Penalty Notice for moving my phone

I realise that the law regarding this is written in such a way the merely holding a mobile is enough for a conviction depending on which way it is looked at

Not as far as my Road Policing Act manual states. You must be operating the mobile phone for the offence to be complete. However, proving this could be difficult and your call logs may not be enough.
 
Typically ridiculous situation. I really do hope you manage to resolve this, though unfortunately I'm not entirely optimistic :(

Sometimes I wonder why laws as pathetically written as this exist. Surely it would have been better to target the actual use of the phone for calling.. you know, kinda the whole "distracting" issue that created the need for the regulation in the first place!?
 
This is what I dont understand.

You can get done for using a mobile phone whilst driving. But what about using a sat nav whilst driving? or eating some sweets or food. Having a cold drink? What about lorry drivers who use CB Radio's ?

What about Police officers driving alone, they answer radio calls whilst driving. So I presume they use there hands for that?

What about changing radio stations on your car stereo? is that not allowed.

This seems to be to have a few gray areas in it.
 
I think you stand a good chance on this.

Moving an object causing glare, and as such a danger to your ability to drive should not be an opportunity for pc mcplod to wave his stick.

Definately contact a motor lawyer specialist about this. I would recommend you speak to motor lawyers, I believe initial consultation is still free.

Big thing here will be your witnesses, and if you have a clean history of being a good boy.
 
Surely it's up to them to prove you were actually using it? Innocent until proved guilty??
The copper saw him operating it. That's proof enough. I'm not saying it doesn't suck and it's the worst luck, but this is like trying to dispute a speeding fine where you're doing 35 in a 30. 'Oh but I wasn't breaking the law by much' won't work IMO.
 
Hold on, you moved your phone with your engine running but the car / van / bus wasn't moving?

Then no crime has been committed. You had pulled over safely to answer your phone.
 
But what about using a sat nav whilst driving?
Maybe, comes under "driving without due care and attention" if you are weaving about the road and/or almost drive into the back of someone because you're too busy fiddling with your gadget. Note that this law was perfectly suited for prosecuting badly used mobile phones too.
or eating some sweets or food.
They have cameras for that now. Seriously
Having a cold drink?
Again, cameras but not sure on the legality of that one
What about lorry drivers who use CB Radio's ?
Legal I think. Is R420 here?
What about Police officers driving alone, they answer radio calls whilst driving. So I presume they use there hands for that?
The modern police radios do meet the legal definition of a mobile phone, however there is an exception because they are trained to do so properly.
What about changing radio stations on your car stereo? is that not allowed.
Same as satnav.

The big difference between a phone and a CB / police radio is how they are used. When you use a push to talk radio, it's expected that you say your piece and the other person will respond when they're ready, maybe not immediate because the driver may need to negotiate a hazard. Lines of conversation tend to be short and to the point often with various forms of shorthand which, once learned, make it less distracting and easier to follow. A bit like IRC in some ways.

With a mobile conversation, the other person will carry on gabbing about whatever and will start getting arsey if you don't reply immediately, and that is where the safety issues come into play. While it's possible to make a mobile conversation safe (assuming you are speaking to someone who isn't going to get into a strop when you ask, "stop a minute, I need to overtake this moron doing 40") most people don't and rather than educate people into how to do something safely, this government just chooses to ban it instead. Just like everything else.
 
I got done for the same thing while sitting stock still in traffic. GRRRR

I didnt have the balls to take it to court though.

Also, in Sussex if you appeal first, the appeal goes to the issuing copper for review. GREAT system that.

I really feel for you.
 
I reckon you've got a fighting chance if you can get your mobile operator to provide a call list for that day. I'd sign up to Pepipoo for this to be honest, far more likely to get reasonable advice from there is this case.

How does that proove he wasn't operating the phone?
 
What about Police officers driving alone, they answer radio calls whilst driving. So I presume they use there hands for that?
They're also allowed to drive fast, beat people with sticks and lock them in a room even if they don't want to be locked away. They do get trained for it though so it's okay.

Hold on, you moved your phone with your engine running but the car / van / bus wasn't moving?

Then no crime has been committed. You had pulled over safely to answer your phone.
Where does the OP say he wasn't moving or that he was pulled in safely?


Can you give us more of a clue please?
 
Last edited:
Not as far as my Road Policing Act manual states. You must be operating the mobile phone for the offence to be complete. However, proving this could be difficult and your call logs may not be enough.

Operating can include things as small as checking the time and turning it on and off

So hes screwed.

You pretty much cant touch the thing with out it being an offence.

Unless you guys in the UK are different
 
One might suggest that you moved it because the screen glare was obscuring your view of the screen, not because it was shining in your eye, for example.
If it was sitting screen side up, what was your intention of having it in view if not to use or operate it?
Sorry!
 
Witnesses in your vehicle won't count for anything.

why not are you saying that these people would lie in court? thats a hell of an aspersion to make - not only would it be slandering their name but also insinuating that they would be misleading the court/being in contempt of court without asking them first?
 

Because they are not independant witnesses.

are you saying that these people would lie in court? thats a hell of an aspersion to make - not only would it be slandering their name but also insinuating that they would be misleading the court/being in contempt of court without asking them first?

What are you on about?
 
It's up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that you were using the phone. Unless the jobsworth copper exaggerates, there is insufficient evidence.

I don't think you're chances are as bad as everyone is saying.
 
It's up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that you were using the phone. Unless the jobsworth copper exaggerates, there is insufficient evidence.

I don't think you're chances are as bad as everyone is saying.

Policeman says he was, he says he wasn't. Who's voice are they more likely to believe?

You stand VERY little chance.
 
Back
Top Bottom