wrong name on producer

[familydealz]

hi

hope sombody can help me out here.

whilst driving the other night somebody called me on my mobile, now before you start to say i got what i deserve stop! lol

i never use my phone whilst driving but i do have a look to see who it is that is calling.

now as i picked the phone up the light was on from it ringing, unknown to me i was being followed by anunmarked police car.

they pulled me over and gave me a ticket for a £60 fine and to produce my documents.

however this is the interesting part,

they have put my name as "trevor" instead of clifford is there any legality where i can get away with this fine.

[nero12]

hi

hope sombody can help me out here.

whilst driving the other night somebody called me on my mobile, now before you start to say i got what i deserve stop! lol

i never use my phone whilst driving but i do have a look to see who it is that is calling.

now as i picked the phone up the light was on from it ringing, unknown to me i was being followed by anunmarked police car.

they pulled me over and gave me a ticket for a £60 fine and to produce my documents.

however this is the interesting part,

they have put my name as "trevor" instead of clifford is there any legality where i can get away with this fine.

Nope.

[johnaydan]

really a very interesting post...

[nero12]

really a very interesting post...

ok, to elaborate familydeals has a fixed penalty. If he wishes to contest on the fact that the name is incorrectly marked on the notice this will have to be done in the magistrates courts. He will then end up with a bigger fine for wasting time, costs plus £15 victim support fund oh and probably more points on his licence.

 

Quite simply put, it is illegal to have a phone in youre hand while driving and to attempt to mitigate on the grounds that his name is clifford instead of trevor wont work. It will be treated as a clerical error and will be corrected at time of trial.

 

BTW it was easier to say nope! lol

[maf91]

it is only an offence however to use the phone, meaning that you have commited no offence as you weresimply holding it

[nero12]

it is only an offence however to use the phone, meaning that you have commited no offence as you weresimply holding it

wrong, it is an offence to have the phone in your hand, unless it is an emergency. Nor can you hold the phone between your ear or shoulder.

 

Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment No. 5) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003

Edited July 29, 2008 by nero12

[Rooster-UK]

Sorry maf91.

 

Quite simply put, it is illegal to have a phone in youre hand while driving

 

Nero12 is correct.

 

There was a case, a few months ago, wherea driver took his phone, which was SWITCHED OFF, from his back pocket and put it on the passenger seat, because it wasn't comfortable to sit on.

 

He correctly claimed that he wasn't using it and that it was switched off.

He was found guilty by virtue of the fact that if he was holding the phone then his concentration on driving was distracted.

 

The only sure way to avoid prsecution is to park your vehicle AND turn off the engine before you as much as touch the phone. Obviously that doesn't apply if you have a proper hands-free kit installed.

 

Regards, Rooster.

[maf91]

Sorry for that little "indiscretion" although I believe that it is harsh to prosecute for simply having a phone in your hand as it is not any more distacting than changing a radio station or following sat-nav instructions.

 

I actually believe that if mobiles are banned at the wheel then smoking should almost certainly be banned as this is far more dangerous.

[nero12]

Sorry for that little "indiscretion" although I believe that it is harsh to prosecute for simply having a phone in your hand as it is not any more distacting than changing a radio station or following sat-nav instructions.

 

I actually believe that if mobiles are banned at the wheel then smoking should almost certainly be banned as this is far more dangerous.

You can be nicked for that aswel under certain circumstances...... 'not being in proper control of your vehicle'.

144-158: General advice : Directgov - Travel and transport

 

check rule 148

 

smoking in works vans is also prohibited I believe.

Edited July 29, 2008 by nero12
double negative lol

[familydealz]

appreciate all the advice there people, it was always worth a try i suppose,

[familydealz]

quick update,

from my understanding of Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment No. 5) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003

holding your mobile phone in your hand does not constitute the

interactive communication function that this lawa is based on

see folowing

 

"interactive communication function" includes the following -

 

 

(i) sending or receiving oral or written messages,
 
(ii) sending or receiving facsimile documents,
 
(iii) sending or receiving still or moving images, and
 
(iv) providing access to the internet;
 

(d) "two-way radio" means any wireless telegraphy apparatus which is designed or adapted -

 

(i) for the purpose of transmitting and receiving spoken messages

if i have read this wring then by all means correct me

many thanks

grant

[crem]

I am sure there was a thread on here a while ago where someone had (successfully) disputed a similar offense. They had picked up the handset to view the time displayed on it, i.e. only used it as a clock and not as a telephone and as there is no such offense as per your list above, the offense was withdrawn.

[nero12]

I am sure there was a thread on here a while ago where someone had (successfully) disputed a similar offense. They had picked up the handset to view the time displayed on it, i.e. only used it as a clock and not as a telephone and as there is no such offense as per your list above, the offense was withdrawn.

I think the rules changed in feb 2007 to include the act of holding the phone, also using blue tooth or other connection would be an offence, if an accident occured while using the phone.

The penalty also went up from 30 to £60 and is now endorseable with three points.

[berrti]

There was a case earlier this year when someone was found not guilty (may have been in Scotland) due to the fact he was not making or answering a call (can't remember many details). It was quite heavily publicised due to the person being either an MSP or an MP (can't remember which)