“In four years Mike van Erp has filmed 1,400 drivers using their phones, leading to 1,800 penalty points, £110,000 of fines — and him being assaulted by disgruntled motorists. Is he a road safety hero or just a darned nuisance? Nick Rufford joins him on patrol”
I’ve watched a few of his videos. I should be surprised that he catches so many drivers in their phones, but in and around London? Not surprised at all.
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.
I think you got me confused with another commenter. Also I believe I’ve already answered your question (comment with RoSPA in it).
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.
When there is suspicion of drink driving. Editorialising facts serves nothing other than to make your statements seem unreliable.
No, that’s not correct. It’s entirely about determining when you are, or not, driving. That’s why the course went to the House of Lords for a determination. This precedent 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 can answer that simple question without having to rely on anything I have stated.
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?
Happy to restate the question:
Is using a handheld phone while stopped and stuck in traffic more dangerous than using a phone handsfree while driving at 60 miles an hour?
You never asked me that question, and it’s nothing to do with what I was talking about (the law behind what constitutes being in control of a vehicle), soooo… I guess you really are just being disingenuous! Like I said, when you twist reality like this there is no merit to others engaging with you, so I’m outta here!
And now you’re running off, because you know fine well what the answer is and what that entails.
Instead of admitting that you’re wrong and reconsidering your perspective, you’re just hiding in deeper and deeper levels of denial to protect your ego.
Cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable, but the only lasting resolution is to reject your beliefs that do not stand up to scrutiny.
It’s easier in the short term to take the path which preserves your ego, but you’ll always be wrong, and it gets harder and harder to deny reality.
Every time you reject the truth it gets harder and harder for you to admit that you were wrong all along.
🤣🤣