Comment on What’s driving Cycling Mikey, Britain’s most hated cyclist?

• Blake@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  www.cps.gov.uk/…/road-traffic-mobile-phones

  the House of Lords in Pinner v Everett held that a person might still be driving even when they turned off the engine and got out of the car

  source

  • C4d@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    “However, although the House of Lords in Pinner v Everett held that a person might still be driving even when they turned off the engine and got out of the car it is unlikely, other than in exceptional circumstances, to be appropriate to use section 41D to prosecute any person who in these circumstances made a phone call or accessed the internet. See Public Interest.”

    source

    • Blake@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      It’s legal precedent. The decisions made in that way become law, and that ruling has been used several times since, and it could be used again, to convict someone in the exact manner I described.

      It’s just an example, anyways. The point of it was to make you think about how arbitrary enforcement of the law could be used to oppress an individual who had done nothing wrong.

      I am far more interested in having you address my actual argument itself, as a whole. I’m very open to changing my perspective if you can explain why using a handheld phone while stuck in a traffic jam is more dangerous than using a phone handsfree while driving.

      source

      • Arrakis@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        It’s legal precedent

        When there is suspicion of drink driving. Editorialising facts serves nothing other than to make your statements seem unreliable.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • C4d@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I think you got me confused with another commenter. Also I believe I’ve already answered your question (comment with RoSPA in it).

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Arrakis@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Maybe you should have included the entire quotation:

    However, although the House of Lords in Pinner v Everett held that a person might still be driving even when they turned off the engine and got out of the car it is unlikely, other than in exceptional circumstances, to be appropriate to use section 41D to prosecute any person who in these circumstances made a phone call or accessed the internet

    source

    • Blake@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Unlikely doesn’t mean it can’t happen. It also says “exceptional circumstances”. That’s two caveats that explicitly confirm that they can do EXACTLY what I wrote, if it suits them.

      source

      • Arrakis@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Perhaps you should read the case law you’re quoting, because the exceptional circumstances are quite well laid out.

        source

        • -> View More Comments