Tomorrow!

[Vikeonabike]

Can't you use mobile phone records of usage to prove it... I know in the past Mr Summerdays in a previous job had to produce evidence to prove the location that a phone call was made in - not on a regular basis but I know that there was a case in which he had to provide scientific evidence - no idea what aspect of technical knowledge that was used - more than just the phone log.

Still open to interpretation.

"Your honour may I respectfully suggest that my client had not made a call whilst driving, but the call shown was made after he was stopped and the officers timings were not in line with those shown on the phone bill!"
The haed cam will show the phone in the hand.....

 

[Crankarm]

Still open to interpretation.

"Your honour may I respectfully suggest that my client had not made a call whilst driving, but the call shown was made after he was stopped and the officers timings were not in line with those shown on the phone bill!"
The haed cam will show the phone in the hand.....

Vike all power to you. If you can collar these people who stick two fingers up to the law because they are basically selfish tw*ts and also shaft some of these weasel defence lawyers who get them off then brilliant. AFAIAC you are in line for a medal - an OBE perhaps ?

Watch this it's only a few seconds long and you'll likely have deserved it .


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qkSe4YM7EY&feature=related

 

[Crankarm]

How do you know that people are using their phone to call someone and not as a dictaphone?

They're not going to incriminate themselves by saying they were using their dicktophone !

 

[Bollo]

How do you know that people are using their phone to call someone and not as a dictaphone?

I've noticed a trend for drivers to hold the phone with the speaker on and talk into it as Kirk here demonstrates......

Because that's going to sort out your driving, isn't it?

 

[Crankarm]

Your take on comedy is almost as bad as the threads you start in P&L

Going back to my point Jimmy Carr did and he got off, not to mention the German lorry driver who said that he had just finished charging his phone and was holding it to his ears to warm them up because they were cold.

Since when did you venture into P&L?

Well all I can say is that there must have been some extremely partial or gullible magistrates hearing those cases. It doesn't surprise me that JC would try and weasel out of being punished once he'd been caught.

 

[Archie]

Well done to Vike in mentioning that it is a bit ''OTT'' to actually look at the phone records to see if the driver was actually making a call. i.e Actually doing something called police work.

Evidentially it is only my word against there's as it is considered a little OTT to seize their mobile as proof (not that that would bother me). If I have the footage then there can be no dispute.....

I don't pipe up often, but this isn't the first time you've impugned VoaB. What is the problem?

...apart from someone, once again, not using THEIR'S!

 

[summerdays]

I've noticed a trend for drivers to hold the phone with the speaker on and talk into it as Kirk here demonstrates......

Because that's going to sort out your driving, isn't it?

I've noticed someone regularly doing that going past my house in a works (large) vehicle - I keep meaning to get a photo of it and send it to their company.

 

[Vikeonabike]

Well done to Vike in mentioning that it is a bit ''OTT'' to actually look at the phone records to see if the driver was actually making a call. i.e Actually doing something called police work.

Lee it has nothing to do with avoiding work. The paper trail required to get phone records is ridiculous. Not only that, if every officer who stopped somebody for using their mobile phone requested a record of calls from that company, can you imagine the amount of work required by both parties...The intention is to have coppers on the street not filling out forms.
Seizing the phone is the ideal issue, until the offence is finalised. Human Rights activists would have a field day.

Archie: I don't think Lee has a problem with me, it's just my job he has a problem with...

 

[shippers]

The other issue about getting the phone records, unless I'm missing something, is that your phone bill doesn't show incoming calls.

My pet hate is the lovely people who text while driving. Just stoopid.

 

[Vikeonabike]

I don't have a problem but what is to stop a defendant going to court and getting let off as Jimmy Carr did by saying they were using it for the purpose of a dictaphone?

You mean well but what is the point if the above happens?

My reading of the law is that he shouldn't have got let off for using it as a Dictaphone. It was phone, he was using it...

...Mobile telephones
110. - (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using -

(a) a hand-held mobile telephone; or

( a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).


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


A mobile phone, even being used as a Dictaphone is still capable of performing an interactive communication function!
He could afford a better lawyer than us and obviously came across a week magistrate.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

It's an interesting point though ... I used to drive for a haulage company in the West Midlands. We were all issued what was basically a phone handset (about the size of a small suitcase, in those days) which could be operated as a phone or as a two way radio back to the transport office. You held it like a phone, spoke into it like a phone and pushed buttons on it like a phone. All the cabs had a sticker on each side window reading "This is a two way radio" because it was legal to use a radio but not a phone, despite them being remarkably similar to use. So ... if it's safe to use a two way radio, why not a phone? Or, if it's unsafe to use a phone, why not a two way radio?

 

[BentMikey]

Why is it legal to use a handsfree phone kit, which is just as dangerous as holding a phone?

 

[Rhythm Thief]

At least with a handsfree kit you can still operate the gears and steering wheel with both hands, which is I imagine why they're legal.

 

[John the Monkey]

At least with a handsfree kit you can still operate the gears and steering wheel with both hands, which is I imagine why they're legal.

Indeed. I think it stems from a viewpoint that the problem with usage of a handheld mobile phone is entirely physical, i.e. it takes up one of your hands that could be in use controlling the vehicle.

(Fairly) recent research has shown that there's a very real problem with attention and hazard perception whilst using a hands free mobile, with some studies showing participants four times more likely to miss hazards whilst using handsfree than while doing the same test whilst over the drink drive limit.

whilst I'm loath to link to wikipedia, there's a good summary of current research (with links to the papers/institutions) here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety

The only study to conclude that handsfree is *less* distracting is one funded by headset manufacturer Plantronics. That conflict of interest, and the fact that the other research is farily unequivocal in concluding that handsfree is at least as distracting as handheld makes me (personally) doubt its validity.

There's a huge job of education to be done here - I can't see legal force being applied to handsfree with any effectiveness, given the way the law on hand held mobile use is so routinely flouted, and the latter is fairly clearly visible.

 

[magnatom]

Surely the difficulty in making the use of hands free kits illegal is the difficulty in determining if someone is using one or not. How could you prove it, unless you look at phone records. As vike has pointed out this isn't an easy process.

If we can't police the use of hand held mobile phones, what chance do we have with hands free?