bauldbairn
New Member
- Location
- Falkirk
Dilemma of the day
- Thread starter User
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
- 
- 
Secondly,wasn't there a case recently(discussed on CC) where a woman in a "Range Rover" wiped out a family of cyclists whilst using her mobile phone(allegedly) - she mistakingly hit the accelerator instead of the brake on the approach to a roundabout. The mother was killed and the rest of the family badly injured.
The point is her lawyer argued they couldn't prove at the "exact" time of the accident she was using the phone - she said she'd been in a layby using it minutes before!?!?! Won't this now set the mark for all such cases - shockingly!!!
Unfortunately it wasn't the first case of this at all and there are other examples. If you read up on the Lord Ahmed case a broadly similar thing on that and on appeal happened. All I can say is he's a very lucky man.
[QUOTE 1365429"]
There wasn't, and they breathalised her anyway -it's standard policy after a collision like that.
[/quote]
It is, which really just goes to show the gulf between alcohol and mobile phones and how they are treated even to this day. If you drink and drive and you have an accident you are overwhelmingly likely to be rumbled. If you use a mobile phone illegally whilst driving, for various reasons, you are pretty unlikely to get caught.
There wasn't, and they breathalised her anyway -it's standard policy after a collision like that.
[/quote]
It is, which really just goes to show the gulf between alcohol and mobile phones and how they are treated even to this day. If you drink and drive and you have an accident you are overwhelmingly likely to be rumbled. If you use a mobile phone illegally whilst driving, for various reasons, you are pretty unlikely to get caught.
That's my take on it too.
You're not saying the driver was on the phone, just that you saw the phone. What the police do with that information is up to them.
bauldbairn
New Member
- Location
- Falkirk
Too true, unfortunately!
It should be the case when you have an accident - either cause or are involved in - they automatically check your mobile phone records.
Although without witnesses to it's use - how do you prove it's use at the exact time of the accident?
Insisting phones must be turned off(or on inflight mode - unusable) whilst in vehicles is one way of controlling it.
I'm currently spending a lot of time driving - and the amount of people using the phone/txting whilst driving is unbelievable.
[QUOTE 1365446"]
That is such bollox.
I was at a fatal rta about 18 months ago, the cops arrived, the very first words out of the coppers mouth to the driver who had hit the motorcyclist? "Give me your mobile, now, do not touch any buttons on it" Convicted of something or other, the more serious of 'death by driving' charges, ("causing death by dangerous driving" I think, someone will know the right charge of the two) take him down. All because of the phone records.
[/quote]
Can you please actually use a bit of thought in your posts rather than your usual hyperaggressive and unpleasant style? There are thousands of RTAs a year and you use one example to back up your argument? We argue about phones all the time on this forum, you talk as if you've never been on cyclechat.
Also if you look at the Death by driving charges and deterrence this is also a controversial subject. Often they result in the much lower end of the tariff or even lower charges being used.
That is such bollox.
I was at a fatal rta about 18 months ago, the cops arrived, the very first words out of the coppers mouth to the driver who had hit the motorcyclist? "Give me your mobile, now, do not touch any buttons on it" Convicted of something or other, the more serious of 'death by driving' charges, ("causing death by dangerous driving" I think, someone will know the right charge of the two) take him down. All because of the phone records.
[/quote]
Can you please actually use a bit of thought in your posts rather than your usual hyperaggressive and unpleasant style? There are thousands of RTAs a year and you use one example to back up your argument? We argue about phones all the time on this forum, you talk as if you've never been on cyclechat.
Also if you look at the Death by driving charges and deterrence this is also a controversial subject. Often they result in the much lower end of the tariff or even lower charges being used.
Fnaar
Smutmaster General
- Location
- Thumberland
What if (just supposing) I was driving, my passenger was using my mobile to make a call (not unusual with the Mrs) and we had an accident...?
jnb
Veteran
- Location
- In a corner
I'd ignore it. You didn't see it being used and the fact that it's on the seat doesn't mean it was being used. If the police suspect it was they'll check anyway.
bauldbairn
New Member
- Location
- Falkirk
[QUOTE 1365447"]
They check the record, look at your mobile bill, it records time of call and duration, to the second. You wouldn't need to be Hercule Poirot to figure it out.
Without witnesses, if someone drives off, how does anyone prove anything? That's just daft.
[/quote]
Spot on - that doesn't prove it was the cause of the accident only that it was used "a time" roughly before it.
What exactly records the time of the accident(actual motion of the car) - there's no "blackbox" recorders in standard cars to tie the evidence up?
If you'd read the previous threads - people have got off(allegedly ) with killing motorists/peds/cyclists because the times aren't linked. Commonly known as a loophole and exploited by top lawyers.
They check the record, look at your mobile bill, it records time of call and duration, to the second. You wouldn't need to be Hercule Poirot to figure it out.
Without witnesses, if someone drives off, how does anyone prove anything? That's just daft.
[/quote]
Spot on - that doesn't prove it was the cause of the accident only that it was used "a time" roughly before it.
What exactly records the time of the accident(actual motion of the car) - there's no "blackbox" recorders in standard cars to tie the evidence up?
If you'd read the previous threads - people have got off(allegedly
) with killing motorists/peds/cyclists because the times aren't linked. Commonly known as a loophole and exploited by top lawyers.
There's no dial Emma there whatsoever. Firstly, you should take a policy of NEVER being a snitchy-snitchy tell-tales-out-of-school mary-allen unless you've actually witnessed a serious crime or assault. Secondly, you have no idea how that Blackberry ended up where it did. I have a Blackberry on my passenger seat at all times. It's connected via Blue-tooth to the car's radio system so I can make and take calls without touching the phone through vocal commands. This driver may have the same system and the Blackberry banged off the dashboard and back onto the seat. Since you've nothing but suspicious speculation, you say nowt. Nowt.
ferret fur
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Roseburn
So how would you feel if you had been driving along the road, minding your own business when someone veers across the road into you because they are on their mobile. There are two victims in this crash & I don't see why you should feel loyalty to just one of them. All you are doing is helping find out what caused the incident. If she was using the phone then it is likely to have been a factor. If she wasn't using the phone, then there is no problem. Think about the innocent driver, not about the guilty.
By all means tell the police you saw a mobile on the seat just to make sure they are doing their job with regards to mobile use. But in itself it means nothing. Like others on here I often have my mobile (and wallet and sundry other items) on the passenger seat when I drive. Doesn't mean squat.
Silver Fox
Guru
Best to keep your passenger door locked in that case, especially when driving through town. It's a common MO for thieves to target motorists stopped at traffic lights / junctions by snatching items from the passenger seats.
asterix
Comrade Member
- Location
- Limoges or York
Mr Paul, I still find it strange that the mobile was on the passenger seat after a head-on of sufficient to cause the injuries you describe. If it was on the seat prior it would surely have slid off. If the phone was being held it would have been dropped either as a result of the collision or else before the collision when the holder anticipated it. The G-forces in such a collision would surely have made it impossible for the phone to have remained in the drivers grasp.
Conceivably it might have landed on the seat but that is no evidence that it was being used. It seems to me that whatever you saw is useless beyond proving the driver had a phone with them and I suspect even the traffic police could find out that on their own.
WRT the broken wrist, presumably it was the right wrist given the possibility mooted of the driver having placed the phone on the seat?
(no implied critiscism for raising this dilemma of course.)
Conceivably it might have landed on the seat but that is no evidence that it was being used. It seems to me that whatever you saw is useless beyond proving the driver had a phone with them and I suspect even the traffic police could find out that on their own.
WRT the broken wrist, presumably it was the right wrist given the possibility mooted of the driver having placed the phone on the seat?
(no implied critiscism for raising this dilemma of course.)
[QUOTE 1365463"]
The point in this thread is that MrP thinks he may have seen something, which, if his hunch is right, may possibly have been a contributory aspect to the crash. However, he only saw the aftermath, has no knowledge of what actually occurred, and is only able to put one side of the events post incident.
Simply put, the woman had a mobile in her car...... so what?
[/quote]
Trivially.
When you weren't arguing about other things what you said made sense. It's still trivial though. I doubt very much will come from it.
The point in this thread is that MrP thinks he may have seen something, which, if his hunch is right, may possibly have been a contributory aspect to the crash. However, he only saw the aftermath, has no knowledge of what actually occurred, and is only able to put one side of the events post incident.
Simply put, the woman had a mobile in her car...... so what?
[/quote]
Trivially.
When you weren't arguing about other things what you said made sense. It's still trivial though. I doubt very much will come from it.
