bjd:
Where do you find the code ?
Can’t you see it? 
On the back of the photocard, there is a column headed codes. So 01 would show there.
01 - eyesight correction, for example glasses or contact lenses
AndieHyde:
discoman:
Drempels:
sammym:
So the police say they will start checking the vision of people driving - presumably at worst inconveniencing you for about 30 seconds if stopped (which has happened twice in a decade), and potentially stopping people who can’t see from driving. And they are getting slated.Yet how many posts on here say the police should do more to curb crap driving? How many people knock them for not doing enough? Seems to me that they can’t win in this situation.
When I was knocked off my push bike and the young girl said she couldn’t see me - I’d have been okay with them checking her site. Why couldn’t she see me on a perfectly clear sunny day? I’m still in pain with my knee. If I’m stopped again I’m more than happy with the police checking my site - and if my vision ever does get bad I’ll make sure I wear my glasses.
I agree with that in principle, it’s the creeping shift from presumed innocence that concerns me.
The specific problem here, is not being addressed. Namely people who look and don’t care what they see, they carry on doing what ever it is they intended to do. That comes under the standard of driving in general.
Stop thinking there is presumed innocence … here is no such thing… I’m sure when a member of the police states, I caught you at 90 in a 70. It I presumed you were innocent . No, you have to prove your innocence.
WOW…just WOW.
Not your choice flatfoot. You leave it well paid bloke in the funny wig to decide who is guilty or not. Your opinion is not required here.
“To be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of your peers”
Not your Judge Dread " I am the law " small ■■■■■ waving.
It’s not just wow, it is reality … the days of being innocent until guilt proved are long gone, why do you think persons are held on remand etc. as said if you go through a red light in the car and get a tug, if your presumed innocent why are you charged with said offence and then you have to protest it in court.
I’d also question why she had a tetra handset in her bedroom.
[/quote]
A modern police handset, is both, your able to use the Motorola as a mobile phone or a Radio hand set …
[/quote]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
looks like a them and us double standard again if thats the case.
if plod can legally use a mobile phone switched to handset use,then why is it illegal to use a mobile phone whilst driving if its on satnav ,camera,music,or uploading your faceache status mode.
if you can legally use a walkietalkie thing as a mobile hone,then why cant you use a mobile phone as anything else so long as your not calling someone.
surely the same type of non phone usage though basically a mobile phone with multiple features?
all we need is for one of those slimeball lawyers for the rich pondlife footballer/celebrities to try that one as an excuse.
i wish i could patent the idea.
I was using the calculator officer [emoji61]♀️
. the days of being innocent until guilt proved are long gone,
Are you ■■■■■■■ serious!!!
Just get on and declare war on us already and see how that works out for your police state.
There is a thing called due process, part of the rule of law.
You can arrest me and charge me, still doesnt make me guilty does it. The afforementioned ponce in a funny wig and 12 people of the general public decide that. NOT YOU.
If someone broke into my house in the middle of the night, and I weaponised some furniture in self defence.
I would bet you are the type of “officer” who would take great pride in arresting me to get some well earned compo for the “victims”
A copper who believes ." the days of being innocent until guilt proved are long gone," needs to start looking for a new job.
AndieHyde:
. the days of being innocent until guilt proved are long gone,Are you [zb] serious!!!
Just get on and declare war on us already and see how that works out for your police state.There is a thing called due process, part of the rule of law.
You can arrest me and charge me, still doesnt make me guilty does it. The afforementioned ponce in a funny wig and 12 people of the general public decide that. NOT YOU.If someone broke into my house in the middle of the night, and I weaponised some furniture in self defence.
I would bet you are the type of “officer” who would take great pride in arresting me to get some well earned compo for the “victims”A copper who believes ." the days of being innocent until guilt proved are long gone," needs to start looking for a new job.
I am no longer a serving UK Officer, but now a serving cop in NSW. I have been here a few years, and I now wok out of NW Sydney in the horrific job of Highway Patrol (yes some have to do it)… when I am in a vehicle following a driver who thinks it is appropriate to do 170kph in a 100kph, then yes, he is guilty. I use the in vehicle recording operations to justify why I deem him guilty of said offence, and then he has to prove his innocence. With evidence proving he is guilty then I do not have to presume his innocence. He has to justify his innocence to me…
Just because, I can prove his guilt doesn’t mean he will get fines and demerits, many times I have let people off of being on the phone speeding etc. it’s called discretion.
If a driver is a idiot swerving all over the road Drunk, I am sure you would want me Presume he is drunk and breathalyser him and take him in right ?
Btw, over here I have the right to with immediate affect suspend a persons licence … and inform the rms and SDRT as such to ensure they do not get a licence back until fines are paid …
And, actually I have empathy for victims, but sadly, here is where lies the problem there is never justice for victims generally and that is a pain of my job, as much as I love it… I despise criminals being left to walk by judges who deem them deserving one last chance to go home and beat there wives and put them in hospital … don’t blame he “police” for the CPS letting the country down.
discoman:
AndieHyde:
. the days of being innocent until guilt proved are long gone,Are you [zb] serious!!!
Just get on and declare war on us already and see how that works out for your police state.There is a thing called due process, part of the rule of law.
You can arrest me and charge me, still doesnt make me guilty does it. The afforementioned ponce in a funny wig and 12 people of the general public decide that. NOT YOU.If someone broke into my house in the middle of the night, and I weaponised some furniture in self defence.
I would bet you are the type of “officer” who would take great pride in arresting me to get some well earned compo for the “victims”A copper who believes ." the days of being innocent until guilt proved are long gone," needs to start looking for a new job.
I am no longer a serving UK Officer, but now a serving cop in NSW. I have been here a few years, and I now wok out of NW Sydney in the horrific job of Highway Patrol (yes some have to do it)… when I am in a vehicle following a driver who thinks it is appropriate to do 170kph in a 100kph, then yes, he is guilty. I use the in vehicle recording operations to justify why I deem him guilty of said offence, and then he has to prove his innocence. With evidence proving he is guilty then I do not have to presume his innocence. He has to justify his innocence to me…
Just because, I can prove his guilt doesn’t mean he will get fines and demerits, many times I have let people off of being on the phone speeding etc. it’s called discretion.
If a driver is a idiot swerving all over the road Drunk, I am sure you would want me Presume he is drunk and breathalyser him and take him in right ?
I don’t think you’re an ex or serving anything. I think you’re a fantasist. Have a nice life, sweetie.
Drempels:
discoman:
AndieHyde:
. the days of being innocent until guilt proved are long gone,Are you [zb] serious!!!
Just get on and declare war on us already and see how that works out for your police state.There is a thing called due process, part of the rule of law.
You can arrest me and charge me, still doesnt make me guilty does it. The afforementioned ponce in a funny wig and 12 people of the general public decide that. NOT YOU.If someone broke into my house in the middle of the night, and I weaponised some furniture in self defence.
I would bet you are the type of “officer” who would take great pride in arresting me to get some well earned compo for the “victims”A copper who believes ." the days of being innocent until guilt proved are long gone," needs to start looking for a new job.
I am no longer a serving UK Officer, but now a serving cop in NSW. I have been here a few years, and I now wok out of NW Sydney in the horrific job of Highway Patrol (yes some have to do it)… when I am in a vehicle following a driver who thinks it is appropriate to do 170kph in a 100kph, then yes, he is guilty. I use the in vehicle recording operations to justify why I deem him guilty of said offence, and then he has to prove his innocence. With evidence proving he is guilty then I do not have to presume his innocence. He has to justify his innocence to me…
Just because, I can prove his guilt doesn’t mean he will get fines and demerits, many times I have let people off of being on the phone speeding etc. it’s called discretion.
If a driver is a idiot swerving all over the road Drunk, I am sure you would want me Presume he is drunk and breathalyser him and take him in right ?
I don’t think you’re an ex or serving anything. I think you’re a fantasist. Have a nice life, sweetie.
Well, I have legitimate certificated proving I am here and was their, but I do not need to prove it. I am just merely giving a perspective from a policing side.
discoman:
Drempels:
discoman:
AndieHyde:
. the days of being innocent until guilt proved are long gone,Are you [zb] serious!!!
Just get on and declare war on us already and see how that works out for your police state.There is a thing called due process, part of the rule of law.
You can arrest me and charge me, still doesnt make me guilty does it. The afforementioned ponce in a funny wig and 12 people of the general public decide that. NOT YOU.If someone broke into my house in the middle of the night, and I weaponised some furniture in self defence.
I would bet you are the type of “officer” who would take great pride in arresting me to get some well earned compo for the “victims”A copper who believes ." the days of being innocent until guilt proved are long gone," needs to start looking for a new job.
I am no longer a serving UK Officer, but now a serving cop in NSW. I have been here a few years, and I now wok out of NW Sydney in the horrific job of Highway Patrol (yes some have to do it)… when I am in a vehicle following a driver who thinks it is appropriate to do 170kph in a 100kph, then yes, he is guilty. I use the in vehicle recording operations to justify why I deem him guilty of said offence, and then he has to prove his innocence. With evidence proving he is guilty then I do not have to presume his innocence. He has to justify his innocence to me…
Just because, I can prove his guilt doesn’t mean he will get fines and demerits, many times I have let people off of being on the phone speeding etc. it’s called discretion.
If a driver is a idiot swerving all over the road Drunk, I am sure you would want me Presume he is drunk and breathalyser him and take him in right ?
I don’t think you’re an ex or serving anything. I think you’re a fantasist. Have a nice life, sweetie.
Well, I have legitimate certificated proving I am here and was their, but I do not need to prove it. I am just merely giving a perspective from a policing side.
I’d ignore it.
Trucknet is the place where everyone is presumed guilty… Guilty of being a liar and everything in between. I can’t even recommend decent paying jobs to newbies (as a newbie myself) without the childish insults and troll accusations appearing. It really is a cesspit at times - with a spinkle of great people who will go out of their way to help each other and share experiences.
Even if you did provide evidence (as I’ve done in the past a few times) you’d still have the village idiots telling you it was fake. I’ve offered to meet up with people before (for a coffee not a fight) who were adamant I wasn’t real. Amazingly those people never want to meet - they love sitting behind their keyboards and typing negative things. They are the same people who take a photo of someone struggling to get onto a bay and ■■■■■ about it on here rather than offering to help.
P.S - thanks for the info about TETRA. I didn’t know that and I did a bit of testing on the handsets a good few years ago (RF testing not police stuff) so I’m not sure how you would know those features unless you were real. But don’t let that get in the way of the accusations on here.
sammym:
RoadsRat:
mac12:
This is a little off topic but shows the double standards 2 or 3 weeks ago on one of the police shows on tv it showed a copper driving along talking on his phone to his wife before she went to bed, it was hands free but they keep telling us not to use any phone.Phone or police radio handset?
No different to a truck driver legally using his CB radio or Bluetooth handsfree while driving.
If he was using the airwaves to talk to his wife in bed I’d be even less impressed!
I’d also question why she had a tetra handset in her bedroom.
The emergency services airwave system and tetra handset has the facility to allow users to make external calls to a landline/mobile number.
AndieHyde:
I will stand to be corrected but I seem to remember that it has always been a police power to make a motorist read a standard number plate at a set distance if so requested at the side of the road?
Yes, section 96 of the road traffic act.
(1)If a person drives a motor vehicle on a road while his eyesight is such (whether through a defect which cannot be or one which is not for the time being sufficiently corrected) that he cannot comply with any requirement as to eyesight prescribed under this Part of this Act for the purposes of tests of competence to drive, he is guilty of an offence.
(2)A constable having reason to suspect that a person driving a motor vehicle may be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above may require him to submit to a test for the purpose of ascertaining whether, using no other means of correction than he used at the time of driving, he can comply with the requirement concerned.
(3)If that person refuses to submit to the test he is guilty of an offence.
dieseldog999:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
looks like a them and us double standard again if thats the case.
if plod can legally use a mobile phone switched to handset use,then why is it illegal to use a mobile phone whilst driving if its on satnav ,camera,music,or uploading your faceache status mode.
if you can legally use a walkietalkie thing as a mobile hone,then why cant you use a mobile phone as anything else so long as your not calling someone.
surely the same type of non phone usage though basically a mobile phone with multiple features?
all we need is for one of those slimeball lawyers for the rich pondlife footballer/celebrities to try that one as an excuse.
i wish i could patent the idea.
Police officers don’t use mobile phones, they use a tetra (Terrestrial Trunked Radio) handset. 
Police officers operate their radios handsfree while driving, whether that’s as a radio or phone and is completely legal.
The legislation refers to holding the phone.
If you don’t like the legislation, speak to your MP. It wasn’t the police that devised the mobile phone law, it was the government. The police only enforce the rules.
RoadsRat:
dieseldog999:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
looks like a them and us double standard again if thats the case.
if plod can legally use a mobile phone switched to handset use,then why is it illegal to use a mobile phone whilst driving if its on satnav ,camera,music,or uploading your faceache status mode.
if you can legally use a walkietalkie thing as a mobile hone,then why cant you use a mobile phone as anything else so long as your not calling someone.
surely the same type of non phone usage though basically a mobile phone with multiple features?
all we need is for one of those slimeball lawyers for the rich pondlife footballer/celebrities to try that one as an excuse.
i wish i could patent the idea.Police officers don’t use mobile phones, they use a tetra (Terrestrial Trunked Radio) handset.
Police officers operate their radios handsfree while driving, whether that’s as a radio or phone and is completely legal.
The legislation refers to holding the phone.
If you don’t like the legislation, speak to your MP. It wasn’t the police that devised the mobile phone law, it was the government. The police only enforce the rules.
Genuine question - with no side agenda.
If I have my mobile in a cradle that operates like a satnav mount - can I call/text with it when I’m stuck in traffic? As long as I’m not holding it.
Cheers
sammym:
Genuine question - with no side agenda.If I have my mobile in a cradle that operates like a satnav mount - can I call/text with it when I’m stuck in traffic? As long as I’m not holding it.
Cheers
Iirc you can, but your risk being done for driving without due care. I’m not a copper though. I reckon these new style voice controlled things are ok though.
Nite Owl:
sammym:
Genuine question - with no side agenda.If I have my mobile in a cradle that operates like a satnav mount - can I call/text with it when I’m stuck in traffic? As long as I’m not holding it.
Cheers
Iirc you can, but your risk being done for driving without due care. I’m not a copper though. I reckon these new style voice controlled things are ok though.
I was more thinking when you were sitting in none moving traffic and you want to text your mate to say you won’t be back for the pub or your mrs to tell her to hold of making your dinner.
Obviously at the moment you pull the handbrake and have a cheeky text high up in the cab with the curtains pulled forward - and hope the police are not out in their unmarked white scanias. But to know you were not breaking the law would be nice.
years back i had to take an eyesight test along with several other men . Some were allowed to step over the line "by only 1 pace so make it a gud un " so they could read the chart and thence pass the test. One bloke later was telling me he had taken his grandson swimming and his sight was so bad without his specs he wasnt sure which way up the little boy was when he was holding him.
sammym:
RoadsRat:
dieseldog999:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
looks like a them and us double standard again if thats the case.
if plod can legally use a mobile phone switched to handset use,then why is it illegal to use a mobile phone whilst driving if its on satnav ,camera,music,or uploading your faceache status mode.
if you can legally use a walkietalkie thing as a mobile hone,then why cant you use a mobile phone as anything else so long as your not calling someone.
surely the same type of non phone usage though basically a mobile phone with multiple features?
all we need is for one of those slimeball lawyers for the rich pondlife footballer/celebrities to try that one as an excuse.
i wish i could patent the idea.Police officers don’t use mobile phones, they use a tetra (Terrestrial Trunked Radio) handset.
Police officers operate their radios handsfree while driving, whether that’s as a radio or phone and is completely legal.
The legislation refers to holding the phone.
If you don’t like the legislation, speak to your MP. It wasn’t the police that devised the mobile phone law, it was the government. The police only enforce the rules.
Genuine question - with no side agenda.
If I have my mobile in a cradle that operates like a satnav mount - can I call/text with it when I’m stuck in traffic? As long as I’m not holding it.
Cheers
You must stay in full control of your vehicle at all times. The police can stop you if they think you’re not in control because you’re distracted and you could be prosecuted.
sammym:
Nite Owl:
sammym:
Genuine question - with no side agenda.If I have my mobile in a cradle that operates like a satnav mount - can I call/text with it when I’m stuck in traffic? As long as I’m not holding it.
Cheers
Iirc you can, but your risk being done for driving without due care. I’m not a copper though. I reckon these new style voice controlled things are ok though.
I was more thinking when you were sitting in none moving traffic and you want to text your mate to say you won’t be back for the pub or your mrs to tell her to hold of making your dinner.
Obviously at the moment you pull the handbrake and have a cheeky text high up in the cab with the curtains pulled forward - and hope the police are not out in their unmarked white scanias. But to know you were not breaking the law would be nice.
If the engines running, your in control of the vehicle. Or not as the case would be. Again iirc, there was a spate of people getting done whilst parked up with the engine running when this law first came into force.
Ps. Still not a copper.
Edit. Google is your friend.
telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/0 … o-driving/
I like the bit about paying at the drive through. You can route about in your packets for cash and that’s ok but if you use your pho e it’s dangerous?
I hope they set up roadblocks and test as many as they can. Imagine how that would thin the traffic out. Within a month you’d fly through that Dartford tunnel.