Mobile Phone "Driving" Case Law |
Mobile Phone "Driving" Case Law |
Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 13:05
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,215 Joined: 24 Mar 2013 From: Scotland Member No.: 60,732 |
In a recent thread in the Criminal section there was a link to CPS guidance on mobile phone offences. There is an interesting snipped on the definition of "driving" which is something that seems to be a matter of speculation and hearsay among the public if not the professionals ..
QUOTE Under existing case law a person may still be driving whilst the engine is running and the vehicle is stationary. This means that an individual stopped at a traffic light could be prosecuted for a mobile phone offence. The intention of the legislation is to promote road safety and so it will not normally be in the public interest to prosecute this offence if the driver has safely pulled over and stopped before taking hold of the phone. Does anyone know more about the case law referred to in the first sentence? The other point of interest is that the last sentence suggests that they think a car safely pulled over and stopped would still be counted as "driving", although the say probably not in the public interest to prosecute. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 13:05
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 13:50
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
It's for a court to decide what is driving for the purposes of the act and in the exact circumstances of each case, the CPS 'guidance' is just that and neither right nor wrong.
Stopped in traffic with engine running (or only off via a start stop system) is almost certainly driving. Stopped at the roadside with the engine running (or start stopped) and held on the foot brake only is more likely to be driving than..... Same scenario but in P or hand brake (or EPB) on. Same scenario but engine off is almost certainly not driving. The issue for legislation is covering all the permutations would be incredibly cumbersome, so for example start stop was very rare when it was drafted so it could have mentioned 'engine running' which would now be a 'red herring' hence why it is worded as it is (correctly in my opinion, others disagree). -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 14:47
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,215 Joined: 24 Mar 2013 From: Scotland Member No.: 60,732 |
It's for a court to decide what is driving for the purposes of the act and in the exact circumstances of each case, the CPS 'guidance' is just that and neither right nor wrong. Understood. But my point is that they refer to case law under which a person was found to be "driving" when the vehicle was stationary. What I was asking was whether anyone knows what that case law is. Particularly as their last sentence implies that this case law may also cover safely parked but still considered "driving". |
|
|
Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 19:26
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,343 Joined: 27 Feb 2007 Member No.: 10,873 |
It's for a court to decide what is driving for the purposes of the act and in the exact circumstances of each case, the CPS 'guidance' is just that and neither right nor wrong. Understood. But my point is that they refer to case law under which a person was found to be "driving" when the vehicle was stationary. What I was asking was whether anyone knows what that case law is. Particularly as their last sentence implies that this case law may also cover safely parked but still considered "driving". As i understand it your driving till engine off. |
|
|
Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 20:46
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
It's for a court to decide what is driving for the purposes of the act and in the exact circumstances of each case, the CPS 'guidance' is just that and neither right nor wrong. Understood. But my point is that they refer to case law under which a person was found to be "driving" when the vehicle was stationary. What I was asking was whether anyone knows what that case law is. Particularly as their last sentence implies that this case law may also cover safely parked but still considered "driving". There is a lot of case law around what may or may not be driving, and it depends on the offence alleged. There is case law that sitting in a car with the engine off was driving for the purposes of a driving over the prescribed limit but a court is less likely to find that relevant for a mobile phone offence. Fedup, is that engine switched off or engine stopped by a start stop device or a hybrid with the internal combustion engine off and driving up the road on electric only? 'Engine off' by itself is now meaningless. -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 21:19
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 10,460 Joined: 8 Sep 2008 Member No.: 22,424 |
Fedup, is that engine switched off or engine stopped by a start stop device or a hybrid with the internal combustion engine off and driving up the road on electric only? 'Engine off' by itself is now meaningless. I always remove the keys from the ignition now to be safe. If that is indeed the standard where you are no longer in control of the vehicle, then people with keyless ignitions have yet another argument. And how would the police prove the car has been stopped by means of Stop-Start? The minute I unlock the doors when the car is in the Stop-Start process it makes me start the car manually using the key. Therefore all you have to do is unlock the door and the car is in 'off' mode. This post has been edited by glasgow_bhoy: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 21:20 |
|
|
Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 22:11
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
What a tangled web ?
According to parking lore, if you are stopped on a yellow line while using a mobile phone, you are parked, waiting and thus liable to a PCN from a passing CEO. At the same time you are getting an FPN from a passing copper for using a mobile phone while driving! I'll stick to Bluetooth with the phone firmly in my pocket. |
|
|
Fri, 22 Sep 2017 - 02:31
Post
#8
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
Fedup, is that engine switched off or engine stopped by a start stop device or a hybrid with the internal combustion engine off and driving up the road on electric only? 'Engine off' by itself is now meaningless. I always remove the keys from the ignition now to be safe. If that is indeed the standard where you are no longer in control of the vehicle, "Driving" and "being in control" are not only very different things but have meanings specific to the offences for which the terms are used. There's no single definition of driving that applies wherever it's found in legislation. -------------------- Regards,
Fredd __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
Fri, 22 Sep 2017 - 07:18
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,215 Joined: 24 Mar 2013 From: Scotland Member No.: 60,732 |
Engine running doesn't seem to be a particularly useful distinction. For example supposing the car's being towed, or the engine's conked out and you're coasting to a stop. Or conversely engine ticking over while you look under the bonnet.
|
|
|
Fri, 22 Sep 2017 - 08:24
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,343 Joined: 27 Feb 2007 Member No.: 10,873 |
Engine running doesn't seem to be a particularly useful distinction. For example supposing the car's being towed, or the engine's conked out and you're coasting to a stop. Or conversely engine ticking over while you look under the bonnet. Poor expamples. coasting is driving. looking under the bonnet is hardly driving. but being towed is obviously driving if it needs input from a driver.If it doesnt you shouldnt be there. This post has been edited by fedup2: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 - 08:26 |
|
|
Fri, 22 Sep 2017 - 08:34
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 109 Joined: 18 Sep 2017 Member No.: 94,099 |
In a recent thread in the Criminal section there was a link to CPS guidance on mobile phone offences. There is an interesting snipped on the definition of "driving" which is something that seems to be a matter of speculation and hearsay among the public if not the professionals .. QUOTE Under existing case law a person may still be driving whilst the engine is running and the vehicle is stationary. This means that an individual stopped at a traffic light could be prosecuted for a mobile phone offence. The intention of the legislation is to promote road safety and so it will not normally be in the public interest to prosecute this offence if the driver has safely pulled over and stopped before taking hold of the phone. Does anyone know more about the case law referred to in the first sentence? The other point of interest is that the last sentence suggests that they think a car safely pulled over and stopped would still be counted as "driving", although the say probably not in the public interest to prosecute. There is a lot of case law on what is or is not driving. To give you it all would require reproducing whole sections of Wilkinson's Traffic Law I think. Someone may list up the cases perhaps. Buy a second hand one or subscribe online. |
|
|
Fri, 22 Sep 2017 - 09:19
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
And how would the police prove the car has been stopped by means of Stop-Start? As it doesn't necessarily matter, it's mostly irrelevant, it comes down to whether or not the court is satisfied that at the relevant point in time the person behind the wheel was 'driving' or just sitting in a car. You could be sat at a traffic light and switch off the ignition while the lights are red and the court may well decide taht was driving as you are actively waiting for the lights to change (and I'd agree). -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Fri, 22 Sep 2017 - 09:41
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 349 Joined: 21 Apr 2016 Member No.: 83,881 |
Trying to nail down a fail-proof set of rules for legislation that has specifically been written to be open to interpretation is a risk.
To be safe, if you are in the car and on a road leave the phone alone. If you fancy pushing your luck by trying to show you were not driving when a court could decide you were and give you a hefty penalty, well that's up to you..... -------------------- If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
|
|
|
Tue, 26 Sep 2017 - 08:36
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,215 Joined: 24 Mar 2013 From: Scotland Member No.: 60,732 |
As i understand it your driving till engine off. Engine running doesn't seem to be a particularly useful distinction. For example supposing the car's being towed, or the engine's conked out and you're coasting to a stop. Or conversely engine ticking over while you look under the bonnet. Poor expamples. On the contrary they are good examples, they show that whether the engine is running or not makes a poor definition of "driving". There is a lot of case law on what is or is not driving. To give you it all would require reproducing whole sections of Wilkinson's Traffic Law I think. Someone may list up the cases perhaps. Buy a second hand one or subscribe online. Could you give just one, one that's specific to mobile phone use or at least relevant to it? |
|
|
Sat, 30 Sep 2017 - 17:28
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,214 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
As far as I am aware, there is no case law on what constitutes driving (or using for that matter) for the purposes of the mobile phone legislation.
-------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Sat, 30 Sep 2017 - 17:35
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,200 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
As far as I am aware, there is no case law on what constitutes driving (or using for that matter) for the purposes of the mobile phone legislation. That is my understanding, although now it's a six pointer that may change, it wouldn't stop other case law being pursuasive though of course. -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Saturday, 30th March 2024 - 01:21 |