On news last night new laws are incoming next year about use of mobile 'phones in cars:
It will be illegal to even touch a 'phone behind the wheel unless it's h/free, - does this mean if you use it as sat nav you have to get out of the car to change settings and also does "behind the wheel also include being parked even with engine off" - bit ambiguous, plenty of interpretation for Mr Plod to play with!
|
Thank you for the info - very useful!
|
Not an offence to touch a mobile phone while in a car, nor has it ever been.
Using a mobile to text or make a call while holding it and while in control of a motor vehicle at present constitutes an offence. Loopholes are taking photos, scrolling through a playlist or even playing games.
It will be an offence to hold it in your hand at all, with very limited and specific exceptions.
|
>>It will be illegal to even touch a 'phone behind the wheel unless it's h/free
Good. Though whether or not that will stop the silly b******s texting, using Facebook, reading Instagram etc. etc. is a whole 'nother matter.
Why the outrage? Do you need to touch your phone when you're driving? Is life incomplete without it?
And why would Mr. Plod play with the interpretation? It's pretty clear, don't do it and you'll be fine. Mind you, with the likelihood of being caught, you'll probably be ok even if you do.
|
The change is meant to bring the legislation up to date with smartphones. As drawn years ago it covered interactive communication; talking or texting. The change now is to catch using it as a camera, playing games, using it as a handheld 'remote' to manage playlists etc and hopefully watching videos etc.
No change to current rules if it's on a clamp etc. Same if it's stowed or, as mine is clipped to my belt, and it's integrated with the car. Since the Covid App needs me to have Bluetooth on 24/7 I've discovered it integrates with the Fabia and I can make/receive calls using its touchscreen. It also uses the speakers and a mic somewhere in the cabin to allow hands free.
|
Genuine question...why can’t the existing ‘driving without due care and attention’ charge be used to cover misuse of ‘phones, sat nav etc etc? The problem with micro legislating for what can’t be done is the rise in the thought process which says ‘well, there’s no law against it...’ a continued dumbing down I guess :(
|
Because British people need rules.
You can't say "drive carefully because if you don't we'll nick you" because you'll just end up in a row about what is or is not careless and why it was different this week to last week. People who scream bias and victimisation, police state and all the rest of the garbage they spew when their chosen behaviour is criticised.
When I was prone to driving like 'carelessly' and getting nicked for it, one sometimes accepted it, sometimes whined about the nasty police enforcing the law, and even complained about the injustice of getting prosecuted for the same thing 5 times without a shred of irony. But whoever thought about whining to a newspaper, or arguing about the definition of "careless" or any of the rest of the s***e that the entitled of today specialise in?
So one has to write rules in much the same way that you explain to a 2 year old about eating vegetables; Slowly, with small words, with no conceivable ambiguity or doubt and with no need for judgement on the part of the two year old.
Otherwise we'd have just the one rule which said "don't be a t*** on the roads" and nick everybody who was.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 18 Oct 20 at 18:30
|
>>When I was prone to driving like 'carelessly'
I thought it was only the younger generation that dropped 'like' everywhere?
|
In the UK we police by consent and used to regard a legal system based on precedent as far superior to legalistic codification.
What Covid had very clearly demonstrated is that we woz wrong.
The great British public are incapable of common sense, and willing to find any trivial deficiency in the law to claim that any offence, no matter how blindingly obviously wrong, was not illegal.
So we end up with an inflated legal framework without ever considering removal of that law which is now redundant. Next stop, police state, and we have willing alked straight into it!
|
>>In the UK we police by consent
Do we indeed? Then what does "by consent" mean? Because it sur as s*** doesn't mean the obvious.
I guess it means that we vote for the people who control the police and would vote against them if we didn't like the way they did it?
Indeed in 2012 our Glorious Government explained it as "the power of the police coming from the common consent of the public, as opposed to the power of the state. It does not mean the consent of an individual"
They later clarified with "No individual can choose to withdraw his or her consent from the police, or from a law".
So "policing by consent" sounds wonderful and free, like we are different to everybody else.
But in reality it means SFA beyond "You're free to vote against the Government".
|
>>I thought it was only the younger generation that dropped 'like' everywhere?
I changed "a t***" to "carelessly". Forgot to also remove "like".
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 18 Oct 20 at 20:16
|
>> Genuine question...why can’t the existing ‘driving without due care and attention’ charge be used to
>> cover misuse of ‘phones, sat nav etc etc? The problem with micro legislating for what
>> can’t be done is the rise in the thought process which says ‘well, there’s no
>> law against it...’ a continued dumbing down I guess :(
It could have been but you'd have had a dozen or so cases and ten years of argument about what exactly equated to dwdc&a related to phones. All sorts of defences, ranging from the plausible to the ridiculous run as far as the Supreme Court.
I could hold a chock bar phone between my ear and shoulder same as a wired handset; can I remain in full control of a car while doing so??
If you make the offence specific then everyone is clear.
|