Comment on What’s driving Cycling Mikey, Britain’s most hated cyclist?
C4d@lemmy.world 10 months 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 10 months 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 10 months ago
When there is suspicion of drink driving. Editorialising facts serves nothing other than to make your statements seem unreliable.
Blake@feddit.uk 10 months 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.
Arrakis@feddit.uk 10 months ago
That’s not what the House decided at all. If you’re going to misquote and misconstrue law and disregard the actual decision points there isn’t really much merit for anyone else to discuss it with you. Like I said before, maybe you should actually read the case law and decisions lest people think you’re deliberately perpetuating falsehoods and not simply missundertanding.
You didn’t ask me a question? I’ve read through all your replies to me and none contain a question, are you confusing me with another commenter maybe?
C4d@lemmy.world 10 months 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 10 months 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.