Strange Symbol?

[Chudy85]

Originally Posted by Polestar Pete

There's a thin piece of clear plastic in front of the dials. The vent here helps prevent that being fogged in cold conditions.

Woow I never thought about this. Now it make sense to me. Thank you Pete!!

[Bendolfc]

Originally Posted by nu11eaf

And that 33 means you are on the verge of a speeding ticket in a 30 zone with a speed camera about to take your picture. Hopefully you you were slowing down not speeding up. 😇

Probably safe with the speedo overread unless these cars are accurate.

Originally Posted by Philip Fisher

......whilst using a mobile to take a picture.

Not directly an offence as established by DPP v Baretto [2019] EWHC 2044.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...2019/2044.html

Perhaps not wise though.

[Chudy85]

Probably safe with the speedo overread unless these cars are accurate.

Main speedometer show 2 Mph more than on GPS

[Polestar Pete]

Originally Posted by Bendolfc

Not directly an offence as established by DPP v Baretto [2019] EWHC 2044.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...2019/2044.html

Not any more, that loophole was closed

https://www.wlmg.co.uk/news/new-mobi...ing-laws-2020/

Illegal use of a smartphone while driving
The updated legislation means you can now be prosecuted for the following smartphone actions while behind the wheel of a car.

* Making a phone call
* Sending a text message (including WhatsApp messaging and emails)
* Browsing the internet (including social media)
* Taking photos
* Filming
* Scrolling through a playlist

It's also a criminal offence to use a mobile phone while driving without being connected to a hands-free device.

The uk.gov page makes it even clearer:

It’s illegal to hold a phone or sat nav while driving or riding a motorcycle. You must have hands-free access

https://www.gov.uk/using-mobile-phon...riving-the-law

[Bendolfc]

Unless the legislation.gov.uk pages haven't been updated with ammendments, it doesn't appear to have changed. The CPS also seem to suggest no change https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidanc...-mobile-phones

[nu11eaf]

Of course the photo could have been taken by a passenger, no evidence it was the driver. 😇🤥

My original comment was intended to be light hearted banter not taken seriously. As I am sure Phil Fisher's was.

[Polestar Pete]

Originally Posted by Bendolfc

Unless the legislation.gov.uk pages haven't been updated with ammendments, it doesn't appear to have changed. The CPS also seem to suggest no change https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidanc...-mobile-phones

From your link:

“Use”
A mobile telephone or device will be in use where it is making or receiving a call, or performing any other interactive communication function, whether with another person or not.

For the purposes of section 41D and Regulation 110 the “use” must be for an interactive communication function (Baretto paragraph 37.) The legislation does not prohibit all uses of mobile telephones or other devices, just calls or other interactive communications if the phone or device is held at some stage during that process (Baretto paragraph 47.)

The phone or device does not need to be seized before a prosecution can be brought but it will be necessary for there to be sufficient evidence that it was being used for a call or interactive communication rather than any other purpose before a prosecution under section 41D(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 can proceed.

See Alternative Offences and Mobile phones and other driving offences where the evidence of for section 41D(b) is not sufficient.

leading to

Alternative Offences
In cases where there is uncertainty regarding the nature of the device, or dispute about whether it is being used, the alternative offence under Section 41(D)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (driving in such a position that he cannot have proper control of the vehicle) may be preferred. In some circumstances the evidence may support a charge of careless or dangerous driving depending on the seriousness of the risk posed by the driving. Thirlwell LJ delivering the judgment in Baretto emphasised that drivers should not imagine the case gave them a green light to take films as they drove:

“… driving while filming events or taking photographs whether with a separate camera or with the camera on a phone, may be cogent evidence of careless driving, and possibly of dangerous driving. It is criminal conduct which may be prosecuted and on conviction may result in the imposition of penalties significantly more serious than those which flow from breach of the regulations. The same applies to any other use of the phone while driving.” .

My bold. Although Baretto argued his way out of prosecution, the CPS advice here reminds prosecutors that mobile phone use implies dangerous driving.

Therefore, waving the Baretto case in the face of traffic officers isn't a fit defence for filming or otherwise holding a mobile phone while driving.

[Lennyboybruce]

Originally Posted by MikeGMT

There are two speed limit functions, normal and automatic. You have the ASL activated so the symbol appears in the display. You can disable the ASL function in Sensus. Just a word of caution, be aware if you have ASL selected and you are on a fast road.

Many thanks Mike, that's very helpful.

For the concerned citizens, yes I was indeed slowing down, and the wife next to me took the picture - safety first always

[Bendolfc]

Originally Posted by Polestar Pete

From your link:



leading to



My bold. Although Baretto argued his way out of prosecution, the CPS advice here reminds prosecutors that mobile phone use implies dangerous driving.

Therefore, waving the Baretto case in the face of traffic officers isn't a fit defence for filming or otherwise holding a mobile phone while driving.

It's going way off topic now sorry, just wanted to clear up that at present there is no specific offence for taking a picture. I did quantify it with the comment that it may bit be a good idea.

Yes doing it may fall foul off careless / dangerous driving or driving without due care and attention, although they all have a higher burden of proof and can't be established from a photo as in the OP, which was why the badly worded ill thought out mobile phone specific legislation was introduced in the first place.

[Philip Fisher]

Originally Posted by nu11eaf

Of course the photo could have been taken by a passenger, no evidence it was the driver. 😇🤥

My original comment was intended to be light hearted banter not taken seriously. As I am sure Phil Fisher's was.

I was indeed just gently taking the p155