ST24MK2

Yes i know its illegal and you can kill people, youll get points and fine but what i mean here is texting whilst driving, or using facebook etc

I suppose some won't admit to it but i kind of feel texting and driving is far worse than being on the phone and driving, your eyes are more off the road obviously when texting.

Witnessed a nasty smash earlier because some guy in a astra rear ended a parked at the side of the road 11 reg VW estate thing, wrote both cars off, he had to be cut out of the astra,

I only stopped because the copper signalled me to for the recovery truck to get into position and i had my phone on my lap as i use it for playing music through but to change track you press the button on the side, he looked in and told me he suggests i take it off my lap as thats why the bloke in front of me is now being cut from his car...

Sobering thought.

Caprigirl

I got 3 points for using my Iphone as an MP3 in the car

But I agree , txt is worse than chatting on phone while driving

Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

I presume they witnessed you changing a track on the iphone and used that to do you under the phone law???

Although that is clearly a very grey area of the law. A phone is not just a phone these days, its a camera, mp3, camcorder etc etc.

using your car radio, sipping a drink etc are all classified under the careless driving legislation but the onus is on the copper to prove that the act you performed constituted careless driving and that is dependant on the exact circumstances.

Ie a careless driving charge for changing the radio station on a clear open road or stationary would clearly get thrown out of court. As would changing radio on steering wheel controls as there is no significant impairment and therefore cannot be considered your driving standards fell below the required level.

Its a grey area that needs resolvng under law as to what constitutes a phone and what does not.

Many phones are dual function devices. many car stereo systems are dual function devices including phone.....

yet a iphone being touched is considered a different offence to touching your car phone button on a car stereo....

inconsistancy that needs to be rectified really.

If a phone is defined as a device which can make a phone call, then surely a car being a device, when having a built in car phone system, the whole car being one item, could under that principle be defined as a phone and therefore pushing any button or control in a moving car could be construed as using a phone while driving

clearly that would be insane and be thrown out, yet its exactly the same principle as convicting you of using your phone when you were using an MP3 function on a device that can also make phone calls....

ie the "correct" offence they should have charged you with was careless driving which carries a higher burden of proof (and hence why they went for an almost indefensible FPN for using a phone as careless would unlikely have stuck if you wernt being careless...).

Rick Astley

In theory regardless of chosen function you are still holding the device and therefore guilty of using it.

stevieturbo

Whilst very flawed, that is how they view it.

In order to touch your handset, it needs to be fixed into a cradle in the car. It then becomes part of the vehicle so they cannot prosecute in the same way.

Although half the time I think they make prosecutions up because it's an almost guaranteed win for them.

Someday I'll drive about with a small piece of black wood in my hand and in car CCTV, just to prove so many of them are lying cunts and accuse then prosecute people of things with no real evidence. Just because they know it requires them to buy their defence.

24vcossiemat

its not just mobile phones either, me and my work colleague repo'd a car about a year back, it was a hostile job, we sped off with the motor, both me and him had 2 way radio's.. a few mile up the road i got stopped, they claimed it was the same law as mobile's.. my argument was though, i had it clipped on my collar.. i could see his point though, to work it i had to take my hands off the wheel.. this then makes me think why don't people get done for smoking at the wheel??? you still have to take ya hands off the wheel.. odd though cus you have to do the same when changing gear!!!!!!

stevieturbo

The law is NOT the same as 2 way radios, yet another cop who hasnt a clue about the law. If it was illegal, then of course cops wouldnt be allowed to use their 2 way radios in the car, or taxi drivers, ambulance drivers etc.

Cops who dont know the law and try to abuse the public like that should be reported and sacked. Isnt it their job to know the law ?

24vcossiemat

yes stevie it is.. i never got fined for it though, whether he knew he couldn't do anything i don't know, i just assumed it was the same law.. lets be honest about police, how many times do you see them doing 130 up the motorway without blue's an two's. they a law unto themselves mate

stevieturbo

Ive said it many times. Cops who cannot write accurate reports, make false statements or just plain dont have a clue about the law should be sacked. Incompetence in other jobs isnt usually tolerated ?

There is one cop in particular on a local forum here who eats breathes and shites the law, then eats it again.. Yet he seems to think cops there can make all sorts of mistakes and errors simply because they are only human, yet we get prosecuted regardless.
Wrong names, dates, times, registrations etc etc on police forms and statements and doesnt matter what mistakes they make, we still have to accept it.

IMO if they cant do basic tasks like reading and writing accurately, how the fuck could anything they ever say be believed or trusted ??

It really is a joke, and not a funny one !

Rick Astley

Incorrect. 2 way radio's do not fall under that.

Camel Fiddler

Wrong. The buses I drive all have a 2 way radio fitted which we use to contact our traffic supervisors and them us. They're there to stop the need for us to pull over whenever a message needs passed and I'm sure if it was gonna be dangerous, it would be on a 11+ tonne bus with upto 70 people on. The police have told us we are fine to use them as they are classified differently and exempt from that part of the law.

Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

1. No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using -

* 1. a hand-held mobile telephone; or
* 2. a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).

4. A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data.

6. For the purposes of this regulation -

* 1. a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function;

* 3. "interactive communication function" includes the following:
o i. sending or receiving oral or written messages;
o ii. sending or receiving facsimile documents;
o iii. sending or receiving still or moving images; and
o iv. providing access to the internet;


So technically you could interpret the law in two ways. according to paragraph 4, a modern smart phone is a phone whatever you do.

or

a smart phone is only a phone under the meaning of the legislation while the act of interactive communication according to section 6-3 is taking place.

personally from my understanding of english, the second meaning is more grammatically correct.

although there is clearly room for ambiguity.

also there are devices that are ambigious. eg an ipad/tablet. some such tablets have no sim card and therefore no direct internet connection yet can in theory be connected via wifi.

then in theory any MP3 player/ ipod can send and recieve images/video/documents when connected to a computer/good car stereo. so does that make all MP3 players a phone under the legislation???

a lot of grey areas.

Personally from what ive seen even the police know fuck all about it when it comes to smart phones etc.

And i doubt the legislation has been around long enough to be challenged in higher level courts to set a legal precedant.
theyd probably still win

twoblacklines

What I dont get is they do you if its even switched on, so if your using an iphone for satnav, you get points, but if you use a tom tom, you dont.

Makes absolutely no sense especially as they can check if your texting or phoning by checking with your phone company!

I think its just easy money!

twoblacklines

4. also covers tomtoms then ? Its an interactive device that sends your signal to a satallite that sends information back to the phone

Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

In theory true about Satnavs as you have to down load maps.

however if you bought a satnav preloaded with maps you could argue it is not sending or recieving images nor has it been connected to the internet.

Recieving a GPS signal alone doesnt fit the definition in that legislation.

S3an

I think people who smoke while driving are just as bad,Probably just as dangerous.Plus see many people smoking in cars and they have children in there aswell. Hate it when people dicard their cigarettes out of the window, morons.

Elwood

Our force has dictated that the Motorola terminals issued to each officer do fall under the legislation posted above, as they are capable of some of the functions to meet the criteria of handheld device.

So all that happens is the passenger does the radio work, and then if I need to talk, I'll use the car set which doesn't count and is handsfree.

Warren - the law is pretty straightforward to be honest. Smartphones, ipads, sat navs etc, are all devices which shouldn't be used, as taking the drivers attention away from the road will pretty much result in an FPN / Crash / Prosecution etc.

stevieturbo

Satnav is affixed to the car. It isnt a handheld device. Chances are if you were using it as a handheld device whilst driving, clearly you would be driving without proper due care etc etc and could easily be prosecuted.

When it's affixed to the car, less chance of you getting done. Same applies to a phone affixed into a cradle.

And it isnt that the legislation hasnt been around long enough to be challenged. It's just someone rich enough to afford to it yet, hasnt been charged with the offence.

Hell, cops over here were even doing people parked in laybays for using their phone because the engine was running !!
What next, doing people for eating a carry out whilst sitting in the car with the engine running ?

Eventually after this was discovered on the radio, and it had happened multiple people were the convictions reversed or quashed. Not sure how that works with points, or possible hardship suffered as a result of those points. I highly doubt they would compensate you for their sheer incompetence and stupidity

andrewg

you can be charged for doing almost anything while driving
like eating an apple you would be charged with Careless Driving

but they now have seperate charge for
Driving whilst Using a Mobile Phone
surely you need to be in a call actually using it as a mobile phone

if you used it as mp3 player the charge should be careless driving?


jimmy carr got off with it saying he thought of a joke and was using it as a dictaphone?

BRAMMER

iTrader: (23)

I have often taken a call whilst out of the vehicle then put on loud speaker and put on the dash then drive - the phone goes off automatically when the call ends so i don't actually touch the phone whilst driving - although i am talking on the phone is that illegal or would they class that as hands free?

andrewg

who knows!!

i was charged with, driving whilst using mobile phone,

i would think if i was holding it and not on a call it would be careless
i will know the outcome in couple of months!

i think if its coming throu the car speakers its then classed as a car phone which is ok thou if you are in an accident it will be used against you

Cragrat

iTrader: (4)

after the accident that ended up with my cousin now being a quadraplegic not able to speak because he was on the phone arguing with his ex i`ve not realy got a high opinion of people using phones whilst driving

boils my piss when i see some rich tosspot driving a car that cost 2 or 2 times what i earn a year on the phone and on the phone yet are too tight to pay for a hands free kit

stevieturbo

No harm, but there is a difference between a brief call, or a civilized phone conversation than a heated argument. Whether standing, driving, whatever.

Even having an argument with a passenger could be considered dangerous driving, as your concentration is anywhere but driving.

Blame the argument first, and then perhaps the fact he was using the phone. The argument is far more of a distraction.

1.9 xr2 on 40's

if you have a new car you have a phone button, very good i have it in me van but they could prob ticket me for it as im takin the eyes off the road to see where the button is and thus no care or attention is put to the rd for that second

Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

youve contradicted yourself there as the polices own "wireless radios" have been dictated by YOUR force as a "handheld device".

yet i bet thats not nationally recognised and certainly isnt written into the legislation i qouted above.

and thats the point. its a national law so it should be implemented identically across the country.

and yes i agree all those devices you say shouldnt be used, BUT and its a very important BUT; careless driving/dangerous driving/construction and use offences are very different offences to the specific mobile phone offence. They all have different burdens of proof to convict, different fines and punnishments. You cant just pick and choose which law to use randomly.
exactly my point andrew. now im no english language expert but the qouted legislation is far from clear when it comes to modern multimedia devices.

The mobile phone law was designed to make it easier to prosecute that specific offence as previously it came under careless driving etc with stiffer burdens of proof.

A simple FPN with points is cheap to administer and deal with and very few are contested, where as many cases of careless driving and all cases of dangerous driving will end up in an expensive court case with cops off the job to give evidence, a gravy train of expensive lawyers plus the obvious costs of running a court.

hence a FPN is the cheap effective option.

I dont have a problem with them doing that.

BUT the wording of the law is not clear and thats from simply readng the text.

phones and mobile devices have come on massively in the last 8 years since the laws were first written and clearly need clarification for new devices.

Its the inconsistancys in the law that are the unacceptable part of it.

Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

you have to briefly take your eyes off the road to operate most auxialary vehicle controls, eg heated screens, fog lights, heating controls, hazard switch etc.

You take eyes off road to check mirrors etc....

andrewg

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pict...e-driving.html