Using hand held mobile phone as "sat nav" whilst driving.

[Ms Demeanor]

Your views please...?

This is becoming an increasing problem. Phones have so many functions. What about Iphone with Ipod on it connected up to car stereo - changing tracks....

Do you think you have to be using a phone as a phone (texting/calling) to be guilty?

"Interactive communication function..." ?

[Ms Demeanor]

covboy said:

Who was the Celeb who got off after claiming he was using his phone as a voice recorder?

That was Jimmy Carr. It was in the mags court so did not set a precedent that would bind any other court(unfortunately).

I have come up against the prosecutor that lost that case and she has stated "I will never lose another like that again!!" It is not up to her going forward but she took it hard.

[Ms Demeanor]

g3org3y said:

My understanding was that even holding the phone, regardless of what it is being used for is an offence?

Wasn't there a chap on here who got done for picking it up and looking at who was calling (without answering)?

I have won cases where they were switching it off - but if you hold it and its a phone the magistrates are tending to take the view they don't care what the function is that you are using it for.

The legislation suggests it is only a phone if it is used for telecommunication purposes - but sat nav is all communicating with a satellite. Dangerous stuff..I think phones with a sat nav should come with a warning!

[Ms Demeanor]

g3org3y said:

My understanding was that even holding the phone, regardless of what it is being used for is an offence?

Wasn't there a chap on here who got done for picking it up and looking at who was calling (without answering)?

There are plenty that have been convicted on that basis. Looking at it can = using. That sort of makes sense especially if you are looking at a text - but what if you are looking at the clock?

[Ms Demeanor]

SS2. said:

Ms Demeanor said:

Do you think you have to be using a phone as a phone (texting/calling) to be guilty?

What do you think parliament's intention was when they introduced the [vague] legislation ?

And do you think that this differs from the interpretation applied by your average plod and average magistrate ?

Average plod think having a phone anywhere other than in the boot is an offence.

I think average man in the street is being lulled into thinking that if they are not using it "as a phone" they are not guilty. The legislation is appallingly out of date and needs to be updated to deal with all these functions....

[Ms Demeanor]

joewilliams said:

crocodile tears said:

I've often wondered this too - been pretty much required on a couple of occasions to hold my phone acting as a satnav as there's been absolutely nowhere to put it and listening to it won't be much help.

Universal windscreen mounts cost ten or twenty quid.

Agreed. The best bet at the moment is do not hold it!

But the legislation states; No person shall drive a motor on a road if he is using a (i)"hand held" mobile telephone..

That does not necessarily mean it has to be held in your hand at the time you are using it if you read it carefully. The phone is still a hand held mobile phone (its designed to be held in your hand) even when its in a holder?

The issue of hand held is too vague. What's a legitimate hands free device?? I had a chap with a bit of velcro on his seat belt and a bit of velcro on his phone. He would stick the phone to the velcro on getting in and buckling up and then use it on speaker phone without ever holding it. I wanted to run it as a trial but he had no money to instruct.

[Ms Demeanor]

Durzel said:

Just to turn this on its head.. TomTom has for some time been able to be used "for interactive communication functions", that is to say you can send and receive text messages, calls, etc. Granted you can use voice commands to do this, but you can also use the touchscreen.

In this capacity how is a TomTom not functioning as a phone?

I don't have a sat nav so i am pretty ignorant as to what they can and cannot do - but thats madness. So you can read a text via sat nav and not be guilty of the same offence - even if you hold it...It might be interactive but its not a phone! You might be guilty of not having a proper view of the road ahead if you read a text on sat nav - but thats a different offence - is that different/worse than looking at the image of the map?

[Ms Demeanor]

CDP said:

I was wondering about Tomtoms too. Not that I've used mine much since I had an Android phone.

Also would a bluetooth hand held handset count as a phone?

Of course most of these issues could be dealt with under the driving without due care and attention legislation (whatever the correct name is).

Only if the standard of your driving is negligent/affected. Mere using is enough for the phone offence - due care is more than that. The not being in proper control is the one the plod normally go for if its not a phone that you are fiddling with...!

[Ms Demeanor]

barker22 said:

Ms Demeanor said:

Average plod think having a phone anywhere other than in the boot is an offence.

I think average man in the street is being lulled into thinking that if they are not using it "as a phone" they are not guilty. The legislation is appallingly out of date and needs to be updated to deal with all these functions....

I have to disagree, I believe the average man in the street knows exactly what the offence entails and that all they are trying to do is worm their way out of it. Whether people agree with it or not you can not hold a mobile phone whilst driving no matter what you are doing with it.(excluding emergency services type calls)

I would hope if you read through all the posts you would appreciate how complicated this area law is and the fact that we are actually talking about using the phone as a sat nav or other type of device and whether that would constitute an offence. Also whether using a sat nav to receive texts - apparently you can - would be an offence.

[Ms Demeanor]

R0G said:

Ms Demeanor said:

I would hope if you read through all the posts you would appreciate how complicated this area law is

Would you agree with me that making a law which stated no electronic communication when driving is better?

Yes something along those lines would be better - but how does that deal with the hands free issue? "You must not drive a motor vehicle on a road whilst using any hand held communication device...."

[Ms Demeanor]

sebdangerfield said:

Ms Demeanor said:

That was Jimmy Carr. It was in the mags court so did not set a precedent that would bind any other court(unfortunately).

I have come up against the prosecutor that lost that case and she has stated "I will never lose another like that again!!" It is not up to her going forward but she took it hard.

Every element of respect and admiration I once had for your posts has disappeared with one cliche!

Sorry, darn it!

[Ms Demeanor]

agtlaw said:

Ms Demeanor said:

Your views please...?

This is becoming an increasing problem. Phones have so many functions. What about Iphone with Ipod on it connected up to car stereo - changing tracks....

Do you think you have to be using a phone as a phone (texting/calling) to be guilty?

"Interactive communication function..." ?

I have my iPhone in airplane mode, fixed to the windscreen with the tomtom app running. I'd welcome the police to prosecute me. We could set a precedent in the high court.

nb it's in airplane mode to prevent interactive communication. E.g. If a text were sent to me then i'd be guilty of an offence if I read it whilst driving.

The law in E&W clearly needs amending. I've researched comparative legal systems. New York state and Australian legislation more properly define the offence.

All understood and agreed. It's an interesting area of law and ripe for multiple challenges. I am talking to a chap on the phone as typing about using a phone without a sim card as an mp3 player. Its all good stuff for lawyers - but very confusing for the plod and the general public.