Guys, anyone know how true it is that you can get 3 points and a 60 note fine for using a mobile phone while parked up on a bus stand (out of gear and park brake on) OR the above points and fine for having doors open while driving but NOT in service?
Can make my mind up, is my boss being a ■■■■■■ or being honest?
Been looking around for the law book on these points but cant find nowt…
Sorry mods, wrong forum 
Was the engine running? I’m sure I read somewhere (urban myth probably 
) that it needs to be turned off otherwise you’re still technically driving.
As far as the phone is concerned.
The law says that it’s illegal to use a hand held phone or similar device whilst driving, so if the engine was running technically you would be driving and guilty of an offence.
If the engine isn’t running then it’s a whole different ball game, my understanding is that with the engine off and the brakes applied you wouldn’t be driving and so not guilty of an offence, proving it could be another story though 
Probably safest to go and sit in one of the passenger seats 
Sorry I’ve no idea about driving with the door open.
Guys, anyone know how true it is that you can get 3 points and a 60 note fine for using a mobile phone while parked up on a bus stand (out of gear and park brake on) OR the above points and fine for having doors open while driving but NOT in service?
I would say that it would take a very pedantic cop to do you in either of those circumstances.
I’m surprised that you can actually drive with the doors open, I thought that once the handbrake was released the door shut automatically, or the handbrake won’t come off until the door is shut.
Not only does the engine need to be off, but I understand that if you are sat in the drivers seat and the keys are in the ignition then you are technically ‘driving’ and therefore commiting the offence, but as Rog says any policeman that would do you for that is a jobsworth.
tachograph:
so if the engine was running technically you would be driving and guilty of an offence.
Thanks chap.
Is it just me, or is the above (in law, not the poster 
) utterly pathetic. Seriously, what ■■■■ wit thinks these bloody stupid laws up, I suspect some ■■■■■■■ clueless YTS office type who’s never driven PCV/LGV/HGV in their life.
Seriously, technically driving while static?..
Definition of driving is:- the act of controlling and steering the movement of a vehicle or animal OR Driving is the controlled operation of a vehicle, which is usually a motor vehicle such as a truck, bus, or car. …
■■■■ me, totally unbelievable… typical of this poxy country more like an aid to fill the old bill’s coffers!
Rant over 
tachograph:
…so if the engine was running technically you would be driving and guilty of an offence.
Yes, exactly what I was told by a jobsworth hobby-bobby. Didn’t get a ticket, which was just as well (for her).
mrpj:
Was the engine running? I’m sure I read somewhere (urban myth probably
I’d also go with Urban Myth.
Think about a ‘mixer’. Engine running but out of the vehicle discharging the load.
The argument that the driver is still ‘driving’ is doomed to failure.
I could be wrong but I think you’ll find that it’s illegal to leave a vehicle unattended with the engine running, unless the engine is needed for the use of auxiliary equipment.
tachograph:
I could be wrong but I think you’ll find that it’s illegal to leave a vehicle unattended with the engine running, unless the engine is needed for the use of auxiliary equipment.
I would have to find the definitive answer on the TRAFFIC ANSWERS site for this but I’ll bet that it depends on the situation. Probably more relative to H&S issues than law.
If, by leaving the vehicle accessable, someone used it illegally, then I suppose the driver could be deemed to have contributed to it.
Several bits about mobile phone use on the net but this one caught my eye,
If you are an employer you can be prosecuted if you require employees to make or receive mobile calls while driving. It is an offence to cause or permit the use of a hand-held mobile phone when driving. It is also an offence to cause or permit a driver not to have proper control of a vehicle.
and.
The new law could lead to fines of up to £1000 for offenders if the matter goes to court. The penalties are stiffer for the drivers of buses, coaches, vans and lorries, who face a possible maximum of a £2500 fine.
Studies carried out by the AA Trust have shown that drivers are 4 times more likely to be involved in an accident while using a mobile phone. Another study by the AA has shown that the ban is supported by 93% of motorists, however a report by the RAC published in October 2003 found that up to one third of drivers were either ignorant of the new law or plan to ignore it.Special cases
The law does not extend to hands-free use of equipment. Similarly, users will not be prosecuted if the phone is held in a cradle. Drivers should exercise caution while using a hands-free kit as it’s still a distraction from driving.Driving with the phone balanced between shoulder and ear doesn’t count as hands-free
Texting while driving is not permitted under the new legislation
You cannot answer incoming calls while driving. If the phone rings while the car is moving, then the driver must stop at the side of the road before answering.
The ban also applies to driving while stopped at traffic lights or in a traffic jam. While the car is under the control of a driver, then that driver cannot use a mobile phone. __An exception is made in lengthy tailbacks when the engine is turned off.__Calls to 999 (or 112) in genuine emergencies are permitted where it would be unsafe or impractical to stop.Two-way radios can still be used, but only if the radio cannot also function as a mobile phone. Using a dual function radio/phone is illegal even when only the radio function of the device is used.
There are no restrictions on passengers using mobile phones.
The law requires that drivers be in control of their vehicle at all times. This means that the police can still act if they see a driver distracted by things like eating a sandwich, shaving, or drinking from a bottle while driving.
IMO, the law makers ‘cocked up’ on the mobile phone issue - they should have said ‘no using any sort of communication equipment (emergencies exempt) unless the handbrake is fully applied’
ROG:
IMO, the law makers ‘cocked up’ on the mobile phone issue - they should have said ‘no using any sort of communication equipment (emergencies exempt) unless the handbrake is fully applied’
I think you should never ever call for a taxi again.
ROG:
IMO, the law makers ‘cocked up’ on the mobile phone issue - they should have said ‘no using any sort of communication equipment (emergencies exempt) unless the handbrake is fully applied’
Why?
Simon:
ROG:
IMO, the law makers ‘cocked up’ on the mobile phone issue - they should have said ‘no using any sort of communication equipment (emergencies exempt) unless the handbrake is fully applied’Why?
Distraction from the task of driving.
ROG:
TRAFFIC ANSWERS
I’m banned from their site. Tossers.
tachograph:
I could be wrong but I think you’ll find that it’s illegal to leave a vehicle unattended with the engine running, unless the engine is needed for the use of auxiliary equipment.
Correct, with either the engine running or the parking brake not applied (under Con & Use). But the relevant term here is ‘leaving’. ‘Exiting’ the vehicle is not the same as ‘leaving’.
Exiting the vehicle to carry out other functions, such as, carrying out ancillary functions, is different to ‘leaving’ to nip into a newsagents to buy a paper. Whilst carrying out ancillary functions, you are still effectively ‘in attendance’ at the vehicle.
A year or so ago, a car owner, washing his car on his drive, left the keys in and, whilst he was in the garage replenishing his bucket, or whatever, his car was taken. His insurance company initially refused to pay out but, an appeal to the ABI (I think) resulted in his claim being met on the basis that he had not ‘left’ the vehicle. He had merely turned his back whilst carrying out an associated function.
Whilst the decision is not binding on the Criminal Law, it serves as a form of guidance as to what should be considered in the realms of ‘reasonable’ conduct.
ROG:
IMO, the law makers ‘cocked up’ on the mobile phone issue - they should have said ‘no using any sort of communication equipment (emergencies exempt) unless the handbrake is fully applied’
I drive an automatic (car). I never use the handbrake. I use a ‘parking device’.
And how, in evidence, is one to prove that a handbrake has not been ‘fully applied’. In Law, as in Science, “proving the negative” is always problematic.
Your argument also fails on the basis of Satnav. It is, after all ‘communication equipment’. In my opinion, the hysteria over mobile phones was just a knee jerk reaction to a limited problem. Whilst I won’t deny that there have been some horrendous accidents caused by the misuse of mobile phones, there have probably been a similar number, if not more, caused by the distraction of unwrapping sweets whilst driving. Or changing tapes, or C.D.’s. Or, dare I admit, smoking.
Mobile phone use is measurable. Their use is traceable. Therefore it became a ‘measurable quantity’. What is not ‘measurable’ is the safety issues of the driver of a large vehicle being ‘talked into’ the location of difficult to find premises. In a strange town, or village, even with a mobile phone held to my ear, providing street by street, landmark by landmark, instructions to my destination, I’d be far safer than having to second guess as to which roads could appropriately accommodate the vehicle, and then find that I had to then reverse out.