a potential prosecution dropped before it ever got in front of the bench.

If the OP does get a DAC offer it might be a sensible move to accept it. The only other thing to be aware of is if he is insured with a company which wants to know about SACs/DACs (e.g. those in the Admiral Group). An SAC for an SP30 may not make much difference to future premiums but a DAC for a CU80 might well do.

FWIW, my mobile phone screen is set to display the time in nice large numbers. It would be no more distracting to pick it up and bring it briefly into my peripheral vision than flicking up my shirt cuff would be in order to look at my wristwatch. In fact probably less so, especially at night.

As it happens, I dislike hands free and don't need or want the distraction. When I'm driving the mobile stays in the (locked) glovebox and I never 'use' it in any way. If it rings or a message beep comes through and I want to deal with it before reaching my destination, I will pull off the road, switch off, and swap the keys and the phone before doing so. Any other way at the wrong place and time could result in a tug.

The mobile phone legislation amendment was put on the statute book well over a decade ago and its wording simply hasn't kept pace with the forward march of technology. It is also woolly enough for any driver to be at the subjective prejudices of a mistaken police officer. In such cases a professional will have a much better chance of dealing with the apparatus of the state than most lone individuals.