Mobile Phone use in a car
Discussion
JmatthewB said:
I very rarely use a sat-nav for directions, as they often try to be too clever and take you down unsuitable roads or 'rat-running'. I prefer to plan my route on Google maps before my journey and remember the junction number or roads I need to turn down or just simply follow road signs.
We now have a generation who have awful geography and don't know where anywhere is because they just mindlessly follow directions on their phones.
I'm with you and I do similar.We now have a generation who have awful geography and don't know where anywhere is because they just mindlessly follow directions on their phones.
When I mentioned once to someone that I very rarely use my satnav, they asked why and I replied that it's because I know where I'm going!
SS2. said:
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.
The relevance is that the "distinction in function" seems to be the defining concept used for the definition of a road in that case, and the reason why it was successfully argued that a car park is not a road. 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
For the case you quoted to be relevant you'd have to argue that a drive through is a car park. As you are not allowed to park cars in a drive through I cant see how it could be reasonable to describe a drive through as a car park. A drive through is often accessed through a car park but it is distinct from a car park in its function, almost always physically separated from the car park and fails every one of the tests used to argue that a car park is not a road in the snip you quoted.
The quoted case doesn't require to be specific to drive-throughs.
It is relevant because it demonstrates that just because 1) a place is public and 2) it is a place which allows vehicular access, it doesn't in itself make it a road.
And your argument about not being able to park in the zone of the drive-through doesn't hold any water. You can't park in the throughway of a car park, but that doesn't make it a road.
It is relevant because it demonstrates that just because 1) a place is public and 2) it is a place which allows vehicular access, it doesn't in itself make it a road.
And your argument about not being able to park in the zone of the drive-through doesn't hold any water. You can't park in the throughway of a car park, but that doesn't make it a road.
SaintsPaul said:
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.
If a phone is in a cradle, it is clearly not held in the hand!
SS2. said:
The quoted case doesn't require to be specific to drive-throughs.
It is relevant because it demonstrates that just because 1) a place is public and 2) it is a place which allows vehicular access, it doesn't in itself make it a road.
It does demonstrate that 1&2 alone are not enough to define something as a road, but that alone doesn't exclude a drive through from being a road. It is relevant because it demonstrates that just because 1) a place is public and 2) it is a place which allows vehicular access, it doesn't in itself make it a road.
SS2. said:
And your argument about not being able to park in the zone of the drive-through doesn't hold any water. You can't park in the throughway of a car park, but that doesn't make it a road.
There are significant differences between a throughway of a car park and a drive through. Your quoted text also says that "circumstances can occur where an area of land which can be reasonably described as a car park could qualify as a road". So even if the drive through can reasonably be described as a car park, which is questionable, that's still no guarantee that it's not one of the exceptional circumstances where a car park is a road.The case you quoted does not prove that use of a phone in a drive through is legal. As I understand the way the law works if there are differences between case law and the case in question the previous cases would be examined to see how the arguments they contain apply to the current case. In the case of a drive through the arguments made in that case don't apply.
I suppose ultimately until it's tested (or clarified in law as a result of the consultation) it's all just opinion. Personally I would assign more weight to the opinion of the DfT than yours.
Wow you 2 could argue with a sign post.
Firstly if it is distracting and dangerous then don't do it.
Secondly you would both certainly fail the so called attitude test and rightly be given a ticket. You of course would choose your day in court where a less informed Magistrate and an equally badly informed Clerk would hand down points and a fine. You could of course appeal or you could be less of a muppet for 39.7 seconds.
Firstly if it is distracting and dangerous then don't do it.
Secondly you would both certainly fail the so called attitude test and rightly be given a ticket. You of course would choose your day in court where a less informed Magistrate and an equally badly informed Clerk would hand down points and a fine. You could of course appeal or you could be less of a muppet for 39.7 seconds.
L_G said:
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 handsfreeU 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.
surveyor said:
Yet they happily schedule noisy overnight works 3 nights in a row with no regard for what local neighbours must do during the day.
In terms of saving lives I'd suggest they still have bigger problems than people taking calls on hands free devices Where I used to live the road going past the front of my then house was used as a diversion if the A14 was closed overnight which wasn't particularly conducive to a restful night.
JmatthewB said:
I very rarely use a sat-nav for directions, as they often try to be too clever and take you down unsuitable roads or 'rat-running'. I prefer to plan my route on Google maps before my journey and remember the junction number or roads I need to turn down or just simply follow road signs.
We now have a generation who have awful geography and don't know where anywhere is because they just mindlessly follow directions on their phones.
I plan route, see what Google says about the traffic, and then put my phone in a cradle with Google running sat nav. But only with alerts. We now have a generation who have awful geography and don't know where anywhere is because they just mindlessly follow directions on their phones.
Then ignore it, unless it starts telling me (usually 5 mins too late) that the M6 is now blocked.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff