aircobra19
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,733
By that logic you shouldn't have a radio/cd player in the car either.
By that logic you shouldn't have a radio/cd player in the car either.
So we might expect picking one's nose to be come a 2 penalty pointer perhaps in the future
aircobra19
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,733
I think it should be judge on your driving solely. In my experience someone engrossed on the phone will be consistently driving badly as it will be a habit they are used to.
Some better specced. cars have column mounted remote controls to change volume, stations, etc. Really clever units use voice control. No need to take your eyes of the road, or hands off the wheel.
aircobra19
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,733
But probably most don't.
How about the gear shift, or the heater controls?
How about the gear shift, or the heater controls?
Some reasonably modest cars do infact. Ireland's best selling car has satellite stereo controls and some models had voice control too.
The point I'm trying to make (and that some are missing) is that the safest driving requires that your eyes keep looking where they should be looking and that both hands stay on the wheel/controls as much as possible.
Smoking is dangerous surely. Imagine dropping a lighted cigarette into your lap?
aircobra19
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,733
I don't see any difference between any of these and holding a phone. Its just a token gesture to look as if something is been done about driving dangerously. The real problem is lack of Garda, and enforcement.
G
Guest106
Guest
Aircobra19
Your Post 17 is very noteworthy and followed Demoivre's similar position.
I accept the 'holding the phone' legal requirement now and was not clear on that position previously. Now today while I was pondering just what sort of a numbscull I actually have become, I took part in a group conversation about this topic and asked all 5 present as to what the precise offence was as covereed by the legislation.
I asked them: "Is the offence actually using the phone or is it merely holding the phone" ? Four of them plumped for the former and the fifth thought that both positions must be covered otherwise "it would be daft". The motoring public, imho, in very large measure are blissfully unaware of the distinction.
I am now also aware that up to the end of April this year, in excess of 35,000 persons were prosecuted for phone/driving offences.
One could engage in quite a bit of conjecture about how the defence lawyers are contesting and will contest some of these cases in the future.
I imagine most are dealt with on a guilty plea so there is no contest.
But just consider Drunk Driving. It took a long time to get that legislation right if right it be at this time.
It was struck down time and time again by individuals who challenged (a) the wording of legislation (b) invasion of rights (c) delay in proceedings (d) denial of options (e) lack of due process etc etc and a myriad of other devices to obstruct the intention of the legislature to legislate effectively in that area of activity. Sometimes hundreds of pending cases were wiped out because of a successful challenge to an instance of Garda enforcement. Lawyers loved those cases because a successful outcome endeared them to some of their wealthiest clients for evermore.
I was just wondering as a matter of ordinary personal interest how the enforcement on the phone front was going hence my OP here.
It has been suggested in a very early post here that I may have an agenda.
I am happy to say (with apologies to you -Aircobra19) that I have no agenda.....end of.
Your Post 17 is very noteworthy and followed Demoivre's similar position.
I accept the 'holding the phone' legal requirement now and was not clear on that position previously. Now today while I was pondering just what sort of a numbscull I actually have become, I took part in a group conversation about this topic and asked all 5 present as to what the precise offence was as covereed by the legislation.
I asked them: "Is the offence actually using the phone or is it merely holding the phone" ? Four of them plumped for the former and the fifth thought that both positions must be covered otherwise "it would be daft". The motoring public, imho, in very large measure are blissfully unaware of the distinction.
I am now also aware that up to the end of April this year, in excess of 35,000 persons were prosecuted for phone/driving offences.
One could engage in quite a bit of conjecture about how the defence lawyers are contesting and will contest some of these cases in the future.
I imagine most are dealt with on a guilty plea so there is no contest.
But just consider Drunk Driving. It took a long time to get that legislation right if right it be at this time.
It was struck down time and time again by individuals who challenged (a) the wording of legislation (b) invasion of rights (c) delay in proceedings (d) denial of options (e) lack of due process etc etc and a myriad of other devices to obstruct the intention of the legislature to legislate effectively in that area of activity. Sometimes hundreds of pending cases were wiped out because of a successful challenge to an instance of Garda enforcement. Lawyers loved those cases because a successful outcome endeared them to some of their wealthiest clients for evermore.
I was just wondering as a matter of ordinary personal interest how the enforcement on the phone front was going hence my OP here.
It has been suggested in a very early post here that I may have an agenda.
I am happy to say (with apologies to you -Aircobra19) that I have no agenda.....end of.
aircobra19
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,733
Its not a complicated law. Your making too much of it.
It designed (I assume) to make it easier to catch more people, in order to stop people using their phones. All I'll say is don't scratch your ear either as that could look like your using a phone!
It designed (I assume) to make it easier to catch more people, in order to stop people using their phones. All I'll say is don't scratch your ear either as that could look like your using a phone!
G
Guest106
Guest
Maybe so, time will tell.
I have an idea that when the coast to coast CCTV Road Traffic system kicks in and penalty points begin to tot up like a convenience store register as they inevitably will for a lot of our eager beaver drivers, that we will see some robust defences because just like the Drunk Dvg situation, being banned would pose very big difficulties for a lot of our long distance commuters. There will be an awful lot more people heading for 'driving ban' land and very quickly too when the cameras get going, lots of rude awakenings there to be sure.
A lot of things, imo, in Garda evidence may be open to challenge, e.g. lighting conditions at the time, line of vision, distance at the time of sighting, was the vehicle moving ?, was it raining ? how credible would it be that a Guard could swear he/she saw a small handheld phone (palm of the hand?) in a moving vehicle's interior, there's lots to be considered there and I feel there will be challenges aplenty. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a small industry spring up down the line around lawyers skilled in the minutiae of Road Traffic law in response to phone use prosecutions.
I'm just interested in how the law is working or not and inviting people to relate their experiences thats all.
I have an idea that when the coast to coast CCTV Road Traffic system kicks in and penalty points begin to tot up like a convenience store register as they inevitably will for a lot of our eager beaver drivers, that we will see some robust defences because just like the Drunk Dvg situation, being banned would pose very big difficulties for a lot of our long distance commuters. There will be an awful lot more people heading for 'driving ban' land and very quickly too when the cameras get going, lots of rude awakenings there to be sure.
A lot of things, imo, in Garda evidence may be open to challenge, e.g. lighting conditions at the time, line of vision, distance at the time of sighting, was the vehicle moving ?, was it raining ? how credible would it be that a Guard could swear he/she saw a small handheld phone (palm of the hand?) in a moving vehicle's interior, there's lots to be considered there and I feel there will be challenges aplenty. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a small industry spring up down the line around lawyers skilled in the minutiae of Road Traffic law in response to phone use prosecutions.
I'm just interested in how the law is working or not and inviting people to relate their experiences thats all.
B
bee(nice)
Guest
The law with regard to driving and mobile phones is that it is an offence to be driving an MPV while "HOLDING" a mobile phone. See the wording of Section 3 Road Traffic Act 2006
In a prosecution in court it is not acceptable for a the prosecution to state that a person was seen "going down the road in a car". Evidence must be given the person was "driving" and that the car was a " mechanically propelled vehicle".
Likewise is would not be good evidence if the prosecution put forward the evidence that a person was seen "USING" a mobile phone. The offence is only created when evidence is heard that a person was seen "HOLDING" a mobile phone.
If a Garda said in evidence that they saw a person "USING" a mobile phone and did not state that they saw a person "HOLDING" a mobile phone and was then asked if that was "The States" evidence, then the defence could seek a direction with regard to the evidence that was given and point out to the court that "there was no evidence given to sustain the charge before the court as the offence alleged is one of "HOLDING" a mobile phone.
I have no doubt that the Judge would grant a favourable direction and dismiss the case on its merits.
It is common place for Gardai to state that they saw a person "USING" a mobile phone and many Gardai are not aware of the subtle but legal difference that is the difference between a criminal offence and no offence.
It is not a criminal offence to "USE" a mobile phone while driving. If one is using a "hands free kit", "Blue Tooth" or if the phone is on the passenger seat or even on the dash in full view but on "loudspeaker" even if the driver admits to speaking on the phone while driving.
In such circumstances, and only depending on the circumstances a driver may have a case to answer in relation to an allegation of careless driving but only if there is evidence to support an allegation of careless driving. I would submit that speaking on a phone would be no different to speaking to a rear seat passenger or indeed any passenger and merely "speaking" while driving in itself could not be considered careless driving.
I do feel that the law to deter people using mobile phones is a good one as in some cases it is certainly dangerous to do so.
However one could argue that smoking while driving is potentially as dangerous in certain circumstances. The whole motivation of the mobile phone law is that using a mobile phone while driving causes a distraction to the driver. it could be argued that searching pockets for a packet of cigarettes and then attempting to get one from the packet and then lighting a cigarette is equally as distracting and every bit as potentially dangerous.
I feel that the law should allow for the offence to be created only if the driving while holding a mobile phone is accompanied by evidence that the holding of the phone in some way unfavourably impaired the control the driver had over the vehicle at the time of observation.
In a prosecution in court it is not acceptable for a the prosecution to state that a person was seen "going down the road in a car". Evidence must be given the person was "driving" and that the car was a " mechanically propelled vehicle".
Likewise is would not be good evidence if the prosecution put forward the evidence that a person was seen "USING" a mobile phone. The offence is only created when evidence is heard that a person was seen "HOLDING" a mobile phone.
If a Garda said in evidence that they saw a person "USING" a mobile phone and did not state that they saw a person "HOLDING" a mobile phone and was then asked if that was "The States" evidence, then the defence could seek a direction with regard to the evidence that was given and point out to the court that "there was no evidence given to sustain the charge before the court as the offence alleged is one of "HOLDING" a mobile phone.
I have no doubt that the Judge would grant a favourable direction and dismiss the case on its merits.
It is common place for Gardai to state that they saw a person "USING" a mobile phone and many Gardai are not aware of the subtle but legal difference that is the difference between a criminal offence and no offence.
It is not a criminal offence to "USE" a mobile phone while driving. If one is using a "hands free kit", "Blue Tooth" or if the phone is on the passenger seat or even on the dash in full view but on "loudspeaker" even if the driver admits to speaking on the phone while driving.
In such circumstances, and only depending on the circumstances a driver may have a case to answer in relation to an allegation of careless driving but only if there is evidence to support an allegation of careless driving. I would submit that speaking on a phone would be no different to speaking to a rear seat passenger or indeed any passenger and merely "speaking" while driving in itself could not be considered careless driving.
I do feel that the law to deter people using mobile phones is a good one as in some cases it is certainly dangerous to do so.
However one could argue that smoking while driving is potentially as dangerous in certain circumstances. The whole motivation of the mobile phone law is that using a mobile phone while driving causes a distraction to the driver. it could be argued that searching pockets for a packet of cigarettes and then attempting to get one from the packet and then lighting a cigarette is equally as distracting and every bit as potentially dangerous.
I feel that the law should allow for the offence to be created only if the driving while holding a mobile phone is accompanied by evidence that the holding of the phone in some way unfavourably impaired the control the driver had over the vehicle at the time of observation.
R
rmelly
Guest
So we might expect picking one's nose to be come a 2 penalty pointer perhaps in the future
Rising to 4 points, depending on what you do with the 'pickings'?
starlite68
Registered User
- Messages
- 330
i find it strange that the gurads themselves are allowed to use mobile phones while driveing...surely they would be as likely to have an accident as any member of the public!
G
Guest106
Guest
Bee-nice
Great post and just the kind of detail I was trying to elicit in the OP.
I tend toward the view that prosecuted people who chose to plead 'not guilty' will pose lots of problems for the law enforcers (Gdai & Courts).
I have no issue with strong clear evidence but it can not be acceptable that Guards can simply swear that they saw you holding a mobile phone when there is no clear evidence that a mobile phone was being held.
Like a dark or coloured 1" blob appearing above the index finger of a driver in a moving car can be sworn to by a Guard to be a phone ? Really ?
In practice, most people in an unguarded moment when stopped admit straight away to using the phone so the case is basically proven there and then.
But suppose you get a summons in the post 6 months later how could one respond to that in terms of deciding culpability ?
Great post and just the kind of detail I was trying to elicit in the OP.
I tend toward the view that prosecuted people who chose to plead 'not guilty' will pose lots of problems for the law enforcers (Gdai & Courts).
I have no issue with strong clear evidence but it can not be acceptable that Guards can simply swear that they saw you holding a mobile phone when there is no clear evidence that a mobile phone was being held.
Like a dark or coloured 1" blob appearing above the index finger of a driver in a moving car can be sworn to by a Guard to be a phone ? Really ?
In practice, most people in an unguarded moment when stopped admit straight away to using the phone so the case is basically proven there and then.
But suppose you get a summons in the post 6 months later how could one respond to that in terms of deciding culpability ?