Mobile Phone Offence

[Toffer]

This is truly an innocent question!

I have searched the forum and not really found exact answers to these questions. I personally always use the phone whilst driving (with hands free kit) and have done so since 1988.

Now mobile phones are extremely popular, it has become illegal to use them in certain circumstances. Now SatNav is available sub-£100, I am fairly certain that using SatNav will also become illegal...if it has not already become so?

How do the Police catch a motorist for using a mobile telephone whilst the motorist is driving?

Is holding the telephone an offence, or using it?

How do the Police prove the phone was being used, do the Police make enquiries with the telephone service provider?

Does a motorist have to be physically stopped by a Police Officer whilst the motorist is using the telephone?

Is camera evidence, with a date & time print, showing a motorist using a telephone admissable in court, if supported by telephone service providers' evidence of call records?

In my opinion, putting any resposibilities to one side, if you don't want to be caught using a mobile phone whilst driving, simply don't use one!

Thank you for your help in clarifying what is for many a slightly grey area.

Toffer

Edited by Toffer on Wednesday 23 April 11:13

[jonlwright]

If you are seen holding a handset, then you will be done.

[SS2.]

Toffer said:

How do the Police catch a motorist for using a mobile telephone whilst the motorist is driving?

Normally, through visual observation.

In the event of an accident, it is possible that the driver's mobile phone could be retained whilst the police determine if it was being used at the time of the accident.

Toffer said:

Is holding the telephone an offence, or using it?

Using a mobile phone whilst driving is an offence. If the Magistrates find that simply holding a phone is 'using', then you would be convicted.

Toffer said:

How do the Police prove the phone was being used,

Normally, through the giving of evidence under oath that the defendant was seen using a mobile phone whilst driving.

It would then fall to the defendant to rebut that allegation.

Toffer said:

..do the Police make enquiries with the telephone service provider?

In the event of a serious accident, they may well do..

Toffer said:

Does a motorist have to be physically stopped by a Police Officer whilst the motorist is using the telephone?

Not necessarily, no.

[TPS]

Toffer said:

I have searched the forum and not really found exact answers to these questions.

How do the Police catch a motorist for using a mobile telephone whilst the motorist is driving?

They normally see them driving and pull them over

Toffer said:

Is holding the telephone an offence, or using it?

Holding a phone is not necessarily an offence.There was someone on here who went to court as they were stopped whilst holding a phone and driving.He said he was using it to check the time and was found not guilty.

Toffer said:

How do the Police prove the phone was being used, do the Police make enquiries with the telephone service provider?

They could check your call history on the phone when they stop you to prove you was making or receiving a call.Or they could contact the network provider to get a call history if needed.

Toffer said:

Is camera evidence, with a date & time print, showing a motorist using a telephone admissable in court, if supported by telephone service providers' evidence of call records?

The word of a police officer would be deemed good enough evidence in most cases but camera footage would back up the case.


Thank you for your help in clarifying what is for many a slightly grey area.

Toffer

[Finlandia]

What about PTT/Walkie-talkie type of "mobile phones"? I read somewhere that they are still allowed?

[SS2.]

Finlandia said:

What about PTT/Walkie-talkie type of "mobile phones"? I read somewhere that they are still allowed?

The Road Vehicles Construction and Use Amendment No. 4 Regulations 2003 said:

110. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using -

(a) a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b) a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).

<..snip..>

(4) A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data.

<..snip..>

(6) (d) "two-way radio" means any wireless telegraphy apparatus which is designed or adapted -

(i) for the purpose of transmitting and receiving spoken messages; and

(ii) to operate on any frequency other than 880 MHz to 915 MHz, 925 MHz to 960 MHz, 1710 MHz to 1785 MHz, 1805 MHz to 1880 MHz, 1900 MHz to 1980 MHz or 2110 MHz to 2170 MHz; and

(e) "wireless telegraphy" has the same meaning as in section 19(1) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949

[Finlandia]

SOLIHULL PRIMARY CARE TRUST
THE USE OF MOBILE PHONES BY SPCT EMPLOYEES
WHILST ON TRUST BUSINESS


3 WHAT IS NOT LEGAL
3.1 It is now an offence whilst driving to use a handheld device to:
> Speak or listen to a phone call
> Use a device interactively to access any sort of data – including Internet, text
or other images.
To hold a hands free phone AT ANY POINT whilst driving. This also applies to all mobile
devices, including BlackBerries (GMS/GPS hand held computer and phone systems) and
PDA’s (Personal Digital Assistants).
The use of a hand held phone, even when stationary (i.e. in a traffic jam, at the traffic lights)
will remain an offence.
In addition, drivers who use a hands free phone could also face prosecution for failing to
have proper control of their vehicle, if their driving is considered to be dangerous or
reckless because of the distraction.
4 WHAT IS LEGAL
4.1 To use a hands free kit, providing the phone is being held in a ‘fixed’ cradle.
To make or receive calls whilst the phone is being held in a cradle (pushing buttons whilst
in the cradle, or operation via buttons on a steering wheel would not breach the new
regulation).
Make a call on a hand held phone for a genuine emergency call to 999, if it would be
unsafe for the driver to stop.
Continued use of Push to Talk (two way radio) devices – it was deemed this presented a
lower risk.

The Road Vehicles Construction and Use Amendment No. 4 Regulations 2003 said:
110. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using -

(a) a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b) a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).

<..snip..>

(4) A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data.

<..snip..>

(6) (d) "two-way radio" means any wireless telegraphy apparatus which is designed or adapted -

(i) for the purpose of transmitting and receiving spoken messages; and

(ii) to operate on any frequency other than 880 MHz to 915 MHz, 925 MHz to 960 MHz, 1710 MHz to 1785 MHz, 1805 MHz to 1880 MHz, 1900 MHz to 1980 MHz or 2110 MHz to 2170 MHz; and

(e) "wireless telegraphy" has the same meaning as in section 19(1) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949


So this means that you can use a PTT device using another bandwidth than the stated, but not a mobile phone?
What is the difference in using a PTT compared to a mobile?

[Finlandia]

Anyone who can shed a light on this?

[SS2.]

Finlandia said:

What is the difference in using a PTT compared to a mobile?

Simplex vs duplex communication..?

The exemption for two way radios was created because of the large number of government and private organisations which use (and rely on) such equipment..

Edited by SS2. on Wednesday 23 April 20:11

[Finlandia]

SS2. said:

Finlandia said:

What is the difference in using a PTT compared to a mobile?

Simplex vs duplex communication..?

The exemption for two way radios was created because of the large number of government and private organisations which use (and rely on) such equipment..

But how can it be? I mean surely it must be just as dangerous to talk on a walkie-talkie as it is on a mobile? What about mobiles that can be used as PTT's as well, I believe Nokia has a few models that can do this?

[vonhosen]

Finlandia said:

SS2. said:

Finlandia said:

What is the difference in using a PTT compared to a mobile?

Simplex vs duplex communication..?

The exemption for two way radios was created because of the large number of government and private organisations which use (and rely on) such equipment..

But how can it be? I mean surely it must be just as dangerous to talk on a walkie-talkie as it is on a mobile? What about mobiles that can be used as PTT's as well, I believe Nokia has a few models that can do this?

Apparently there is a difference between PTT & phone conversations with the coding decoding within the brain & the resultant distraction.

[p1esk]

jonlwright said:

If you are seen holding a handset, then you will be done.

What? Merely holding it, and not using it for communication purposes? I thought somebody suggested the other day that you had to be actually using it as a phone, i.e. for communication purposes, to fall foul of the law.

Mind you, the way things are going it might yet be made an offence to even have one in the car, that you might use!

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Finlandia]

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

SS2. said:

Finlandia said:

What is the difference in using a PTT compared to a mobile?

Simplex vs duplex communication..?

The exemption for two way radios was created because of the large number of government and private organisations which use (and rely on) such equipment..

But how can it be? I mean surely it must be just as dangerous to talk on a walkie-talkie as it is on a mobile? What about mobiles that can be used as PTT's as well, I believe Nokia has a few models that can do this?

Apparently there is a difference between PTT & phone conversations with the coding decoding within the brain & the resultant distraction.

How can there be any difference to a conversation you are having with a plastic box, be it holding it to your ear or holding it before your mouth?
It still takes one hand from the steeringwheel, it still demands your attention, and the person on the line can not know what traffic situation you are in and can thus not shut up when needs to, as a passenger in your car can.

[SS2.]

Finlandia said:

But how can it be? I mean surely it must be just as dangerous to talk on a walkie-talkie as it is on a mobile?

Maybe its just as 'dangerous' to change a CD than it is to use a hand held mobile. But then changing a CD (or using a 2 way) is not specifically prohibited by statute, whereas using a mobile is..

[p1esk]

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

SS2. said:

Finlandia said:

What is the difference in using a PTT compared to a mobile?

Simplex vs duplex communication..?

The exemption for two way radios was created because of the large number of government and private organisations which use (and rely on) such equipment..

But how can it be? I mean surely it must be just as dangerous to talk on a walkie-talkie as it is on a mobile? What about mobiles that can be used as PTT's as well, I believe Nokia has a few models that can do this?

Apparently there is a difference between PTT & phone conversations with the coding decoding within the brain & the resultant distraction.

It might be interesting to hear the basis for such a claim, meanwhile I have to admit to a degree of scepticism. At the moment I'm finding it hard to see how a conversation using a hand-held mobile phone is any more damaging to a driver's ability to drive safely than is a conversation using a PTT or other form of radio. Was there also a story about one category of equipment - like radio - being OK to use because it used a certain frequency band, and another category - mobile phones - not being OK because it used a different frequency band? In that case, why the distinction between hand-held and hands-free? Surely they both operate in the same frequency range?

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Finlandia]

SS2. said:

Finlandia said:

But how can it be? I mean surely it must be just as dangerous to talk on a walkie-talkie as it is on a mobile?

Maybe its just as 'dangerous' to change a CD than it is to use a hand held mobile. But then changing a CD (or using a 2 way) is not specifically prohibited by statute, whereas using a mobile is..

And what if I use a mobile as a PTT?

And changing a CD is hardly comparable to talking on a mobile, but talking on a PTT is. One is legal the other is not.
Why? Because many Government organisations depend on them?

Edited by Finlandia on Wednesday 23 April 20:37

Edited by Finlandia on Wednesday 23 April 20:40

[SS2.]

Finlandia said:

And what if I use a mobile as a PTT?

It would not qualify as a two-way radio if it broadcast within one of the frequency ranges listed in the Construction and Use Regulations.

[vonhosen]

p1esk said:

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

SS2. said:

Finlandia said:

What is the difference in using a PTT compared to a mobile?

Simplex vs duplex communication..?

The exemption for two way radios was created because of the large number of government and private organisations which use (and rely on) such equipment..

But how can it be? I mean surely it must be just as dangerous to talk on a walkie-talkie as it is on a mobile? What about mobiles that can be used as PTT's as well, I believe Nokia has a few models that can do this?

Apparently there is a difference between PTT & phone conversations with the coding decoding within the brain & the resultant distraction.

It might be interesting to hear the basis for such a claim, meanwhile I have to admit to a degree of scepticism. At the moment I'm finding it hard to see how a conversation using a hand-held mobile phone is any more damaging to a driver's ability to drive safely than is a conversation using a PTT or other form of radio. Was there also a story about one category of equipment - like radio - being OK to use because it used a certain frequency band, and another category - mobile phones - not being OK because it used a different frequency band? In that case, why the distinction between hand-held and hands-free? Surely they both operate in the same frequency range?

Best wishes all,
Dave.

I can't find the link to it at the moment but it went along the lines of how there is effectively a constantly open connection in the brain (if you like) in phone use, that isn't there with press to talk. It also went on about depth of concentration that occurs in phone conversations & where users visualise who they are speaking to & where the conversation is going. Press to talk conversations were far more detached & broken resulting in less concentration being expended on them.

As for hands free v hand held, I've said before I'd ban both if I was going to ban one personally.

[Jules360]

vonhosen said:

p1esk said:

vonhosen said:

Finlandia said:

SS2. said:

Finlandia said:

What is the difference in using a PTT compared to a mobile?

Simplex vs duplex communication..?

The exemption for two way radios was created because of the large number of government and private organisations which use (and rely on) such equipment..

But how can it be? I mean surely it must be just as dangerous to talk on a walkie-talkie as it is on a mobile? What about mobiles that can be used as PTT's as well, I believe Nokia has a few models that can do this?

Apparently there is a difference between PTT & phone conversations with the coding decoding within the brain & the resultant distraction.

It might be interesting to hear the basis for such a claim, meanwhile I have to admit to a degree of scepticism. At the moment I'm finding it hard to see how a conversation using a hand-held mobile phone is any more damaging to a driver's ability to drive safely than is a conversation using a PTT or other form of radio. Was there also a story about one category of equipment - like radio - being OK to use because it used a certain frequency band, and another category - mobile phones - not being OK because it used a different frequency band? In that case, why the distinction between hand-held and hands-free? Surely they both operate in the same frequency range?

Best wishes all,
Dave.

I can't find the link to it at the moment but it went along the lines of how there is effectively a constantly open connection in the brain (if you like) in phone use, that isn't there with press to talk. It also went on about depth of concentration that occurs in phone conversations & where users visualise who they are speaking to & where the conversation is going. Press to talk conversations were far more detached & broken resulting in less concentration being expended on them.

As for hands free v hand held, I've said before I'd ban both if I was going to ban one personally.

I suppose the next step is to ban the driver from speaking to any passengers?

[Finlandia]

vonhosen said:

I'd ban both if I was going to ban one personally.

Exactly, the ban needs to cover both PTT devices and mobile phones, finally a law enforcerer with common sense. I hope this was what you meant?

As for banning one but not the other, silly. As for one being more dangerous than the other, silly.
Both conversations are held towards a plastic box, both conversations requires you to hold the device in one hand (leaving only one hand on the steeringwheel), both conversations require you to concentrate on the dialogue (the PTT even more so, since you need to press a button while talking).

As for the MHz band, if mobile phones suddenly started using another band, would they be legal again then? What if we started using satellite phones or NMT, which uses different bands, all legal then? Or will the law just be slightly changed again to keep the revenue flow?