HELP - Wrongly accused of using mobile phone whilst driving!

[MrSquare]

Hi there,

I have been driving for just over a year now having passed March 2008, and I am still well within the 2 year - 6 points system.

In April of last year I recieved an SP30 speeding offence from a mobile speed camera that caught me doing 34mph in a 30 zone (not easy when your 'allowed' 10% up on the speedo, making an allowable 33mph! :mad:) and I agreed to take the fine and 3 points.

In July of last year myself and a companion were driving through my local town on a 20 second drive from one shop to the petrol station. During this drive, I admit I was holding my mobile phone in my hand but in no way was I using it and I also had both hands on the wheel. All of a sudden the blues are on and I've been pulled over, I explained to the officer that I simply was not using the phone and he agreed to check my call / text logs (suprisingly? I have heard stories of others refusing to do this). As there was no activity on the phone, there was nothing for him to find as my previous communications had been well over 30 mins ago. Therefore the officer agreed that I had not been using the phone however he did not verbally 'agree', more of a sign of recognition such as 'okay'.

For whatever reason this did not clear me in the officers eyes, and he proceeded to write me a ticket and advised me that due to the totting up procedure of 6 points in 2 years, I would have to go to court.

So, after 5 months I recieved my court summons and my hearing date, although the police officer then could not make that date and it has now been changed to next Wednesday 15 April 2009.

Brief overview of the incident:


I was not using the phone, simply holding it.
The officer checked all communication logs, and did not find any evidence to say I was using the phone.
In the officers statement, it states the window was slightly 'ajar' however as I have tinted windows I find it hard to believe he saw me pressing buttons as he claims.
I have a witness that will be attending court with me to back up my statement that I was not using the phone.
I am a University student with a totally clean criminal record.
I heavily rely on my car so for work purposes and my rural residency.
Can anyone tell me what to expect and if they feel there are any main points that are worth expressing the the courts?

Also; can anybody explain the process of a Magistrates Court? Do I enter a large courtroom with judge complete with hammer etc?

Many thanks and I look forward to your replies!

Square.

[harveybobbles]

It will just be the Maj and two other's plus your self there. It's not like the Old Bailey or owt...

Anyway don't waffle on too much infront of the Maj cos they will get bored and issue you with something rotten lol.

Even if you use a hands free device you still have to have the phone in a fixed cradle, so I can see why the bobby has taken it thus far.

[isplumm]

Hi,

I agree it sounds nuts, but if you have the phone in your hand ... well you are deemed to be using it ..... at leasst that is my understanding ... try
http://www.nopenaltypoints.co.uk/TheLawAndUsingYourMobilePhoneWhileDriving.html

Mark

[LinasPilibaitisisbatman]

I believe you ;)

I am sure the magistrates will too.

[harveybobbles]

"I wasn't eating my apple Officer, just holding it..."

Might try that one next time I get stopped...

[anewman]

During this drive, I admit I was holding my mobile phone in my hand but in no way was I using it and I also had both hands on the wheel.

Merely holding the phone is enough.

[mountainofdebt]

If you can access your mobile phone account over the internet then I would print off a list of your itemised phone/ text usuage - this will prove that you didn't make any calls.

Also contact your phone provider to see if they can provide you with evidence that you didn't receive any calls.

[MrSquare]

It might sound a bit cheeky, but surely it is their job to prove me guilty rather than for me to prove myself innocent! Crazynesssss!

Is it worth pleading my mitigating circumstances again?

[mountainofdebt]

It might sound a bit cheeky, but surely it is their job to prove me guilty rather than for me to prove myself innocent! Crazynesssss!

Is it worth pleading my mitigating circumstances again?

Depends on whether you want a fine or not.

[harveybobbles]

I was only holding the knife. I didn't stab him really...

[MrSquare]

Depends on whether you want a fine or not.

Out of interest, why would pleading my mitigating circumstances land me with a fine?

[MaximumImpact]

Out of interest, why would pleading my mitigating circumstances land me with a fine?

Because you already admitted holding the phone in your hand which is admission of the offence and then you are going to ask the courts to let you off!!!

Also absolute rubbish re your speeding...as Guidelines allow 10% + 2 on speeding so therefore you won't be prosesuted under 35 by a mobile camera.....

[Doozergirl]

It might sound a bit cheeky, but surely it is their job to prove me guilty rather than for me to prove myself innocent! Crazynesssss!

Is it worth pleading my mitigating circumstances again?

It will obviously help you more if you can prove yourself innocent rather than rely on his word against yours.

Don't be indignant in front of the magistrates, apologise for holding the phone, prove that you weren't using it via call logs and hopefully a friendly phone provider and hope that they are lenient with you.

You won't be fined more simply because you tried to defend yourself. Just be respectful all the time.

[anewman]

...apologise for holding the phone, prove that you weren't using it via call logs and hopefully a friendly phone provider and hope that they are lenient with you.
Problem is merely holding the phone is in itself an offence. Admitting an offence and asking for leniency won't look particularly good in court.

[A Nice Englishman]

'Using' a mobile phone needn't include making or receiving a call or text message so as far as I can see checking the logs proves nothing.

Even my really basic one has a calculator, calendar, alarm clock, radio, mp3 player, games etc, many of which are more distracting than talking on the phone.

[KeithP]

A Nice Englishman, absolutely right. Thank you.

[vaio]

I think the outcome could well depend on what exactly you have been charged with

If they are doing you for using a mobile (The Road Vehicles [Construction and Use] [Amendment] [No 4] 2003) then I think I’d argue that holding is not the same as using especially as you weren’t holding it to your ear.

The law bans devices “……..which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data.” And I’d say unless it is transmitting or receiving data at your behest then you aren’t “using”

“Using” will be a matter of record with your service provider so I’d get a letter from them too. This is the sort of case where a solicitor might be a good idea.

I’d also say that holding it must cause some lack of control of the car and would be an automatic guilty if they charged you with “driving whilst not in a position as to have proper control of a vehicle’ (Road Vehicles Construction and Use Regulations 1986, Reg 104.) but that’s a different offence and they only get one bite at the cherry.

[A Nice Englishman]

I think the outcome could well depend on what exactly you have been charged with

If they are doing you for using a mobile (The Road Vehicles [Construction and Use] [Amendment] [No 4] 2003) then I think I’d argue that holding is not the same as using especially as you weren’t holding it to your ear.

The law bans devices “……..which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data.” And I’d say unless it is transmitting or receiving data at your behest then you aren’t “using”

“Using” will be a matter of record with your service provider so I’d get a letter from them too. This is the sort of case where a solicitor might be a good idea.

I’d also say that holding it must cause some lack of control of the car and would be an automatic guilty if they charged you with “driving whilst not in a position as to have proper control of a vehicle’ (Road Vehicles Construction and Use Regulations 1986, Reg 104.) but that’s a different offence and they only get one bite at the cherry.

So reading or composing a text message is OK as the text data is not received at your behest and no data is actually transmitted until you press 'send'?

[vaio]

According to the letter of the law I’d say yes.........

3. "interactive communication function" includes the following:


i. sending or receiving oral or written messages;
ii. sending or receiving facsimile documents;
iii. sending or receiving still or moving images; and
iv. providing access to the internet;

If they meant to include “preparing to send” as well as actual “sending or receiving” then they should have said so.

Obviously composing a text is going to affect control of the car but that’s a different offence

[c l a i r e]

Problem is merely holding the phone is in itself an offence. Admitting an offence and asking for leniency won't look particularly good in court.

Asking for leniency in sentencing is essentially the whole point of a plea in mitigation. The problem is if found guilty you lose your licence anyway(6 points) so the best thing you can argue for is as low a fine as possible.

Out of curiousity what is the exact charge on your summons?

[A Nice Englishman]

Link to the legislation for reference
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032695.htm

The way I read it, it doesn't say you have to be using the device to "perform an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data" at the time of the offence, only that it must be capable of doing so. So reading a text, playing a game or choosing a music track could/would count as 'using'.

Wonder if there is any case law?

[vaio]

Link to the legislation for reference
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032695.htm

The way I read it, it doesn't say you have to be using the device to "perform an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data" at the time of the offence, only that it must be capable of doing so. So reading a text, playing a game or choosing a music track could/would count as 'using'.

Wonder if there is any case law?

I read it the opposite way, it’s “…..interactive communication devices” which are specifically mentioned as being banned from use, I’d say it’s axiomatic that “use” must include interactive communication.

No case law that I can find, OP if you have the odd £30k you don’t need maybe you can set a precedent

[Money_Grabber13579]

See here:

http://www.muckle-llp.com/N2293/Case-law-using-a-mobile-phone-while-driving.html

Not exactly case law but it gives the idea

[vaio]

See here:

http://www.muckle-llp.com/N2293/Case-law-using-a-mobile-phone-while-driving.html

Not exactly case law but it gives the idea

Yep, i saw that but it's only magistrates so a good solicitor could well get a different decision for the OP

[Money_Grabber13579]

I had a look on the Westlaw database but the only thing I could come up with was killing someone while using a mobile phone. Thought that was a bit over the top - like using a digger to plant your daffodils.

[AHAR]

(not easy when you're 'allowed' 10% up on the speedo, making an allowable 33mph! :mad:)

I thought speedos were only allowed to overestimate your speed not underestimate it?
i.e. If the needle is pointing to 30, it means you're doing no more than 30 and can't be speeding:confused:

[MrSquare]

Also absolute rubbish re your speeding...as Guidelines allow 10% + 2 on speeding so therefore you won't be prosesuted under 35 by a mobile camera.....

Yes, obviously I must be lying about my previous conviction. NOT - Otherwise I wouldn't be here! :T

And c l a i r e, the charge they are trying to do me for is using a mobile phone whilst driving.

Thanks all for your replies!

[vaio]

I had a look on the Westlaw database but the only thing I could come up with was killing someone while using a mobile phone. Thought that was a bit over the top - like using a digger to plant your daffodils.

Was that Browning where the court of appeal judgement said that "……..the use of a hand-held mobile phone by a driver whilst moving, a much too common feature of driving today, is self-evidently risky. But the risks of reading and composing, text messages appears to us of a wholly different order………”?

If so does that create a binding difference between “using” a mobile and “reading and composing, text messages”?

I’d come back to my previous argument that “using” involves “interactive transmission or receiving of data” and anything else (composing texts, playing games, music etc etc) doesn’t count as “using” but does obviously come under the “not in proper control” offence as does eating, adjusting stereo and anything else that affects control.

[Money_Grabber13579]

Was that Browning where the court of appeal judgement said that "……..the use of a hand-held mobile phone by a driver whilst moving, a much too common feature of driving today, is self-evidently risky. But the risks of reading and composing, text messages appears to us of a wholly different order………”?

If so does that create a binding difference between “using” a mobile and “reading and composing, text messages”?

I’d come back to my previous argument that “using” involves “interactive transmission or receiving of data” and anything else (composing texts, playing games, music etc etc) doesn’t count as “using” but does obviously come under the “not in proper control” offence as does eating, adjusting stereo and anything else that affects control.


Yes, but that was back in 2001. The contents of the message were as follows:

“Oh, yes, a real scorcher. Well, just leaving Benfleet for West Thurrock. Job number 7 of 11. ****. Call you back.” The first part was deemed to have been composed before the journey started, while the "****. Call you back" was said to have been written after the crash. The whole message was transmitted after the crash. However, even though the message might not have been composed during the journey, the problem was that he was probably going to plan to add more words had the accident not occurred.

So it would seem that you don't even have to write the text message, as long as the intention to do so is there.

"The use of a mobile phone to read and to compose text messages while driving is, a highly perilous activity. Even the use of a handheld mobile phone by a driver whilst moving, a much too common feature of driving today, is self-evidently risky." This paragraph seems to distinguish between sending messages and just the general use, although whether or not the general use is a punishable offence is not clear to me.

[Inactive]

I was not using the phone, simply holding it.
The officer checked all communication logs, and did not find any evidence to say I was using the phone.
In the officers statement, it states the window was slightly 'ajar' however as I have tinted windows I find it hard to believe he saw me pressing buttons as he claims.
I have a witness that will be attending court with me to back up my statement that I was not using the phone.
I am a University student with a totally clean criminal record.
I heavily rely on my car so for work purposes and my rural residency.



Exactly why were you " holding the phone "? I am sure you will be asked this.

If your witness is your mate that was with you in the car, then he will not be deemed as an independant witness, any evidence he gives will be seen in that light.

[Le73Uq86Uv]

Deleted post

[MX5huggy]

Just to drag up another thing I would recomend you don't mention!

In the officers statement, it states the window was slightly 'ajar' however as I have tinted windows I find it hard to believe he saw me pressing buttons as he claims.

If your windows are so tinted that you can't see a hand on a phone then they are likley to be illegal.

[mountainofdebt]

Someone I know was taken to court for holding a phone whilst driving and as there was no proof that he was actually making / receiving a call at the time, he was found not guilty.

Hence why I say provide the records and it will be an open and shut case.

[JamesJamz]

But still you were holding a phone, when you are supposed to drive with two hands on the wheel

[vaio]

You broke the law as you were holding it.
If it had been a drink or a sandwich you could still be done.

But still you were holding a phone, when you are supposed to drive with two hands on the wheel

Both true but he has been charged with USING a phone, I think if he was just holding it (or a sandwich, drink etc) then he’s not guilty of what he’s been charged with although he could well be guilty of driving whilst not in full control but that’s a different offence and generally the police only get one bite of the cherry .

[MrSquare]

I managed to get hold of all my outgoing call / text logs for the incident date proving that I was not using it, however O2 do not allow me to have a copy of any incoming communications.

Are the logs still worth taking to court?

[anewman]

Be interesting to see how this turns out if OP takes it to court. IMO either way the OP is screwed (probably more so if they go to court) and out of desperation is trying to save their license.

If it was me though I'd own up to my silliness, take the hit, and start thinking about retaking the test etc.

[mountainofdebt]

I managed to get hold of all my outgoing call / text logs for the incident date proving that I was not using it, however O2 do not allow me to have a copy of any incoming communications.

Are the logs still worth taking to court?

I would - can't do any harm can it? Did O2 say why they wouldn't let you have a copy of any incoming communications?

[vaio]

……. O2 do not allow me to have a copy of any incoming communications.

Are the logs still worth taking to court?

I would have thought that under Data Protection and/or Freedom of Information laws they would have to supply the incoming logs.

The point of the logs if to help you convince a magistrate you are telling the truth, full logs would be better but partial is still worth taking.

[LittleVoice]

I would have thought that under Data Protection and/or Freedom if Information laws they would have to supply the incoming logs.

The point of the logs if to help you convince a magistrate you are telling the truth, full logs would be better but partial is still worth taking.

Freedom of Information relates to public bodies providing information which is not subject to data protection legislation. It can have nothing to do with this matter.

[MrSquare]

Because I no longer have my contract with O2, they cannot help me anymore so they say. Should I persue the matter and get back on the case?

Based on what people have seen here what do you all think the verdict will be? And if for whatever reason the court decide that I am guilty, what would the punishment be revoked license + fine?

[charlie2517]

Have Pm'd you with some queries.

SOmeone has said it will be 3 mags - it could be 2 mags or 1 District Judge. Either way the Crown will open and then you will mitigate.

You will get credit for your early guilty plea.

As has been said holding is sufficient.

[charlie2517]

Sentence is 3 points and a fine - sentencing guidelines council is the reference point the Bench uses. They will give 3 points. If you lose your licence it will be a retest as soon as you can get a test date. Only way to keep licence is if you can show exceptional hardship but I do not know enough about your circumstances to advise.

[Debt_Free_Chick]

Based on what people have seen here what do you all think the verdict will be? And if for whatever reason the court decide that I am guilty, what would the punishment be revoked license + fine?

You need to give some thought as to how you will explain why you were driving around holding your mobile phone. It's difficult to think of a good reason and it does rather suggest that you were intending to use it or about to use it/dialling when Plod clocked you.

We can try and argue some minor technicalities, but I doubt any of us have had to do this in Court and to be honest, it's what you pay a solicitor for.

If you're not going to get a solicitor's advice, then rehearse what you're going to say if the magistrate asks why were you holding the phone.

Incidentally - why were you? :confused:

[Inactive]

Incidentally - why were you? :confused:


The OP has side stepped that question already, I hope he has an answer for the magistrates.

[vikingaero]

Anyone remember the case of the blonde who was holding/drinking from a bottle of water whilst stationary at a set of traffic lights and was still convicted of not being in control of her vehicle?

[MX5huggy]

Anyone remember the case of the blonde who was holding/drinking from a bottle of water whilst stationary at a set of traffic lights and was still convicted of not being in control of her vehicle?

Yes but it had nothing to do with the bottle of water ........



.... sorrry

[barrier boy]

Mr Square, having read the posts, can I give you the definitive answers to your questions,
1. The law states that 'using' is a matter for the Magistrates to decide. Merely moving the phone from the dashboard to the seat would not constitute using. However that would require one continuous movement and any momentary halt would no doubt have to be explained. If the Officer saw you looking at the phone and/or appearing to be pressing the keyboard, this is easily enough to convict. Therefore producing documents from your provider would not, in themselves prove innocence. The device has to be capable of being used as a mobile data device to fall into the legal definition; it does NOT have to be transmitting or receiving that data at the time of the offence. A device MUST be in a cradle whilst in the vehicle (having it in your top pocket with a hands free kit is also technically an offence). I would not use the fact that the Officer should not be able to have seen you through your tinted windows as a defence either. If they are that dark they will, undoubtable be below 30% which means they would fall into the offence of 'Dangerous Parts' and would also be an endorsable offence for which you could (and should) have been prosecuted for at the time of the initial stop. As for advice, I would plead guilty and take the punishment, (the Magistrates do not revoke your licence it will be the DVLA who do that. On the other points raised, speedometers have to read, if anything high, by law, so if you were travelling at 30mph according to your vehicles speedo then your vehicle is doing a maximum speed of 30. As for the guidelines, they apply to Police Officers, not Camera Safety Units and the correct guidelines are 10% +2.
The 1991 New Drivers Act was enacted to try and curtail the reckless, dangerous and sometimes fatal driving seen all too often in this category of driver.
You have to ask yourself, with the speeding, the illegal tinted windows and this phone offence has the Act worked?

[Chippy Minton]

Yes but it had nothing to do with the bottle of water ........



.... sorrry


That all depends, the OP has not stated the offence for which he has been summonsed. If it's not being in proper control then it's exactly the same thing and the OP is clearly guilty of this offence.

[Le73Uq86Uv]

Deleted post

[ailuro2]

if your windows are so tinted the officer couldn't have seen you through them, then they're probably tinted too much, think yourself lucky you didn't get 'done' for that too.;)

Holding anything in your hand will mean your grip of the steering wheel is questionable.

Keep your hands free from clutter for wheels and gearsticks and you'll be fine rather than fined.:p

Best of Luck!

[MrSquare]

So what do people think the best situation is for me? If I admit to being guilty before the court date all I will get it 3 points and revokation, or should I protest my case and more than likely get found guilty of using my phone and recieve the same punishment plus a large fine?

Does anyone have idea on timescales if I get my license revoked? Do I have to stop driving immediately? How long does it take for my new provisional to arrive? Finally! Does anyone have any info on the average waiting time for driving tests in Bedfordshire / Luton area?

[mountainofdebt]

If I really wasn't using my phone I think I would fight the case .......having said that though you still haven't said why you had the phone in your hand if you weren't using it.....I know if I was the magistrate this is one question I would ask you.

[Inactive]

Does anyone have idea on timescales if I get my license revoked? Do I have to stop driving immediately?

Yes of course, you will no longer hold a valid licence to drive.

[uktyler]

Does anyone have idea on timescales if I get my license revoked? Do I have to stop driving immediately? How long does it take for my new provisional to arrive? Finally! Does anyone have any info on the average waiting time for driving tests in Bedfordshire / Luton area?



The ban would start immediately and your insurance will go up as you have to declare the ban. Current wait at Luton for tests can be found here: http://www.dsa.gov.uk/DTCInfo.asp?id=2269&Cat=54&ShowRoute=0. You need to take both the written and practical parts of the test, and pay for them again.

The best bet is to try and prove you NEED the car, have you got any old/sick relatives that need to be taken to hospital? Do you work shifts at an out of the way place? Under certain circumstances you would be allowed to keep your license, and get a big fine. However I would not lie to the court if you don't have a good reason to keep it, as this will land you in more trouble.

If you want to try and keep your licence talk to a solicitor, they will know what will work and what won't.

[Altarf]

Someone I know was taken to court for holding a phone whilst driving and as there was no proof that he was actually making / receiving a call at the time, he was found not guilty.

Hence why I say provide the records and it will be an open and shut case.

If you are not "using" a phone, why have it in your hand whilst driving?

The phone logs will prove that there were no outgoing calls or texts and the officer may have seen that there were no incoming calls, but what proves that the OP had not just read a text message that they had deleted, or was composing a text message that they hadn't sent or was in the process of dialling a number.

The only purpose in holding a phone whilst driving is because you are going to "use" it.

And to the OP, please tell the court about how the police officer couldn't see you because of your illegally tinted windows, and how being prosecuted previously for driving above the speed limit was so unfair. I am sure that will affect their decision.

[Happychappy]

The ban would start immediately and your insurance will go up as you have to declare the ban. Current wait at Luton for tests can be found here: http://www.dsa.gov.uk/DTCInfo.asp?id=2269&Cat=54&ShowRoute=0. You need to take both the written and practical parts of the test, and pay for them again.

The best bet is to try and prove you NEED the car, have you got any old/sick relatives that need to be taken to hospital? Do you work shifts at an out of the way place? Under certain circumstances you would be allowed to keep your license, and get a big fine. However I would not lie to the court if you don't have a good reason to keep it, as this will land you in more trouble.

If you want to try and keep your licence talk to a solicitor, they will know what will work and what won't.


The revocation of the driving licence is automatic if you receive 6 penalty points and not subject of the discretion of the blue rinse brigade sat on the bench dribbling. They can, when awake, give discretion concerning banning for speeds etc, etc, but no discretion regarding revoking a driving licence for a new licence holder with 6 points.

The only way to avoid revocation is not to receive 6 points, I dont know under this particular piece of legislation if they have discretion not to award points but increase the fine, I would doubt it very much as the law was introduced to stop tossers driving around using their phones, so I think it is time to get the cycle clips out.

[jaydeeuk1]

So what do people think the best situation is for me? If I admit to being guilty before the court date all I will get it 3 points and revokation, or should I protest my case and more than likely get found guilty of using my phone and recieve the same punishment plus a large fine?


Think we're getting there! You can probably work this one out yourself. Basically, do you want a kick in the nuts..... or a slap in the face and a kick in the nuts?

Just take the kicking imo.

[MrSquare]

Jay, thanks for the advice.

What happens when I plea guilty then, will the DVLA be notified immediately of my revokation? Will I be able to apply for my provisional again straight away that day?

Surely if I plea guilty before my court date I won't even have to attend the hearing will I? What happens then and how do I know when to stop driving?

Thanks!

[Inactive]

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/LearnerAndNewDrivers/NewlyQualifiedDrivers/DG_4022566

[MrSquare]

Thanks for the link, although it does not have any information on timescales of re-applying etc.

[Dave101t]

you were not wrongly accused so please, say your innocent so you can get a harsher sentence!

[silvercar]

You won't get a ban you will get your licence revoked. Although your insurance will increase, it won't increase by as much as if you were banned.

Once the licence is revoked, you can apply for your new provisional licence straight away and from receipt apply for your theory and then practical tests.

If you can show that you weren't using the phone then I would have your day in court. Its all circumstantial but I would tell the court that the reason you are there in person is because you know you are innocent; if you knew you were guilty you would have accepted the fine and points.

[Happychappy]

"If you can show that you weren't using the phone" ! ummm and how does he do that, he was only cuddling it coz the polo mints were bullying it ; )

[beaker141]

MrSquare - you should consider a career in politics the way you have continually managed to avoid answering the burning question - Why did you have the phone in your hand ?

[mountainofdebt]

I'm curious about 2 things:

1) Did the OP get off and if he did, what was the rason he gave to the magistrates

or what was the penalty if he didn't?

[Liz3yy]

The OP is a muppet, dont use or even touch your phone when driving and you cant go wrong, end of.

[fatpiggy]

Just why did you have the phone in your hand in the first place? You might have still been able to have the steering wheel in both hands, but you would not have been able to HOLD it properly. Nor would you have been able to use the steering wheel stick controls, or the gear or handbrake properly, depending on what hand you were holding the mobile in. I'm afraid you have rather alot to learn about driving. You have already admitted exceeding the speed limit and then complained that you are allowed 10%. Modern cars mostly have digital speedos, and rightly or wrongly, the police deem them to be more accurate than the old needle variety, and therefore the 10% margin is no longer granted. You must also remember that some police like to target young drivers, or people who appear to be young. A teenage friend of mine got pulled over for having a failed indicator bulb. She knew it had failed, it had gone during the journey and not having been driving long, didn't know how to change it. When she spoke to the police officer, he then accused her of talking on her mobile while driving, and was aggressive to her. Luckily she was able to prove that it was locked in her handbag, in the boot of the car at the time. Poor kid was very distressed by the whole incident. A colleague at work was always being pulled over by the police as she is under 5 feet tall. On more than one occasion they crawled all over the car looking for something to nail her on. But this police force did always have a very bad reputation for being racist...

[davemorton]

Modern cars mostly have digital speedos, and rightly or wrongly, the police deem them to be more accurate than the old needle variety, and therefore the 10% margin is no longer granted. ...

It is not often I venture into this forum, but I must say, in the 2 threads I have read (this one and the one about a ladies son who traveled 300 miles to buy a car) you don't half manage to spout an absolute load of !!!! and make it sound as if you know what you are talking about. If people actually believe the rubbish you type, then they would put themselves into quite a lot of trouble. Please stop making 'facts' up.

[Happychappy]

You have to admire her though, why let the truth get in the way of a good story. J.K.Rawlings must have started somewhere : ) admittedly not as stupid as the fatpig, but from little acorns.

[Volcano]

A colleague at work was always being pulled over by the police as she is under 5 feet tall. On more than one occasion they crawled all over the car looking for something to nail her on. But this police force did always have a very bad reputation for being racist...

OMG! Ha ha ha ha!

Thanks to others for pointing this post out......absolutely priceless :rotfl:

[Lemonade Pockets]

colleague at work was always being pulled over by the police as she is under 5 feet tall. On more than one occasion they crawled all over the car looking for something to nail her on. But this police force did always have a very bad reputation for being racist

I always thought racism was more to with creed or colour? But this sort of racism is far worse. I would hate to be nailed to my car, especially if my feet didn't touch the ground!

[Happychappy]

Maybe as your imaginary dwarf friend only thought they were crawling all over her car as they looked so big to her ? sounds like Ken and Barbie time. Racist heightists, pah, nothing worse.

[Millionaire]

Looks like the OP got locked up, no replies since court date.

[Liz3yy]

Looks like the OP got locked up, no replies since court date.

Hope so, we dont need !!!!! like him on the road

[A Nice Englishman]

Or perhaps he's crashed his car while on the phone?

[Millionaire]

Or perhaps he's crashed his car while on the phone?

on the way to court....

[Happychappy]

Maybe fatpiggies police pulled him over with fatpig navigating with her imaginary dwarf in the childseat ; )

[PolishBigSpender]

A device MUST be in a cradle whilst in the vehicle (having it in your top pocket with a hands free kit is also technically an offence).

This isn't true - it's a commonly held misconception that a phone must be in a cradle.

[max2009]

Modern cars mostly have digital speedos, and rightly or wrongly, the police deem them to be more accurate than the old needle variety, and therefore the 10% margin is no longer granted.

Did you hear this on Jackanory ? :)

[max2009]

A colleague at work was always being pulled over by the police as she is under 5 feet tall. On more than one occasion they crawled all over the car looking for something to nail her on. But this police force did always have a very bad reputation for being racist...

The traffic police have better things to do with their time than target a 'petite' woman driving her car.I am sure they would be more concerned with someones remarks concerning racism especially when they may construe libel on a public forum.

[fatpiggy]

I don't think they were traffic police, just coppers in cars. It happened to her 4 times. (Another friend has been stopped 5 times, each time they said they were letting her off "because she was pretty")Once they followed her all the way home when she was 8.5 months pregnant and while they were looking for something to book her for, they spoke openly to each other as to whether her tyres were legal etc. She was very frightened, not surprisingly. I know from personal experience that off-duty officers from this particular station used to be served in local pubs well after last-orders had been rung. Hopefully, as this was over 20 years ago, they've improved their standards a bit. As for libel, I haven't named them so I don't think that will stand up somehow. I've also said it was their reputation, not actual fact.

[Happychappy]

Fatpiggy I think somewhere there is a Village which is really really missing you ?

[fatpiggy]

Fatpiggy I think somewhere there is a Village which is really really missing you ?


Why? Have they let you out on day release?

[Indout96]

Modern cars mostly have digital speedos

Do they ??? I cant think of that many and the only one I have driven was the Vauxhall Insignia where it showed exactly the same as the needle and when matched against my sat nav was still around 5mph under at 70 (very easy to see though - it was the only thing about the car I liked)