NIP for using handheld whilst driving - Mobile phone log says I didn't

Mr_Incredible

TonyMMM wrote: »

The detail of what was seen will be covered in his witness statement, which you will get a copy of if/when you elect for a trial at court.

I'm sure you are right, just seemd like the first thing he would have said if you know what mean.

Perhaps things have changed or he didn't feel the need.

Car_54

TonyMMM wrote: »

You have the right to decline the offer of the FPN and take it to court - but you need to be aware of the risks (increased fine) of doing so.

Also costs (minimum £600+) and victim surcharge (10% of fine, minimum £20). And the cost of your solicitor if you employ one.

Mr_Incredible

Car_54 wrote: »

Also costs (minimum £600+) and victim surcharge (10% of fine, minimum £20). And the cost of your solicitor if you employ one.

All payable by cps/police if the can't prove beyond reasonable doubt something happened which didn't.

I think I have enough to go on that beyond reasonable doubt is impossible to prove now. Log proof, hands free, automatic gear box.

There would have been literally no need for me to use my phone.

BeenThroughItAll

Mr_Incredible wrote: »

Its weird, they never even asked to look at the phone, not once, the guy asked to sit in the passenger seat and I said no, we can stand at the pavement. He did go through the usual checks o the car and went and visually inspected from the passenger window, asked me if it was auto (can't have looked too hard).

Whole thing was surreal

Sounds as though there was an element of attitude-test failure there as well.

Spicy_McHaggis

Mr_Incredible wrote: »

All payable by cps/police if the can't prove beyond reasonable doubt something happened which didn't.

I think I have enough to go on that beyond reasonable doubt is impossible to prove now. Log proof, hands free, automatic gear box.

There would have been literally no need for me to use my phone.

But you had it in your hand, so they'll want an answer as to why.

Marvel1

Mr_Incredible wrote: »

I used my right hand to remove it from my pocket, allways kept one hand on the wheel and I drive an automatic BMW.

rested it on my lap and when I went to lift it onto the recess bulkhead where the sat nav thing is, I prefer it there because I can see out corner of my eye on reflection who it is thats calling.

I have a bluetooth hands free by the way

Mr_Incredible wrote: »

As for data I didn't switch the phone on.

But why put it there if it's switched off?


I wish you luck.

TrickyWicky

Mr_Incredible wrote: »

Log proof, hands free, automatic gear box.

There would have been literally no need for me to use my phone.

You keep mentioning this as if its your saving grace. The simple fact is that an automatic gearbox means nothing other than you either dislike or cannot use a manual gearbox for whatever reason - including that you find it distracting to use while trying to use your phones internet while driving

Many high end cars have automatic gearboxes, thats no reason for you not to be using your phone while driving.

As for hands free, again thats only useful for phone calls. It does not prove that you were not using the internet or sending a text so again you're making too much of this. While I do agree that it shows your commitment to using the phone within the law, it does also show that you're willing to talk on the phone while driving (which in reality is the same as talking to a passenger but you know how the law always sees the motorist as guilty).

You need to stop thinking that the autobox and handsfree will save you. Yes a detailed report from your phone provider that shows no calls, texts, internet use may well support your version of events and yes you may well prove that they cannot prove you guilty beyond all reasonable doubt but please drop the autobox and hands free thing before it does your case more harm than good.

What you might want to try is to explain in court that getting a phone out of your pocket and moving it to a less distracting position would be the same as getting your wallet out of your pocket and putting it there. It is an object that you were getting out to stop it hurting your leg and distracting you and that just because it is a phone, this does not constitute use of it.

I also often drive with my pockets full of junk and like you, sometimes i get things dig into my leg and have to pull it out. I'm always cautious about pulling out my phone though because of this very scenario - despite it being an object just like my wallet (crazy world but there are too many power abusing coppers out there).

TrickyWicky

cjdavies wrote: »

But why put it there if it's switched off?

Why not? Ever heard of emergency use?

There is no morally wrong reason to carry a mobile phone with you that is switched off. There is no stigma in society for this. For all you know his battery was flat - the same as not switching it on. Maybe he had it in flight mode (where the radio transceiver is turned off but the operating system still runs). Perhaps his battery was low and he prioritised having enough battery for an emergency call. Who knows, who cares? The real issue is that he has a right to carry a phone that is turned off if he wants without people like you trying to bash him for it.

AdrianC

Mr_Incredible wrote: »

Actually all it says on the FPN in type is "was seen in circumstances that gave me reasonable cause to believe that the offense above was being or had been committed.

Which is exactly what happened.

He saw you holding a phone in your hand in your car. He had reasonable cause to believe that you were committing the offence.

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

110.—(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using—

(a)a hand-held mobile telephone

(6) For the purposes of this regulation—

(a)a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function;

Its funy he never actually said "I think I saw this, or my colleague says that"

You've admitted that you were holding it.

Just asked me, were you using a phone for an emergency, to which I replied no.

That would have been legal.

The point is the burden of proof is on them

You've admitted you were holding your phone in your hand whilst driving. The question is whether it was performing an interactive communication function at the time. Your defence is that it wasn't. You can't prove it. It's your word against a Police officer's. Roughly what proportion of people do you think come up with the excuse "But I was just moving it..."?

Strange event in ay case

This law has been in place for twelve years now...

d123

Mr_Incredible wrote: »

The burden is on them and as I can prove I wasn't using it then I don't see how they can

Have you been in a Magistrates Court in the last 10 or 20 years? The magistrate will find you guilty on the testimony of the officer, that's all the proof she/he will need.

It's not like on TV.