Help wrongly accused of using mobile phone whilst driving

gromituk

Why on earth would you want to use a switched-off mobile phone to scratch your ear? Picking silly examples doesn't really help. As to whether it's illegal, well I suspect not but you have access to the legislation on line should your question be genuine rather than rhetorical. And doing it would be as unwise as it is pointless, because the whole reason for this thread is that not all police are honest.

We've already been through the "phone records" fallacy several times. One of the problems is that you could easily have two mobile phones on you, and claim that you were not using one when you were using the other.

As to your strange examples of doing things while stationary, well you're not driving at all if you're "idling at the side of the road" (I presume you're meaning "parked with the engine running"), so you could make calls too; while at the lights or in a traffic jam, those activities could be deemed to be illegal if they were resulting in you driving without due care and attention. But all of them differ in a crucial way from being on the phone - you can instantly stop doing them if the demands of driving require you to do so. So rather a lot of false comparisons going on there.

You seem to be falling for the tired old non-sequitor that because a law isn't perfect it shouldn't be on the statute books. It's far better that this law prevents everyone from using a hand-held phone while driving than it causes inconvenience to some who could somehow do so without significantly affecting their concentration.

grayme-m

On my first advanced driving lessons I stopped at traffic lights as I always did, (into neutral, put on the handbreak and put both hands on my knees).

"You know that you can now be found to be not in proper control of a vehicle" I was told....

Froggitt

The problem with granny knows best laws such as wearing seatbelt, using mobile phones, speeding signs, is that those people not adhering to these laws, and Im sure we all have done so at one time or another (let him whos never broken the speed limit cast the first stone) spend too high a percentage of their concentration looking out for police cars and cameras rather than looking out for people walking between parked cars, or for problems on the road 100 or 200 yards ahead.

Cars and brakes are so much better than when the speeds were set, that the limits should be going up, not down. And whos business is it that I may not want to wear my seatbelt except for mine? Any having screaming kids in the back of a car is more dangerous than using a mobile phone while driving.

gromituk

Froggitt wrote: »

The problem ... is that those people not adhering to these laws ... spend too high a percentage of their concentration looking out for police cars and cameras rather than looking out for people walking between parked cars, or for problems on the road 100 or 200 yards ahead.

And people adhering to those laws don't, and are safer because they are going more slowly and/or not using mobile phones. (And if you're alert for police cars, aren't you more likely to notice other hazards?)

Cars and brakes are so much better than when the speeds were set, that the limits should be going up, not down.

But reaction times have not changed, and however good your brakes are, simple physics dictates that you will still take an awful long time to stop in the wrong conditions.

And whos business is it that I may not want to wear my seatbelt except for mine?

Everyone's. You live in a welfare state, and it costs society an awful lot or money clearing up the mess if you die. You therefore have a responsibility to minimise that risk. Not to mention the grief caused to your family.

Any having screaming kids in the back of a car is more dangerous than using a mobile phone while driving.

Is it? I'd be very interested to see your proof, not to mention an explanation of how that means the mobile phone law should be repealed.

grayme-m

Froggitt wrote: »

The problem ... is that those people not adhering to these laws ... spend too high a percentage of their concentration looking out for police cars and cameras rather than looking out for people walking between parked cars, or for problems on the road 100 or 200 yards ahead.

gromituk wrote: »

And people adhering to those laws don't, and are safer because they are going more slowly and/or not using mobile phones. (And if you're alert for police cars, aren't you more likely to notice other hazards?)

This is not strictly true, what about the numpties on dual carriageways that slam on their brakes from 70 to 60 (or even 50) at the last minute (just in case) just because they haven't a clue what speed they are doing or what the speed limit on a dual carriageway is?

IMHO, breaking the speed limit is not the problem, driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions is.

gromituk

What about ... what about? We can all argue individual scenarios until the cows come home. Laws are by their very nature a blunt instrument. You have to look at whether or not they are beneficial overall.

IMHO, breaking the speed limit is not the problem, driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions is.

Define "inappropriate speed" and I think you'll see what I mean!

grayme-m

gromituk wrote: »

What about ... what about? We can all argue individual scenarios until the cows come home. Laws are by their very nature a blunt instrument. You have to look at whether or not they are beneficial overall.

Define "inappropriate speed" and I think you'll see what I mean!

I'm of two minds for all this to be honest, probably with you on it though.

Part of me wants to allows people to make their own decisions rather than have draconian rules, the other half (that wrote my sig ), realises that this would be all rather messy.

Take speed limits, a certain dual carriageway has the national speed limit (that's 70 to those that don't know what the white circle with the black diagonal stripe means ), but is it always safe to do 70? It's a clear straight road, it's 3am, would 71 mean certain death? Alternatively, it's snowing, all icy, 70 is still safe?

Clearly people should understand what isn't safe, but there are too many people out there that say 'speed kills', my point is it doesn't.

I've followed doddery old women in a 60 going at 40, then at a built up area they are still doing 40; I've seen a couple get flashed by Gatsos! :rotfl:

But there are bigger causes of accidents than breaking the speed limit, just not driving properly (on the phone, to close to the car in front, just not paying attention, not indicating, etc.) is the main one.

When was the last time someone got a ticket and fine for not indicating or tailgaiting?

The trouble is they are hard to procecute for, catching someone speeding or (apparently) on the phone are just easy targets.

Anybody need a soapbox, I've finished with it?

thamesmatt

read this thread with interest. I was pulled over for jumping a red light which I know for a fact I didnt do (take my word for that). I decided to contest it, went to court and the middle aged female magistrate accpeted the policeman's view with statement written 5 months after the event and my photographic evidence of the curve in the road, the bushes in the way etc... that I submited counted for nothing! ended up with £270 fine and 3 points. I could have taken the slap on the wrist and got done for £40 plus 3 points.

Policemen in smart uniforms and old female magistrates. they cant be beaten! Plus if you get the policeman into court they increase you fine for taking him off the street where he could be catching real criminals!

My advice would be to take the £30 especially as there are no points involved and forget about it.

When I combine this with the lack of action when my wife's credit card was cloned even though we investigated the theft and found out where the goods had gone means I will never trust or help the police again.

Sorry to sound all daily mail but as law abiding, tax paying community helping professional people we are getting hammered again while the idle and !!!!less get away with everything.

Sorry, not terribly relevant advice and comment but it might save you a few hundred pounds. (can you tell I am still bitter 7 years on!)

MORPH3US

thamesmatt wrote: »

I was pulled over for jumping a red light which I know for a fact I didnt do (take my word for that)................ and my photographic evidence of the curve in the road, the bushes in the way etc... that I submited counted for nothing!

Playing devils advocate, how do you know for a fact you didn't jump the light if the bushes were in the way...

And if they weren't in the way (because you saw the light and were certain you didn't jump it), what is the relevance of submitting the evidence mentioned...

M

grayme-m

MORPH3US wrote: »

Playing devils advocate, how do you know for a fact you didn't jump the light if the bushes were in the way...

And if they weren't in the way (because you saw the light and were certain you didn't jump it), what is the relevance of submitting the evidence mentioned...

M

I read it that there were bushes and a curve preventing the policeman having a unrestricted view of whether he jumped the lights or not.