Charles Ellson gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

If somebody is driving carelessly or dangerously, charge them with that
- whether the phone is the cause, the symptom or whatever.

The trouble with that is that it opens the door to defendants claiming
that it [using a telephone] was not unsafe in their individual case and
requires case law of the necessary nature to disprove every such claim.

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain why we bother having "careless
driving" and "dangerous driving" charges available at all, then?

what's the
problem?

People being killed ?

Likewise with a speed above the limit.

People being killed ?

So if a fatal collision is caused, would you have said an SP30 or CU80
3pt FPN were the most appropriate and serious charges which could and
should be laid?

Exceeding the speed limit and using a phone whilst driving are minor and
trivial administrative offences

Great Heck ?

AFAIA, there was no suggestion that he was either exceeding the limit or
on the phone.

Harriet Harman ?

Remind me how many were killed?

which merely distract from the actual problem - drivers who don't pay
any bloody attention to what's going on around them.

silence