Not in proper control of vehicle

powerful_Rogue

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

You did them a favour then, saved them rushing off to a load of grief.

Very true. I can imagine if it was anything other then a domestic then things might have turned out differently!

powerful_Rogue

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

Well you just need to explain to the court that when holding it you can grip the wheel in the same way as you can with an empty hand and you'll win. Good luck.

Its not an offence to only drive with one hand though.

usefulmale

I am sure that, despite this incident, the OP will continue to support and respect the police. Won't they?

powerful_Rogue

usefulmale wrote: »

I am sure that, despite this incident, the OP will continue to support and respect the police. Won't they?

Hmmm. After always being very pro police, especially after working for them for quite sometime before I joined another law enforcement job - my opinion has changed slightly after today.

Billy_Bullocks

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Its not an offence to only drive with one hand though.

Tell the magistrates that too.

Altarf

Ironically a piece just popped up on the local BBC news.

Lorry driver stopped when police claimed the driver was using their phone. Driver produces evidence their phone wasn't being used and points out a police officer in a car couldn't see up into an HGV cab.

Magistrates decided guilty.

Paradigm

usefulmale wrote: »

I am sure that, despite this incident, the OP will continue to support and respect the police. Won't they?

Exactly this!


Years ago something minor like this would have been dealt with by the Police having a word explaining the "dangers" & that would be it.
Now it seems that their first priority is to see what they can get you for!


Technically the OP "may" have committed an offence but for gods sake lets have some common sense.

Billy_Bullocks

Paradigm wrote: »

Exactly this!


Years ago something minor like this would have been dealt with by the Police having a word explaining the "dangers" & that would be it.
Now it seems that their first priority is to see what they can get you for!


Technically the OP "may" have committed an offence but for gods sake lets have some common sense.

Years ago drink driving was thought of as minor.

neilmcl

Car_54 wrote: »

The officer's statement is evidence, easily enough to secure a conviction if the court believes it.

But he wasn't stopped because there was "evidence" that the OP wasn't in control of the vehicle, he was stopped for allegedly using a mobile phone. You can't suddenly then invent evidence to support a different offence. I'm sorry but I think most magistrates would see through this which is why I very much doubt the OP will hear from them again.

neilmcl

Altarf wrote: »

Ironically a piece just popped up on the local BBC news.

Lorry driver stopped when police claimed the driver was using their phone. Driver produces evidence their phone wasn't being used and points out a police officer in a car couldn't see up into an HGV cab.

Magistrates decided guilty.

Is there a link?