Not in proper control of vehicle

dannyrst

Strider590 wrote: »

I don't think you quite appreciate how dangerous lithium cells can be. It's probably the most dangerous commonly available consumer grade item you can buy. I'd rather be in a room with a faulty 2000W mains heater, than in a room with a faulty lithium cell, i've experiened car battery explosions that throw shards of plastic and hot acid everywhere, but at least there's no fireball with those.

What does any of this have to do with him driving whilst vaping? Unless you are suggesting it is illegal to have in the car at all due to the possibility it may blow up and cause the driver to crash?

Car_54

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Even though the law does allow for up to 6 months for the relevant paperwork to be received, in the large majority of cases this happens well within a couple of weeks so when the officer stated that the OP would receive something with 14 days, they were probably talking from experience.

In reality it's no different to returning faulty goods to a retailer for a refund.
The law states that a refund must be given within 14 days but in most cases it happens far quicker than this so is a retailer wrong if they tell a customer that they will get their refund "in a couple of days"?

It depends entirely upon what action is decided upon.

A COFP can be issued within 14 days, a summons won't. The officer was probably assuming a COFP would be the outcome.

George_Michael

Strider590 wrote: »

I don't think you quite appreciate how dangerous lithium cells can be. It's probably the most dangerous commonly available consumer grade item you can buy. I'd rather be in a room with a faulty 2000W mains heater, than in a room with a faulty lithium cell, i've experiened car battery explosions that throw shards of plastic and hot acid everywhere, but at least there's no fireball with those.

So from that I'm assuming that when driving you never have a mobile phone, satnav, tablet or laptop anywhere in the car with you?

Bigphil1474

OP, sounds to me like the police officers thought they had you banged to rights on using a mobile phone, and when they were informed that you had Bluetooth etc. and had no need to hold your phone and were actually holding your e-cig, rather than giving you a bit of face saving (for them) verbal advice and backing off, they had to try and justify their existence. Of course people can, and do, hold all sorts of things whilst driving and can be a menace on the road, but doesn't sound like the case with you. I usually drive one handed on long motor way journeys, but so what. If you'd been weaving around like a numpty, not looking at the road, and being a general danger, they would have been fully justified in taking action. Otherwise, not (IMO).
I also work in law enforcement (non-police), and if I got my notices out for every little misdemeanour the world would be short of a lot more trees, but no better for it. A bit of common sense was all that was needed. I'm with you on this, and I hope that you hear nothing more

CHR15

I got pulled over on the M5 by an unmarked Police car.
An Audi started overtaking me, then pulled back and slotted in 3 inches off my rear bumper and tailgated me for half a mile.
I thought it was some jackass looking for a late dive across to the exit until the blue lights came on.

He was jogging around to my passenger window within seconds of coming to a stop and peered in through the passenger window.

He saw the vape stick on the seat and asked if it was that which was in my hand (I confirmed). By sheer irony, a phonecall came in through my cars system whilst we were talking. My phone was in my pocket.

He did give me a small lecture on keeping two hands on the wheel but otherwise wished me a safe journey and left.

powerful_Rogue

Just received a call from the police officer that stopped me the other day.

He said he's been thinking about the matter and doesn't think it would be proportionate to report me for the offence, so he's not going to submit a TOR.

He thanked me for my understanding and for being very reasonable on the day he stopped me.

BeenThroughItAll

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Just received a call from the police officer that stopped me the other day.

He said he's been thinking about the matter and doesn't think it would be proportionate to report me for the offence, so he's not going to submit a TOR.

He thanked me for my understanding and for being very reasonable on the day he stopped me.

'Course he did.

Euphoria1z

should the OP not have used his right to remain silent and let the police prove what they thought they saw if it went to court?

facade

Euphoria1z wrote: »

should the OP not have used his right to remain silent and let the police prove what they thought they saw if it went to court?

He'd lose.
It would be the word of two Police Officer witnesses, who have no reason to lie as they don't profit by doing so (and indeed would face serious disciplinary action if they lie under oath), against one person, with every reason in the world to lie to get off the charge.

If Courts accepted the view that Police Officers lie to cover up when they are mistaken our justice system would collapse.

Car_54

Euphoria1z wrote: »

should the OP not have used his right to remain silent and let the police prove what they thought they saw if it went to court?

No. If he refused to answer, they would probably have cautioned him, which includes "... it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court."