This Regulation was generally interpreted as catching any use of a hand-held mobile phone - e.g. making or receiving a telephone call, looking at the internet etc. That interpretation must now be read in the light of the High Court's decision in Director of Public Prosecutions v Barreto [2019] EWHC 2044 (Admin) - Thirlwall LJ and Goss J.
Note: (remainder of the original post removed).
Where do we stand when -
ReplyDeleteI am changing the MP3 on my mobile?
Using Google Maps on it
Taking a photo
it's not an i-phone
It's against the law as your are using a mobile device that can take or receive calls
DeleteUsing for the purposes suggested, ie making or receiving calls or texts is but a small part of what my phone (an i-phone) does. It has a sat-nav function and I do enjoy playing games whilst driving. Another fun way to pass the time is to browse the web, reconcile my bank account and use any one of a large number of other apps. In lay terms this is clearly using but my biggest issue is with the sat-nav. Tapping in a destination whilst driving clearly meets the threshold, but what about looking at the screen for several seconds? Why is this worse than looking at the fixed sat-nav in my vehicle? If the mischief is about "hands on the wheel" the basic construction of a large number of upper market vehicles causes a breach almost every time the vehicle is driven. These matters are generally dealt with by fixed penalty, so arely come to court. generally the accused doesn't show so we proceed to prove in absence. I feel strongly about this, my daughter having been the victim in a crash where the other driver admitted he rammed her whilst he was on the phone. She ( a medic) couldn't use one arm for 18 months and still has a restricted functionality. Somehow, given the poential consequences, should the penalties be more akin to careless driving, based on the facts?
ReplyDeleteI cannot answer specific questions.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, regulation 110 creates 3 offences:
a) a driver using a hand-held mobile phone;
b) causing or permitting another to drive using a hand-held mobile phone;
c) supervising a provisional licence holder whilst the supervisor is using a hand-held mobile phone.
Various hand-held devices other than mobile phones are caught by Regulation 110 since 110(1)(b) refers to using hand-held devices of a kind specified in Regulation 110(4).
110(4) refers to "devices (other than two-way radio) which perform an "interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data". Thus a driver using such a device to view the internet would be caught.
Rex_imperator is right in saying that many (probably the vast majority) of these cases do not come to court. The driver accepts the penalty notice (£60) + 3 penalty points. Occasionally, they are defended in court.
Note the Jimmy Carr case here.
Again, it is a magistrates' court decision and is not a judicial precedent.
With limited resources the targeting of mobile phone users is in my opinion a politically motivated process the cost of which does not appear to equate to the problem or its outcomes. My blog today before coming here is also on this topic.
ReplyDelete@JP
ReplyDeleteAre you in fact a magistrate? And will you be addressing the costs of NOT targeting mobile phone users? (In terms of traffic collisions they cause, lives and limbs, etc)
I wouldn`t blog under that title if I weren`t. I am asking is the best use of resources being applied as per the statistics quoted in my post on my site. If you haven`t read it...............
ReplyDeleteThe problem is not keeping hands on the wheel, otherwise one could never use many of the controls on the car, it is the distraction element. Tests have shown that this is just as bad with a hands-free phone, and is the equivalent of being well over the drink-drive limit.
ReplyDeleteIt is good to see that government taking some strict action against drivers using mobile while driving. Recently read that using mobiles while driving causes accidents.These rules affects or decreases death rate on the road.The six penality points will be added. Penalty raised from £100 to £150. If it really implemented properly, then it's a good thing.
ReplyDelete