De-lici-ous - Man hating Harriet Harmon being done for Careless Driving

[AnOther]

Naturally I bow to your 1st hand professional experience however I'm puzzled when you say:

"she was using as opposed to holding etc one"

Are they not one and the same thing in the eyes of the law or is the stumbling block proving the former over merely the latter ?

 

[Clair]

[quote user="AnOther"]"she was using as opposed to holding etc one"

Are they not one and the same thing in the eyes of the law or is the stumbling block proving the former over merely the latter ?[/quote]

Whilst it is illegal to drive while using a mobile phone the law does not extend to hands-free phones or those held in a cradle.

Furthermore, there are those who argue that:

"For there to be "use" of the phone there has to be some

form of interaction with the device - so looking to see who is calling, or

looking up a number, or dialling a number, as well as, of course, speaking or

texting someone with it. The act of holding the phone in your hand is not, in

our view, enough, on its own, to establish in law that the phone was being used. (source)

[tegwini]

Not much logic really in prosecuting for holding a mobile phone and talking,  since smoking and talking to a passenger ( or to yourself) seems to be OK.

I have never smoked, but  am convinced that smoking can also be hazardous,  and would prefer the distraction of dropping my phone to that of dropping a cigarette on my car's carpets.

Is this yet another hidden tax ?

Tegwini

[AnOther]

Clair: Opinions (by that site) are all very well but it is case law and precedent which really matter and I wonder what the success rate is for a defence of 'I was only holding it, not making a call' ?

Tegwini: As an ex smoker (a long time ago now) I agree 100%, smoking is at least as hazardous as using a mobile phone. Not the actual act itself but the attendent fumbling about getting a cigarette out and lighting it etc, plus as you say, the extreme hazard resultant from dropping one in your lap, there cannot be a single smoker/driver who has not done that at some time or another. And don't get me started on butt's thrown out of windows [:@]

The problem is a law against it would be utterly unenforceable. It is far far more common than phone usage and there would simply not be the resources to police it. It would be a political hot potato too and I can't see any government wanting to take it on as the 'ooman rites' brigade would undoubtedly jump onboard.

 

[plod]

I am absolutely convinced that there is no similarity between talking on a mobile and talking to a passenger. I have only ever once used a hands-free and know that my concentration was not fully on driving. I'm not sure that smoking is "at least as hazardous" except during the lighting-up process.

[tegwini]

Then there was a woman eating an apple that the police caught.  I have vague memories that they may have used a helicopter here - pehaps Plod can confirm - or otherwise.

To the UK  motorist it is difficult to understand why there are penalties for some  'trangressions' and not for others. 

Tegwini

[buelligan]

As a keen motorcyclist (and non-car driver), I would prefer it if car drivers would refrain from smoking, chatting, map reading, view-staring, arguing, day dreaming, nose picking, hairdressing, djaying, child rearing, eating, phoning and all the other mad activities they engage in whilst in charge of their vehicles.  AFAIAC, any pursuit which distracts the driver from driving should be punishable by death (or at least a whopping great fine).[6]

[AnOther]

I can understand that nose picking might prove challenging but are you saying that motorcyclists do not indulge in their own particular unique brand of mad activities whilst in charge of their vehicles [blink]

[woolybanana]

Well, their lady passengers might do!!

[buelligan]

AnO wrote;[quote]I can understand that nose picking might prove challenging but are you saying that motorcyclists do not indulge in their own particular unique brand of mad activities whilst in charge of their vehicles[/quote]

and WoolyB said;[quote] Well!  Their lady passengers might do![/quote]

Speaking as a "lady" motorcyclist (who takes neither passengers nor prisoners), I can't imagine what you are referring to..![:D]

[plod]

I don't know about the helicopter but I do know that the "police persecute motorists" argument doesn't hold much water. In twenty years of pulling on the uniform never once at our pre-patrol briefings was I or any other officer told to get out and get the motorist. We wanted burglars, robbers, drug dealers etc

You could be done for anything that might be construed as driving without due care and attention - picking your nose I suppose, especially if you were using both hands.

[buelligan]

Actually plod, I was once stopped by the police (on my bike).  I asked them why they had stopped me and they told me it was partly because I was riding suspiciously carefully (I thought it better not to tell them it was because I had an absolutely bald back tyre and it was raining - I was on the way to the garage to have it changed), but they had stopped me mainly because they had been told  to get more motorcycles in their figures...[blink][:D]

[Chancer]

What about people listening to car stereos/radio especially if it is loud?  Or worse still listening with MP3 earphones?

IMO cyclists and pedestrians should be subject to the same law, maybe even stricter, OK they dont run much risk of killing someone else other than themselves but the physchological damage to the other road user can be considerable.