'Smart' watches - another distraction?

[squeaker]

Given that most drivers seem to have their hand(s) on the wheel at 25 past 6, I doubt it but who knows

In that these things seem to need a smart phone to connect, is using a smart watch, other than to see what time it is, ipso facto using a mobile phone?

[Psamathe]

As the watches need a smartphone to operate, I wonder if legally there might be an argument that, when you use your smartwatch you are actually/also using your smartphone.

I appreciate it that in some respects the same could be said of my using my laptop and in effect I am using remote servers (although my laptop will operate without remote servers). But I doubt this would be too relevant were it to come to a court case (i.e. using a smartwatch/smartphone combination is probably equally illegal/unwise as using a laptop to browse the internet whilst driving).

But then it's all rather academic as the chances of a driver being caught for using their phone whilst driving are negligible, so the chances of being caught using a smartwatch (if it were illegal) are ...

Ian

[snibgo]

... is using a smart watch, other than to see what time it is, ipso facto using a mobile phone?

I think the relevant wording is "hand-held communication device". If nothing is held in the hand, that offence isn't committed.

It could be a distraction, of course. "Not in proper control", etc.

[[XAP]Bob]

So if I balance my mobile in the steering wheel then it's not hand held any more?

Maybe we should be using the more "general" legal implements which already exist - If you are using any other device you are not driving with "due care". If you're parked, or stopped at lights then some usage can be accomplished whilst still exhibiting due care (after all the amber phase allows you to drop what you're doing and check for hazards... It's not like we need it for double de-clutching any more...)

[snibgo]

The legislation is The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2003.

The offense is slightly wider than I had thought.

(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using—

(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or

(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).

...

(4) A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data.

...

(6)(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;

(But, roughly speaking, it's okay in an emergency.)

Court cases have arisen over the precise meaning of "drive", "road" and "using" in this context. I think that balancing a mobile in the steering wheel would be ruled as "hand-held". But I think a wrist-watch, worn on the wrist, stabbed by fingers of the other hand, probably would not be "hand-held".

[[XAP]Bob]

The legislation is The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2003.

The offense is slightly wider than I had thought.

(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using—

(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or

(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).

...

(4) A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data.

...

(6)(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;

(But, roughly speaking, it's okay in an emergency.)

Court cases have arisen over the precise meaning of "drive", "road" and "using" in this context. I think that balancing a mobile in the steering wheel would be ruled as "hand-held". But I think a wrist-watch, worn on the wrist, stabbed by fingers of the other hand, probably would not be "hand-held".

What's the difference between jammed in a steering wheel and being in a dedicated holder (other than ease of operation being better in a steering wheel)

'cos it's clearly not hand held if it's in a mount... Or maybe it is?

[snibgo]

If it's jammed in somewhere, or blu-tacked or taped or glued or in a holder ... and it doesn't have to be held to turn it on or whatever, then it isn't hand-held. But a court might need to be convinced of this.

[niggle]

The legislation is The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2003.

The offense is slightly wider than I had thought.

(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is using—

(a)a hand-held mobile telephone; or

(b)a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4).

...

(4) A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which performs an interactive communication function by transmitting and receiving data.

...

(6)(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;

(But, roughly speaking, it's okay in an emergency.)

Court cases have arisen over the precise meaning of "drive", "road" and "using" in this context. I think that balancing a mobile in the steering wheel would be ruled as "hand-held". But I think a wrist-watch, worn on the wrist, stabbed by fingers of the other hand, probably would not be "hand-held".

Does the above mean that a two-way radio is exempt?