Mobile Phone use in a car

[JmatthewB]

CarCrazyDad said:

What "generation" would that be?

I'm curious if I should be happy or offended !

Most commonly under 35s, so includes most people my age.

My partner is a high school teacher and most of her kids are unable to locate England on a map of the British Isles.

[L_G]

Pit Pony said:

Some years ago, i was doibgva contract at a large factory in Derby.

U was heading home, about 100 miles away on a Thursday night for a long weekend. I was stationary about 250 yards from the car park, and about 1/4 mile from the main entrance to the site.

I had the radio on, and there was a traffic bulletin, telling me the M6 was closed due to an accident. My engine was off due to being in the queue to get off site, so i phoned my wife to tell her I'd be late. Not from a public highway, not at all unsafe. Immediately the bloke in front got out of his car and started hammering on my window telling me I was contravening site rules. Demanding that I turn it off and give him my name and who I worked for.

Now that's proper ballocks isn't it. So unsafe, that he could safely get out of his car in the middle of a road and scream.at someone, who was kind of parked, who just wanted to get home before bedtime.

Indeed, however some employers such as Network Rail have had policies so some time now that people must not make or receive calls in their cars/vans even on handsfree

[Pothole]

L_G said:

Indeed, however some employers such as Network Rail have had policies so some time now that people must not make or receive calls in their cars/vans even on handsfree

British Gas had this policy 10 years ago at least. Call centre agents were instructed to hang up calls from customers who were operating a vehicle while calling, too.

[CarCrazyDad]

JmatthewB said:

Most commonly under 35s, so includes most people my age.

My partner is a high school teacher and most of her kids are unable to locate England on a map of the British Isles.

Interesting, I don't recall an article of an under 35 year old driving into the sea "because my satnav said so!"

As for pointing out England, I don't think the high school (I'm guessing 12-16) should not be able to do that*

Perhaps teaching the kids some Geography would be a good starting point - Your partner being a teacher is in a unique position to advance their learning. I enjoyed learning about the world, and clouds. I remember a lot about clouds.

• edit - Grammar

Edited by CarCrazyDad on Tuesday 22 June 11:41

[donteatpeople]

SS2. said:

donteatpeople said:

SS2. said:

In that case, it's just as well the DoT doesn't prepare, approve or implement road traffic legislation, nor indeed make case law or provide an interpretation of parliament's intention which is relied upon by the judiciary.

Where's your evidence then?

Evidence of what, in particular ?

Evidence that the whole of the UK press, the RAC and the DoT are all wrong and it's legal to use a phone to pay at a drive through.

[SS2.]

donteatpeople said:

SS2. said:

donteatpeople said:

SS2. said:

In that case, it's just as well the DoT doesn't prepare, approve or implement road traffic legislation, nor indeed make case law or provide an interpretation of parliament's intention which is relied upon by the judiciary.

Where's your evidence then?

Evidence of what, in particular ?

Evidence that the whole of the UK press, the RAC and the DoT are all wrong and it's legal to use a phone to pay at a drive through.

Your claim was that all drive-thrus are roads.

I'm saying that claim is incorrect and that its a matter of fact and degree whether a place to which the public has access is a 'road'.

Anyone going to court and relying on a drive-thru not being a road as part of a defence would be better off relying on legislation and established case law than the click bait of the UK press, or the 'opinion' of the RAC & DoT.

[donteatpeople]

SS2. said:

Your claim was that all drive-thrus are roads.

I'm saying that claim is incorrect and that its a matter of fact and degree whether a place to which the public has access is a 'road'.

Anyone going to court and relying on a drive-thru not being a road as part of a defence would be better off relying on legislation and established case law than the click bait of the UK press, or the 'opinion' of the RAC & DoT.

Forget the click bait, you asked for something more official, that has been provided.

In the context of a consultation on a change of the law I'd give the opinion of the DoT a fairly heavy weighting. There's also the CPS referring to dictionary definitions of road, not road maintained by the state, not highway, but "other road to which the public has access".

Which specific legislation exists that would give credibility to the opinion that a drive through is not a road?

[SS2.]

donteatpeople said:

SS2. said:

Your claim was that all drive-thrus are roads.

I'm saying that claim is incorrect and that its a matter of fact and degree whether a place to which the public has access is a 'road'.

Anyone going to court and relying on a drive-thru not being a road as part of a defence would be better off relying on legislation and established case law than the click bait of the UK press, or the 'opinion' of the RAC & DoT.

Forget the click bait, you asked for something more official, that has been provided.

In the context of a consultation on a change of the law I'd give the opinion of the DoT a fairly heavy weighting. There's also the CPS referring to dictionary definitions of road, not road maintained by the state, not highway, but "other road to which the public has access".

Case law trumps the opinion of a some drone at the DoT - in fact, it tramples all over it.

Example:

HoL said:

Clark (A.P.) and Others v. Kato, Smith and General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation PLC, Cutter v. Eagle Star Insurance Company

UKHL 36, [1998] 4 All ER 417, [1998] WLR 1647

<..snip..>

It is important to observe that the consideration of access by the public only arises if the place is a road. It may well be that the public has access to it but that is not enough. As was recognised in Griffin v. Squires [1958] 1 W.L.R. 1106 it has also to be a road. In Oxford v. Austin [1981] R.T.R. 416, 418 Kilner Brown J. referred to a road as "a definable way between two points over which vehicles could pass." I would hesitate to formulate a comprehensive definition whereby a place may be identified as a road, but some guidance should be found by considering its physical character and the function which it exists to serve. One obvious feature of a road as commonly understood is that its physical limits are defined or at least definable. It should always be possible to ascertain the sides of a road or to have them ascertained. Its location should be identifiable as a route or way. It will often have a prepared surface and have been manufactured or constructed. But it may simply have developed by the repeated passage of traffic over the same area of land. It may be continuous, like a circular route, or it may come to a termination, as in the case of a cul-de-sac. A road may run on a single line without diversion or it may have branches. A branch which leads for example to a hotel or some other place of refreshment may qualify as a road, particularly, but by no means exclusively, where it leads into and continues out of the place in question, such as for example the forecourt in Bugge v. Taylor [1941] 1 K.B. 198. I do not find it helpful to use the language of a "through route" beyond recognising that a road should lead from one point to another.

But it is also necessary to consider the function of the place in order to see if it qualifies as a road. Essentially a road serves as a means of access. It leads from one place to another and constitutes a route whereby travellers may move conveniently between the places to which and from which it leads. It is thus a defined or at least a definable way intended to enable those who pass over it to reach a destination. Its precise extent will require to be a matter of detailed decision as matter of fact in the particular circumstances. Lines may require to be drawn to determine the point at which the road ends and the destination has been reached. Where there is a door or a gate the problem may be readily resolved. Where there is no physical point which can be readily identified, then by an exercise of reasonable judgment an imaginary line will have to be drawn to mark the point where it should be held that the road has ended. Whether or not a particular area is or is not a road eventually comes to be a matter of fact. It was in the context of the particular facts in Griffin v. Squires [1958] 1 W.L.R. 1106 that the Court considered that the magistrates had been entitled to hold that a car park was not a road.

In the present case the question is raised whether one or other or both of the car parks qualifies as a road. In the generality of the matter it seems to me that in the ordinary use of language a car park does not so qualify. In character and more especially in function they are distinct. It is of course possible to park on a road, but that does not mean that the road is a car park. Correspondingly one can drive from one point to another over a car park, but that does not mean that the route which has been taken is a road. It is here that the distinction in function between road and car park is of importance. The proper function of a road is to enable movement along it to a destination. Incidentally a vehicle on it may be stationary. One can use a road for parking. The proper function of a car park is to enable vehicles to stand and wait. A car may be driven across it; but that is only incidental to the principal function of parking. A hard shoulder may be seen to form part of a road. A more delicate question could arise with regard to a lay-by, but where it is designed to serve only as a temporary stopping place incidental to the function of the road it may well be correct to treat it as part of the road. While I would accept that circumstances can occur where an area of land which can be reasonably described as a car park could qualify as a road for the purposes of the legislation I consider that such circumstances would be somewhat exceptional.

<..snip..>

[JmatthewB]

CarCrazyDad said:

Interesting, I don't recall an article of an under 35 year old driving into the sea "because my satnav said so!"

As for pointing out England, I don't think the high school (I'm guessing 12-16) should not be able to do that*

Perhaps teaching the kids some Geography would be a good starting point - Your partner being a teacher is in a unique position to advance their learning. I enjoyed learning about the world, and clouds. I remember a lot about clouds.

People young enough to have grown up with the technology don't struggle using it effectively, they have just never had the need to look at a map so are screwed when it comes to basic geography.

I was a 'sad' child that used to look at the road atlas when I was sat in the back of the car, trying to find the places I saw on the sign-posts.

[CarCrazyDad]

JmatthewB said:

People young enough to have grown up with the technology don't struggle using it effectively, they have just never had the need to look at a map so are screwed when it comes to basic geography.

Don't view that as a bad thing.

I don't need to know the ins and outs of mathematical equations if I have access to a calculator.

I don't understand , it's like a constant need to be "better" than the previous generation.

In any event my son knows where he is going much better than me!

[Psycho Warren]

Being able to look at a globe or world map and being able to point out major continents and perhaps your own country is IMO a basic life skill. Much like tying your shoe laces, washing hands after the loo etc.

[JmatthewB]

CarCrazyDad said:

Don't view that as a bad thing.

I don't need to know the ins and outs of mathematical equations if I have access to a calculator.

I don't understand , it's like a constant need to be "better" than the previous generation.

In any event my son knows where he is going much better than me!

In that case then all education is pointless because we can access everything we need to know on our phones.

[CarCrazyDad]

JmatthewB said:

In that case then all education is pointless because we can access everything we need to know on our phones.

I mean - it's getting a bit off topic - but I was taught to know how to find the answer, rather than being taught the answer.

I'm not the smartest but generally I'm very "book wise" so I can read (or research online now more likely) about a topic and generally have some vague idea. So there is some weight regarding general knowledge and destinations, directions and such as you have the world at your finger tips or with a click of a mouse.

Of course a proper education and suitable experience cannot be ignored, but I believe are less critical now.


I think that my generation (older, I guess , I'd class myself as a GenX but my son calls me a Boomer) just loves an opportunity to berate the younger generation.

Tests aren't as hard, they are dumber, we worked harder, they have no difficulties in their life, etc.

I do see generally less common sense and less critical thinking in the younger generation but whose fault is that? It's my fault, and the fault of the other people our age, the parents of these children who've shaped them into the adults they've become.

A lack of common sense is also not privy only to the younger generation. :-)


In any event you mentioned your Partner is a teacher, and her kids didn't know how to point at England on a Map. So a suggestion, why does your partner not do a lesson on Geography and point out where countries are so the kids know?

Edited by CarCrazyDad on Tuesday 22 June 13:46

[donteatpeople]

SS2. said:

donteatpeople said:

SS2. said:

Your claim was that all drive-thrus are roads.

I'm saying that claim is incorrect and that its a matter of fact and degree whether a place to which the public has access is a 'road'.

Anyone going to court and relying on a drive-thru not being a road as part of a defence would be better off relying on legislation and established case law than the click bait of the UK press, or the 'opinion' of the RAC & DoT.

Forget the click bait, you asked for something more official, that has been provided.

In the context of a consultation on a change of the law I'd give the opinion of the DoT a fairly heavy weighting. There's also the CPS referring to dictionary definitions of road, not road maintained by the state, not highway, but "other road to which the public has access".

Case law trumps the opinion of a some drone at the DoT - in fact, it tramples all over it.

Example:

HoL said:

Clark (A.P.) and Others v. Kato, Smith and General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation PLC, Cutter v. Eagle Star Insurance Company

UKHL 36, [1998] 4 All ER 417, [1998] WLR 1647

<..snip..>

It is important to observe that the consideration of access by the public only arises if the place is a road. It may well be that the public has access to it but that is not enough. As was recognised in Griffin v. Squires [1958] 1 W.L.R. 1106 it has also to be a road. In Oxford v. Austin [1981] R.T.R. 416, 418 Kilner Brown J. referred to a road as "a definable way between two points over which vehicles could pass." I would hesitate to formulate a comprehensive definition whereby a place may be identified as a road, but some guidance should be found by considering its physical character and the function which it exists to serve. One obvious feature of a road as commonly understood is that its physical limits are defined or at least definable. It should always be possible to ascertain the sides of a road or to have them ascertained. Its location should be identifiable as a route or way. It will often have a prepared surface and have been manufactured or constructed. But it may simply have developed by the repeated passage of traffic over the same area of land. It may be continuous, like a circular route, or it may come to a termination, as in the case of a cul-de-sac. A road may run on a single line without diversion or it may have branches. A branch which leads for example to a hotel or some other place of refreshment may qualify as a road, particularly, but by no means exclusively, where it leads into and continues out of the place in question, such as for example the forecourt in Bugge v. Taylor [1941] 1 K.B. 198. I do not find it helpful to use the language of a "through route" beyond recognising that a road should lead from one point to another.

But it is also necessary to consider the function of the place in order to see if it qualifies as a road. Essentially a road serves as a means of access. It leads from one place to another and constitutes a route whereby travellers may move conveniently between the places to which and from which it leads. It is thus a defined or at least a definable way intended to enable those who pass over it to reach a destination. Its precise extent will require to be a matter of detailed decision as matter of fact in the particular circumstances. Lines may require to be drawn to determine the point at which the road ends and the destination has been reached. Where there is a door or a gate the problem may be readily resolved. Where there is no physical point which can be readily identified, then by an exercise of reasonable judgment an imaginary line will have to be drawn to mark the point where it should be held that the road has ended. Whether or not a particular area is or is not a road eventually comes to be a matter of fact. It was in the context of the particular facts in Griffin v. Squires [1958] 1 W.L.R. 1106 that the Court considered that the magistrates had been entitled to hold that a car park was not a road.

In the present case the question is raised whether one or other or both of the car parks qualifies as a road. In the generality of the matter it seems to me that in the ordinary use of language a car park does not so qualify. In character and more especially in function they are distinct. It is of course possible to park on a road, but that does not mean that the road is a car park. Correspondingly one can drive from one point to another over a car park, but that does not mean that the route which has been taken is a road. It is here that the distinction in function between road and car park is of importance. The proper function of a road is to enable movement along it to a destination. Incidentally a vehicle on it may be stationary. One can use a road for parking. The proper function of a car park is to enable vehicles to stand and wait. A car may be driven across it; but that is only incidental to the principal function of parking. A hard shoulder may be seen to form part of a road. A more delicate question could arise with regard to a lay-by, but where it is designed to serve only as a temporary stopping place incidental to the function of the road it may well be correct to treat it as part of the road. While I would accept that circumstances can occur where an area of land which can be reasonably described as a car park could qualify as a road for the purposes of the legislation I consider that such circumstances would be somewhat exceptional.

<..snip..>

That would be a good defence for a car park but not a drive through.

The argument there is that the primary purpose of a car park is to park cars in and the primary purpose of a road is for driving, so a car park is not a road.I cant see how you could argue that the primary purpose of a drive through was not driving, it's literally in the name.

A drive through has defined edges, road markings, it's primary purpose is access, it's not a destination. A vehicle may be stationary in a drive through but it's not acceptable to park there, if you need to wait for anything you will be asked to park in a parking bay off of the main route through because the drive though is for driving through and not for parking. Everything in that text seems to confirm that a drive through is a road.

[JmatthewB]

CarCrazyDad said:

In any event you mentioned your Partner is a teacher, and her kids didn't know how to point at England on a Map. So a suggestion, why does your partner not do a lesson on Geography and point out where countries are so the kids know?

She probably wouldn't be the best geography teacher. I remember when we started 'courting' I once took her on a secret weekend away. I got on the M6 SOUTH at Preston and she asked if we were going to the Lake District.

[SS2.]

donteatpeople said:

That would be a good defence for a car park but not a drive through.

The argument there is that the primary purpose of a car park is to park cars in and the primary purpose of a road is for driving, so a car park is not a road.I cant see how you could argue that the primary purpose of a drive through was not driving, it's literally in the name.

A drive through has defined edges, road markings, it's primary purpose is access, it's not a destination. A vehicle may be stationary in a drive through but it's not acceptable to park there, if you need to wait for anything you will be asked to park in a parking bay off of the main route through because the drive though is for driving through and not for parking. Everything in that text seems to confirm that a drive through is a road.

You keep missing the point.

What is the relevance of your references to 'driving' ? You can drive in and through a car-park, but that in itself doesn't make it a road.

Your claim that all drive-throughs are roads is clearly incorrect, however you try to stretch it or make snippets of information fit with your understanding.

If you can't see it (or simply refuse to see it) from either the legislation or from one example of case law (there is plenty), then there's little point in continuing.

Edited by SS2. on Tuesday 22 June 14:10

[SaintsPaul]

I guess if you use Apple CarPlay and touch the info screen to obtain the number and make the call you are breaking the law. Even if the phone is in your pocket ?

[Pothole]

SaintsPaul said:

I guess if you use Apple CarPlay and touch the info screen to obtain the number and make the call you are breaking the law. Even if the phone is in your pocket ?

Why do you guess that?

[SaintsPaul]

Pothole said:

hy do you guess that?

Touching the info screen cannot be any different than touching the screen of a phone that is sat in a cradle? It has been mentioned on here previously about a case in Germany and the VW golf 8 .
I completely agree with not using mobile phones whilst driving but it does seem to be a lack of clarity when it comes to modern technology in cars.

[Mave]

CarCrazyDad said:

I mean - it's getting a bit off topic - but I was taught to know how to find the answer, rather than being taught the answer.

I'm not the smartest but generally I'm very "book wise" so I can read (or research online now more likely) about a topic and generally have some vague idea. So there is some weight regarding general knowledge and destinations, directions and such as you have the world at your finger tips or with a click of a mouse.

Of course a proper education and suitable experience cannot be ignored, but I believe are less critical now.


I think that my generation (older, I guess , I'd class myself as a GenX but my son calls me a Boomer) just loves an opportunity to berate the younger generation.

Tests aren't as hard, they are dumber, we worked harder, they have no difficulties in their life, etc.

I do see generally less common sense and less critical thinking in the younger generation but whose fault is that? It's my fault, and the fault of the other people our age, the parents of these children who've shaped them into the adults they've become.

A lack of common sense is also not privy only to the younger generation. :-)

I agree with your thoughts, particularly the critical thinking bit. As it becomes easier and easier to access "information", so it becomes more and more important to decide if that information is correct, or appropriate.