Mobile Phone Question

[CommanderJameson]

What counts as "driving" for the purposes of using a mobile in the car?

T'other day I made a call when I was pulled over, in neutral, handbrake on, but engine running (I was picking someone up).

Was I "driving"?

[vonhosen]

CommanderJameson said:

What counts as "driving" for the purposes of using a mobile in the car?

T'other day I made a call when I was pulled over, in neutral, handbrake on, but engine running (I was picking someone up).

Was I "driving"?

Driving is not defined by statute. There is however a lot of case law on the subject and the majority of it has appeared as a consequence of the drink/driving cases.Whether or not someone is driving is predominantly a matter of fact and degree and the court or jury will make the final decision in each individual case.

The case law referred to most often is

Edkins v Knowles 1973
R v McDonagh 1974

Another is Planton v DPP 2001.
In that case (which was a drink drive case), he was sat in the driver's seat, engine running & lights on. The vehicle was stationary on a causeway & he said he was waiting for the tide to go out. The court said he was still driving, just as if he was waiting at a set of traffic lights.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 27th June 07:18

[CommanderJameson]

vonhosen said:

CommanderJameson said:

What counts as "driving" for the purposes of using a mobile in the car?

T'other day I made a call when I was pulled over, in neutral, handbrake on, but engine running (I was picking someone up).

Was I "driving"?

Driving is not defined by statute. There is however a lot of case law on the subject and the majority of it has appeared as a consequence of the drink/driving cases.Whether or not someone is driving is predominantly a matter of fact and degree and the court or jury will make the final decision in each individual case.

The case law referred to most often is

Edkins v Knowles 1973
R v McDonagh 1974

Another is Planton v DPP 2001.
In that case (which was a drink drive case), he was sat in the driver's seat, engine running & lights on. The vehicle was stationary on a causeway & he said he was waiting for the tide to go out. The court said he was still driving, just as if he was waiting at a set of traffic lights.

So the executive summary is that it depends on the bobby and the circumstances?

[WildCat]

I thought the law applied to having engine switched on/in driver seat.

Like sleeping off hang over in back seat with key in pocket. You could be held as intending to drive car

I hate those pesky Handy phones anyway. You are chatting to someone. They answer the call whilst you are in mid-sentence face to face to them. Ist rude!

[CommanderJameson]

WildCat said:

I thought the law applied to having engine switched on/in driver seat.

Like sleeping off hang over in back seat with key in pocket. You could be held as intending to drive car

I hate those pesky Handy phones anyway. You are chatting to someone. They answer the call whilst you are in mid-sentence face to face to them. Ist rude!

You hate the phones because the people you're talking to are ignorant?

I have a mobile and manage not to be an ignorant with it.

[tigger1]

CommanderJameson said:

WildCat said:

I thought the law applied to having engine switched on/in driver seat.

Like sleeping off hang over in back seat with key in pocket. You could be held as intending to drive car

I hate those pesky Handy phones anyway. You are chatting to someone. They answer the call whilst you are in mid-sentence face to face to them. Ist rude!

You hate the phones because the people you're talking to are ignorant?

I have a mobile and manage not to be an ignorant with it.

I would argue that the case of a drink driver is different to that of somebody using a mobile though, because - hold on, phone call.

[tigger1]

As I was saying, the person with a phone should be deemed more "in control" of their decision to stop, where as a drink driver, due to their condition, should not be deemed to be as rational. So, if I stop, somewhere safe (no obstruction), but leave my lights / engine on, car in neutral and handbrake on, then I would like to think I'm no longer "driving" when considering the use of a phone. If I was going to make a long call though, I'd kill the engine anyway.

[ewenm]

tigger1 said:

CommanderJameson said:

WildCat said:

I thought the law applied to having engine switched on/in driver seat.

Like sleeping off hang over in back seat with key in pocket. You could be held as intending to drive car

I hate those pesky Handy phones anyway. You are chatting to someone. They answer the call whilst you are in mid-sentence face to face to them. Ist rude!

You hate the phones because the people you're talking to are ignorant?

I have a mobile and manage not to be an ignorant with it.

I would argue that the case of a drink driver is different to that of somebody using a mobile though, because - hold on, phone call.

[blueyes]

tigger1 said:

As I was saying, the person with a phone should be deemed more "in control" of their decision to stop, where as a drink driver, due to their condition, should not be deemed to be as rational. So, if I stop, somewhere safe (no obstruction), but leave my lights / engine on, car in neutral and handbrake on, then I would like to think I'm no longer "driving" when considering the use of a phone. If I was going to make a long call though, I'd kill the engine anyway.

Here's the law:

The Definition of Driving
“The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2003” defines a person as “driving” even if the vehicle is stationary but the engine is running. The offence will apply to all motor vehicles, including motorcycles, but will not apply to pedal cycles.


can't believe I beat DVD to it

[Flintstone]

blueyes said:

Here's the law:

The Definition of Driving
“The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2003” defines a person as “driving” even if the vehicle is stationary but the engine is running. The offence will apply to all motor vehicles, including motorcycles, but will not apply to pedal cycles.

Specialist subject, the bleedin' obvious.

[Brett928S2]

Hi

Sorry to change the thread slightly but..

My mobile is a Nokia Communicator (the type that opens up to reveal a long screen and big keyboard...

When my phone rings while driving ....its usually on the passenger seat open....I press a button to answer and talk using handsfree....i.e the mike picks up my voice and the speaker in phone gives callers voice...

But its NOT a FITTED handsfree kit....therefore is it legal to talk AS i DRIVE ??

All the best Brett

[superlightr]

CommanderJameson said:

What counts as "driving" for the purposes of using a mobile in the car?

T'other day I made a call when I was pulled over, in neutral, handbrake on, but engine running (I was picking someone up).

Was I "driving"?

where were you pulled over?

layby, side of road, traffic lights, driveway.

I assume pulled over means in a layby or side of the road and in which case I too would beleive you were not driving.

BTW - Drunk driving - isnt that being in 'Control' of a car not necessary driving.
Do the new legislation for phones say 'driving' or 'control'?

[blueyes]

superlightr said:

CommanderJameson said:

What counts as "driving" for the purposes of using a mobile in the car?

T'other day I made a call when I was pulled over, in neutral, handbrake on, but engine running (I was picking someone up).

Was I "driving"?

Do the new legislation for phones say 'driving' or 'control'?

Driving... hence my earlier post above.

[superlightr]

I would challange it if you had a ticket in that case.

[blueyes]

superlightr said:

I would challange it if you had a ticket in that case.

Eh? Why?

Read my earlier post:

The Definition of Driving
“The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2003” defines a person as “driving” even if the vehicle is stationary but the engine is running.

[streaky]

Brett928S2 said:

Hi

Sorry to change the thread slightly but..

My mobile is a Nokia Communicator (the type that opens up to reveal a long screen and big keyboard...

When my phone rings while driving ....its usually on the passenger seat open....I press a button to answer and talk using handsfree....i.e the mike picks up my voice and the speaker in phone gives callers voice...

But its NOT a FITTED handsfree kit....therefore is it legal to talk AS i DRIVE ??

All the best Brett

There is NO requirement in law to have (or use) a hands-free kit, only a prohibition about using the 'phone while "hand-held". My 'phone works as yours does (so useless in the Wedge). In so far as the wording of the "mobile-phone law" goes, you can press buttons to your heart's content, even text while driving (as a recently published photo of a police officer doing just that, showed) ... there are other laws that can be used in such cases - as they always could (and can still) be used for using the 'phone (hand-held or not). Another one of Nu Labia's confusing and unnecessary laws - Streaky

[SS2.]

blueyes said:

superlightr said:

I would challange it if you had a ticket in that case.

Eh? Why?

Read my earlier post:

The Definition of Driving
“The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2003” defines a person as “driving” even if the vehicle is stationary but the engine is running.

As VH has already stated, the 'law' does not appear to be as cut and dried as that.

There are lots of cases where the definition of 'driving' has been considered and each decision reached appears to have been done so on the basis of the circumstances specific to the case in question.

Read DPP v Alderton, for instance..

[superlightr]

SS2. said:

blueyes said:

superlightr said:

I would challange it if you had a ticket in that case.

Eh? Why?

Read my earlier post:

The Definition of Driving
“The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2003” defines a person as “driving” even if the vehicle is stationary but the engine is running.

As VH has already stated, the 'law' does not appear to be as cut and dried as that.

There are lots of cases where the definition of 'driving' has been considered and each decision reached appears to have been done so on the basis of the circumstances specific to the case in question.

Read DPP v Alderton, for instance..

Thats what judges are there for, to interpete the written legislation.

From my old law days, I seem to remember reading a number of judegments from a top bloke - Lord Denning who would interpret the written law to give a 'fair' judgement, despite or inspite of a badly worded legislation/definition hence how preceedents are set.

This legislation and definition sounds bloody stupid which should be ripe for a preceedent to be set or commonsence to be applied to this individual case.

Still dont know where he was 'parked up' which would be important to know.

[blueyes]

SS2. said:

Read DPP v Alderton, for instance..

Just did and loved the last three lines:

Turning to the question posed for the opinion of the court in the case stated, namely does the admitted wheel spinning constitute driving, the answer in my judgment is "yes". I therefore remit the case back to the justices with a direction to convict.

MR HALL: %?@ %?€%_؁@€%_Ø&#129...

MR JUSTICE HARRISON: Thank you very much. Thank you both very much for your very helpful submissions to the court.

MR PYNE: I am very grateful.