Advanced Driving Hub

mainbeam wrote:

Gareth wrote:

mainbeam wrote:A sat/nav communicates with a satellite

You've got completely the wrong end of the stick.

Which is irrelevant if it it is a device that meets the criteria of communication

It doesn't, unless you subscribe to the Alice in Wonderland approach of defining words to mean anything you like.

of course this probably hasn't been challenged in court yet and a decision there will depend on a number of things...
I can easily see CPS / judge / etc. deciding that satnavs do come under this criteria as most modern ones have many functions on top of the satnav bit - e.g. traffic / points of interest / etc. A satnav system like Waze (admittedly running on a mobile, not on a bespoke machine) uses even more interactive connectivity - allowing users to post comments about the journey (traffic conditions / police or camera van / etc.) - so there is little doubt that there is a valid argument now that a satnav uses the internet - my TomTom Go 6000 does, my phone with Waze on it does, but my in car system possibly doesn't...

Alasdair

If the device is capable of transmitting and receiving data, (para 4) it is caught by the legislation under para (1)(b). It really is that simple.

Alasdair, with respect to 'hand-held' use I think you are on difficult ground with this;

akirk wrote:... holding the phone to change the satnav would not be prohibited as you are only giving instruction to the device, not sending or receiving messages...

Note that 'transmitting and receiving data' doesn't appear in para 6. Giving the device instructions prior to actually sending data is high risk in terms of being on the wrong side of the legislation. It's akin to composing a text message. I cannot see it being treated favourably by a court.

...and don't forget the list in para 6 is not exhaustive

What you say makes sense - but the point I made above is that this is an argument based on semantics and narrow interpretation of the words in their original meaning - were this to come to court I see that a court would easily find someone guilty - esp. (as above) most satnavs now have plenty of internet functionality...

Alasdair

mainbeam wrote:If the device is capable of transmitting and receiving data, (para 4) it is caught by the legislation under para (1)(b). It really is that simple.

Sorry, I'm having a bit of trouble here.

110 says in part:
"(6) For the purposes of this regulation—

(a)a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive communication function;"

So, if you're not holding the device (and let's not worry about frequency of operation or one's definition of transmitting or receiving), what specific law is one breaking? You can touch it, lick it, kiss it, but you're not holding it.

None, under this regulation.

1(b) (in conjunction with (4) only relates to which devices are covered by the legislation in addition to mobile phones. That appears to be a very simple test. Is it capable of transmitting and receiving data? If it is, then of course, it is necessary for the device to be 'held'. (I don't think it needs to be transmitting or receiving data at the same time as it is held if the interactive function is being used at the time it is held, eg composing a text or entering information to the navigation function but that is just my view. I wouldn't take the risk.

mainbeam wrote:That appears to be a very simple test. Is it capable of transmitting and receiving data? If it is, then of course, it is necessary for the device to be 'held'.

Not sure I would agree with that - the ability for a device to transmit and receive is a part of it - the legislation refers to interactive (i.e. human being involved) plenty of devices can transmit or receive with no human involvement so the device need not be held - equally devices can transmit or receive with human involvement, but without the human interacting & equally with interaction, but without being held (e.g. voice commands) - ultimately all three need to happen:
- transmission / reception of data
- human interaction
- device being held

there are all sorts of issues as yet unresolved...
e.g. iwatch:
- legal to look at a normal watch for the time - is it legal to look at the iwatch for the time?
- is an iwatch on the wrist being held - english language would suggest not, no hand use
- how would a police officer know how you were using your iwatch?

lots of confusion ahead - simple answer is have James the chauffeur drive you home!

Alasdair