Booked for using mobile while stationery

Avoriaz

Although the OP refers to texting, I still see a lot of drivers using mobiles phones clamped to their ear.

How expensive are hands free kits?

A few pounds compared to a possible fine of £100.

Or a serious accident.

Why do so many drivers appear reluctant to use a hands free device?

Alter_ego

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

So being in charge while using a phone is obviously not an offence then.

Why not try it yourself then?

Alter_ego

Aretnap wrote: »

You'd guess wrong. There's no such offence.

Perhaps not when in the driving seat, but how would you define a driving instructor.

I accept I posted in haste without a check, but the principle stands.

Spicy_McHaggis

Alter_ego wrote: »

Perhaps not when in the driving seat, but how would you define a driving instructor.

I accept I posted in haste without a check, but the principle stands.

I've already told you.

Supervising a learner.

matttye

The offence is driving whilst using a mobile phone and it's an offence contrary to section 41D of the Road Traffic Act.

There is no such offence as using a mobile phone whilst being in charged of a vehicle. The only question mark is what constitutes driving.

Aretnap

Alter_ego wrote: »

Perhaps not when in the driving seat, but how would you define a driving instructor.

I accept I posted in haste without a check, but the principle stands.

The construction and use regulations define three offences

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2695/made

(1) driving while using a handheld mobile phone (or other communication device)
(2) causing or permitting another person to drive while he is using a mobile phone (aimed mainly at employers who insist their staff take phone calls at the wheel)
(3) supervising a learner while using a mobile phone

A driving instructor who is using a mobile phone is committing an offence because he's not complying with subsection 3. It has nothing to do with being in charge.

If there was an offence of being in charge while using a phone, analogous to being drunk in charge, then you'd be committing an offence by making a phone call standing next to your car, keys in pocket. Which would be absurd.

matttye

Aretnap wrote: »

The construction and use regulations create define three offences

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2695/made

(1) driving while using a handheld mobile phone (or other communication device)
(2) causing or permitting another person to drive while he is using a mobile phone (aimed mainly at companies which insist their staff take phone calls at the wheel)
(3) supervising a learner while using a mobile phone

A driving instructor who is using a mobile phone is committing an offence because he's not complying with subsection 3. It has nothing to do with being in charge.

If there was an offence of being in charge while using a phone, analogous to being drunk in charge, then you'd be committing an offence by making a phone call standing next to your car, keys in pocket. Which would be absurd.

Just to clarify the point (for anyone reading, not necessarily you), any person using a phone/other handheld communicative device commits an offence if they're supervising a learner at the time. It's not restricted to people who are driving instructors by trade.

Joe_Horner

Car_54 wrote: »

Your comment was 'if your engine is running you're "driving" for the purpose of using a mobile ...'

AFAIK while there is case law defining "driving"in various contexts, there is none related to mobile use.

You do understand how case law works, don't you?

Once a precedent or definition is set it will be followed in any similar circumstances unless the defence or prosecution can show reasons to distinguish those circumstances, at which point (if they successfully distinguish the new situation) case law is expanded.

So, those definitions of case law from "other contexts" apply equally to any question of whether someone is driving or not unless an appeal successfully distinguishes a particular context.

Since as far as I'm aware, no-one has taken a driving with mobile charge to full appeal yet, the extant definitions apply.

It's really a very elegant system, designed and refined over centuries to avoid the need to argue every little trivial difference between cases.

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

What's your source for that because you can be driving without the engine running?

See above.

maninthestreet

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

If he's in charge of the steering, braking and propulsion then legally he's driving.

There is no such as offence as using a mobile phone whilst in charge of a car.

Spicy_McHaggis

Joe_Horner wrote: »

You do understand how case law works, don't you?

Once a precedent or definition is set it will be followed in any similar circumstances unless the defence or prosecution can show reasons to distinguish those circumstances, at which point (if they successfully distinguish the new situation) case law is expanded.

So, those definitions of case law from "other contexts" apply equally to any question of whether someone is driving or not unless an appeal successfully distinguishes a particular context.

Since as far as I'm aware, no-one has taken a driving with mobile charge to full appeal yet, the extant definitions apply.

It's really a very elegant system, designed and refined over centuries to avoid the need to argue every little trivial difference between cases.



See above.

R v Macdonnagh.

Engine doesn't need to be running yet for a mobile phone you state it must be even though there is no stated case to back up your claim.