And yet, amazingly, every time I am out in the car I see numerous drivers quite openly and brazenly driving with one hand on the wheel and the other holding a phone to their ear.
yep, bloody infuriating. Only this morning on the M53 this morning, a stupid A hole swerved into the inside lane in front of me and slowed to 50 and forced me to overtake.
while overtaking, i saw him with his phone clamped to his ear, laughing heartily.
so, to you Mr Black Qashqai driver on the M53 this morning...**** YOU!!!
yep, bloody infuriating. Only this morning on the M53 this morning, a stupid A hole swerved into the inside lane in front of me and slowed to 50 and forced me to overtake.
while overtaking, i saw him with his phone clamped to his ear, laughing heartily.
so, to you Mr Black Qashqai driver on the M53 this morning...**** YOU!!!
a Qashqai you say...??? .bound to be a Motability car with some random named driver in charge of it
The problem is in law is that the phone does not have to have been used to make or recieve a call at the time of offence, if you are doing anything thing with the phone ie checking the time, putting in satnav instuctions or anything like that then the offence has been committed, yes you can defend and decide to go to court instead but if found guilty the fine goes up from £60 too £100. Alot of people get caught at traffic lights or in traffic jams, because they beieve at the time they are not driving. Best advice for any driver leave your phone in your pocket or handbag till you are out of the car. Or you are parked up with your engine turned off.
The fine is £60 and 3 points or £80 and a AA course. The policeman told him if it goes to court and he looses it goes up to around £200.
Chances are the police officer was in a car going in the opposite direction and his or her police car has a HD camera in it so if you feel you really are innocent don’t pay the fine and let them take you to court otherwise pay up and shut up.
Having been married for 38 years I have never ever made a direct lie to my OH however I’ve bent the truth a little whenever I’ve over spent on a nice new phone or computer, if you know what I mean nudge, nudge, wink, wink.:o:D
The problem is in law is that the phone does not have to have been used to make or recieve a call at the time of offence, if you are doing anything thing with the phone ie checking the time, putting in satnav instuctions or anything like that then the offence has been committed, yes you can defend and decide to go to court instead but if found guilty the fine goes up from £60 too £100. Alot of people get caught at traffic lights or in traffic jams, because they beieve at the time they are not driving. Best advice for any driver leave your phone in your pocket or handbag till you are out of the car. Or you are parked up with your engine turned off.
The problem is that it is such a badly framed law that, as a driver, the police can make such accusations knowing it is virtually impossible for you to prove your innocence.
If the OP was using the phone as a satnav and touched the phone to change the viewing angle slightly to make it easier to see, does that mean he is "using" the phone? And yet the police can accuse him of it with, it seems, virtually no proof required.
I've no problem with the police stopping motorists who are genuinely using their phones when driving but the burden of proof seems so low it is absent.
Realistically your going to lose more than the £100 just to clear your name so it boils down to wether he absolutely feels in the right or not how far you pursue it
If the cctv coverage didn't get it, surely the police car itself will have had hi-def dashboard cams running
Chances are the police officer was in a car going in the opposite direction and his or her police car has a HD camera in it so if you feel you really are innocent don’t pay the fine and let them take you to court otherwise pay up and shut up.
Having been married for 38 years I have never ever made a direct lie to my OH however I’ve bent the truth a little whenever I’ve over spent on a nice new phone or computer, if you know what I mean nudge, nudge, wink, wink.:o:D
Aye, there's the rub.
Looking at it from the Magistrates point of view, he/she is sitting there in court and the defendant is saying he definitely wasn't holding a phone...well he would say that wouldn't he?
Whereas the police officer is saying the opposite. Unless that officer is waging a particular vendetta against the OP's OH, what's his motive for falsifying an offence? All it's done is cost him a lot of time and paperwork in assembling a case to bring to court, when he could have been spending his time out on the streets catching criminals.
It doesn't really make sense for the officer to make stuff up like this. The balance of probabilities falls in the favour of the police, although this is criminal law of course, not civil.
The trouble is most crimes actually require the police to have evidence, their word is usually not enough to get a conviction. They can't just arrest you, claim you burgled a house down the road, without any shred of evidence, turn up in court and get a conviction. With certain motoring laws they can, it should never come down to their word against ours.
There were laws in place to deal with this, driving without due care, dangerous driving etc etc, but they proved to hard to actually make stick, you actually have to prove these offences, so they changed the law, to make it easier to feed the government cash cow that is feeding off motorists.
Don't the police use telephone records to prove that a call/text was made at the time of an "incident"?
The driver should be able to use the same in defence.
This happened to my younger son a couple of years ago.
He was in the early stages of growing a beard, and as most men will know, during the 'whisker' stage, your face can feel itchy.
He was lightly scratching the right side of his face while driving, when a police car came toward him.
The jobsworth in the passenger seat of the police car thought that he was holding a phone, so they turned around, stopped him, and accused him of it.
The upshot was that the police had his sim checked to prove their point, but the service provider was able to show that he hadn't used the phone for more than 50 minutes prior to being stopped.
He received a letter saying that no further action was being taken, but to ensure that he didn't use the phone while driving in future, he did NOT receive an apology, surprise, surprise.
This happened to my younger son a couple of years ago.
He was in the early stages of growing a beard, and as most men will know, during the 'whisker' stage, your face can feel itchy.
He was lightly scratching the right side of his face while driving, when a police car came toward him.
The jobsworth in the passenger seat of the police car thought that he was holding a phone, so they turned around, stopped him, and accused him of it.
The upshot was that the police had his sim checked to prove their point, but the service provider was able to show that he hadn't used the phone for more than 50 minutes prior to being stopped.
He received a letter saying that no further action was being taken, but to ensure that he didn't use the phone while driving in future, he did NOT receive an apology, surprise, surprise.
Think one of the problems is a moblie phone is no longer just for phoning or texting, with all the diffreant apps that people can use on thier phones makes it alot more not so straight forward. You do see people just holding thier phone while driving why do people need to do that because i have no idea
Think one of the problems is a moblie phone is no longer just for phoning or texting, with all the diffreant apps that people can use on thier phones makes it alot more not so straight forward. You do see people just holding thier phone while driving why do people need to do that because i have no idea
I have a recollection of one of the many cop shows on the telly where the traffic cops stopped a car where the driver was holding the phone in front of her (think it was a woman but don't quote me on that ).
She admitted to them that she was talking on the phone but as she was using the speaker phone option it didn't count because it was hands free! She really could not see the problem with the fact she was holding the phone in her hand. Clues in the name, as I think one of the rozzers said to her
Chances are the police officer was in a car going in the opposite direction and his or her police car has a HD camera in it so if you feel you really are innocent don’t pay the fine and let them take you to court otherwise pay up and shut up.
Having been married for 38 years I have never ever made a direct lie to my OH however I’ve bent the truth a little whenever I’ve over spent on a nice new phone or computer, if you know what I mean nudge, nudge, wink, wink.:o:D
I cant be sure but I do believe him that he wasnt using it. Im not the type to throw a fit if he was so there is no point in him lying to me.
He was in a area he didnt know and went up and down the same stretch of road a few times because the network dropped out on his phone and the sat nav wasnt giving directions (another reason to replace our knackered proper satnav) they also had a good look at his tyres and lights etc.
Looking at it from the Magistrates point of view, he/she is sitting there in court and the defendant is saying he definitely wasn't holding a phone...well he would say that wouldn't he?
Whereas the police officer is saying the opposite. Unless that officer is waging a particular vendetta against the OP's OH, what's his motive for falsifying an offence? All it's done is cost him a lot of time and paperwork in assembling a case to bring to court, when he could have been spending his time out on the streets catching criminals.
It doesn't really make sense for the officer to make stuff up like this. The balance of probabilities falls in the favour of the police, although this is criminal law of course, not civil.
I doubt the officer deliberately made the accusation. They were definitely targeting motorists yesterday, im guessing they gave alot of fines out yesterday.
I have been convicted after 'my word against another'. You are not innocent till proven guilty. 50/50 does not mean reasonable doubt.
A policeman actually lied in my case. Although the legal term would have been 'mistaken'.
All experienced police officers with X years of sterling service are regarded as infallible Gods by the courts.
I have witnessed police perjury in a court of law therefore I am sure they are 'mistaken' on a more regular basis.
I know the police perjured themselves as I was a defence witness in a crown court trial. I stood up in the court and never took my hand of the bible the whole time. Every word I said was the truth as I saw it. However, the policeman's testimony was completely different from mine. Now I understand perspective can be different, but this wasn't about perspective. I said person A was not there...the policeman said person A was. I know I was telling the truth. Therefore the police man must have been lying.
Guess who the court believed? The policeman of course.
This thread has thrown up an interesting question in my mind- what if a driver was touching a phone whilst driving but only to move it to a safer place ie. away from the gearstick say if it had fallen or something?
Could you clarify where the phone was please? Do you mean it was down by the gear-stick / handbrake?
Yes, his car has a tray type thing that is between the handbrake and gear stick.
Edit: He was listening to it rather than looking at it, he dont like having it on the window screen because its a phone and didnt want to get pulled for looking at it while driving. The irony of this is not lost on him.
This thread has thrown up an interesting question in my mind- what if a driver was touching a phone whilst driving but only to move it to a safer place ie. away from the gearstick say if it had fallen or something?
Funny you should say that. Ive got one of those sticky cradles that, when it gets dirty, it loses its grip until you clean it with water. Today it lost its grip on the way home and fell off at which point I grabbed it before it fell.
I suppose technically, I'd have been on a sticky (pun intended) wicket if seen!
Yes, his car has a tray type thing that is between the handbrake and gear stick.
Edit: He was listening to it rather than looking at it, he dont like having it on the window screen because its a phone and didnt want to get pulled for looking at it while driving. The irony of this is not lost on him.
Seems strange then that a police officer would have seen him using it (or seen something that they thought was him using a phone).
If it was me I'd be very tempted to go to court on this as I expect the only downside would be a bit more cost. It would be interesting to question the copper on where he was and what exactly he observed.
Funny you should say that. Ive got one of those sticky cradles that, when it gets dirty, it loses its grip until you clean it with water. Today it lost its grip on the way home and fell off at which point I grabbed it before it fell.
I suppose technically, I'd have been on a sticky (pun intended) wicket if seen!
Seems strange then that a police officer would have seen him using it (or seen something that they thought was him using a phone).
If it was me I'd be very tempted to go to court on this as I expect the only downside would be a bit more cost. It would be interesting to question the copper on where he was and what exactly he observed.
Hes certainly tempted to take it to court just on principle.
This thread has thrown up an interesting question in my mind- what if a driver was touching a phone whilst driving but only to move it to a safer place ie. away from the gearstick say if it had fallen or something?
You would still be found guilty, because you should ensure it was in a safe place before starting to drive. There was a case on Peippo where a phone was sliding off the front seat, and the person crabbed it before it fell. They were still found guilty.
The whole law is an ass when it comes to this particular legislation.
Comments
yep, bloody infuriating. Only this morning on the M53 this morning, a stupid A hole swerved into the inside lane in front of me and slowed to 50 and forced me to overtake.
while overtaking, i saw him with his phone clamped to his ear, laughing heartily.
so, to you Mr Black Qashqai driver on the M53 this morning...**** YOU!!!
a Qashqai you say...??? .bound to be a Motability car with some random named driver in charge of it
A: Never Needed
B: Can cause a lot of problems
C: Poorly written and worded
Thank you I wil take a look.
The fine is £60 and 3 points or £80 and a AA course. The policeman told him if it goes to court and he looses it goes up to around £200.
Having been married for 38 years I have never ever made a direct lie to my OH however I’ve bent the truth a little whenever I’ve over spent on a nice new phone or computer, if you know what I mean nudge, nudge, wink, wink.:o:D
The problem is that it is such a badly framed law that, as a driver, the police can make such accusations knowing it is virtually impossible for you to prove your innocence.
If the OP was using the phone as a satnav and touched the phone to change the viewing angle slightly to make it easier to see, does that mean he is "using" the phone? And yet the police can accuse him of it with, it seems, virtually no proof required.
I've no problem with the police stopping motorists who are genuinely using their phones when driving but the burden of proof seems so low it is absent.
Realistically your going to lose more than the £100 just to clear your name so it boils down to wether he absolutely feels in the right or not how far you pursue it
If the cctv coverage didn't get it, surely the police car itself will have had hi-def dashboard cams running
Aye, there's the rub.
Looking at it from the Magistrates point of view, he/she is sitting there in court and the defendant is saying he definitely wasn't holding a phone...well he would say that wouldn't he?
Whereas the police officer is saying the opposite. Unless that officer is waging a particular vendetta against the OP's OH, what's his motive for falsifying an offence? All it's done is cost him a lot of time and paperwork in assembling a case to bring to court, when he could have been spending his time out on the streets catching criminals.
It doesn't really make sense for the officer to make stuff up like this. The balance of probabilities falls in the favour of the police, although this is criminal law of course, not civil.
There were laws in place to deal with this, driving without due care, dangerous driving etc etc, but they proved to hard to actually make stick, you actually have to prove these offences, so they changed the law, to make it easier to feed the government cash cow that is feeding off motorists.
This happened to my younger son a couple of years ago.
He was in the early stages of growing a beard, and as most men will know, during the 'whisker' stage, your face can feel itchy.
He was lightly scratching the right side of his face while driving, when a police car came toward him.
The jobsworth in the passenger seat of the police car thought that he was holding a phone, so they turned around, stopped him, and accused him of it.
The upshot was that the police had his sim checked to prove their point, but the service provider was able to show that he hadn't used the phone for more than 50 minutes prior to being stopped.
He received a letter saying that no further action was being taken, but to ensure that he didn't use the phone while driving in future, he did NOT receive an apology, surprise, surprise.
Think one of the problems is a moblie phone is no longer just for phoning or texting, with all the diffreant apps that people can use on thier phones makes it alot more not so straight forward. You do see people just holding thier phone while driving why do people need to do that because i have no idea
Or an expensive one.
I have a recollection of one of the many cop shows on the telly where the traffic cops stopped a car where the driver was holding the phone in front of her (think it was a woman but don't quote me on that
She admitted to them that she was talking on the phone but as she was using the speaker phone option it didn't count because it was hands free! She really could not see the problem with the fact she was holding the phone in her hand. Clues in the name, as I think one of the rozzers said to her
I cant be sure but I do believe him that he wasnt using it. Im not the type to throw a fit if he was so there is no point in him lying to me.
He was in a area he didnt know and went up and down the same stretch of road a few times because the network dropped out on his phone and the sat nav wasnt giving directions (another reason to replace our knackered proper satnav) they also had a good look at his tyres and lights etc.
I doubt the officer deliberately made the accusation. They were definitely targeting motorists yesterday, im guessing they gave alot of fines out yesterday.
I have witnessed police perjury in a court of law therefore I am sure they are 'mistaken' on a more regular basis.
I know the police perjured themselves as I was a defence witness in a crown court trial. I stood up in the court and never took my hand of the bible the whole time. Every word I said was the truth as I saw it. However, the policeman's testimony was completely different from mine. Now I understand perspective can be different, but this wasn't about perspective. I said person A was not there...the policeman said person A was. I know I was telling the truth. Therefore the police man must have been lying.
Guess who the court believed? The policeman of course.
Could you clarify where the phone was please? Do you mean it was down by the gear-stick / handbrake?
Yes, his car has a tray type thing that is between the handbrake and gear stick.
Edit: He was listening to it rather than looking at it, he dont like having it on the window screen because its a phone and didnt want to get pulled for looking at it while driving. The irony of this is not lost on him.
Funny you should say that. Ive got one of those sticky cradles that, when it gets dirty, it loses its grip until you clean it with water. Today it lost its grip on the way home and fell off at which point I grabbed it before it fell.
I suppose technically, I'd have been on a sticky (pun intended) wicket if seen!
Seems strange then that a police officer would have seen him using it (or seen something that they thought was him using a phone).
If it was me I'd be very tempted to go to court on this as I expect the only downside would be a bit more cost. It would be interesting to question the copper on where he was and what exactly he observed.
Ha, indeed!
Hes certainly tempted to take it to court just on principle.
You would still be found guilty, because you should ensure it was in a safe place before starting to drive. There was a case on Peippo where a phone was sliding off the front seat, and the person crabbed it before it fell. They were still found guilty.
The whole law is an ass when it comes to this particular legislation.