S172(2) alledged offence of using an electronic device whilst driving

TheSpectator

user1977 said:

Gerrard00004 said:

Herzlos said:

Gerrard00004 said:
So how does the driver see I am looking forward and not on my phone if the passenger driver has turned his head to witness me slowing down and indicating into the slow lane?

According to their statement, you slowed down moments later and moved over. So I don't see any contradiction here.

The moving over part makes me assume the lane to your left was clear so they were potentially already aware that you may not have been paying attention. I don't think they'll be traffic police in a van, but they'll be used to seeing inattentive drivers all the time. I see a huge amount of drivers looking at their lap whilst driving.

Their assertion is that they observed you on a phone, confirmed it with each other and then when trying to get your registration details you'd discarded the phone, were slowing down and moving over.

I don't see how that fits with your story; where they happened to pass at the exact moment you were transferring the phone from dash to seat.

Given you claim you didn't even see them implies you weren't paynig enough attention which is probably what alerted them in the first place.

What would be interesting, but likely not relevant, is if they saw the phone itself or just the light from the phone and your innatentiveness.

Frankly, it sounds like you've been caught red handed, so I'd be inclined to just take the hit on it instead of wasting time and money trying to defend it, and pay more attention in future.

Answer me this, if you are driving and overtaking a vehicle at speed on the motorway, how often do you look left at the driver of the vehicle you are over taking?

Quite often, if they happen to be driving oddly, and probably much more if it was literally my job to detect this sort of offence.

Agreed, quite often I glance to my left and see idiots with phones in their hands....you know as you approach that's what they are up to

Gerrard00004

user1977 said:

Quite often, if they happen to be driving oddly, and probably much more if it was literally my job to detect this sort of offence.

If it was their job to detect this sort of offence they would be trained in stopping vehicles on the motorway, they would have cameras and the driver wouldn't be the one trying to observe any offences. 

As I alluded to, neither statement suggests I was driving oddly? Would it be wrong to suggest that the driver would have to lean forward to look past the passenger, who was wearing a police uniform. Remember the weather conditions that day hadn't been good, spray from the road, reduced breaking and yet the Driver was quite happy to be looking at other drivers whilst over taking them in the fast lane? the Statements are pure BS! 

TheSpectator

Gerrard00004 said:

user1977 said:

Quite often, if they happen to be driving oddly, and probably much more if it was literally my job to detect this sort of offence.

If it was their job to detect this sort of offence they would be trained in stopping vehicles on the motorway, they would have cameras and the driver wouldn't be the one trying to observe any offences. 

As I alluded to, neither statement suggests I was driving oddly? Would it be wrong to suggest that the driver would have to lean forward to look past the passenger, who was wearing a police uniform. Remember the weather conditions that day hadn't been good, spray from the road, reduced breaking and yet the Driver was quite happy to be looking at other drivers whilst over taking them in the fast lane? the Statements are pure BS! 

Your continued focus on irrelevant facts are not going to help any defence. 

There is no such thing as a 'fast lane', overtaking lane maybe.

Ten pages in and the fact remains that if you go to court you are going to have to convince a judge/magistrate, not us, that the police officers were lying and have basically comitted perjury. It's your word against two officers - how likely do you think the judge will believe you over 2 witnesses.

paul_c123

Gerrard00004 said:

paul_c123 said:

If you go to court, you'll need to make those same arguments, in a much more formal setting, with a much greater consequence if they are not successful. I'd use it as good practice.

It may well be that just before court, the prosecution withdraw the policeman driver's testimony and decide to rely on the policeman passenger alone. Do you have a robust defence against him accurately observing your mobile phone use?

I don't know enough about the defence process/practice at this moment in time to provide an answer. As it is, I would want a lot more factually evidence, including the email chain he refers to but has failed to provide.

I think they're going to be okay with much LESS evidence. All they need is one policeman to say "I saw him using the phone". I don't know where you got this email chain thing from and I don't see how email chains are relevant to your case. You were observed using a phone by a police officer.

Gerrard00004

Herzlos said:

Gerrard00004 said:

Answer me this, if you are driving and overtaking a vehicle at speed on the motorway, how often do you look left at the driver of the vehicle you are over taking? You state that you have seen many drivers looking at their lap, did you see them using a phone? or did you assume?

When I spot a driver that's not paying attention, I pay a lot more attention when I'm near them so that one of us can react. The fact that the police were looking at you means you probably already attracted their attention, and given that you didn't see them it'd imply you weren't paying attention for a while.

I can't think of any reason anyone driving a car would be spending a significant time looking at their lap that doesn't involve a phone. Looking at a map maybe? That's just as dangerous though. You can often tell from a distance that the vehicle isn't reacting as you'd expect especially if you're trained to look for it. 

You also need to remember that even if these police officers were on their first day of the job, they'll have had pretty decent training on spotting this sort of thing because distracted drivers and mobile phone use is rife. You can't compare a layman driver with a roadcraft trained police officer, as I *think* it's something they need to do before being allowed out.

To be honest this thread really feels like someone who's been quite fairly caught driving whilst using a phone for a period of time and is scrabbling for some kind of gotcha to get them off of it, using us as a sounding board.

The only advice I have here is to not bother; you're going to be trying to argue against people who have more experience both at driving and at legal arguments, against people who have no imperative to lie and will have heard every excuse in the book. You're going to need something spectacular to counter the statements of 2 police officers.

How many thousands of people do you think have gone into court for using a phone with driving and say something like "It fell onto my lap", "I was just moving it" or "I wasn't playing with my phone, I had an itchy knee" and how many of them do you think got away with it?

Your comment

"When I spot a driver that's not paying attention, I pay a lot more attention when I'm near them so that one of us can react. The fact that the police were looking at you means you probably already attracted their attention, and given that you didn't see them it'd imply you weren't paying attention for a while."

Suggests you are a police officer. Am I right?

To state that I am arguing against people who have more experience at driving is ignorant and based on what? yes, they will have more experience at legal arguments which is why I posted. I have, in my posts stated that I will have to accept the charge, have I not.

Again....
I was not looking at my lap, I never did, the phone was never in my right hand. 
No mention of either PC being concerned about my driving in their statements. Surely, this is an important part of their statement. The quoted words of "hey that chap was on the phone wasn't he" implies I hadn't attracted their attention. If so, it would have been, "yes, he is on his phone". 
The two PC's you refer to and whom have no imperative to lie are not the ones that will be deciding the outcome of the charge. 

A sounding board, well if so why am I still here? apart from a couple of posters who have replied in a constructive and pragmatic manner. Other posters like yourself have decided I am lying, have been caught red handed and are more intent on trying to prove it. If not why are you still responding? Just ignore me.

born_again

OP seems to also miss the fact that coming up on a vehicle, that you get a great view of the driver in their mirrors. 

So Drivers statement - As I was over taking him (nothing wrong with that, They are simply stating the manoeuvre they were making)
Could well have started when they saw your actions in the mirrors.

Mildly_Miffed

born_again said:

OP seems to also miss the fact that coming up on a vehicle, that you get a great view of the driver in their mirrors.

Even simpler than that, I suspect.

The occupants of marked police vehicles will have a VERY good clue as to which other road users are paying attention, simply from the way in which they react to the presence of a marked police vehicle amongst the traffic...

TooManyPoints

I don't know enough about the defence process/practice at this moment in time to provide an answer. As it is, I would want a lot more factually evidence, including the email chain he refers to but has failed to provide.

You have all the evidence you’re going to get at this point. If you plead Not Guilty you will be asked to attend court for a “case management” hearing. At that hearing, if there is anything else you want you will have to ask the court to order its disclosure. They will want to know what you want and why you think it will either assist your defence or undermine the prosecution.

However, today is the day you must respond to the SJPN by. Have you done so?

If you haven’t, there is one more alternative you may consider. If you plead guilty you can ask the court to sentence you at the fixed penalty level (£200 and 6 points). They have guidance which suggests they should do this is some circumstances:

“Where a penalty notice could not be offered or taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence itself, such as administrative difficulties outside the control of the offender, the starting point should be a fine equivalent to the amount of the penalty and no order of costs should be imposed. The offender should not be disadvantaged by the unavailability of the penalty notice in these circumstances.”

There was a considerable delay between the date of the offence and a s172 request being sent to you, making it too late to offer you a fixed penalty. This was outside your control so, providing the prosecution agree that a fixed penalty would normally have been offered,  the court should agree to your request.

Herzlos

Gerrard00004 said:

Herzlos said:

Gerrard00004 said:

Answer me this, if you are driving and overtaking a vehicle at speed on the motorway, how often do you look left at the driver of the vehicle you are over taking? You state that you have seen many drivers looking at their lap, did you see them using a phone? or did you assume?

When I spot a driver that's not paying attention, I pay a lot more attention when I'm near them so that one of us can react. The fact that the police were looking at you means you probably already attracted their attention, and given that you didn't see them it'd imply you weren't paying attention for a while.

I can't think of any reason anyone driving a car would be spending a significant time looking at their lap that doesn't involve a phone. Looking at a map maybe? That's just as dangerous though. You can often tell from a distance that the vehicle isn't reacting as you'd expect especially if you're trained to look for it. 

You also need to remember that even if these police officers were on their first day of the job, they'll have had pretty decent training on spotting this sort of thing because distracted drivers and mobile phone use is rife. You can't compare a layman driver with a roadcraft trained police officer, as I *think* it's something they need to do before being allowed out.

To be honest this thread really feels like someone who's been quite fairly caught driving whilst using a phone for a period of time and is scrabbling for some kind of gotcha to get them off of it, using us as a sounding board.

The only advice I have here is to not bother; you're going to be trying to argue against people who have more experience both at driving and at legal arguments, against people who have no imperative to lie and will have heard every excuse in the book. You're going to need something spectacular to counter the statements of 2 police officers.

How many thousands of people do you think have gone into court for using a phone with driving and say something like "It fell onto my lap", "I was just moving it" or "I wasn't playing with my phone, I had an itchy knee" and how many of them do you think got away with it?

Your comment

"When I spot a driver that's not paying attention, I pay a lot more attention when I'm near them so that one of us can react. The fact that the police were looking at you means you probably already attracted their attention, and given that you didn't see them it'd imply you weren't paying attention for a while."

Suggests you are a police officer. Am I right?

To state that I am arguing against people who have more experience at driving is ignorant and based on what? yes, they will have more experience at legal arguments which is why I posted. I have, in my posts stated that I will have to accept the charge, have I not.

Not a police officer. Was taught to drive by a police officer, albeit 20 years ago now but I assume the manual hasn't changed much beyond technology.

The driving experience is an educated guess based on the police officers having had advanced training and you being caught on your phone implying you haven't.

If you managed to pass a marked police van without noticing them that's an even worse indication of your driving standards. Even if your origional dash to seat claim applied then most attentive drivers would have waited until they were out of sight of a poice van to do it. Where were you looking if you didn't see the white transit with hi-vis markings over it?

Herzlos

Gerrard00004 said:

I was not looking at my lap, I never did, the phone was never in my right hand. 

This is probably the more relevant bit. It seems like your story totally contradicts their statements.
Did you do something that could be interpreted by them? Or any proof that'd cast doubt on their statement?