Is a mounted tablet legal for the driver?

Joe_Horner

RS2000. wrote: »

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.

Errr, I did mention that it would need a court to rule about 2 pages ago, you know.

Try learning about purposive interpretation (not just checking the wiki definition!). You seem to think that all laws are still interpreted by the courts strictly as plain language. They're not.

Given that not including LCD screens would allow everyone to drive round watching Jeremy Kyle on colour LCD, which would:

(a) create an absurdity of one person being guilty (wit an old CRT) and another not (with a modern LCD) for exactly the same behaviour, and
(b) completely subvert the intent of the law and allow the mischief Parliament intended it to prevent (drivers distracted from driving) to continue,

it's a pretty safe bet that a court faced with that question would interpret it to include the technology that happened to not exist in consumer products when the law was written.

RS2000.

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Errr, I did mention that it would need a court to rule about 2 pages ago, you know.

Try learning about purposive interpretation (not just checking the wiki definition!). You seem to think that all laws are still interpreted by the courts strictly as plain language. They're not.

Given that not including LCD screens would allow everyone to drive round watching Jeremy Kyle on colour LCD, which would:

(a) create an absurdity of one person being guilty (wit an old CRT) and another not (with a modern LCD) for exactly the same behaviour, and
(b) completely subvert the intent of the law and allow the mischief Parliament intended it to prevent (drivers distracted from driving) to continue,

it's a pretty safe bet that a court faced with that question would interpret it to include the technology that happened to not exist in consumer products when the law was written.

It's far from a safe bet, but thanks for your apology.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

RS2000. wrote: »

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

Nah, the reason that they are doing it firstly is that they believe it to be a necessary function of their role. If there are legal problems, they have ready access to the powers that be to get legislation changed to create an exemption.

almillar

Is he driving carelessly? Well, you tell me.

Sitting at a green light sounds like driving without due care and attention to me.

You don't need to give driving your full attention at all times. I know that sounds unsafe and it's certainly not something that should be taught, but it's true. Everyone has different driving abilities, and different driving conditions to deal with. If distractions were so bad, cars would have no radios, cigarette lighters, passenger seats (passengers can be REALLY distracting!).
We're all trusted to use this equipment (over the years adding mounted phones, sat navs and in this case tablets) responsibly. If you use them responsibly, you're fine. All these things must be second best to what's happening on the road. If it doesn't, you'll eventually have a crash, or be caught, because it'll be obvious from your driving.

matttye

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Errr, I did mention that it would need a court to rule about 2 pages ago, you know.

Try learning about purposive interpretation (not just checking the wiki definition!). You seem to think that all laws are still interpreted by the courts strictly as plain language. They're not.

Given that not including LCD screens would allow everyone to drive round watching Jeremy Kyle on colour LCD, which would:

(a) create an absurdity of one person being guilty (wit an old CRT) and another not (with a modern LCD) for exactly the same behaviour, and
(b) completely subvert the intent of the law and allow the mischief Parliament intended it to prevent (drivers distracted from driving) to continue,

it's a pretty safe bet that a court faced with that question would interpret it to include the technology that happened to not exist in consumer products when the law was written.

I agree, highly likely courts will rule that it includes modern displays.

scotsbob

AdrianC wrote: »

If you're suggesting my answers in posts #3 and #8 are wrong, please explain.

I wasn't referring to your answers, I was asking a question.


However, since you refer to your answers, it would appear that not everyone agrees with you and that is why I posed my question.