Tickets issued

Gettingtherequickly

Hi

One of our employees has been stopped for having his mobile in his hand, however, they all have bluetooth and use this. In this instance, as he has not got a watch on and the clock in the van is not working, he was only actually looking at the time and showed the police officer the listing. Officer having none of it so issued a ticket. Employee refused to accept it on the basis he was not on a call, so the officer then issued one for not wearing seat belt. As the van is stopping frequently, are drivers compelled to wear belt in this instance?

give_them_FA

Delivery drivers used to have seat belt exemption but this changed some years ago. They are now only exempt if they have to stop every less than 50 metres, like a milk float driver.

As regards the mobile phone, if he feels strongly he could take it to Court. I have my doubts the C.P.S. would want to prosecute if it were shown that no calls were made or received at the material time, which should be available from the service provider.

Gettingtherequickly

give_them_FA wrote: »

Delivery drivers used to have seat belt exemption but this changed some years ago. They are now only exempt if they have to stop every less than 50 metres, like a milk float driver.

As regards the mobile phone, if he feels strongly he could take it to Court. I have my doubts the C.P.S. would want to prosecute if it were shown that no calls were made or received at the material time, which should be available from the service provider.

Thanks for that, he wants to take it to court as he feels that strongly, will have to suck and weep the seat belt!

Buzby

It is a misconception that you have to be making or receiving a call in order for a prosecution to be successful. Looking at the screen to read a text, email or just the time are all valid distractions and can be addressed by the prosecution. If the only hope is that you wish to challenge 'using' the phone because you were looking at the time only - it isn't a compelling argument to challenge. The phone is being used, albeit not for the expected purpose. The fine and points for not wearing a seat belt are the same as using a mobile, so I'd deal with it and move on - and not touch a mobile, it's the 'holding' that gets you.

give_them_FA

Yes, the offence consists of holding a phone rather than necessarily using it. So I think, on re-reading the post, that even checking time would- strictly- be an offence.

Yet another example of the ill-thought-out legislation from the last Government. When driving, you can hold anything you like so long as it isn't a mobile phone... reminds me of a joke, but it's a bit smutty for here.

Don't think the seat belt offence carries points, though.

JohnM5206

Not complete though:

Definitions
Hand-held device – something that "is or must be held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function".

Device – "similar" to a mobile phone if it performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data.

So holding is not sufficient, the requirement to be involved in interactive communication is stated.

give_them_FA

Thanks John, that is useful to know. So it appears my original post stands then, without a call being made/answered, or texting, there is no offence?

Though your definition merely defines what a (hand-held) mobile phone is; not how the offence is committed. Can you assist or shall I look it up?

JohnM5206

Sorry for the delay :-

A number of similar sources but this is one
http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/legal-advice/mobile-phones.html

JohnM5206

As an aside I recall an English Magistrates Court decision where the argument that the 'instrument' had been used to record dictation was accepted.

Coupon-mad

Yes...wasn't that the case against Jimmy Carr? = case dismissed.

esmerobbo

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes...wasn't that the case against Jimmy Carr? = case dismissed.

He was cleared yes, but how many of us can afford Nick Freeman?