disagreement at work over using the phone while in the car, anyone know whos right?

almillar

How it can be considered legal to permit something that takes your eyes off the road for several seconds at a time is beyond me

Like a stereo, air conditioning, fog lights, sat nav, cigarette, passenger, coffee, sandwich...
Driver needs to take a little responsibility, don't just ban everything!

AdrianC

Car_54 wrote: »

Except when they call it "Dangerous driving", or even "Causing death by dangerous driving".

Indeed. But they're different, much more serious offences.

CD can be dealt with via 3pt/£100 fixed penalty.
DD not only has a mandatory ban, but that ban carries a mandatory extended retest.
DbDD... well, requires a death. Death by Careless is much more likely if there's been a death arising from a similar-to-phone type of distraction.

AndyMc.....

AdrianC wrote: »

Indeed. But they're different, much more serious offences.

CD can be dealt with via 3pt/£100 fixed penalty.
DD not only has a mandatory ban, but that ban carries a mandatory extended retest.
DbDD... well, requires a death. Death by Careless is much more likely if there's been a death arising from a similar-to-phone type of distraction.

It depends whether the standard of driving is below or far below the standard expected. Given it's a conscious decision to send a text that would make it dangerous rather than careless.

AdrianC

AndyMc..... wrote: »

It depends whether the standard of driving is below or far below the standard expected.

That's the difference, yes.

Given it's a conscious decision to send a text that would make it dangerous rather than careless.

Good luck with that. Even if the CPS were daft enough to try and make it stick, no jury would go for it without evidence of other contributory factors.

Car_54

AdrianC wrote: »

That's the difference, yes.

Good luck with that. Even if the CPS were daft enough to try and make it stick, no jury would go for it without evidence of other contributory factors.

Well, a jury found this guy guilty of CDDD, and the appeal court agreed with them.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/lecturer-jailed-over-m1-horror-smash-1-2420270

He'd taken his eyes off the road for 1.96 seconds, which I'd suggest is much less than it takes to compose a typical text.

jimjames

Car_54 wrote: »

Not quite.

"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"

Touched does not mean held I'd suggest

JP1978

Deleted.......

d123

trinidadone wrote: »

Thankyou for the contributions all. I think the responses suggest there is confusion somewhat with "handheld". What if a road user uses a button positioned on a wired head set to disconnect a call??

You can touch all you like, and the button on the wired head set doesn't meet the definition of "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;".

If the phone is in a holder you aren't handholding it and you are not committing an offence under sec 110 by touching it, whether you use a wired headset, a BT headset, BT connected to the car radio or even the loudspeaker on the phone.

d123

neilmcl wrote: »

Who said anything about playing music etc, that is clearly "using" the device. Simply moving it from one place to another, ie, "touching" your phone is not an offence.

It could be, the definition of using includes data and texts, if the phone was transmitting or receiving data or a text arrives at the time you are holding it to move it from your pocket to the seat you have committed the offence.

Get a good quality holder if you want to do anything with a mobile phone while driving a car, and put the phone in the holder before starting the engine...

(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;

(c)“interactive communication function” includes the following:

(i)sending or receiving oral or written messages;
(ii)sending or receiving facsimile documents;
(iii)sending or receiving still or moving images; and
(iv)providing access to the internet;

Car_54

d123 wrote: »

It could be, the definition of using includes data and texts, if the phone was transmitting or receiving data or a text arrives at the time you are holding it to move it from your pocket to the seat you have committed the offence.

Get a good quality holder if you want to do anything with a mobile phone while driving a car, and put the phone in the holder before starting the engine...

This is a misinterpretation of the legislation.

Section 6 (a) defines "hand-held". Secion 6(c) gives examples, but does NOT define, “interactive communication function”

There is NO definition of "using".