Be careful with your hands ...
Discussion
Here's an odd story I heard secondhand (from Mrs. LQ) this evening. Having made that qualification I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve the content at all.
My Brother-in-law was stopped a few days ago and given a £30 fixed penalty for using a phone while driving despite the fact that he had not used one and could prove it easily.
He had noticed a police car behind him and it following him for some time before turning on the lights and pulling him.
Reportedly the BIB who approached him seemed to have an attitude problem and accused him of using a phone while on the move (he denied it) with the exchange ending up as "if I say you were using your phone you were and that's the end of it."
Now in fact he had not made or taken a call for about 2 hours but the BiB was not interested in anything except issued the FPN. Oh, and going through all the BS about identification right down to "what's your mother's maiden name". Frightening what technology can do in the wrong hands.
B-i-L assumes that the only reason they pulled him at all was that he has recently decided to grow his hair and sideburns after several years of severe crop and the strange feeling means he has fallen into the habit of playing with the growing hair on the side of his head - as one might. Not the sort of thing one would think about really when driving along. "There's a police car behind me and really need to scratch an itch but I had better not in case they think I am using a phone and decide to pull me and issue an FPN." Would that occur to you?
As told the tale is curious and very sad. I thought these things only happened in the Eastern Bloc countries and Africa for purposes of personal financial gain rather than the affluent south of England on behalf of those charged with upholding the law.
The moral of the story seems to be to keep your hands on the wheel at all times. If then stopped make sure you have an operational voice recorder and use it if the person stopping you has any sort of attitude problem. Always presume that anyone with the sort of attitude problem that suggests lack of training may not be who they say they are OR, if indeed they are so empowered, may be about to sacrifice their career through misjudgement and you would be doing them a favour by pointing out the re-training need to their managers.
Maybe the apocryphal stories of points for tickets issued and one or another form of 'bonus' for reaching a target is indeed being rolled out through the forces. What sad and misguided times we live in if that is the case.
Anyone else had a similar experience?
My Brother-in-law was stopped a few days ago and given a £30 fixed penalty for using a phone while driving despite the fact that he had not used one and could prove it easily.
He had noticed a police car behind him and it following him for some time before turning on the lights and pulling him.
Reportedly the BIB who approached him seemed to have an attitude problem and accused him of using a phone while on the move (he denied it) with the exchange ending up as "if I say you were using your phone you were and that's the end of it."
Now in fact he had not made or taken a call for about 2 hours but the BiB was not interested in anything except issued the FPN. Oh, and going through all the BS about identification right down to "what's your mother's maiden name". Frightening what technology can do in the wrong hands.
B-i-L assumes that the only reason they pulled him at all was that he has recently decided to grow his hair and sideburns after several years of severe crop and the strange feeling means he has fallen into the habit of playing with the growing hair on the side of his head - as one might. Not the sort of thing one would think about really when driving along. "There's a police car behind me and really need to scratch an itch but I had better not in case they think I am using a phone and decide to pull me and issue an FPN." Would that occur to you?
As told the tale is curious and very sad. I thought these things only happened in the Eastern Bloc countries and Africa for purposes of personal financial gain rather than the affluent south of England on behalf of those charged with upholding the law.
The moral of the story seems to be to keep your hands on the wheel at all times. If then stopped make sure you have an operational voice recorder and use it if the person stopping you has any sort of attitude problem. Always presume that anyone with the sort of attitude problem that suggests lack of training may not be who they say they are OR, if indeed they are so empowered, may be about to sacrifice their career through misjudgement and you would be doing them a favour by pointing out the re-training need to their managers.
Maybe the apocryphal stories of points for tickets issued and one or another form of 'bonus' for reaching a target is indeed being rolled out through the forces. What sad and misguided times we live in if that is the case.
Anyone else had a similar experience?
Zod said:
If he wasn't using his phone, he can easily prove it with the records from his phone operator.
He tried to show the records of incoming and outgoing calls recorded on the phone to the plod involved.
Plod was not interested. Hence the attitude comments and the rest.
The issue then becomes - "Is it worth it for 30 quid?". Probably not .... until it happens again or you find the PNC now has you and your car flagged as 'of interest' and you start to get more attention that you could possibly deserve.
Or is such a development impossible?
matchless said:
surely it's up to the authorities to prove he is guily NOT the other way round
Which is exactly what Mrs. LQ said (will she never learn?) but the FPN systems, traffic and non-traffic, seem to assume guilt in the same way that parking tickets do. I think legally they are exempt from proof of guilt on a technicality because they are penalty notices rather than full offences - or something like that. Hence the task can be delegated to councils and subcontracted to third parties for 'enforcement' by people with, sometimes, suspect credentials and motives.
I'm sure someone will be able to post a link which outlines these concepts much more thoroughly than I can.
I had a very similar situation last year where i was accused... well 'told' that I had jumped a red light whilst turning right at a box junction crossroads. Whilst the officers in the panda car had no doubt that when I left the junction the lights had changed, what they failed to consider or notice was that I had entered the junction with the lights on green and waited for a gap in the traffic for about ten seconds...
I politely explained the situation which the leading officer pondered for a second before informing me that this offence would be dealt with with a three point and £60 fine. I politely turned down this offer and due to my innocence would contest the allogations in court. The response from this was the officers spending a good few minutes checking my car and documents for faults before informing me that I would be also be charged with the endorsable offences of not informing the DVLA of my change of address for my V5 and licence. They did this with the full knowledge that I had moved house no more then two weeks previously.
I hoped it had gone away until six months later three fabricated statements arrived on my doorstep telling me how I they had seen me jump the lights when the were on red for at least 6 seconds and vehilces had to brake and swerve to take evasive action.
I was found not guilty in court where I represented myself. Whilst I cannot get back the countless hours I spent taking photos of the scene and planning how I would disprove the allogation, I did have the pleasure of cross examining each officer and exposing each of them on the witness stand. The visiting judge who oversaw the case stated that he would take no further action against the officers however.
So... as well as being careful with your hands, dont be young and drive a nice car, or there could be countless offences coming your way if you happen to catch the eye of *some* law enforcers.
(I must add this is my personal experience. My personal experience of almost every other police officers has been completely the opposite. There are bad eggs in every job, and whilst the police are open to most scrutiny this does not discount the honest and fair job the rest carry out almost thanklessly.)
I politely explained the situation which the leading officer pondered for a second before informing me that this offence would be dealt with with a three point and £60 fine. I politely turned down this offer and due to my innocence would contest the allogations in court. The response from this was the officers spending a good few minutes checking my car and documents for faults before informing me that I would be also be charged with the endorsable offences of not informing the DVLA of my change of address for my V5 and licence. They did this with the full knowledge that I had moved house no more then two weeks previously.
I hoped it had gone away until six months later three fabricated statements arrived on my doorstep telling me how I they had seen me jump the lights when the were on red for at least 6 seconds and vehilces had to brake and swerve to take evasive action.
I was found not guilty in court where I represented myself. Whilst I cannot get back the countless hours I spent taking photos of the scene and planning how I would disprove the allogation, I did have the pleasure of cross examining each officer and exposing each of them on the witness stand. The visiting judge who oversaw the case stated that he would take no further action against the officers however.
So... as well as being careful with your hands, dont be young and drive a nice car, or there could be countless offences coming your way if you happen to catch the eye of *some* law enforcers.
(I must add this is my personal experience. My personal experience of almost every other police officers has been completely the opposite. There are bad eggs in every job, and whilst the police are open to most scrutiny this does not discount the honest and fair job the rest carry out almost thanklessly.)
BliarOut said:
Mobile phone records will easily prove he wasn't on it.
(Devil's advocate) It proves that he wasn't using the phone whose records are being shown, but how are they to know which phone was being used at the time?
Obviously the only thing you can do is show the records (if they exist) and swear under oath that you weren't using it or any other phone at the time.
Gareth
g_attrill said:
Mobile phone records will easily prove he wasn't on it.
(Devil's advocate) It proves that he wasn't using the phone whose records are being shown, but how are they to know which phone was being used at the time?
Obviously the only thing you can do is show the records (if they exist) and swear under oath that you weren't using it or any other phone at the time.
Gareth
That's a good point. And of course the definition of 'using' is, I suspect, vague enough to cover just about anything. Possibly just handling a phone would be enough.
On the other hands if one also carried a small radio comms device I believe they are exempt? If not there is as I recall some sort of device - CB perhaps? - which is exempt.
So one defence, whether or not the original accusation was reasonable, might be to admit to holding something which is NOT disallowed. (whether one was or not ...).
Of course if the officer (or perhaps soon - Warden, Council Official or subcontracted street cleaner) had a mind to they might find powers for prosecution for lack of control of the vehicle or something.
But at least one might expect this to be judged before a court. Until Falconer re-writes all the laws of course.
Naturall
BliarOut said:
Mobile phone records will easily prove he wasn't on it.
That is providing the B i l provides details of all the mobile phones he has!
Failing to provide the phone details subject to the alleged offence would be the obvious alibi for such an offence. I have 2 phones There is nothing to stop me disclosing the details of the phone I wasn't using at the time and then providing that phone number as the defence.
I doubt the officer asked for the number of the phone being used, examined the phone or tested the number by calling it.
Different phones on different networks! That would take an awful lot of investigation and many R.I.P.A. forms before and even if another phone could be traced to someone in that situation.
So many ways of getting out of a phone call offence if you have more than one of them
>> Edited by mg6b on Wednesday 1st March 10:04
Surely if it's illegal to use a mobile phone, or to eat etc while driving, then it's logical that it must be illegal to play with your hair.
Simply removing your hands from the wheel while the car is in motion to do something else is more than most peoples brains can cope with - presumeably that's why most Americans drive automatics?
Simply removing your hands from the wheel while the car is in motion to do something else is more than most peoples brains can cope with - presumeably that's why most Americans drive automatics?
deva link said:
Surely if it's illegal to use a mobile phone, or to eat etc while driving, then it's logical that it must be illegal to play with your hair.
Simply removing your hands from the wheel while the car is in motion to do something else is more than most peoples brains can cope with - presumeably that's why most Americans drive automatics?
Im not sure of the logic in that... If your hair is obscuring your vision, surely you cant drive around trying to peer through the gaps!
I wonder if the solution to this is to carry around a mobile voice recorder.
There was a case a while back of a 16 year old in a similar sort of situation ; the Police "Officer" was recorded (on a phone I think) swearing at and being racially abusive (arguably) to this lad and saying he was swearing etc. when the kid was saying stuff along the lines of "what are you on about ? are you mad ?".
I know my little MP3 player can record at the touch of a button for example. In the 99% of cases where trafpol/BiB are straight there's no problem, but if you get a
like this bloke above then you can stuff him (or her).
Found it. www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1619247,00.html
There was a case a while back of a 16 year old in a similar sort of situation ; the Police "Officer" was recorded (on a phone I think) swearing at and being racially abusive (arguably) to this lad and saying he was swearing etc. when the kid was saying stuff along the lines of "what are you on about ? are you mad ?".
I know my little MP3 player can record at the touch of a button for example. In the 99% of cases where trafpol/BiB are straight there's no problem, but if you get a
like this bloke above then you can stuff him (or her). Found it. www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1619247,00.html
autismuk said:
There was a case a while back of a 16 year old in a similar sort of situation ; the Police "Officer" was recorded (on a phone I think) swearing at and being racially abusive (arguably) to this lad and saying he was swearing etc. when the kid was saying stuff along the lines of "what are you on about ? are you mad ?".
I doubt however that this recording would be admissable as evidence, except in allegations of Racism or some other 'thought' crime....
On a similar point, I was pulled a few years ago with a dodgy brakelight (fairy nuff).
Anyway, plod accuses me of not wearing a seatbelt. I expain that I am currently siting in the car, wearing a seatbelt! He then claims that I only put the seatbelt on after I saw the blues light up. It took 10 minutes for me to convince him that I was wearing a seatbelt the whole time. His final response was that it was dark and he couldn't really see properly. Certainly made my bloody boil
Anyway, plod accuses me of not wearing a seatbelt. I expain that I am currently siting in the car, wearing a seatbelt! He then claims that I only put the seatbelt on after I saw the blues light up. It took 10 minutes for me to convince him that I was wearing a seatbelt the whole time. His final response was that it was dark and he couldn't really see properly. Certainly made my bloody boil
Only a suggestion, if you are stopped by BiB and accused of using a mobile when you genuinly haven't, state along with your denial the fact that you intend to contest the offence in court and ask the officer to record in his/her pocket note book the make/model of your phone, the phone number (held on the sim card and NOT phone specific) and then state that it is your intention to use phone records to prove that the phone in your possession (and accused of using, AND the details of which are witnessed by them) was NOT used as they allege.
g_attrill said:
Mobile phone records will easily prove he wasn't on it.
(Devil's advocate) It proves that he wasn't using the phone whose records are being shown, but how are they to know which phone was being used at the time?
Exactly.
XMG5 said:
Only a suggestion, if you are stopped by BiB and accused of using a mobile when you genuinly haven't, state along with your denial the fact that you intend to contest the offence in court and ask the officer to record in his/her pocket note book the make/model of your phone, the phone number (held on the sim card and NOT phone specific) and then state that it is your intention to use phone records to prove that the phone in your possession (and accused of using, AND the details of which are witnessed by them) was NOT used as they allege.
I suspect is the only possible way of absolutely proving you were not using it. But even then, is it not an offense to mearly be holding the thing. It doesn't need to be on.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff