Mobile speed cameras not just checking speed!

[Petrol Pete]

We've always had seat covers in the Vito (double plus single in the front), and they've all come with slots for the buckles??

No Idea where he got these (ancient) covers from but I can assure you there are no slits on the double passenger cover for buckles to come through.

I saw a kind of reinforced stitching in that area where maybe a Stanley knife would come in handy to make a slot, but not my seat cover.

 

[markjay]

Regarding schools.... in London (and other large cities, I suppose) the whole 'catchment area' thing is a nightmare, you'll be very lucky to get the children admitted to a school that is within walking distance from your home. Across our 3 children and 2 grandchildren it has been a mixed bag.

 

[oldguy57]

I well remember the image of my best mate at "infant" school coming into the class room after months off school. He had gone through the windscreen and had his nose sliced off which surgeons had to rebuild. This was over 60 years ago and pre seat belt fitting and legislation. It's still an image I'll never forget. My 57 Chevy ragtop has no seat belts and I'm very very cautious now when driving it, particularly if others are in the car with me.

 

[m80]

I've been walking Glen Coe, early 1980's I think, when a 2 week old Capri lost control (possibly due to sheep on the road). He bounced off the cliff face on his o/s and left the road on his n/s, and descended down the Glen.
The car rolled a couple of times and ended up on its roof.
Dad pulled the driver out of the drivers door. No seat belt so he rotated flat and ended up with a small gash on his head.
Mum was screaming to stay away from the car as the reg started with FRY, and thought it might be an omen.

Onto the late 90's, middle of the night, I was behind a Fiat summatorother, on the A74 in the Borders.
Fiat flinched, span, bounced off the central barrier, all doors and boot burst open. There wre bags, cases and clothes spread across the carriageway.
I stopped hard and sat tunned.
Guy gets out looking around frantically, stunned also. Wife gets out and is screaming at guy, I thought she had lost it in shock.
Nope, they were in panic as they couldn't see their son. He had left the back seat and been thrown onto the inside grass banking, across 2 lanes.
Obviously no child seat, or even belt. I guess he had been asleep on the back seat, until his dad fell asleep in the front seat.

I can understand the delivery thing and belt on /off. But I don't do 'em, and my belt is always on.

 

[SpikyMikey]

I can understand the delivery thing and belt on /off. But I don't do 'em, and my belt is always on.

The delivery thing isn't really an excuse either. I was a dreaded White Van Man for 14 years and always used the seat belt. It wasn't anymore of a chore putting it on and taking it off than having to remove and reinsert the ignition key multiple times a day.

 

[Big Janner]

The mobile cams/AI cams were widely publicised a couple of months ago.
I'm all for them as the claim is the cams can ID those using mobile phones and not wearing seat belts (front seats only I guess) and possibly speed limit checks.
I've also seen items re police going around in HGV cabs and catching drivers of all vehicle sizes using mobile phones etc.
I'm all for them as those using a mobile phone and trying to drive not only hold up traffic but can be a major player in accidents.

I'm not sure why people don't wear seatbelts but the mass of evidence shows that in the vast majority of accidents wearing a seatblet saves lives and reduces or stops injuries. This is turn not only saves us/NHS/taxpayers hundreds of millions but saves the misery that goes hand-in-hand with serious accidents.

I won't allow anyone in my car, front or back not to wear a seat belt as the passengers in the back when not wearing a seatbelt can be a danger to me in a heavy impact, etc

Therefore, I'm 100% for these new cams.

Also, as the driver, you will be held responsible for your passengers not using their seat belts.

Your stand is both sensible and safe

 

[ALFAitalia]

Also, as the driver, you will be held responsible for your passengers not using their seat belts.

Your stand is both sensible and safe

....only if they are under 14.....above that and you can ask them and even refuse to drive the car if they dont belt in....but they are responsible for the outcome if you ask them and they refuse and you drive.

 

[TC350]

Regarding schools.... in London (and other large cities, I suppose) the whole 'catchment area' thing is a nightmare, you'll be very lucky to get the children admitted to a school that is within walking distance from your home. Across our 3 children and 2 grandchildren it has been a mixed bag.

We're just setting out on the catchment area helter skelter, with forward planning for our 9-year old daughter. She's currently doing very well whilst enjoying her primary school, for which we're in the catchment area. A few times now she's been to the secondary school for with her primary is a feeder, and she likes it there. As do most of her school friends. It's one of the better schools in the area. BUT, we're not in its catchment area - despite it being half the distance of her primary school. When it comes to the lucky dip LA school allocation, we have no idea whether or not she'll be accepted there. The alternative that we're looking into has a tight selection criteria that we're confident our daughter will pass on her academic and music skills, but it's two bus rides or a long drive across the city. The LA could have an influence on how much we walk or pollute, but are instead likely to be more constrained by arbitrary catchment borders.

 

[Pontoneer]

Good to know, thanks.

Also, I am aware that some people still hold a mobile phone while driving (which this camera will probably also spot), but I didn't think anyone would be driving without wearing the seatbelt - I'm curious to know why would you that? On the same note, it would be interesting to know what action - if any - will the authorities take if the front seat passenger or back seat passengers weren't wearing a belt? Or if a child was in the car without a proper child seat or booster seat?

It depends on the car . Anything pre-64 is exempt from all seat belt regs , and rear seat belts only became a requirement sometime around the late 70's early 80's .

Both my Ponton and my Fintail never had any seat belts , similarly my Triumph Herald , Hillman Minx and early Mini never had them either . My W115 and W114 never had rear bels , nor did my Audi 100 or several other cars of the period .

If there is no belt to secure them , there won't be any requirement for child seats either as there is no way to secure them , and the vehicles are exempt from the requirement to use them . My children drove without belts in my older cars , as did I for several decades - it was perfectly normal and generations of people went without them and are still here to tell the tale .

As for phones , I have carkits so don't use handheld interactive devices , but a photo alone will not secure a prosecution because the offence is to USE a handheld device , not merely to hold it , so that would easily be thrown out . I'd also love them to take a picture of me holding my CB radio , which looks like a carphone , but is not covered by these regulations and perfectly leal to use .

 

[ALFAitalia]

Actually it is an offence to hold it... not just use it. Legal to touch it when it's on a phone holder through..... like to accept a call.

 

[TC350]

My children drove without belts in my older cars , as did I for several decades - it was perfectly normal and generations of people went without them and are still here to tell the tale .

I’ve never worn a tinfoil hat to protect me from nuclear bombs. I’m still here to tell the tale.

That’s every bit as ridiculous a statement.

 

[Pontoneer]

Actually it is an offence to hold it... not just use it. Legal to touch it when it's on a phone holder through..... like to accept a call.

Nope - if you read the legislation it is only use of it that is prohibited whilst it is being handheld , but some police try to promote that myth .

Many activities are prohibited , but merely holding the device is not one of them ; the prohibited uses are listed below . Anyone could drive around all day holding a phone in one's hand , provided it does not interfere with proper control of the vehicle .

The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2022

Regulation 110 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986/1078), (“the 1986 Regulations”) prohibit the use, while driving a motor vehicle of hand-held mobile telephones or other interactive communication devices, when performing an interactive communication function.

www.legislation.gov.uk

 

[Pontoneer]

I’ve never worn a tinfoil hat to protect me from nuclear bombs. I’m still here to tell the tale.

That’s every bit as ridiculous a statement.

It isn't ridiculous at all : hardly any cars had seatbelts before 1964 , and lots of cars didn't have them up to the 1980s , similarly rear seat belts only came in around the mid to late seventies ; the first M-Bs I remember having them as standard were the W123 series , introduced around 1976 , and my 1973 W116 had no rear belts , and lots of other makes went on without them for a while longer , and of couse existing cars without any , or front only seat belts survived and continued in use for many years after , with lots in fact still around - so of course there are generations who grew up without wearing them - that is a fact . When I had the bad crash that wrote off my W115 in 1978 , I was wearing my static seat belt , but it was not required by law , and it was some time later before it became mandatory .

 

[ALFAitalia]

Nope - if you read the legislation it is only use of it that is prohibited whilst it is being handheld , but some police try to promote that myth .

Many activities are prohibited , but merely holding the device is not one of them ; the prohibited uses are listed below . Anyone could drive around all day holding a phone in one's hand , provided it does not interfere with proper control of the vehicle .

The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2022

Regulation 110 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986/1078), (“the 1986 Regulations”) prohibit the use, while driving a motor vehicle of hand-held mobile telephones or other interactive communication devices, when performing an interactive communication function.

www.legislation.gov.uk

This was fully discussed in another thread. So I'll leave it there..... but you are wrong!

 

[Pontoneer]

This was fully discussed in another thread. So I'll leave it there..... but you are wrong!

I'm not wrong - the legislation is there to read , it is meticulously clear and nowhere does it state that merely holding the device is unlawful ; it also does not need to be in a cradle when using it ; it just cannot be held in the hand .

The legislation literally is the letter of the law , and it is very carefully worded in such a way as to leave no scope for interpretation .

 

[ALFAitalia]

https://srb.co.uk/driving-whilst-holding-a-mobile-phone-is-now-illegal/

 

[Pontoneer]

https://srb.co.uk/driving-whilst-holding-a-mobile-phone-is-now-illegal/

That is opinion and not law : it s NOT what is written in the legislation . You cannot rely on misleading interpretations , like the one above , which is incorrect in almost every statement in the link , published by solicitors ( one of whom will ALWAYS lose in every court case ) or by media or motoring organisations , all of whom misinterpret the legislation . in a court , the judiciary can only rely on what is written in legislation , hat is the law and there is no room for argument .

The illegality occurs if you USE an interactive mobile device ( does not even have to be a phone - could be an iPod or iPad ) for ANY purpose whilst driving .

I say again , the list of prohibited activities is very clearly defined in legislation , but it DOES NOT include merely holding the device , as long as you can do so without your control of the car being affected .

Legislation is very carefully worded to prohibit certain activities , but it does not specify how or with what apparatus those activities may be exempted ; such as by having the device in a cradle , on a mat on top of the dash , in a cubby ole or even lying on the passenger seat - it ONLY states that the device MUST NOT be held in the hand for the purpose of USING it , and all uses are very clearly defined .

 

[ChrisPDuck]

The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986

www.legislation.gov.uk

There's a lot in there that you can't do with a hand-held mobile phone, e.g. lifting the phone up to check the time, unlocking the device. So if the display is on and it's in your hand, it would appear that you'd be breaking the law. But holding a phone that's got a blank display doesn't seem to be precluded.

 

[TC350]

It seems pretty clear here too

Using a phone, sat nav or other device when driving

It’s illegal to hold a phone or a sat nav while driving - you'll get penalty points, a fine and can be banned from driving.

www.gov.uk

 

[ChrisPDuck]

It's interesting to see how the law has been updated to account for mobile phone developments - e.g. in 2022 to allow making contactless payments while stationary (drive-through McDonald's?).

Given that checking the time is specifically classed as 'using', and therefore prohibited, I wonder if another update is required to cover, say, foldable phones that have an always on outer display showing the time.

Is there a set of rules to cover smart watches? Do they count as 'hand held'? Apart from the overarching requirement to stay in control at all times, would I be breaking the law if I look at an alert or message on my watch while my hand is still on the steering wheel?