Distracting speedos and built-in satnavs: law?

SouthLondonUser

AdrianC wrote: »

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.

Precisely. I suppose we are sort of saying the same thing. Using a phone in your hand is illegal no matter what. There is no piece of legislation that explicitly says that touching a phone in a cradle is illegal no matter what, but it will be if it causes reckless driving etc.

I wouldn't want to be a driver touching his phone while hitting a pedestrian who has just jumped in the middle of the road from nowhere, even if, even without a phone, I could still not have avoided the pedestrian.

daveyjp

After 6 weeks I have found no benefit whatsoever of the complicated user interface and screen on the Merc we have on loan over the simple buttons on my car.

The Merc screen is also hideous, looks like it was forgotten about and stuck on at the end of the line.

Joe_Horner

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

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.

There isn't one because there doesn't need to be one.

Our legal system is essentially proscriptive - it tells you what you can't do and anything else is fair game. Its what lawyers specialising in loopholes do - they find reasons why a specific "you mustn't do that" doesn't apply to their client's circumstances, and if they succeed then (legally) the client hasn't done anything wrong (at least legally).

In the case of mobile phones, the law says specifically that you mustn't use a "hand held" device and defines that as a device that must be held in the hand to complete at least part of its function.


But it's silent on the matter of devices not held in the hand, so if you really want to strap you phone to a drone and have it hover by your ear while driving you can't be prosecuted under that law - but you may be under another.

Car_54

daveyjp wrote: »

After 6 weeks I have found no benefit whatsoever of the complicated user interface and screen on the Merc we have on loan over the simple buttons on my car.

The Merc screen is also hideous, looks like it was forgotten about and stuck on at the end of the line.

I couldn't agree more. I recently got rid of my C200 which was otherwise close to perfect, but ....

On every other car I've had since the 1970s, you could change radio station with one button. And every other satnav I've had used a touchscreen. And every other touchpad I've used (not in cars) was with my right hand.

AdrianC

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Precisely. I suppose we are sort of saying the same thing.

No, we aren't.

You said...

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Btw, it would only take a split second to, say, swipe across your phone to see if that beep was a message from your mate or from your boss, but, guess what, it will cost you dearly if you get caught doing so, and with good reason!

And you're 100% wrong in that. Swiping your phone from a satnav screen to a message makes no difference at all to the legality.
If it's hand-held, it was already illegal.
If it's not hand-held, it's the standard of driving that is illegal, not what you may or may not be doing to cause your driving to be poor.

Just... please. You have a bee in your bonnet over ergonomic failings in some cars - and you may well have a fair point. But the examples you are picking to illustrate it are lame. It's not about whether the nav and speedo is in line-of-sight or not. If you'd muttered about touch-screens being used for HVAC and other driving controls, or about permanently-illuminated dashes, or terrible visibility, or any of a myriad of other similar things, then you would have just as much of a point.

Your speedo whinge was based around a total misunderstanding of the semi-recent speed sentencing guideline changes, and you are now justifying your nav whinge with completely the wrong end of the stick of hand-held phone legislation, despite it not having changed in a decade and a half.

Then, as if that wasn't enough, when somebody points out that your recommendations are completely counter to the long-standing MOT requirements for items not to obstruct the driver's view, you accuse them of being a comedian.

SouthLondonUser

Oh, dear, we really speak different languages. Let's leave aside that a few people have confused bottom right with right in the middle...

I find it crazy that a phone in the bottom right of the windscreen would be an MOT fail, but a sat navigation between your feet wouldn't. However, the main point I contend is not that the law should be changed to allow gadgets at the bottom right, but that builtin satnavs should not be between your feet. I have posted pictures explaining the differences.

I now appreciate my understanding of the recent speeding fine rules was wrong and thank you guys for the clarifications. However, I still dare believe that a speedometer closer to the line of sight is better than one farther away.

neilmcl

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

What do you want me to say? I wasn't there nor do I have a recording of the event. My best guess is both were at fault. There was another person with him, who was about to cross the road but then decided not to, when he saw the car swerving a bit; this other person claims the driver was bending forward, as if to reach or touch something.

So in other words you have no idea what caused the accident.

Joe_Horner

Radical suggestion......

Perhaps the ones that are awkward to view while driving are like that intentionally in order to discourage the driver from fiddlihg with it while moving?

Satnavs are intended to be set up before you start then follow the voice prompts while driving. Having a moving map in your line of sight is as bad as driving with a road atlas open in front of you (which there's no specific law against btw)

Robisere

I have a 'free-standing' Garmin satnav. I turn up the volume to a level that I can hear well, and listen to the commentary. I don't have to look at it at all, because I am using my eyes to look ahead and behind as far as I can and observe road signs, including direction/destination boards. This tells me where I need to go in order to stay on the route to my destination. The screen is mounted under my rear view mirror, which actually hides the view of it from in front.

I also have an upper vertebra repair which inhibits bending my neck, and I wear spectacles. Ever since the vertebra damage, I have ensured that my spec's have large lenses, so that I can look down with my eyes to the dashboard if I need to, without moving my neck (which is painful). But I don't need to do that often, because I have cruise control and speed limiting, so I don't have to worry much about staying at the limit.

All of the above are precautions that I take, in order to protect myself and any passengers as much as possible. However, there are always idiots on the road who still just absolutely must make or answer a phone call, or take a drink with one hand on the wheel and half a brain on the road ahead.

And, as someone has noted, when you are a pedestrian, you are not safe from the idiots. Like the one this morning in town: white van man, almost ran me over as I was half across a pedestrian crossing. I walk slowly, with an elbow crutch, but this pillock was too busy looking at something on his dashboard top to see me (Satnav?). He now has an interesting dent on his wing, courtesy of my crutch, to remind him of that encounter. Please don't tell me about criminal damage: I have two witnesses who took his number and he saw that.

[Deleted User]

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.

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

What do you want me to say? I wasn't there nor do I have a recording of the event. My best guess is both were at fault. There was another person with him, who was about to cross the road but then decided not to, when he saw the car swerving a bit; this other person claims the driver was bending forward, as if to reach or touch something.

So you're now admitting that you made up the first post just to support your fatuous thread?