Simple analysis shows that around one fifth of those caught opted for a not guilty plea in court assuming that rarely did somebody go to court to plead guilty. I have no figures for those in that category who might have pleaded special reasons.
Many organisations; motoring and others complain of the inactivity of police for the apparent reduction in FPNs for use of a mobile phone when driving. Could it not be as per my opening sentence that improved technology is the real reason that drivers appear to be talking and driving? We have all heard stories in court of police evidence of sudden movement of mobiles from hand to elsewhere in a vehicle............
The case that springs to mind is Special Constable Collette Carpenter who escaped any prosecution after pulling out on and being involved in a fatal collision with a motorcyclist. After initially denying using her phone, she later "recalled" (when shown the call log) that she had indeed been on an extended call at the time, but that (her memory crystallising rapidly) it had been on her lap, and was never at any time held in her hand. Of course.
ReplyDeleteConversely, Sarah McCaffery (not a police constable) was convicted of not in proper control for eating an apple, her prosecution involving the local force revisiting the scene to film it from both car and helicopter.
Or Elsa Harris (also not a police constable) who committed the heinous crime of peeling a banana in her car while it was stopped in a traffic jam. After declining to contribute to the local force coffers by attending a driver awareness course, she was prosecuted for (just for variety) driving without due care and attention.
The specific offence of using a hand held phone or device is neither sufficient nor necessary for prosecution or conviction. One could infer that it rather depends on who you are, or are not, rather than what you have done.