HA! You ****ing ****ers

[R3K1355]

People that rubber-neck piss me off no end, it's not just annoying because they're driving stupidly slow to gawp at whatever is there but it's stupidly dangerous as they're not looking where they are going and often end up braking sharply.

I always end up crawling along, watching them and several cars in front just to make sure nothing happens.
Why can't people just drive past in a calm and sensible manor??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-30427592

Motorists who took photos of a lorry fire on a West Midlands motorway have been prosecuted by police.

Warwickshire Police said about 80 motorists have been sent letters saying they were seen taking photos of the fire near junction 3a on the M6.

"They can either pay a £100 fine and have three penalty points put on to their licences or contest the case in court," a spokesman said.

The offence was "driving while using a mobile phone", police said.

A police spokeswoman said so far no-one had elected to go to court.

[Sidewaysfun]

Karma

[Mark]

Awesome

[JulesS14200]

It's even more annoying when people rubber neck just because a car has broken down!

[MEL]

Nice one

[-ghost-]

Nice way to sort out the Christmas bonus

[Clouder_sx]

Interesting. What if the photos were taken one handed with a regular camera, is that an offence? No different to waving a Mcdonalds drink out the window, or a fag. If it's a phone, then yea, crack on.

[R3K1355]

Then they might have contested it, and possibly then been done for careless driving, or driving without due care and attention?

but the report says no-one has contested the charge.

[Actual_Ben_Taylor]

Interesting. What if the photos were taken one handed with a regular camera, is that an offence? No different to waving a Mcdonalds drink out the window, or a fag. If it's a phone, then yea, crack on.

It would probably be upped to driving without due care and attention.

I imagine anyone who had a passenger in the car at the time will get away with it...

[R3K1355]

I imagine anyone who had a passenger in the car at the time will get away with it...

I recon they just setup a camera in a patrol car and reviewed the footage at the station.
Probably spent a day just writing out tickets, got their months quota all in one go there.

[Si]

I recon they just setup a camera in a patrol car and reviewed the footage at the station.
Probably spent a day just writing out tickets, got their months quota all in one go there.

Would you like some salt and vinegar with that?

[handsomedez]

Interesting. What if the photos were taken one handed with a regular camera, is that an offence? No different to waving a Mcdonalds drink out the window, or a fag. If it's a phone, then yea, crack on.

Yes. The offence is a CU80 which is use of a handheld device. So no matter whether it's a phone, a camera, a remote control, technically a cup of coffee, it's still an offence.

Same happened up here a few years ago. A lorry full of live chickens overturned on the M8 near Edinburgh and it was carnage! Loads of folk driving past took photos/videos and got done for it

[arry]

Yes. The offence is a CU80 which is use of a handheld device. So no matter whether it's a phone, a camera, a remote control, technically a cup of coffee, it's still an offence.

Pedant mode, but please do explain how a cup of coffee is interactive or communicates?

[sideways14a]

A cup of coffee definitely interacts with me, especially the first one of the morning when i get to work and it wakes me up.

[handsomedez]

Pedant mode, but please do explain how a cup of coffee is interactive or communicates?

To a very "difficult" policeman just about anything could be considered a device. A coffee cup could be described as a handheld device for the purposes of moving coffee from the cup holder to one's mouth

There was a guy in Ayr prosecuted a while ago for blowing his nose while stationary in traffic, presumably on the grounds that a tissue is a handheld device and he didn't have the handbrake on or the engine switched off.

I don't make up the rules, just pointing out that most people are under the impression that it's only using a mobile phone that's against the law. It would take a prick of a policeman to charge you for something silly but it can/does happen.

[ryry92]

😂😅😂😅 you guys crack me up

[arry]

To a very "difficult" policeman just about anything could be considered a device. A coffee cup could be described as a handheld device for the purposes of moving coffee from the cup holder to one's mouth

There was a guy in Ayr prosecuted a while ago for blowing his nose while stationary in traffic, presumably on the grounds that a tissue is a handheld device and he didn't have the handbrake on or the engine switched off.

I don't make up the rules, just pointing out that most people are under the impression that it's only using a mobile phone that's against the law. It would take a prick of a policeman to charge you for something silly but it can/does happen.

It would take a very silly policeman not to know S41D RTA to charge you under sub-para B. The law is worded the way it's worded.....

[handsomedez]

It would take a very silly policeman not to know S41D RTA to charge you under sub-para B. The law is worded the way it's worded.....

By the way, I don't know which offence code actually related to the blowing of nose incident, I just remember he was stationary with his foot on the brake and the engine running. I didn't know the "device" had to be an interactive communication device. Presumably there's another code for coffee cups, bananas and Mars bars!

[sideways14a]

Maybe he was knicked not because of blowing his nose but the possibility he had just been seen shoving some of Colombians finest powder up it?

[handsomedez]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/sc...t-over-1051748