This is the response I received from Avon & Somerset Police regarding video clips of mobile phone use that I have caught on my helmetcam. I sent them links to the most recent mobile phone use Youtube clips approx 12 days ago.
"Thank you for your E-mail regarding persons apparently using mobile phones while driving. I apologise for the delay in replying but I needed to do some research before replying. Police officers who have reported persons for this offence are finding that if the motorist pleads not guilty it is increasingly difficult to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the offence under Regulation 110 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use ) Regulations 1986 has been committed. The offence states that:
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).
The device referred to in b above is:
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.
Hand-held is defined as:
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.
An 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;
In order to prove the offence to the satisfaction of the court it is necessary to show that a phone call or interactive communication was taking place at the time the action was witnessed. It is not an offence under this section to be recording dictation, or listening to music etc. The police currently have no power to seize the device. Your "evidence" will show a driver holding a device and possibly talking, but that does not prove that a phone call or interactive communication was being made at that time. The police often receive calls from members of the public regarding this topic, and the advice from the CPS is that, even in circumstances such as yours, where you would be willing to make a statement to prove the footage was authentic and to appear in court as a witness to that effect, it would not be possible to prove a phone call or other interactive communication was being made at that time. We are currently liaising with the Crown Prosecution Service to try to find a solution, but, unless there is a change in the law, we will not be able to proceed on the basis of your evidence alone."
2 comments:
Well that's fucking useful! Supposing you can give a timestamp for the infringement are they not able to check the persons mobile bill?
Otherwise like so many other motoring "offences" this law isn't really worth the paper it's written on, pretty much unenforceable and are the police honestly going to go to the trouble of getting access to mobile bills to prosecute for "just" a 60 quid fine and 3 points? If it wasn't for the fact that it endangers more vulnerable road users I'd suggest just letting em use their mobiles and hoping natural selection does it's job.....
Did you see the reports from Dubai during the Blackberry outage? 20% reduction in car accidents and I think Abu Dhabi recorded a 40% reduction :-)
I work in the mobile industry and work with call records as part of my job. It is easy to prove when a call is taking place due to the billing records generated, this is something the police do for evidence in other cases. The police need to jump through some hoops to get the data but as far as I know that's an easy and well established process. The issue may be timestamping, ie proving what time you saw the person making the call beyond reasonable doubt if you can't prove the observation time.
Post a Comment