80 euro fine for looking at time on ipod in car

A friend of mine got 3 penalty points and an 80 euro fine. He doesnt have a watch and while at the lights he looked at his ipod touch which is connected to the radio for the time. Simply becase the cup holder had a cup blocking the clock.
Just as he looked at the time and put the ipod back down, he heard a siren from a motorcycle cop. That cop told him to pull over. Which he did, he then drove up to another garda who was on foot, spoke to him and drove off.
The garda on foot came over and issued the fine and 3 penalty points. He said he was just doing what he was told.

It wasnt until he got home somebody told him that they can only give you a ticket for using a phone or holding a phone. Is this true ??

donvito99

Yes.

But you're friend is an idiot for thinking that Guards should be expected to have laser radar vision that distinguishes between the Touch and the iPhone.

donvito99

donvito99 wrote: »

Yes.

But you're friend is an idiot for thinking that Guards should be expected to have laser radar vision that distinguishes between the Touch and the iPhone.

so whats your point, we are talking law here. Its black and white. CAn you use an Ipod

NoQuarter

Deleted User wrote: »

so whats your point, we are talking law here. Its black and white.

Read it then.

coylemj

In the list of penalty points offences, it's called 'holding a mobile phone while driving', three points and €60 fine.

Your 'friend' should go to court, get into the witness box, swear the oath, produce the iPod, point out that this is what you he had in your his hand and that it is not a mobile phone.

Jawgap

Wait'll the ticket issues and see what it's for.

Dia1988

This is a bullsh1t!

Everbody knows that nobody gets fined for using a mobile phone while driving in Ireland.

I see drivers using mobile phones while driving everyday including lorry drivers!

Plus only the Garda on the bike could issue the ticket.

dodderangler

Let's just say your "friend" looks at the "iPod" to see the time and at that exact time a person or even a child walks in front of the car.
He hits them and injured or possibly kills them.
Your "friend" own fault.

coylemj

dodderangler wrote: »

Let's just say your "friend" looks at the "iPod" to see the time and at that exact time a person or even a child walks in front of the car.
He hits them and injured or possibly kills them.
Your "friend" own fault.

Let's say I was changing the radio station on my radio and the same thing happened, or lighting a cigarette, or checking a map.

This is a legal, not a moral forum.

Atlantic Dawn

What car do they have that doesn't have its own clock? I am not aware of any car that doesn't have one.

Dia1988

coylemj wrote: »

Let's say I was changing the radio station on my radio and the same thing happened, or lighting a cigarette, or checking a map.

This is a legal, not a moral forum.

Or SNEEZING!

I think there should be an 80 euro fine for Sneezing, sure it'll stop people from doing it!

:rolleyes:

dodderangler

Last time I checked a sneeze was a natural thing to happen.
An iPod in a car is not a be cesspit and therefore should be out in same category as phones.

Little CuChulainn

Dia1988 wrote: »

Or SNEEZING!

I think there should be an 80 euro fine for Sneezing, sure it'll stop people from doing it!

:rolleyes:

Sneezing is a natural bodily function, generally uncontrollable. Looking at an electronic device is not.

There is a specific offence for holding a phone but there is also a more general offence for careless driving or the lesser offence of driving without reasonable consideration which may be used for someone looking at an electronic device while driving.

Dia1988

Oh for the love of God, I was trying to be funny suggesting Sneezing shoud be banned!

hullaballoo

Jokes are strictly forbidden on this site apparently.

goz83

A friend of mine was given points and a fine when caught holding a cigarette pack at his chin (for some odd reason). The cop was convinced he had his phone in his hand.

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

What car do they have that doesn't have its own clock? I am not aware of any car that doesn't have one.

The op said a cup was blocking his (friends) view of the car clock.

Dia1988 wrote: »

Or SNEEZING!

I think there should be an 80 euro fine for Sneezing, sure it'll stop people from doing it!

:rolleyes:

:pac:

I actually was unfortunate enough to have a big old SNEEZE a few years ago, while turning into a bend and i ended up hitting the kerb and bending the wishbone on my 318. Perfectly impossible timing. Serves me right for trying to hold it back.

Peregrinus

If he gets a ticket which refers to a phone, he can as post #5 suggests fail to pay, go to court when charged, and give evidence that he was looking at an MP3 player, not a phone. If the court accepts his evidence, he should be a acquitted. He will have to offer some explanation of why he didn't point out that he was handling an iPod to the guard, who presumably at some point in the conversation mentioned "phone".

There is the risk of an alternative charge of driving without due care and attention, or similar, where the phone/iPod distinction is irrelevant.

Dia1988

Peregrinus wrote: »

If he gets a ticket which refers to a phone, he can as post #5 suggests fail to pay, go to court when charged, and give evidence that he was looking at an MP3 player, not a phone. If the court accepts his evidence, he should be a acquitted. He will have to offer some explanation of why he didn't point out that he was handling an iPod to the guard, who presumably at some point in the conversation mentioned "phone".

There is the risk of an alternative charge of driving without due care and attention, or similar, where the phone/iPod distinction is irrelevant.

The Judge will never accept this evidence,I mean Nobody has an iPod anymore!

coylemj

coylemj wrote: »

Let's say I was changing the radio station on my radio and the same thing happened, or lighting a cigarette, or checking a map.

This is a legal, not a moral forum.

Thats the point, i looked it up more and it just seems to be holding a "mobile phone" or cradling a mobile phone on your body is against the law. But as i said its an IPOD touch. Similar to the old iphones. He uses it for music and to check the time. All he did was check the time at the stop lights. He apologized and said he didnt think it was illegal but took the garda's word for it. It wasnt until he got into work that somebody else told him that the garda was wrong.

It wasnt me by the way I am not a driver.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

If he gets a ticket which refers to a phone, he can as post #5 suggests fail to pay, go to court when charged, and give evidence that he was looking at an MP3 player, not a phone. If the court accepts his evidence, he should be a acquitted. He will have to offer some explanation of why he didn't point out that he was handling an iPod to the guard, who presumably at some point in the conversation mentioned "phone"

This is were it gets strange for me. It was the Garda on the bike who saw it. He then waved down a garda on the street, spoke with him and got him to give the ticket. The Garda who was gave the ticket, didnt see anything. He said he was just doing what he was told. At this stage the Garda on the bike had driven off.

coylemj

Deleted User wrote: »

This is were it gets strange for me. It was the Garda on the bike who saw it. He then waved down a garda on the street, spoke with him and got him to give the ticket. The Garda who was gave the ticket, didnt see anything. He said he was just doing what he was told. At this stage the Garda on the bike had driven off.

The Garda who issued the ticket cannot quote his colleague in court (rule of heresay) so unless the first guy shows up, there is no case to answer. It's possible that the guy who issued the ticket put his colleague's name on the ticket in which case the first guy will get a notification to show up. Does sound strange all right.

NUTLEY BOY

Dia1988 wrote: »

Oh for the love of God, I was trying to be funny suggesting Sneezing shoud be banned!

Would you settle for banning smoking whilst driving ?

Greenmachine

Deleted User wrote: »

A friend of mine got 3 penalty points and an 80 euro fine. He doesnt have a watch and while at the lights he looked at his ipod touch which is connected to the radio for the time. Simply becase the cup holder had a cup blocking the clock.
Just as he looked at the time and put the ipod back down, he heard a siren from a motorcycle cop. That cop told him to pull over. Which he did, he then drove up to another garda who was on foot, spoke to him and drove off.
The garda on foot came over and issued the fine and 3 penalty points. He said he was just doing what he was told.

It wasnt until he got home somebody told him that they can only give you a ticket for using a phone or holding a phone. Is this true ??

Cup shouldn't be carried in the cup holder when the car is in motion.

FreudianSlippers

Road Traffic Act 2006, Section 3 (emphasis mine):

“ mobile phone ” means a portable communication device, other than a two-way radio, with which a person is capable of making or receiving a call or performing an interactive communication function, but for the purposes of subsection (1) does not include a hands-free device;

iPod Touch has been capable of sending/receiving messages since the release of iOS 5.0 on October 12, 2011.

irish_dave_83

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Road Traffic Act 2006, Section 3 (emphasis mine):


iPod Touch has been capable of sending/receiving messages since the release of iOS 5.0 on October 12, 2011.

I agree, He should just accept the fine and points. If he goes to court saying that the touch is not a mobile phone, and the judge quotes the law it will be worse for him.

maximoose

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Road Traffic Act 2006, Section 3 (emphasis mine):

iPod Touch has been capable of sending/receiving messages since the release of iOS 5.0 on October 12, 2011.

Not without a wifi connection, or tethering which most irish networks don't provide, no?

FreudianSlippers

maximoose wrote: »

Not without a wifi connection, or tethering which most irish networks don't provide, no?

How's he going to prove that it wasn't connected to WiFi?

A320

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

How's he going to prove that it wasn't connected to WiFi?

Is this a serious question??

Little CuChulainn

hullaballoo wrote: »

Jokes are strictly forbidden on this site apparently.

I think when taken in conjunction with this post

Dia1988 wrote: »

This is a bullsh1t!

Everbody knows that nobody gets fined for using a mobile phone while driving in Ireland.

I see drivers using mobile phones while driving everyday including lorry drivers!

Plus only the Garda on the bike could issue the ticket.

it's pretty clear it wasn't a joke but another attempt to dismiss the law as "bullsh1t" by making it look ridiculous.

nuac

If you do decide to let it go to summons stage, imho only the motorcycle Garda can give evidence.

I think he is going to fight it. Looking forward to seeing what happens

Foggy Jew

Dia1988 wrote: »

This is a bullsh1t!

Everbody knows that nobody gets fined for using a mobile phone while driving in Ireland.

I see drivers using mobile phones while driving everyday including lorry drivers!

Plus only the Garda on the bike could issue the ticket.

I must be the only one so.

uck51js9zml2yt

How will he prove he wasn't holding a phone.?
Guards word against his. No prizes for who will be believed.
The place to argue was on the roadside. A

Pay up op.

blade1

A lad i know was in court for this just a few weeks ago.
He got off with it because it was an ipod.
It was in the local paper aswell.

rubadub

blade1 wrote: »

A lad i know was in court for this just a few weeks ago.
He got off with it because it was an ipod.
It was in the local paper aswell.

was this a case where they said he was specifically holding a phone and turned out it wasn't?

It sounds like the gardai may not have uttered the word phone to this guy.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2006/en/act/pub/0023/sec0003.html

(4) The Minister may, to avoid the impairment or interference with the driving capacity or capabilities of the driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle, make regulations in relation to the restriction or prohibition in mechanically propelled vehicles in public places of the use of—

(a) a mobile phone (other than in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1)),

(b) an in-vehicle communication device,

(c) information equipment, or

(d) entertainment equipment.

I thought there was some general law they could pull you up on, not being in full control of the vehicle or something, so they could get you for eating, shaving, putting on makeup etc.

coylemj

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

iPod Touch has been capable of sending/receiving messages since the release of iOS 5.0 on October 12, 2011.

iPod Touch Generation2 can only run up to iOS4.

Case dismissed.

blade1

rubadub wrote: »

was this a case where they said he was specifically holding a phone and turned out it wasn't?

It sounds like the gardai may not have uttered the word phone to this guy.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2006/en/act/pub/0023/sec0003.html


I thought there was some general law they could pull you up on, not being in full control of the vehicle or something, so they could get you for eating, shaving, putting on makeup etc.

I'll send you a link for the case if you want.

FreudianSlippers

A320 wrote: »

Is this a serious question??

Yep. Is your question a serious question?

The legislation says "capable" of performing an interactive communication function; potentially the iPod is capable whether or not it actually is receiving same. That's entirely regardless of the fact that mobile WiFi is fairly ubiquitous these days.

NoQuarter

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

How's he going to prove that it wasn't connected to WiFi?

He shouldn't have to.

Burden of proof.

IITYWYBMAD

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Yep. Is your question a serious question?

The legislation says "capable" of performing an interactive communication function; potentially the iPod is capable whether or not it actually is receiving same. That's entirely regardless of the fact that mobile WiFi is fairly ubiquitous these days.

Potentially any electronic equipment is capable of performing an interactive communication (Radio, GPS, etc..) whether or not it actually is receiving same. That's entirely regardless of the fact that mobile WiFi is fairly ubiquitous these days.

Are we going to see a raft of prosecutions based on the fact that a radio station was changed while a driver was driving?

With regards to the specific question of determining whether the iPod was "online" or not at this specific time/place the user in question could quite easily find that out, assuming that the summons has a date and place of alleged offense.

gozunda

dodderangler wrote: »

Last time I checked a sneeze was a natural thing to happen.
An iPod in a car is not a be cesspit and therefore should be out in same category as phones.

Equating an IPod with a cesspit!

Auto-text phrase of the year

I am presuming that should read "An iPod in a car is not a necessity

Brilliant - did someone say this was a joke free zone? I'll get my coat ...

cnocbui

Could be an interesting moment in court when the Garda who wrote the ticket is asked to describe under oath exactly what he saw.

FreudianSlippers

NoQuarter wrote: »

He shouldn't have to.

Burden of proof.

My point was really that the device is "capable", presumably once the AGS proves that, it is on the defendant to prove that whilst it is "capable" it was not actually receiving?

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

Are we going to see a raft of prosecutions based on the fact that a radio station was changed while a driver was driving?

If you are changing your "radio station" on a mobile device, then yes.
My car has text features built in to the car itself and it prevents them from being used whilst the car is in motion unless you use text-to-talk which is entirely hands-free.

GerardKeating

coylemj wrote: »

iPod Touch Generation2 can only run up to iOS4.

Case dismissed.

Any court case which involves discussing Software version numbers with a Judge is doomed

coylemj

GerardKeating wrote: »

Any court case which involves discussing Software version numbers with a Judge is doomed

Any discussion where people treat frivolous posts as serious is doomed.

A320

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Yep. Is your question a serious question?

The legislation says "capable" of performing an interactive communication function; potentially the iPod is capable whether or not it actually is receiving same. That's entirely regardless of the fact that mobile WiFi is fairly ubiquitous these days.

If it's an iPod touch I don't think it can be got with a cellular plan just WiFi.if he's out in the car it's hardly connected but not impossible.surely you wouldn't proove it was.

MarkAnthony

This is absolutely ridiculous I'm driving home right now and I'm complet

FreudianSlippers

A320 wrote: »

If it's an iPod touch I don't think it can be got with a cellular plan just WiFi.if he's out in the car it's hardly connected but not impossible.surely you wouldn't proove it was.

My point is this, look at the RTA 2006

3.— (1) A person shall not while driving a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place hold a mobile phone.

What is a "mobile phone" you ask?

“ mobile phone ” means a portable communication device [...] with which a person is capable of [...] performing an interactive communication function [...]

It would be my view that the AGS only need to satisfy the court that OP was holding a device which was capable of performing an interactive communication function. Not that it actually was at that time performing that function.

Think about it, to argue otherwise means one could argue that the AGS would have to provide evidence that your phone was not on airplane mode at the time it was being held, that you actually had a SIM card in at the time, or even perhaps even it would mean you could use a WiFi only iPad in the car whilst driving and it wouldn't be against the law.

If the OP can prove that at the time their device was not capable of performing an interactive communication function (how?) then I'm sure they can provide that as their defence.

IMHO to argue otherwise (similar to the same argument in the TV Licence thread) is an absurd and logically flawed argument.

Victor

coylemj wrote: »

Let's say I was changing the radio station on my radio and the same thing happened, or lighting a cigarette, or checking a map.

So, eh, "Judge, I plead not guilty to using a phone, but guilty to dangerous driving causing death", yes?

Del2005

NoQuarter wrote: »

He shouldn't have to.

Burden of proof.

Motoring offences are different in that you don't have a right to drive it's a privilege so the law regarding burden of proof is lower to non existent, you can be convicted of speeding on the word of a Garda.

Tell me how

dodderangler wrote:

Last time I checked a sneeze was a natural thing to happen. An iPod in a car is not a be cesspit and therefore should be out in same category as phones.

Did you right that second sentence while driving? Should be penalty points for post like that.