Smartwatch & driving law

[cd365]

Paging @Drago and @CopperCyclist

I took delivery of a new smartwatch yesterday and whilst in my car this morning I wondered about the legality of using it on the road. I'm not talking about physically touching it but the voice activation side of it. Whilst both hands are on the steering wheel and watching the road I can say "OK Google", "send a text message to ...." and then dictate a message. Eyes will not have strayed from the road, hands would be on the steering wheel, all I would have done is spoken.

I'm assuming that it would be illegal hence why I didn't try it. But it would be a very hard thing to catch.

 

[phil_hg_uk]

Paging @Drago and @CopperCyclist

I took delivery of a new smartwatch yesterday and whilst in my car this morning I wondered about the legality of using it on the road. I'm not talking about physically touching it but the voice activation side of it. Whilst both hands are on the steering wheel and watching the road I can say "OK Google", "send a text message to ...." and then dictate a message. Eyes will not have strayed from the road, hands would be on the steering wheel, all I would have done is spoken.

I'm assuming that it would be illegal hence why I didn't try it. But it would be a very hard thing to catch.

Why would voice control be illegal my phone has a driving mode where it can read out texts to me through my bluetooth headset and I can place calls by voice dialing. You will only have a problem with hands free if the police think you are not in control of your vehicle but it is not illegal to voice dial.

Hands-free mobile phones
While it is an offence to be seen using a hand held phone, regardless of whether driving has been affected, this is not the case for hands-free phones.

However, if you are seen not to be in control of a vehicle while using a hands-free phone you can be prosecuted for that offence. The penalties are the same as for using a hand-held phone.

 

[twentysix by twentyfive]

It may not be illegal but one's brain is otherwise occupied with a task which is not the primary driving one. IMHO it's unsafe.

 

[fossyant]

I wouldn't, only because voice recognition is a bit flakey and sending a text to your wife's sister about naughty things might just get you in trouble. Never trust voice recognition.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

I turn the connectivity off to my smartwatch, while driving.

While, it may be handy to occasionally make/receive messages hands free. The buzzing on my wrist when messages/emails come through is very distracting.

 

[swansonj]

The key thing seems to be whether the device is hand held or not. Thereby posing the interesting (?) question, is something strapped to the hand "hand held" or not? If a watch is legal (because not "hand held"), does strapping a normal mobile phone to the arm with an elastic band provide a loophole?

It does rather point to the absurdity of the present situation where we have a ban that applies only to half the problem.

 

[Markymark]

The key thing seems to be whether the device is hand held or not. Thereby posing the interesting (?) question, is something strapped to the hand "hand held" or not? If a watch is legal (because not "hand held"), does strapping a normal mobile phone to the arm with an elastic band provide a loophole?

It does rather point to the absurdity of the present situation where we have a ban that applies only to half the problem.

It is completely absurd. There's little difference in the distraction between hand held and hand-free. However legislation takes years and is under enormous pressure from various car manufacturers and driving organisation to 'strike a balance'. This basically means the law allows things that are just as dangerous whilst pretending to be looking out for the vulnerable.

Add on to that the fact that CB radio is legal and that's not hands free (watch any episode of Top Gear to see it in action). This was to allow the emergency services to communicate whilst driving and is a loop-hole. Quite why they can't just say police/ambulance drivers due to the nature of their job and the higher level of training they receive, can have different laws is beyond me.

 

[Drago]

I don't know a great.deal about them, but my guess is they're not a "telephony device" as they're not capable of directly connecting to a public telecommunications network. That leaves the question of whether a driver is in proper control, which comes down to their actions at the time.

The business with radios such as cb and ham radio being not specifically banned is a moot one as it applies equally to the public as well as the emergency services, so in this instance there are no special laws applying to the police but not the public.

 

[phil_hg_uk]

The key thing seems to be whether the device is hand held or not. Thereby posing the interesting (?) question, is something strapped to the hand "hand held" or not? If a watch is legal (because not "hand held"), does strapping a normal mobile phone to the arm with an elastic band provide a loophole?

It does rather point to the absurdity of the present situation where we have a ban that applies only to half the problem.

This explains it best for me:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 2. 110 (1) of the regulations clearly state:

No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using—(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).

Paragraph 4 states:

A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data.

Note the “other than a two-way radio”. Paragraph 6(b) defines a two-way radio as follows:

“two-way radio” means any wireless telegraphy apparatus which is designed or adapted—

(i)for the purpose of transmitting and receiving spoken messages; and

(ii)to operate on any frequency other than 880 MHz to 915 MHz, 925 MHz to 960 MHz, 1710 MHz to 1785 MHz, 1805 MHz to 1880 MHz, 1900 MHz to 1980 MHz or 2110 MHz to 2170 MHz
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a radio Ham and I can use my radio while I am driving if I wanted to because it does not transmit on those frequencies and we have an exemption but of course that is subject to the following:

Although the law doesn’t prevent you from using a two-way radio whilst driving, that doesn’t mean that you’re free to use your amateur radio in your car in a way that could endanger other road users, or distract you from driving.

If the police see you using your equipment whilst driving, and have a reasonable belief that your use of equipment is causing your driving to suffer in any way, they can stop you for “driving without due care and attention”, which can lead to prosecution under Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. This can lead to you getting between 3 and 9 points on your driving licence, a fine, and in some circumstances, a disqualification.

 

[Markymark]

The business with radios such as cb and ham radio being not specifically banned is a moot one as it applies equally to the public as well as the emergency services, so in this instance there are no special laws applying to the police but not the public.

My understanding it was there is no law so that emergency services can use it meaning anyone can. My point is that why can;t we have a law that says ONLY emergency servcie drivers can use them?

 

[phil_hg_uk]

My understanding it was there is no law so that emergency services can use it meaning anyone can. My point is that why can;t we have a law that says ONLY emergency servcie drivers can use them?

In some instances Radio Hams are used to provide communications when other means such as mobile phones etc are not working, for instance when the towers came down in New York so did one of the main mobile phone repeaters and there was a lot of radio hams helping emergency services etc to talk to each other so maybe that is one reason why the exemption is there to enable that to happen when it is needed.

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

It's also legal to faff about getting a cigarette out of a packet, light it, police the ashes, and drive a vehicle while holding it - As long as you don't work in your vehicle or have kids in it.

 

[benb]

So from the legislation, it would depend on whether:
1. A smartwatch is a "hand-held device" for the purposes of the legislation
2. If so, whether it is a device "which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data" (pretty obvious it does)
3. If so, whether the behaviour in the OP counts as "using" it for the purposes of the legislation

It would need to be tested in law, and even then only at Crown Court to get anything binding.

 

[phil_hg_uk]

So from the legislation, it would depend on whether:
1. A smartwatch is a "hand-held device" for the purposes of the legislation
2. If so, whether it is a device "which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data" (pretty obvious it does)
3. If so, whether the behaviour in the OP counts as "using" it for the purposes of the legislation

It would need to be tested in law, and even then only at Crown Court to get anything binding.

I would think the smart watch would fall into the same category as the Bluetooth headset considering they both operate on Bluetooth and they both remotely operate a mobile phone.

Also by the definition of a 2 way radio which is a device to operate on any frequency other than 880 MHz to 915 MHz, 925 MHz to 960 MHz, 1710 MHz to 1785 MHz, 1805 MHz to 1880 MHz, 1900 MHz to 1980 MHz or 2110 MHz to 2170 MHz the smart watch is Bluetooth and therefore works on frequency of 2.4ghz which is outside any of the above frequencies shown that a mobile phone works in.

 

[Drago]

I've checked PNLD - a smart watch is not a telephony device (it doesn't transmit on the specified GSM frequencies so doesn't meet the definition) so the mobile phone regs don't apply.