Safe Speed Forums

I see people using their phone everyday, you can always spot somebody using their phone, they're generally distracted, half in a lane, miss lights, junctions, mount pavements. Several high profile cases of people who said that they didn't see the thing they hit and then police finding out there're calls on their mobiles, or texts sent.

People's eye's glaze over, I can even see them looking up to the right and left as they "access" whilst they talk, they get cut off and spend a good few seconds looking dumbly at their phone as they proceed.

I agree completely, and they really get my goat.

I don't even notice the people who are on calls without driving dangerously, though I do sometimes see a handset, and find myself indignant at how much they are endangering my road use, despite the deceptive appearance of driving safely.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Yup, if you're behind somebody and you're wondering why their driving is so bad then 9/10 times it'll be because they're on a phone (and the other 1/10 because they're in a Nissan Micra).

Riding a pushbike is an elightening experience, when you're in another car you rarely get to see what's going on in the drivers seat, but on a bike I get to look down into it and see all manner of phone use, including phone's on laps (which is very dangerous IMO because the first thing they think about is stopping the phone flying off their lap rather than stopping the car in an emergency).

And that is exactly the thing this stupid law is encouraging!
Make something which lots of people do illegal and it goes underground. Educate people as to how to do it safely and maybe the problem would go away?

_________________
Andrew.

Welcome back,Belladonna - been a while since we've seen you around

I am VERY confident that an appropriate lawyer (and I'm not talking the expensive one that fets footballers off either) would have this thrown out of court.

I'm equally sure - and this is the other side - that the law is an ass. If people are competent enough to manage the phone while driving - and some can (I can't), the action of touching or holding it makes it no more dangerous. If people cannot fdo the phone safely due to inability to priotitise or multi=task, and I fit that category fully, hands-free EXACERBATES rather than mitigates the danger.

Good luck whatever you decide - and hope you stick around for a while

Thank you Roger..............its good to be back.
I took some space out to do things!! But often dropped in to see what had been posted.
Will be staying around from now on, so look forward to checking posts.
belladonna

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

You're kidding right?!

No actually I'm not. Of course I do not hold a phone any longer in the car as I respect the law. However, it is without doubt the diversion of the brain that makes things dangerous about a phone, not the temporary partial loss of one hand from things.

Back when it was legal, if you were going to make a handed telephone call, you'd pick a straight where neither significant steering nor gear changing is required, and would either ignore or field a "can't talk now call you in 10 minutes, click" type answer. These days, probably wrongly/dangerously, these priorities barely feature in the decision as to when to make or whether to receive a hands-free telephone call as a hands-free kit will be in place for those who may feel the urge, likely encouraging greater phone-drive time than would have occurred had the hands-free kit not been installed.

Given that you do not need to steer much or change gear, you could hold a bar of chocolate in one hand without any loss of control or concentration for an appreciable time, accepting that if the need were to arise, the bar of chocolate would take a trip to the lap or the floor to make way for car control.

Also see http://www.safespeed.org.uk/phone.html and in particular SafeSpeed's response to the questions prior to the introduction of the (IMHO ill-fated) hands-free law - http://www.safespeed.org.uk/phone.doc

Dear Belladonna: In your duaghters circumstances I can not see that she has comitted an offence.

The relevant legilation is The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2003.

Having read this post I would like to share some of the interesting but lesser known points of the Regulations as follows:

It is an offence for the supervisor of a learner driver to use a hand-held phone when supervising.
Two way radios are exempt which is something I use alot when in convoy especially towing another vehicle as I feel such a comunication link is a safety benefit. However if the device is a combined phone/2 way radio, then it is illegal to use it even just in 2 way radio mode.
However an emergency call is exempt where reasonable.

But the burning question of just what is "hand-held" is answered in paragraph (6) "For the purposes of this regulation -
(a) 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;

So it would seem that pressing a hands-free that has been restrained between your legs is legal afterall. However wedging a phone between your ear and shoulder will be considered hand held as at some point a hand put it there! And if you claim you walked out of the house like that - well you just wont be believed and such a posture is likely to result in a careless driving conviction.

There is no reference to phone being in cradles in te regulation.

Hope this clears things up and I hope Belladonna's daughter sorts the matter out with the minimum expense and distress.

I wonder if the policeman thought she was holding a mobile, found she wasn't, but was not man enough to admit he had made a mistake? Hence the breath test. "I'll get you for something! All you members of the public are criminals" nonsense that a minority of them come out with.

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

No it would appear that the said policeman was actually part of a routine stop taking place already doing breath tests. As so close to Christmas they were stopping people leaving the town centre mid afternoon on a Friday, probably thinking that some had been out to liquid lunches.
How he thought that a young mum with said baby in back coming down alternative road was one of these party goers is a mistery!
I would like to say that since posting this discussion my daughter in law has been touched by the support and advice from Safespeed watchers and has decided to appeal against her case.
belladonna

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

Hiya Belladonna back.

I am sorry I missed this post of yours.

I have skimmed briefly through some of the replies.

OK - first things first - she needs to get a decent lawyer as I think there are some angles here which he could use based on your post .. but I think your daughter should hear these from a legal expert who can perhaps use a case already setting a precedent as of late last year per the press. A Nick Freeman case I think - they usually are








Where was the phone.. in the cradle or on her lap? There was a case in the M6 Sheffield in 2007 whereby the lorry driver handled his SWITCHED OFF phone by removing it from an inner pocket in his jacket and tossing it on th dashboard. Unfortunately for him .. a m/way patroi was overtaking him and the officers saw this .. they prosecuted. It went back and forth through the courts and the lorry driver caved in because the case was biting into his finances - per his comment on the Vine prog. Nick Freeman heard this and phoned in to offer his services. Unfortunately, the driver had pleaded "guilty" to close the case and so Freeman could not appeal this. He has apparently been on the look-out for a test case and I hear he won one such case late last year.


However, the offence is actually holding the phone or having it placed in such a way as to show evidence of "intent to use the device by holding it" - thus it is important to be able to state on oath in court - with no fear of PCOJ or contempt of th court - that the phone was in its cradle and both hands were on the steerlng wheel. Not easy to tell late at night from a distance That officer will have to be vry sure of his facts and he will also be on oath and obliged to tell the truth in court... but a clever lawyer can trip him up as I already have such "bruises" over the career to date ;roll:



If she was using a hands free device - she was legal. If the phone was on her person and thus within easy reach to be held - he may suggest that the phone had been handled whilst driving. Hence we need to be sure exactly where the phone was at the time.



If he was doing a routine roadside check and we do do them here .. we stopped every fifth vehicle at random on some roadside "pressure points which are not too far distant from various watering holes" - and the message soon became clear that folk were dicing with a high probability pull factor


As for the phone thing - he will have to be very sure as to whether he believed that phone had been handled just before he stopped her - and again the location of the phone and when last used to receive or make a call at this stage will be crucial to her case. Even if a call has been received - that does not mean "used" as we can choose not answer and person may ring off or go to voice mail.,,or the phone will record a missed call if switched off as mine does.




I think many a lady will be "emotional" because of them "hormones" during pregancy and when nursing the baby in the immediate after-birth. I know my own wife tended to burst into tears at anything which she found "sad" or "out of the norm in stress levels". Not all wimmin are like that Wildy who is like a bouncing rubber ball at times :yikes; (Literally at the moment - she's 'avin' twins in the spring )


Could her partner not have taken over the drive? I think if we cannot prove a person has used the phone here and know we could lose in court - we tend to issue strongly worded warnings as this would probably have a more lasting effect in terms of the danger and our credibility as regards delivering fair justice. If you cannot prove something or have flimsy evidence - then offer the benefit of doubt.. strong and sternly worded chat .. and sent on way with a final calming and kinder word as you would when disciplining your own kids

So .. tell your daughter to blow her nose..dry her eyes ... smile at her baby .. see a decent lawyer for advice ... admit nothing until n receipt of this legal advice which is her right under the law of this land... and be honest as to where the phone was within the car and why this may have given said officer "cause to suspect" - so as to fight the case effectively,


Best of luck .. hope I help you and her

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Hi In Gear,

I was wondering if you can advise me/clear up a question I have? I realise that your "patch" is no where near my area but perhaps policy would be similar.

When the Mobiles law came in we were advised that if we didn't have hands free and wanted to make/take a call ,to pull over where safe, stop the engine and make/take call which is what I have adhered to. If however I have moblie, switched on in my jacket or trouser pocket and I'm pulled over for a routine check or a bulb gone, for instance. Could I then be prosecuted for have a switched on mobile that's not in a cradle although I am not using/touching it while driving?

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Forgive me of I sound like a record repeating its self (Mon Dec 29, 2008 01:04) but the key is was it held in the hand? The matter of whether or not a call was being made or anything any other function is not the issue.

As long as you dont "hold it in you hand" you have not committed an offence under The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2003. Nor have you committed an offense under the above is you text War and Peace to someone, however you are likey to fall foul of other legislation and land up with a Driving without Due Care.

However, even if using a "Handsfree" within the law, if it is believed that the phone call is a "distraction", then an offense of Due Care has been comitted. I am now wondering if this may be the policemans view?

I have to echo In Gears to seek professional legal advice.

Whilst I am aware that depression in itself does not prevent someone from driving, I regret to say that mental illnesses are sadly misunderstood by many and I see no advantage of raising this in a defence - it will be seized by the prosecution an additional factor.

So I think I have also answered Graballs question, no problems to worry about. I leave my phone on the dash switched on, however if it slides off into the centre/gear stick console, it would be an offence for me to pick it up, even though its a flip phone and I can't push any buttons - even if it was switched off. Nevertheless, I can see where you are coming from. What if I reach for my Polo mint on the dash next to the phone a policeman sees me and mistakenly believes I "held" my phone? Well the reality I would be struggling to defend myself - so from now on I am keeping my phone in the door pocket where there can be no confusion.

However I wondered if In Gear can help me here? I was stopped for a light out, breathalysed after admitting drinking, passed and went on my way with no action over the light. A friend/serving officer told me later that an officer can't stop for a lesser offence, breathalyse and go back to the lower offence as this could be interpreted as an officer "going to get you come what may".

I've never come across this and can't see that PACE remotely touches on this. I can also see the obvious mischief that could arise, i.e. every time you get stopped, slur your words, get breathalysed and go on your way! So is their any "code" relevant to this or is this a practice of rural officers who have been drinking teas every since the Great Sheep Rustlers were caught in 1948?

Belladonna's thread did remind me of this but I didn't mention it before as I couldn't find any facts, so I wondered what your knowledge of this might be?

Surely in such a case the police are using a "moving traffic offence" as a justification for breathalysing someone, and this is very commonplace.

On the one occasion in my driving career when I have been breathalysed, the officer alleged that I had been speeding, although IMV I had certainly not been doing so to the extent that would normally attract police attention.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Thanks.......its great to be back.

Firstly with all the support from SS my daughter in law has taken legal advise and will be taking this further.

As far as 'where the phone was' - it was being held by her partner having been taken from the cradle, for him to continue the conversation.

I appreciate your comments on her 'being emotional' - as you say this can be an upsetting time for many woman, and in no way did she over react considering the circumstances. However, she appreciates the policeman concerned was 'just doing his job' albeit maybe a little too enthusastic.

I will keep the SS informed as things progress. Guess her having a solicitor for a father was something the policeman didn't bargain on

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

I once got stopped for "varying speed" when I had come off a dual, round an island and then turned into a country road off a main....as an excuse to eventually breathalise me (passed).

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

nearly got the quote bit right...lol

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Just corrected it for you

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

He needs to make a sworn oath /. affadavit to this effect. Fbbing or misleadng the court has serious consequence as he will be aware and I have not one reason to doubt .. since I do know you as a Road peace member and a woman who really cares about others and gives a damn in action and not rhetoric.




have two sisters and them Swiss breed like "felines " I joke .. sorry . I understand or try to understand folk at large. it helps build trust ;wink;





Go for it. Police who abuse positions and authority or ignore the rubric as trained .. undermine us all. I am perhaps "old fahsioned" but I was always trained to respect the public and that this would b reciprocated by the genuinely law abiding and held in some respectful esteem by those criminals who actually have respect for fair play shown to them

Gene Hunt types were around in those days.. but you did not really respect them :wink; as young recruits "on a mission to improve amd set a new style "

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.