It’s up to the CPS to prove your guilty – so they must provide evidence of you making/receiving calls at the time of the alleged offence. They would need to ask your operator to provide logs.

You may have to submit your mobile as evidence, so their forensics team can determine if you have deleted call records from the handset.

I think* the law states that even holding the phone constitutes “use” so if the OP goes to court and is asked “did you have the phone in your hand” then he’s in a sticky situation**.

An alternative might be that he’s charged with careless driving*** (eg swerving all over the place whilst moving his phone) and that is what caught the fuzz’s attention.

*a quick googling suggests.
** I am not a legal type.
*** I am not a policemanofficer.

Definitions
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”.

Device – “similar” to a mobile phone if it performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data.

I was gonna say – ask for the evidence.

The definition of hand-held is interesting. My phone for some reason won’t initiate a call via hands free unless I unlock it with the fingerprint pad.. must find a way around that.

I got pulled over on the m3, first time ever, after a winter race so was cold, knackered and covered in mud. Didn’t know what I should do was confused as i wasnt speeding, went to get out of the car when the copper came to the window.

He asked me why I wasn’t wearing a seat belt. I said I am/was I took it off to get out. He was very polite but £35 fine and awareness course.

Even if I hadn’t been wearing a seat belt no way he could have spotted it from driving as it was virtually dark. So I think I was pulled over and ‘something’ would have been found. Must have needed to bump his stats

I just paid up.

I know some of the dashboard cameras record images of the driver as well. It would be quite satisfying to have video evidence of your innocence for phone or seatbelt offences….

I have wondered about this a few times.

Would changing songs on your phone constitute an offence for instance? There are lots of ways you can use a phone that don’t involve a text or phone call

There’s a difference between being held and being touched. Any car stereo (or other control) needs to be touched to be used and that’s not an offence.

If you have a hands-free kit, but need to “touch” your phone to accept the incoming call, is that an offence?

(Genuine question!)

OP: For the sake of my sanity reading all these “take it on the chin, OP” posts, GO TO THE PEPIPOO FORUMS FOR ADVICE, NOT HERE!
You haven’t done anything wrong, if your version of events is correct, so why should you face punishment?

I get pulled for using my mobile

He’s not been pulled for driving without due care and attention but for the specific offence of using his phone whilst driving.

Seems cut and dry to me, the verdict being innocent, not only that but as the copper refused to check the OP’s usage log, etc, the copper should be done for the offence of wasting police time! 😉

And ask for this thread to be deleted.

Are you sure that you weren’t changing the music on your ipod touch?

DIS IS DA LAW:-
Statutory Instruments
2003 No. 2695

ROAD TRAFFIC
The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2003

Made
20th October 2003

Laid before Parliament
27th October 2003

Coming into force
1st December 2003

The Secretary of State in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 41(1) and (5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988(1), and after consultation with representative organisations in accordance with section 195(2) of that Act, hereby makes the following Regulations: .
Citation, commencement and interpretation

1. These Regulations may be cited as the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2003 and shall come into force on 1st December 2003.
Amendment of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986

2. The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986(2) are amended by inserting after regulation 109—
“Mobile telephones

110.—(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using—
(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or.
(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4)..
(2) No person shall cause or permit any other person to drive a motor vehicle on a road while that other person is using—
(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or.
(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4)..
(3) No person shall supervise a holder of a provisional licence if the person supervising is using—
(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or.
(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4),.
at a time when the provisional licence holder is driving a motor vehicle on a road.
(4) A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data.
(5) A person does not contravene a provision of this regulation if, at the time of the alleged contravention—
(a)he is using the telephone or other device to call the police, fire, ambulance or other emergency service on 112 or 999;.
(b)he is acting in response to a genuine emergency; and.
(c)it is unsafe or impracticable for him to cease driving in order to make the call (or, in the case of an alleged contravention of paragraph (3)(b), for the provisional licence holder to cease driving while the call was being made)..
(6) For the purposes of this regulation—
(a)a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function;.
(b)a person supervises the holder of a provisional licence if he does so pursuant to a condition imposed on that licence holder prescribed under section 97(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (grant of provisional licence);.
(c)“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; and.
(ii)to operate on any frequency other than 880 MHz to 915 MHz, 925 MHz to 960 MHz, 1710 MHz to 1785 MHz, 1805 MHz to 1880 MHz, 1900 MHz to 1980 MHz or 2110 MHz to 2170 MHz; and.
(e)“wireless telegraphy” has the same meaning as in section 19(1) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949(3).”

So have to be using it , not the phone independently updating.

Can touch but can’t hold.

Everything else will be a factual dispute the officers word is good evidence as is an inference from him saying he saw the screen lit up or the phone at your ear. Your word is also good evidence as are your call logs and itemised bills . As stated above the court has to be sure of your guilt to convict.

Can touch but can’t hold.

ie – get a mount for your phone whether you want to use it for hands free calls or as your music source.

He’s not been pulled for driving without due care and attention but for the specific offence of using his phone whilst driving.

“Pulled” isn’t the same as being given a notice or ticket for.

This is interesting,

(5) A person does not contravene a provision of this regulation if, at the time of the alleged contravention—
…
(c)it is unsafe or impracticable for him to cease driving in order to make the call

This implies that it’s legal to use the phone so long as you’re not “driving”; how do we define driving in this case? I was under the impression that it was still illegal even if you’d parked up. Are you still “driving” when you’re behind the wheel but not moving?

(5)(a), (b) and (c) are read together – i.e. you need to meet all 3 criteria for it not to be an offence.

Ah yes. Good spot.

cougar for section 110 (5) the “and at 5b is conjunctive, so, emergency etc and unsafe etc to cease driving .

The important “driving” word is at 110 (1) “no person shall drive”, so if you ain’t driving there is no offence .whether you are in fact driving at any given time is a question of fact not law lord Wigery try’s to help with:-
“The essence of driving is the use of the driver’s control in order to direct movement, however that movement is produced. There are an infinite number of ways in which a person may control the movement of a motor vehicle apart from the orthodox one of sitting in the driving seat and using the engine for propulsion. He may be coasting down a hill with the gears in neutral and the engine switched off; he may be steering a vehicle which is being towed by another. He may be sitting in the driving seat whilst others push, or half sitting in the driving seat keeping one foot on the road in order to induce the car to move. Finally, as in the present case, he may be standing in the road himself pushing the car, with or without using the steering wheel to direct it. Although the word ‘drive’ must be given a wide meaning, the courts must be alert to see that the net is not thrown so widely that it includes activities which cannot be said to be driving a motor vehicle in the ordinary use of that word in the English language. Unless this be done, absurdity may result by requiring the obtaining of a driving licence and third party insurance in circumstances which cannot have been contemplated by Parliament.”
This answer comes curtsy of Google and is therefor not definitive.

Would changing songs on your phone constitute an offence for instance?

I’m not a traffic-cop or a solicitor, but to me that is use…

crankboy – I’ve scanned through your post but cannot pick-out where it references

Can touch but can’t hold.

Call me a lazy/blind get but can you post the particular point please? 🙂

patriot pro 110 (6) a

but we may have a different idea about what I meant. if as in the op’s post he is holding it to move it that would not be using the phone.

thanks for the entertainment; funniest pointless thread I have read in a while

So the answer to the OP’s question would appear to be; take it to court and instruct Crankboy to take up his defence.

(Or quietly cough up £80 for a patronising half day course if he can’t risk a bad result…)

“take it to court and instruct Crankboy to take up his defence.” please no I hate road traffic cases . But given the lack of prosecution of “proper” crime and BVT I may have to swallow hard and become “Mr LoopHole”.

@crankboy. Might be being a bit dense here but is ‘using’ defined anywhere?

boblo not defined explicitly but by implication:- “performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data” see 110(6)c for what that means, but the copout answer is to say that would be an issue of fact for the court to decide.

any one care to sign the petition to save my job and the rights of the citizens of this country so I can carry on messing about on the internet while supposedly researching sexual offences prevention orders as they relate to mentally disordered offenders subject to hospital orders with a restriction.?
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/48628

Cheers crankboy – I still can’t see in those points where it states that holding a phone whilst driving is an offence.

funniest pointless

I’ve read far funnier and far more pointless than this…

patriotpro that is my fault for not being clear , holding the phone is not an offence, a hand held device is one which you need to hold at any point while making it work , so if you have a device that you touch while driving to make it work that is ok if you “hold” it at any point while “using” it and “driving” that is not ok .quotations for the bits that I believe are factual issues that an individual court would decide.

Tell me you signed the petition.

But it does say ‘sending or receiving messages’ so by implication, holding a device whilst a text comes in is ‘using’ and therefore illegal? Daft as you have no control over receipt.

Does this also means sending or receiving a txt constitutes ‘using’ and is therefore illegal regardless of holding? I.e ‘using’ is not defined as ‘held in the hand whilst sending or receiving blah blah’.

Get a solicitor
He will then sort it.
If they are trying it on they will not take it to court
If ony the other hand they want to prosecute then you’ll end up with statements being sent to solicitor, the cost of police attending court and the likelihood of a big fine costs and the solicitors bill.
At this point plead guilty and its still ost you more than the MTFU
Option.

correct me if im wrong but op said he moved phone from door pocket (right hand side of driver) to centre console (left hand side). so phone picked up with right hand and passed to left hand (at which point there are no hands dedicated to being in control of the steering wheel) or right hand stretches over the front of drivers body to deposit phone on centre console which I can easily see affecting the drivers ability ot control the vehicle. Either way, I can easily see a “not in control” offence.
Fight it and let us know how much it costs.

Go and time how long it takes you to move your phone from the door pocket to the centre console. Would you drive with your eyes closed for that length of time on the same road in the same road conditions? No? Neither would I. Take the punishment and learn from it.

It’s up to the CPS to prove your guilty – so they must provide evidence of you making/receiving calls at the time of the alleged offence. They would need to ask your operator to provide logs.

You may have to submit your mobile as evidence, so their forensics team can determine if you have deleted call records from the handset.

No, the evidence of an officer is enough to convict. The officer believed you were on the phone so you’re sadly guilty in the eyes of the law, you have to prove your innocence.

You would have to convince a magistrate that the officer was mistaken.. Not lying, mistaken. You would have to pay all costs to provide your own evidence, I don’t think you can claim that back.. A solicitor will cost way more than the £80 fine you will receive.

Sorry, but I think you’ll just have to swallow this….

if 5 of you sign the petition i’ll tell you where martin s is right and where he is wrong.

No, no
I love learning, I’m not an expert, just have a passing interest in he subject. So please set me straight…

wrong–burden of proof on police to make magistrate sure of guilt . no burden on defendant to convince anyone just potentialy to raise a doubt.
wrong —no need to pay costs to provide evidence, OP’s word is as acceptable as anyone else’s including a police officers.

right—Always best to suggest a policeman is mistaken as opposed to lying for a couple of reasons one evidential one psycological,
right—you can (thanks to Grayling) only cliam back solicitors costs at legal aid rates ie £42 £69 per hour but expect to pay about £350 to £500 for this charged at £120 per hour.

right –probably best to swollow it and go on the course , if course not offered i would suggest fight it but defend it oneself self and not use a lawyer.

you owe me a signature http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/48628

Petition signed. 95,056…

This is what can happen when you take your eyes off the road for a few seconds
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-23007341
I’am with glupton on this one

Keep your phone turned off when in the car. Even if it rings or beeps you ‘have a need to know’. I do. I admit it.

If its on and rings we tend to look grab it answer whilst looking to pullover. Best turned off full stop.

Infact bin tge shitty things! Ive stopped taking mine on rides as its the only time it doesnt interrupt!