I came across this website and cannot believe what has become acceptable in this country.
Avoiding Consequences of Your Actions
Avoiding Consequences of Your Actions
Blood Sucking Lawyers
- Thread starter BSRU
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
They advise that you can be found not guilty of using a mobile phone while driving if your call log shows that you were not using a mobile phone whilst driving. I'm not a legal expert, but what exactly is the problem here?
Fricking ugly web site, though, and they really could use an editor/spell-checker/proofreader. But as far as I'm aware there's no law against apostrophe misuse either (yet...)
Fricking ugly web site, though, and they really could use an editor/spell-checker/proofreader. But as far as I'm aware there's no law against apostrophe misuse either (yet...)
You would be relying on everyone having the same time for a valid call log comparison.
Plus the website is all about using loopholes, just like one's used by speeding drivers.
Yes, but not twist things to get off, advice on casting doubt gives the wrong impression.
If a copper sees you driving using a mobile then you should accept your punishment.
As you say, it's an ugly amateurish website.
That may be deliberate. They specialise in defending motorists. I used to be 'bloodsucking lawyer' but stopped doing traffic law years ago because I didn't want to spend my time trying to find technical defences for people who were morally guilty.
Fair enough, technical defences are as valid as any others, but it wasn't something I wanted to waste my training on.
That may be deliberate. They specialise in defending motorists. I used to be 'bloodsucking lawyer' but stopped doing traffic law years ago because I didn't want to spend my time trying to find technical defences for people who were morally guilty.
Fair enough, technical defences are as valid as any others, but it wasn't something I wanted to waste my training on.
XmisterIS
Purveyor of fine nonsense
Out of interest, is it illegal to use a hands-free kit?
I never use my phone at all when I'm driving, but I was just wondering because I would consider using a handsfree kit on a long motorway journey in light traffic, it it was legal to do so.
I never use my phone at all when I'm driving, but I was just wondering because I would consider using a handsfree kit on a long motorway journey in light traffic, it it was legal to do so.
There is no specific law outlawing using hands free kits but you can be done for "driving without due care and attention" if you are too engrossed in a telephone conversation and driving slowly/wandering all over your lane.
Over The Hill
Guru
- Location
- Ridden off into the sunset
I had more worried about the white van man behind me a few weeks ago who was clearly texting while bombing along at 50mph behind me.
I thougt about taking his photo with my phone but would that be illegal?
I thougt about taking his photo with my phone but would that be illegal?
I caught one on my rear camera yesterday, very dangerous especially when he decided to let go of the steering wheel to put his mobile phone into the hands free cradle hanging by the centre mirror.
david1701
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Bude, Cornwall
but surely its actually not any different to talking to a passenger, it would be nice to just have loads of sensible coppers who could do people for being unsafe as opposed to lots of specific laws that complicate matters and make loopholes
ColinJ
Puzzle game procrastinator!
- Location
- Todmorden - Yorks/Lancs border
I think talking on phones is more distracting than somebody in the car with you. In the car, you are having the same experience. Your passenger (surely?) isn't going to crack a joke to you just as you pull out to overtake. You aren't going to be straining to catch what they said, or trying to work out what that strange background noise was.
Somebody posted a video on CC a while back of a driver so engrossed in the conversation she was having on her mobile that she completely failed to notice that the cyclist with the camera was riding alongside her and gathering evidence! It wasn't just for a couple of seconds either. It must have gone on for at least 20-30 seconds and she was totally unaware of what was going on outside her car. Was she really driving with 'due care and attention'?
The law should be tightened up to do away with the loopholes. While driving, if you are holding a phone or a map or a razor or a book or lipstick or a drink or food or... then you are breaking the law; that's how it should be.
The last thing we want is police officers making random subjective judgements. "Well, the driver was only doing 32 mph in a 40 mph limit and the phone was only in his hand for a few seconds and he was about 40 yards from the cyclist, so I thought it was probably safe" - no thanks!
spen666
Legendary Member
There is nothing this firm are doing that is wrong or illegal or even immoral.
EVERYONE has the right to defend themselves irrespective of how repugnant the allegations against them are.
I have been doing a lot of court observations of late around the country and have come across this firm many times defending road traffic cases. They charge punters to represent them, then instruct cheap(ish) local barrister to do the trial.
Every trial I have seen where this firm has been instructed by the defendant has resulted in a conviction and a large award of costs against the defendant - eg instead of taking a £60 FPN, they end up with a fine often of £100-£200+, costs of £400-£650 and the victim surcharge of £15. So easily ends up costing them £800+ in addition to their own solicitors legal fees - so they probably have little change out of £1200 or more instead of the £60 FPN
(Edited to correct cock up)
EVERYONE has the right to defend themselves irrespective of how repugnant the allegations against them are.
I have been doing a lot of court observations of late around the country and have come across this firm many times defending road traffic cases. They charge punters to represent them, then instruct cheap(ish) local barrister to do the trial.
Every trial I have seen where this firm has been instructed by the defendant has resulted in a conviction and a large award of costs against the defendant - eg instead of taking a £60 FPN, they end up with a fine often of £100-£200+, costs of £400-£650 and the victim surcharge of £15. So easily ends up costing them £800+ in addition to their own solicitors legal fees - so they probably have little change out of £1200 or more instead of the £60 FPN
(Edited to correct cock up)
