Driver on Phone on Google Street View

thescouselander

Found this on street view just now:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=51.503998,-2.500892&num=1&sll=51.423097,-2.575898&sspn=0.018954,0.06174&ie=UTF8&ll=51.497813,-2.47871&spn=0.001623,0.004699&z=18&layer=c&cbll=51.497671,-2.47854&panoid=QEbRIA_tEPioRRj1kK2qSg&cbp=12,30.91,,0,14.6


Clearly this guy is breaking the law - I wonder if the police will do anything about it? I bet there's loads of images like this that could get people into trouble.

Ukuser

it will be hard to prove the vehicle was actually moving

Coveredinbees!!!!

Blimey how bored were you

thescouselander

I was actually looking for something else - but clearly I was pretty bored with nothing better to do.


You can tell the truck is moving by moving the view up and down the road. I think the picture shows the concerns about google streetview were well founded.

verybigchris

There's a stretch of cycle lane in Liverpool that always has pedestrians walking along it, even though there's pavement right next to it :mad:

Anyway, I went on Google Street View to show this area to someone, and realised the Google car was driving down the middle of the bus lane

clicky

UnhappyBunny_2

Good find! If you go behind the lorry it doesn't show any brake or hazard lights so it must be moving. Also, he's on the dual carriageway and that would be a stupid place to be stationary. You can zoom in and you cannot see the hand brake which means it is released. It seems his other hand is not on the wheel, so he must be changing gear at that exact moment. If you get the right angles, you can see the rear registration plate is WU02 HNT.

REPORT HIM!

anamenottaken

thescouselander wrote: »

Found this on street view just now:

Clearly this guy is breaking the law - I wonder if the police will do anything about it? I bet there's loads of images like this that could get people into trouble.

You could tell them - name of the employer and their phone number is clearly displayed.

Searcher

Not condoning what he's doing but who's to say that using a phone while driving was actually illegal at the time the photo was taken?
The law came into force on Feb 27 2007 the picture of my house on street view was taken before that, even though the copyright water mark is 2009

sparky7

Searcher wrote: »

Not condoning what he's doing but who's to say that using a phone while driving was actually illegal at the time the photo was taken?
The law came into force on Feb 27 2007 the picture of my house on street view was taken before that, even though the copyright water mark is 2009

Its been illegal since 2003, but the penalty had to be given by a court. In 2007 they started issuing fixed penalty tickets for using a phone while driving.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032695.htm

DaveF327

sparky7 wrote: »

Its been illegal since 2003, but the penalty had to be given by a court. In 2007 they started issuing fixed penalty tickets for using a phone while driving.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032695.htm

The difference in 2007 was that the offence became endorsable.

the182guy

Nice find but the Police won't be interested in this. Like others said difficult to prove it was not stopped and the law only applies to 'holding a communications device', it's impossible to prove that the device in the photo is a mobile phone. You'd also need to find the identity of the driver which means you'd need to access the company's log data for that exact time [which you don't even know]. Then there are many more factors to consider, such as has the photo been doctored? Like another said, was it taken before the law was introduced? Another thing, it's ony a very minor offence therefore if the Police were to do all of the above then the amount of Police time spent on the case would be hugely disproportionate to the severity of the offence which is another reason why the Police won't entertain it.

If that went to court the defence team would rip the case apart surely.

UnhappyBunny wrote:

Good find! If you go behind the lorry it doesn't show any brake or hazard lights so it must be moving.

No brake lights on and no hazards so the vehicle must be moving? Don't think so. It only means the vehicle was probably moving, there is no proof.

UnhappyBunny wrote:

Also, he's on the dual carriageway and that would be a stupid place to be stationary. You can zoom in and you cannot see the hand brake which means it is released.

In order to prove that you'd need to have a photo taken from the exact same angle at the exact same height and position from the vehice with very similar lighting and weather conditions, using the same type of camera, while the handbrake is on in order to compare the two.