RE: Hand-held device law tightened for 2022
Discussion
Dingu said:
NMNeil said:
Dingu said:
If not, what are they doing?, certainly not paying attention to the speaker.
Dingu said:
NMNeil said:
Are they controlling a car using their phone like the James Bond BMW then?DonkeyApple said:
Dingu said:
Yup. They're the team behind Tesla's autonomous tech. It's why the cars keep crashing into the owners' garages. Seems one of the more popular second jobs?
vonhosen said:
The point with having specific offences for certain behaviours is it gives less wiggle room for people to try & argue their way out of it (by making it black/white rather than grey). If they don't have a specific offence they have to go for careless or not in proper control, but where they identify problematic behaviours it's administratively easier to make them a specific offence.
So we can expect ‘not properly in control due to flapjack consumption’? Edited by vonhosen on Monday 22 November 17:49
ddom said:
vonhosen said:
The point with having specific offences for certain behaviours is it gives less wiggle room for people to try & argue their way out of it (by making it black/white rather than grey). If they don't have a specific offence they have to go for careless or not in proper control, but where they identify problematic behaviours it's administratively easier to make them a specific offence.
So we can expect ‘not properly in control due to flapjack consumption’? Edited by vonhosen on Monday 22 November 17:49
vonhosen said:
The point with having specific offences for certain behaviours is it gives less wiggle room for people to try & argue their way out of it (by making it black/white rather than grey). If they don't have a specific offence they have to go for careless or not in proper control, but where they identify problematic behaviours it's administratively easier to make them a specific offence.
Yep. A very long established principle that it’s much easier to convict for something objectively measurable which might sometimes be dangerous than to actually catch people driving dangerously. The next step is to focus enforcement on those situations where people might think it reasonable to do the thing rather than on where it is most dangerous. Edited by vonhosen on Monday 22 November 17:49
otolith said:
vonhosen said:
The point with having specific offences for certain behaviours is it gives less wiggle room for people to try & argue their way out of it (by making it black/white rather than grey). If they don't have a specific offence they have to go for careless or not in proper control, but where they identify problematic behaviours it's administratively easier to make them a specific offence.
Yep. A very long established principle that it’s much easier to convict for something objectively measurable which might sometimes be dangerous than to actually catch people driving dangerously. The next step is to focus enforcement on those situations where people might think it reasonable to do the thing rather than on where it is most dangerous. vonhosen said:
The point with having specific offences for certain behaviours is it gives less wiggle room for people to try & argue their way out of it (by making it black/white rather than grey). If they don't have a specific offence they have to go for careless or not in proper control, but where they identify problematic behaviours it's administratively easier to make them a specific offence.
But the problem with being too specific is you need more laws to cover all the scenarios. The problem here isn't the mobile phone, it's being distracted. The mobile phone just provides the means to be distracted.Edited by vonhosen on Monday 22 November 17:49
Eating a wrap while driving becomes a distraction if some sauce drops in the drivers lap, but a bag of crisps doesn't have the same problem. So do we need a law against eating foods with sauces?
Or smoking? Maybe vaping is OK, but cigarette smoking needs a law against it while driving in case the lit cigarette drops in the car?
This is the problem with trying to be to prescriptive with laws.....
vonhosen said:
otolith said:
vonhosen said:
The point with having specific offences for certain behaviours is it gives less wiggle room for people to try & argue their way out of it (by making it black/white rather than grey). If they don't have a specific offence they have to go for careless or not in proper control, but where they identify problematic behaviours it's administratively easier to make them a specific offence.
Yep. A very long established principle that it’s much easier to convict for something objectively measurable which might sometimes be dangerous than to actually catch people driving dangerously. The next step is to focus enforcement on those situations where people might think it reasonable to do the thing rather than on where it is most dangerous. otolith said:
vonhosen said:
otolith said:
vonhosen said:
The point with having specific offences for certain behaviours is it gives less wiggle room for people to try & argue their way out of it (by making it black/white rather than grey). If they don't have a specific offence they have to go for careless or not in proper control, but where they identify problematic behaviours it's administratively easier to make them a specific offence.
Yep. A very long established principle that it’s much easier to convict for something objectively measurable which might sometimes be dangerous than to actually catch people driving dangerously. The next step is to focus enforcement on those situations where people might think it reasonable to do the thing rather than on where it is most dangerous. Because I can't see that happening.
I'm not going to worry about the non dangerous prosecutions for those offences listed though, provided they don't ignore the dangerous situation detections.
The whole idea of specific offences is you having the choice when & where to engage in the behaviour is taken away from you. It's forbidden full stop.
humphra said:
vonhosen said:
The point with having specific offences for certain behaviours is it gives less wiggle room for people to try & argue their way out of it (by making it black/white rather than grey). If they don't have a specific offence they have to go for careless or not in proper control, but where they identify problematic behaviours it's administratively easier to make them a specific offence.
But the problem with being too specific is you need more laws to cover all the scenarios. The problem here isn't the mobile phone, it's being distracted. The mobile phone just provides the means to be distracted.Eating a wrap while driving becomes a distraction if some sauce drops in the drivers lap, but a bag of crisps doesn't have the same problem. So do we need a law against eating foods with sauces?
Or smoking? Maybe vaping is OK, but cigarette smoking needs a law against it while driving in case the lit cigarette drops in the car?
This is the problem with trying to be to prescriptive with laws.....
You start with careless only & we still have careless where there isn't a specific offence.
It's just that they've identified some specifics that they've decided to make it easier to prosecute than careless.
The fact they haven't made specific offences for everything doesn't mean that making specifics is a weakness.
If they identify other things that they want to make a specific because it increasingly becomes a problem (& to highlight the desirability of not engaging in it), then so be it.
They still have careless where there isn't a specific, so they're no worse off than where we started with careless only, only better off.
What I don't understand is the phenomena of the frequency of the people you see going around roundabouts while holding a mobile. Maybe roundabouts are just more visible to spot people than T-junctions or crossroads. If PC Plod wanted to catch people just need to stand by any roundabout.
I was pulled over by an officious PO. He had a young WPC with him and I suspect that he was attempting to impress her, rather than uphold the Law …….. argument with a wall is pointless so I answered his questions until he became a little silly ……..
The offence? My registration had one letter, one click out of place, to make it TOO 2 instead of TO 02. He proceeded to quote from the Highway Code. Then I reminded him that the number recognition system in his car and at the Dartford Crossing both recognised the number plate and the owner details.
I did think to remind him that owning pets in Council Houses was against their Terms and Conditions, but that was a ruling which was only enforced if people decided to keep pigs in their back garden ~ it was a ruling which was only enforced when there was a clear need.
My number plate, though wrong wasn't in any way capable of deceiving anyone …….. ok so the Law is the Law, but this self-indulgent PO stopped the main flow of traffic for some while, he pointed out what I already know and he failed to issue any official notice …….. what did he achieve? …. from here, sod-all.
The offence? My registration had one letter, one click out of place, to make it TOO 2 instead of TO 02. He proceeded to quote from the Highway Code. Then I reminded him that the number recognition system in his car and at the Dartford Crossing both recognised the number plate and the owner details.
I did think to remind him that owning pets in Council Houses was against their Terms and Conditions, but that was a ruling which was only enforced if people decided to keep pigs in their back garden ~ it was a ruling which was only enforced when there was a clear need.
My number plate, though wrong wasn't in any way capable of deceiving anyone …….. ok so the Law is the Law, but this self-indulgent PO stopped the main flow of traffic for some while, he pointed out what I already know and he failed to issue any official notice …….. what did he achieve? …. from here, sod-all.
Me Alec said:
I was pulled over by an officious PO. He had a young WPC with him and I suspect that he was attempting to impress her, rather than uphold the Law …….. argument with a wall is pointless so I answered his questions until he became a little silly ……..
The offence? My registration had one letter, one click out of place, to make it TOO 2 instead of TO 02. He proceeded to quote from the Highway Code. Then I reminded him that the number recognition system in his car and at the Dartford Crossing both recognised the number plate and the owner details.
I did think to remind him that owning pets in Council Houses was against their Terms and Conditions, but that was a ruling which was only enforced if people decided to keep pigs in their back garden ~ it was a ruling which was only enforced when there was a clear need.
My number plate, though wrong wasn't in any way capable of deceiving anyone …….. ok so the Law is the Law, but this self-indulgent PO stopped the main flow of traffic for some while, he pointed out what I already know and he failed to issue any official notice …….. what did he achieve? …. from here, sod-all.
He inconvenienced you. Which is sufficient enough for pratting around with number plate spacing.The offence? My registration had one letter, one click out of place, to make it TOO 2 instead of TO 02. He proceeded to quote from the Highway Code. Then I reminded him that the number recognition system in his car and at the Dartford Crossing both recognised the number plate and the owner details.
I did think to remind him that owning pets in Council Houses was against their Terms and Conditions, but that was a ruling which was only enforced if people decided to keep pigs in their back garden ~ it was a ruling which was only enforced when there was a clear need.
My number plate, though wrong wasn't in any way capable of deceiving anyone …….. ok so the Law is the Law, but this self-indulgent PO stopped the main flow of traffic for some while, he pointed out what I already know and he failed to issue any official notice …….. what did he achieve? …. from here, sod-all.
Or perhaps it was a lesson for the junior PC in how to deal with arrogant members of the public? I imagine step 1 of the training objective is "find a member of the public that has willfully disregarded the rules on the basis that they do not apply to themselves".
Me Alec said:
I was pulled over by an officious PO. He had a young WPC with him and I suspect that he was attempting to impress her, rather than uphold the Law …….. argument with a wall is pointless so I answered his questions until he became a little silly ……..
The offence? My registration had one letter, one click out of place, to make it TOO 2 instead of TO 02. He proceeded to quote from the Highway Code. Then I reminded him that the number recognition system in his car and at the Dartford Crossing both recognised the number plate and the owner details.
I did think to remind him that owning pets in Council Houses was against their Terms and Conditions, but that was a ruling which was only enforced if people decided to keep pigs in their back garden ~ it was a ruling which was only enforced when there was a clear need.
My number plate, though wrong wasn't in any way capable of deceiving anyone …….. ok so the Law is the Law, but this self-indulgent PO stopped the main flow of traffic for some while, he pointed out what I already know and he failed to issue any official notice …….. what did he achieve? …. from here, sod-all.
Why give them the excuse to pull you over? Just so you can have a number plate that spells out something ‘hilarious’?The offence? My registration had one letter, one click out of place, to make it TOO 2 instead of TO 02. He proceeded to quote from the Highway Code. Then I reminded him that the number recognition system in his car and at the Dartford Crossing both recognised the number plate and the owner details.
I did think to remind him that owning pets in Council Houses was against their Terms and Conditions, but that was a ruling which was only enforced if people decided to keep pigs in their back garden ~ it was a ruling which was only enforced when there was a clear need.
My number plate, though wrong wasn't in any way capable of deceiving anyone …….. ok so the Law is the Law, but this self-indulgent PO stopped the main flow of traffic for some while, he pointed out what I already know and he failed to issue any official notice …….. what did he achieve? …. from here, sod-all.
Me Alec said:
I was pulled over by an officious PO. He had a young WPC with him and I suspect that he was attempting to impress her, rather than uphold the Law …….. argument with a wall is pointless so I answered his questions until he became a little silly ……..
The offence? My registration had one letter, one click out of place, to make it TOO 2 instead of TO 02. He proceeded to quote from the Highway Code. Then I reminded him that the number recognition system in his car and at the Dartford Crossing both recognised the number plate and the owner details.
I did think to remind him that owning pets in Council Houses was against their Terms and Conditions, but that was a ruling which was only enforced if people decided to keep pigs in their back garden ~ it was a ruling which was only enforced when there was a clear need.
My number plate, though wrong wasn't in any way capable of deceiving anyone …….. ok so the Law is the Law, but this self-indulgent PO stopped the main flow of traffic for some while, he pointed out what I already know and he failed to issue any official notice …….. what did he achieve? …. from here, sod-all.
Settling in for the impending PH Numberplate Spacing Zealots Massive vs the PH Over-bearing Officialdom Collective frothathon. The offence? My registration had one letter, one click out of place, to make it TOO 2 instead of TO 02. He proceeded to quote from the Highway Code. Then I reminded him that the number recognition system in his car and at the Dartford Crossing both recognised the number plate and the owner details.
I did think to remind him that owning pets in Council Houses was against their Terms and Conditions, but that was a ruling which was only enforced if people decided to keep pigs in their back garden ~ it was a ruling which was only enforced when there was a clear need.
My number plate, though wrong wasn't in any way capable of deceiving anyone …….. ok so the Law is the Law, but this self-indulgent PO stopped the main flow of traffic for some while, he pointed out what I already know and he failed to issue any official notice …….. what did he achieve? …. from here, sod-all.
Evanivitch said:
Me Alec said:
I was pulled over by an officious PO. He had a young WPC with him and I suspect that he was attempting to impress her, rather than uphold the Law …….. argument with a wall is pointless so I answered his questions until he became a little silly ……..
The offence? My registration had one letter, one click out of place, to make it TOO 2 instead of TO 02. He proceeded to quote from the Highway Code. Then I reminded him that the number recognition system in his car and at the Dartford Crossing both recognised the number plate and the owner details.
I did think to remind him that owning pets in Council Houses was against their Terms and Conditions, but that was a ruling which was only enforced if people decided to keep pigs in their back garden ~ it was a ruling which was only enforced when there was a clear need.
My number plate, though wrong wasn't in any way capable of deceiving anyone …….. ok so the Law is the Law, but this self-indulgent PO stopped the main flow of traffic for some while, he pointed out what I already know and he failed to issue any official notice …….. what did he achieve? …. from here, sod-all.
He inconvenienced you. Which is sufficient enough for pratting around with number plate spacing.The offence? My registration had one letter, one click out of place, to make it TOO 2 instead of TO 02. He proceeded to quote from the Highway Code. Then I reminded him that the number recognition system in his car and at the Dartford Crossing both recognised the number plate and the owner details.
I did think to remind him that owning pets in Council Houses was against their Terms and Conditions, but that was a ruling which was only enforced if people decided to keep pigs in their back garden ~ it was a ruling which was only enforced when there was a clear need.
My number plate, though wrong wasn't in any way capable of deceiving anyone …….. ok so the Law is the Law, but this self-indulgent PO stopped the main flow of traffic for some while, he pointed out what I already know and he failed to issue any official notice …….. what did he achieve? …. from here, sod-all.
Or perhaps it was a lesson for the junior PC in how to deal with arrogant members of the public? I imagine step 1 of the training objective is "find a member of the public that has willfully disregarded the rules on the basis that they do not apply to themselves".
I haven't read the entire thread, sorry.
A couple of posters questioned the enforceability of this law given there aren't enough police officers about. I reckon the majority of enforcement will come as a result of video evidence by members of the public (dash cam, motorcycle / pedal cycle helmet cams), the police make it very easy these days to report it. And now you won't need to prove the phone was being used as a communications device, so simply having footage of the driver handling the phone is going to result in points.
I've reported a few, depending on which police force you report to, you will either get some feedback on the action taken or none at all.
A couple of posters questioned the enforceability of this law given there aren't enough police officers about. I reckon the majority of enforcement will come as a result of video evidence by members of the public (dash cam, motorcycle / pedal cycle helmet cams), the police make it very easy these days to report it. And now you won't need to prove the phone was being used as a communications device, so simply having footage of the driver handling the phone is going to result in points.
I've reported a few, depending on which police force you report to, you will either get some feedback on the action taken or none at all.
dodgydd said:
I haven't read the entire thread, sorry.
A couple of posters questioned the enforceability of this law given there aren't enough police officers about. I reckon the majority of enforcement will come as a result of video evidence by members of the public (dash cam, motorcycle / pedal cycle helmet cams), the police make it very easy these days to report it. And now you won't need to prove the phone was being used as a communications device, so simply having footage of the driver handling the phone is going to result in points.
I've reported a few, depending on which police force you report to, you will either get some feedback on the action taken or none at all.
As it says on the CPS site though, the purpose of this law was about improving road safety. So although the law is written in a way to have a broad reach it wouldnt be in the public interest to use it in instances where road safety benefit cant be demonstrated and it's taken to various levels of appeal and case law to confirm. A couple of posters questioned the enforceability of this law given there aren't enough police officers about. I reckon the majority of enforcement will come as a result of video evidence by members of the public (dash cam, motorcycle / pedal cycle helmet cams), the police make it very easy these days to report it. And now you won't need to prove the phone was being used as a communications device, so simply having footage of the driver handling the phone is going to result in points.
I've reported a few, depending on which police force you report to, you will either get some feedback on the action taken or none at all.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff