Apparently in the case in question, the driver caused an accident but was treated with lenience by the courts because it could not be proved that he was actually *watching* the video that was playing on his in-cab television, and he claimed to be merely listening to the soundtrack.
How on earth could anyone prove this one way or the other?
|
Courts are being not leninet but stoopid imo. TV on and driving = watching it.
I think merely being on should mean watching: like having no TV licence but aTV says you watch it.. even if you claim you don't.
madf
|
|
|
|
I may be wrong, but I think it is legal to have a TV set in a car if it cannot be seen from the driver's seat. If the same goes for lorries then the driver could claim he was listening and not watching.
|
Does that mean that drivers can't use sat-nav?
I'm not passing judgement, just wondering how the scale of what constitutes a distraction works. In my view, the kilowatt stereos favoured by Max Power types must be far more disorientating...
|
*If* the TV could not be seen from the driver's seat, fair enough. The picture I saw of this cab had the TV right adjacent to the driver's controls. Maybe this pic was accurate, maybe not.
I think the point about owning a TV indoors and paying a licence fee whether or not one watches it is relevant here. Not quite sure how, in law, but it seems to make sense.
As for Sat-Nav - I take your point JBJ, and on the few occasions I have witnessed it in action I have been in awe of how the driver can concentrate on the road without being drawn to the Sat-Nav because it truly is fascinating. (and if I had that woman keep telling me I'd done a wrong turn or something, I'm sure it would just make me jump and lose concentration - but I guess that's something people get used to).
I also agree that really loud music also distracts - as do many other things. I'm just not sure how some of these distractions can be proven and some cannot. I can see why, if I'm playing music full-blast and don't hear an ambulance coming up behind me, that is provable. But if I had a TV screen somewhere on the dashboard, surely only someone who had been watching my eye movements could know whether I was actually watching it or not? So no-one's ever actually going to get prosecuted for this sort of thing?
|
|
Probably not the place to ask this, but do you still need to have a TV license even if your TV is not capable (no terrestrial antennae or Sky dish) of receiving BBC broadcasts?. I understand the license is to pay for the BBC, so I would imagine that if you cannot watch BBC (or any other "on-air" programming) then you do not have to pay for it. Or is the law not that common sense?.
|
Been asked in the IHAQ threads before. But basically if the TV set has a receiver circuit it is capable of receiving tv broadcasts, (doesnt matter about the aeriel arrangements) it is liable for a tv license.
A display unit for a dvd player for example does not have a receiver and is not liable, although you may have to proove this.
stargazer
|
Not sure but I think if the set has it's own power (batteries) then it is exempt from a licence or at least needs a lower one.
Like I said though, I'm not sure
Adam
|
|
Thanks for the feedback, certainly not worth risking a fine. Interesting though (to pull this back to motoring) that vehicles used off-road do not need a tax disc even though they are capable of being used on the road.
|
|
A TV in your car is covered under your home TV license.
|
|
|
|
