Rank: Super forum user 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I think that the issue is about the law specifically dealing with someone “using” a mobile phone. The court looking at the legislation introduced in 2003 decided that “using” a phone meant making a call on it not making a video or taking a picture. The police could have tried to bring charge of careless or dangerous driving instead but then they would have needed evidence that that the car was being driven carelessly or dangerously. Essentially the law needs tweaking to bring it upto to date.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel  I think that the issue is about the law specifically dealing with someone “using” a mobile phone. The court looking at the legislation introduced in 2003 decided that “using” a phone meant making a call on it not making a video or taking a picture.
Indeed.
The law actually says "No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using a hand-held mobile telephone". The court seems to have decided that "using a mobile telephone" carries an implicit 'as a telephone', while the police have been previously interpreting it as '... for any purpose whatsoever'.
I note the press article quoted by the OP is wrong - that says "The law says that an offence is committed if a driver uses a handheld mobile phone for “interactive telecommunication”" and that's not true. The law does also say "No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using ... a hand-held device [which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data]". The law does not however append the 'interactive communication' constraint to 'using a hand-held mobile telephone'.
Yet another case of the observation that everything I read in the press where I know some details is inaccurate. What this says about the things I read in the press where I don't know the details ...
Having said that, everyone will obviously want to check the details (rather than take my word for it): http://www.legislation.g.../2003/2695/contents/made
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Most of ther policies on tyhe use of mobile phones has included caveats such as to make or receive calls, sent / receive texts or other messages. Good ones go on to include distractive in-cab technologies that would include the other mobile phone functions such as video, streaming, music etc, then the satnav, microwave etc etc.
Funny that the mobile phone rules were brought in because the existing laws were insufficient to be effective enforcement (using 'not in proper control', due care and such like) with the limited evidence that is usually available to make a decision.
As for changes to the law, the last really significant change was the '88 Road Traffic Act which has had lots of changes additions and updates since then, alonhg with some which has yet to be enacted, such as the Road Safety Act 2006- S19 deals with being suitably qualified / trained so as to lawfully use the excess speed exemption (Yet to be enacted).
An uodate and consoidation of the RTA'88 would be the real answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
A quick morning after thought.... the legislation around phones was to fill a void and is doing quite well in comparision to some others. Drink drive, for example, in theory it's so simple - drink more than you should then drive is an offence, and yet the 'loopholes', exemptions or interpretations have only just about been closed off, and that's taken close to 30 years.
|
 1 user thanked Acorns for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The whole issue of the use of mobile phones, or anything else for that matter, whilst driving is a nightmare. Considering how much time is spent on consultation, drafting, bill reading etc, you'd think they would have got the legislation right, wouldn't you? Although the modern generation of iphones etc wasn't around when this law came in, wouldn't it have been a good idea to include using anything that could distract a driver or cause them to lose control? As it stands, using a satnav, laptop, video camera and so on is not specifically against the law, so it is strange from that point of view why mobile phones were singled out.
Good idea having a law about it, but unfortunately it isn't enforced. There aren't the numbers of traffic police around that there used to be, despite what the TV programmes depict, so unlikely they will catch anyone. If you see someone using one, you have to have a witness to report it, and since the vast majority of cars are single occupancy most of the time, this won't happen either.
The technology exists for the mobile phone companies to build in software that prevents anyone from using a phone not connected to a hands free whilst driving, engine running etc. However, this won't happen, as the companies would not want to lose revenue, and the government is too gutless to force them to do it (or vested interests are involved).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Loop holes as are almost inevitable in legislation. When laws are drafted and in particular interpreted by the courts, they tend to follow the most conservative application of the law. They want to avoid what I call an “a*****les charter” which creates broadly defined offences of which just about anybody can be arrested for anything (just look at the way the police sometimes use the very broad powers under terrorism legislation). So legislation has to play catch up with the real world.
|
1 user thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: biker1 The technology exists for the mobile phone companies to build in software that prevents anyone from using a phone not connected to a hands free whilst driving, engine running etc. However, this won't happen, as the companies would not want to lose revenue, and the government is too gutless to force them to do it (or vested interests are involved).
How will that work? How would the phone know the person holding it isn't a passenger, or on some other fast moving vehicle, like a train?
|
1 user thanked achrn for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
When they proposed the software the suggestion was passengers would be able to confirm they weren't the driver - but that involves a positive action of choice which big internet doesn't like Picking up on the transmission aspect as currently written in the legislation the prosecution may have missed that most modern smartphones are perpetualy synchronising with cloud based back-up services unless explicitly disabled and retriving the balanity of notifications from the installed apps particulalrly SM again unless specifically disabled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
When they proposed the software the suggestion was passengers would be able to confirm they weren't the driver - but that involves a positive action of choice which big internet doesn't like Picking up on the transmission aspect as currently written in the legislation the prosecution may have missed that most modern smartphones are perpetualy synchronising with cloud based back-up services unless explicitly disabled and retriving the balanity of notifications from the installed apps particulalrly SM again unless specifically disabled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: achrn Originally Posted by: biker1 The technology exists for the mobile phone companies to build in software that prevents anyone from using a phone not connected to a hands free whilst driving, engine running etc. However, this won't happen, as the companies would not want to lose revenue, and the government is too gutless to force them to do it (or vested interests are involved).
How will that work? How would the phone know the person holding it isn't a passenger, or on some other fast moving vehicle, like a train?
My phone already does this, not sure how because I didn't set it up or anything but it knows when I'm in a car and changes to a do not disturb type mode. You have the option to press an 'I'm not driving' button and normal service is restored. I'd just assumed everones phone does that now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Not all phones, nor their operating systems are equal - some of us are stuck with a corporate hand set specifically named in tax guidance :-(
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Not all phones, nor their operating systems are equal - some of us are stuck with a corporate hand set specifically named in tax guidance :-(
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
but then states the penalties are for "using"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
but then states the penalties are for "using"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: ttxela Originally Posted by: achrn Originally Posted by: biker1 The technology exists for the mobile phone companies to build in software that prevents anyone from using a phone not connected to a hands free whilst driving, engine running etc. However, this won't happen, as the companies would not want to lose revenue, and the government is too gutless to force them to do it (or vested interests are involved).
How will that work? How would the phone know the person holding it isn't a passenger, or on some other fast moving vehicle, like a train?
My phone already does this, not sure how because I didn't set it up or anything but it knows when I'm in a car and changes to a do not disturb type mode. You have the option to press an 'I'm not driving' button and normal service is restored.
I'd just assumed everones phone does that now?
So it isn't capable of doing what biker1 claims, it simply knows when it's near a car probably by detecting the car bluetooth. It will probably tell you you're in a car if you come near the handsfree speakerphone unit I have that its nothing whatsoever to do with a car. It wouldn't be able to prevent you making a call when driving, becasue you'd just tell it you're not driving.
I don't believe "the technology exists", but I'm willing to be wrong, if biker1 (or others) can susbsantiate the claim.
Edited by user 02 August 2019 12:30:45(UTC)
| Reason: spelling
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Well I don't have a clue how it works but it only seems to do it when I'm in a car thats travelling. I think it's value is probably not in preventing you from breaking the law by firmly locking you out of making a call but rather avoiding having to remember to put the phone on silent or turn it off when you start driving, thereby avoiding you feeling compelled to answer the phone when it rings whilst you are driving. Also it seems to know when I am driving my 15 year old car or my 30 year old van, neither of which are of course equipped with Bluetooth. I wonder if it just recognises I am travelling at car like speeds?
Edited by user 02 August 2019 12:42:37(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: ttxela Also it seems to know when I am driving my 15 year old car or my 30 year old van, neither of which are of course equipped with Bluetooth. I wonder if it just recognises I am travelling at car like speeds?
I would imagine it is a speed thing. Those GPS games (Pokemon Go! etc.) have a warning if you are travelling too fast and you have to say that you are a passanger to continue playing. I would imagine it is more so you don't get distracted/tempted when you hear the phone beep. Seems like a sensible precaution to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Originally Posted by: ttxela Also it seems to know when I am driving my 15 year old car or my 30 year old van, neither of which are of course equipped with Bluetooth. I wonder if it just recognises I am travelling at car like speeds?
The "Do Not Disturb" function on my mobile also works when my phone is sat in my bag in the seat of the shopping trolley in ALDI or when I'm running on the treadmill at the gym!!! So definitely not limited to vehicles!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: achrn Originally Posted by: ttxela Originally Posted by: achrn Originally Posted by: biker1 The technology exists for the mobile phone companies to build in software that prevents anyone from using a phone not connected to a hands free whilst driving, engine running etc. However, this won't happen, as the companies would not want to lose revenue, and the government is too gutless to force them to do it (or vested interests are involved).
How will that work? How would the phone know the person holding it isn't a passenger, or on some other fast moving vehicle, like a train?
My phone already does this, not sure how because I didn't set it up or anything but it knows when I'm in a car and changes to a do not disturb type mode. You have the option to press an 'I'm not driving' button and normal service is restored.
I'd just assumed everones phone does that now?
So it isn't capable of doing what biker1 claims, it simply knows when it's near a car probably by detecting the car bluetooth. It will probably tell you you're in a car if you come near the handsfree speakerphone unit I have that its nothing whatsoever to do with a car. It wouldn't be able to prevent you making a call when driving, becasue you'd just tell it you're not driving.
I don't believe "the technology exists", but I'm willing to be wrong, if biker1 (or others) can susbsantiate the claim.
When you consider the potential of detectors in the phone, GPS, building more functionality into hands free sets or bluetooth, and so on, I would think we do have the technology to make it difficult or impossible to hold and use a phone whilst driving, and other posts suggest this is already beginning to happen. However, I think the main point I was trying to make is that the legislation and the way it is (not) enforced, and the possiblities of modern technology to support the law, would resolve the problem relatively quickly, if there was a will to do it, which there clearly isn't. This is not helped by the current infatuation with mobile phones, which so many people seem to live their lives on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: JohnW
It's perhaps an indication that the Highway Code (Or more realistically, those who write and edit it) doesn't always keep up with technology either despite some recent updates applicable to phones etc.
|
1 user thanked Acorns for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Acorns, yes, note the list of allowed accessories does not include Bluetooth car media screen which is what most company cars have and most mid and high priced saloon cars have. Edited by user 02 August 2019 16:06:57(UTC)
| Reason: Typo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Interestingly read something this weekend which said a passenger
of the car could be prosecuted for using a hand held mobile if the driver was a
learner. That was news to me!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Provisional drivers are meant to be adequately supervised by a licenced driver with........ Where the licenced driver is travelling as a passenger to provide such supervision they should not be distracted from the task by using a mobile phone
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Provisional drivers are meant to be adequately supervised by a licenced driver with........ Where the licenced driver is travelling as a passenger to provide such supervision they should not be distracted from the task by using a mobile phone
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Just to reiterate: there are two separate offences. One is driving while using a mobile phone and the other careless driving. To prove the first all the police have to demonstrate is that the person was using a phone while driving the second requires that the police prove the person was driving carelessly possibly because of some distraction eg using a phone but it could be anything. In one case it was eating an apple!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: A Kurdziel Just to reiterate: there are two separate offences. One is driving while using a mobile phone and the other careless driving. To prove the first all the police have to demonstrate is that the person was using a phone while driving the second requires that the police prove the person was driving carelessly possibly because of some distraction eg using a phone but it could be anything. In one case it was eating an apple!
The usual offence is/was 'driver not in proper control' which was much easier than a driving without due care offence. Like the due care, it required an element of something about the driving to prove the offence, and using a phone, of itself doesn't always show a change of driving manner. Hence the specific mobile phone legislation came about - it was rushed, it is fairly effective but needs aan update and tweak to adapt to new technologies.
One of the issues that could make a significant difference would be for the employer to be far more pro-active in managing their employee's use of the phone (Other devices also apply). Many leave it at having a written policy and written RA - job done and take no further action on managing it. In the main, drivers driving for business tend to make/receive business related calls and if its whilts driving then so much the better and more time to do other things at the end of the journey. - it's not rocket science and could have a significant impact on compliance.
|
1 user thanked Acorns for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Originally Posted by: AcornsConsult In the main, drivers driving for business tend to make/receive business related calls and if its whilts driving then so much the better and more time to do other things at the end of the journey. - it's not rocket science and could have a significant impact on compliance.
At my last place the Retail arm evaluated the impact of rigorous implementation of no-mobile-while-mobile on their business. Like most Retail businesses the Area Managers in particular live their lives in the car and on the phone. The result of the evaluation? No discernible impact on business performance. Which just goes to show.
Marks & Spencer, W H Smith, Boots the Chemist, John Menzies, Sainsbury's, Tesco. What do they have in common? They all built up huge business empires without a single mobile call being made. Business does not need to use its phones on the go.
And on a different but related matter: how come we don't get more lifetime driving bans? I read of people causing multiple casualties while under the influence and driving impossibly badly, going to jail and being banned for a couple of years. Why are they ever allowed to drive again? Just a hobby-horse of mine,
John
Edited by user 05 August 2019 10:20:29(UTC)
| Reason: Maybe its the caffeine?
|
1 user thanked jwk for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: jwk Originally Posted by: AcornsConsult In the main, drivers driving for business tend to make/receive business related calls and if its whilts driving then so much the better and more time to do other things at the end of the journey. - it's not rocket science and could have a significant impact on compliance.
At my last place the Retail arm evaluated the impact of rigorous implementation of no-mobile-while-mobile on their business. Like most Retail businesses the Area Managers in particular live their lives in the car and on the phone. The result of the evaluation? No discernible impact on business performance. Which just goes to show.
Marks & Spencer, W H Smith, Boots the Chemist, John Menzies, Sainsbury's, Tesco. What do they have in common? They all built up huge business empires without a single mobile call being made. Business does not need to use its phones on the go.
And on a different but related matter: how come we don't get more lifetime driving bans? I read of people causing multiple casualties while under the influence and driving impossibly badly, going to jail and being banned for a couple of years. Why are they ever allowed to drive again? Just a hobby-horse of mine,
John
All excellent points. On the issue of phones, they have been allowed to proliferate with no attempts at control, the end result being that people are using them in the most inappropriate times. I agree that there seems to be an assumption that no-one can possibly be without the use of a mobile at all times, so it has just become a habit and expectation. If you're driving a car, drive the car, don't try and use it as a mobile office. This not only applies to mobiles, but all the other things that drivers get up to these days. If the skillset of the average driver was good enough to allow them to do other things, then it might just be acceptable with certain protocols. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Far too many drivers seem to struggle with just driving, let alone trying to do anything else.
On the subject of sentences for erring drivers, can't agree more. This won't improve until we get rid of the double standard that applies these days, where killing someone with a car is considered a lesser offence than killing them in any other way. An offence of vehicular homicide, with similar sentences to murder, would go a long way in improving standards (along with raising the standards of driving rather than building in more and more safety features into cars to protect drivers from their own incompetence).
|
2 users thanked biker1 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.