Distracting speedos and built-in satnavs: law?

[Deleted User]

TooManyPoints wrote: »

To understand why the “tolerance” is not embedded in the law you need to understand why it is allowed. It is allowed to avoid frivolous challenges based on the accuracy of measurements from clogging up the courts. It is far more difficult to cast doubt on evidence that shows the driver was exceeding the limit by more than 10% than it is with evidence that shows he was exceeding the limit by 1mph. To embed the tolerance in law would create a new limit and then you’d be back to the same problem the tolerance is in place to avoid. The offence is exceeding the limit, not travelling at xx mph. If a driver challenges an allegation of doing 35 in a 30 limit the court is more likely to accept that the measurement was accurate enough to show he exceeded 30mph than if he was accused of travelling at 31mph.

If I have to meet a specification that says a maximum of 30, and I have an instrument with an accuracy of ±10%, then the maximum reading that I can allow on the instrument is 30/1.1 = 27.27

Under those circumstances I will be assured that I meet the specification, and the true value will lie somewhere between 24.54 and 30, ie: true compliance.

If I want to get closer to the specified maximum and still be sure of compliance, then I must invest in a more accurate instrument.

If a regulator tasked with the job of enforcing the specification has an instrument with an accuracy of ±10%, then the minimum reading he must see in order to be sure of an infringement is 30/0.9 = 33.33.

Under those circumstances he will be sure that the true value lies somewhere between 30 and 36.66, ie: true non-compliance.

If he wants to be able to penalise infractions of a smaller margin whilst still being sure that there is true non-compliance, he must also invest in a more accurate instrument.

The accuracy of the instruments used by either the regulated or the regulator is not the responsibility of the legislator.

Having said that, the person who came up with the idea of installing a multi-function, multi-menu touch screen device within reach of the driver of a car whilst it is in motion should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.

Agreed.

AdrianC

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Where exactly doe it say that? What law / which highway code rule?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2695/regulation/2/made

SouthLondonUser

TooManyPoints wrote: »

It is far more difficult to cast doubt on evidence that shows the driver was exceeding the limit by more than 10% than it is with evidence that shows he was exceeding the limit by 1mph. To embed the tolerance in law would create a new limit and then you’d be back to the same problem the tolerance is in place to avoid.

Understood - thanks.

SouthLondonUser

AdrianC wrote: »

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2695/regulation/2/made

§ 5 states that calling the emergency services is allowed; it does not explicitly state that touching a phone fixed to a holder is.

§ 1 prohibits hand-held mobiles, but this doesn't mean that you can type a message on your phone if the phone is in a cradle.

Is it maybe just common sense and case law that have allowed a single touch to a phone or satnav, eg to confirm if you want to follow an alternative route? If there is an explicit piece of legislation that says that touching a phone in a cradle is allowed, it doesn't seem to be the one you linked.

CardinalWolsey

So the OP contends that the best place to mount a satnav would be on the windscreen more central to the driver's line of vision. Except doing so could quite likely mean the car fails its MOT, if entered with the satnav (or its sucker mount) in place. One can only assume that the Department for Transport / DVSA believes the mounting of items in this area is unsafe. Crazy people.

Car_54

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Where exactly doe it say that? What law / which highway code rule?

The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2003 make the use of a hand-held phone an offence.

However, if it isn't handheld a driver could be charged with other offences: careless driving, or not in control.

AdrianC

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

§ 5 states that calling the emergency services is allowed; it does not explicitly state that touching a phone fixed to a holder is.

§ 1 prohibits hand-held mobiles, but this doesn't mean that you can type a message on your phone if the phone is in a cradle.

Is it maybe just common sense and case law that have allowed a single touch to a phone or satnav, eg to confirm if you want to follow an alternative route? If there is an explicit piece of legislation that says that touching a phone in a cradle is allowed, it doesn't seem to be the one you linked.

That legislation explains the circumstances in which using a hand-held mobile communication device is explicitly outlawed. It doesn't say anything about non-hand-held devices, because they aren't covered by it - in other words, they aren't illegal.

But, of course, anything that contributes to a somebody driving in a way that falls below the standard expected of a competent driver, or driving that does not show reasonable consideration for other persons using the road is also illegal, falling foul of https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/3ZA - doesn't matter how or what. It might be a phone in a holder, a satnav in the dash, a can of coke, a sandwich, a cigarette, the passenger's wrinkly bits... whatever. It's the (sub-)standard of driving that's illegal.

Marvel1

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

I'll be sure to send all your comments to the colleague who is now in hospital because a genius was too busy looking at the (built-in) satnav to notice him crossing the road - he will now doubt find them witty, useful and insightful.

Did the collegaue look before they crossed the road?

SouthLondonUser

CardinalWolsey wrote: »

So the OP contends that the best place to mount a satnav would be on the windscreen more central to the driver's line of vision.

Closer, not right in the middle. Last time I checked, there's a difference.

I understand that placing a phone in portrait mode at the bottom right of the windscreen is tolerated but not technically legal, even if the police themselves are confused about it and have posted incorrect information: http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/05/traffic-police-forced-to-delete-sat-nav-safety-tweet-after-ignoring-own-warning-7207917/

I still dare believe it is incredibly safer than placing a built-in satnav pretty much between your feet, for the reasons I have explained at length, and which clearly do not apply to other forum users, who are all incredibly better driver than poor old me.

CardinalWolsey wrote: »

Except doing so could quite likely mean the car fails its MOT, if entered with the satnav (or its sucker mount) in place.

Again, I appreciate that. But am I the only one who thinks that having a builtin satnav above the centre of the steering wheel is better than having it below? Do you think there is no difference between the first two pictures I posted, and the last one?

AFAIK there is no rule on where a builtin satnav can and cannot be placed. I dare have the opinion that this is wrong, and that those built in thingies should be as close to the line of sight as possible, which means up on the dashboard, not down between your feet.

A lot could be said about the trend to operate everything through touch screens, but that's a separate topic. I'd like to meet the knob who thought that operating a touch screen to change the air conditioning is better than turning a, well, knob.

CardinalWolsey wrote: »

One can only assume that the Department for Transport / DVSA believes the mounting of items in this area is unsafe. Crazy people.

Oh, the humour on this forum. It feels like the Edinburgh festival.

SouthLondonUser

cjdavies wrote: »

Did the collegaue look before they crossed the road?

What part of

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

I wasn't there nor do I have a recording of the event. My best guess is both were at fault.

wasn't clear?