If You Spoil Your Ballot Paper ..
How it Works1 min ago
Time To Make Phone Usage The Equivalent Of Drink/Drug Driving?
25 Answers
https:/
I've been saying it's actually more dangerous than DD, especially non talking activities, this guy was using a dating app FGS! 12 month instant ban + fine, it's inevitable. 3 innocents dead and the Perp lives. Disgusting.
I've been saying it's actually more dangerous than DD, especially non talking activities, this guy was using a dating app FGS! 12 month instant ban + fine, it's inevitable. 3 innocents dead and the Perp lives. Disgusting.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//It is now specifically illegal. Following changes on 25 March 2022, motorists are breaking the law if they use a handheld mobile phone behind the wheel for any use.//
As Gromit points out, Zacs, it has been a specific offence since 2003. All went (relatively) well until 2017 when a certain Ramsey Barreto was caught using his phone to photograph an accident on the adjacent carriageway. He was prosecuted for mobile phone use but declined the offer of a fixed penalty. Instead he pleaded not guilty in the Magistrates' Court, saying that it was his son, sitting in the passenger seat, who had used the phone. The Magistrates rejected his defence so he appealed to the Crown Court, using the same basis. The Crown Court also rejected his defence but his barrister cited a recent case at Harrow Crown Court where the defendant was acquitted of using his phone to listen to music because it did not involve any external communication (as the statute requires). As a result of this, Mr Barreto was acquitted by the Crown Court but the DPP, fearful of floodgates opening, took the matter by way of a "case stated" to the High Court for clarification of the law. The High Court ruled against the DPP:
https:/
That was in July 2019 and the ruling meant that, from then on, the prosecution had to prove that the phone was being used for "interactive communication" for a prosecution to succeed.
The government acted swiftly (!) and in March of this year an amendment was introduced to s110 of the Road Vehicle Construction & Use Regulations prohibiting virtually all use of mobile phones whilst driving. This is the change that you are referring to. There is, however, a specific exception to allow their use for making contactless payments at drive-through establishments.
As Gromit points out, Zacs, it has been a specific offence since 2003. All went (relatively) well until 2017 when a certain Ramsey Barreto was caught using his phone to photograph an accident on the adjacent carriageway. He was prosecuted for mobile phone use but declined the offer of a fixed penalty. Instead he pleaded not guilty in the Magistrates' Court, saying that it was his son, sitting in the passenger seat, who had used the phone. The Magistrates rejected his defence so he appealed to the Crown Court, using the same basis. The Crown Court also rejected his defence but his barrister cited a recent case at Harrow Crown Court where the defendant was acquitted of using his phone to listen to music because it did not involve any external communication (as the statute requires). As a result of this, Mr Barreto was acquitted by the Crown Court but the DPP, fearful of floodgates opening, took the matter by way of a "case stated" to the High Court for clarification of the law. The High Court ruled against the DPP:
https:/
That was in July 2019 and the ruling meant that, from then on, the prosecution had to prove that the phone was being used for "interactive communication" for a prosecution to succeed.
The government acted swiftly (!) and in March of this year an amendment was introduced to s110 of the Road Vehicle Construction & Use Regulations prohibiting virtually all use of mobile phones whilst driving. This is the change that you are referring to. There is, however, a specific exception to allow their use for making contactless payments at drive-through establishments.
Ymb,
I have been doing some research on your Roamer 2000 phone. It was made by The Mitsubishi corporation and was released in 1989.
It used 1G which was analogue, so no texting or email.
It was dearer 33 years ago than the current top end iPhone and weighed 545 grams (the iPhone 13 weights 141 grams).
When it was first launched it had a major software bug which caused the phone to lock itself making it un-usable. This was resolved with a software update. It also suffered from extremely bad battery life.
Due to its size, and lack of digital network, it is unlikely it could have been used while driving.
I have been doing some research on your Roamer 2000 phone. It was made by The Mitsubishi corporation and was released in 1989.
It used 1G which was analogue, so no texting or email.
It was dearer 33 years ago than the current top end iPhone and weighed 545 grams (the iPhone 13 weights 141 grams).
When it was first launched it had a major software bug which caused the phone to lock itself making it un-usable. This was resolved with a software update. It also suffered from extremely bad battery life.
Due to its size, and lack of digital network, it is unlikely it could have been used while driving.
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
What Is Wrong With People ... Part N
News5 mins ago
Not Only Are Primary Schools Teaching...
News7 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.