Mobile phone use.
Discussion
Hi guys,
Recently my wife was given a FPN for "using a hand held phone whilst driving." She is contesting this and pleading not guilty on my advice after considering what she told me. The court date is next month however and i'm getting worried as to whether or not i made the right choice. She would probably pay the fine etc, just for an easier life but that is admitting guilt which i did believe she was not.
I'll give brief details,
She was travelling at about 50 mph on a single carriageway road the officers car was parked down a side road to her right I would guess about 25 metres he was on his own. My wife's vehicle could not be seen by the PC until almost directly in front of him as his view was restricted by a wall.
My wife says that her phone was ringing, her phone was in the driver door pocket and had not been touched since setting off on her journey. However at the moment she came into the PC's view she had raised her hand to her right ear to press the button on her Blue tooth headset. She was pulled and given a FPN. The officer was not in the least bit interested in anything she had to say. It is worth mentioning she was travelling with her mother who is saying the same thing.
My concerns are this,
1, Is there any legislation about the use of Wireless headsets?
2, Does a PC's evidence carry more weight in court just because he is a PC? Or is he the same as everybody else.
3, Does the fact that he was on his own and my Wife accompanied by her mother bear any significance.
4, Also the chain of events the PC has given in evidence are far away from what my wife and her mum say actually happened. Is this important or is the focus on the offence only?
Any advice would be much appreciated.
Recently my wife was given a FPN for "using a hand held phone whilst driving." She is contesting this and pleading not guilty on my advice after considering what she told me. The court date is next month however and i'm getting worried as to whether or not i made the right choice. She would probably pay the fine etc, just for an easier life but that is admitting guilt which i did believe she was not.
I'll give brief details,
She was travelling at about 50 mph on a single carriageway road the officers car was parked down a side road to her right I would guess about 25 metres he was on his own. My wife's vehicle could not be seen by the PC until almost directly in front of him as his view was restricted by a wall.
My wife says that her phone was ringing, her phone was in the driver door pocket and had not been touched since setting off on her journey. However at the moment she came into the PC's view she had raised her hand to her right ear to press the button on her Blue tooth headset. She was pulled and given a FPN. The officer was not in the least bit interested in anything she had to say. It is worth mentioning she was travelling with her mother who is saying the same thing.
My concerns are this,
1, Is there any legislation about the use of Wireless headsets?
2, Does a PC's evidence carry more weight in court just because he is a PC? Or is he the same as everybody else.
3, Does the fact that he was on his own and my Wife accompanied by her mother bear any significance.
4, Also the chain of events the PC has given in evidence are far away from what my wife and her mum say actually happened. Is this important or is the focus on the offence only?
Any advice would be much appreciated.
Others will probably know better than me but I believe the rules about hands free use of a mobile phone require that the phone is in a cradle fixed to the vehicle. i.e you do not need to to hold the phone to press buttons etc.
As you state the phone was in the door pocket it may be a technical irrelevance that your wife was pressing the answer call button on her Bluetooth headset; she was not conforming to the regulations and therefore the NIP is kosher. Of course if the BiB didn't actually stop your wife and see that the phone was not in a cradle then perhaps you could contest it but you'll be running the risk of perjury....
I have to say since my cradle fell off the dashboard my phone sits in the door pocket but I have my phone set to auto answer so don't even need to press the headset button to take a call and I don't make calls when driving (or text - how do you do one handed texting????)
As you state the phone was in the door pocket it may be a technical irrelevance that your wife was pressing the answer call button on her Bluetooth headset; she was not conforming to the regulations and therefore the NIP is kosher. Of course if the BiB didn't actually stop your wife and see that the phone was not in a cradle then perhaps you could contest it but you'll be running the risk of perjury....
I have to say since my cradle fell off the dashboard my phone sits in the door pocket but I have my phone set to auto answer so don't even need to press the headset button to take a call and I don't make calls when driving (or text - how do you do one handed texting????)
Chain of events?
The Police can say whatever they like? The magistrates and the Clerk buy into it
without blinkin an eye. Everything is worth challenging though.
At the end of the day dont use the phone! I was unfortunate to see an accident on the A580 caused
by a Van driver on his phone...with dire consequences.
The Police can say whatever they like? The magistrates and the Clerk buy into it
without blinkin an eye. Everything is worth challenging though.
At the end of the day dont use the phone! I was unfortunate to see an accident on the A580 caused
by a Van driver on his phone...with dire consequences.
lneesam said:
Perjury?? That would suggest my wife and her mother are lying, why go to all this bother if they were?
As I said others will know better than me but your wife's hands free 'installation' does not conform to the requirements of hands free use of a mobile telephone therefore the NIP could well be valid. If the BiB did not see the 'hands free' installation and you go to court stating that all your wife was doing was activating the accept call on a Bluetooth headset (which is leagal)then I would assume you must be prepared to state that the hands free set up in her car meets the requirements. If your wife or MiL state that the hands free meets the requirement then they risk perjury if they both know the phone was not in a cradle....I'd welcome other comment as I guess my interest is that I, too, could fall foul of such a NIP (only because I can't be a***d with getting a new cradle).
Assuming your wife was not stopped, I guess this just shows that if a BiB is prepared to state that someone was using a mobile phone whilst driving the accused has little real defence short of proving they don't have a moble phone or have easy access to calls made/received records at the time of the alleged offence.
Edited by caiss4 on Saturday 26th April 21:56
There is no prohibition on using a 'phone, no prohibition on pressing any buttons on the 'phone, and no prohibition on using a headset (wired or wireless).
The only prohibition is on holding the phone.
The Road Vehicles Construction and Use Amendment No. 4 Regulations 2003 states:
110. - (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using -
(a) a hand-held mobile telephone; ...
Provided it is not held in the hand at the time of use (and there has been debate on here as to what the courts might term as "use" ), the regulation is not transgressed.
Streaky
The only prohibition is on holding the phone.
The Road Vehicles Construction and Use Amendment No. 4 Regulations 2003 states:
110. - (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using -
(a) a hand-held mobile telephone; ...
Provided it is not held in the hand at the time of use (and there has been debate on here as to what the courts might term as "use" ), the regulation is not transgressed.
Streaky
Hold on a min!!
If you have a bluetooth ear piece that requires a button to be pressed while you phone sits in a cradle it legal.
BUT
If you have a bluetooth ear piece that requires a button to be pressed while your phone is in a door pocket its illegal?
Neither option requires and more or less action on the part of the driver.
One hand presses one button.
If you have a bluetooth ear piece that requires a button to be pressed while you phone sits in a cradle it legal.
BUT
If you have a bluetooth ear piece that requires a button to be pressed while your phone is in a door pocket its illegal?
Neither option requires and more or less action on the part of the driver.
One hand presses one button.
Edited by odyssey2200 on Saturday 26th April 22:19
odyssey2200 said:
Hold on a min!!
If you have a bluetooth ear piece that requires a button to be pressed while you phone sits in a cradle it legal.
BUT
If you have a bluetooth ear piece that requires a button to be pressed while your phone is in a door pocket its illegal?
No, Streaky's post/link has the details, it is an offence to use a hand-held telephone, which is one where it is necessary for it to the hand-held at some point. Pressing a button when it's in a cradle (or your lap, or wherever) is sufficient to avoid this. Picking it out the door pocket, pressing a button and then dumping it back there might not. There isn't any case law either way yet.If you have a bluetooth ear piece that requires a button to be pressed while you phone sits in a cradle it legal.
BUT
If you have a bluetooth ear piece that requires a button to be pressed while your phone is in a door pocket its illegal?
It doesn't have to be in a cradle. It oculd be lying on the dashboard top, or in a tray by the gear-lever, or even on the passenger's seat.
A poster on another thread copied over some text from a mobile phone policy ... this erroneously stated that the 'phone MUST be in a cradle to comply with the law (with the policy, OK, but not with the LAW).
Having said that, it must be remembered that the law we're referring to here is the Road Vehicles Construction and Use Amendment No. 4 Regulations 2003. There are and were before other offences - e.g. 'failure to maintain proper control' that can used. The C&U Amendment 4 was one of those "we have to be seen to be doing something" laws so beloved of Nu Labia. The 'failure to maintain' offence can be committed even when using a hands-free.
Streaky
A poster on another thread copied over some text from a mobile phone policy ... this erroneously stated that the 'phone MUST be in a cradle to comply with the law (with the policy, OK, but not with the LAW).
Having said that, it must be remembered that the law we're referring to here is the Road Vehicles Construction and Use Amendment No. 4 Regulations 2003. There are and were before other offences - e.g. 'failure to maintain proper control' that can used. The C&U Amendment 4 was one of those "we have to be seen to be doing something" laws so beloved of Nu Labia. The 'failure to maintain' offence can be committed even when using a hands-free.
Streaky
vonhosen said:
It doesn't have to be in a cradle, it just must not be held during the course of making or receiving a call, or performing any other interactive communication function with it.
Well thanks for that clarification but at the time the original legislation came in I understood that for legal use of a mobile phone whilst driving a legal hands free kit must include a cradle for the phone. This just highlights how the interpretation of the law can be misleading.As for the OP it sounds like he would have reasonable grounds to challenge the NIP.
Guam said:
You know you just couldnt make this stuff up, Let me clarify what I am about to say This is not a Bib Bashing excercise (read what I am about to say carefully). Basically we are now saying that WITHOUT firm evidence an officers word that he "Believes" a suspect has committed an offence is sufficient to gain a conviction, you may as well start lifting people off the streets because in an officers opinion the strange gait of an individual leads him (in his opinion) to believe the individual is a paedo, or a burglar, almost getting like the american offence of shot while being black (extreme I know but the comparison is valid). Where is the "insuffecient evidence" attitude used on non motoring offences by the CPS and management within the Bib when they wont go after "real criminals". No the system is not messed up in any way shape or form is it?
Cheers
If an officer merely 'believes they saw' it's going no where, if 'they saw' then it might.Cheers
forza whites said:
At the end of the day dont use the phone! I was unfortunate to see an accident on the A580 caused
by a Van driver on his phone...with dire consequences.
So you saw the entire accident from start to finish, and somehow you were able to determine that it was 100% caused by the fact he was on his phone?by a Van driver on his phone...with dire consequences.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff