I wondered that. Can you be prosecuted as a passenger if you allow the driver to use a phone. It certainly seems so. So where is that line drawn. If I am waiting to cross the road and a guy drives past on his phone can I be prosecuted for not throwing myself under his wheels in order to force him to stop. :)
This law is a complete joke and wants scrapping. Use a real proper thought out law not one written by loony leftie treehugger veggies. :)
Interesting appeal ruling on mobile phone usage.
Moderator: Moderators
Forum rules
This forum may be used for your posts that don't fit elsewhere but please keep it clean, calm and respectful. As elsewhere, politics of any sort (including Club politics) are not permitted.
If you want to meet with others for your personal ride then please use the 'Anyone want to meet me?' forum.
If you want to invite the BM Riders Club to other club events please do it through official channels by contacting the Club Secretary.
Any posts contravening these guidelines may be removed without warning.
This forum may be used for your posts that don't fit elsewhere but please keep it clean, calm and respectful. As elsewhere, politics of any sort (including Club politics) are not permitted.
If you want to meet with others for your personal ride then please use the 'Anyone want to meet me?' forum.
If you want to invite the BM Riders Club to other club events please do it through official channels by contacting the Club Secretary.
Any posts contravening these guidelines may be removed without warning.
Re: Interesting appeal ruling on mobile phone usage.
'Causing' could be an employer who requires a driver employee to have to use a mobile to be able to carry out his/her duties properly. 'Permitting' could be the aforementioned driver who is supervising a learner - if the learner uses a mobile whilst driving, the supervisor has 'permitted' due to the fact that he/she is 'in charge' of the vehicle. A supervisor can also be prosecuted under drink-drive legislation.
Pete
Pete
Nocto Diuque Venamur
Re: Interesting appeal ruling on mobile phone usage.
No....only if you're supervising a learner, because then you do have certain responsibilities and liabilities.I wondered that. Can you be prosecuted as a passenger if you allow the driver to use a phone. It certainly seems so. So where is that line drawn. If I am waiting to cross the road and a guy drives past on his phone can I be prosecuted for not throwing myself under his wheels in order to force him to stop. :)
This law is a complete joke and wants scrapping. Use a real proper thought out law not one written by loony leftie treehugger veggies. :)

Pete
Nocto Diuque Venamur
- Rob Frankhamr
- Club Member 13
- Posts: 2902
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:33 pm
- Country of Residence: Scotland
- Location: Kinloch Rannoch, Perthshire
Re: Interesting appeal ruling on mobile phone usage.
Hiwhat is "causing or permitting", apart from forcing a knife point oe supervising a learner?prohibit a person from driving, or causing or permitting a person to drive,
George
In somewhat simplistic terms...
Say a van with (for instance) defective brakes is owned by a company and the owner of the company were to instruct a driver employed by the company to use the vehicle, that would come under the heading of 'causing' a person to commit an offence.
If the driver were to come to the owner and ask permission to use the vehicle out of hours and that permission was granted, the owner would be permitting the offence.
In both instances, both the driver and the owner might be committing offences.
I can't think of a way that 'permitting' would be relevant to mobile phone offences but I could see that, if the owner of a company insists that his drivers answer the phone immediately, even when they are driving, he could be held to be 'causing' the offence.
Rob
Re: Interesting appeal ruling on mobile phone usage.
I gave one a couple of replies above yours Rob!Hiwhat is "causing or permitting", apart from forcing a knife point oe supervising a learner?prohibit a person from driving, or causing or permitting a person to drive,
George
In somewhat simplistic terms...
Say a van with (for instance) defective brakes is owned by a company and the owner of the company were to instruct a driver employed by the company to use the vehicle, that would come under the heading of 'causing' a person to commit an offence.
If the driver were to come to the owner and ask permission to use the vehicle out of hours and that permission was granted, the owner would be permitting the offence.
In both instances, both the driver and the owner might be committing offences.
I can't think of a way that 'permitting' would be relevant to mobile phone offences but I could see that, if the owner of a company insists that his drivers answer the phone immediately, even when they are driving, he could be held to be 'causing' the offence.
Rob

Pete
Nocto Diuque Venamur
-
- Forum User
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 10:04 pm
- Country of Residence: Havant, England
Re: Interesting appeal ruling on mobile phone usage.
Permitting as an employer would be having a set of rules or procedures in place detailing how, &
when you could use a handheld device, & a disciplinary procedure in force for when someone is caught
breaching those rules. Then, when someone is caught breaking said rules, doing nothing about it, thus
allowing, permitting, the act to be repeated.
when you could use a handheld device, & a disciplinary procedure in force for when someone is caught
breaching those rules. Then, when someone is caught breaking said rules, doing nothing about it, thus
allowing, permitting, the act to be repeated.
- Rob Frankhamr
- Club Member 13
- Posts: 2902
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:33 pm
- Country of Residence: Scotland
- Location: Kinloch Rannoch, Perthshire
Re: Interesting appeal ruling on mobile phone usage.
Permitting as an employer would be having a set of rules or procedures in place detailing how, &
when you could use a handheld device, & a disciplinary procedure in force for when someone is caught
breaching those rules. Then, when someone is caught breaking said rules, doing nothing about it, thus
allowing, permitting, the act to be repeated.
I'd love to hear that one argued in court... but I don't think it would go anywhere.
Rob
Return to “General Off Topic Chat”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests