Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,746
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Has a bill been released that actually puts these changes down on paper or is it just consultations and proposals?
Drivers face fine and points if they use phone at drive-thru
- Thread starter im4gine3
- Start date
Stopping the engine doesn't mean that you're no longer driving. There's case law guidance here by the CPS: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-mobile-phones
Under Pinner v Everett it says it doesn't make a difference if the engine is switched off.
But under R v MacDonagh, a man who was pushing his car, using his shoulder on the A pillar was determined to not be driving his car. So if you turned off the car and got out to pay, you would no longer be driving.
You can still touch your phone screen, you just can't have the phone in your hand, it should be mounted somewhere. You can still be charged with driving without due car and attention for doing this though if it is impacting your driving, but the same could be said for using the Tesla display, or changing the radio, or eating a packet of biscuits.
Thanks, that makes sense. I only read The Sun link in OP and it specifically says that using a phone whilst the engine is running is an offence.
Reading your link, there's a section in there which says in reference to using a phone as a camera:
So does that mean using your phone to pay isn't using it as a communication device and therefor isn't actually illegal?
The articles are based on the changes last year about mobile phone usage, just cheap recycling of non-news I think.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,746
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Yeah, I thought so. The devil is in the detail and we've not got this, so it's all just speculation. Have the government even published the results of the consultation?
I wondered the exact same thing, but I'm not really sure on the answer. You could argue that the phone is communicating with the drive-thru's payment device, which it technically is, but I'm not sure were the law falls on that one.
They could use a weaker charge of "not in proper control of the vehicle” to cover the use of non-interactive communication functions on a phone but this carries a lesser penalty. This undermines the tough stance the government wants to take on mobile phone use while driving. The legislative changes will equalise the penaly and discourage all non-handsfree use of mobile phones thereby protecting the public.
So why not adjust the penalty on an existing law? You talk about protecting the public yet the penalties resulting from death by careless/death by dangerous are pathetic.
I recently linked one on here...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-50686465
https://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/...-two-years-after-death-of-couple-in-newcastle
Out of jail in a year. Hit and run. Two killed. Where's the protection?
Another one, out in less than 2 years...
https://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/...dent-emma-guilbert-in-a-hit-and-run-in-fenham
Where's the protection?
The courts in this country do not care about protecting the public. If they did we would have an effective criminal justice system in place and simply put...we don't.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,746
- Location
- Southampton, UK
As it stands, it would not constitute an offence post the R v Barreto ruling.
We're discussing the phone legislation. If you'd like to have a discussion about other motoring legislation and the courts I suggest you start a new thread.
There is targeted legislation for mobile phone use and the legislative changes will equalise the penalty for all non-handsfree use of mobile phones. Get caught taking a snap on your phone, 6 points and £200. A bit of gaming on your phone, 6 points and £200. Scrolling through to find your favourite tune, 6 points and £200. These penalties will act as a deterrent to distracting mobile phone usage and protect the public.
We're discussing the fact that you claimed it was done for the purpose of public protection. I'm saying that's rubbish because public protection is not a priority for our justice system. I provided evidence to prove this. So it was entirely pertinent to the point you were claiming and I was disputing.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,746
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Your 'evidence' (or anecdotes as I would call them) doesn't prove such a sweeping statement.
I don't think you know what an anecdote is.
Explain how, when it's proven that short jail sentences serve no purpose as a deterrent, that those sentences protect the public.
Explain how they're a deterrent.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,746
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Convictions of others rarely are effective as a deterrent regardless of the length. They do serve to protect the public through the disqualification periods and are effective for the short periods that offenders are in custody.
Ultimately, longer custodial sentences may be effective for an individual but have very limited effects being that.
I doubt it.
Unless your drive happens to be a route that the public have access and use of on a regular basis. Even then I suspect a police officer would have a hard time getting it into court, but the moment your wheels touch say the public footpath to cross it and reach the road, or the road itself you'd definitely have committed an offence.
IIRC the distinction is that you don't invite the public onto your driveway and give them unfettered access to it (the public have no expectation to be able to use your drive), the only people who'd be expected to be on your drive would be invited or deliveries etc.
Unlike say a shop's car park, or the drive through at McDonalds.
There is a lot of case law about this, ranging from things like private roads to communal parking/housing estates, to car parks, to farmers fields with a public event going on in them.
A drive through would be either classed as a "private road" that the public have access to, or part of the retailers car park, both of which are places where the Road Traffic Act and related laws have been deemed to apply.
The ultimate way to protect the public is to lock an offender away for an extended period because, as you say, they cannot harm the public whilst locked up.
Short sentences do not allow for a sufficient period for rehabilitation.
The fact is we have got justice wrong in this country, why else do you think we have such high recidivism rates? We're one of the worst countries in Europe for reoffending (although if you exclude Scotland from the figures we do look a lot better).
You have a very low opinion of our justice system. Six points and £200 (mainly the six points I'd say) will be a significant deterrent to drivers using their phones.
Using your terminology, getting caught or not, only retards use their mobile phone when it's against the law to do so.
Lol what?
Let me try and explain in your language.
Blehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh blehhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Forgive me if my pronunciation isn't great but my sheep isn't great.