Drivers using mobile phones

[Avocetz]

With so many drivers flouting the law if I take a photograph of them and their car no plate am I breaking any law and if not and I pass said photographs to the police will they prosecute?

[Panic Button]

How could you prove when the offence took place? It could be before the current law.

[whiffy]

I don't think the new penalties will make any difference. I make a point of counting handheld mobiles on my 4-mile daily bike ride. This morning - 4. One was a white builder's van, turning right on to a main road, sun in eyes, phone in right hand. I pointed at him and shouted out "Mobile phone !!" as I always do, and as so frequently, was met with "F--- off C---"

It would be lovely to take a photo and shop the dangerous inconsiderate swine, but that is never going to work. For starters, you'd never be able to prove date/time.

[dannywells]

Avocetz, with any luck the flash from your camera will blind the driver and he/she will run you down

[Grunty]

In theory it is possible to do so, with or without the camera. A case can be proved by the evidence of a single credible witness. It is not necessary for that evidence to be corroborated by a camera or anything else, unless you live in Scotland where the rules are different. You would need to keep complete notes of all the circumstances including traffic and weather conditions and be able to point out the driver when you saw him/her in court. You would also need to be absolutely sure that the object in the driver's hand was a mobile phone and not some other device. The only certain way to do that would be to stop the vehicle, which you are not allowed to do.

[dannywells]

what nonsense any court would throw that out

some muppet can take a dislike to me and call the police and say i was on the phone, its his word against mine, you need more as one witness

[Compostella]

Why not take it one stage further and take picures of shoplifters, or drug dealers, or buglars?

Honestly................... You are as bad as the police! Only looking for the easy targets.

[harassedmum]

I so agree with last answer, perhaps they have found there vocation in life, Gods, why dont they get a life!

[whiffy]

Same 30-minute 4-mile bike ride, NINE handheld mobiles.

[Jay70]

I'm amazed some people dont think this is a serious issue - I'm sure they would only be two happy for photographic evidence if one of their loved ones was injured by one of these morons.

[spaced]

well said jay70. These people are putting themeselves and other road users at risk. I totally agree, people would have a totally different opinion to this question if one of their loved ones was killed by some ignorant phone using driver.

[Compostella]

I do take it seriously but can't believe that someone would say something like this.

I bet Avocetz wouldn't hang around a dodgy council estate looking to take photos of beatings or drug dealings because its hard work and puts yourself in danger.

This is the attitude of everyone now, just because the average car driver is non violent and has a traceable ID, they are easy pray.

If Avocet is truly worried about crimes being committed (and these other crimes will indirectly affect her) then why doesn't she/he be as vocal against all crime?

Drivers are just an easy target, thats all.

[Jay70]

I think we can tell who the ones are that use their phones whilst driving from this. Be aware if you smash into me and end up hurting my kids because your one your phone I'll make darn sure you regret it.

[Jay70]

Following Compostella's logic would mean that the tagging of convicted paedophilles would make them easy pickings so we should let them back into society without worring that they our outside the school gates at 3:30.