Mobile phone awareness course

Car_54

Enigma80 wrote: »

We had this debate at work, someone said if it's cold they won't turn car off if they are parked somewhere like on the side of the road. For example, people drop their kids to school and they sometimes wait in the car if they're early, with the engine running to keep warm etc. Now if they had a phone in their hands or making calls, checking emails would that be wrong? According to the letter of the law it would be wrong wouldn't it?

The letter of the law is that you must not "use" the phone while "driving". Neither term is defined, so it is up to the courts to determine. So far, they haven't.

Enigma80

ElefantEd wrote: »

A course isn't there to persuade people to obey the law, it's to tell them what the law is!

I believe that is one of the main aims of the courses. As well as clarifying what the law/rules are they also aim to persuade you to obey them by explaining the reasons behind them.

I think if more people actually understood the consequences of their actions they would comply.

KamTash1

i'm just curious.. did you

....get stopped by the police for using your phone?
....or have a letter in the post about it?
....or just asking in case you may have been caught and thinking what happens next?

do they even send letters in the post for a mobile phone driving offence?

AndyMc.....

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

I find it strange that awareness courses followed by a reduction in the ban period are offered for drink driving offences but there is now no similar course for mobile phone use.

Why do I find it strange?
Well, there are circumstances where you can have a valid defense for using a mobile phone whilst driving but there is no valid defense for knowingly drink driving whilst over the prescribed limit so to me that says that the powers that be consider drink driving a more serious offence yet they may offer a course and reduced ban.

You might want to rethink that unless of course you can no longer use duress and I'll stand corrected.

unforeseen

AndyMc..... wrote: »

You might want to rethink that unless of course you can no longer use duress and I'll stand corrected.

Shaun from Africa a is correct. There is 'no valid defense', however there may be a valid defence

Enigma80

KamTash1 wrote: »

i'm just curious.. did you

....get stopped by the police for using your phone?
....or have a letter in the post about it?
....or just asking in case you may have been caught and thinking what happens next?

do they even send letters in the post for a mobile phone driving offence?

Guy at work got one, and we started chatting about it. He got a letter saying that he might be able to do an educational course, but I thought they'd stopped over a year ago. So he was confused as to why he'd been sent a letter saying that it might be an option.

He was in a traffic jam at the time and said he took his phone out because he was bored or something as cars were more or less parked. A guy rode past on a push-bike and helmet cam and looked into every car! :rotfl:

I've my phone setup to bluetooth in my car and it's all synced so I don't have to look at it to see who's calling, it pops up on my media system and in the main dash between the speedometer and rev counter; all I have to do answer is push buttons on the steering wheel.

I do appreciate that others may not have newer cars so don't have bluetooth and most bluetooth accessories require you to interact with the phone anyway to answer or reject calls etc. Usually though, my kids have my phone in the back anyway.

Anyway, to go back to your question, yes someone at work had a letter. I don't think he can do anything about it to be honest. He can't contest it, because regardless of the fact that he wasn't driving he was still in the car with engine running.

Paradigm

Car_54 wrote: »

And those circumstances are?

Regulation 110(5) provides that no offence is committed where a person makes a call to the emergency services on 999 or 112 in response to a genuine emergency, where it is unsafe or impracticable for him (or the provisional licence holder) to cease driving whilst the call is made.

That's the one & only that I know of.

Paradigm

Car_54 wrote: »

The letter of the law is that you must not "use" the phone while "driving". Neither term is defined, so it is up to the courts to determine. So far, they haven't.

That's not strictly true.....

The particular use to which the mobile phone must be put is not defined as an element of the offence. The prosecution must merely prove that the phone or the other device was hand-held by the person at some point during its use at a time when the person was driving a vehicle on a road.

"Using" a phone isn't the offence by itself, holding it while "using" & driving is! Hence hands free Bluetooth & phone cradles.

Joe_Horner

unforeseen wrote: »

Why stop there? Have the spouse and first-born incarcerated for life. That'll teach 'em.

Don't suggest that - I know a few people who'd see the loss of their car as a fair trade!

unholyangel

Comms69 wrote: »

Right. So no trial, not fact finding; just the police destroying property....

Wouldn't be the first time. They used to do that here - if you didn't have ID and were caught walking between house parties with an open bottle....they'd pour it all out and bin the empty bottle.

iammumtoone wrote: »

With drink driving people can be caught out just by having one drink thinking they will be ok and still be over the limit, whereas another person having the same drink at the same time would pass the test. They did not consciously mean to drink to over the limit. With using a phone there is no defense.


Personally I think the drink drive limit should be zero so you remove this element of someone being over the limit by accident.

Would that actually remove it though? You'd still have people having a heavy night and then driving the next day. Or having a drink x amount of time ago so thinking they're okay.



What I find most remarkable is that cars have had so many gadgets and features added to them but still, no breathalyser.