Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Gathering points while you drive

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
23 February 2007
Crackdown on drivers using mobile phones whilst driving Fines doubled to £60 and three penalty points added as of Tuesday 13 killed and 400 injured in mobile phone related crashes in 2005
Key quote
"They do not need to stop your car to issue you with a penalty. Three points in the post might follow an opportunistic call. That should be a warning to motorists that this is a law that will be enforced and they will not get away with it." - EDMUND KING, RAC FOUNDATION

Story in full MOTORISTS who believe they have got away with holding a mobile phone while driving could be in for a nasty surprise - punishment by post.

Police forces across Scotland are preparing a zero-tolerance approach to drivers flouting the law when new penalties come into force on Tuesday - and last night they confirmed they did not even need to stop drivers to be able to punish them.

That means officers merely seeing a violation could result in a penalty, and police on foot will be able to target passing drivers in the crackdown.

A driver may only know he or she has been caught when a letter drops through the letterbox telling them they have three penalty points on their licence and have to pay a £60 fine.

Lothian and Borders Police said it was looking at using the technique to catch drivers breaking the law, possibly starting within the next two weeks. Other forces said they were aware of the power and would consider using it.

However, motoring groups and human-rights lawyers have raised concerns.

Although driving while holding a mobile phone has been illegal since 2003, up to one in eight motorists are still breaking the law, according to a survey by the insurer Direct Line. But from next Tuesday, the fines will double to £60 and three penalty points will be added.

Several forces are planning crackdowns to coincide with the change, with Strathclyde Police stepping up patrols from today. Fife Constabulary is planning several "days of action".

Lothian and Borders Police is looking at using parked patrol vehicles equipped with cameras to record drivers using hand-held mobiles. Fines would then be issued by post. That tactic would be in addition to stepping up their mobile patrols, which will stop offenders' vehicles.

The force has just completed a three-week survey in which a driver using a phone was observed every five minutes.

A spokeswoman said officers would follow a "zero-tolerance" approach in a week-long crackdown from Tuesday. She confirmed that foot patrols also had the power to stop drivers or report them for prosecution. She said: "We may also start using unmarked cars in fixed positions and report all offenders."

Strathclyde Police said it had used this power in the past, and it might be used again.

Neil Greig, the head of policy in Scotland for the Institute of Advanced Motorists' Motoring Trust, said it was the wrong approach: "Most people expect this to be enforced by face-to-face contact with police, which has a powerful effect on drivers."

Bruce Young, the Lothian and Borders co-ordinator of the Association of British Drivers, said: "It is very unfortunate that the easy policing created by speed cameras can make its way into general policing. It seems cavalier to be expanding this type of enforcement."

Some forces are not planning to use such tactics, with Northern Constabulary saying drivers would have to be stopped and informed. A spokesman said: "It is not something that would appear in the mail like a speeding ticket."

Tayside Police said it would make every effort to stop and notify offending drivers - they would not receive unexpected penalty notices in the mail.

The RAC Foundation, which has urged mobile phone retailers to improve their safety advice, backed the police move.

Edmund King, its executive director, said: "They do not need to stop your car to issue you with a penalty. Three points in the post might follow an opportunistic call. That should be a warning to motorists that this is a law that will be enforced and they will not get away with it."

In the past, the power to prosecute motorists without stopping them has not been routinely used.

Those stopped are asked to accept a fixed-penalty notice. If they refuse, the case is reported to the procurator fiscal, which can lead to a court case.

Police spotting motorists using mobiles send a letter to the vehicle owner asking who was driving at the time. If the owner refuses to answer, they can be charged with not co-operating with the police, which is seen as a far more serious offence.

This process, which is used in speed-camera cases, is being challenged by two British motorists in a test case at the European Court of Human Rights. Idris Francis and Gerard O'Halloran claim their right of silence would be breached by having to declare who was driving.

Ministers said motorists using mobiles were four times more likely to crash. Driver reaction times have also been found to be worse than those of drink-drivers. In 2005, 13 people were killed and 400 injured in crashes involving mobile phone use.

Q & A: WHAT EVERY DRIVER NEEDS TO KNOW
WHAT are the new penalties for using hand-held mobile phones while driving?

From next Tuesday, the fine (fixed penalty) doubles to £60, with the new addition of three penalty points.

Do the penalties cover the sending and receiving of text messages or pictures?
Yes, and even while stationary in traffic queues, such as at traffic lights.

Do they also cover BlackBerrys and personal digital assistants
?

Yes.

Is two-way radio equipment covered?
No.

Do they cover motorcyclists?
Yes. People supervising L-drivers are also covered.

What about cyclists?
They are not covered, but those using phones could still be prosecuted for careless cycling.

Are there any exceptions?
Drivers may call 999 in a genuine emergency where it would be unsafe to stop.

What about hands-free mobiles?

Using these is not illegal, but the same penalties apply if a driver is distracted while making a call and does not keep proper control of their vehicle.

What if I do not accept the fixed-penalty charge?

If the case goes to court, the maximum fine is £1,000, or £2,500 for van, lorry, bus and coach drivers.

How would police prove who was using a hand-held phone if they did not stop the driver?
A letter would be sent to the vehicle owner. If the owner refuses to say who was driving, they could be charged with not co-operating with police. Corroboration would be provided by two police officers, which could be backed by cameras.

Must police prove a driver was actually making a call?
No.

Can police foot patrols also act?
Yes, either by stopping a driver or reporting them for prosecution.

Why the crackdown?
The government says a phone conversation (or texting) distracts from the mental concentration needed to drive safely. Research has shown drivers' reaction times are up to 50 per cent slower than normal when driving and using a mobile phone.

Why not ban all mobile phone use when driving?
The use of a hands-free phone or other equipment is not specifically prohibited because it is difficult for police to see it in use.

Must I switch off any phone in my car?
No. Passengers can still use hand-held phones. The government advises motorists who are driving alone to not turn their phones off but switch them to voicemail, message-service or call-diversion and return calls when safely parked.

Are employers liable for prosecution?
Yes. Police say that employers who require staff to make or receive calls while they are driving on business could face action.

Onus on car owner to prove who was driving
AS OUR road-traffic law moves to try to keep pace with modern driving sins, how will it work in practice?

We are used to speeding offences and related procedures. Using your hand-held mobile phone is likely to be similarly dealt with.

Unfortunately, this may mean occasions when the police do not pull you over at the time of a suspected offence.

In that case, you may receive a notice weeks later demanding the identity of the driver on a specific date when an offence is suspected.

It is an offence carrying a fine and penalty points not to reply to such notices. Thereafter, you may receive a fixed penalty or citation months later.

This approach can cause practical problems for a person who cannot recall events some time later. Were they driving the car or was it a wife/husband/employee/colleague?

In relation to fixed penalties for speeding, some devious drivers with no room for penalty points have persuaded someone else to take the blame for them.

This may happen more with the change in the law relating to phones.

It is a practice which can result in imprisonment for any parties proved to have tried to pervert the course of justice. To avoid any difficulties or unfairness, it is to be hoped that the police will normally pull over the driver unless there is some other pressing business.

If cited to court, the normal procedures will follow and the charge can only be proved if two police officers can identify the perpetrator.

If the car is yours, the onus will be on you to demonstrate who was driving or else you run the risk of being convicted.

If you know you committed no offence, you are entitled to a trial.

Occasionally, police officers have even been known to admit a mistake, but our courts generally take the view that the police make mistakes less often than the ordinary motorist.

• John Scott is a solicitor- advocate and partner at Capital Defence Lawyers in Edinburgh

JOHN SCOTT

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 23 February 2007 12:33 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Mobile phone driving ban
 
1

www.scottwebb.co.uk,

23/02/2007 01:49:07

It has always amazed we are told we are not successful unless we have a 200 MPH car yet we see every day more of this ? :)

2

Mev Brown,

Edinburgh 23/02/2007 01:59:15

“Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime” – do these proposals fit the bill?

I don’t think so.

“Fines doubled to £60 and three penalty points added as of Tuesday” Lets be honest - this indicates tolerance of the crime.

“13 killed and 400 injured in mobile phone related crashes in 2005” – if car drivers had to pay the NHS bill and compensate those involved out of their car insurance it would have an impact on their car insurance.

NOW that would change behaviour.

Isn’t this really about increased tax/fine revenue?

Watch this space: www.mevbrown.org.uk

3

Scaramouche,

23/02/2007 02:18:05

Tough on driving, tough on the causes of driving!!!!

Alex Salmond referred to it as the Toll Tax on Question Time.

I thought he made a good point!

4

Suck-McCrunchie,

Bonny Bonny Banks of Overcharging 23/02/2007 02:34:04

Suddenly knocking about in a non UK registered brief seems savvy.

Alternately- drive like a psycho with a mobe at each ear - and get enought points to qualify for a council house!

5

www.scottwebb.co.uk,

23/02/2007 03:34:19

Heres an interesting video on interantional law......starts off slow but waaaay educational :)
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=364893013144393...

6

www.scottwebb.co.uk,

23/02/2007 03:34:48

I meant to say international...dam the phone :)

7

Banoo,

Glasgow 23/02/2007 04:01:37

#1 & #3 - I follow your postings almost daily - usually during my lunch hour at work and find them vey interesting. Do you guys work nights or otherwise how do you log on so early.

Apologies if this has nothing to do with this string.

Cheers

8

www.scottwebb.co.uk,

23/02/2007 04:12:19

Comment@7Banoo, hi mate....sleep ...whats that? :)

9

I'm no really here,

23/02/2007 05:03:05

If your driving while using a hand-set, you have as much control over your car as if you were drunk. Try it out on a driving test range.

10

Voldemort,

Edinburgh 23/02/2007 05:26:31

Police can't catch real criminals so they resort to revenue collection from soft targets.

11

Ubi,

Edinburgh 23/02/2007 06:16:48

Worse than two officers of the state witnessing the use of a phone while driving is the threat that the results could be identical if these officers mistakenly believed that they witnessed such an event. Or made it up.

Switching your phone off triggers a response through the network to the service provider. The state would then have to allege that the phone was in use whilst switched off, which condition could be independently corroborated.

For twenty years following the advent of the mobile phone, the state did nothing that might impede or otherwise discourage take up in the market. Only when near saturation point was reached did the state decide that the time had come for it to begin profiting from their use. It is notable that the use of two way radios while driving - a huge number of which are operated by the apparatus of the state - is not prohibited, though the levels of concentration required to converse using them cannot be any less.

12

Philip A,

Edinburgh 23/02/2007 06:29:05

I agree with the clampdown on mobile phone usage while driving - but equally would like to see the police commit energy to catching those who drive without insurance or drive without a license.

Currently defaulters of both offences are not pursued with the same vigour as mobile phone users - yet the impact of their inactions are far more serious. Come on get serious about applying the law rather than just trying to raise revenues!

As usual the response to the issue is a 'politically correct' revenue generating - NOT a behaviour changing exercise. If they wanted to change the behaviour they would be more strident in the application of the law.

13

Gnasher,

23/02/2007 06:57:56

I wish there was a practical way for a citizen to report a sighting of someone driving while holdig a phone to their ear. I accept that it would be very difficult for this to happen because of the law on corroboration, but still. At least the police in some areas are taking it seriously in Lothian and borders if not elsewhere.

It is worrying to see the way people seem to think that driving while physically impaired and distracted is some kind of human right. It isn't. It's a criminal offence. legilsated against by a democratically elected parliament and government working under the supervision of the parliamwent, sunject to the courts.

14

Ubi,

23/02/2007 06:58:01

Dumbed down government's half baked legislation will make an ass of the law.

We will shortly see a raft of devices appear whose use whilst driving cannot be prevented. Ear scratchers, nose pickers, tooth flossers etc. It may well be that some of these innocuous devices take a form and shape indistinguishable from that of a mobile phone.

It would be understandable if the state's officers mistakenly believed that a phone was in use whilst in fact you were engaged in scratching your ear. As you would be able to demonstrate to the court with the device which the officers had confused with a mobile phone.

15

SouthernSkye,

Currently Köln 23/02/2007 07:03:55

I agree with many of the above. Evidence, I always assumed, was part of the requirement for "prosecution". Now, it seems, there is only the word of an officer of the law. Humans make mistakes and there will be very few ways of provinf ones innocence is a fine is issued in error apart from getting an itemised bill from your mobile company. This will clearly show whether you were on the "phone at the time the officer states. If the fine is accompanied by an accurate time and date indicator. Then you have another area for possible problems, what if the car is an office pool-car, or a friend was driving? Without any real evidence of who the driver was it is open to all kinds of problematic scenarios.

16

Gnasher,

23/02/2007 07:16:57

And that's another thing - "the Association of British Drivers". Who the hell are they? They only seem to be interested in speaking out to defend criminality and criminals.

I'm a driver and they don't represent me. Newspapers like the Scotsman shouldn't give them the title they claim for their own At least refer to them as "the self-styled Association of British Drivers" or xxxxxxxx.

17

Dod fae Orkney,

In the hoose 23/02/2007 07:19:02

Handsfree kits aren't expensive. What is wrong with the tossers who persist in using mobiles while driving??

18

an interested party,

23/02/2007 07:34:30

seems kinda over the score, as there are already laws in relation to driving with out due care and attention.. oh wait that would need evidence and witnesses.

19

Nisbet,

23/02/2007 07:45:22

Do we still have the right not to give evidence against a spouse? If so how does this work, in relation to having to provide the name of who was driving at the time an offence was committed?

20

Open Minded,

Not in the Car 23/02/2007 07:46:18

If this legislation is introduced, it would seem to be good practice to have your phone switched OFF whilst in the car, otherwise, anything involving not having both hands on the wheel might result in a conviction.

For example, how dangerous / expensive will holding (never mind consuming ) a Mars Bar in the car be ?

21

hibbie,

Edinburgh 23/02/2007 07:55:00

Must police prove a driver was actually making a call?
No.

What happened to innocent until proved guilty ?

Think there will be a lot of cases challenging this one.

22

altovista,

Borders 23/02/2007 07:57:59

:I am in absolute agreement with a zero tolerance approach being implemented however the Police should charge the motorist face to face, the 'big brother' approach is chilling. I think there is also a need for a crackdown on another example of careless and hazardous driving, that is those who drive in dull weather without lights. It is becoming increasingly prevalent, it would seem motorists and the Police have forgotten it is illegal and especially dangerous on country roads.

23

Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD,

Dar-Es-Salaam Tanzania 23/02/2007 07:59:43

ALASTAIR DALTON TRANSPORT CORRESPONDENT
You see you are only reporting as the news comes in. You are a nerd at the tech.
These days you do not have to hold the cell to talk. The guys have come out with so many handless (I mean using no hands) gadgets that you will weep at the ill knowledge you have.
I am not saying this. I use the cell while driving and I still hold the wheel with both, two, hands.
How do I do this? Ask the small kids who are doing these. They are excellent at cracking these sorts of things.
Do you include the Police in this? They the most notorious guys using the walki-talkie and cells on the bike and motorcycle.
I tell you what. Nokia and Motorazor and Erickson and Blackberry and Orange and tomatoes are not going to like this. You are depriving of the sale by these fines. A politician will or a lawyer will come to rescue. But confess you caught the lady in the act, only one finger on the wheel and rest on the gestures to the date!!!!
Motoring groups and human-rights lawyers have raised concerns over the changes. The lady shows the offence what rights do you have against the lady’s blah blah?

In relation to fixed penalties for speeding, some devious drivers with no room for penalty points have persuaded someone else to take the blame for them.

This may happen more with the change in the law relating to phones. When are they coming?

If the car is yours, the onus will be on you to demonstrate who was driving or else you run the risk of being convicted. Grab a cab. These guys must be having a cab company syndicate.

If you know you committed no offence, you are entitled to a trial. Using the cell again while doing 230kmh?

John Scott is a solicitor- advocate and partner at Capital Defence Lawyers in Edinburgh. Here comes the advertisement. If you are stuck call him. My my my my what a law.

24

JEA,

NE SCotland 23/02/2007 08:03:19

If the authourities wish to clamp down seriously on mobile phone usage whilst driving, then by all means have a £60 fine, but make it 9 penalty points. This could resolve traffic congestion, pollution and save lives at a stroke.

25

JEA,

NE Scotland 23/02/2007 08:04:03

If the authourities wish to clamp down seriously on mobile phone usage whilst driving, then by all means have a £60 fine, but make it 9 penalty points. This could resolve traffic congestion, pollution and save lives at a stroke.

26

Scaramouche,

23/02/2007 08:07:08

#7. It's a mystery! (Hmmm .... have to parody Toyah some time! :) Cheers!)

I've not been driving much in my car,
It's not quite a Jaguar
I bought it in Primrose Hill
From a bloke from Brazil
It was made in fifty-nine,
In a factory by the Tyne
It says Morris on the door,
Royal Mail owned it before
There is nothing that it lacks,
Except now I gotta pay Toll Tax
And I really have to care,
Not to drive so much in open air

It's a bit old but it's mine,
I mend it in my spare time
Just last week I changed the oil,
the rocker valves and the coil
I no longer swerve to avoid the toads
Cos I pay for mileage on the roads
I also have to save a lot more cash
Cos soon it'll cost me if I'm in a crash!

I've not been driving much in my car,
I promise I do not go far
Don't even go into the town
And I avoid going up the Mound
I drove her along Newington
Got her going up to 8!!!
This polis stopped me the other day,
you're mistaken what could I say
The tyres were a little worn,
They were okay, I could have sworn
I don't like driving in my car,
Paying by the mile to get so far ....

I've not been driving in my car,
it don't look much and it don't go far
I no longer drive now with a smile
They're screwing me by the mile
I don't like driving in my car,
Even though it's not quite a Jaguar
I'm giving up driving now you see
And I'm going to shoot some MSPs!!!
(I hate bloody buses!!)
(I hate MSPs)
(I hate Tony Blair!)
(We'll, you have to, don't you?)

*Adapted from "I've Been Driving In My Car" by my old mate Suggsy and Madness!

27

Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD,

Dar-Es-Salaam Tanzania 23/02/2007 08:07:57

Must I switch off any phone in my car?
No. Passengers can still use hand-held phones.
Look for the nearest brids nest and park and talk?


But confess you caught the lady in the act, only one finger on the wheel and rest on the gestures to the date!!!!
Why not ban all mobile phone use when driving?
The use of a hands-free phone or other equipment is not specifically prohibited because it is difficult for police to see it in use. And this is the law. If Police cannot see you... Law is out. Not guilty..

Do the penalties cover the sending and receiving of text messages or pictures?
Yes, and even while stationary in traffic queues, such as at traffic lights.
This is other way to communicate but you cann not express you anger...

What about cyclists?
They are not covered, but those using phones could still be prosecuted for careless cycling.
Say the law is for the motorist or all the people on the erath. The bicycleman is gone. He uses the cell he cannot ring the cows to move out of the road. If he does, he gets 60bucks or pounds fine????
Look at the picture. It is good. That is all. Just the picture. Rest skip.

28

HBOS Customer,

not on the phone 23/02/2007 08:08:17

Shame on Neil Greig of IAM for suggesting we should not do everything in our power to stop these stupid drivers. What righd do lawbreakers have to be tackled face-to-face by Police. Surely I have rights to walk, cycle or drive without the risk of being killed by a driver on a mobile.

Zero tolerance is most welcome

29

Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD,

Dar-Es-Salaam Tanzania 23/02/2007 08:09:26

No 25.
Tell this to the LADY not all. Good try. Elvis????

30

lisa,

perth 23/02/2007 08:09:35

Don't like this at all.

Where will it lead? Can I expect a letter in the post saying that a policeman in a passing car has spotted me selling drugs, and would I mind going straight to jail and staying there for 2 years.

This is nothing to do with justice. This is just tax. Spend 20p on a stamp get £60 in tax. Gordon must be loving it.

At least I am not talking on my mobile phone while driving through busy streets at 60mph. As cops do regularly during car chases.

31

Citylocal Fife,

North of the bridge and right of(f) Jack McConnell 23/02/2007 08:12:35

I use a small dictation machine to make notes whilst I am driving - it's slightly less dangerous than writing things down Ha!. However if I was recording a memo - say of the VRN of a car whose driver was using a mobile phone, would I be in danger of being mistakenly prosecuted for using a mobile phone.

Also, lets say that the person I reported was just looking at his phone to tell the time, what would happen?

How do the police prove that a call was being made? What if the phone was tuned to radio station and was just being listened to (using the loudspeaker facility) to receive traffic news etc..

Perhaps they were just using their phone to record a memo to report me using my dictation machine, which they thought was a mobile.

This sounds like a recipe for lots of earning for 'm'learned friends'. Are there any of you out there who'd care to comment?

32

Big G,

23/02/2007 08:15:30

The very fact that the police will not stop and speak to or caution mobile phone offenders confirms that this is nothing more than a cynical exercise in revenue generation - much easier than actually dealing with the public or catching criminals.

33

Open Minded,

Still not in the car 23/02/2007 08:16:18

#30 CityLocal

That's the point I was making. The only way to avoid a charge would be if your phone was off.

But just had a thought, "they" would then claim you were using someone else's phone !

34

paulr,

23/02/2007 08:24:15

driving while holding a mobile phone has been illegal since 2003, they are only 4 years late in actually enforcing it, ABOUT TIME TOO

35

Scaramouche,

23/02/2007 08:26:05

Then there's this ......

I realize the way I heard your voice dear
The time was wrong for me to call your phone
I hadn’t seen the time so I didn’t know dear
That you were driving on your way back home
Mobile phones
Mobile phones
Oh how dangerous mobile phones can be
You shouldn’t ‘ve answered while you were driving
And called back when the cops just couldn’t see
Mobile phones
Mobile phones
Oh how dangerous mobile phones can be
Forget my number
Throw it in the Humber
I mean of course your phone, not the number for me.
I thought that even you would have some sense dear
Not to call with while driving, or move your jaw
I know it’s a hands free option that you have dear
But talking while you’re driving’s against the law
Mobile phones
Mobile phones
Oh how dangerous mobile phones can be
Forget my number
Throw it in the Humber
I mean of course your phone, not the number for me.

*Adapted from "Paper Roses", sung by Marie Osmond.

36

rosford,

Scotland 23/02/2007 08:26:33

The thought of losing your license on the totting up procedure will ensure behaviour changes quickly. For many that would also dictate losing their job. In this instance there is great pain associated in breaking the law - unlike virtually every other crime.

37

Diane,

Planet Earth 23/02/2007 08:31:57

It's not too funny when you are nearly rammed by some muppet on their mobile on the motorway. Believe me, I had some serious underwear changing to do after that. Also, I have noticed that pedestrians get a bit erratic when on the phone. I spotted one just about to walk under a bus the other day because they were too distracted to pay attention before crossing the road.

38

Moray Stewart,

Edinburgh 23/02/2007 08:39:14

It's nice to see that Strathclyde Police have got their priorities right. But I suppose with crime being so low in the area they must be struggling for things to do.

39

McMicrogal,

23/02/2007 08:39:53

LOL @ Scaramouche, you are a tonic (c:

My son ended upwith a broken leg thanks to someone on their phone in their car, and the number of times I have cringed as I see drivers negotiating junctions and roundabouts with one hand clamped to their ear makes me wonder why the accident stats are not way worse.

This legislation is good, not sure I am happy with the way it is to be handled though.

40

Scott 'Ola' Foam,

Anywhere But Here 23/02/2007 08:50:54

I understand the safety factor with this idea, but I dont like the infringement of my civil liberties.

How far is this going to go, if our medical authorities report that it is in everyones health interests to be in bed for 10:30pm, shall we have fines by post for not doing so?

Try going to Italy and telling an Italian there not allowed to answer there mobile phone or wear sunglasses.

Is this a British stiff upper lip thing or has our government justs simply gone off there heads with policy, if its not this crap they spend 5 million teaching us how to wash our hands...... utter disbelief at that one...... hhahhahha.

41

Commuter,

Aberdeen 23/02/2007 08:52:26

Although I agree with not using phones while driving if you are 4 times more likely to have an accident (how was this ratio established i wonder).
Iam concerned with the statement that "the police do not have to prove the person was making a phone call to get a conviction". Also the statement that if you contest the £60:00 fine the alternative is a max of £1000:0 this again is a threat to get the motorist to take the easier option.
We are not getting nearer to a police state, we are already in one, meanwhile the real crime is increasing while the lazy police concentrate on the law abiding motorist who is the easy option.

42

Frugal MacDougal,

23/02/2007 08:52:51

Confiscation and destruction of the car or vehicle followed by 5 years in jail should stop these pancake tossers from doing this.

43

Alastair the First,

23/02/2007 08:54:29

Is it a crime to drive along with a switched-off mobile held to your ear? Could be interesting if we all did that and then when it went to court, the phone company records would show that the phone was off.

And if it's such a distraction, why is smoking while driving not banned? And 2 way radios? What is a mobile phone if not a 2 way radio?

Having said that, I'd say that it's not the use of phones per se that's dangerous, it's what the road conditions are like at the time (motorway vs roundabout for example) that is a major factor. The crucial thing is to be in full control of the car, and if you pick on mobiles, you should also look at tuning radios, eating, drinking, talking to passengers even.

44

Swilly Tisher,

Loch Maree 23/02/2007 08:56:59

Try getting a signal here in Wester Ross! But surely the main point about mobiles and driving is the distraction of the CALL (i.e the contents of the conversation) and not the phone itself. How many of us haven't unwrapped a sweetie or perhaps a packet of condoms while driving with one hand ?

45

Paul Voltaire,

www.paulvoltaire.spaces.live.com 23/02/2007 08:58:50

Yet again, the motorist is picked-on as an easy target.This shows how soft and lily-livered the police are these days.
The old 'Thief takers' are but a distant memory.
Charlie Barlow must be spinning in his grave.

46

Angel,

Edinburgh 23/02/2007 08:59:25

I think these posts are a waste of time

The Evening news should be called the evening moan. The only time they have a positive slant is when they are running the evening news cavalcade at the start of the fringe - or the south suburban railway line. Can they please use some other word other that Chiefs ! !

The whole point of this story is its the law. If people feel this is not a worthy law, contact you MSP, the police uphold the law not make it. You people want to pick and choose which laws the police should target. I am really really sick of these blogs and the banal and childishness of most (not all) of the contributors

47

Frugal MacDougal,

23/02/2007 09:01:51

#41. you are not allowed to eat or drink whilst driving. You can also be prosecuted for adjusting your radio whilst driving. Thats already law. The new law doesn't have to prove a call was being made, so your phone bill will not be an alibi

48

Angel,

Edinburgh 23/02/2007 09:02:25

Paul : You are tackless. Do you know how many other peple are killed by dangerous or drink driving.

whats your views on drugs ? Only target the hardened druggie ? not the user ? So you think the police should only uphold some laws ? is that what you are saying ? Dont you think the law needs changed ? and dont you realise its not the police who make the law ?

49

Angel,

Edinburgh 23/02/2007 09:04:09

GGGGGRRRRRR @ 39

How can the law abbiding motorist be law abiding if he has broken the law ! ? ! ? !?

50

Scott 'Ola' Foam,

Anywhere But Here 23/02/2007 09:05:09

I think we should all take tips from the french. If we dont like what our government propose we just all stop what were doing block off everything until they get the message that the government works for us we dont work for them.

That is a fundemental flaw with British society & culture we just accept and dont question.

51

Roy,

23/02/2007 09:11:30

"Do they cover motorcyclists?
Yes. People supervising L-drivers are also covered. "

Speak on a hand-held mobile while wearing a crash helmet? How do you do that then?

52

Professor22,

Fife 23/02/2007 09:21:39

Only Constables in Uniform have the right to enforce traffic law.

For those that are interested the reason that pmr radios are not covered by the law is that the police objected that they would have to get all new radios (handsfree)

53

THEalan,

Dumfries 23/02/2007 09:23:33

Pleasant surprise to read all the above posts and know that the overwhelming majority are against the anarchists who seem to think they can do what they want, they don't like speed cameras, spot checks etc either and think they are the persecuted norm.
As I say to the wife and kids when out and about in Dumfriesshire I don't care if they kill themselves but not the rest of us. Wouldn't be against a total (life) ban for persistent offenders.

54

conservative,

Fife 23/02/2007 09:25:20

The tougher the better. I'm heartily sick of people driving along 2 feet from my bumper yapping and laughing into their phone. It should be an automatic reckless driving charge.

And no, I couldn't care less what any bleeding hearts think about it all.

55

PC McGarry#452,

999 Letsby Avenue 23/02/2007 09:28:41

Ah, Voltaire. You never let me down. Pray that a member of your family is never mown down by these irresponsible, selfish, inconsiderate drivers. Personally I can't wait until Tuesday and have ordered some extra black biros from the stores dept as I will be VERY busy writing out tickets.

56

Weel Kent Jambo,

North of the Cheviots 23/02/2007 09:30:44

13 killed, eh? That's bad, but how many are dying from super-bugs in NHS hospitals. One avoidable death is too many but why we do not see irresponsible hospital managers being prosecuted?

Really do not see why mobiles cannot be used when stationary in a jam on a snarled up motorway. Lazy legislation probably - couldn't be bothered to work out appropriate wording?

Take this one stage further to road pricing where officialdom will know where the vehicle is at all times and the possibility exists for matching of this with mobile 'phone records and I think we can see the way this country is heading.

57

conservative,

Fife 23/02/2007 09:33:53

54, Jambo.

Couldn't give a stuff Jambo - don't do it and you won't be prosecuted. No time at all for these accidents waiting to happen who think they've a God-given right to endanger the rest of us.

58

EG,

23/02/2007 09:37:30

According to this article the police do not have to prove you are guilty but you have to prove you are innocent. Is the justice system in this country not innocent until proven guilty? We all know how squeaky clean the police in this country are - never heard of them giving false evidence. Get them back on the streets to fight real crime.

59

Helen,

23/02/2007 09:37:49

You can be prosecuted for using a hand held mobile phone while driving. Given that the cost of a bluetooth headset is significantly cheaper than the fine and penalty points, I fail to understand why anyone would be so stupid as to take the risk.
You can be prosecuted for eating and drinking while driving...fair enough, it could be a risk.
I've heard of people being prosecuted for shaving, applying makeup and god only knows what else while driving...how stupid can a person be?
What really cracks me up is that people don't get prosecuted for smoking while driving. That is really dangerous...raking about in the packet; taking one hand off the wheel to find the lighter etc. etc. Let's make it a prosecutable offence to smoke while driving.

60

geekpie,

forfar 23/02/2007 09:49:56

those who phone, drive and cause an accident should get a decent lump of bird: but all too often the beaks are high-power BMW drivers themselves who no doubt do it themselves when they can.

61

Nemo,

Fife 23/02/2007 09:53:24

Excellent news, though 3 points and a £60 fine won't deter the congenital idiot. I think a couple of Police marksmen with high velocity rifles would be a more appropriate method to deal with those retards who think they can multi-task whilst driving, and I would not stop at mobile phones. Target the halfwits who put on their make up, shave, read the paper or use their laptop etc. as well; and especially those who are so dysfunctional that they have to turn their head to face their passengers in order to talk to them.

Actually; shooting that particular group of drivers would be a bit out of order as it would endanger the passenger, just pulling them over and giving them a damn good thumping might suffice.

Motorist are definitely a sitting target for generating revenue but nowadays Police are prevented from using more effective measures such as I sugjested, but these offenders are unrepresentative and need behavioural therapy or culling.

Grumpy old rant over.

62

Undertaker,

London 23/02/2007 10:01:23

I wish the Met Police down here were going to be as stringent as L&B.
In some parts of London is a ‘sport’ to phone…you can see almost every second car driver on the phone
Enfield, Southgate, The City, Tower Hamlets, K&C and most of the Boroughs south of the River being amongst the
Worse I have seen

63

sick of it all,

coma ward 23/02/2007 10:03:38

Newsflash UK government - you can't force someone to say who was driving the car at the time. It's called the Right to Silence and it's in the Human Rights Act.

64

Colin A,

Manchester 23/02/2007 10:06:18

I think a lot of people commenting on this subject are missing the point.

13 killed and 400 injured in one year!

Enough said!

65

jennie,

inverness 23/02/2007 10:06:59

#42 - a packet of condoms? do tell us more about life in Wester Ross, Swilly Tisher.....

66

arris,

edinburgh 23/02/2007 10:11:08

Using a mobile while driving, walking, sitting in a classroom, watching tv, is a psychological problem. The urge to respon to a call is almost irresistable-to women in particular. There's an easy answer-switch your phone off/turn on silent mode when getting into a car. Easy peasy and fewer cases of careless driving. £60 fine and 3-penalty points seems right it changes people's habits.

67

Scott 'Ola' Foam,

Anywhere But Here 23/02/2007 10:14:53

Has anyone been to New York? Get a grip and put everything in perspective.

Our traffic system is far safer than there and thats if we all drove smoking while watching DVD's with our phone stuck to our ears.

Paris, Greece Italy... has anyone ever been to these countries.

We are far to much governed by regulations in this country. We soon will be banned from farting in public spaces, as it will cause passive smelling, banned from showing emotion at football matches as it might cause an accident or cause a disturbance, and fined for not washing our hands correctly and manicuring our nails.

68

Scott 'Ola' Foam,

Anywhere But Here 23/02/2007 10:15:57

Just ban driving and we wont have any traffic related accidents, in fact stay in bed its not safe to go outside........

69

JJ52,

23/02/2007 10:27:26

No problem with them prosecuting offenders but only if they are stopped at the time. The postal fine is not on.

70

gmac,

Scotland 23/02/2007 10:27:46

Perhaps the police should apply the same ZERO tolerance to our hospitals to eliminate the Superbug problem which is reportedly killing many thousands of patient each year.
I would suggest this is a better use of police time and effort than standing behind trees spying on motorist.

71

Son House,

Aberdeen 23/02/2007 10:29:15

I don't have a problem with the book being thrown at users of mobile phones while they're driving, but the police don't have to prove a call was being made? Wait a minute. So if I've got my hand up to my ear adjusting my hearing aid (either ear, I'm ambidextrous) and the fuzz reckon it looks like a good earner, they don't have to prove anything? Instead, I have to prove I wasn't using the phone. How do I do that? I know I can maybe prove that there wasn't any call going on at the time that plod SAYS it happened, but how do I prove that the phone is the ONLY phone I have and that I don't keep one as part of my in-car for-emergency-use-only kit?

72

Son House,

Aberdeen 23/02/2007 10:37:52

# 42 is missing the point. A law where there is no burden of proof on the prosecution is what we expect in fascist countries. Are you so keen to be convicted of plotting terrorism that you'd give up your rights to protection from false accusations? What do you mean you're not a terrorist? Can you prove it?

73

Son House,

Aberdeen 23/02/2007 10:40:57

#42 / #62 / #71 Sorry #42, I meant to type #62 in my post #71.

74

Fred,

23/02/2007 10:43:51

What would be great if as a pedestrian you could take a photo of someone using a mobile phone in a car, send it in to the polis and if the prosecution is succesful you get say a 10 pounds finder fee.

75

JD,

23/02/2007 10:48:24

Maybe one-day.. they will get around to doing something about the idiots wh drive around with "Heavy Beat Music" blaring out....
This can also be a bit of a distraction to other drivers .......

Regarding this issue of Mobile Phone use whilst driving... It appears that "Innocent till proved Guilty" no-longer applies.. It is now up to the individual to prove that he/she is Innocent..............

76

Miles,

Weegieland 23/02/2007 10:51:23

Rather someone using a mobile phone than the blond dame doing her make up while driving the car behind me all the way up Dalkieth Road yesterday morning. How does that fit with 3 points and £60?

77

Scott 'Ola' Foam,

Anywhere but here 23/02/2007 10:52:02

Ban politics, how many lives have been cost because of those idiots?

78

AllyFraeEmbra,

Near the Castle 23/02/2007 10:56:38

Helen @ 57 - Spot On. Given the easy availability (and affordability) of hands free kits there is just no excuse any longer for using a hand held mobile whilst driving. And if eating and drinking whilst driving are already banned, then banning smoking whilst driving must be the next logical step - especially for the benefit of any non-smoking passengers who have to suffer when stuck with a desperado nicotine junkie for a driver.

#34 Rulesbutnotrulers - I'm surprised you haven't contacted Lothian & Borders finest to ask them to set up a special text number for sending in mobile phone photographs of all the offenders that you want to shop.

79

Scott 'Ola' Foam,

Anywhere but here 23/02/2007 10:59:35

The statistics show that international politics has cost the lives of millions of people, I think the only solution is to ban politics and give politicians £60.00 fines for practicing the dark arts.

80

AllyFraeEmbra,

Near the Castle 23/02/2007 11:03:36

#34 & #73 - I'm sure that L&B polis would be happy to set up a league table for photo shopping vigilantes - but if they also published your names and addressess, would the two of you still be as keen to report some fo the people that you see?

81

warden99,

gorebridge 23/02/2007 11:06:28

catch the so called 2 million out there with no bloody insurance, licence or road tax first then i wont mind people getting fined for being stupid enough useing their mobies whilst driving.


82

Franklin,

23/02/2007 11:11:30

I switch off the phone when I'm in the car. Haven't been driving all that long and I don't care for distractions. There's enough of them on our ever-busier roads.

Nice songs Scaramouche. Thought provoking.

83

Biker,

Ayr 23/02/2007 11:12:22

Well this is gonna be interesting, prosecuting without evidence. If the police dont photograph or stop the individual, the courts are gonna be full of people defending themselves with a not guilty plea. Much as I detest fools on phones whilst driving, this is just crass stupidity to think that prosecting without evidence will stick.

84

Canny Scott,

G84 Area 23/02/2007 11:26:27

Where would you actually see a policeman on foot anyhow ? Not about here, and the traffic warden doesn't give out parking tickets either.. he says hes just there to see if you have paid any road tax .

Some local shopkeepers park outside their premises all day every day 8a.m -5.p.m. and then say that customers have nowhere to park or are up in arms if you suggest pedestrianisation cos then THEY couldn't park either! But that's another matter.

85

Randan,

23/02/2007 11:27:19

I am stunned at the number of idiots who think it is their human right to phone and drive at the same time. What a bunch of aerosoles.

86

Suck-McCrunchie,

Bonny Bonny Banks of Overcharging 23/02/2007 11:28:19

The question arrises now - why dont cars come equipped with standard fitments to accommadate mobile use legally?

I guess in the past this was partly due to each mobile having a different plug, even when I changed from one Siemens to another. But differing plugs were inexcusable as it creates junk each time you replace a phone.

OK my recent ones have been bluetooth (thanks Orange for the design feature the prevented this being capable of being used!) and recently I replaced my CD player for one playing MP3s, memory sticks, memory pens, built in bluetooth and auto quietening on receipt of a call.

But why did I need to do this when manufacturers should be including them as standard?

87

The Guzz,

Fife 23/02/2007 11:29:16

I am not a lawyer but I have always believed that you had to be ‘cautioned’ by a policeman before you were charged with an offence. I also believe that when these ‘notices’ are sent to you asking you to complete and return them in order that the appropriate fine and points can be issued that they should be ignored. The notice as good as threatens and bullies you into acceptance by threat of more severe penalties. However there is no ‘verbal’ caution issued in any of these cases. Motoring offences are criminal act in the eyes of the law and the law does NOT require anyone to provide information that may incriminate them. I certainly do not have a problem with the police actually stopping offenders and cautioning them. If they are on the phone while driving, they deserve to be caught. But NOT by some sneaky stealth system set up just to fleece the public more than is happening already with speed cameras. The same applies to them by the way. Completing the notices sent out by these unscrupulous companies is incriminating yourself and providing them with easy money and yourself with a criminal record. It is much better not to return their forms and ask them to provide you with a copy of the incriminating evidence (the photo) and then let them take you to court. Sure they threaten that the fines will be so much bigger and that is to make you servile. Any lawyer worth his salt would be able to get you off of a ‘criminal’ charge when a caution has not been issued by a policeman. I wonder if the powers that be will try to sneakily change this small point of law in the same sneaky way that they bend the law to collect free money and brand people as criminals. We all know that policemen have to complete a quota over a given period and what easier way is there than to simply report people because they ‘think’ they may have seen them use the phone inappropriately. Even worse is the copper with a grudge and we KNOW that they exist. Add this to the already incr

88

The BD,

Edinburgh 23/02/2007 11:30:34

#65 - What's your point? Are you agreeing that the doofus in the Hummer was unjustly treated???? She should have been thrown in jail for a long, long time! And shame on the attourney who tried to defend her.

#59 Nemo - Well done on having the funniest post!

To those who are bleating on about their human rights being infringed - what about the human rights of those who have been killed or injured because of people driving whilst using a phone? Don't be so selfish! 'Human rights' has to be one of the most misused terms of the 21st century.

89

Scott 'Ola' Foam,

Anywhere but here 23/02/2007 11:37:48

#89

Life's difficult dangerous and full of unexpected surprises, bet your one of those idiots that tells people to sit down in there chairs at the football.

You never know I might be killed by a bolt of lightening, pointless unecessary but thats life, what are we to do ban lightening?

90

Scotswahey,

23/02/2007 11:40:07

this is nothing other than a revenue raising exercise. End of non story.

91

One-man-bucket's older twin,

23/02/2007 11:41:31

Using a mobile while driving is insane and dangerous but more dangerous is the precedent that you can be prosecuted without proof of guilt.

Talking to your passengers (especially if you're the kind of numpty that has to look at them even if they're in the back seat) and trying to control unruly children in the back seat are just as dangerous.

When will we see a ban on single adults transporting children in their cars? How many accidents have been caused by mum telling her darlings to sit down and stop fighting? Could this be the answer to the school run?

92

Toast,

23/02/2007 11:44:12

Pedestrians should be banned from using mobiles whilst walking,I'm sick of morons barging into me whilst talking drivel to some other muppet

93

IWright,

Edinburgh 23/02/2007 11:47:12

If the police can see it happenng they should be able to record it, perhaps by using the camera function on, erm mobile phones.

94

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 23/02/2007 11:52:20

I agree with #89 The BD from Edinburgh that #59 Nemo from Fife had the funniest and WITTIEST post so far.

It really made me laugh and thanks #89 for directing it to me because it is sometimes tiring going through 90 or so postings.

I will keep my eye out for you - Nemo from Fife - as I expect more jollities from you as I have enjoyed your perspicacity and wit for many months.

95

JG,

Fife 23/02/2007 11:55:27

#88 The Guzz
For motoring offences the Police can either caution you at the time OR send you a notice of intended prosecution within 14 days of the alleged offence.

96

PC McGarry#452,

999 Letsby Avenue 23/02/2007 12:01:22

#88: Nope. You don't have to be cautioned or charged at the time by a cop. You are officially charged when it reaches court by the Procurator Fiscal. And you DO have to provide details of traffic offences under S172 Road Traffic Act. It's already been challenged by numerous people in court and thrown out every time. Yippee..... I love the law.

97

Green,

Glasgow 23/02/2007 12:07:15

Excellent news, as a pedestrian in Glasgow every day you see motorists (criminals) driving along with one hand on the wheel leaning their heads into their phone, changing lanes, swinging round corners into sideroads, not looking for other cars, pedestrians cyclists. I hope the police have a blitz on this.

98

Suck-McCrunchie,

Bonny Bonny Banks of Overcharging 23/02/2007 12:09:19

Interestingly it seems the offending device must fall within certain frequencies (900MHz and 1800MHz I would guess for the UK).

Taxi radio hand held microphones and (Ahem!!) police radios are exempt.

Clearly we all need to start a protest/fashion trend of an arm attached to the headrest/coming up from the door holding a kids toy mobile, as its fair enough to catch someone at it, but there is malodourous stench of big brother if you later get a letter asking who was driving using a phone on a certain day.

Its the same with speeding cameras - but whatever happened to the right to silence if accused of an offence?

99

Stewarty,

23/02/2007 12:12:57

All power to the police elbow on this one.

Society has to deal with those irresponsible motorists who care not a toss for the law of the land.

Here in Stirling, we have just learnt that a numptie from Dunblane has gone to jail for 4 months for driving whilst disqualified. The guy has been banned from driving for SIX times in 4 years.

Arguably, 4 years jail would have been more appropriate. But at least he has been named and shamed.

100

The Guzz,

Fife 23/02/2007 12:13:15

# 96 JG - My point being that this being a criminal offence you must be verbally cautioned by a policeman. These notices that are sent out 'always' threaten you with MUCH stiffer fines, MORE points and sometimes worse. They are DEMANDING that you incriminate yourself or others. So the police can SEND a notice of intended prosecution within 14 days can they? Where is the caution? Ask for the photographic proof or the evidence of the police and you will not get it. Sorry, this can not be right and can not be legal. Police get so much wrong when they are actually involved without giving them the power to prosecute you by proxy.

101

Kath,

Fife 23/02/2007 12:14:17

What about the numpties who are screeching into their phones and just cross roads without looking causing drivers to jam on the brakes, will they get the same punishment??

I use my mobile a lot and yes in the past I have used it while driving, I don't see that it is any less safe than listening to the radio

102

Sedov,

Scotland 23/02/2007 12:18:19

As an all year motor cyclists I have had some near misses from drivers on their phones, especially lorry drivers turning roundabouts with one hand on the wheel and a phone in the other. At the same time I have been stopped numerous times for spot checks by police checking on the size of my number plate, exhaust kite marks etc. I have watched in amazement at car drivers using mobiles blatantly driving past a police car which does nothing - is it cos its just too much bother to charge them and unlike speed cameras there is no money in it for them?

103

The Guzz,

Fife 23/02/2007 12:23:05

# 97 PC McGarry#452 - You said " #88: Nope. You don't have to be cautioned or charged at the time by a cop. You are officially charged when it reaches court by the Procurator Fiscal. And you DO have to provide details of traffic offences under S172 Road Traffic Act. It's already been challenged by numerous people in court and thrown out every time..... Yippee..... I love the law."
If you are indeed a policeman, I'll wager that you are one of the bullying kind. Couldn't hack it at scool so got into the police force to 'be the man.' I am aware of people who have challenged these charges and contrary to what you say, the cases were dropped before they even went to court. Yippee.... The law is an ass.

104

The Guzz,

Fife 23/02/2007 12:25:00

# 97 PC McGarry#452 - You said " #88: Nope. You don't have to be cautioned or charged at the time by a cop. You are officially charged when it reaches court by the Procurator Fiscal. And you DO have to provide details of traffic offences under S172 Road Traffic Act. It's already been challenged by numerous people in court and thrown out every time..... Yippee..... I love the law."
If you are indeed a policeman, I'll wager that you are one of the bullying kind. Couldn't hack it at school so got into the police force to 'be the man.' I am aware of people who have challenged these charges and contrary to what you say; the cases were dropped before they even went to court. Yippee.... The law is an ass.

105

ScotsLass58,

Red Kens Toon 23/02/2007 12:26:22

I was involved in an accident last year where a driver was using his mobile phone and ran into the back of my stationary car ( I was stopped at a set of traffic lights, he was doing approx 50 mph). The perp, as usual gave false details then ran off almost knocking me down in the process. Net result my car was written off by the insurance company and I am now slowly going through the process of trying to get compensation from the insurance companies central fund. The one saving grace is that I was dring a Jag at the time, as the police said had I been driving anything else I would have been seriously injured. Therefore I agree with the clamping down on the use of mobile phones whilst driving. I use my car as part of my business every day and the number of dangerous drining incidents I witness is amazing, I just wish I had the powers to pull over these incompetent drivers. I am seriously concerned, however, about this new approach by the police in some regions whereby they do not even have to confront the driver using the phone at the time of the incident. As someone who feels that the whole human rights thing has gone too far in favour of the criminal I think in this instance there may be some justification to use the human rights issue to reel this overly daft idea back into a more sensible approach.

106

The Guzz,

Fife 23/02/2007 12:26:54

Sorry for the double post. I have just experienced a senior moment again.

107

Smiley,

Edinburgh 23/02/2007 12:34:13

What if one day I'm driving along and singing along to the radio and scratching my ear at the same time. And a week later I get a fixed penalty notice through the door 'cos someone spotted me and thought I was using a phone.

Do I just accept the FPN or try and contest it? How do I prove I wasn't using a phone at the time?

108

Professor22,

23/02/2007 12:36:47

#59 Nemo

Sorry to point this out but driving is MULTI TASKING anyway.

#97 PC McGarry

Sorry to point this out as well. The S172/Nip Right to Silence was heard in the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on October the 26th 2006. It is pending decision and from what I have seen of the communications between the UK and the court, the Government is seriousily worried that it will loose and have to pay millions back to appealed speeding cases.

Combined with the fact that the LTI 2020 camera was proven to give faulty readings by its own manufactuer I think you will see the Government sliding away from speed camera (sorry safety) and onto other revenue enhancing ideas like mobile phones.

Ohhhh,,,,, tooo late, they already are!

Finally, I was once stopped by two traffic police who insisted they saw me use a mobile phone. As I had left my moby at home that day I invitied them to search the vehicle for it. After 20 minutes they admitted they must have misseen it. However, everyone needs to know that when you have the corroboration of 2 Constables the law will always work against, regardless if your are innocent or guilty.

109

not allowed my name anymore,

23/02/2007 12:38:06

i think its safe to say that most agree that somthing needs done about mobiles in cars but, the police not needing proof to prosecute is just wrong, plain and simple.

110

Professor22,

23/02/2007 12:39:54

# 108 refuse the conditional offer, go to court representing yourself, turn up for trial with a copy of your bill.

Cross examine the witness and suggest he gets an eye test.

111

JG,

Fife 23/02/2007 12:42:38

#101 The Guzz
Motoring offences are dealt with slightly differently than others. You can indeed be cautioned by a Policeman at the scene of (say) a road accident, the details sent to the Procurator Fiscal who decides what will happen. At the point you receive a summons to go to court (Pc McGarry is right!) is the point where you are actually "charged". I believe the "notice of intended prosecution" is there to cover the motorist who perhaps legs it from the scene and doesn't make himself/herself available to be seen by the Police. Again, you are not officially charged until you reveive a summons from the court.

112

JG,

Fife 23/02/2007 12:51:40

#109 Professor22
I think it's folly to have taken the Sec. 172 law to Europe. I understand people who have been convicted of speeding and having to give their details on a form would wish to avoid having to pay the fine/be disqualified (I would probably feel the same myself!!) but they should remember it would apply across the board. REAL car criminals will also be exempted from obeying this rule - talk about tying the Police's hands behind their backs!!!

113

petrol head,

Edinburgh 23/02/2007 12:55:26

An outrage!

Ask for proof, never pay a fixed penalty, make them take you to court.

If everyone did these three things then this police state, revenue raising system would collapse.

114

RAVIS,

the borders 23/02/2007 12:55:33

funny isn't it?

man invents mobile phone
man sells mobile phone
man uses mobile phone
man gets annoyed with (other peoples) mobile phone
mobile phone gets banned.

(knicked and remixed from Jurassic Park)

115

Xhile,

West Mids 23/02/2007 12:55:48

The real criminals must be laughing their socks off.
They will continue to hurtle around in their unlicenced, uninsured, fake number-plated cars totally aware that not only will a penalty charge never reach them, the phone was probably stolen anyway.
Round here, the worst culprits are policewomen who must have their mobiles super-glued to one ear before they leave their police station every morning.

116

The Guzz,

Fife 23/02/2007 12:58:40

105. The Guzz, Fife / PREVIEW
# 109. Professor22 – Thank you for a very informative post.
# 112. JG - If you are charged with a CRIME then you must be VERBALLY CAUTIONED by a policeman. A crime is a crime and there is no alternative to the way the police can proceed with charging anyone with a criminal offence 'that I am aware of.' PC McGarry and his ilk should be challenged every time. It is attitudes like his that lead to the police being so mistrusted. I believe the "Notice of Intended Prosecution" is a government money spinner and should be challenged at every point. See post at #109.

117

petrol head,

Edinburgh 23/02/2007 13:00:04

Professor22:

Where can I get hold of information regarding what has been happening in this case?

Let's just say it may be very useful to me and to others.

Thanks

118

Professor22,

23/02/2007 13:00:20

#113 JG

Why is it then that the rest of Europe has speed camera but does not rely on self incrimination.

Because they automatically fine the driver (without points) until the driver can prove otherwise.

Thats what will be coming next when Halloran and Idris win in late spring.

The S172 regulation is being abused for revenue. period.

My wifes car was hit by a drugged up kid from kinross, he dissappeared. Later the owner told them the car was "stolen". Case dismissed. S172 did not help there!!!

As for going to the ECHR in the first place, lets see what happens when your pulled for scratching your ear by two BIB.

119

Professor22,

23/02/2007 13:00:52

goto the forums on

www.pepipoo.com

120

Professor22,

23/02/2007 13:04:46

sorry my last post was meant to say

Because they automatically fine the registered owner

121

DMK,

Livi 23/02/2007 13:04:49

It's about time!! It's been illegal for ages and anyone who's had close encounters with these idiots, whether injured or not, should applaud this activity. However, if the law had been tougher in the first place and we had good old fashioned traffic cops instead of speed cameras then perhaps those stats quoted in the piece might make better reading.

BTW, what about smoking and driving? Have you seen the state of smokers who escape into their cars for a fag then try to manoeuvre out of a carpark having lit the thing?

Or worse, lighting it at 60 on the M8 in the rush hour, using matches or a Bic lighter?

122

Smiley,

Edinburgh 23/02/2007 13:05:20

#111 - that only proves you didn't make a call on that phone at the time. Prosecution will insist that you either used another phone or had received a call which wouldn't show up on your bill.

Heads you lose, tails they win.

123

The BD,

Edinburgh 23/02/2007 13:06:31

#90. Happy to say I'm not one of your 'idiots' (doesn't the guidance say something about not being offensive?) as I wouldn't be caught dead at a football match. Lightning is indeed unpredictable. Using a phone whilst driving is an act of will on the part of the driver. I fail to see the comparison.

124

The Guzz,

Fife 23/02/2007 13:07:03

113. JG – You think it is folly for people to defend themselves against money making laws do you? So real criminals would also be exempted because of a bad law? Too bad.. The law should be in place to ensure that the ‘real’ criminals ARE caught and there should be no ambiguity. If you break the law and are caught then you deserve all that is due. If the law is improperly used, as this and speeding fines through cameras are; then as I have said before, the law is an ass and we, the public should protest against it at every opportunity

125

Charles MN,

23/02/2007 13:09:38

#101 These points and more have been aired w.r.t. speed camera prosecutions. There is currently at least one case ,brought by Idris Frances, before the European Court on Human Rights.

It is almost impossible to get video evidence from the Police. They seem to prefer to let cases fail rather provide the evidence depite it being a legal requirement for any court case.

However there are ways around it and a third of speed camera cases fail:

1) In England the Police and Criminal Evidence act (PACE) says that you need to be cautioned before giving a statement. Threatening the Police with that often gets the to back off. This doesn't work in Scotland.

2) Claim you can't remember if it was you or your wife/brother/workmate who was driving and ask the police if the photos can identify the driver. Often they can't.

3) Return but don't sign the form they send. Ignore any threats. In Scotland this often results in two traffic Police at the door.

4) If you are poor go to court, claim that you can't afford a solicitor and that one must be provided for you. As there is no provision for this for traffic cases the case can't continue.

5) Ask that the case be held over until the Idris Francis case has been resolved.

126

tom, HR6,

leominster (ex-fife) 23/02/2007 13:10:58

It's quite right to prosecute users of mobiles - I nearly got rammed on a roundabout by someone who clearly had no control because of his silly phone.

What annoys me equally though are the idiots who stop at the side of the road at the most inappropriate and dangerous places just to take their probably unimportant call. That sort of stupidity is surely also careless and inconsiderate use of a motor vehicle?

127

educational snob,

Edinburgh 23/02/2007 13:14:01

Excellent!! - "Mobile" mobile users (pardon the slight pun) are a real pain. They're as dangerous as someone driving over the drink-driving limit, or a one-armed man driving a conventional vehicle.

Only thing is, boys & girls - keep your hands well inside the vehicle, and be careful how you scratch your ears!!

128

Scott 'Ola' Foam,

Anywhere but here 23/02/2007 13:19:55

#124 Life is unpredictable, humans obsession with mortality has caused us to try and control what cant be controlled. About time we stopped trying.

And is going to war through international politics, not an act of will?

How many have been killed compared to people being knocked over because someone was talking on a phone. We still havent banned that one.

Its all just a rouse to get easy money. after all Metropolitan police forces have quotas to fullfill.

129

The Guzz,

Fife 23/02/2007 13:20:11

# 126. Charles MN - More good information. Thank you.

130

JG,

Fife 23/02/2007 13:20:14

#119 Professor22
Fair enough - I guess that's just taking it to the next step without getting them to fill in the form first! I'm sure most people in this country are objecting so strongly due to having the penalty points added to their licence with the ultimate possiblity of losing it (I would!!). Sec 172 doesn't work in every case but without it (and assuming there was not the "stolen car" defence offered) the Police could knock on the door of the owner, ask if he was the driver and be told to "F off" with no recourse.

#117 The Guzz
Motoring offences and other crimes ARE dealt with differently. If you punch someone in the face and there is enough evidence to charge you with that, you will certainly be visited by the Police and charged. If you don't make yourself available in that scenario, a warrant could be issued for your arrest.

131

ClimateTruth,

Staffordshire 23/02/2007 13:20:14

Gnasher - there are no criminals in the ABD. We wouldn't want to represent an ignorant bigot like you.

132

petrol head,

Edinburgh 23/02/2007 13:21:27

#127:

Using a mobile phone when driving does not automatically mean you are a danger. Being slightly over the drink drive limit does not automatically mean you are a danger. A one-armed man may be able to drive a conventional vehicle in perfect safety.

Please don't resort to quoting propaganda at us. It doesn't become you.

133

JG,

Fife 23/02/2007 13:24:13

#125 The Guzz
Sorry, I never said that - I have so far only explained how things ARE. Of course people can protest and object to laws they don't agree with - I'm not "pro the speeding cameras" either!!

134

PC McGarry#452,

999 Letsby Avenue 23/02/2007 13:24:27

It seems that there are far too many people here concerned with evading justice rather than admitting that using a moby whilst driving is plain WRONG! I implore these to people to visit the scene of a road traffic accident where there has been multiple dismemberment of victims (innocent and guilty) and tell me that road safety is a low priority.

And The Guzz, Yes. I admit it. I was bullied at school. Kids took my dinner money and made me do their homework. Girls laughed at my cord trousers and fair isle cardigans. And I made up my mind at that point to be an Ubercop. To show no mercy or take snash from Joe Public. I sit at home polishing my jackboots and throwing darts at pictures of Paul Voltaire. I believe in law and order rather than lawlessness and disorder. What would you rather have?

135

fedup with toasters,

bliarland 23/02/2007 13:26:43

the guzz you are an idiot who if threatened would be the first to go crying to the big nasty policeman simple fact a caution and charge by a police officer is not a necessity. You have no knowledge about the law what so ever in fact i would think your IQ is so low you could be a member of the labour party

136

Andrew_10101,

23/02/2007 13:27:38

<<25.>> Scaramouche>> - brilliant one !! LOL !!

Anyway, if I'm stuck in a monster traffic jam, and I lean my head on my hand (covering my ear) and start jibbering in desperation, the police are going to think I'm making a call, and without any proof (and indeed without even a phone in the car), they are going to post me a ticket. Is that what we are being told?

Outrageous.

137

lp,

23/02/2007 13:28:50

126 you are talking a load of nonsense. just because someone can't afford a solicitor doesn't mean the case won't continue.

i am completely in agreement with the legislation, it is not safe for drivers to use a mobile while driving. buy a hands free kit, they only cost about £15!!!!

why the outcry about sending out a fixed penalty in the post. the police cannot stop every single person who they see driving whilst using a mobile phone. and if they did i am sure there would be an outcry why they were doing that instead of trying to catch so called "real criminals". drivers who speed, or undertake or use a mobile when driving are CRIMINALS!!!!!

138

Scott 'Ola' Foam,

Anywhere but here 23/02/2007 13:29:45

How many people have been killed because they were run over by someone who is just plainly a crap driver.

Are we to ban crap drivers?

Half asleep drivers?

Early morning fuzzy headed drivers?

Drivers having a lapse of concentration?

Drivers who sneeze or cough?

Drivers who have been stung by a bee when driving? (thats happened to me).

139

Gee Dee,

Edinburgh 23/02/2007 13:33:37

Corroboration would be provided by two police officers !!!!! I got done back in 198??? for jumpimg a red light at the top of Leith Street by two cops on the beat who tapped on the window when I stopped at the second set outside the Old Post Office, went to court and got Done by Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dumb's statements and I maintain to this day that I did not jump the light. So we are at the percy of Plod ?? better not drive any more flash motors then

140

The Jannie,

Out there 23/02/2007 13:39:09

Anyone who uses a mobile while driving deserves all they get.

141

Professor22,

23/02/2007 13:42:21

#138 Scott 'Ola' Foam

"Drivers who have been stung by a bee when driving? (thats happened to me)."

LOL

Yup happened to me as well, in Perth came screeching to a halt in the middle of the road acting like a crazed lunny swiping my chest.

thats it.

lets Ban BEES.....Fine the Bees,,,,, hang the Bees I say, take them down!

142

Professor22,

23/02/2007 13:48:56

126. Charles MN

Charles, re your 4 points.

I would suggest that its a bit more complicated than that.

Courts in england are charging offenders with failure to furnish (S172) and the speeding charge in an attempt to frighten people.

When they go to court, they remove the s172 on production of the pace statement, but then try to use the pace statement as evidence of identity at the time of the offence. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesnt.

the biggest problem in Scotland is the arrogant Procurator Fiscal system who wont disclosure the evidence to you (tape etc).

Wink Wink, thats going to change soon though as well.

Trevor McDonald tonight on 26/02

143

Scott 'Ola' Foam,

Anywhere but here 23/02/2007 13:49:22

Screech to a halt I just about jumped out the car window.

Picture this Summer window open, bee flying along all of a sudden sucked in a car window ends up down my back and stings me in my ass.

Iam doing about 50 in a 50 I try to stand up in my car, out of shock at being stung in the ass which is kind of half standing up half out the window.

Could have been some serious fatalities at that on including my ass.

144

Tiny Tim,

Home 23/02/2007 13:54:41

It seems there are two types of people that enter discussions such as these, there are the gullable who insist on believing the 'spin' spouted by this government, spin such as 'speed kills', 'man-made global warming', 'congestion charging will reduce congestion', and of course the 'weapons of mass destruction in Iraq' (will you never learn?), and then there are those who think outside the box a little as they group together the various inaccuracies surronding the 'spin' and ask themselves 'if government can lie to us in order to satify some hidden agenda with regards to WMD and reasons for going to war, can't the do it again with regards to other political hidden agendas?' - to the gullable I say this don't condemn those of us that seek to get to the truth, or those of us who value their freedoms and liberties, because the ramifications of what they seek to protect is immense and is for your benefit to.

Remember:
'Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me'

145

Lawman,

Lawville 23/02/2007 13:58:48

I challenge a TV crew to get out there and film Police cars.
I doubt it will take long to catch one driving while on his mobile!

It's the same as Police cars constantly breaking the speed limits with no emergency to attend.

146

Professor22,

23/02/2007 14:22:18

Ahem, you mean tetra handsets (not mobiles)

The fact that it looks like a phone, and works like a phone doesnt count.

Cause it works on a different frequency to those allocated in the new law.

There was no need for this law, its for financial benefit.

Police used the offence of Careless Driving for 20 years before this new law was brought in.

147

The Guzz,

Fife 23/02/2007 14:23:02

Firstly to those who may have grasped the wrong end of the stick, I ‘am’ against anyone using a mobile phone while driving a vehicle. I just do not agree with the intended way of dealing with it.
131. JG – I am aware of the differences between crimes but in definition a crime is a crime and the same rules of justice should prevail. You said “JG, Fife / 12:51pm 23 Feb 2007 #109 Professor22 I think it's folly to have taken the Sec. 172 law to Europe. I understand people who have been convicted of speeding and having to give their details on a form would wish to avoid having to pay the fine/be disqualified (I would probably feel the same myself!!) but they should remember it would apply across the board. REAL car criminals will also be exempted from obeying this rule - talk about tying the Police's hands behind their backs!!!
134. PC McGarry#452 – That’s certainly what comes across.
135. fedup with toasters – I think that you have admirably displayed the level of your argument. I have nowhere in my postings said that I have a ‘knowledge’ of the law. I would say that if I have been the victim of a crime then yes, I would expect the police to do something about it. But if ‘threatened,’ to run crying to a big nasty policeman (your words) is the last thing that I would do. You do not know me or anything about me and your style of judgement says more about you than about me. As for a low IQ and my political allegiance. What a presumptuous ass you are. It’s Time.

148

The Guzz,

Fife 23/02/2007 14:26:24

139. Gee Dee - You are far from alone in cases like this.

149

JG,

Fife 23/02/2007 14:31:52

#147 The Guzz
I really don't like having to pass all of our laws through an approval system based in Europe. I think if you disagree with anything (including the current laws) then of course you should be allowed to protest it - but we should be very careful we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. In some instances Sec. 172 can be a very useful tool but I won't argue with you if you feel it's being overused or abused.

150

Lawman,

Lawville 23/02/2007 14:32:17

#146. if you're referring to my post(145).

No, I did mean his mobile.
His wife,mate or granny can't call him up on his police radio.

I agree with you that driving without due care and attention has covered this offence for years.
It certainly appears that L&B Police are seeing it as a low effort cash cow.

151

roon,

23/02/2007 14:34:22

this law will only be enforced by traffic officers or by officers who aspire to be in the traffic dept and have to show a significant interest in road traffic matters in their record of work. if not they will not be backed by their line managers. in my experience traffic cops join this dept because they are scared of dealing with the neds and want to lord it over the general public. they are simply wooden tops who ruin good witnesses to crimes by their overbearing bully boy tactics. they are also the worst offenders of road traffic law both on and off duty. in addition they are also told by their sergeants to go out and fill their book of endorseable and non-endorseable fixed penalties. moreover traffic cops only do a four week course at the police colledge so never listen to them when they tell you that they are expert drivers. they do not have any sort of advanced licence. their procedures are also shoddy, they will never caution you or read over the statutory warning in terms of section 1 of the road traffic offenders act. if you do not pay the fine challenge them and have your day in court. their evidence will be abismal - because they never get the practice....you may even win

152

roon,

23/02/2007 14:47:01

there is a massive shortage of properly qualified police drivers in the biggest force in scotland...i.e. those who have done the 2 week hazzard awareness course. to fill this gap officers are now given breif training on a course lasting 1 day. they are not allowed to break the speed limit or even activate the blue flashing lights. if they want to stop a car. they must ask for assistance of a qualified colleague or chap the driver's window when stopped at a red light. in any court proceedings involving a road traffic matter, it would be prudent to ask the officer if they had completed the full driving course. it is misconduct for these unqualified police drivers to stop carry out any of the above - even in an emergency!

153

Professor22,

23/02/2007 15:08:57

156. rosford,

Thats strange for all the speed cameras on the road drivers still pass me doing the ton plus.

I doubt if you ahve ever sat in Court?

Maybe when you do youll see the amount of waste of time and money to get Chavs and Druggies to plead guilty to smashing someone up, burgulary, etcetc. Only to see the Sheriff send for social reports then fine the guy £50 at £5 per week. Its a joke!

I say it again.... There was nothing wrong with the Careless Driving rule... This is income generation at a massive scale

154

Robert,

Kirriemuir 23/02/2007 15:12:02

There are no worse offenders than those who think they are smart at flouting the law! How delightful to note that prosecution by the police is being made easier. It is unlikely to stop some of those dumb-dumbs from using the phone while driving but it sure will stop them driving for a while if sufficient points are accumulated which will help to keep them and death off the roads and help to pay towards road maintenance. What a nice easy way of collecting finance. Long may it reign! A much welcomed piece of legislation.

155

petrol head,

Edinburgh 23/02/2007 16:08:30

#145: Lawman

Good point. I recently followed a marked cop car (not on a shout) for about 3 miles through city streets (30mph limits) and at times, she hit over 50mph. I backed off at that point because I considered it to be too dangerous to follow her.

I was under the impression that Police were only allowed to exceed the speed limit when on a shout with blues and twos or during special covert operations. Neither of these applied in this case.

I'm certainly no fan of speed limits but I think it's a bit much when you can't keep up with a cop car because it's going too fast for the conditions.

156

zigzag,

Canada 23/02/2007 16:11:26

Lets have this in Canada as well.

Whats so important about talking whilst driving. Can one not wait to have a blather when one is not mobile (pun intended) on wheels. Whats the rush.

I sure as heck would not want to be run over by a cell phone using driver. Prefer one delibrately runs me down because he or she is pissed off by the spouse...now that is cause.

Lets be fair and if you are driving, cut out the chatter.

I'd love to see the same persons being ticketed many times on the same day on the drive along chatting...imagine losing all ones points in one day...broke as well.

Bring oot the bobbies in force...

I mind of a song that went : "I'll tell the bobby , I'll tell the bobby.....

157

Tiny Tim,

Home 23/02/2007 16:22:00

134. PC McGarry#452 said:
"It seems that there are far too many people here concerned with evading justice rather than admitting that using a moby whilst driving is plain WRONG!"

159. Robert, Kirriemuir said:
"There are no worse offenders than those who think they are smart at flouting the law! "

Unfortunately, it is those which are supposed to uphold the law that flaunt it the most and get away with it legally (all legal expenses paid for by the tax payer of course) - one law for 'them' and one for 'us' it seems - is that OK?

Why is it that using a mobile phone whilst driving, even though they are still able to watch where they are going whilst doing so, is seen as a very dangerous distraction, yet being forced to constantly monitor the speedometer, thereby taking the drivers visual cognitive processes away from other road users, as they HAVE to in order to ensure they do not exceed a posted speed limit is not a distraction? It couldn’t have anything to do with political correctness – could it? It is certainly not common sense that's for sure.

158

CombatVet68,

USA 23/02/2007 16:31:12

#160

Butchers get free meat becuz they are butchers, politicians get away with crimes becuz they make the laws, and cops get to speed and break "minor" laws becuz their buddies wont write em up.

Have any of you opened your eyes and realized that we are seeing more and more of our individual liberties abridged or proclaimed "violations of law"?

I spent 16 years as a police officer, working my way up through the ranks to patrol sergeant and then special investigator. A daily part of the job was to talk on my car radio or hand set (Walkie Talkie) while driving a mo0tor vehicle. Sometimes in high speed pursuit.

Does this law also apply to cops while driving down the road? I think not. May I submit that this is nothing more than a gimmick to generate more revenue for the ALL TOO BIG government which is subtly gaining more and more control of our lives.

I am no longer a Law Enforcement Officer, for the hypocricy of our law makers, our unfair and corrupt judicial system, serves only the powerful and influential. There is no justice in our courts. We have professional criminals making laws which we, the common man and woman must obey or suffer the consequences.

159

wulliesdad,

Terrace BC Canada 23/02/2007 16:59:09

Regarding the latest news on the use of mobile phones etc while driving. In my part of the world it has got right out of control, I have just returned from Vancouver and it seems that 99% of drivers are guilty of this. Iam praying that our Govnt., here can get their act together and follow the Scots in putting a stop to this absolute lunacy!!!!

160

The Guzz,

Fife 23/02/2007 17:11:57

149. JG – I agree with all you say above including the usefulness of Sec. 172. However I do feel that there is abuse of the system and a fair number of policemen who would have no qualms in fitting people up to fulfil their quotas.

161

Pelon,

NM, USA 23/02/2007 17:14:10

re 165 - Aye, and here too, but it ain't the gummint gonna stop it - it's us! Test yourselves, folks. Do ya really think you're paying full attention to the road, when you're paying some attention to the phone?

162

fedup with toasters,

23/02/2007 17:15:18

I went fishing and caught a guzz so easy!!

163

Bobby Blue,

Maghull Merseyside Lancashire 23/02/2007 17:20:45

Oh! I wish I had a motor car it's better than a bike for a motor car can go so far and almost where you like.
And then I could ring me mum and dad which is difficult on me bike.
But I'll ask that nice Lady who I saw talking on her phone who has just knocked me over to ring me mum and dad.
And to tell them both I've been hurt right bad.
Gosh! mum the pain has not half made me wee.
So! please mum! I'll try not to cry but I won't be home for tea.

164

The Guzz,

Fife 23/02/2007 17:25:23

168. fedup with toasters – You wish.

165

Paul S.,

Mauricetown, NJ, USA 23/02/2007 17:29:26

#21 — But even before the distracted-driving dangers under discussion here, there were and still are the idiots who, especially in dark colored cars, do not follow the law — at least where I live in the US — that if your windshield wipers are going you must have your headlights turned on. It's very dangerous to be nearly invisible to oncoming traffic with limited visibility conditions.

In addition to the cellphone-while-driving danger, there are also the lighting-up-a-cigarette-while- driving-danger, and the inserting-a-tape-or-CD- while-driving danger, to say nothing of the two-handed activity of trying-to-open-a-soda-bottle-or-can-while-driving danger.

166

Open Minded,

Not in the car 23/02/2007 17:56:12

Think Car
Think Mobile Phone
Think Loved One
Think Accident
Think Again

167

the runt,

23/02/2007 18:29:40

another step closer to a police state, the law is on the laws side on this one, so you piss a policeman off who says he wont send you a ticket...... of course corruption doesnt exist in lthian and borders finest........huh

168

musicmadmama,

23/02/2007 18:34:10

I agree drivers using mobile phones are dangerous however I really object to a passing policeman being able to get a fixed penalty sent through the post without checking what the driver is doing. I was stopped last year and accused of using a mobile while driving. I didn't own a mobile at all so was bewildered by this. The police had been at a junction and saw me stopped at traffic lights. I had a really sore ear infection and reached up to feel my swollen glands and they followed me with their bloomin siren on then accused me of using a phone. My son though it hilarious as I hate the things but the officer wouldn't believe me and was really obnoxious. His partner could barely hide his laughter at his idiot partner's mistake. The idiot kept on and on about using a phone in spite of my saying I was happy to go to the station and have my car and bag searched to prove there was no phone in the car. I said okay fine me for having earache! Now he could issue a fixed penalty do just that!

169

Scattergood,

Oklahoma - USA 23/02/2007 18:40:31

Glad to see the crackdown and wish it could be implemented here. Vapid, lame-brain kids are the worst offenders ... and they have the least driving experience.

Glad, also, to see 2-way mobile equipment specifically exempted. Have been an amateur radio operator for years, and knowing lawmakers have the sense to give us a pass is much appreciated. When legislation is passed in the U.S. - and it will be, state-by-state - I hope the 2-way exemption survives.

170

ex ex-pat,

edinburgh 23/02/2007 18:42:32

Paul in New Jersey - you are totally correct. ANYTHING which distracts a driver from driving should be penalised - even listening to the radio or to music or pod casts or anything else whcih takes your mind off what you should be doing is DANGEROUS and WRONG.
People tend to believe they are safe in their own little world i.e. car, and forget that they are in fact in charge of a lethal weapon. More should be done to emphasise the dangers inherent in driving a car - or riding a bike or motor bike - and to force the public to lose its complacency.

171

Perplexed,

Brighton 23/02/2007 19:01:29

Two points
1. Having been caught by a mobile camera for speeding whilst trying to avoid an oncoming vehicle and told by a policeman that there was no point in pleading circumstances as the courts would not recognise that as a legitimate excuse I had to accept the penalty and criminal record.
2. The principal established in point (1) means that the courts do not recognise that you as an individual have any rights for external circumstances to prevail.
Following on from this if you wish to report dangerous driving whilst on a motorway and you report the incident by mobile phone you are deemed to be as guilty as the offender, i.e. you do not have a defence in law. So if you wish to safeguard your own or other peoples safety then either break the law or suffer the consequences or let the offence continue and risk others getting killed or injured.
Once again we see good intentions being subverted by bad law.
In case you are remotely interested the bad driving in question was a lorry swerving between lanes 1 and 2 on the M1, the incident was reported to the police by mobile phone as it was happening. But then the points established state that this is no defence. All I hope is that the police caught the idiot before he caused irreparable damage to life and limb. Next time I ask the question. Is it worth a fine and a criminal record? Hopefully I will say yes but I wonder!

172

IWright,

Edinburgh 23/02/2007 19:07:46

Perhaps more people will get those heavily tinted windows so you can't be seen, whatever it is you're doing. I thought they were illegal, but people use them and they are not something you can hide.

173

Pachamama,

Lost Somewhere on the Planet Earth 23/02/2007 19:12:46

My grandson was killed by two people talking on their mobiles. One slammed into the rear of his vehicle pushing him into oncoming traffic. The other broadsided him. Two points and a small fine? Laughable.

174

missing home,

23/02/2007 19:15:38

Two scariest car incidents for me; riding as a passenger with a friend who turning around to address her young child in the cack seat actually resulted in the car moving into the next lane, luckily there was not another car right there! Secondly, my son picked up his sis from school and was stopped leaving the parking lot until he could enter the roadway safely, a mum in a minivan rear ended him and knocked his car into the street. Again, luckily, no one was badly hurt. She was mucking about with her kids and paying no attention to her driving. First thing she said? Not 'I'm so sorry, is anyone hurt?' No it was 'Oh, my poor van, I just had it fixed'!
So while using mobile phones, applying make up, shaving etcare potentially dangerous and should not be done, a lot depends on the skill of the driver. We surely shopuldn't need to be legislated into using common sense!

175

ex ex-pat,

edinburgh 23/02/2007 19:21:13

Unfortunately it seems we do need to be legislated into using common sense - and in answer to Perplexed of Brighton, OK, there ARE occasions when using a mobile phone is necessary. I would do it and to hell with the fine and points, in certain circumstances, but I would NOT use the phone for anything other than emergencies.

176

missing home,

23/02/2007 19:24:51

Meant to add, could you not prove you weren't on the phone with your phone bill? My daughters shows time and date and number called.

177

Arthur,

23/02/2007 19:59:52

I got a car Years ago, Then I got a mobile phone, I also had a brain for a lot longer than eaither. That brain told me that making a telephone call whilst driving a car was obvious stupidity. I needed no law to make the point, so I will never be fined for this offence. It is esay
no one needs to make or take a call while moving, if you really have to there is blue tooth and hands free systems, which are quite legal, what's the problem
ther is no pont in complaining against this, it is a ban
which proves the exception of my dislike for bans generally. It should not be neccessary but people can be so stupid. If you must make or take a call
and you don't have hands free, then stop when it is safe to do so..

178

cabrach loon,

inverness 23/02/2007 20:44:11

OK fine - but how about talking to a passenger is that the next crime, judging by the conversations one sees in cars on films and TV most of those drivers are doing far worse than using a mobile phone, and I must agree also that there should be no exemption for police or Govt officials - the hazard is exactly the same if not worse because the police are so often speeding in restricted zones.

More half baked knee jerk legislation.?
I just hope the public are ready with their cameras as the cops fly by!

179

cabrach loon,

inverness 23/02/2007 20:50:05

I forgot to consider the other factors, passengers talkng and listening to the radio are often essentials for overcoming the monotony of moturway driving, likewise eating can be needed to overcome indigestion etc. between those horrible service areas that fine you if you stay and rest more than 2hrs during a long night drive to avoid the hellish daytime traffic congestion caused by lack of investment and creating a third world road system for the UK

180

Arthur,

23/02/2007 21:05:42

184) Talking on your mobile with hands free is just the same as talking to a passenger, there is I am told a difference between men and women on this whereas men tend to look dead ahead, women need to look at the passenger to gauge reaction and that is a dangerous distraction. So let's have no more excuses
using a mobile without hands free while driving is just
stupid.

181

nigelpiper,

Florida 23/02/2007 21:08:52

Way to go.
Wish they would do it here. Driving in the USA is incredibly dangerous, even without the ever present distraction of cell phones. Zero road courtesy. Four of my daugter's friends have been killed, in 3 accidents. Of course, they don't have a driving test here that's worth a damn.

182

Arthur,

23/02/2007 21:12:24

187) But they do have a 50mph speed limit don't they?
while ours is 70mph and they say speed kills.
Still I'm smug enough to believe that British drivers are still amoung the best in the world.

183

Different Drummer,

Midwest, USA 23/02/2007 21:24:31

Arthur, British drivers might be the best. I do know they are the most polite!

Nigelpiper, I think it's bad all over the USA, too. I've driven in several different locales. Kansas City has got to be one of the worst for rude & crazy drivers--all while chatting on the phone. Many times, I've wanted to tell people to hang up and drive! Especially when they edge over into my lane!

184

The Phantom Geordie,

23/02/2007 21:24:51

Roon (151 &152)
just managed to read your comments. Exactly how are u qualified to make these observations. I'm interested to know, having completed the advanced driving course at the Scottish Police College myself along with every other Road Policing officer in Scotland. Have u? I get the impression the answer is no as your comments are, in the main, utter,utter GARBAGE.
Just for future reference:
3 week standard driving course
4 week pre-advanced driving course
5 week advanced driving course at the SPC
enough driver training for you?

185

JG,

Fife 23/02/2007 21:51:31

#189 Different Drummer
What about Dallas and Houston? One guy in Dallas came onto the freeway and went straight from the "on-ramp" right across into the outside lane in one move - I nearly sh!t myself!!! The drivers in Houston have never even heard the words "driver courtesy"!!!!!

186

Miss Jean Brodie,

23/02/2007 22:36:47

Ya’ve got less chance o gettin a ticket if ye knick the car and carry a gun in this day and age!

More *rse made o the people who are feared o a wee criminal rekkid keepin them oot o that joab in the bank - Pay up! pay up! ha ha ha ha

187

Tomdonald,

23/02/2007 23:03:09

Some amazing comments from people happy to break the law indiscriminately in the presumed belief that they wont/cant be caught. Why this attitude applies to motoring I dont understand
If you are prepared to break the law how do you decide which ones to break - murder, theft, perjury, rape, child abuse, and so on down to speed limits. I suspect it is a gamble that it is odds on not to be caught. People who break the law should be punished. The motorist should not expect to be excepted.

188

Justice Seeker,

Can you say "1984"? (USA) 23/02/2007 23:12:20

How Orwellian (referring to George Orwell) and how chickensh*t. Reminds me of the "photo radar" they have in certain parts of the States that take a pic of your license plate and send a speding ticket to your residence! How the hell do you defend yourself against a machine? What happened to presumed innocence? Score anotherone for the spraling juggernaut of Big Brother. BTW, in the state of Oregon (US), not only is it illegal to use a cellphone while "driving" but eat a candy bar, take a drink of water - ANYTHING! Apprently the international agencies are playing "follow the leader" with these assinine "laws" them embellishing them. Sign me..

DISGUSTED

189

Plodjfriss, Hammer of the Numpties,

23/02/2007 23:13:58

184, 186: I believe that research has shown that there is a difference between talking to a passenger and talking to someone on a mobile phone. If you're having a conversation with a passenger then the passenger will usually stop talking when something potentially dangerous is about to happen (overtaking, entering a roundabout, approaching a set of traffic lights...), but this doesn't happen with the phone: the person on the other end has no idea what's going on on the road and so just keeps on talking.

I thinnk that it's also been shown that hands-free phones don't offer any improvement in safety: the driver is still being distracted by something that's irrelevant to driving the car, and that's what really causes problems.

190

Justice Seeker,

Can you say "1984"? (USA) 23/02/2007 23:15:57

To the guy who posted right before me... "They came for the Catholics.. and I said nothing.. they came for the Jews.. and I said nothing..." Something to think about, mate, as history certainly repeats itself. THE ONLY THING THAT BECOMES A CRIME IS THAT WHICH IS FOISTED UPON THE CITIZENRY WHO SLEEPS THROUGH IT. Wake up, or soon you'll face the Orwellian Thought Crime dilemma.

191

Justice Seeker,

Can you say "1984"? (USA) 23/02/2007 23:17:10

Stupid sheep.. just like here.

192

Justice Seeker,

Can you say "1984"? (USA) 23/02/2007 23:35:04

(Was referring to #193)

193

Russell M,

Stirling 23/02/2007 23:58:54

What procedures are in place to be sure they don't misread the reg number? Will they have to include make, model, or colour? Just wait until you get the letter through the post because someone transposed two characters of the reg number.

"You do not examine legislation in light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered." ~ Lyndon B. Johnson

194

connaughtboy,

24/02/2007 00:23:54

#13 - What law on corroboration? Last time I was stopped for speeding it was by one police constable. No corroboration needed!

195

Stewart_in_Oz,

Queensland 24/02/2007 02:13:32

How about the pathetic occasion when massive resources were used to stop a woman who had been eating an apple?
Currently I drive a bus and use a 2Way holding the mike. The only reason it is not penalised is that not that it's not dangerous but that there is nothing in the legislation.
The answer would be to put a Chip and Transponder in the SIM Card and track them with Cell Towers (or Satellites as per GPS). If they are in use and moving at more than 10m.p.h. This then could be monitored by another branch of the Law Enforcement Agencies sitting in from of screens as per Air Traffic Control Towers. Moving SIM Cards could then be monitored and Surface to surface missiles fired targeting the user. Don't laugh. It could be already a possibility under trial.

196

retiredsco,

Poughkeepsie NY USA 24/02/2007 02:21:58

Hang in there folks, next drinking tea/coffee or eating a sandwich will be banned..As in New Jersey USA

197

Debbra,

USA 24/02/2007 03:53:37

I have a cell phone and I pull over to use it. Of course, if I pull over off a street a cop will stop and ask what I'm doing? Now that's a waste of time, considering the crime in the States. I always pull into a store parking lot, or somewhere cops can't complain about! People who insist upon using their cells while driving should be ticketed and loose their license after the second notice/ticket-pay to go to drivers' education and the hazards of driving while using a phone. But the question of having to prove you are innocent is disturbing! If the government wants to make a law with IDIOTIC if, ands/ buts, THEY SHOULD HAVE TO HAVE A DATE/TIME STAMPED PHOTO OF THE PERSON ON THE PHONE! Do NOT let Blair and buddies get away with this one! HOLD THE LAWMAKERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE LAWS THEY INSIST ON MAKING RATHER THAN ADDRESSING THE REAL PROBLEM. The kits are not that expensive, however, too many people get too involved in their phone conversation rather than watching the road and pedestrians. This crap of having to prove your innocense is BUSHISM, IN CASE YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT! AND WHATEVER BUSH DOES BLAIR AND BUDDIES ARE SOON TO FOLLOW. In the States, a cop can claim you are drunk while walking down the street, and throw you in jail. You have NO recourse, because they do not let you out, if at all, until your Blood Alcohol Content (B.A.C.) is under .08! AND DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE YOU WERE DRUNK-NO B.A.C. IS TAKEN! This crap is communistic, and all of the "good 'ol boys" (B, B, and Buddies) are taking it too far. Cell phone are a conveinence, but knowing how and when to use them, is only COMMON SENSE! MAKE THEM HAVE EVIDENCE THAT YOU WERE TALKING ON THE PHONE! Sure your cell phone bill will have the date and time of use, BUT does anyone really have the time to satisfy a bunch of idiots, who lie more than those they arrest? Talk about backing up the court dockets? That is what is done here, and the real cases which need to be heard, are put off for longer per

198

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta , California 24/02/2007 05:48:57

#7 Banoo.

These guys #1 ,#3 have nothing better to do, but waste time every day on these threads.

But as the French say "to each they own"

HAND.................. have a nice day

GC

199

Chris W,

Argyll 24/02/2007 07:52:04

I thought there was supposed to be evidence before someone could be prosecuted for a crime? This sloppy policing opens the door to false allegations and plain errors of judgement (what if you happen to be scratching your ear as you drive past the policeman?). If we had enough police patrols on our roads to stop the idiots who forget to drive when they get a phone call we wouldn't have a problem. And isn't it telling that cyclists are let off? You don't have to be politically correct to escape prosecution in Blair's Britin - but it helps.

200

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 24/02/2007 09:32:48

I've invented a device which scrambles policemens low tech robot brain chip. Any takers? I was working on one for politicians but then realised that their brain chips are already scrambled.

201

Heilan laddie,

24/02/2007 10:58:24

I just think this shows how much we are turning into a Authoritarian State, gradually eroding our civil liberties and being watched all the time. The fact is we are turning into a Police State. Where is it all going to end. We have more surveillance in this country than any other country in the world and if you live and work in London or any other major city the chances are you will have been photographed more than 300 times by the time you reach work.
The authorities are struggling to cope with real crime and the Prison Service is in crisis with over crowded jails, so what do they do? They pick a soft target to make their success rate on crime look good just like every time someone gets caught speeding they say "Oh! Look! We have caught another criminal".
Time for them to start catching murderers, terrorists, paedophiles and illegal immigrants.
But of course, I suppose they are trying to make up for all the criminals that were here illegally that was set free to offend again.

202

The Phantom Geordie,

Glasgow 24/02/2007 12:13:59

Just for everyone's info on here - i for one will only be giving tickets to folk i actually stop when i see them on a mobile. This is the first i've heard of this new policy of remote prosecutions for mobile offences- and i dont agree with it. We all make mistakes and i wouldn;t be happy if i ended up losing someone their licence because they had an itchy ear!


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.