Wrongly Given a Warning by the Police

Sgt_Pepper_2

A hand not the head isn't below the standard expected and who does it inconvenience?

Joe_Horner

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

A hand not the head isn't below the standard expected and who does it inconvenience?

Isn't it?

You see plenty of people driving around, head rested on hand, clearly thinking of anything but what's going on around them. It's likely sign of, at very least, low concentration.

There's also the issue of your ability to carry out an emergency manoeuve if needed and, at any sort of speed, yor ability to control something like a blow-out.

As to who it inconveniences, absolutely no-one until it goes wrong. But that's also true of using a mobile, driving without insurance, using an unroadworthy car and drink driving. None of them "inconvenience" anyone until it goes pear shaped, so does that make them ok too?

Sgt_Pepper_2

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Isn't it?

You see plenty of people driving around, head rested on hand, clearly thinking of anything but what's going on around them. It's likely sign of, at very least, low concentration.

There's also the issue of your ability to carry out an emergency manoeuve if needed and, at any sort of speed, yor ability to control something like a blow-out.

As to who it inconveniences, absolutely no-one until it goes wrong. But that's also true of using a mobile, driving without insurance, using an unroadworthy car and drink driving. None of them "inconvenience" anyone until it goes pear shaped, so does that make them ok too?

No, because inconvenience isnt mentioned in insurance of phone use.

Other than in your opinion do you have anything to back up touching your head is careless?

Joe_Horner

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

No, because inconvenience isnt mentioned in insurance of phone use.

Other than in your opinion do you have anything to back up touching your head is careless?

But you were the one who brought "not inconveniencing" people as justification to why driving with a hand off the wheel was ok. personally, I wasn't quite sure how that made any difference either way as far as an offence is concerned but figured you must know something I didn't.

You're also trying to set up a straw man argument with "touching your head". If you look back, the discussion was about driving round resting your head on a hand which suggests your hand being off the wheel for longer than simply "touching your head".

There have been plenty of examples of not using both hands being found to be inadequate control, if you like I can explain how to use Google? What I find more worrying, though, is that (assuming you drive?) you don't see that there's any potential safety issue with one-hand steering (except when the other is needed to operate some other part of the car).

Tobster86

I don't see any issue with one handed steering at all, and think a good palm steering skill ought to be a necessary driving standard.

If steering a vehicle with one hand were unsafe, there would be a lot more plane crashes.

Sgt_Pepper_2

Joe_Horner wrote: »

But you were the one who brought "not inconveniencing" people as justification to why driving with a hand off the wheel was ok. personally, I wasn't quite sure how that made any difference either way as far as an offence is concerned but figured you must know something I didn't.

You're also trying to set up a straw man argument with "touching your head". If you look back, the discussion was about driving round resting your head on a hand which suggests your hand being off the wheel for longer than simply "touching your head".

There have been plenty of examples of not using both hands being found to be inadequate control, if you like I can explain how to use Google? What I find more worrying, though, is that (assuming you drive?) you don't see that there's any potential safety issue with one-hand steering (except when the other is needed to operate some other part of the car).

I do apologize and here was me thinking it was you who suggested it was careless driving. Yet to see any of your evidence.

Road_Hog

Two things, it could be easily solved, by the police asking the op's service provider for usuage around the time of the alleged offence.

Secondly, to the OP, did you accept this caution, because if you did, this will now appear as a criminal record and will turn up on CRBs

Sgt_Pepper_2

Road_Hog wrote: »

Two things, it could be easily solved, by the police asking the op's service provider for usuage around the time of the alleged offence.

Secondly, to the OP, did you accept this caution, because if you did, this will now appear as a criminal record and will turn up on CRBs

A caution at the roadside for a motoring offence does NOT show up on a crb check.

Wig

Trebor16 wrote: »

But the fact is people do lie on MSE. I know of one regular contributor to this forum who has made numerous false statements and claims about other members which are total rubbish, but he still persists with his nonsense.

Not sure what that has to do with the price of fish? Comparing apples with pears. I'm talking about people who are not trolls who come here put a post up and ask for advice on that post. Talking about other members is not same thing.

rev_henry

Road_Hog wrote: »

Two things, it could be easily solved, by the police asking the op's service provider for usuage around the time of the alleged offence.

Secondly, to the OP, did you accept this caution, because if you did, this will now appear as a criminal record and will turn up on CRBs

1. No it couldn't, might have been fiddling with twitter or something.
2. It wasn't a caution, just a verbal warning.