On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 00:02:51 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

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.

Those bits are in which section of RTA 1988 ?

There're are aimed at Mobile
cellular phone equipment's and not two way radios which are also comms
devices...

If it was for mobile phones alone then ITYF it would have said so.

The explanation
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/en/ukpgaen_20060049_en.pdf
in the notes to the Road Safety Act 2006 (which amended s.41 of the
Road Traffic Act 1988) include :-

"Section 26: Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile
telephones etc

93. This section inserts a new section 41D into the RTA, and amends
the RTOA, to provide for obligatory endorsement (with disqualification
at the court's discretion) for the offence of contravening or failing
to comply with a construction and use requirement if the requirement
relates either to failure to have proper control of the vehicle or a
full view of the road or to the use of a hand-held mobile phone or
similar device. A "construction and use requirement" is a requirement
imposed by a regulation made under section 41 of the RTA (most of
which are contained in the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use)
Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986/1078) as amended)."

So the purpose is not creation of a new offence (as it was already
illegal not to be in proper control of a vehicle) but alters the way
in which a particular increasing hazard is to be dealt with, including
AFAICT a change in the penalty for this and the less-specific
associated offences.


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)