The obscure Highway Code rule that could punish motorists who order drive-thru food

This headline has popped up suggesting that paying with your phone at Mc Donalds could resulting fines and points on your license.
Am I correct that this is a load of nonsense and that you do when on private land has nothing to do with the highway code etc.?

Comments

  • Mad_Malx
    Mad_Malx Posts: 5,020
    Anyone that buys food from a drive through should be gaoled
  • It would seem to be unlikely that the local constabulary would dedicate resource to policing their local drive through McDonald.
    If they did then you would notice the fella and you could pay with credit card.
    I guess they could place a rotating team of officers undercover in which case I would accept the FPN and pay the fine.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 73,156

    It would seem to be unlikely that the local constabulary would dedicate resource to policing their local drive through McDonald.
    .

    Isn't the cliché that police regularly spend their own personal resources at drive through's anyway?
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,801

    It would seem to be unlikely that the local constabulary would dedicate resource to policing their local drive through McDonald.
    If they did then you would notice the fella and you could pay with credit card.
    I guess they could place a rotating team of officers undercover in which case I would accept the FPN and pay the fine.

    You say that, but I remember a dedicated team of 5 officers working at one junction all week to crack down on rogue cyclists. I'd have been more sympathetic except someone had plonked some road works on a major cycle route and provided no alternative.
  • lesfirth said:

    This headline has popped up suggesting that paying with your phone at Mc Donalds could resulting fines and points on your license.
    Am I correct that this is a load of nonsense and that you do when on private land has nothing to do with the highway code etc.?

    It's not quite as straightforward as that. Most offences can prosecuted if committed on a "road or other public place" which is where the public has access to. A drive through might count as a road, but definitely at least as a public place, even though it is on private land.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 41,069
    The sooner the media and public start to realise that the Highway Code is just a Code of Practice and not a legal document the better as far as I'm concerned. Sure, it contains elements from some legislation (the sections shown as must / must not) and can be used as a way of demonstrating that, for example, a person's driving was below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver but some seem to think it is the be all and end all.
  • monkimark
    monkimark Posts: 1,627
    edited February 2022
    Does driving while using a phone count as an obscure Highway code rule?

    I guess the obscure bit is the specific exemption for using it to pay while stationary, cunningly hidden in the second result on google on the gov.uk website...maybe journalists only bother reading the first result?

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/any-use-of-hand-held-mobile-phone-while-driving-to-become-illegal
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There will be an exemption to the new law for drivers making a contactless payment using their mobile phone while stationary to ensure the law keeps pace with technology.

    This exemption will cover, for example, places like a drive-through restaurant or a road toll, and will only apply when payment is being made with a card reader. It will not allow motorists to make general online payments while driving.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  • capt_slog
    capt_slog Posts: 3,952
    Pross said:

    The sooner the media and public start to realise that the Highway Code is just a Code of Practice and not a legal document the better as far as I'm concerned. Sure, it contains elements from some legislation (the sections shown as must / must not) and can be used as a way of demonstrating that, for example, a person's driving was below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver but some seem to think it is the be all and end all.

    Why?



    The older I get, the better I was.

  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 41,069
    capt_slog said:

    Pross said:

    The sooner the media and public start to realise that the Highway Code is just a Code of Practice and not a legal document the better as far as I'm concerned. Sure, it contains elements from some legislation (the sections shown as must / must not) and can be used as a way of demonstrating that, for example, a person's driving was below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver but some seem to think it is the be all and end all.

    Why?

    Because they talk about things being illegal when in many cases it is just not what is recommended. I'm sure you've also heard it misquoted plenty of times suchas "the highway code says it's illegal to ride two abreast" when it actually recommended not riding more than two abreast (but to do so in itself wasn't illegal).
  • veronese68
    veronese68 Posts: 27,425
    Pross said:

    capt_slog said:

    Pross said:

    The sooner the media and public start to realise that the Highway Code is just a Code of Practice and not a legal document the better as far as I'm concerned. Sure, it contains elements from some legislation (the sections shown as must / must not) and can be used as a way of demonstrating that, for example, a person's driving was below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver but some seem to think it is the be all and end all.

    Why?

    Because they talk about things being illegal when in many cases it is just not what is recommended. I'm sure you've also heard it misquoted plenty of times suchas "the highway code says it's illegal to ride two abreast" when it actually recommended not riding more than two abreast (but to do so in itself wasn't illegal).
    This. I had a twunt at work moaning at me about cyclists, the Highway Code and new laws about riding in the middle of the road or two abreast. He's not read any further than a couple of headlines I suspect. I ripped his arguments apart quite easily, some of the other drivers in the office just laughed at the guy and told him he would never win, as firstly I knew what I was talking about, and secondly, I didn't ride like a berk.
    The media is feeding idiots like that.
  • seanoconn
    seanoconn Posts: 11,487
    Done to death on here in the past. Not always a fan of two abreast. Group rides, ok, little traffic around and plenty of room to pass, fine. Room for cars to pass single file comfortably and safely but not two abreast which is holding up traffic, no.
    Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 41,069
    edited February 2022
    seanoconn said:

    Done to death on here in the past. Not always a fan of two abreast. Group rides, ok, little traffic around and plenty of room to pass, fine. Room for cars to pass single file comfortably and safely but not two abreast which is holding up traffic, no.

    Sure, but that's the sort of problem people quoting the Highway Code on either side creates. People need to use sense and adapt to what's going on around them whether its "I'm in a 30 limit so I'll drive at 30 even if the pavement is a metre wide and hundreds of kids have just come out of school" or "The Highway Code says a car has to give way to me at a junction so I'm just going to walk out right in front of him".

    There's also a huge gulf between riding in a tight group, wheel to wheel and shoulder to shoulder and being two abreast with one person more or less on the centre line and several metres of gaps between wheels (which I'm starting to see much more of even from club groups). Even when groups are single file they are often so messy it is virtually impossible to overtake safely on anything other than a dead straight road.