Comment on What’s driving Cycling Mikey, Britain’s most hated cyclist?
Blake@feddit.uk 1 year agowww.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
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
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.
Perhaps you should read the case law you’re quoting, because the exceptional circumstances are quite well laid out.
Very clearly I have read it more carefully than you have, considering you’re continuing to misunderstand it.
Are you deflecting to arguing minutiae because you’re unable to refute my actual argument?
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.”
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.
Arrakis@feddit.uk 1 year ago
When there is suspicion of drink driving. Editorialising facts serves nothing other than to make your statements seem unreliable.
Blake@feddit.uk 1 year ago
No, that’s not correct. It’s entirely about determining when you are, or not, driving. That’s why the course went to court. This legal case establishes that “driving” can include when you’ve stopped and gotten out of the car, assuming that you intend to continue your journey.
See my previous comment: are you going to actually answer my question? Whether or not you think my statements are unreliable doesn’t matter.
You answer that simple question without having to rely on anything I have stated.
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).
Blake@feddit.uk 1 year ago
Sorry, at this point I have no way of knowing who has written what, because the “Context” link is broken so I can’t tell what any comment is in response to.