Mobile phone "ban", Does it also apply to PMR use?

[J500ANT]

Well, as above really. Someone told me that the Mobile phone law thing doesnt apply to 2way radio use. Of course I believed him but i'd like to know for sure.

Tony

[rewc]

Tony, It does not apply to Push to Talk systems such as taxi services and the Police. Hard to understand I know but what do you expect from the current legislators?
I watched car wars last night and there was a Policeman driving with hand held radio to his ear and changing gear with the other hand. He was then able to fasten his seat belt all with no hands on the wheel. It's obvious that they are not normal and have extra powers not available to mere mortals. Still good luck to him because I thought he was doing a great job in attempting to prevent car theft in Manchester - just gripes a little when the lady eating the apple was prosecuted.

[vipers]

Just finished reading through the HC last night, and found a reference to the use of hand held microphones, but sods law, cant find it now. So perhaps it does apply.

Still seeing drivers today on phones held to ears, if they really want to stop it, as I have said before, the answer is simple, make the first offence a £1000 fine, that may make drivers think twice before holding a phone to their ear.

[Scraggles]

you forget that there is one law for plod and one law for the public, of course they can get away with the sort of stuff we get nicked for, not as if another plod is going to arrest them, even when they no it on national tv

[herewego]

rewc said:

Tony, It does not apply to Push to Talk systems such as taxi services and the Police. Hard to understand I know but what do you expect from the current legislators?
I watched car wars last night and there was a Policeman driving with hand held radio to his ear and changing gear with the other hand. He was then able to fasten his seat belt all with no hands on the wheel. It's obvious that they are not normal and have extra powers not available to mere mortals. Still good luck to him because I thought he was doing a great job in attempting to prevent car theft in Manchester - just gripes a little when the lady eating the apple was prosecuted.

Yes and the driver of the other police car wore no seat belt at all.

[vipers]

Scraggles said:

you forget that there is one law for plod and one law for the public, of course they can get away with the sort of stuff we get nicked for, not as if another plod is going to arrest them, even when they no it on national tv

Yes and what worries me with the new laws, is you scratch you ear, plod thinks your on the phone, and wallop 60 quid fine, and they dont even have to prove you was on the phone, so presumably its up to you to prove you wasnt on the phone?

[rewc]

vipers said:

[quote=Scraggles]you forget that there is one law for plod and one law for the public, of course they can get away with the sort of stuff we get nicked for, not as if another plod is going to arrest them, even when they no it on national tv

Yes and what worries me with the new laws, is you scratch you ear, plod thinks your on the phone, and wallop 60 quid fine, and they dont even have to prove you was on the phone, so presumably its up to you to prove you wasnt on the phone?

It does not matter. If they make a mistake and it's not a phone they get you for something else e.g. eating an apple, not being in control of the vehicle etc.

[vipers]

rewc said:

vipers said:

[quote=Scraggles]you forget that there is one law for plod and one law for the public, of course they can get away with the sort of stuff we get nicked for, not as if another plod is going to arrest them, even when they no it on national tv

Yes and what worries me with the new laws, is you scratch you ear, plod thinks your on the phone, and wallop 60 quid fine, and they dont even have to prove you was on the phone, so presumably its up to you to prove you wasnt on the phone?

It does not matter. If they make a mistake and it's not a phone they get you for something else e.g. eating an apple, not being in control of the vehicle etc.

Got the quotes wrong, but never mind, just hope that if I ever get a NIP for being on the phone whilst driving, the time of the alledged offence is noted, then I can produce my phone bill which will show calls, having said that, I am now wondering if my phone bill shows incoming calls, does it do you know?

[vonhosen]

vipers said:

rewc said:

vipers said:

[quote=Scraggles]you forget that there is one law for plod and one law for the public, of course they can get away with the sort of stuff we get nicked for, not as if another plod is going to arrest them, even when they no it on national tv

Yes and what worries me with the new laws, is you scratch you ear, plod thinks your on the phone, and wallop 60 quid fine, and they dont even have to prove you was on the phone, so presumably its up to you to prove you wasnt on the phone?

It does not matter. If they make a mistake and it's not a phone they get you for something else e.g. eating an apple, not being in control of the vehicle etc.

Got the quotes wrong, but never mind, just hope that if I ever get a NIP for being on the phone whilst driving, the time of the alledged offence is noted, then I can produce my phone bill which will show calls, having said that, I am now wondering if my phone bill shows incoming calls, does it do you know?

It may not have been your own phone that you was on at the time. Producing your bill doesn't prove you weren't on "a" phone.

[vipers]

vonhosen said:

vipers said:

rewc said:

vipers said:

[quote=Scraggles]you forget that there is one law for plod and one law for the public, of course they can get away with the sort of stuff we get nicked for, not as if another plod is going to arrest them, even when they no it on national tv

Yes and what worries me with the new laws, is you scratch you ear, plod thinks your on the phone, and wallop 60 quid fine, and they dont even have to prove you was on the phone, so presumably its up to you to prove you wasnt on the phone?

It does not matter. If they make a mistake and it's not a phone they get you for something else e.g. eating an apple, not being in control of the vehicle etc.

Got the quotes wrong, but never mind, just hope that if I ever get a NIP for being on the phone whilst driving, the time of the alledged offence is noted, then I can produce my phone bill which will show calls, having said that, I am now wondering if my phone bill shows incoming calls, does it do you know?

It may not have been your own phone that you was on at the time. Producing your bill doesn't prove you weren't on "a" phone.

Thanks for that Von, but even more worrying then isnt it?

[Flat in Fifth]

Also don't forget you can be done for not being in proper control when talking on a hands free.

8 am this morning, phone in one hand, ciggy in the other, not sure what she was steering with. Been enough publicity imo, 3 pts well deserved.

[flemke]

vonhosen said:

vipers said:

rewc said:

vipers said:

[quote=Scraggles]you forget that there is one law for plod and one law for the public, of course they can get away with the sort of stuff we get nicked for, not as if another plod is going to arrest them, even when they no it on national tv

Yes and what worries me with the new laws, is you scratch you ear, plod thinks your on the phone, and wallop 60 quid fine, and they dont even have to prove you was on the phone, so presumably its up to you to prove you wasnt on the phone?

It does not matter. If they make a mistake and it's not a phone they get you for something else e.g. eating an apple, not being in control of the vehicle etc.

Got the quotes wrong, but never mind, just hope that if I ever get a NIP for being on the phone whilst driving, the time of the alledged offence is noted, then I can produce my phone bill which will show calls, having said that, I am now wondering if my phone bill shows incoming calls, does it do you know?

It may not have been your own phone that you was on at the time. Producing your bill doesn't prove you weren't on "a" phone.

And one or ten constables seeing your hand next to the side of your head doesn't prove that you were on the phone either.
Surely if they pull you and accuse you of having used a phone illegally, there and then would be your chance to demonstrate your innocence by showing them your phone, scrolling through "calls received", "calls made", texts, etc., to prove that you had not been on the phone a few minutes previous.
If the BIB were offered the chance to scrutinise your phone on the spot but refused to do so, it's hard to imagine how a court would find you guilty anyhow.

[vonhosen]

flemke said:

vonhosen said:

vipers said:

rewc said:

vipers said:

[quote=Scraggles]you forget that there is one law for plod and one law for the public, of course they can get away with the sort of stuff we get nicked for, not as if another plod is going to arrest them, even when they no it on national tv

Yes and what worries me with the new laws, is you scratch you ear, plod thinks your on the phone, and wallop 60 quid fine, and they dont even have to prove you was on the phone, so presumably its up to you to prove you wasnt on the phone?

It does not matter. If they make a mistake and it's not a phone they get you for something else e.g. eating an apple, not being in control of the vehicle etc.

Got the quotes wrong, but never mind, just hope that if I ever get a NIP for being on the phone whilst driving, the time of the alledged offence is noted, then I can produce my phone bill which will show calls, having said that, I am now wondering if my phone bill shows incoming calls, does it do you know?

It may not have been your own phone that you was on at the time. Producing your bill doesn't prove you weren't on "a" phone.

And one or ten constables seeing your hand next to the side of your head doesn't prove that you were on the phone either.
Surely if they pull you and accuse you of having used a phone illegally, there and then would be your chance to demonstrate your innocence by showing them your phone, scrolling through "calls received", "calls made", texts, etc., to prove that you had not been on the phone a few minutes previous.
If the BIB were offered the chance to scrutinise your phone on the spot but refused to do so, it's hard to imagine how a court would find you guilty anyhow.

You can delete calls from those lists too if you choose to.

[flemke]

vonhosen said:

You can delete calls from those lists too if you choose to.

Police pull you over. Unless you threw your phone away between when the blue lights came on and when an officer came to your car, you'll still have a phone with you - unless you had had none at all.
You show officer the phone and give him/her the chance to scroll through anything on it. If he does, but comes up with no evidence because you allegedly deleted the incriminating data before he got to the car, he can now either accept that you were scratching your temple, or he can search your car.
If, given this perfect opportunity, he declines the state's best chance to locate incriminating evidence, I repeat that it is hard to see how they could later convict you, when their ability to make their case is by definition less substantial.

If, on top of the BIB's refusal to search your car, you the defendant submit your phone logs, I can't see the CPS's carrying on regardless. If the state claims that you might have been using a different phone at the time, you point out that the phone logs pretain to the phone that you handed to the officer on the spot, and that he declined your invitation to search you and car for any other phone.
I'll tell you this: if they tried that on with me, I'd appeal it all the way, and get my costs repaid when I won.

[aw51 121565]

vonhosen said:

You can delete calls from those lists too if you choose to.

You'd have to be quick - and extremely calm and collected . I wouldn't have thought of doing this until I read your post.

Not sure that the vast majority of people could manage it... 11 button presses on my Nokia, then a further five to get back to the O2-UK screen. I doubt I'd have time between stopping my car and speaking to the policeman. My demeanour would give me away anyway , as would my phone beeping 30 seconds later as it locks itself .

[bluepolarbear]

In response to the orginal poster the law only applies to devices using the Vodafone, Orange, O2, TMobile and 3 networks (including resellers such as Virgin). Any other device is not covered. The law specifies the frequencies used by the cellular networks.

In response to those talking about erasing call lists then I am afraid it is more bad news. The offence is using a hand held phone. There is no mention that you have to be making a call. Scrolling through your address book is sufficent. There is no way you can prove that you were not using the phone. In short if the BiB say you were then you were, end of story.

[flemke]

bluepolarbear said:

In response to those talking about erasing call lists then I am afraid it is more bad news. The offence is using a hand held phone. There is no mention that you have to be making a call. Scrolling through your address book is sufficent. There is no way you can prove that you were not using the phone. In short if the BiB say you were then you were, end of story.

So you are saying that this:

vonhosen said:

A mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function.

merely defines what "hand-held" means, and does not indicate that "interactive communication" itself must be taking place?

Okay, so that would mean that if whilst driving I removed my mobile from my pocket to check the time, I could get three points and lose £60. In fact, that would mean that if I really were scratching my head (or any other part of my body) with the phone, that too could be good for three.
Seems fair. Not.

[AL666]

Sounds like it Flemke me old chum. Come on, we can fight the system!!!

[WildCat]

You need to have real policemen around to spot Handy Holders anyway.

A photo will not be conclusive...

Even today.. was in traffic jam. Drivers were obviously a bit fed up und driving with arm resting on door handle und propping head on the right hand whilst they crawled along on the commutes.

At first glance.. you think "Handy twazak".. then a second glance show .. no phone in hand .. just person showing he ist just a bit fed up with the commuter crawl.

Now.. my opinion as to Handy use ist well known. I cannot ever understand why people have this love affair with them und compulsion to use them like a two year old clings to a fave soft toy or a comfort blanket. To me.. ist just aa telephone - ist a time und a place for chitter chatter on them.. but this ist not when I am driving my car

[bluepolarbear]

flemke said:

Okay, so that would mean that if whilst driving I removed my mobile from my pocket to check the time, I could get three points and lose £60. In fact, that would mean that if I really were scratching my head (or any other part of my body) with the phone, that too could be good for three.
Seems fair. Not.

The law is here www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032695.htm.

The law bans "using" a hand held. It defines a hand held as a device needing to be held during interactive communication (eg phoning, texting but not looking at your calendar). However, it doesn't link the "interactive communication" back to the "using" just the defination of the device.

I judge would have to decide in the end but in my book I would say looking up your calendar while driving is using.

It is a stupid law

1) It is badly written
2) Uncessary - other laws cover the offence adaquetly
3) If you really want to improve road safety you would ban handsfree as well. The fact that they haven't shows it is, as many recent laws, - tokenism - the very worse kind of law.