What defines hands free?
Discussion
Was out driving today when a women turned off the main road in front of me. Now she had both hands on the steering wheel, but she had a phone (that she was clearly talking into) held in place by her hijab. I am not sure how I feel about this, was she breaking the law or just being resourceful?
Drumroll said:
Was out driving today when a women turned off the main road in front of me. Now she had both hands on the steering wheel, but she had a phone (that she was clearly talking into) held in place by her hijab. I am not sure how I feel about this, was she breaking the law or just being resourceful?
Law says holding in hand, so fair play.Oceanrower said:
It’s quite a simple question.
What defines hands free?
Was she holding it in her hands?
There’s your answer…
Actually it isn't.What defines hands free?
Was she holding it in her hands?
There’s your answer…
The legislation defines a hand held mobile telephone like this:
"a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point while being used."
JagLad said:
Oceanrower said:
It’s quite a simple question.
What defines hands free?
Was she holding it in her hands?
There’s your answer…
Actually it isn't.What defines hands free?
Was she holding it in her hands?
There’s your answer…
The legislation defines a hand held mobile telephone like this:
"a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point while being used."
Oceanrower said:
JagLad said:
Oceanrower said:
It’s quite a simple question.
What defines hands free?
Was she holding it in her hands?
There’s your answer…
Actually it isn't.What defines hands free?
Was she holding it in her hands?
There’s your answer…
The legislation defines a hand held mobile telephone like this:
"a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point while being used."
I'm not saying you're wrong, but there was a thread where someone posted about being caught driving while using a phone.
Their defence was "I wasn't using it, I was only holding it"! I would've thought that 'holding' was 'using', but many on the thread thought otherwise.
It wasn't resolved. I'll link it if I can find it.
"Driving with mobile switched off - Page 1 - Speed, Plod & the Law - PistonHeads UK" https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Edited by Super Sonic on Thursday 20th June 00:25
Super Sonic said:
So how about texting with the phone on your lap?
The definition makes it clear what a "hand held" device is. The law prevents such a device being used whilst driving, so whether or not it was held is not the issue. Texting on your lap is using a phone. If the phone is one which "is or must be held at some point while using it" the offence is made out.Oceanrower said:
I must be missing something. Isn’t that what I said?
But what you said doesn't really help. In the situation described, the phone was not being held in the driver's hand. It was seemingly wedged between her ear and her hijab. She had both hands on the steering wheel. But the phone clearly met the definition because to use it (for example to make a call) it would have to be held at some point (perhaps whilst the number was keyed in, or obtained from a contacts list, or whatever). What makes it "hand held" is not necessarily what's being done with it at the time, but what has to be done with it "at some point when using it."Oceanrower said:
JagLad said:
Oceanrower said:
It’s quite a simple question.
What defines hands free?
Was she holding it in her hands?
There’s your answer…
Actually it isn't.What defines hands free?
Was she holding it in her hands?
There’s your answer…
The legislation defines a hand held mobile telephone like this:
"a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point while being used."
You asked 'was she holding it in her hands?' The legislation doesn't state how it needs to be held.
It may be construed that way but I don't believe this has been decided by the courts.
JagLad said:
What makes it "hand held" is not necessarily what's being done with it at the time, but what has to be done with it "at some point when using it."
But it has to be held and used at the same time for the offence to be commited. We don't know that when she made or received the call she was driving. JagLad said:
But what you said doesn't really help. In the situation described, the phone was not being held in the driver's hand. It was seemingly wedged between her ear and her hijab. She had both hands on the steering wheel. But the phone clearly met the definition because to use it (for example to make a call) it would have to be held at some point (perhaps whilst the number was keyed in, or obtained from a contacts list, or whatever). What makes it "hand held" is not necessarily what's being done with it at the time, but what has to be done with it "at some point when using it."
Apparently , according to someone who claims to know, texting is ok if the phone is sitting on your thigh. The offence is only 'made out' if the phone is held in your actual hand. I thought he was talking b
ks but IANAL.Edited by Super Sonic on Thursday 20th June 00:44
Zeeky said:
But it has to be held and used at the same time for the offence to be commited.
No it doesn't.The legislation is quite distinct. It firstly says that "No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using a hand-held mobile telephone"
Then, much later, it goes on to define what a hand held mobile telephone is:
"a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point while being used."
The second part quoted (the definition) does not relate to the first part (the use to which it is being put at the particular time the offence is alleged to have taken place). It simply defines what a "hand held" phone is.
The phrase "is or must be" is the clincher really. If it just said "...is to be treated as hand-held if it is held at some point while being used" it would indicate that it must be held whilst being used. But it doesn't. It says "..or must be" which indicates that the two (holding and using) need not occur together.
A driver could initiate a call before setting off, wedge the phone between his shoulder and ear and begin driving. By your theory he would be OK. By the legislation he would not because the phone "must be held at some point while being used". He started using it before he began driving. But he cannot continue to use it once he sets off.
Perhaps it's easier to put it this way: If a phone "...must be held at some time while being used" it is always a hand held phone. Hand held phones cannot be used whilst driving
Edited by JagLad on Thursday 20th June 01:24
Edited by JagLad on Thursday 20th June 01:25
The held at some point doesn’t stack up with voice control these days. Wedge it under your hijab and start driving and then say hey siri call x. Would be stretching it. It needs to be tested in court. If having one clamped to the dashboard is ok then wedged in your hijab is no different
Edited by craigjm on Thursday 20th June 01:32
JagLad said:
Somewhat patronising comment
Following your logic if you initiate a call when stationary and then put the handset in a cradle before moving off and using hands free you would also commit the offence. a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is,... ,held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call
You would need to end the call and make another after it was put in the cradle. That's a clincher.
Edited by Zeeky on Thursday 20th June 18:17
craigjm said:
The held at some point doesn’t stack up with voice control these days. Wedge it under your hijab and start driving and then say hey siri call x. Would be stretching it. It needs to be tested in court. If having one clamped to the dashboard is ok then wedged in your hijab is no different
Yes, I think this correct. Edited by craigjm on Thursday 20th June 01:32
If the phone is operated entirely by voice without the driver touching it, then there is no offence.
Had the driver clipped it into a holder on the dashboard and made or answered a call by voice then there’s no difference.
I was standing talking to colleagues in our work car park the other day when a guy pulls up in a battered and scraped Merc E Class, and had his phone attached to his head with elastic bands. Absolutely no word of a lie.
He had his phone against his ear like you would if you were holding it in your hand, but held in place with 2 or 3 elastic bands around his head.
I didn't know whether to laugh or be impressed.
He had his phone against his ear like you would if you were holding it in your hand, but held in place with 2 or 3 elastic bands around his head.
I didn't know whether to laugh or be impressed.
Zeeky]agLad]Somewhat patronising comment/quote said:
Following your logic if you initiate a call when stationary and then put the handset in a cradle before moving off and using hands free you would also commit the offence.
a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is,... ,held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call
You would need to end the call and make another after it was put in the cradle. That's a clincher.
"Hey Siri, end the call"a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is,... ,held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call
You would need to end the call and make another after it was put in the cradle. That's a clincher.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff