Well we will soon find that out as i reported them for it as that's illegal and they've just been caught giving our data to Israel the criminals that they are. They were downloading peoples phones and the data was going to Israel which is disgusting and Illegal. The police are a disgrace.

Nonsense . You mislead and on purpose .. half truth=a lie. All DATA once on a patented /copyright system ... belongs by "association " to the patent holders.. where do you think most of the $trillions of derivatives market come from . ???people's DATA .. you better stop your misinformation .. and people should sue

Even if they were sending these pictures wouldn’t violate GDPR would it? They wouldn’t have details of the driver just a number plate?

@@jayhaynes5550 they're not allowed to send anything abroad they are taking the p1ss they are in court now for sending peoples data to Israel that they downloaded from their phones. They only stop when they get dragged through court.

@@jayhaynes5550 Yes, it probably would violate the GDPR, pictures of people that can identify them count as personal data, which means it requires the subject's permission to be sent to any country that is not also part of the GDPR laws, except in very specific circumstances.

Too many police frequently commit road traffic offences whilst not attending a call.

Law to themselves nowadays, when it suits and all that, power of authority...

I live in London and have been here all my life, I’ve not seen one police officer using a mobile phone whilst driving

@@rsg1699 i live in london and i have, where do we go from here officer

@@rsg1699 of course you haven’t, I bet you’ve never seen a police officer running a red light, using excessive force, breaching human rights or abusing their powers. I bet the only time you’ve come across the police is when they’re giving out hi fives to children and telling you to stay in school.

There no easy coin to be made catching real criminals, easier to pick the low hanging fruit...

It's funny isnt it. Whilst there appears to be endless funding and resource for this extra taxation upon the law abiding hard working citizen. When your car gets stolen all the police have is sympathy....

​@@James-dj1xuwell said 👏

Bit of a stupid comment really. The difference is for every crime, or the vast majority of crimes to be fully dealt with, you'd need CCTV literally EVERYWHERE, every house on every street in the whole country. There's plenty of crimes that happen without witnesses in the middle of night by people wearing gloves so no DNA left behind. Where there are no witnesses, there's no CCTV and no forensics how can anyone possibly expect police to identify the suspect? This is one of the common things I hear and I never understand people's gripes.... without evidence there is no way for the police to prosecute. It isn't enough to state "oh well, Jimmy Smith is a known burglar in that area so it was definitely Jimmy Smith, there's no evidence in the form of DNA, CCTV or witnesses to the crime but it must have been him!". People moan about "innocent" people being in prison or arrested, but on the logic above this is exactly what would happen, anytime a burglary occurs without evidence any known burglar in that area would be unlawfully arrested (unlawful as there's no reasonable suspicion to suggest it was them). This then leaves the force wide open to be sued and slandered in the media further damaging public perception. I'd love to hear how you realistically expect burglars, thieves and robbers to be caught when there's no evidence. Suggesting or knowing it was a certain person is one thing, proving it is another. Without proof you've got nothing. People also forget that we as police go to FAR more calls than any other emergency service, believe me. Domestic incident - whether a crime or not. Often these are called in by a neighbour who hears shouting or banging coming from next door. Road traffic collision - whether fatal, slight injury or no injury. Mental health crisis - someone on the street/top of a multi-storey car park/bridge threatening to jump off. Robbery - Yes, where I serve we always deploy to them if the victim wants us to. Burglaries, as above, we always deploy if they want us to. Vehicle thefts - Again, as above. Suspects on - We go to them. Car on fire, house on fire? We go to that. Any crime related to violence - fight, stabbing, someone having been assaulted? We go to that. Sexual assaults - whether recent or historic - we go to them. Dealing with drunk people who can't have 5 pints without smashing someone's face in - we deal with them too. Welfare checks - we go to MANY of these, usually councils call in at 5:30 PM on a Friday as they are about to leave to go home for the weekend, and instead of doing their job properly and conducting a welfare check themselves on someone they are concerned about, they call us to do it for them. People at hospital - if you go to hospital, book in, wait 5 hours, get bored of not being seen within those 5 hours and leave, when a doctor comes to eventually see you and discovers you aren't there, they call the police and ask them to attend their address on a "welfare check" to make sure the person isn't dead and isn't seriously unwell. We deal with a LOT of these. Sudden unexpected deaths - A person dies, unexpectedly, whether they are 30 or they are 100, we still go to ensure the death is not suspicious and there is no suggestion of any foul play concerning the death. The paperwork for this job alone just once you leave scene (usually 1-2 hours later) takes around 2-3 hours, that's if it's straight forward and not "suspicious" if it is a crime scene goes on place and tape goes up, people at the address potentially get arrested... the whole process could take an entire 10 hours or more. They're just some of the crimes we deal with that a lot of services don't. Then you have to factor officers sitting in hospital with a prisoner who needs medical treatment, officers sitting in hospital with a patient under a mental health section so they don't run off and kill themselves (which would then be the officer's fault and the force would be blamed, and no doubt sued in civil court by the relatives of said person). Officers sitting on crime scenes for sometimes months on end. Officers sitting on a plastic chair outside a cell for 8-12 hours, doing nothing but watching a detainee either sleep, talking or repeatedly smashing their head on a wall and having to intervene, or trying to fight you and you spend 8 hours constantly having to restrain them - why? In case they kill themselves in their cell, then it's the police's fault. Front office reports - people walk into the front office to report stuff, this takes officers off the street to deal with it, unless there just happens to be an officer in the station at the time who is able to deal with it (i.e not restricted). People can think and say what they like but we deal with a far wider variety of calls than any other service, and deploy to many more calls. Unlike the fire service and the ambulance service the buck lies with the police. If the fire brigade refuse to attend a job, and the ambulance service also refuse to attend because "it's not in their remit", we HAVE to attend whether it's in our remit or not.

All those missing children

If you're worried about the speed limit, your going too fast 😆

you should only be worried it you're using your phone.

That's not true, for example if you want to drive to London Stansted for example the motorway have various stretches that move from 50 to 30 to 70 and they are not always posted, and the satnav ses to either conflict with what the road is saying while other drivers seem to be overtaking you or giving you shit for going slow when the signs state the limit. Sometimes the satnav won't even have a limit on it......Its completely frustrating, so actually it not about 'Going to fast' it's about the roads being correctly marked. Total bollocks, I can't stand driving....but its a must sometimes.

@@eastpak2g6 or drinking a bottle of water, or basically anything....if you Google that it's now 6 points for a phone or a bottle of water...you can get prosecution for using a phone to pay in McDonald's drive through.....

Just stick your speed limiter on or cruise control.

The UK is the most cctv surveillance country in the world and it's insufferable. They want to install face recognition cameras as well so they can have 15 minute cities.

Little London has more cameras than the whole of America

Sure, but I'd rather have a speeding ticket than being a victim of mass shooting or drive-by.

It's a policed state. But one that is in choas. How can that be ? Unless the powers that be want it that way ? More crime = more control.

CCTV doesn’t generate fines

Crazy isn’t it

Exactly! To catch muggers etc buuuuut nope!! Remember muggers and other scumbags don’t tend to pay fines

Wouldn’t make them money would it? They only invest on monetary solutions

Cctv robberies always look like Roblox

its one law for them whilst a different law for the rest of us ,didnt you know , Fletcher ??? 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔

They are allowed, i'm afraid.

@@tonyfearn2452 You are also allowed by law to use your phone while driving in an emergency.

Is it their phone or radio?

@@emanuelm6590 unfortunately they ain't allowed to whilst driving.

I think you already know the answer to that one as many others myself included do.. I see cops with no seatbelt I see cops speeding without sirens and lights just because they can and I see cops using onboard recording equipment whilst in a moving vehicle and I see it quite clearly sat up in a hgv yet i also see the rules don’t seem apply to them only the peasants because it’s one rule for us and another rule for them

@@philiprhodes5537 You're half right. There are indeed one law for us one law for them. Primarily to allow them to do their job. They do indeed have special dispensation when it comes to Seatbelts, etc.

It's one rule for us and another for them, there allowed to do it because of a loophole which makes there phones classed as radios and are exempt

Emergency use is exempted , but if they are using their Airwave sets , and soon the new ESN sets , then there is no offence because PMR is not covered .

The government using these technologies to create money for their corporation. They are too much cameras on the street of England. They should use the traffic fines money to build more Schools and community centres and take the young people of the streets.

@@David-Saint just doing a quick google on this and can see that the technology is an Australian development/creation. therefore the company providing it is most likely Australian and they will have a tech support team for issues in Australia, but will have trained analysts within the police force on how to use it. that's probably where the confusion was, as he said he was only introduced to it that same morning, and he's not tech so i can see that where this confusion would have come up. I work in IT and and it's always the same, the people showing him won't know the who and where of the data, and the governance. they just know how to use it etc etc.

If this is the case (and that is a big if) re shoot the video as it is still stated by the police officer in the video or take the video down as stated by you it is factually incorrect!

@@Otis19450 possibly, although it's in the description, the officer states multiple times he's only just been shown it too, and clearly shows he's not an authority of information on it and, although it's a police officer, it's still an independent youtube channel; not an official police or governmental release. maybe, and this is just a suggestion, don't use KZfaq as your source of factually accurate information...if you want to be that specific and know all the details, or are actually concerned about your data (not that i have any idea why people are concerned about their data going abroad, it's not like cyber criminals only attack within their country) then contact your local authority or that police force for a FOI request about where the data is stored.

It's prob been delegated to your local CSO by now, coz he's no clue.

I wouldn't say it's anywhere near 75% but the amount of people that do it is shocking

@@shaunbrasier774 watch cycling mikey, watch how many he catches I’d say it’s about 75%

@@shaunbrasier774 you're obviously concentrating on the road more than me then drive 🤣👍🏻

You lorry drivers are the worst for it 🤣

@@markdowzell4550 shhhhhhhhh you're not supposed to see up here

Citation needed otherwise this is just unsubstantiated nonsense

I got defrauded & the police where just not interested

@@Euclidean3141 They solved the burglaries on my house, but if Adrian Phillips say they didn't then I must of imagined it all.

This post is not about burglary

No excuses Adrian, put your phone down.

Good lad 👍

Spot on pal 👌

Spot on. If a call is that Important then they will call back. When you get to where your going and you have a message then you can read them or call back. It's not difficult is it. Jeez

You are one of the few,but its not just youngsters ive seen many middle-aged folks using them too. And by the way a lot of young drivers are really good at driving. it's just a few that are bad. You have a great mindset; it goes a long way in life.

good for you Alex ive never used my phone while driving its just not worth the drivers life or someone else , pleased that you take care of your and other peoples lives ...take care

Thanks for coming on over

Same 😂

about Time !!!!

imjustbait

40 seconds in sounds like a ek4 Honda Civic vti giving it some vtec b16 power haha

Honestly.. any way to take money from people's pockets it seems

it's only just begun. wait and see.

This just isn't sustainable tbh, jumping straight to 6 points is insaity & will screw so many people & livelihoods. A fine with a stern warning & explanation of future consequences would be better for 1st offence at least.

@@d.b.cooper1 totally, not even a fine, just a warning.

@@bradley9856 Just trying to be realistic tbh as clearly the order from the top is to clamp down hard, but interestingly if you get flagged as driving without insurance via cameras you often just get a letter warning you/to check with the insurer before action is taken. A warning would be the correct thing logically, but clearly they want punishment & ££....which only creates more issues in a backlogged court system & dvla. What a world.

What if I'm using the sat nav on my phone??

@@bxxmb80 do you have to hold the device? Not allowed. Is it attached to the dashboard? Allowed - but consider whether you could have set the destination before setting off. At any point, if you are not fully in control of your vehicle that is another offence in itself

@@cdroaima Yes I do set it before I leave and it's attached on a phone holder on the windscreen..

You have any idea why they send them to Australia

@@marlesy2k7 the company that's behind the scheme is based in Australia, probably a collaborative job with D&C police to try get into the UK market

@@DJAlexParker what’s the company name?

Good job it goes through humans to check if they are legit then.

yea a lady over here in Australia. a lady got done for having a chocolate covered ice cream

*clicks recentre on Waze* there goes your driving license young mister, did you not pay attention in driving class?

@@blanco7726 what r u on about

@@infiniteskulls1 I dont use waze, but google maps re-centre button centres the map on you, otherwise you will drive off the screen and it's useless, so you need to tap re-enter if it buggs out

@@bradley9856 ohhh okay thanks 😂

@@blanco7726 it’s all good Waze pre-warns us

I get the feeling it’s an Australian company supplying these cameras, who then “own” the image, then send it to the police in the UK and get paid for doing so.

That’s probably true but after looking a bit deeper into this tube I did notice the Police officer did hesitate in saying the images are sent to Australia by firstly saying they they went up to the clouds somewhere. After UK data protection laws are taken into account the Police may find it hard to get a prosecution after a third-party outside to UK have had contact with the evidence. This could in some cases the accused taking legal action against the Police in return for breach of data protection

Anthony, I suspect the officer is very excited about reducing the number of times he has to contact parents to tell them their child is dead after a phone-related fatal RTA...

@@thedubwhisperer2157 this exactly

@@thedubwhisperer2157 you really Believe this will reduce anything, going by how many are caught speeding by camera vans every year the number goes up not down proving they’re not a deterrent?

Touching devices is still legal - "You can use devices with hands-free access, as long as you do not hold them at any time during usage." (gov.uk) If you have it in a holder and keep it in the holder, it's just the same as said car systems (in that while not illegal of itself, you can still be prosecuted/fined with points if your driving is impaired because you're distracted.)

No it’s not aslong as a satnav is still on the cradle it’s not an offence 😂😂

Just get a proper carpet and keep the phone docked in its cradle - as long as it is not handheld , there is no offence .

Don't think u can unfortunately

Very good question

Using the phone in the cradle isn’t an offence

@@randomchannel5386 it is

it is all about staying in control of car. even on test they get you to do a task so see if if your able to do it in a safe area and stay in control. and phone in a holder you can touch it to end call or Like hitting no thanks or continue for a way point or when stupid google tries to change your planned route as long as it in holder it is legal but there catch you must stay in control of car, able to stay in lane and do it in safe place because police could do you for careless / dangerous so do it in safe places, if it cannot be done without straying out lane then you should not attempt it@@kukunamuniuityle

What’s wrong with being in a teams meeting? It’s just a phone call? I trust she was on hands free?

@@alirezazadeh Live video. I could see the other people on her phone as i passed. You are not allowed to have video of any kind playing in the UK while driving.

@@dj_paultuk7052 Hmm

We already do

Well done

Thats the sort of technology that all vehicles should have then instead of punishing kids whove been brainwashed to behave that way.

@@Me-si6lf what's hard about to understand, don't use mobile phones while driving, they should be punished

I verbally ask my phone to read out my text messages and reply if i want to. Easy

THIS One of the family cars is some modern audi (the only car in the fleet i refuse to lift the bonnet on) and it has so many buttons and is so confusing to use (theres about 30 buttons) that by the time youve found the one youre after youre set for a head on crash... Meanwhile i can get in the works van, put the phone in the holder, browse youtube, and still drive safer using only peripheral vision...

No it will not.

This is true

Funny enough, I know a couple of companies where it's a requirement to not use a phone while driving, including for hands free calls (assumedly the spirit isn't meant to include sat-nav use without interaction), and that if you become aware that someone is driving when you're calling them, you're to hang up immediately. Of course, how it goes in practice, I'll leave for others to comment on, will say though that if your company is such that your boss would be happy that you hung up on them because they were driving, you're pretty lucky(!)

It is an offence for a company to hold a phone conversation with an employee while they are driving the company I work for has a message system on microlise devices in the cab but still no good when driving

The glove box

Up your arse

Yes it is legal.

That's not true, however you will often see fixed camera signs at points where mobile camera vans park.

If you're not using your phone whilst driving, why do you need to know where cameras are ? and how is it breaching entrapment laws ? no one is tricking you into using your phone are they....

Has anyone else thought about the distractions these vans might cause!

@@thediddymen1408: Well, replace "using your phone" with "speeding" and the same could surely be said, so why would one count and the other not?

@@fetchstixRHD My point is, why do you need to be told where any cameras are if you're not speeding or using your phone ? We're one of the only country's in Europe that actually tells people where speed cameras are ! and morons STILL speed through them, blaming everyone but themselves.... If you don't speed or use your phone, then cameras shouldn't be an issue....

Following

it is all about staying in control of car. even on test they get you to do a task so see if if your able to do it in a safe area and stay in control. and phone in a holder you can touch it to end call or Like hitting no thanks or continue for a way point or when stupid google tries to change your planned route as long as it in holder it is legal but there catch you must stay in control of car, able to stay in lane and do it in safe place because police could do you for careless / dangerous so do it in safe places, if it cannot be done without straying out lane then you should not attempt it

please tell me this is a joke 💀

@Solid Snake Lol, the police won't even come to your house if you get burgled, their not going to bother trying to track down who 'Tom Y' is on a KZfaq comments section 😂 😂

Still an offence. You cannot use a phone if you're classed as driving ie waiting at a traffic light. And even if parked at the curb with your engine running.

@@hazyblue69 No, it's not an offence if the device is in a holder. If you caused an accident because you were too busy fiddling with the phone though, you could still be charged with not driving with due care and attention.

@@125brat: Correct, in fact the guidance is pretty clear: "You can use devices with hands-free access, as long as you do not hold them at any time during usage." Dashboard/windscreen holders/mounts count, but the device "...must not block your view of the road and traffic ahead", and you still "...must stay in full control of your vehicle at all times."

I went to a awareness course once and an the trainer who was a ex police officer said you can still get fined even for adjusting heating or radio. Sounds crazy right? He explained you have one hand of the steering and police can use this as their grounds to fine you. But they and us all know that would be petty

@@mrama405 With all these modern cars with touch-screen displays to control everything, I think it's going to end up causing a lot more problems and potentially offences.

You can do but you can still be prosecuted if police deem you distracted. i.e. If looking at the phone results mounting the kerb, you can be prosecuted.

Investing peoples money in nonsense, go do your job and find pedos and murders . But no that would be too hard for ya so you just focus on people selling weed and people using their phones

Never seen that and I drive 300 miles a week. Most people I see on a mobile phone are driving slowly and in a very controlled way

Not true, Ievery person I see with a phone in hand is of any age, same for not wearing seatbelts (older people if anything) and hogging the middle lane is especially 40s+. Stop using the younger generations as a scapegoat, your theory was like 6 pages, no wonder all the dangerous oblivious drivers are older

@@seriousgameofficial i’m under 25 so don’t even try that one, and i was saying the seatbelt thing specifically in relation to young people because they’ve grown up with constant reinforcement of seatbelt seatbelt seatbelt. young people aren’t the biggest problem on the road, that’s definitely the older generation

@@mattjagger4360 sounds like you’re excusing the problem a bit. most accidents are at slow speeds so there’s a correlation there (granted not causation but hard to overlook)

Seems reasonable as long as the final deployment uses police painted vans Why? If your speeding you deserve a fine ,I personally think they should hide cameras etc aswell as keep moving them around.

@@jadoon2981 maybe move to North Korea you’d love it there 👍

@@jadoon2981 so there is nowhere to hide for the drivers. There's a reason all the speed cameras have signs and are painted yellow.

Data Protection won't apply - a) you're out in public, b) a vehicle registration doesn't identify the driver.

@@CJ0175 data protection will apply as its information kept by a company/corporation.

Rubbish

Not really as the police are there to enforce the law to make sure everyone is safe and prevent a horrible collision

Go sit outside a police station and film the police and they have a hissy fit about it but are happy to do it to the public 😂😂

@@Philljag why would you want to spend your time doing that? 😂 some people need a hobby lol

@@adiyoung I don’t, I just find it funny the police cry when they’re filmed but are happy to film others 😂😂

You still will be prosecuted for touching a phone used for satnav. Double-standards as usuals. They allow car manufacturers to put basic stuff like the blower/aircon controls under menus on touchscreens so people have to constantly flick through them it's fine, but if a poor person wants to use a phone for satnav and touches it ones during driving gets 6 points.

no you won't, it is all about staying in control of car. even on test they get you to do a task so see if if your able to do it in a safe area and stay in control. and phone in a holder you can touch it to end call or Like hitting no thanks or continue for a way point or when stupid google tries to change your planned route as long as it in holder it is legal but there catch you must stay in control of car, able to stay in lane and do it in safe place because police could do you for careless / dangerous so do it in safe places, if it cannot be done without straying out lane then you should not attempt it@@user-Wojciech

@@stevekenilworth i had this opinion because of this copper, he spreads misinformation on KZfaq "as soon as you touch a phone while driving, even in a cradle, you will be prosecuted". But BlackBeltBarrister has commented on this law a couple of months ago and said that if your phone is in a cradle then it stops being a handheld device and you can use it. Spokesperson for the Police continuously misinterpreting the law. Shows how much they know.

I was under the impression that it was ai? It makes no sense to send it to Australia? It’s obviously a private company… Hopefully we can buy it off this company and use our own forces

The fact this was top of your mind over road safety says it all.

@@Euclidean3141 Thanks for the assumption that I don't prioritise road safety, I was more concerned about the HOW they've done this as opposed to the data actually being shared. I've since learned that the UK has a free trade agreement with Australia meaning data and information can flow freely. However a correct has been made stating that no data leaves the UK anyway. That being said the UK doesn't have free trade agreements with all countries and data can't flow freely, exposure of our personal information and data can be as much of a safety concern as road safety and being aware of where information about you is stored should take priority too.

mostly not always

Paul walker wore his seat belt when his car crashed his seat belt got stuck and he was burned alive, there’s many cases where a belt has also killed people.

@@Philljag I think an interesting study would be to look at the cases such as that to be able to prevent it from happening, things like seatbelt cutters could be inbuilt?

I lnow of someone who ended up be choked by there seatbelt, all depends on speed the way the car crashes etc

My mate was in a big crash he rolled a few times and wasn't wearing a seat belt, he had two broken ribs the doctors said he would of been worse if he had it on

No it’s not, you are one of those do-gooders.

I think it's too much when even pedestrians walk into you because of their spastic plastic phones, but because I've a body like a Hummer to their Mini I don't move out the way. Ouch!

@@MAX-tw3qz Good. 😂🤣😂

Unfortinatly you don't have a expectation of privacy in a public place so they and anyone can take pictures of anything they want without permisson and it won't breach the human rights act , except in public toilets where you have an expectation of privacy and having a CCTV camera in a public or private buisiness toilet is breaching the human rights act 1998.

@@MAX-tw3qz best comment here man no one's talking about the spastic pedestrians

We encountered one of those today. Parked on an extremely wide bit of road with great visibility exiting a town where you could safely do double the speed limit they were there to enforce. They're the biggest joke to the real world since the politicians that thought they would be a good use of funding.

Why do they send it to Australia? Why can't they have a team here ?

@@benjaminhughes4022 It's probably an Australian company supplying the cameras.

@@LewisDesigns ah right

@@benjaminhughes4022 read the pinned comment from the channel

@@RichO1701e don't need to someone has already explained if you read the comments 👍

No and I can’t find anywhere that states what the law is on this. As sometimes I have to use finger recognition through Siri to send an urgent message to people about my journey, we do get done for that??

@@mandybingley4399 you can use the phone in the cradle

Like hitting no thanks or continue for a way point or when stupid google tries to change your planned route as long as it in holder it is legal but there catch you must stay in control of car, able to stay in lane and do it in safe place because police could do you for careless / dangerous @@tomdude75

Speed camera vans don’t even have to be marked by law

@@Philljag and neither should they same as the roadside ones, if your speeding and get caugth tough sh!t

@@jadoon2981 that’s why I flip my plate up on my bike 😂😂

@@Philljag wish I had a button🥲

Like any insurance cancellation it stays on “a” record pretty much indefinitely the record that it’s on is basically just where it was initially recorded , so the insurer that initially voided your policy it’s on their system. Secondly any insurer you have declared this to it will also be on their system. However if you were to get a new insurer / new policy come renewal time, the new insurer wouldn’t have this disclosure on their system as there is no interconnect between insurance companies in this regard. I’m not advocating that you don’t tell the new insurer about your voided insurance but if you were not to tell them they wouldn’t ever know. I hope this helped answer your question

For cancelled policies there isn't a set time limit like there is for convictions; some insurers may only ask about your insurance history over the previous five years, others may require you to disclose details over a longer period.

@@thedetailingdoctor5746 I thought all insurance companies worked together to stop insurance fraud

@@hgv1947 they do through dvla cross referencing not for cancellations and voids unfortunately

@@thedetailingdoctor5746 insurance fraud bureau

😂

you say that, but people are so engrossed in their phones that they forget that anything else exists....

Easy. Deny you were driving. Still works even on speed cameras but you need to be adamant it wasn't your car and that you know where the car was that day. They automatically put it down to a stolen reg.

@@bigduphusaj162 Nowadays with ring cameras on certain houses they’ll clock that, used to work but idk anymore

@@bigduphusaj162 If you were driving why lie? It will catch up to you eventually and turn out worse than if you told the truth in the first place. Be honest in all things that's the best way to live

NPC 😂

I agree. This is going to deter more people, but it won’t solve it. People’s will just put their phones down near the cameras 😢

Yes that’s fine!

But you'll definitely crash eventually

Agreed :)

@@abunchofstuff7418 hopefully

better don't , keep it in the pocket

Yes, if you touch any device it’s 6 points no excuses.. but you can touch the screen and do what ever on that, for sure!! Don’t make sense

It’s all a money scam

"You can use devices with hands-free access, as long as you do not hold them at any time during usage. Hands-free access means using, for example: (...) a dashboard holder or mat, a windscreen mount, a built-in sat nav." If someone got points for that, I'd suggest taking the government's own advice above and fighting it (provided of course that they didn't instead take issue with lack of control).

How is this manipulative?

Speed camera vans also do this!

Good it's needed to many people are driving fully distracted by smart phones

it is all about staying in control of car. even on test they get you to do a task so see if if your able to do it in a safe area and stay in control. and phone in a holder you can touch it to end call or Like hitting no thanks or continue for a way point or when stupid google tries to change your planned route as long as it in holder it is legal but there catch you must stay in control of car, able to stay in lane and do it in safe place because police could do you for careless / dangerous so do it in safe places, if it cannot be done without straying out lane then you should not attempt it

LOL