On Phone Whilst Driving

[cobra10]

Hey all,

 

Newbie here looking for a wee bit of advice. Got caught using my phone (yeah I know I shouldnt have but we all do it lol) and now being taken to court.

 

Their only evidence is 2 officers account of the events. I made no comment at the time. Time of offence per summary of evidence is 235pm and I have itemised bill saying I was on phone at 228pm for 1 minute.

 

Now. I cant prove I wasnt receiving a call but do they have to? Also I realise that the judge may see it as condusive that I was probably on the phone at 235 if I was on at 228 but my explanation for that is that I stay 2 mins away from where i was stopped.

 

If its their word against mine and I can prove I wasnt making a call surely they would have to prove I was receiving a call to make their case air tight no? Please?

 

Got intermediate diet set for august 20 and just wondering whether i should change my plea or keep trying to fight it.

 

The reason for me trying to fight it is that it happened before and sent in my statement and the court threw the case out. There reason "nothing to do with my letter, there were some discrepancies in their case"

 

Any help appreciated

[Rooster-UK]

Unfortunately, not everybody can afford Rolex or Cartier watches. Most of us have to make do with cheap ones from the garage or market.

Are you saying that your watch was wrong, or that the PC's watches were wrong?

I don't think that an error of 3 minutes will make the slightest difference to the case. Especially as the phone provider can substantiate the fact that you were using your phone at that time.

 

I think you're on a hiding to nothing.

Personally, I would say just take it on the chin and chalk it up to experience.

Be glad that it was the police that stopped you and not a little kiddy running into the road!

 

That is my opinion. If anyone thinks different, then I'm sure that they will post on this thread.

 

Regards, Rooster.

[Startkey&Clutch]

Im With Rooster, you did it, you admit you did it, so its a fair cop.

Its illegal for good reason!

[cobra10]

cheers buddy, i have actually just read a thread like this and it went wildly off course and i kinda wish i hadnt posted here because people are awfully moralistic(not u btw) and will argue a point because they think they are correct.

 

i probably will accept it as it wont make any difference to licence etc but the time of offence on summary of evidence is 235 and the time on itemised bill is 228. i hear of people getting off on technicalities all the time and just wondered if i could get off with this due to the officers incompetence.

 

cant understand how they can do me for being on the phone at x time when they know i wasnt on it, thats all

[Rooster-UK]

cheers buddy, i have actually just read a thread like this and it went wildly off course and i kinda wish i hadnt posted here because people are awfully moralistic(not u btw) and will argue a point because they think they are correct.

Not moralistic, just practical. You have admitted, yourself that you used your phone whilst driving. The time discrepancy of 3 minutes is neither here nor there.

Perhaps I am biassed, by being someone who witnessed a young lad being run down and killed by someone using a mobile phone instead of concentrating on driving.

[cobra10]

yeah i admit i was on the phone but like i say if all the i's arent dotted and t's crossed, why shouldnt i able to get away with it?

[sam614]

yeah i admit i was on the phone but like i say if all the i's arent dotted and t's crossed, why shouldnt i able to get away with it?

 

 

no doubt you will get away with it next time.

would be interested to know if a family member was seriousley injured or god forbid killed by a prat on a mobile,would you still shrug it off saying we all do it:rolleyes:

pay up and think yourself lucky.

SAM:pLOWELL DETESTER

[cobra10]

its started already, listen i didnt kill anybody, hit anybody, run a kerb or anything ok, forgot about the story, if the facts on the summary of evidence are wrong should the case be brought nor thrown out?

 

thats all i'm asking

 

if you want to start on all the facts about deaths and accidents that people cause while driving and using mobile phones then fair enough, start another post

 

i'm just asking a question re the facts of a case thats all

 

also, u say about would i shrug it off if a family member was hurt by someone driving while on phone? no i wouldnt shrug it off. but i'm not judge, i'm not jury and not executioner.

[cobra10]

one more thing, u can get 3 points and fine for using handsfree kit if the officer thinks you are not in control of the car.

 

what do u have to do to not be in control of car in officers eyes? again its the officers word isnt it?

[dx100uk]

sorry you should be banned as should everyone using a moblie whilst driving.

 

dx

[pin1onu]

While I agree with the others about it being a "fair cop" there have been cases thrown out because of procedural improprieties.

 

You might do better posting this on Pepipoo and see if the experts over there can offer a comment.

 

Mobile Phone companies do use GPS systems to make sure their timings are accurate. You have an itemised account from your mobile phone company stating 2.28 for 1 minute.

 

The cops have a similar system - every bit of radio traffic is stored and logged. They have links (to Rugby or similiar) as timings can be crucial pieces of evidence.

 

6 minutes is a a fairly big discrepancy given that they have such precision systems.

 

I suspect that it will be allowed under the slippage rule but would like to hear comment from some of our experts.

[cobra10]

going by what u said in a previous thread re this kinda topic i'm goin to bite my tongue and not get into anything else other than what i asked

 

though obviously the powers that be dont agree with you and have made it 3 pts and a fine, but thanks for the feedback

[cobra10]

thanks for a constructive answer pin, will do

 

like u say we all know that the cops cars are lojakked to the hill but i fail to see the ethical side of charging someone for being on the phone 6 mins after he actually was, but that the police for u lol

 

i'll check out the site the now

[sam614]

its started already, listen i didnt kill anybody, hit anybody, run a kerb or anything ok,

well done.still took that risk though.

forgot about the story, if the facts on the summary of evidence are wrong should the case be brought nor thrown out?

fact is you did it

thats all i'm asking

thats all im saying

 

if you want to start on all the facts about deaths and accidents that people cause while driving and using mobile phones then fair enough, start another post

 

i'm just asking a question re the facts of a case thats all

see above,and also your admittance

also, u say about would i shrug it off if a family member was hurt by someone driving while on phone? no i wouldnt shrug it off. but i'm not judge, i'm not jury and not executioner.

and its a good job that you are not as you would let them"off" in all 3 instances.

[credit allergy]

As users can see from my other road safety posts I am very pro road safety. However it is completely wrong for a site helper to start making moral judgements to a fellow member asking a legtimate question. The alternative is everytime somebody asks debt related questions we all say you shouldnt have borrowed the money if you couldnt pay it back etc. As users of this site we should understand and accept that the law can be used both ways. If a person has the opportunity to seek a defence under leglislation it is no different to using a defence under 127(3) CCA 1974 even if they held the account in question. Finally I agree that using the phone whilst driving is unforgivable and asking for trouble.

[cobra10]

sam what is your problem? u cant think of anything constructive to say so u just come out with cheek?

 

i understand what ur saying credit

[andydd]

As users can see from my other road safety posts I am very pro road safety. However it is completely wrong for a site helper to start making moral judgements to a fellow member asking a legtimate question. The alternative is everytime somebody asks debt related questions we all say you shouldnt have borrowed the money if you couldnt pay it back etc. As users of this site we should understand and accept that the law can be used both ways. If a person has the opportunity to seek a defence under leglislation it is no different to using a defence under 127(3) CCA 1974 even if they held the account in question. Finally I agree that using the phone whilst driving is unforgivable and asking for trouble.

 

I agree, people shouldnt start making moral judgements, just stick to the facts. I mean if you were to appear in court and had a solicitor, you wouldn't expect to hear him start moralizing, you'd expect him to 'get you off' using all legal means available to him.

 

Andy

[Startkey&Clutch]

Cobra, I dont come on here to judge people as its not my place nor my job but the way I see this is that your phone companys bill tells you that you made a call at 2.28, then the copper saw you, maybe a minute or two later so thats 2.30. Then he pulled you up and spoke to you, so maybe 2.32, then wrote you a ticket.

Is the time on his watch synchronised with your service provider?

I doubt it so we are within the realm of them being out by a couple of minutes, which gives us the 2.35

 

You are seriously on a hiding to nothing contesting this and if it went to court that is how they would look at it.

[Rooster-UK]

I NEVER make moral judgments!

The OP was asking for opinions..... I gave mine.

 

I suggest that you re-read the posts and then tell me where I have made any judgments.

In particular, read post #5.

Have YOU ever witnessed a young child being run over and killed?

Maybe that sight, which will be with me for a long time, colours my opinions. But I think to myself, "That could have been MY child who died!" And all because a driver would rather talk to someone on the phone than concentrate on driving!

THAT is why it is against the law to use a mobile phone while driving!

Never accuse me of making moral judgments. I've witnessed it with my own eyes.

 

It was not pretty !

 

Rooster-UK.

[cobra10]

i understand what ur saying startkey and i am goint to plea guilty but i'm just asking from an evidence standpoint

 

forgetting all the peripherals like watches and GPS etc, they say i was on the phone at 1435 when i was actually on it at 1428,

 

should they be allowed to convict if there evidence is wrong ie they say they saw me on it at 1435 when they actually saw me on it at 1428

[Bookworm]

However it is completely wrong for a site helper.

Team are people too and are as allowed to their opinion as you or I. They were site users before being site team and do not attain some kind of mystic nirvana which would exclude them from stating their opinion.

 

The CCA 74 is a different kettle of fish from a possible error from the police: The CCA 74 is there to protect consumers from reckless credit companies, it is not a loophole, it is a firmly established piece of legislation and it is to do with civil law. Trying to get off a driving offence on a technicality is a completely different story.

[cobra10]

tbh i wasnt looking for opinions on what people think of people using phones while driving, i was just looking for any advice re the police being able to convict on incorrect details

 

i am resigned to getting the points etc but i believe they should have more evidence than just officers word, and if they do have more like an offence time then it should at least be the correct time

 

i am going to go to court, and i am going to plead guilty, but i'm also going to prepare a statement along the lines of my argument here,

[lamma]

Does the time difference jeapordise your right to a fair trial - no, you have admitted the offence ! much cheaper just to pay it, don't forget the other side has two witnesses who can and will point at you in court and say "thats the villain your honour, we got him good and proper sir". court will love you wasting their time with an unwinnable case and will probably make you pay for it, with the CPS claiming costs against you. Also you are not questioning the facts of the case at all, just a detail on a piece of evidence and one of minor consequence (i.e. none).

[cobra10]

they might have got me good and proper but they got me good and proper at the wrong time. i would love to get him in the dock and get him to say he saw me on the phone at 1435.

 

i have an intermediate diet on 20 aug and have been told in the letter that i can change my plea at this to guilty if i wanted to. so i will and i will also detail in that letter that which will get handed to the judge that the facts of the case are wrong

 

obviously nothn will change the outcome of the case but at least i will have got my point across

[green_and_mean]

The time of any phone call is irrelevant as it is illegal to use a mobile phone whilst driving. This includes receiving a call, reading text messages, looking up a phone number or even playing a game on the device. So unless you can prove you did none of these things at the time of the offence you are going to get found guilty.