Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Hi i am wondering if the last sentence invalidates the caution of speeding, this is due to the speed limit not being stated at the bottom - last sentence- ‘the speed limit at the time was mph’ or do i have to still accept the pointsThat isn't the full sentence - that part of the letter only applies to variable speed limits.
IMO, assuming that you are the vehicle directly in front of the camera car, I would also say that only charging you for 90mph is being generous.That isn't a satnav speed on the video, nor is the video from a dashcam, it'll most likely be a calibrated video unit as it is from a police vehicle.
When the dashcam shows the camera car is doing well in excess of 90mph, it doesn't appear to be gaining on the car being followed and even when it shows an indicated 100+ mph, the closure rate is minimal. I know that satnav speeds can't be relied on but along with the officers testimony, it will probably be more than enough for a conviction.
There is one possibility here.What about the Pelican Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1987.
The offence wording of "Stop a Vehicle Within Pelican Crossing Limits" corresponds to the ZP97001 offence code. This then continues:
Contrary to regulation 18 of the Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations 1997, section 25(5) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
Now... The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations 1997 have been repealed, so they cannot prosecute you under that act. Legislation.gov likes to pretend it hasn't, but it has.
They should have given you a CoFP you with "Failing to Comply with a S36 Traffic Sign (endorsable) (manned equipment)" instead.
So if you are feeling lucky, you can ignore the CoFP, wait for the police to go to court, and hope they attempt to charge you under the incorrect act.
All of the old mainstream banks will let you pay in a cheque via their mobile apps - that being Barclays, Lloyds, Natwest and HSBC. No idea about the others.You can add TSB to that list.
The law actually says:QuoteIt’s illegal to hold and use a phone, sat nav, tablet, or any device that can send or receive data, while driving or riding a motorcycle.
This means you must not use a device in your hand for any reason, whether online or offline.
For example, you must not text, make calls, take photos or videos, or browse the web.
The law still applies to you if you’re:
stopped at traffic lights
queuing in traffic
supervising a learner driver
driving a car that turns off the engine when you stop moving
holding and using a device that’s offline or in flight mode
What law actually says all that?
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).”
The OP admitted using it, handling it and driving in his/her original post so I still stand by my comment of appearing to be bang to rights, perhaps I should have said "isn't just using it". All three elements that you allege are required are present here - holding it, driving, and using it even if that was to cancel an alarm/notification.Unfortunately the offence isn't using it but is handling it/touching it when it is not in a holder so it sounds as if you are bang to rights. Past driving record is irrelevant. Others may have further comment though.
See post by AGTLAW (a well respected motoring lawyer) on Pistonheads where he says
The offence is made out when driving and holding a phone in your hand and using that phone.
- all three elements necessary.
It’s illegal to hold and use a phone, sat nav, tablet, or any device that can send or receive data, while driving or riding a motorcycle.
This means you must not use a device in your hand for any reason, whether online or offline.
For example, you must not text, make calls, take photos or videos, or browse the web.
The law still applies to you if you’re:
stopped at traffic lights
queuing in traffic
supervising a learner driver
driving a car that turns off the engine when you stop moving
holding and using a device that’s offline or in flight mode
It didn't inspire confidence when I had to explain to the customer services person on the other end of the phone what an Iban number and swift code were...Call centre staff, for that is who you probably spoke to, wouldn't know what an IBAN number is as direct payments from overseas accounts are still not that common where private individuals are concerned.