Is a mounted tablet legal for the driver?

AdrianC

RS2000. wrote: »

How about he stops hits refresh and then drives off paying full attention in the same way he would if the device wasn't there. Is that careless?

If he's giving his full attention to his driving, as if the tablet wasn't there, then why did he need to refresh his email on the tablet in the first place?

But, no, clearly that would not be careless driving.

Just as inattention without the tablet would be.

For careless driving, it is the driver's attention, not the tablet, which is relevant. I am unsure why you are making this more complicated than it needs to be.

If the tablet is hand-held whilst he hits refresh, then that is not careless driving, that is a specific other offence.

RS2000.

AdrianC wrote: »

If he's giving his full attention to his driving, as if the tablet wasn't there, then why did he need to refresh his email on the tablet in the first place?

But, no, clearly that would not be careless driving.

Just as inattention without the tablet would be.

For careless driving, it is the driver's attention, not the tablet, which is relevant. I am unsure why you are making this more complicated than it needs to be.

If the tablet is hand-held whilst he hits refresh, then that is not careless driving, that is a specific other offence.

I'm not trying to make it complicated, merely pointing out to those that can't comprehend that the OP can fit and use his tablet and not break any laws. However is used when moving or he is involved in an accident he maybe on the wrong ended of a careless charge.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

As careless driving is driving to a standard below that of a careful and considerate driver, generally messing around whilst stationary can match that, as a careful and considerate driver would still be paying attention to their surroundings. It is a very low bar to overcome, and whilst for changing a radio channel the courts would take the view that stationary at traffic lights was a sensible and considerate time to do a small change, I doubt they would take the view that intentionally being equipped and organised to deal with emails on the move could possibly be considered careful and considerate, so I doubt they would be inclined to give any benefit of the doubt, as they would be well aware of the potential for distraction and consider not just the individual action of the refresh, but the implication of the significant amount of attention that would be absorbed by considering the contents of emails.

So it is not just the looking at the screen but the impact of the content of the message - all those millions you are about to receive from Nigeria would be bound to distract you from your driving!

RS2000.

IanMSpencer wrote: »

As careless driving is driving to a standard below that of a careful and considerate driver, generally messing around whilst stationary can match that, as a careful and considerate driver would still be paying attention to their surroundings. It is a very low bar to overcome, and whilst for changing a radio channel the courts would take the view that stationary at traffic lights was a sensible and considerate time to do a small change, I doubt they would take the view that intentionally being equipped and organised to deal with emails on the move could possibly be considered careful and considerate, so I doubt they would be inclined to give any benefit of the doubt, as they would be well aware of the potential for distraction and consider not just the individual action of the refresh, but the implication of the significant amount of attention that would be absorbed by considering the contents of emails.

So it is not just the looking at the screen but the impact of the content of the message - all those millions you are about to receive from Nigeria would be bound to distract you from your driving!

Unless it's been tested at court that just your opinion, they may think different. It's no different to police resetting the screen after an anpr hit. What's stopping them reading their many emails about what crimes they are bothering to investigate this week?

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

RS2000. wrote: »

Unless it's been tested at court that just your opinion, they may think different. It's no different to police resetting the screen after an anpr hit. What's stopping them reading their many emails about what crimes they are bothering to investigate this week?

The police do a lot of things that the general public are not allowed to do. The reasoning is that they are trained to do these things, but it does not mean that it is sensible to try and emulate them.

I do know something about how magistrates work in court (remember that they are just ordinary people, but guided by legal advisors), so while it is just an opinion, it is an informed opinion.

RS2000.

IanMSpencer wrote: »

The police do a lot of things that the general public are not allowed to do. The reasoning is that they are trained to do these things, but it does not mean that it is sensible to try and emulate them.

I do know something about how magistrates work in court (remember that they are just ordinary people, but guided by legal advisors), so while it is just an opinion, it is an informed opinion.

The reason for the police doing it will firstly be down to an exemption in law.

Joe_Horner

RS2000. wrote: »

I'm not trying to make it complicated, merely pointing out to those that can't comprehend that the OP can fit and use his tablet and not break any laws.

Unless it's been tested in court that's just your opinion, they may think different.

Apart from being LCD rather than CRT - which is a simple technology development that the courts could easily read into the law using the mischief rule / purposive interpretation - a tablet falls squarely into the definition of a "television receiving apparatus" in the C&U regs:

"any cathode ray tube carried on a vehicle and on which there can be displayed an image derived from a television broadcast, a recording or a camera or computer"

Note that the definition does NOT require it to be displaying "an image" at the time, only to be capable of doing so. A tablet is capable of playing video, whether streamed or stored on it, so would meet that definition.

Which would make it illegal to operate the car with it fitted in a place the driver could see it, whether he was using it or not.

Seeing as it hasn't been tested, you can't say that a court wouldn't read the law like that. In fact, it's a more sensible reading of it than what you seem to be claiming because, read in any other way, people could just "turn the telly off" when pulled over.

RS2000.

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Unless it's been tested in court that's just your opinion.

Apart from being LCD rather than CRT - which is a simple technology development that the courts could easily read into the law using the mischief rule / purposive interpretation - a tablet falls squarely into the definition of a "television receiving apparatus" in the C&U regs:

"any cathode ray tube carried on a vehicle and on which there can be displayed an image derived from a television broadcast, a recording or a camera or computer"

Note that the definition does NOT require it to be displaying "an image" at the time, only to be capable of doing so. A tablet is capable of playing video, whether streamed or stored on it, so would meet that definition.

Which would make it illegal to operate the car with it fitted in a place the driver could see it, whether he was using it or not.

Seeing as it hasn't been tested, you can't say that a court wouldn't read the law like that. In fact, it's a more sensible reading of it than what you seem to be claiming because, read in any other way, people could just "turn the telly off" when pulled over.

So smart phones are illegal too?

Read 109(1) and not just (2) that suits your arguement. You are perfectly entitled you use a tablet as a navigation device.

Joe_Horner

In case it slipped your notice (quite likely as you rove the forum just finding things to troll) I'd already covered the exceptions in an earlier post.

A smartphone could well be illegal if it was used to display anything not in the list of exceptions. That would include emails, texts, and - by strict interpretation - the number of a call. It would deend on whether or not a court chose to extend "CRT screen" to include LCDs

Satnav and music listings would be specifically covered by exceptions (d) and (a) respectively but other uses wouldn't be.

It may surprise you that a lot of illegal things happen all the time, and the authorities sometimes apply common sense. But, should they choose to prosecute, if the law's on their side then they can even if they ignored the last guy because of different circumstances.

RS2000.

Well as the con and use regs define what a television is ie fitted with a CRT, you'll find until ruled otherwise in a court a tablet or LCD display is not a television.