On 2 Aug 2010 21:05:01 GMT, Adrian wrote:

Jeff gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Would you also say that using a mobile phone while driving ... should
be decriminalised?

I would certainly argue that there's no need for the separate legislation
which trivialises it.

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. The current law now addresses a specific improper action with
common undesirable consequences and takes away the argument. By
comparison you could consider various prosecutions under "the old
laws" which have taken place in recent times involving drivers eating;
I have yet to see any reports making reference to an apparent lack of
control in those cases unlike those involving using a telephone while
driving.

If their driving is safe and appropriate despite the phone,

It almost certainly isn't in the absence of a surrounding cordon and a
limited vehicle speed.

what's the
problem?

People being killed ?

Likewise with a speed above the limit.

People being killed ?

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

Great Heck ?
Harriet Harman ?

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

Charles Ellson wrote:

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. The current law now addresses a specific improper action with
common undesirable consequences and takes away the argument

The problem with banning one specific behavior is that it's an unsustainable
approach to treating the sypmtom, not the problem. By your logic, we should have
- driving while eating
- driving while applying makeup
- driving while talking to a child in the back seat
- and on and on and on...

Even assuming that all possible bad behaviors could be defined (a logical
impossibility), the delays in getting laws to prohibit each such behavior would
put you in a permanent catchup mode.

On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 20:06:15 -0600, Robert Neville
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:

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. The current law now addresses a specific improper action with
common undesirable consequences and takes away the argument

The problem with banning one specific behavior is that it's an unsustainable
approach to treating the sypmtom, not the problem. By your logic, we should have
- driving while eating

Something which I mentioned as it involves use of older less-specific
legislation which appears to be applied in questionable circumstances.

- driving while applying makeup

Well established as an unsafe and illegal practice.

- driving while talking to a child in the back seat

The same as eating, it is not inevitably unsafe.

- and on and on and on...

Even assuming that all possible bad behaviors could be defined (a logical
impossibility),

They are generally defined by case law which provides various tests
for alleged offending behaviour to determine at the least to see if a
driver is devoting the amount of care and attention due in the
prevailing circumstances.

the delays in getting laws to prohibit each such behavior would
put you in a permanent catchup mode.

It is done when a particular action becomes a common nuisance with no
real excuse or defence and is far from new; defining a particular form
of bad behaviour as a specific offence takes away the opportunity to
argue that existing law fails to define it as bad due to some small
detail but usually still leaves room to argue that there was a "lawful
excuse or authority". It is not necessary for most poor driving
behaviour which fits unarguably within the broad definitions of the
various degrees of bad driving behaviour; in most cases prosecutions
will be the result of a self-evident lack of proper control of the
vehicle but use of telephones (like the prohibition on having a
television within sight of a driver) deals with the cause not the
ensuing accident.

Graeme gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

[snip]

Exceeding the speed limit and using a phone whilst driving are minor
and trivial administrative offences which merely distract from the
actual problem - drivers who don't pay any bloody attention to what's
going on around them.

You are wrong actually, driving while using a phone is actually a lot
more dangerous than simply speeding. Even using a handsfree kit is not
that effective in reducing the danger. The problem is that
concentrating on the phone call is a major distraction from paying
attention to driving conditions. Psychologically it is a lot different
to just talking to another person in the car with you.

And don't get me started on people who send text messages while driving.

I notice you snipped the bit that said...
If somebody is driving carelessly or dangerously, charge them with
that - whether the phone is the cause, the symptom or whatever.

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

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

The problem with banning one specific behavior is that it's an
unsustainable approach to treating the sypmtom, not the problem. By your
logic, we should have - driving while eating

Something which I mentioned as it involves use of older less-specific
legislation which appears to be applied in questionable circumstances.

And which you argue cannot be applied in the case of phones. Why?

- driving while applying makeup

Well established as an unsafe and illegal practice.

By that same catch-all...

- driving while talking to a child in the back seat

The same as eating, it is not inevitably unsafe.

Yet talking on a phone apparently is. How?

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 03:06:15 +0100, Robert Neville wrote
Charles Ellson wrote:

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. The current law now addresses a specific improper action with
common undesirable consequences and takes away the argument

The problem with banning one specific behavior is that it's an unsustainable
approach to treating the sypmtom, not the problem. By your logic, we should
have
- driving while eating
- driving while applying makeup
- driving while talking to a child in the back seat
- and on and on and on...

Even assuming that all possible bad behaviors could be defined (a logical
impossibility), the delays in getting laws to prohibit each such behavior
would
put you in a permanent catchup mode.

That raises something about which I've often wondered. My car has an iPod
socket so I sometimes use the iPod controls whilst driving. It's not a
phone so is using it specifically prohibited?

(yes, I know it could be covered under dangerous driving etc, that's not the
question I'm askng)

In message , at 07:28:48 on Tue, 3 Aug
2010, Adrian remarked:
Great Heck ?

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

Probably a misremembering of the fact he'd been on the phone *at home*
for a very long time (and had therefore got little sleep that night)
before setting out.
--
Roland Perry

In message
Adrian wrote:

Graeme gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

[snip]

Exceeding the speed limit and using a phone whilst driving are minor
and trivial administrative offences which merely distract from the
actual problem - drivers who don't pay any bloody attention to what's
going on around them.

You are wrong actually, driving while using a phone is actually a lot
more dangerous than simply speeding. Even using a handsfree kit is not
that effective in reducing the danger. The problem is that concentrating
on the phone call is a major distraction from paying attention to driving
conditions. Psychologically it is a lot different to just talking to
another person in the car with you.

And don't get me started on people who send text messages while driving.

I notice you snipped the bit that said... If somebody is driving
carelessly or dangerously, charge them with that - whether the phone
is the cause, the symptom or whatever.

Because it wasn't relevant to the comment I was making.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

In message k, at
08:33:21 on Tue, 3 Aug 2010, Stimpy remarked:

That raises something about which I've often wondered. My car has an iPod
socket so I sometimes use the iPod controls whilst driving. It's not a
phone so is using it specifically prohibited?

The prohibition on "using" a mobile phone would not apply to an iPod,
but *would* apply to the almost identical activity of accessing "iPod
functionality" within an iPhone.

Technology-specific legislation is almost always misguided, and in this
case the law is very specific to certain specified phone technologies.
--
Roland Perry