On 3 Aug 2010 07:30:13 GMT, Adrian wrote:

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?

It was explained by myself and others. Telephones cannot on most
occasions be used safely in a moving vehicle due to the amount of
attention diverted from the primary task of driving the vehicle with
the required level of care and attention.

- driving while applying makeup

Well established as an unsafe and illegal practice.

By that same catch-all...

By the amount of attention diverted etc. but not as great and specific
a problem as mobile telephones.

- 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?

See above

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 09:30:55 +0100, Graeme
wrote:

In message k
Stimpy wrote:

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?

Probably not, it is the equivalent of using the controls on a car radio. The
problem with mobile phones is largely the dislocation effect of conducting a
conversation with someone remote from the vehicle. That's why even handsfree
kits are not that effective.

The legislation specifically mentions mobile phones, not any other devices

It actually refers to "hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held
interactive communication device," and "causing or permitting the
driving of a motor vehicle by another person using such a telephone or
other device." .


though with the latter your caveat below will always apply.


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

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 08:40:03 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

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.

I thought he had also been texting during the journey but various
reports don't suggest the telephone had actually been used during the
journey preceding the accident. Possibly the train crashes in LA in
2008 and Boston in 2009 (with train crew texting) are getting tangled
up with it.

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 16:56:31 +0100, Graeme
wrote:
You have to switch the engine off to be legal, that's the bit most people
forget.

AFAICT that is not a statutary requirement, merely an action which
provides more certainty in most cases WRT to whether or not the
telephone user is "driving" the vehicle for the purposes of
determining if there is a breach of s.41D Road Traffic Act 1988 :0

"Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile telephones
etc.

41D
A person who contravenes or fails to comply with a construction and
use requirementâ?"
(a)
as to not driving a motor vehicle in a position which does not give
proper control or a full view of the road and traffic ahead, or not
causing or permitting the driving of a motor vehicle by another person
in such a position, or
(b)
as to not driving or supervising the driving of a motor vehicle while
using a hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held interactive
communication device, or not causing or permitting the driving of a
motor vehicle by another person using such a telephone or other
device,

is guilty of an offence."

Is there a definition of 'driving' in there somewhere? Does sitting in the
driving seat when the engine is running, even if the vehicle is stationary,
count as driving?

Peter

Probably not, it is the equivalent of using the controls on a car radio. The
problem with mobile phones is largely the dislocation effect of conducting a
conversation with someone remote from the vehicle. That's why even handsfree
kits are not that effective.

The legislation specifically mentions mobile phones, not any other devices

It actually refers to "hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held
interactive communication device," and "causing or permitting the
driving of a motor vehicle by another person using such a telephone or
other device." .




Umm.. there are more bits to that law some of it related to the
frequency bands the comms device works on. There're are aimed at Mobile
cellular phone equipment's and not two way radios which are also comms
devices...


though with the latter your caveat below will always apply.


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



--
Tony Sayer

In message
"Peter Masson" wrote:



"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 16:56:31 +0100, Graeme
wrote:
You have to switch the engine off to be legal, that's the bit most people
forget.

AFAICT that is not a statutary requirement, merely an action which
provides more certainty in most cases WRT to whether or not the
telephone user is "driving" the vehicle for the purposes of
determining if there is a breach of s.41D Road Traffic Act 1988 :0

"Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile telephones
etc.

41D
A person who contravenes or fails to comply with a construction and
use requirementâ?"
(a)
as to not driving a motor vehicle in a position which does not give
proper control or a full view of the road and traffic ahead, or not
causing or permitting the driving of a motor vehicle by another person
in such a position, or
(b)
as to not driving or supervising the driving of a motor vehicle while
using a hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held interactive
communication device, or not causing or permitting the driving of a
motor vehicle by another person using such a telephone or other
device,

is guilty of an offence."

Is there a definition of 'driving' in there somewhere? Does sitting in the
driving seat when the engine is running, even if the vehicle is stationary,
count as driving?


It does if you are drunk.

--
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/

"Graeme" wrote in message
...
In message
"Peter Masson" wrote:

Is there a definition of 'driving' in there somewhere? Does sitting in
the
driving seat when the engine is running, even if the vehicle is
stationary,
count as driving?

It does if you are drunk.

AIUI the offence is being 'drunk in charge of a vehicle'. Someone who is
drunk, asleep on the back seat of the car, but with the keys in his pocket,
could be convicted.

Peter

In message
"Peter Masson" wrote:



"Graeme" wrote in message
...
In message
"Peter Masson" wrote:

Is there a definition of 'driving' in there somewhere? Does sitting in
the driving seat when the engine is running, even if the vehicle is
stationary, count as driving?

It does if you are drunk.

AIUI the offence is being 'drunk in charge of a vehicle'. Someone who is
drunk, asleep on the back seat of the car, but with the keys in his pocket,
could be convicted.


Also if you being driven by a learner driver.

--
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/

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 22:22:55 +0100, Charles Ellson wrote

AFAICT that is not a statutary requirement, merely an action which
provides more certainty in most cases WRT to whether or not the
telephone user is "driving" the vehicle for the purposes of
determining if there is a breach of s.41D Road Traffic Act 1988 :0

"Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile telephones
etc.

41D
A person who contravenes or fails to comply with a construction and
use requirement—
(a)
as to not driving a motor vehicle in a position which does not give
proper control or a full view of the road and traffic ahead, or not
causing or permitting the driving of a motor vehicle by another person
in such a position, or
(b)
as to not driving or supervising the driving of a motor vehicle while
using a hand-held mobile telephone or other hand-held interactive
communication device, or not causing or permitting the driving of a
motor vehicle by another person using such a telephone or other
device,

is guilty of an offence."

The words about "supervising the driving of a motor vehicle" suggest that I
can't use my mobile whilst supervising my daughter driving on a provisional
license. Interesting.

"Stimpy" wrote

The words about "supervising the driving of a motor vehicle" suggest that
I
can't use my mobile whilst supervising my daughter driving on a
provisional
license. Interesting.

The AA has given this some publicity this week
http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/...ng-school.html

If you need glasses to drive you must also wear them while you're
supervising your daughter.

Peter