Notice of int. prosecution/ use of mobile phones
Discussion
I work as transport adminstrator for a large uk company and process all speeding and other offences for vehicles all over the uk.
I've received the first notice of intended prosecution/request for drivers name for alledgely driving whilst using a mobile phone. The information on the from gave the location,date(28/02/2007,first day of the £60 3points,no more smack on the wrists) and time but no other information regarding evidence.
I can't give you anymore information as it's the first one I've seen, but to let you know it's Northumbria Police and they'll do you for 36mph as will West Mercia & North Wales.
Use your handsfree folks PC plod's on the lookout.
I've received the first notice of intended prosecution/request for drivers name for alledgely driving whilst using a mobile phone. The information on the from gave the location,date(28/02/2007,first day of the £60 3points,no more smack on the wrists) and time but no other information regarding evidence.
I can't give you anymore information as it's the first one I've seen, but to let you know it's Northumbria Police and they'll do you for 36mph as will West Mercia & North Wales.
Use your handsfree folks PC plod's on the lookout.
Thames Valley are currently offering drivers caught on mobile phones to attend a 'call divert workshop' for £74 instead of 3 points and £60 fine.
It looks like a money making scam for Gordon Brown again.
We don't care about the points, but just want your cash to fund our miscalculated government policies.
It looks like a money making scam for Gordon Brown again.
We don't care about the points, but just want your cash to fund our miscalculated government policies.
shuvitupya said:
Thames Valley are currently offering drivers caught on mobile phones to attend a 'call divert workshop' for £74 instead of 3 points and £60 fine.
It looks like a money making scam for Gordon Brown again.
We don't care about the points, but just want your cash to fund our miscalculated government policies.
It looks like a money making scam for Gordon Brown again.
We don't care about the points, but just want your cash to fund our miscalculated government policies.
How about double points no fine then ?
Prefer that ?
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 9th March 23:50
vonhosen said:
shuvitupya said:
Thames Valley are currently offering drivers caught on mobile phones to attend a 'call divert workshop' for £74 instead of 3 points and £60 fine.
It looks like a money making scam for Gordon Brown again.
We don't care about the points, but just want your cash to fund our miscalculated government policies.
It looks like a money making scam for Gordon Brown again.
We don't care about the points, but just want your cash to fund our miscalculated government policies.
How about double points no fine then ?
Prefer that ?
I fear that's a hollow threat, vh. I can't see this government ever introducing legislation that doesn't bring in a steady stream of revenue.
vonhosen said:
shuvitupya said:
Thames Valley are currently offering drivers caught on mobile phones to attend a 'call divert workshop' for £74 instead of 3 points and £60 fine.
It looks like a money making scam for Gordon Brown again.
We don't care about the points, but just want your cash to fund our miscalculated government policies.
It looks like a money making scam for Gordon Brown again.
We don't care about the points, but just want your cash to fund our miscalculated government policies.
How about double points no fine then ?
Prefer that ?
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 9th March 23:50
Would that be double points on your driving licence? So that would imply a driving offence, kind of like driving without due care and attention...unlike simply driving whilst on the phone which makes no difference to ones attention, because if it did then driving with a hands free kit would be illegal too.
Driving whilst on the phone DOES distract you.
Driving with a cancer stick DOES distract you.
Driving whilst lighting a cancer stick is just plain stupid.
Driving whilst a pr4t IS just stupid.
Driving badly is also stupid.
People drive badly without phones.
More proper police on the road that use discretion please!
I can claim to be one of the FIRST EVER idiots to get done for being on a phone. A big brick of a Motorola, maybe 15/16 or more years ago. stationary traffic in Wembley. Knob turns up and walks up (from behind) and asks me to pull over. Fixed penalty duly paid. I had even asked my brother to dial the bloody number! HONEST.
Dont blame today's Police. There are knobs with attitude in every walk of life. Unfortunately the BiB seem to have more impact than most when they turn out to be bad eggs.
Compare coming across a bad egg in blue compared to a bad lawyer or accountant? I would pick the BiB every time to be honest.
Driving with a cancer stick DOES distract you.
Driving whilst lighting a cancer stick is just plain stupid.
Driving whilst a pr4t IS just stupid.
Driving badly is also stupid.
People drive badly without phones.
More proper police on the road that use discretion please!
I can claim to be one of the FIRST EVER idiots to get done for being on a phone. A big brick of a Motorola, maybe 15/16 or more years ago. stationary traffic in Wembley. Knob turns up and walks up (from behind) and asks me to pull over. Fixed penalty duly paid. I had even asked my brother to dial the bloody number! HONEST.
Dont blame today's Police. There are knobs with attitude in every walk of life. Unfortunately the BiB seem to have more impact than most when they turn out to be bad eggs.
Compare coming across a bad egg in blue compared to a bad lawyer or accountant? I would pick the BiB every time to be honest.
Noddytvr,
Did this request come by way of Section 172 of The Road Traffic Act, requesting the registered owner of a vehicle to submit the driver details at the time of an alleged offence?
I fail to see how they are going to enforce this law. With speeding cases they have the threat of photographic evidence be it static or recorded. Is plod going to wear a camera on his head to capture an alleged offence?
The same applies to the smoking in public place legislation, I fail to see how the law will be enforced. PACE give strict guide lines to officers.
I agree with the smoking legislation and the use of a mobile phone whilst driving law but can foresee major problems on enforcement, the use of civilian officers and perjury by those who choose to be a prat in uniform.
Did this request come by way of Section 172 of The Road Traffic Act, requesting the registered owner of a vehicle to submit the driver details at the time of an alleged offence?
I fail to see how they are going to enforce this law. With speeding cases they have the threat of photographic evidence be it static or recorded. Is plod going to wear a camera on his head to capture an alleged offence?
The same applies to the smoking in public place legislation, I fail to see how the law will be enforced. PACE give strict guide lines to officers.
I agree with the smoking legislation and the use of a mobile phone whilst driving law but can foresee major problems on enforcement, the use of civilian officers and perjury by those who choose to be a prat in uniform.
cen said:
Noddytvr,
Did this request come by way of Section 172 of The Road Traffic Act, requesting the registered owner of a vehicle to submit the driver details at the time of an alleged offence?
I fail to see how they are going to enforce this law. With speeding cases they have the threat of photographic evidence be it static or recorded. Is plod going to wear a camera on his head to capture an alleged offence?
The same applies to the smoking in public place legislation, I fail to see how the law will be enforced. PACE give strict guide lines to officers.
I agree with the smoking legislation and the use of a mobile phone whilst driving law but can foresee major problems on enforcement, the use of civilian officers and perjury by those who choose to be a prat in uniform.
Did this request come by way of Section 172 of The Road Traffic Act, requesting the registered owner of a vehicle to submit the driver details at the time of an alleged offence?
I fail to see how they are going to enforce this law. With speeding cases they have the threat of photographic evidence be it static or recorded. Is plod going to wear a camera on his head to capture an alleged offence?
The same applies to the smoking in public place legislation, I fail to see how the law will be enforced. PACE give strict guide lines to officers.
I agree with the smoking legislation and the use of a mobile phone whilst driving law but can foresee major problems on enforcement, the use of civilian officers and perjury by those who choose to be a prat in uniform.
They may have used the Handy Held scamera .. like they did with the woman und her make-up that time. I think they did her for undue care ... und made biggest PR episode about "how good their scameras are at detecting "thing worse than speeding"
I do not ever condone using these phones whilst driving. To me .. ist just a phone und it has a voice mail. I refuse to be at someone's "beck und call 24/7"
But even so .. ist a scam. They pinging even more at everyone on off chance they are 1 mph above speed limit
und on phone at same time Und nein.. fines should not be means-tested ..
I think I see fairly decent advert for once over this phone issue on the telly in prime time. I think this should be in every advert slot .. along with the two second rule one..drink/drug/Green Cross und amber gambler. Und we should bring back Reginald Molehusband to demonstrate his lack of COAST skills ..und show what he do wrong.. with sarcasm.
Along with a lot of BiBs - all using discretion most professional But
that cost cash .. und that miss Gordon's grasping points! cen said:
Is plod going to wear a camera on his head to capture an alleged offence?
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article685051.ece
cen said:
I fail to see how they are going to enforce this law. With speeding cases they have the threat of photographic evidence be it static or recorded. Is plod going to wear a camera on his head to capture an alleged offence?
Why do they need photographic evidence? Do they photograph all offences. BiB just stands up in court and says I saw him do it. The system is based on the BiB giving unbiased accurate evidence. That why it is critical that goverence is in place to ensure this and why "bad apples" need to identified, punished and evicted from the force. Bib don't just have to be squeaky clean they need to be seen to be squeaky clean. Failure to do so undermines the whole principle. Unfortunetly, I fear that is what is happening.
bluepolarbear said:
cen said:
I fail to see how they are going to enforce this law. With speeding cases they have the threat of photographic evidence be it static or recorded. Is plod going to wear a camera on his head to capture an alleged offence?
Why do they need photographic evidence? Do they photograph all offences. BiB just stands up in court and says I saw him do it. The system is based on the BiB giving unbiased accurate evidence. ...
bluepolarbear said:
cen said:
I fail to see how they are going to enforce this law. With speeding cases they have the threat of photographic evidence be it static or recorded. Is plod going to wear a camera on his head to capture an alleged offence?
Why do they need photographic evidence? Do they photograph all offences. BiB just stands up in court and says I saw him do it. The system is based on the BiB giving unbiased accurate evidence. That why it is critical that goverence is in place to ensure this and why "bad apples" need to identified, punished and evicted from the force. Bib don't just have to be squeaky clean they need to be seen to be squeaky clean. Failure to do so undermines the whole principle. Unfortunetly, I fear that is what is happening.
I agree however, you fear that is what is happening. I have first hand experiance of seeing it happen. This however, is not across the board. I believe the larger percentage of Police Officers are genuine and seek to promote justice. The problem exists from the more senior officers and those advising such as the, association of chief police officers. In my case a fellow officer is willing to testify against a fellow officer of his somewhat dishonest personality. I was stopped for allegedly exceeding the speed limit, when I challenged his method of detection he dropped the allegation and spouted anyway, you were not wearing a seat belt. I allways wear a seat belt and did so at the time of the fixed penalty being issued.
Dicey said in 'The Rule of Law' All men are equal in the eyes of the law. Therefore, muppets on the mag benches should not be taking the officers word for granted.
I have for most of my life moved in a social circle that enjoyed the company of many police officers. All were personal friends. Yes I heard a few stories but then we all have stories to tell and none of us are infallable. I trusted the integrity of my friends from the force and stil do but there are bad apples.
streaky said:
bluepolarbear said:
cen said:
I fail to see how they are going to enforce this law. With speeding cases they have the threat of photographic evidence be it static or recorded. Is plod going to wear a camera on his head to capture an alleged offence?
Why do they need photographic evidence? Do they photograph all offences. BiB just stands up in court and says I saw him do it. The system is based on the BiB giving unbiased accurate evidence. ...
Can the same evidence from a service provider clarify if a bluetooth or another form of handsfree unit was being used. That evidence would be ambiguous.
cen said:
streaky said:
bluepolarbear said:
cen said:
I fail to see how they are going to enforce this law. With speeding cases they have the threat of photographic evidence be it static or recorded. Is plod going to wear a camera on his head to capture an alleged offence?
Why do they need photographic evidence? Do they photograph all offences. BiB just stands up in court and says I saw him do it. The system is based on the BiB giving unbiased accurate evidence. ...
Can the same evidence from a service provider clarify if a bluetooth or another form of handsfree unit was being used. That evidence would be ambiguous.
What service provider? I don't own a phone. You prove that I do.
Why do we need a law that bans you from driving whilst holding a phone, surely dangerous driving or driving without due care and attention already provides opportunity for prosecution if the driver is in fact driving in a dangerous manner due to the fact they are on the phone.
If someone is driving on the phone, and is causing no danger to anyone? why the law?
-
Stuar
If someone is driving on the phone, and is causing no danger to anyone? why the law?
-
Stuar
The use of cameras to enforce this really boils my piss
how can you tell the difference between someone scratching their ear and some-one on the phone?
I do believe that being on a hand held phone is a distraction and should be illegal
my rant is on innocent people being copped for something they did not do
I have seen evidence of this first hand where a cop pulled an innocent over and started remonstrating with this guy for being on the phone
When the mop showed him his phone in his briefcase in the boot he let him go
however in the meantime I would watch the old ear scratching if you are nearplod/near cameras or whatever....
ridiculous situation ...when can we sensible about these things ?
how can you tell the difference between someone scratching their ear and some-one on the phone?
I do believe that being on a hand held phone is a distraction and should be illegal
my rant is on innocent people being copped for something they did not do
I have seen evidence of this first hand where a cop pulled an innocent over and started remonstrating with this guy for being on the phone
When the mop showed him his phone in his briefcase in the boot he let him go
however in the meantime I would watch the old ear scratching if you are nearplod/near cameras or whatever....
ridiculous situation ...when can we sensible about these things ?
sstein said:
Why do we need a law that bans you from driving whilst holding a phone, surely dangerous driving or driving without due care and attention already provides opportunity for prosecution if the driver is in fact driving in a dangerous manner due to the fact they are on the phone.
If someone is driving on the phone, and is causing no danger to anyone? why the law?
-
Stuar
If someone is driving on the phone, and is causing no danger to anyone? why the law?
-
Stuar
To stop the activity that increases potential of danger before actual danger becomes present.
It has been decreed as an unacceptable risk activity whilst driving, through the legislation.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff