What is proof of using a phone while driving?
Discussion
Griffith4ever said:
I got stuck behind a belligerant "peleton" of around 7 or 8 riders today on the North circular so I feel for you. I did nothing, at all, kept a huge distance, but they kept looking back at me, blocking the whole road for a while.
I got stuck behind several cars whilst out riding my bike yesterday. But because I don’t have a small penis, I didn’t get hung up about it.
CheesecakeRunner said:
Griffith4ever said:
I got stuck behind a belligerant "peleton" of around 7 or 8 riders today on the North circular so I feel for you. I did nothing, at all, kept a huge distance, but they kept looking back at me, blocking the whole road for a while.
I got stuck behind several cars whilst out riding my bike yesterday. But because I don’t have a small penis, I didn’t get hung up about it.
Alickadoo said:
Blocking all three lanes? Crikey!
Nope - just the one - it was single lane to a roundabout. Not all of the A406 is multi lane. After hanger lane its single for a while, for example.You honestly think cycles blocked 3 lanes? Or, was it just a chance to try and be clever? (and failing)
Edited by Griffith4ever on Monday 26th February 15:04
Griffith4ever said:
Alickadoo said:
Blocking all three lanes? Crikey!
Nope - just the one - it was single lane to a roundabout. Not all of the A406 is multi lane. After hanger lane its single for a while, for example.You honestly think cycles blocked 3 lanes? Or, was it just a chance to try and be clever? (and failing)
Edited by Griffith4ever on Monday 26th February 15:04
(Also the cyclists should pull over if they are building up a queue, but aren't allowed to look at following traffic to see if there is a queue... Also can depend on vehicle - yes, I will check lots for someone following closely; There are also some cars whose engine noise etc means they sound a lot closer than they actually are)
I expect the OP's 'erratic' cyclist was riding legally and the horn was used because they were annoyed at having to wait for it to be safe to overtake (and that the overtake was probably also questionable...).
Arguably using the horn + vehicle to threaten the rider (force them towards kerb etc) could be assault on its own, though in absence of evidence would be unlikely to be prosecuted.
qwerty360 said:
Griffith4ever said:
Alickadoo said:
Blocking all three lanes? Crikey!
Nope - just the one - it was single lane to a roundabout. Not all of the A406 is multi lane. After hanger lane its single for a while, for example.You honestly think cycles blocked 3 lanes? Or, was it just a chance to try and be clever? (and failing)
Edited by Griffith4ever on Monday 26th February 15:04
(Also the cyclists should pull over if they are building up a queue, but aren't allowed to look at following traffic to see if there is a queue... Also can depend on vehicle - yes, I will check lots for someone following closely; There are also some cars whose engine noise etc means they sound a lot closer than they actually are)
I expect the OP's 'erratic' cyclist was riding legally and the horn was used because they were annoyed at having to wait for it to be safe to overtake (and that the overtake was probably also questionable...).
Arguably using the horn + vehicle to threaten the rider (force them towards kerb etc) could be assault on its own, though in absence of evidence would be unlikely to be prosecuted.
Griffith4ever said:
No, I'd say they were "belligerant" because they clearly saw me, without doubt, and instead of thinning their group, they stuck to taking the whole lane up, "sod you" style , at around 20mph. This, I have to say, is my usualy experience of "city" cyclists.
Thinning the group on a busy single carriageway is generally a bad idea. It encourages bad drivers to squeeze past half the group where there isn't really enough space, then force their way into the middle of the group when something big comes the other way (as there definitely isn't room to overtake the now elongated group safely in a single manouver).Much safer to continue in a wider shorter group that the driver can overtake safely in a single manouver as soon as there's a proper gap in oncoming traffic, or as soon as the second lane reappears. It's not belligerance, it's basic road safety.
I'm sorry that your day was mildly inconvenienced by the fact that you weren't the only person using the road.
Aretnap said:
NRG1976 said:
You can’t even touch a phone in a cradle, never mind holding the phone.
Yes you can. The legislation refers to a hand held mobile telephone or other hand held device. If it's in a cradle it's not hand held (obviously).NRG1976 said:
Aretnap said:
NRG1976 said:
You can’t even touch a phone in a cradle, never mind holding the phone.
Yes you can. The legislation refers to a hand held mobile telephone or other hand held device. If it's in a cradle it's not hand held (obviously).If your phone is attached to your car’s windscreen, dashboard or air vent, using a phone cradle, you’re not contravening any rules. Indeed, you’re doing the sensible thing, especially if you need to use your phone for navigation.
However, you are not allowed to touch your phone for any reason. If you really need to handle your phone, stop in a safe place and turn the car’s engine off. In an ideal world, your phone will be connected to the car’s Bluetooth, or you’ll use its voice controls. That way you can make and receive calls without even taking your hands off the steering wheel. If your car doesn’t have Bluetooth, you can get a receiver that plugs into your car’s stereo.
Then from carwow…
The use of the word “hold” rather than “touch” does create some ambiguity though: the law specifies that you can use the phone “hands-free” as described above, but it also says to “hold” rather than to “touch” is prohibited – indicating you may be able to tap the screen to tell your navigation app to take an alternate route, for example.
However, as this is a grey area, we can only advise caution. Plus if you are deemed to be not in proper control of your vehicle as a result of using your phone, even if it’s totally hands free, you could still be stopped and prosecuted for this offence.
Edited by NRG1976 on Monday 26th February 19:03
Griffith4ever said:
No, I'd say they were "belligerant" because they clearly saw me, without doubt, and instead of thinning their group, they stuck to taking the whole lane up, "sod you" style , at around 20mph. This, I have to say, is my usualy experience of "city" cyclists.
And what would you have done if they had thinned out? Unfortunately I think we all know the answer
NRG1976 said:
NRG1976 said:
Aretnap said:
NRG1976 said:
You can’t even touch a phone in a cradle, never mind holding the phone.
Yes you can. The legislation refers to a hand held mobile telephone or other hand held device. If it's in a cradle it's not hand held (obviously).If your phone is attached to your car’s windscreen, dashboard or air vent, using a phone cradle, you’re not contravening any rules. Indeed, you’re doing the sensible thing, especially if you need to use your phone for navigation.
However, you are not allowed to touch your phone for any reason. If you really need to handle your phone, stop in a safe place and turn the car’s engine off. In an ideal world, your phone will be connected to the car’s Bluetooth, or you’ll use its voice controls. That way you can make and receive calls without even taking your hands off the steering wheel. If your car doesn’t have Bluetooth, you can get a receiver that plugs into your car’s stereo.
Then from carwow…
The use of the word “hold” rather than “touch” does create some ambiguity though: the law specifies that you can use the phone “hands-free” as described above, but it also says to “hold” rather than to “touch” is prohibited – indicating you may be able to tap the screen to tell your navigation app to take an alternate route, for example.
However, as this is a grey area, we can only advise caution. Plus if you are deemed to be not in proper control of your vehicle as a result of using your phone, even if it’s totally hands free, you could still be stopped and prosecuted for this offence.
Edited by NRG1976 on Monday 26th February 19:03
48k said:
This is why you don't rely on car review and sales websites to tell you what the law is, you look at the legislation itself.
I don’t think law is ever black and white, there is interpretation. I suspect touching your phone in a cradle falls into such greyness too.Edited by NRG1976 on Tuesday 27th February 09:20
NRG1976 said:
48k said:
This is why you don't rely on car review and sales websites to tell you what the law is, you look at the legislation itself.
I don’t think law is ever black and white, there is interpretation. I suspect touching your phone in a cradle falls into such greyness too.Edited by NRG1976 on Tuesday 27th February 09:20
A month on from the interview and the results so far are.
NFA on the alleged assault.
No word yet on the phone side. I'm hoping a single still image of me holding a black rectangle isn't regarded as evidence of the offence but we shall see. The original question asked wasn't answered so I'll ask it again.
What is the test in court to prove the offence of using a phone whilst driving?
NFA on the alleged assault.
No word yet on the phone side. I'm hoping a single still image of me holding a black rectangle isn't regarded as evidence of the offence but we shall see. The original question asked wasn't answered so I'll ask it again.
What is the test in court to prove the offence of using a phone whilst driving?
pattieG said:
What is the test in court to prove the offence of using a phone whilst driving?
Having listened to/looked at the evidence the court is satisfied that you were using a handheld device whilst driving.Using, handheld & driving.
What satisfies them nobody can say for certain, because each case rests in it's own facts.
pattieG said:
A month on from the interview and the results so far are.
NFA on the alleged assault.
No word yet on the phone side. I'm hoping a single still image of me holding a black rectangle isn't regarded as evidence of the offence but we shall see. The original question asked wasn't answered so I'll ask it again.
What is the test in court to prove the offence of using a phone whilst driving?
Apart from the picture they have proving you were?NFA on the alleged assault.
No word yet on the phone side. I'm hoping a single still image of me holding a black rectangle isn't regarded as evidence of the offence but we shall see. The original question asked wasn't answered so I'll ask it again.
What is the test in court to prove the offence of using a phone whilst driving?
What else would you think they needed?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff