Safe Speed Forums

Can somebody advise me??
My daughter in law was stopped yesterday by police.
They advised her that she was breaking the law by talking on hands free while driving. She had both hands on the wheel and in full control with her parther and young baby in car.
He told her it was illegal to do this , breathalised her, and then told her she would have 3 points on her license and £60 fine. Telling her to take her documents into police station today.
She could hardly believe this had happened and was very distressed. She suffers from Post Natel depression and became tearful saying she thought she was within the law and would never put herself or young child at risk. The policeman made no attempt to even advise or caution her, but dismissed her and left this young mother to get back behind the wheel of her vehicle distressed and continue to drive.
I would appreciate some feedback on this.
Belladonna

_________________
belladonna
'Wisdom is knowing how little we know'
Socrates

If she had her phone any where other than in a cradle,then she commits the offence,you see lots of people with the earphones in there ears and the phone down in between there legs or places like that. Basically if you have to do more than touch the phone to answer or make a call then it is not hands free.

As for the officer not advising her or cautioning her for this ,he doesnt have to advise her as for the caution do you mean the one thats given when suspected of being involved in a criminal offence or do you mean a caution as dont do it again.

There are always two sides to a story and perhaps your daughter started to cry as do a lot of woman for a variety of reasons,if she did not tell the officer about her post natal depression then he cant be held responsible for being unsympathetic as for all he knew it could have been nerves that caused the tears.

you mention he let her get back behind the wheel even though she suffered from post natal depression and was distressed again if the officer didnt know then it is common for woman to drive upset hopefully they will calm thems elves before moving off.

If she is as bad as you say with her post natal depression then perhaps she should not have been behind the wheel in the first place,and as you say she did have someone with her ie her partner so he could see to the children so no danger there. If no mention of post natal depression to officer then perhaps that was a good thing as he may have sent a report to DVLA asking for licence be suspended until a full medical to show fit to drive was taken as the police have a duty of care to all other road users,think about that i ams ure you would have something to say about that.

I am in no way being unsypathetic to your daughters cause but depending on the circumstances of the hands free then if it is not a total hands free then she should have let partner make / answer call and this would not have happened,if the phone is totally hands free then I suggest she plead not guilty and have her day in court to prove innocence.

Stephen

Sorry, not quite sure I understand this. With the earphones in surely you only have to touch the answer button on the cord so you do not have to even touch the phone to answer a call? Also if you have a phone bluetooth teamed with a sat nav for answering calls why does the phone have to be in a cradle as opposed to a pocket or bag?

I don't use a phone in the car unless I am parked so the above is just curiosity.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

I think that's classed as using the phone, doesn't matter than the headphone is wireless.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/phones ... -cheapest-

Belladonna, you need to get a copy of the legislation. Not peoples recolection of what the papers wrote as many of them write junk. With respect to stephen, the law does not mention cradles. My phone mounted with nothing more than velcro. The law says it must not be hand held.

this page looks useful http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/phones ... -cheapest-

What the law says Road Safety act 2006



I do get very annoyed when police try to invent laws. If they want to do so they should get elected.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

These rules are pethetic whoever made them needs a punch in the gob. Pressing something on a phone is exactly the same as pressing something on the radio.

_________________
Currently undergoing training with the I.A.M.

The law is pathetic as it fails to define what a hand held phone or device is. My phone is both hands free and hand held.

The law does not stop you using a device which is not hand held. If it is held to your ear with elastic bands you can use it including pushing buttons as long as you have proper control of the vehicle

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

But what is the legal interpretation of "hand held". Held in the hand at the time of the alleged offence? Or designed to be operated when held in the hand?

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

"Hand held" means just that - held in the hand irresespective of the designer's intent for the equipment.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Has therer been a definaive ruling on that or is it your untested interpretation?

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Looks like there could be a ruling on it, if the OP's D-in-L takes it to court. From the details as related, it sounds like she's have a pretty good case.

Just because the phone is placed somewhere other than a cradle does not imply that it must be handheld at any point during the call, indeed many handsfree systems incorportate a button to answer/end the call.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Thankou for all your comments and I will pass these onto my daughter in law.............

Her phone was in a cradle and he did say that touching the button to accept a call was an offense. Like mentioned by one reply surely we all do thsi to turn on a radio, heater, etc.

Her Post natel depression in no way effects her driving or 95% of her daily life. And as said by one comment 'she may have cried as some woman do' is slightly sexist. If you knew this young lady you prehaps woudl think otherwise. However, being stopped, for what she thought was a routine stop, and finding out she was in teh wrong for something she believed to be correct, is disturbing for many people.

She did not 'just drive off in tears', however, it was in teh middle of town. many police vehicles had stopped cars for routine breath tests and the road was very busy. Plus the extra of a baby crying in the back, she had to move away and then parked down a side road for a few minutes.

As said earlier, many thanks for all feedback and will pass it on.
belladonna

_________________
belladonna
'Wisdom is knowing how little we know'
Socrates

If I could just clear / clarify a point you may be right there is nothing in the legislation that defines what hands free should be,however im sure you would agree that by the simple definition of hands free,you would take it to mean not being held in your hand.

I regulary on a day to day basis see drivers with mobile phones either lay on there knees with headphones in, or the phone lay on the passenger seat or in the centre console area near to the gear stick, and as they are driving along they have to dial by either picking up the phone in there hand or keeping it low in there hand and having to look down or away from the road ahead.

Now,some would say that is not being in full control by having too remove one hand from the wheel and or looking away from the road ahead,which you would be right. Now when you stop these people and point this out to them they say "IM NOT USING MY PHONE ITS HANDS FREE" they mean that they have earphones in so its legal .

In all of these cases I have seen them holding the phone so offence complete,as for a cradle its as I say if the phone is held in something which allows you to use without holding it and it doesnt matter what it is held with clips velcro etc.

What a lot of people dont seem to realise or understand is that even though you are using a hands free device it does not mean that you are legally using your phone as you will be held responsible if it can be shown that your poor standard of driving can be shown to be attributed to you usuing your phone then you could face prosecution.

I can say that in my experience in examining phones after collisions there are lots if not all inspected have shown that the phone was either in use as little as seconds before the incident,in either voice call or text, the problem with this is it is the too hard to do job haveing the phone professionaly analysed to syncronise the times between the actual time of use of phone to the actual time of the collision if we did this in a majority of the cases then a lot more drivers would be sweating slightly.

We are all very good at criticising a one sided story this is why,if people say they are innocent then let the courts decide what the guilt or innocence is by a trial,and if there is no evidence then it will come good at court,believe it or not.

Stephen

I appreciate your reply.

I have already replied in full. However, in my daughter in laws defense she is more than capable of driving as her Post natel depression is of no impact in her life 95% of the time. It was the upset of the entire situation. Being stopped for what she believed routine stop, crying baby, late evening, pouring rain,etc that made her upset. Thsi could happen to anyone. Although I am sure the police officer did as he felt fit, he was eager to move her on and continued to flag down another car before she had even pulled away. I am sure he was 'just doing his job', however, each person they pull over for routine inspection is an individual who requires individual attention and different time factors. He did not even bother to expalin to her 'why' what she was doing was illegal. If I did that in my job I would have lots of confused clients roaming the country.

Once again, many thanks.
Belladonna

_________________
belladonna
'Wisdom is knowing how little we know'
Socrates

I fully understand what you say in relation to the officer,and perhaps from what has been said he could have /should have maybe took a little bit more time to explain,but hes not here to defend himself .

From my experience though when someone is upset visibly and emotionally sometimes trying to explain the reasoning behind what is being done is not appreciatted as it sometimes only exasperates the situation,again perhaps the officer could sense this and that is why,he did not want to take any extra time I dont know.

You say she is not affected by her PND in the slightest when driving,then forgive me,why mention it if it is not a factor,when someone mentions an individual personal illness i see it as they are using it as I wont say excuse but reason for them being stopped in the first place,if not then no need to mention it unless the person feels it is either relevant to the offence or important to the defence if you know what i mean.

From your description of what the officer was doing i would have thought they were engaged on a Drink Drive campaign,and it is possible that as your daughter approached the loaction there was a spotter prior to it that has radioed ahead to the officer what his observations have been of the said incident,i dont know i can only make an assumption.

Based on this if your daughter -in-law feels so strongly about her innocence then she should elect court proceedings and see what the police have to offer in evidence.
Stephen

Once again many thanks for all your imput.
I have passed all your information over to my daughter in law and will leave it to her to do as she feels fit.
Belladonna

_________________
belladonna
'Wisdom is knowing how little we know'
Socrates

Sell it to a tabloid. They love stuff like this.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction

Touching a button, does not mean held in the hand, and could even be done while clutching a handful of loose change!
The spirit of the law is intended to preserve the driver and other road users from danger caused by not having proper control of the vehicle, so touching a button on a radio, adjusting the mirror, or the seat, eating five pieces of fruit or a Mars bar could ALL be construed as dangerous in the wrong circumstances - but only the mobile phone has been specifically singled out in law - without regard as to whether using it hand held is dangerous or not.

Since in this case the phone was in it's cradle, it was NOT hand held, and it would seem to me that the officer concerned was over zealous, not mistaken if the posts are correct.

In my experience (I do not use a mobile except for emergencies) the more dangerous action is trying to get your handkerchief out of you pocket while on the motorway, because your nose is running, or you feel a sneeze coming on.
The way things are going, it should only be a matter of time before the Government outlaw driving while suffering from hay fever or a cold, or using a handkerchief to wipe your nose!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Hmm, that's a bad move for about three seconds.

I see people driving whilst on their phone for hundreds of feet, including changing gear with one hand with the phone in the other, and even in a few cases steering around a corner holding the wheel in position with their knees with the phone in one hand and changing gear with the other (and changing gear when going round a corner is bad enough).

So comparably even though yes, things can go very wrong if you try and fish a hankie out of your pocket, it doesn't last for long, I'm guessing some people spend half and hour on their hand held phone when in the car.

When you are sat on the pocket, and your house keys are tangled in the handkerchief, it can take more than three seconds - and then you have to add on the danger of a possible sneeze, during which your eyes close involuntarily.

The point is that ALL drivers are liable to find themselves in the same situation, not just those who choose to use their phones illegally. Hence my point about the potential danger - as yet unaddressed by any specific legislation.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!