A horribly expensive mistake :(

darkblue_2

Fiddlestick wrote: »

So you have no practical experience of this issue :rotfl:




Yes, I did know that.

I also know a surgeon who rides an SV-650, although that's equally as irrelevant

I have no experience of drivers using mobile phones because I don't drive? That's rather obtuse. I choose not to drive because I live in an area which has great public transport and extortionate parking prices. But yet again, you jump to conclusions.

You are in a minority position in your arguement, which generally means you're wrong. In this case, I can inform you, you are wrong.

You, and the many others like you on these boards, who post preachy messages on unrelated threads are simply wasting bandwith.

Charliezoo

Gordon_Hose wrote: »

Did the officer give you anything at the roadside?

Yes I have a yellow form which I have read now I have calmed down a bit. Looks like I have to pay the fine and surrender my driving license at a local police station, I feel nervous just thinking about it, I hope they're ok with me.

Do I need to tell my insurance company this has happened?

Cat695

Charliezoo wrote: »

Yes I have a yellow form which I have read now I have calmed down a bit. Looks like I have to pay the fine and surrender my driving license at a local police station, I feel nervous just thinking about it, I hope they're ok with me.

Do I need to tell my insurance company this has happened?

Yes as they can refuse to pay out if you ever try to claim on it and you fail to tell them.

anewman

Bluetooth headsets can be had for under a tenner very easily, much cheaper than a fine and no risk of points. Why do people persist on picking up the actual handset? Especially those with the nice cars that no doubt have bluetooth integrated, maybe they're too stupid to be able to figure out how to use it. Why do people spend over £50 on a satnag but £20 or less doesn't feature for something that could save their license.

Some examples of deals about.
http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/samsung-wep500-bluetooth-headset-3-/736446
http://www.play.com/Mobiles/Mobile/4-/10536508/Motorola-T307-Bluetooth-Car-Speakerphone/Product.html?_%24ja=tsid:11518|cc:|prd:10536508|cat:Mobile+
http://www.play.com/Mobiles/Mobile/4-/13653045/Nexxus-Drive-Multi-Solar-Solar-Powered-Multipoint-Bluetooth-Car-Kit/Product.html?_%24ja=tsid:11518|cc:|prd:13653045|cat:Mobile+

Paradigm

As far as I can see the OP was quite sensible in that they pulled over to take the call & once stopped were no danger to anyone!

Unfortunately by handling the phone while driving they were technically guilty. Also by using the phone with the engine running they were, again, technically guilty.

However, I believe the "spirit" of the law was to catch the people using a phone while doing 80mph on a m/way & has been corrupted by the police/legal system to what it is now due to the law being so badly worded.

Let's face it, picking up your phone to see who's calling is no more dangerous than changing a CD yet the first is a certain conviction...

funkycoldribena

Paradigm wrote: »

As far as I can see the OP was quite sensible in that they pulled over to take the call & once stopped were no danger to anyone!

Unfortunately by handling the phone while driving they were technically guilty. Also by using the phone with the engine running they were, again, technically guilty.

However, I believe the "spirit" of the law was to catch the people using a phone while doing 80mph on a m/way & has been corrupted by the police/legal system to what it is now due to the law being so badly worded.

Let's face it, picking up your phone to see who's calling is no more dangerous than changing a CD yet the first is a certain conviction...

Ahh..someone talking sense:j
Wait for the "it only takes a second" brigade.

lucylucky

Paradigm wrote: »

As far as I can see the OP was quite sensible in that they pulled over to take the call & once stopped were no danger to anyone!

Unfortunately by handling the phone while driving they were technically guilty. Also by using the phone with the engine running they were, again, technically guilty.

However, I believe the "spirit" of the law was to catch the people using a phone while doing 80mph on a m/way & has been corrupted by the police/legal system to what it is now due to the law being so badly worded.

Let's face it, picking up your phone to see who's calling is no more dangerous than changing a CD yet the first is a certain conviction...

I doubt that the spirit of the law was to enable the police to catch people committing two offences at the same time.

Charliezoo

Thanks to everyone who has helped me on this subject. I had no-one to speak to after it happened and feel much more clear-headed now I've had some helpful advice which afterall, is what this forum is for.
Thankyou very much

POPPYOSCAR

I don't think some of the comments are very fair to the OP.


I get really annoyed when I see drivers holding conversations on the phone but she did not have a full blown conversation she pulled over.

I get really mad with those drivers that don't indicate which seems to be the norm nowadays especially on roundabouts but the police never seem to stop drivers for this.

OP don't worry about it, you know you made a mistake and hopefully won't make the same mistake twice. We have all done things in our lives where we think why on earth did I do that? I know I have.

Fiddlestick

Charliezoo wrote: »

What a thoroughly nasty thing to say.

Yet undeniably true.