Booked for using mobile while stationery

matttye

Car_54 wrote: »

See comments in bold above.

If you have your car in gear, but you're stationary, and you're looking in your mirror waiting for an opportunity to pull out into traffic, would you say you're driving or not?

I would.

How can the police tell if your car is in gear or not? They can't!

I think the courts will likely say engine on = driving for the purposes of the legislation.

Agreed though, I can't find a single case in the court of appeal that has considered the point.

Car_54

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

If you're in the drivers seat, engine running you're driving.

You'd have to take it to court for them to decide otherwise.

I agree, and the courts probably would too.

Until that happens, we'll get idiots arguing the opposite.

Spicy_McHaggis

matttye wrote: »

If you have your car in gear, but you're stationary, and you're looking in your mirror waiting for an opportunity to pull out into traffic, would you say you're driving or not?

I would.

How can the police tell if your car is in gear or not? They can't!

I think the courts will likely say engine on = driving for the purposes of the legislation.

Agreed though, I can't find a single case in the court of appeal that has considered the point.

Why does it need to be in gear?

matttye

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Why does it need to be in gear?

Because if you're distracted then you could cause the car to move.

I think the real question should be why does the engine need to be on

benham3160

Car_54 wrote: »

I agree, and the courts probably would too.

Until that happens, we'll get idiots arguing the opposite.

I'm not arguing on a point of law, but a point of bloody common sense.

I still think a tap on the window giving the driver a bit of friendly advice would have been a far more sensible option.

Spicy_McHaggis

benham3160 wrote: »

I'm not arguing on a point of law, but a point of bloody common sense.

I still think a tap on the window giving the driver a bit of friendly advice would have been a far more sensible option.

So you accept the offence was committed?

Spicy_McHaggis

matttye wrote: »

Because if you're distracted then you could cause the car to move.

I think the real question should be why does the engine need to be on

So why bring up the fact the vehicle may or may not be in gear?

benham3160

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

So you accept the offence was committed?

I haven't said it wasn't, I have no idea if it's an unlawful thing to do or not, you won't find any point in this thread I've suggested any legal argument at all.

On the evidence presented here though, issuing a FPN is bloody petty.

Spicy_McHaggis

benham3160 wrote: »

I haven't said it wasn't, I have no idea if it's an unlawful thing to do or not, you won't find any point in this thread I've suggested any legal argument at all.

On the evidence presented here though, issuing a FPN is bloody petty.

You must think its unlawful as you suggested knocking on the window and giving advice rather than a ticket.

benham3160

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

You must think its unlawful as you suggested knocking on the window and giving advice rather than a ticket.

I'm not sure why you're arguing with me?

"Sorry to bother you chap, I'm gonna give you a ticket if you don't turn your engine off."

"Fair does."

Wasn't difficult was it?

I remember why I hardly come on here now, there are few forums like this place that are littered with threads of people arguing with each other for no particular reason.