Often felt this was a grey area. You can legally change screens etc on a satnav but not on a phone, unless it can be shown that in doing so you weren't in full control of your vehicle. Would be good to know if the phone was actually in his hand in which case it makes more sense.

Where there's a will ... there's a way.

I was under the impression that it was legal to touch a phone screen if the phone was in a holder, for example to confirm a camera position when using CamerAlert. Is that not the case?

Paul

Probably not. And don't eat a sandwich and have a fag at the same time or its "Take him out and shoot him".

I read somewhere that if you have your phone in a holder you are able to answer a call on your phone (keeping in holder and just pressing the answer button)

Garmin Drivesmart 51 LMT-D Europe

Seems its okay if in a holder

https://www.gov.uk/using-mobile-phones-when-driving-the-law

Where there's a will ... there's a way.

Starting to fall into place now. If not in a holder then it's just as dangerous as texting and should be hung, drawn and quartered.

I mainly travel round the local area on buses, now I have a free pass, and I'm amazed at the number of drivers I see from the raised vantage point with an active, lit phone in their left hand, down by the gearstick/handbreak.

DashCam:
Viofo A119 V3

I didn't know this, though......

Heaven forbid. They'll be nicking us for driving 5'9" from a cyclist next...oh...hang on a minute, what's that copper doing with a tape measure?

Is that one inch less than a new metric foot?

Dennis

If it tastes good - it's fattening.

Two of them are obesiting!!

The offence prosecuted, in the case, was 'Using a *hand-held* mobile phone *or similar device* whilst driving'. If it's in a cradle - no offence, no matter how much button-pressing was going on. There is, of course, a raft of other offences one could commit interacting with even a docked mobile in satnav mode (or any other, FTM). The most likely is 'not having proper control of a vehicle' which works for any scenario including the 'famous' case from a few years back that for some bizarre reason hit the headlines - a woman prosecuted, as the Sun put it, 'for drinking from a water bottle'. No mention of nearly driving off the road and mowing down a waiting queue of bus passengers, etc.

Quite why journo's can't be bothered to report the *useful* facts from such cases is beyond me. Perhaps they are generally too stupid to grasp the finer points of the law?