Smart Watches - Handheld?
Discussion
It's a device that can make and receive phone calls, so think it would fall under the current legislation,you don't need to have a phone to your ear to be guilty currently, however it would be very interesting to see how its interpreted by the law, don't think new tech is ever envisaged when these thing's are drawn up, can see some issues
Think I should have made myself clearer, the watch itself has no capability of being used as a mobile (it lacks a speaker, microphone and sim card), but it connects to the mobile via bluetooth, like a headset/hands free. The mobile can be in the boot, and the watch can be used to receive and make calls, which are then transferred over bluetooth to the car stereo, no different to a parrot system, except for the device is on your wrist instead of on the dash.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2695/made
Specifically states:
"110.—(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using—
(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4)."
and goes on:
"(4) A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data."
and:
"(6) For the purposes of this regulation—
(a)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;"
Note that 'hand-held' is repeated throughout the legislation. So if it isn't 'hand-held' then the offence is not being committed.
Consideration for an alternative offence would be that you fail to have proper control of the vehicle or are driving without due care & attention.
Specifically states:
"110.—(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using—
(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4)."
and goes on:
"(4) A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data."
and:
"(6) For the purposes of this regulation—
(a)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;"
Note that 'hand-held' is repeated throughout the legislation. So if it isn't 'hand-held' then the offence is not being committed.
Consideration for an alternative offence would be that you fail to have proper control of the vehicle or are driving without due care & attention.
paintman said:
"(6) For the purposes of this regulation—
(a)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;"
Note that 'hand-held' is repeated throughout the legislation. So if it isn't 'hand-held' then the offence is not being committed.
Exactly. If it was a pocket-watch, yes. If it's a wrist-watch, no, assuming you're wearing it rather than holding it.(a)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;"
Note that 'hand-held' is repeated throughout the legislation. So if it isn't 'hand-held' then the offence is not being committed.
paintman said:
Consideration for an alternative offence would be that you fail to have proper control of the vehicle or are driving without due care & attention.
The perennial caveat.Ummm... so if a mobile was strapped just above the wrist - Predator style, is it still hand-held?
Sounds silly/ ludicrous I know, but I actually saw a chap who had done this last week, in a garage when queuing for payment, and for a minute I could not work out what it was!
...and since this thread it got me wondering!
Sounds silly/ ludicrous I know, but I actually saw a chap who had done this last week, in a garage when queuing for payment, and for a minute I could not work out what it was!
...and since this thread it got me wondering!
Edited by 3Dee on Monday 9th March 10:19
I was thinking about this the other day when I saw on one of these tech shows the first smart watch which I actually liked the look of.
Fairly clear at the moment smart watches will be ok. But these could end leading to a newer less vague law being brought in instead hopefully. One where using is defined
Fairly clear at the moment smart watches will be ok. But these could end leading to a newer less vague law being brought in instead hopefully. One where using is defined
Article:
" ... smartwatch while driving is not banned outright - but improper use could result in charges for
- dangerous driving
- careless / inconsiderate driving
- failure to be in proper control of the vehicle"
I agree with the aforementioned. If the watch is not hand-held then potentially one of those offences - absent unusual facts, "not in proper control" is the most likely candidate and carries the same penalty as the mobile phone legislation. The specific mobile phone / communication device legislation is not applicable unless the phone/device is hand-held.
" ... smartwatch while driving is not banned outright - but improper use could result in charges for
- dangerous driving
- careless / inconsiderate driving
- failure to be in proper control of the vehicle"
I agree with the aforementioned. If the watch is not hand-held then potentially one of those offences - absent unusual facts, "not in proper control" is the most likely candidate and carries the same penalty as the mobile phone legislation. The specific mobile phone / communication device legislation is not applicable unless the phone/device is hand-held.
Edited by agtlaw on Monday 9th March 20:47
So we go full circle, bin the ridiculous mobile phone law and all the attendant doubt about what is handheld, what is using, is my bluetooth satnav a mobile, if I touch it how do the police know that I'm navigating and not phoning a friend, etc. and go back to basics about being in proper control and use DWDCA if necessary.
3Dee said:
Ummm... so if a mobile was strapped just above the wrist - Predator style, is it still hand-held?
Sounds silly/ ludicrous I know, but I actually saw a chap who had done this last week, in a garage when queuing for payment, and for a minute I could not work out what it was!
...and since this thread it got me wondering!
Did you get to da chopper?Sounds silly/ ludicrous I know, but I actually saw a chap who had done this last week, in a garage when queuing for payment, and for a minute I could not work out what it was!
...and since this thread it got me wondering!
Edited by 3Dee on Monday 9th March 10:19
paintman said:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2695/made
Specifically states:
"110.—(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using—
(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4)."
and goes on:
"(4) A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data."
and:
"(6) For the purposes of this regulation—
(a)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;"
Note that 'hand-held' is repeated throughout the legislation. So if it isn't 'hand-held' then the offence is not being committed.
Consideration for an alternative offence would be that you fail to have proper control of the vehicle or are driving without due care & attention.
The legislation says it must be treated as hand-held if it must be "held". It doesn't say it must be held in your hand, just held.Specifically states:
"110.—(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using—
(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4)."
and goes on:
"(4) A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data."
and:
"(6) For the purposes of this regulation—
(a)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;"
Note that 'hand-held' is repeated throughout the legislation. So if it isn't 'hand-held' then the offence is not being committed.
Consideration for an alternative offence would be that you fail to have proper control of the vehicle or are driving without due care & attention.
If it is strapped to your wrist are you holding it there; that will be an interesting test.
It may be over simplistic to ask "when driving why don't you just drive?"
If you are fiddling about with your watch answering a call when driving then you deserve to be considered for a dangerous or careless driving charge. I guess it won't be long before we find out.
tapereel said:
The legislation says it must be treated as hand-held if it must be "held". It doesn't say it must be held in your hand, just held.
If it is strapped to your wrist are you holding it there; that will be an interesting test.
It may be over simplistic to ask "when driving why don't you just drive?"
If you are fiddling about with your watch answering a call when driving then you deserve to be considered for a dangerous or careless driving charge. I guess it won't be long before we find out.
Agreed it says held, but also hand-held and see section 41D(b) RTA 1988. If there's a potential issue then the prosecution should charge 41D(a) and regulation 104 - there's the 'hurdle' of proving "not in proper control", of course. If 41D(b) is charged and issue is taken by the defence then the prosecution should seek leave to amend the information, which is permissible, even if out of time; R. v SIf it is strapped to your wrist are you holding it there; that will be an interesting test.
It may be over simplistic to ask "when driving why don't you just drive?"
If you are fiddling about with your watch answering a call when driving then you deserve to be considered for a dangerous or careless driving charge. I guess it won't be long before we find out.
horpe Justices ex parte McPhee (1998). Same penalty - fine and 3 points, whichever offence. agtlaw said:
tapereel said:
The legislation says it must be treated as hand-held if it must be "held". It doesn't say it must be held in your hand, just held.
If it is strapped to your wrist are you holding it there; that will be an interesting test.
It may be over simplistic to ask "when driving why don't you just drive?"
If you are fiddling about with your watch answering a call when driving then you deserve to be considered for a dangerous or careless driving charge. I guess it won't be long before we find out.
Agreed it says held, but also hand-held and see section 41D(b) RTA 1988. If there's a potential issue then the prosecution should charge 41D(a) and regulation 104 - there's the 'hurdle' of proving "not in proper control", of course. If 41D(b) is charged and issue is taken by the defence then the prosecution should seek leave to amend the information, which is permissible, even if out of time; R. v SIf it is strapped to your wrist are you holding it there; that will be an interesting test.
It may be over simplistic to ask "when driving why don't you just drive?"
If you are fiddling about with your watch answering a call when driving then you deserve to be considered for a dangerous or careless driving charge. I guess it won't be long before we find out.
horpe Justices ex parte McPhee (1998). Same penalty - fine and 3 points, whichever offence. It may be argued that this is absurd but in my reading of the legislation the literal meaning as written is very reasonable. Perhaps an absurdity is going to be difficult to argue.
I still think it is daft to consider making calls and operating other devices while driving but I don't have an issue with the use of hands-free kit if you really want to do it...I just can't see what call is important enoughto be made while moving.
Edited by tapereel on Tuesday 10th March 22:43
tapereel said:
I think it is common for the definition of the device in the legislation to be mixed up with the offence of using the defined device. The offence is using a hand-held device NOT hand-holding it so to speak. The legislation uses, very carefully, the terms 'held' not 'hand-held' and uses 'use' not 'making a telephone call'. By using these terms in their widest meanings all 'use' and all 'holding' comes within the defined offence.
It may be argued that this is absurd but in my reading of the legislation the literal meaning as written is very reasonable. Perhaps an absurdity is going to be difficult to argue.
I still think it is daft to consider making calls and operating other devices while driving but I don't have an issue with the use of hands-free kit if you really want to do it...I just can't see what call is important enoughto be made while moving.
The general rule is that criminal statutes are narrowly construed, in favour of the defendant. It may be argued that this is absurd but in my reading of the legislation the literal meaning as written is very reasonable. Perhaps an absurdity is going to be difficult to argue.
I still think it is daft to consider making calls and operating other devices while driving but I don't have an issue with the use of hands-free kit if you really want to do it...I just can't see what call is important enoughto be made while moving.
Edited by tapereel on Tuesday 10th March 22:43
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff