Hands-Free?

[bhg481]

I saw a man driving a van today with his cellphone wedged between his ear and his shoulder. I wonder if he could argue it was "hands-free".

It's always possible, of course, that he started his phone call before he started the engine, so at no time whilst he was driving did his hands touch the phone.

[2sp_]

It doesn't count as hands-free if it's not a hands-free device. Wedging it between your shoulder and ear doesn't count.

I'm amazed at how many people I still see talking on their mobile while driving.

[whiskeryron]

Hands-Free OR Brains-Free ?

[rockyracoon]

I had a count up while walking the dog the other morning, out of 10 cars that passed me, 7 were on the phone. Ridiculous!

[bhg481]

We catch a bus several times a week on the A4 just outside Reading. We usually stand for about 5mins and almost always see someone using a phone.

[boxtops]

There was a feature in the papers last week about this, the hugely high percentage of people who still do it. Why don't they get prosecuted?

[rockyracoon]

I'm sure I read somewhere that it was more dangerous than drink driving, if this is true then they should be disqualified in the same way.

[whiskeryron]

The solution is quite simple really, they so love their phones, when caught don't take the phone off them,take the CAR off them & destroy it.

[Hopkirk]

Even hands free isn't really safe - the same parts of the brain are used for the conversation and thinking about the driving.

- so I suppose actually that women would be safe as they can multi-task.

[sunny-dave]

We had a problem with landfill drivers - a stream of them driving through the village & all on the phone.

Three of us with Hi-Viz jackets, a clipboard & a big DSLR camera stood by the roadside ... I've never seen so many phones dropped onto the floor of trucks :+)

[grumpy01]

Police not interested in these offences,only interested in parking their cash cows by the side of the road.

[DaisyNonna]

All the police in my town must be working undercover.
Under cover of that smart office block 4 miles out of the town centre.
First no uniformed police on the streets, then no plastic police on the streets, did see a police car about two weeks ago.

[New Judge]

Whether or not the phone is held against the shoulder is not relevant. The legislation defines the equipment, not how it is used. The definition of a hand-held device is:

"Hand-held device – something that "is or must be held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function".

Note the "is or must be", not "was". Somebody using such a device, regardless of how it is used will be guilty of an offence.

[Canary42]

///Police not interested in these offences,only interested in parking their cash cows by the side of the road.///

Ridiculous statement - there are thousands of motorists penalised for using mobile phones while driving. But the police can't be everywhere and the penalties (not determined by the police) are paltry. This relentless and unjustified attack on the police as a whole is undermining the rule of law in this country - you will regret it when it finally breaks down completely.

[whiskeryron]

Does the same rule of law cover holding & consuming a banana,any other fruit,a jam doughnut or drinking a cup of coffee whilst driving ? This is not a flippant question believe me I have seen all of the above happening when out & about.

[Tilly2]

I think there shouldbe a 'shop an idiot' phoneline which you could call and report the numberplate of said idiot. I know it wouldn't workbecause there would be no proof but it really exasperates me seeing so many idiots using their phones whilst driving.
I saw someone the other day negotiating a double mini roundabout whilst holding his phone and chatting away. Of course, he was steering with one hand. IDIOT!

[tonyav]

Most of the idiots I see with a mobile phone held to their ear while driving happen to be driving White vans.

[pixie373]

Holding it between your ear and shoulder means you can't turn your head properly. Wouldn't that be reckless driving, or something anyway?
According to the definition NJ has posted- there's a bit of a problem anyway. Mobiles have speakerphone and you could easily dial and have a whole conversation without ever picking up the phone (i often do that in the kitchen)- so which are the devices that come under-
//Hand-held device – something that "is or must be held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function". // ? I can't think of any...

[New Judge]

If the device can be operated entirely without “holding” it then it would not be covered by the legislation. So your example, pixie, would probably not fall foul of the law. However, wedging it between the shoulder and ear would certainly be seen as “holding” the device.

“Does the same rule of law cover holding & consuming a banana,any other fruit,a jam doughnut or drinking a cup of coffee whilst driving ? “

The same law does not apply, ron, as it only applies to phones and other communication devices. However, other general laws such as failure to exercise proper control or even careless driving may be applicable.

[New Judge]

I quite agree with your sentiment about those with twelve or more points still being allowed to drive, methyl.

The option to argue "exceptional hardship" when twelve points are accumulated should be removed from the statute. A similar opportunity does not exist where offences involving mandatory bans are involved (such as excess alcohol). The penalty of disqualification is mandatory and that's that. So it should be with those "totting up". A driver has to commit at least two or more usually four offences to fall foul of this rule and if they are likely to suffer "exceptional hardship" they have plenty of oppotunity to moderate their driving behaviour.