No Insurance For Phone Offenders

[st13phil]

Perhaps I'm being naive here, but assuming such a case went to court, surely all it would take to be acquitted would be for the defence laywer to ask the policeman whether he saw his client holding a phone.

Yes, I think you are being somewhat naive.

Firstly, it would have to go to Court if the accused wishes to contest the issue of the FPN. The Police Officer has already stated that the accused was "seen using a mobile telephone, contrary to [appropriate statute]". That's the basis of the charge, and why the accused is in court. Why would the officer then change his tune when asked the question in court, unless some doubt as to the accuracy of his "observation" could be introduced?

If you don't believe it could happen, take a look at this case. I draw your attention to the sentence

Even after the officers who stopped him searched his car and failed to find a mobile phone he was slapped with a £60 fixed penalty notice.

Admittedly the CPS did actually abandon the case at the Court steps, but do you honestly think there would have been no conviction if Mr Findlay did have a phone in the car at the time it was searched?

 

[st4]

For me the law is better than getting killed.

I think on the list of un-naturally caused deaths, a phone using car driver won't be your most likely killer. Even lower down the pecking order than a lagered up driver.

 

[Dieselman]

I think on the list of un-naturally caused deaths, a phone using car driver won't be your most likely killer. Even lower down the pecking order than a lagered up driver.

Not sure about that, there are a lot more phone users driving vehicles than DD.

Having witnessed a heavy crash due to texting, I think it is a problem.

 

[ian320]

To my shame I admit to having a phone related accident, one of only two in 30 years of driving.
It was before holding a phone was banned and it was not technically my fault, as it involved a HGV jumping a red light at an island and hitting me on the rear quarter.

But the fact is if I had not been on the phone I would have seen the HGV, using a phone gives you tunnel vision.

That aside I also agree with the view that the burdon of proof is wrong.

I do have a habit of resting my arm on the door and putting my hand to the side of my face. On a number of occasions a police car has appeared from nowhere at my side, obviously under the impression that I was using a phone, to date I have not been stopped but what if the police had not quite caught up before I had put my hand down?

They were obviously convinced enough to race through traffic to get to me, in which case if my hand had dropped before they could confirm it, it would be my word against theirs in court.

 

[JOB-BLACK-RAT]

Mr Plod sticks you on for mobile phone use because he saw you leaning on your door trim resting your head on your hand in non-moving traffic and thinks you were holding a phone. Now try proving Mr Plod was mistaken, and you weren't using your phone.

Mr Plod? well you could also just call me Simon.

Resting your head on your hand would be 'not in proper control' 3 points and £60 fine.

The Officer MUST see the phone in use.

I have lost a case at court where I saw the phone in use to the point the person talking into it.

How??

At the end of the day it is the Officers word against the defendants.

He was willing to lie under oath in court, I dont.

 

[Dieselman]

Resting your head on your hand would be 'not in proper control' 3 points and £60 fine.

What if it's just propping your head up to get home after a hard night out...

 

[st13phil]

Mr Plod? well you could also just call me Simon.

Ok Simon

Resting your head on your hand would be 'not in proper control' 3 points and £60 fine.

Separate and perfectly valid offence - depending upon the circumstances - but another of the "easier to gain a conviction" branch of motoring law.

At the end of the day it is the Officers word against the defendants.

He was willing to lie under oath in court, I dont.

But mistakes can and do happen. "The Officer is mistaken, your Honour"

Just out of curiousity, if you actually saw the defendant talking into the phone, why didn't the CPS use the call records to prove that a call was underway at the time in question instead of relying on your word against that of the defendant?

 

[ian320]

Mr Plod? well you could also just call me Simon.

Resting your head on your hand would be 'not in proper control' 3 points and £60 fine.

Yet another outdated law. Yes when cars ran cross ply tyres and pre power steering days, when a small puddle was enough to rip a wheel from your hands.

Driving with full vision around you means you should be able to anticipate what is going to happen and never be in a position where the fraction of a second required to return your hand to the wheel would cause an issue.

For gods sake, it's not as if you are eating a Kit Kat is it?

Why is it today's standards strive to de skill all drivers to the lowest possible rather than improving the skills of the worst?

tailgaters & undertakers v lane hogs. what causes the problem? which one will get prosecuted?

anyone want to borrow a soap box?

 

[MOCAŠ]

tailgaters & undertakers v lane hogs. what causes the problem?

I suppose I'm supposed to say tailgaters and undertakers.

But without lane hoggers there would very few tailgaters or undertakers, so if it's the cause we're looking for, as opposed to the symptom...

 

[ian320]

That would also be my take on it, remove the cause not the results.

Unfortunately that does not fall in line with modern policing.

 

[k9cbw]

People who use accident managment companies and pretend to have whiplash should be refused cover, using a phone does nobody any harm.

Errr... I think using a phone CAN kill. GET A HANDS - FREE.

NO EXCUSE.

 

[redbaron]

Errr... I think using a phone CAN kill. GET A HANDS - FREE.

NO EXCUSE.

yes but they are crap for texting / Facebook / forums / angry birds....

 

[MB-BTurbo]

Can you get a hands free for cigarettes pipes, cigars? Its not much different to holding your mobile when on loud speaker especially if you have passengers you are talking too.

Also there is the issue of flicking them out of the window at night, causing cars behind to panic at the sight of something sparking coming at them and swerving.

 

[MOCAŠ]

Can you get a hands free for cigarettes pipes, cigars? Its not much different to holding your mobile when on loud speaker especially if you have passengers you are talking too.

Also there is the issue of flicking them out of the window at night, causing cars behind to panic at the sight of something sparking coming at them and swerving.

For all sorts of reasons, it's high time smoking while driving was banned outright (as it already has been for commercial drivers). It beats me why this didn't happen long ago.

However, there remains one element that makes using a phone potentially more hazardous in some people's eyes: the fact that holding a two-way conversation can have a significant adverse effect on the driver's ability to concentrate on his driving.

 

[MOCAŠ]

I'm not moaning, I'm merely pointing out the poor drafting and application of the law in question. Let's take another example:

Mr Plod sticks you on for mobile phone use because he saw you leaning on your door trim resting your head on your hand in non-moving traffic and thinks you were holding a phone. Now try proving Mr Plod was mistaken, and you weren't using your phone.

the way the law is drafted and applied, "using" the device is taken to be holding it. Which you weren't!

If you don't believe it could happen, take a look at this case. I draw your attention to the sentence. Admittedly the CPS did actually abandon the case at the Court steps, but do you honestly think there would have been no conviction if Mr Findlay did have a phone in the car at the time it was searched?

Incidentally, has the law been amended since comedian Jimmy Carr was cleared of using his iPhone while driving? (Genuine question, as I don't know.)

Nick Freeman, known as "Mr Loophole" for his sucess in defending celebrity clients told Harrow Magistrates Court that using the phone for such a purpose was not illegal under current law.

He argued it was permissible to use a device in dictation mode provided it did not adversely affect driving ability.


The comedian was driving his Bentley in Harrow, London, on the morning on January 28 this year, when he was stopped by police for talking into his iphone and touching the screen.


Mr Freeman argued that his client had not been using the phone to make a call, or for any other interactive purpose, and therefore didn't fall foul of the legislation.


The prosecution argued that the fact the phone was capable of making an interactive call was enough for Carr to be found guilty.

But the case was dismissed after a submission by Mr Freeman of ''no case to answer''.

Jimmy Carr cleared of using mobile while driving - Telegraph

 

[kaholic]

so in reference to Mr Loophole if i use my phone on loudspeaker while driving, am i dictating to my phone and merely replying to voices i hear in the air and not what comes through the phone?

 

[MOCAŠ]

so in reference to Mr Loophole if i use my phone on loudspeaker while driving, am i dictating to my phone and merely replying to voices i hear in the air and not what comes through the phone?

Well, if you're using it on loudspeaker it's not being used as a handheld device, so the point of law does not apply. However, there are still those that would maintain that holding any kind of conversation while driving adversely affects the driver's concentration.

 

[st13phil]

Incidentally, has the law been amended since comedian Jimmy Carr was cleared of using his iPhone while driving? (Genuine question, as I don't know.)

No, it hasn't. However, the prosecution's view as stated in that case that "the fact the phone was capable of making an interactive call was enough for Carr to be found guilty" seems to be the default position taken (the Carr case did not set precedent). Realistically, only those with deep pockets and/or unusual tenacity are likely to challenge the FPN and succeed, however...

One thing that's been missed so far in this thread is that the whole point of the FPN process is to reduce the number of cases that go to court. Once people cotton on to the fact that insurance companies are effectively applying a further, massive, penalty over and above the £60 / 3 points for the FPN, I predict that many more cases will be contested and find their way to court - which rather defeats the object

 

[Shude]

It's so cheap now to get a hands-free kit and ALL phones come with a hands-free wired solution in the box so there is no excuse. I saw a white C63 go past my house on Saturday and the driver was talking into a phone - clearly when he went through the options list he ran out of money when he got to the phone kit!

Having said that I managed to eat two delicious danish pastries washed down with fresh coffee this morning in a queue on the motorway. The queue is always there so I saved the feast for it! Unlike smoking if I drop a danish in my lap I am unlikely to be engulfed in flames, crumbs though I will accept (had to dust myself down in the work carpark ).

 

[219]

if you're sat in a non-moving traffic queue and choose to use a mobile phone would most people consider that to be dangerous? No, of course not, but it's still an offence under the current law.

Not if you stop your engine whilst there appears to be no prospect of traffic moving .

Part of the legal definition of 'driving' includes being seated in the driver's seat and also for the engine to be running .

By stopping the engine , you cease to be 'driving' and can quite legally make a call on a handheld phone .