Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Caught setting up sat nav on phone
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
glasgow_bhoy
Well it had to happen sooner or later... although I thought it would be for speeding! Just been caught on my phone at traffic lights setting up the sat nav sad.gif I'd taken the phone off the cradle and had it between my knees to make it easier and got spotted by an unmarked car.

Officers were, in fairness, very pleasant and very quick. Clearly I was caught banged to rights.

Only issues I can see are the fine is for 60 when I thought they were due to go to 100, and also thr location is the next street, but nothing worth fighting over.

Interestingly I was advised to pay in person at court as sending my license, even when recorded, is highly risky!
gilan02
They go up sometime in July.
glasgow_bhoy
QUOTE (gilan02 @ Tue, 2 Jul 2013 - 13:56) *
They go up sometime in July.

Thats alright then. Looks like I chose the right time to get caught lol.

Annoyingly gonna have to pay this one and accept the raping from my insurers. £100 extra when I go to renew in September is what I'm being quoted at present.

I was technically caught on Albert Drive in Glasgow. My ticket says I was done on Shields Road at Pollockshaws Road... which is impossible as the roads never actually intersect!

Watch out for them unmarked Astras!!!
Warwick
QUOTE (glasgow_bhoy @ Tue, 2 Jul 2013 - 20:49) *
Watch out for them unmarked Astras!!!

Too late...that's who got Mrs Warwick earlier on.

She paid her ticket at the Sheriff Court in Glasgow, and it was the clerk there who told her about the "magic" or "winning" tickets that don't have the points written on properly. Check yours before you make any sudden moves...

W
glasgow_bhoy
QUOTE (Warwick @ Wed, 3 Jul 2013 - 00:34) *
QUOTE (glasgow_bhoy @ Tue, 2 Jul 2013 - 20:49) *
Watch out for them unmarked Astras!!!

Too late...that's who got Mrs Warwick earlier on.

She paid her ticket at the Sheriff Court in Glasgow, and it was the clerk there who told her about the "magic" or "winning" tickets that don't have the points written on properly. Check yours before you make any sudden moves...

W

I saw you write that in a post last week... while the officer was writing out my ticket I was preying she would forget the points. No such luck though.
Transit man
QUOTE (glasgow_bhoy @ Wed, 3 Jul 2013 - 21:32) *
I saw you write that in a post last week... while the officer was writing out my ticket I was preying she would forget the points. No such luck though.

A female officer & you have not expressed an opinion on her attractiveness level, you are slipping GB biggrin.gif
glasgow_bhoy
QUOTE (Transit man @ Wed, 3 Jul 2013 - 21:53) *
QUOTE (glasgow_bhoy @ Wed, 3 Jul 2013 - 21:32) *
I saw you write that in a post last week... while the officer was writing out my ticket I was preying she would forget the points. No such luck though.

A female officer & you have not expressed an opinion on her attractiveness level, you are slipping GB biggrin.gif


8/10 I'd say. I was kinda thinking it in the back of the car, and wanted to make a joke when she asked for my mobile number, but didn't think it was the time or place rolleyes.gif
Gan
Can anyone help with calibration ?
Is a GB 8/10 equivalent to an English :

One paper bag ?
Two paper bags ?
Bite your own arm off ?
Logician
1/10 bite your own arm off
2/10 two paper bags each, sellotaped on to make sure
3/10 two paper bags
4/10 one paper bag
5/10 OK after 6 points but you don't want to be around in the morning
6/10 need only a pint or two
7/10 wouldn't kick out of bed
8/10 pretty fit
9/10 lucky to pull that one
10/10 corrrrr...............please God she's not a ******!



Who would have though the board software would reject the word *******?
The Rookie
So out of 2 you'd give her one then GB?

Why not make a joke,. you were already getting a ticket.....I'd have said I'll give you mine (mobile No) If I can have yours.......
Gan
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 4 Jul 2013 - 09:28) *
So out of 2 you'd give her one then GB?

Why not make a joke,. you were already getting a ticket.....I'd have said I'll give you mine (mobile No) If I can have yours.......


"You can have my land-line, it's 9-9-9"


GB not averse to the older woman after all
glasgow_bhoy
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 4 Jul 2013 - 09:28) *
So out of 2 you'd give her one then GB?

Why not make a joke,. you were already getting a ticket.....I'd have said I'll give you mine (mobile No) If I can have yours.......

I felt that prolonging my time in the car would be a nightmare given I was wanting to get a McDonalds before heading back to work after my lunchbreak! Therefore I just wanted the ordeal over ASAP! Plus if she's probably heard it all before lol

QUOTE (Gan @ Thu, 4 Jul 2013 - 09:41) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 4 Jul 2013 - 09:28) *
So out of 2 you'd give her one then GB?

Why not make a joke,. you were already getting a ticket.....I'd have said I'll give you mine (mobile No) If I can have yours.......


"You can have my land-line, it's 9-9-9"


GB not averse to the older woman after all

Meh she wasn't too old- certainly under 30 in any case.
The Rookie
Bit young for your 'tastes' then GB?
glasgow_bhoy
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 08:16) *
Bit young for your 'tastes' then GB?

Oooft the opposite... anything over 25 and I'm weary now incase they're pure psyco's who want to tie you down (and not in the kinky ways which appear on the internet...)
Johnxxx
Sorry to go back to basics, but I thought that you had to be using the "mobile device" for "interactive communication" in order to commit an offence.

Setting a satnav on your phone is no different than setting a "real" sat nav - or fiddling with the radio, heating or mirrors.
glasgow_bhoy
QUOTE (Johnxxx @ Sun, 7 Jul 2013 - 08:28) *
Sorry to go back to basics, but I thought that you had to be using the "mobile device" for "interactive communication" in order to commit an offence.

Setting a satnav on your phone is no different than setting a "real" sat nav - or fiddling with the radio, heating or mirrors.


Nah the laws horrendously written. General interpretation of it as I understand it suggests that just holding the phone in your hand is enough to do you I think.

Also, as much as a CU80 puts my insurance up by like... a hundred quid a year, I'd still rather have that conviction on my licence than a conviction for not being in full control or something.
norahl
QUOTE (Johnxxx @ Sun, 7 Jul 2013 - 08:28) *
Sorry to go back to basics, but I thought that you had to be using the "mobile device" for "interactive communication" in order to commit an offence.

Setting a satnav on your phone is no different than setting a "real" sat nav - or fiddling with the radio, heating or mirrors.


Going back to basics, the interactive communication is only on the definition of a mobile device. Once you use the defined device while driving the offence is complete; what you use it for while driving is not defined.
d123
QUOTE (norahl @ Sun, 7 Jul 2013 - 11:56) *
QUOTE (Johnxxx @ Sun, 7 Jul 2013 - 08:28) *
Sorry to go back to basics, but I thought that you had to be using the "mobile device" for "interactive communication" in order to commit an offence.

Setting a satnav on your phone is no different than setting a "real" sat nav - or fiddling with the radio, heating or mirrors.


Going back to basics, the interactive communication is only on the definition of a mobile device. Once you use the defined device while driving the offence is complete; what you use it for while driving is not defined.



Not if you are Jimmy Carr.

QUOTE
Nick Freeman, known as "Mr Loophole" for his sucess in defending celebrity clients told Harrow Magistrates Court that using the phone for such a purpose was not illegal under current law.

He argued it was permissible to use a device in dictation mode provided it did not adversely affect driving ability.
The comedian was driving his Bentley in Harrow, London, on the morning on January 28 this year, when he was stopped by police for talking into his iphone and touching the screen.

Mr Freeman argued that his client had not been using the phone to make a call, or for any other interactive purpose, and therefore didn't fall foul of the legislation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegal...le-driving.html
southpaw82
QUOTE (norahl @ Sun, 7 Jul 2013 - 11:56) *
QUOTE (Johnxxx @ Sun, 7 Jul 2013 - 08:28) *
Sorry to go back to basics, but I thought that you had to be using the "mobile device" for "interactive communication" in order to commit an offence.

Setting a satnav on your phone is no different than setting a "real" sat nav - or fiddling with the radio, heating or mirrors.


Going back to basics, the interactive communication is only on the definition of a mobile device. Once you use the defined device while driving the offence is complete; what you use it for while driving is not defined.


That's one interpretation.
Logician
QUOTE (glasgow_bhoy @ Sun, 7 Jul 2013 - 09:03) *
QUOTE (Johnxxx @ Sun, 7 Jul 2013 - 08:28) *
Sorry to go back to basics, but I thought that you had to be using the "mobile device" for "interactive communication" in order to commit an offence.

Setting a satnav on your phone is no different than setting a "real" sat nav - or fiddling with the radio, heating or mirrors.


Nah the laws horrendously written. General interpretation of it as I understand it suggests that just holding the phone in your hand is enough to do you I think.

Also, as much as a CU80 puts my insurance up by like... a hundred quid a year, I'd still rather have that conviction on my licence than a conviction for not being in full control or something.


As from last December, the offences have been given the same code, see LINK
panason1c
QUOTE (Johnxxx @ Sun, 7 Jul 2013 - 08:28) *
Sorry to go back to basics, but I thought that you had to be using the "mobile device" for "interactive communication" in order to commit an offence.

Setting a satnav on your phone is no different than setting a "real" sat nav - or fiddling with the radio, heating or mirrors.


Setting a 'real' sat nav whilst waiting at traffic lights is also an offence, isnt it?
glasgow_bhoy
QUOTE (panason1c @ Sun, 7 Jul 2013 - 22:08) *
QUOTE (Johnxxx @ Sun, 7 Jul 2013 - 08:28) *
Sorry to go back to basics, but I thought that you had to be using the "mobile device" for "interactive communication" in order to commit an offence.

Setting a satnav on your phone is no different than setting a "real" sat nav - or fiddling with the radio, heating or mirrors.


Setting a 'real' sat nav whilst waiting at traffic lights is also an offence, isnt it?

Yup. And from that link Logican has kindly provided a CU80 covers not being in a position to have a view of the road- so it could potentially mean the same penalty being applied for a badly positioned sat nav?
norahl
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 7 Jul 2013 - 17:29) *
QUOTE (norahl @ Sun, 7 Jul 2013 - 11:56) *
QUOTE (Johnxxx @ Sun, 7 Jul 2013 - 08:28) *
Sorry to go back to basics, but I thought that you had to be using the "mobile device" for "interactive communication" in order to commit an offence.

Setting a satnav on your phone is no different than setting a "real" sat nav - or fiddling with the radio, heating or mirrors.


Going back to basics, the interactive communication is only on the definition of a mobile device. Once you use the defined device while driving the offence is complete; what you use it for while driving is not defined.


That's one interpretation.


As it is the literal interpretation and it is unambiguous there need be no other interpretation.
southpaw82
QUOTE (norahl @ Sun, 7 Jul 2013 - 23:53) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 7 Jul 2013 - 17:29) *
QUOTE (norahl @ Sun, 7 Jul 2013 - 11:56) *
QUOTE (Johnxxx @ Sun, 7 Jul 2013 - 08:28) *
Sorry to go back to basics, but I thought that you had to be using the "mobile device" for "interactive communication" in order to commit an offence.

Setting a satnav on your phone is no different than setting a "real" sat nav - or fiddling with the radio, heating or mirrors.


Going back to basics, the interactive communication is only on the definition of a mobile device. Once you use the defined device while driving the offence is complete; what you use it for while driving is not defined.


That's one interpretation.


As it is the literal interpretation and it is unambiguous there need be no other interpretation.


Unfortunately for you not all courts agree with you. Now wind your neck in.
norahl
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 7 Jul 2013 - 23:56) *
QUOTE (norahl @ Sun, 7 Jul 2013 - 23:53) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 7 Jul 2013 - 17:29) *
QUOTE (norahl @ Sun, 7 Jul 2013 - 11:56) *
QUOTE (Johnxxx @ Sun, 7 Jul 2013 - 08:28) *
Sorry to go back to basics, but I thought that you had to be using the "mobile device" for "interactive communication" in order to commit an offence.

Setting a satnav on your phone is no different than setting a "real" sat nav - or fiddling with the radio, heating or mirrors.


Going back to basics, the interactive communication is only on the definition of a mobile device. Once you use the defined device while driving the offence is complete; what you use it for while driving is not defined.


That's one interpretation.


As it is the literal interpretation and it is unambiguous there need be no other interpretation.


Unfortunately for you not all courts agree with you. Now wind your neck in.

One court, one case. But yes you are right, one court made a spectacular mistake in interpretation that wasn't appealed by CPS.
CuriousOrange
The Carr thing is continually misreported here, mainly because the mainstream media misreported it and seem to spend half their time copying each other. Freeman didn't argue that Carr wasn't using a phone, he argued that what he was using wasn't a phone as this report states and as I heard Freeman himself describe on the radio not so long back when he seemed to be doing the rounds for some reason (was kind of interesting to learn how he ended up doing what he does).

For this thread: my satnav has all its maps stored. The satnav on my phone downloads maps from the internet unless I've explicitly saved them beforehand. I don't know what GB's app does but internet access I believe is explicitly included under the definition of interactive communication.

glasgow_bhoy
Paid the fine down the court today anyway so its all done with- the guy at the fixed penalty office thought I could have contested it but I didn't want to risk that... I'm not in a place in life where I can be bothered with a court appearance to argue about such a dodgy position.

norahl
QUOTE (glasgow_bhoy @ Mon, 8 Jul 2013 - 20:20) *
Paid the fine down the court today anyway so its all done with- the guy at the fixed penalty office thought I could have contested it but I didn't want to risk that... I'm not in a place in life where I can be bothered with a court appearance to argue about such a dodgy position.


Nice one! What's his username? biggrin.gif
sgtdixie
QUOTE (norahl @ Mon, 8 Jul 2013 - 20:49) *
QUOTE (glasgow_bhoy @ Mon, 8 Jul 2013 - 20:20) *
Paid the fine down the court today anyway so its all done with- the guy at the fixed penalty office thought I could have contested it but I didn't want to risk that... I'm not in a place in life where I can be bothered with a court appearance to argue about such a dodgy position.


Nice one! What's his username? biggrin.gif

Mr PNLD.

Despite being asked numerous times you have never explained why the guidance to the Police on prosecution specifically states that the mobile phone legislation should only be used where interactive communication is evidenced.
norahl
QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Mon, 8 Jul 2013 - 21:49) *
QUOTE (norahl @ Mon, 8 Jul 2013 - 20:49) *
QUOTE (glasgow_bhoy @ Mon, 8 Jul 2013 - 20:20) *
Paid the fine down the court today anyway so its all done with- the guy at the fixed penalty office thought I could have contested it but I didn't want to risk that... I'm not in a place in life where I can be bothered with a court appearance to argue about such a dodgy position.


Nice one! What's his username? biggrin.gif

Mr PNLD.

Despite being asked numerous times you have never explained why the guidance to the Police on prosecution specifically states that the mobile phone legislation should only be used where interactive communication is evidenced.

Because if it advises that it's wrong. I'm sure I explained that a long time ago.
CuriousOrange
QUOTE (norahl @ Sun, 7 Jul 2013 - 11:56) *
Going back to basics, the interactive communication is only on the definition of a mobile device. Once you use the defined device while driving the offence is complete; what you use it for while driving is not defined.
QUOTE (norahl @ Sun, 7 Jul 2013 - 23:53) *
As it is the literal interpretation and it is unambiguous there need be no other interpretation.
That is indeed true: 'interactive communication' only appears in the definition of the device; there is no definition of using.

Likewise, 'hand-held' and 'held' are only part of the definition of the device. It doesn't refer to 'if he is holding', only 'if he is using'.


So, by your literal interpretation, if I use my mobile phone as a paperweight on the backseat, the offence is complete, is unambiguous and there need be no other interpretation.

The question, you see, isn't whether looking at the clock on your phone constitutes using, it's whether the thing you're using constitutes a hand-held mobile telephone. A literal reading of the regulations could be taken to mean that it's only a hand-held mobile telephone while it's in the course of making or or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function, which appears to have been Freeman's line.

Or maybe it's illegal to use it as a paperweight.




southpaw82
QUOTE (norahl @ Tue, 9 Jul 2013 - 11:18) *
QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Mon, 8 Jul 2013 - 21:49) *
QUOTE (norahl @ Mon, 8 Jul 2013 - 20:49) *
QUOTE (glasgow_bhoy @ Mon, 8 Jul 2013 - 20:20) *
Paid the fine down the court today anyway so its all done with- the guy at the fixed penalty office thought I could have contested it but I didn't want to risk that... I'm not in a place in life where I can be bothered with a court appearance to argue about such a dodgy position.


Nice one! What's his username? biggrin.gif

Mr PNLD.

Despite being asked numerous times you have never explained why the guidance to the Police on prosecution specifically states that the mobile phone legislation should only be used where interactive communication is evidenced.

Because if it advises that it's wrong. I'm sure I explained that a long time ago.


In your opinion. I'm sure the qualified editors of the PNLD will be interested to hear it if you write to them.
sgtdixie
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 9 Jul 2013 - 17:17) *
QUOTE (norahl @ Tue, 9 Jul 2013 - 11:18) *
QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Mon, 8 Jul 2013 - 21:49) *
QUOTE (norahl @ Mon, 8 Jul 2013 - 20:49) *
QUOTE (glasgow_bhoy @ Mon, 8 Jul 2013 - 20:20) *
Paid the fine down the court today anyway so its all done with- the guy at the fixed penalty office thought I could have contested it but I didn't want to risk that... I'm not in a place in life where I can be bothered with a court appearance to argue about such a dodgy position.


Nice one! What's his username? biggrin.gif

Mr PNLD.

Despite being asked numerous times you have never explained why the guidance to the Police on prosecution specifically states that the mobile phone legislation should only be used where interactive communication is evidenced.

Because if it advises that it's wrong. I'm sure I explained that a long time ago.


In your opinion. I'm sure the qualified editors of the PNLD will be interested to hear it if you write to them.


I can say that if he was one of mine and put the file through me he would be in no doubt as what the correct procedure is.

I find it odd that norahl soundly criticises uninformed comment from people with no formal qualifications in the technicalities of cameras, yet does not feel thta the same may apply to other areas of discussion.

One thing I do agree with is that until we get clarification in the higher courts anyone who handles a phone whilst driving is risking prosecution.
glasgow_bhoy
QUOTE (norahl @ Mon, 8 Jul 2013 - 20:49) *
QUOTE (glasgow_bhoy @ Mon, 8 Jul 2013 - 20:20) *
Paid the fine down the court today anyway so its all done with- the guy at the fixed penalty office thought I could have contested it but I didn't want to risk that... I'm not in a place in life where I can be bothered with a court appearance to argue about such a dodgy position.


Nice one! What's his username? biggrin.gif

I wondered the same thing at the desk haha. But I don't think he was on here. Nice chap though, just a shame I his writting has cluttered up my otherwise spotless but slightly folded licence!

QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Mon, 8 Jul 2013 - 21:49) *
QUOTE (norahl @ Mon, 8 Jul 2013 - 20:49) *
QUOTE (glasgow_bhoy @ Mon, 8 Jul 2013 - 20:20) *
Paid the fine down the court today anyway so its all done with- the guy at the fixed penalty office thought I could have contested it but I didn't want to risk that... I'm not in a place in life where I can be bothered with a court appearance to argue about such a dodgy position.


Nice one! What's his username? biggrin.gif

Mr PNLD.

Despite being asked numerous times you have never explained why the guidance to the Police on prosecution specifically states that the mobile phone legislation should only be used where interactive communication is evidenced.

I had a look at the rules and found them not clear at all on what counted as an offence. Personally I thought it was anything to do with using a phone in your hand, so I'd be in the wrong. Even for interactive comms, I was still using it for sat nav function which relies on me inputting data so kinda interactive I thought.

Its a damned hard lesson... fortunatly I've still not been caught speeding (oh the irony...) which means I'm still winning the bet with my best mate over who gets done first (He's got a CU80 and a TS10, but no speeding... shame really cos I'm £20 when if he gets done before me)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.