Booked for using mobile while stationery

maninthestreet

emmb wrote: »

As far as I understand it, strictly, sadly, keys in ignition=in charge of vehicle and so, whilst extremely petty,.

The offence is using a mobile phone whilst driving - there is no such offence of using a mobile phone whist in charge of a vehicle...

reeac

SuperAllyB wrote: »

I naively opened this thread hoping to find a story about a pen or pencil that had learnt to drive a car!

Thanks for the light relief re spelling by the OP. Nice to find the occasional nugget amongst all the dross.

Spicy_McHaggis

marleyboy wrote: »

I dont use my phone in my car AT ALL engine on or off. Cars should be built in such a way that mobile phone reception just does not work inside the vehicle.

The argument about leaving the engine running is rather mute, be that a drunk driver only needs to put the key in the ignition to determine their guilt.

Bad idea, I know of one person who would be dead if that were the case.

Tilt

marleyboy wrote: »

I dont use my phone in my car AT ALL engine on or off. Cars should be built in such a way that mobile phone reception just does not work inside the vehicle.

Even if that was possible, it will never happen. I have a car which has a built in phone system (as do a few others) which does not have a handset at all so such an idea as yours would simply not work. Plus there is the safety issues of being able to make emergency calls.

marleyboy wrote: »

The argument about leaving the engine running is rather mute, be that a drunk driver only needs to put the key in the ignition to determine their guilt.

Not even that. A drunk driver merely needs to be standing in close proximity to the car parked on a road and be in possession of the keys to be deemed 'in charge'.

FormulaDriven

So, out of interest, how about this (hypothetical) scenario: the engine is running and the car is parked, and the only occupant of the car is sitting in a passenger seat using a phone.

Who is committing an offence? And is the answer different if the driver is standing nearby? Or if the engine is off?

Spicy_McHaggis

FormulaDriven wrote: »

So, out of interest, how about this (hypothetical) scenario: the engine is running and the car is parked, and the only occupant of the car is sitting in a passenger seat using a phone.

Who is committing an offence? And is the answer different if the driver is standing nearby? Or if the engine is off?

The driver.

shaun_from_Africa

FormulaDriven wrote: »

So, out of interest, how about this (hypothetical) scenario: the engine is running and the car is parked, and the only occupant of the car is sitting in a passenger seat using a phone.

Who is committing an offence? And is the answer different if the driver is standing nearby? Or if the engine is off?

If the car was parked up with the engine running, the police could still prosecute for the offence of leaving the vehicle running when not necessary.
Unlikely to hapen I know, but still possible.

FormulaDriven

OK. So, if a couple were in their car, they pulled over to swap, one of them getting out of the car, the other shuffling across from one seat to the other, who is the driver if one of them started using their phone?

Again, this is all hypothetical and probably unanswerable until a case goes to court, I'm just exploring if there are any quirky implications in the way "driver" is identified by the law. Could you argue in court: "I couldn't be the driver as I was on my phone"?

Joe_Horner

FormulaDriven wrote: »

OK. So, if a couple were in their car, they pulled over to swap, one of them getting out of the car, the other shuffling across from one seat to the other, who is the driver if one of them started using their phone?

The best basic definition of "driver" available at the moment is probably from Lord Widgery, CJ in R v MacDonagh [1974] RTR 372:

• The Act does not define the word 'drive' and in its simplest meaning we think that it refers to a person using the driver's controls for the purpose of directing the movement of the vehicle. [...]

In DPP v Alderton [2003] EWHC 2917the appellant (the DPP) submitted that "the test relates to the degree of control over movement of the vehicle, not to whether or not the vehicle actually moves.", also citing Hoy v McFadyen [2000] SLR 1060 in which Lord Sutherland opined:

• The fact that the engine was running at the time, that the appellant was the person in the driving seat, that the appellant had disengaged the gear in order to start the engine and as a consequence required to keep his foot on the footbrake, in our opinion go beyond mere preparation for driving, and the appellant has commenced driving even though there may have been no movement at all

This reasoning was accepted by the court in Alderton:

that using the controls (eg: placing out of gear and applying the handbrake with the engine running) amounts to "controlling the movement of the car", and therefore driving, by preventing it from moving.


Obviously, any future case might modify that position for a given offence (Alderton was about drink driving). Still, without trying to set new precedent, it would be reasonable for a court to decide that the "driver" in your situation was the last person to operate the controls. In which case the person leaving the driver seat would still be driving until the person entering it first moved one of the driving controls (pedals, gears, handbrake etc).

Spicy_McHaggis

FormulaDriven wrote: »

OK. So, if a couple were in their car, they pulled over to swap, one of them getting out of the car, the other shuffling across from one seat to the other, who is the driver if one of them started using their phone?

Again, this is all hypothetical and probably unanswerable until a case goes to court, I'm just exploring if there are any quirky implications in the way "driver" is identified by the law. Could you argue in court: "I couldn't be the driver as I was on my phone"?

Well if you're stood outside the car and the other is shuffling across I'd say you are no longer driving.