Insurers to deny insurance for CU80
Discussion
Seems a bit dodgy to be honest.
Unlike speeding which is unequivocal and is often backed up by a Home Office approved device, being caught "using a mobile" when you could just as easily have had your head resting on your hand, or some other non-mobile device at your ear (perfectly legal), these cases seem to swing entirely on the evidence of an officer's statement, and fighting it in court basically amounts to "I disagree with this implicitly trusted Police officer's statement"
You don't have to be making a call to be using a device capable of an interactive communication function, you could just be pressing buttons, or playing a game, or have even drafted a txt and then deleted it. None of these things would leave any trace that would condemn or exonerate you.
The Law is also (imo) not specific enough by what is meant by "driving". Most otherwise law-abiding people would probably assume "driving" to mean "car in motion". Most people would, I'd wager, think it safe to take a call (or even just pick up a phone - also completes the offence) whilst they are motionless at traffic lights.
That being said I don't really know how you can reconcile a Law like this when mobile phones nowadays are capable of so much more than just making calls, including tasks that are arguably far more distracting than a phone call (e.g. games). It seems unfair however to unduely punish people for this sort of thing when the Law can't be specific enough, nor the evidence against you immutable.
Unlike speeding which is unequivocal and is often backed up by a Home Office approved device, being caught "using a mobile" when you could just as easily have had your head resting on your hand, or some other non-mobile device at your ear (perfectly legal), these cases seem to swing entirely on the evidence of an officer's statement, and fighting it in court basically amounts to "I disagree with this implicitly trusted Police officer's statement"
You don't have to be making a call to be using a device capable of an interactive communication function, you could just be pressing buttons, or playing a game, or have even drafted a txt and then deleted it. None of these things would leave any trace that would condemn or exonerate you.
The Law is also (imo) not specific enough by what is meant by "driving". Most otherwise law-abiding people would probably assume "driving" to mean "car in motion". Most people would, I'd wager, think it safe to take a call (or even just pick up a phone - also completes the offence) whilst they are motionless at traffic lights.
That being said I don't really know how you can reconcile a Law like this when mobile phones nowadays are capable of so much more than just making calls, including tasks that are arguably far more distracting than a phone call (e.g. games). It seems unfair however to unduely punish people for this sort of thing when the Law can't be specific enough, nor the evidence against you immutable.
FellowPazzini said:
It does but it is still surprisingly a major problem. I see people on the phone all the time, how they haven't got the idea of it all yet is beyond belief.
My personal opinion is that it is a ludicrous law to begin with. I also see hundreds of people on the phone in their cars every single day in the city centre of Birmingham and am yet to see a single one of them crash into anyone or anything.Maybe they are willing to take the chance given that a) they are probably as safe as if they weren't on the phone and b) there are no police around to enforce the rule anyway.
I drove for years with my phone permanently glued to my ear and had no problems whatsoever. Bluetooth on modern cars is the only reason I still don't.
FellowPazzini said:
It does but it is still surprisingly a major problem. I see people on the phone all the time, how they haven't got the idea of it all yet is beyond belief.
You see people on the phone all the time whilst driving...Do you see people crashing all the time whilst driving?
(I'm just messing, I know its wrong)
Durzel said:
That being said I don't really know how you can reconcile a Law like this when mobile phones nowadays are capable of so much more than just making calls, including tasks that are arguably far more distracting than a phone call (e.g. games). It seems unfair however to unduely punish people for this sort of thing when the Law can't be specific enough, nor the evidence against you immutable.
I'm sorry, I don't "get" your post at all. Are you suggesting that it should be OK for me to play Angry Birds at the traffic lights?Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff