Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Mobile Phone Driving Ban


lemmy 7 2.2k United Kingdom
19 Apr 2013 3:05PM

Quote:I cant recall the exact wording but what the law says is that you should not do anything that distracts you from operating the vehicle as intended. This pre-dates the mobile phone law.


It used to be called driving without due care and attention as far as I recall.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

mikehit Plus
5 7.3k 11 United Kingdom
19 Apr 2013 3:08PM
I understand what charges they use (I mentioned them myself in an earlier post) but was just interested in the policeman's justification based on what leybald wrote because none of those would apply.
Big Bri 13 15.8k United Kingdom
19 Apr 2013 3:14PM

Quote:Take the mobile phone test

Read the instructions and try to join the 19% of people who pass...!



I didn't even start the test. Counting T-shirts and keeping a running total, what is the use in that. Once something is behind you, who cares?
lemmy 7 2.2k United Kingdom
19 Apr 2013 3:40PM

Quote:I understand what charges they use


Sorry, I misunderstood.

Re the policeman's justification, I think sometimes there isn't any and the reason is just a bloody minded or jobsworth cop, just a bovine dimness. They really silly ones don't occur often, witness that they are so well reported in the Mail and so on. (Cue howls of hatred and remarks that newspapers shouldn't be allowed to report these things Sad)

Often the cases are thrown out with a withering comment from the beak but I do recall a case a while back of a (I think) woman taking a swig from a can of coke while stationary at traffic lights. She was nicked and fined, as far as I recall. The justification for the charge was that her hands should be on the wheel while on the road. That would make a policeman putting a blue lamp on the roof of his car while moving and every smoker putting a fag in his mouth a criminal too. Let alone changing gear!

Sometimes not only the law but cops too can be an ass. The police always bring up the business about breaking the news to relatives of road crash victims but I don't think most police would try to justify the absurd - thankfully rare - behaviour of a few of their colleagues bringing pettifogging technical infringements to court at high cost to both the tax payer and police/ public relations.
leybald 5 45 United Kingdom
19 Apr 2013 4:00PM

Quote:I think your post says it all.

My one question:
Yes you probably can eat. drink, smoke etc. and still be safe. What the police will be looking for is that extra bit that's shows you're distracted or not in full control, e.g. not indicating, wandering, hitting the kerb, seen to be taking you eyes off the road for an unsafe period etc.
So why are people prosecuted for having a drink while pulled up at a set of traffic lights?



The only thing I can think of is the papers do have a habit of only reporting stuff that they can make newsworthy. I'm afraid as we all know they can report things out of context and even blatantly untrue. You'll probably find that the motorist had been seen on the move and doing something they shouldn't and got caught further down the road whilst stationary, the reporter would have omitted this. If you'd been truly stationary any half decent solicitor could you get you found not guilty. The other problem is many motorists seem to think the police have to obtain a confession, the offence can be based purely on what was seen. I'm afraid a lot of people thinks its OK to lie. I had a young mum do this once in front of her son who was about 10 when she'd been using the phone. She began to lie about not having a phone with her or using one at which stage it rang from the bottom of her handbag. I don't know whats worse using your phone whilst driving or setting an appalling example to an impressionable child.
19 Apr 2013 4:11PM
Mobile phones have a disastrous effect on concentration while driving. Anyone who thinks they can multitask safely while at the wheel probably overestimates their own abilities in other areas of driving too, like controlling the car in the wet, driving at speed, etc.

Iíve spent more time on two wheels (human- and petrol-powered) than four, so Iím particularly sensitive to bad driving. Your momentary lapse of concentration puts me in mortal danger if it happens at the wrong time. Why is it so important to talk on the phone while driving anyway? If itís an important call you can easily stop the car. If itís not important, well, itís not important.
lemmy 7 2.2k United Kingdom
19 Apr 2013 4:28PM

Quote:The only thing I can think of is the papers do have a habit of only reporting stuff that they can make newsworthy


I am not anti-police, it would be stupid to be so but they are not above criticism and bad or stupid behaviour and not everything we hear is a result of the press making it up which is rather what your post implies. When a judge says that a case should never have come to court, he us usually serious. It'[s a lack of sense of proportion that upsets people.

It's an offence to pick up an apple from the seat and take a bite while driving but not to change gear. How can that be?
leybald 5 45 United Kingdom
19 Apr 2013 9:03PM

Quote:The only thing I can think of is the papers do have a habit of only reporting stuff that they can make newsworthy

I am not anti-police, it would be stupid to be so but they are not above criticism and bad or stupid behaviour and not everything we hear is a result of the press making it up which is rather what your post implies. When a judge says that a case should never have come to court, he us usually serious. It'[s a lack of sense of proportion that upsets people.

It's an offence to pick up an apple from the seat and take a bite while driving but not to change gear. How can that be?

If that's the case Lemmy then I agree with you, any idea where this was reported I'd like to read up on it?
lemmy 7 2.2k United Kingdom
19 Apr 2013 11:57PM

Quote:If that's the case Lemmy then I agree with you, any idea where this was reported I'd like to read up on it


That one's here but there are others in a similar vein.

The problem is that it is always possible to say that the report is biased, lies, made up or whatever, so it really won't mean anything in the end. But other examples of bovine jobsworth reactions include Walter Wolfgang who heckled (legally and peacefully) at the Labour Party conference at Brighton and was ejected. When he went to go back in police arrested him under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. This was an 82 year old lifelong labour supporter.

And many photographers have had run ins with police trying to prevent them from taking photographs, perfectly legally, in public places. So much so that one photographic magazine ran a campaign against regular and illegal infringements by police of photographer's everyday rights to go about their lawful hobby. The police either didn't know the law (and I don't believe they are that badly trained) or they were just being plain awkward.

But yes, these are exceptions to normal reasonable police behaviour. Jobsworths and idiots are hardly rare! I also understand how it comes about. My next door neighbours until a few year ago were a married London station sergeant and DCI. They were great friends of mine. Because of their working life and the people they came into contact with as a result, they took a view that everyone was a criminal who hadn't yet been caught.

I was in the national news business and believe me, some of the actions of politicians were beyond belief. Never reported because of libel laws but toe curling in their attempts to extract money by intimidation and threats of court action. And then my own profession did things that were as bad as things they reported. I'm glad I'm retired Smile
monstersnowman 9 1.7k 1 England
20 Apr 2013 3:51AM
I'm an ex police officer and have heard the quote about everyone being a criminal who hadn't been caught yet. In my experience it is usually, even if take seriously, meant quite flippantly but with a more genuine underlying meaning that most of us at one time or other have purposely, Accidentally, Inadvertently and maybe even unknowingly committed a criminal offence, and some obviously knowingly and maliciously. Whether it be obtaining property/services by deception. Making an exaggerated claim or claiming something under warranty that was damaged by you is faulty, lying on a cv - theft act - obtaining a pecuniary advantage, keeping something they found when they quite easily could trace the owner, tax matters, unknowingly driving over the limit (morning drivers). Embarrassing things done when drunk. It may come across somewhat cynical but at the route of the saying it may not be far from the truth. Thankfully I remained open-minded enough not to view the world like this.
Ade_Osman Plus
11 4.5k 36 England
20 Apr 2013 6:21AM

Quote:I'm an ex police officer and have heard the quote about everyone being a criminal who hadn't been caught yet.


How very dare you insinuate I have in the past committed a criminal offence...... Not only is it scandalous, but also libelous, shame on you!

I thinking of reporting you to the EPZ moderators for personal abuse.........

Even if it is true BlushBlushBlushBlushBlush
keithh Plus
11 23.5k 33 Wallis And Futuna
20 Apr 2013 5:01PM

Quote:It's an offence to pick up an apple from the seat and take a bite while driving but not to change gear


Because changing gear is part of driving a car and can usually be done without taking your eyes off the road but picking an apple from the seat is not a requirement of driving a car.
monstersnowman 9 1.7k 1 England
20 Apr 2013 6:20PM

Quote:I'm an ex police officer and have heard the quote about everyone being a criminal who hadn't been caught yet.

How very dare you insinuate I have in the past committed a criminal offence...... Not only is it scandalous, but also libelous, shame on you!

I thinking of reporting you to the EPZ moderators for personal abuse.........

Even if it is true BlushBlushBlushBlushBlush



Consider myself shamed Wink please don't send Pete and the boys round. Blush
lemmy 7 2.2k United Kingdom
20 Apr 2013 6:40PM

Quote:Because changing gear is part of driving a car and can usually be done without taking your eyes off the road but picking an apple from the seat is not a requirement of driving a car.


So if taking your eyes off the road is the problem and, as you say usually it does not mean taking your eyes off the road, then sometimes it does. So logically, sometimes changing gear is as dangerous as picking an apple up from a seat. I look forward to the first court case.

I think we all know the difference between common sense and bloody mindedness.
Evertonian 2 565 England
21 Apr 2013 10:01AM
It is a bit rich when somebody can afford £60,000 for a car but can't afford £300 to install a handsfree kit.
Mind you cars are now being built with Bluetooth capability there as a permanent fixture so if the car in question is fitted with this and the driver fails to use it then something more severe than the (I believe) £30 and 3 points would be appropriate.

The cyclist who is raising the petition needs to raise one as well to ban cyclists from ignoring traffic lights, cycling lanes and from riding on pavements. The only reason they don't get 'nicked' is that they can give false details as bicycles are not fitted with registration plates and therefore cannot be traced.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.