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
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)


--
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, 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)

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

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)

In message , at 06:08:00 on
Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Charles Ellson remarked:
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 law about driving(qv) while using a mobile phone says:

110. - (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is
using -

(a) a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b) a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4)

....

(4) A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and
(3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which
performs an interactive communication function by
transmitting and receiving data.

and the devil in the detail:

(6) For the purposes of this regulation -

(a) a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held
if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of
making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive
communication function;

(b) a person supervises the holder of a provisional licence if he
does so pursuant to a condition imposed on that licence holder
prescribed under section 97(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988
(grant of provisional licence);

(c) "interactive communication function" includes the following:

(i) sending or receiving oral or written messages;
(ii) sending or receiving facsimile documents;
(iii) sending or receiving still or moving images; and
(iv) providing access to the internet;

(d) "two-way radio" means any wireless telegraphy apparatus which is
designed or adapted -

(i) for the purpose of transmitting and receiving spoken
messages; and

(ii) to operate on any frequency other than 880 MHz to 915 MHz,
925 MHz to 960 MHz, 1710 MHz to 1785 MHz, 1805 MHz to 1880
MHz, 1900 MHz to 1980 MHz or 2110 MHz to 2170 MHz; and

(e) "wireless telegraphy" has the same meaning as in section 19(1)
of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949[3]."


--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 08:47:07 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 06:08:00 on
Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Charles Ellson remarked:
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 law about driving(qv) while using a mobile phone says:

110. - (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is
using -

(a) a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b) a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4)

...

(4) A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and
(3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which
performs an interactive communication function by
transmitting and receiving data.

and the devil in the detail:

(6) For the purposes of this regulation -

(a) a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held
if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of
making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive
communication function;

(b) a person supervises the holder of a provisional licence if he
does so pursuant to a condition imposed on that licence holder
prescribed under section 97(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988
(grant of provisional licence);

(c) "interactive communication function" includes the following:

(i) sending or receiving oral or written messages;
(ii) sending or receiving facsimile documents;
(iii) sending or receiving still or moving images; and
(iv) providing access to the internet;

(d) "two-way radio" means any wireless telegraphy apparatus which is
designed or adapted -

(i) for the purpose of transmitting and receiving spoken
messages; and

(ii) to operate on any frequency other than 880 MHz to 915 MHz,
925 MHz to 960 MHz, 1710 MHz to 1785 MHz, 1805 MHz to 1880
MHz, 1900 MHz to 1980 MHz or 2110 MHz to 2170 MHz; and

(e) "wireless telegraphy" has the same meaning as in section 19(1)
of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949[3]."

It would have helped if you had said that was from SI 2003/2695 ("The
Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations
2003"). However, it is not "the" law but only one of a number of laws
and regulations which can be breached by using different devices (not
being necessary for control of a vehicle) while driving. It does not
endow legality upon the use of other devices excluded by the wording
of the above reg.110 nor does it prevent the option of a driver being
charged with driving without due care and attention.

S.41D (Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile
telephones etc.) of RTA 1988 is one of four sections following s.41
which select certain breaches of the Road Vehicles (Construction and
Use) Regulations 1986 for independent description as offences (which
appears to be for the purpose of enabling different punishment) but if
those do not apply then s.42 defines breach of any of the rest as an
offence anyway (but not necessarily with the same penalties as apply
to the s.41A-D offences). AFAICT the main difference WRT penalties is
that s.41A-D incur penalty points but s.42 does not.

In message , at 23:47:45 on
Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Charles Ellson remarked:
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 08:47:07 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 06:08:00 on
Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Charles Ellson remarked:
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 law about driving(qv) while using a mobile phone says:

110. - (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a road if he is
using -

(a) a hand-held mobile telephone; or
(b) a hand-held device of a kind specified in paragraph (4)

...

(4) A device referred to in paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and
(3)(b) is a device, other than a two-way radio, which
performs an interactive communication function by
transmitting and receiving data.

and the devil in the detail:

(6) For the purposes of this regulation -

(a) a mobile telephone or other device is to be treated as hand-held
if it is, or must be, held at some point during the course of
making or receiving a call or performing any other interactive
communication function;

(b) a person supervises the holder of a provisional licence if he
does so pursuant to a condition imposed on that licence holder
prescribed under section 97(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988
(grant of provisional licence);

(c) "interactive communication function" includes the following:

(i) sending or receiving oral or written messages;
(ii) sending or receiving facsimile documents;
(iii) sending or receiving still or moving images; and
(iv) providing access to the internet;

(d) "two-way radio" means any wireless telegraphy apparatus which is
designed or adapted -

(i) for the purpose of transmitting and receiving spoken
messages; and

(ii) to operate on any frequency other than 880 MHz to 915 MHz,
925 MHz to 960 MHz, 1710 MHz to 1785 MHz, 1805 MHz to 1880
MHz, 1900 MHz to 1980 MHz or 2110 MHz to 2170 MHz; and

(e) "wireless telegraphy" has the same meaning as in section 19(1)
of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949[3]."

It would have helped if you had said that was from SI 2003/2695 ("The
Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations
2003").

You asked for the amended law (although it's The Road Vehicles
(Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, not RTA 1988), so that's what I
gave you. If you wanted to know where they came from, typing a fragment
into Google will take you there. This is Usenet, not a law textbook!

However, it is not "the" law but only one of a number of laws
and regulations which can be breached by using different devices (not
being necessary for control of a vehicle) while driving.

Are there any other laws that define what a mobile phone is for the
purposes of banning driving while using one - I very much doubt it.

It does not endow legality upon the use of other devices excluded by
the wording of the above reg.110

But it means that those excluded devices (largely two-radios) are not
criminalised by this will known and much publicised bit of legislation.
On the other hand, using a phone-in-flight-mode as an MP3 player is
criminalised, whereas using an MP3 player (or iPod or whatever) isn't!

nor does it prevent the option of a driver being
charged with driving without due care and attention.

That has always been the case.

--
Roland Perry

In article , Charles Ellson
scribeth thus
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)."

OK the one I was looking at was in far more detail and was IIRC a
statutory instrument and it did make the bit about frequency of
operation very clear and that was about 2 years ago..

I'll look it up later if I've got time...



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)




--
Tony Sayer

In message , at 14:28:11 on Fri, 6 Aug
2010, tony sayer remarked:
OK the one I was looking at was in far more detail and was IIRC a
statutory instrument and it did make the bit about frequency of
operation very clear and that was about 2 years ago..

I'll look it up later if I've got time...

It's the one I posted yesterday (and discussed earlier this morning).
--
Roland Perry

In article , Roland Perry
scribeth thus
In message , at 14:28:11 on Fri, 6 Aug
2010, tony sayer remarked:
OK the one I was looking at was in far more detail and was IIRC a
statutory instrument and it did make the bit about frequency of
operation very clear and that was about 2 years ago..

I'll look it up later if I've got time...

It's the one I posted yesterday (and discussed earlier this morning).

I'm indebted to my 'learned friend .. as they say...
--
Tony Sayer