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 02:36:09 +0100
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 15:53:26 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 16:46:31 +0100
"Peter Masson" wrote:
make it a 6 point offence to clear drivers who have little thought for other
road users off the road more quickly.

I'm not sure why you think making progress is having little though for other
drivers.

A major use of average speed cameras is through roadworks. Workers carrying
out the roadworks are at serious danger from speeding motorists, that's why

No doubt. Except that for the majority of a 24 hour day there generally isn't
any bugger working on most roadworks. They should be renamed
roadcan't-be-arsed-I'm-off-home.

Complaints about "nobody is working there" seem to ignore the
impractibility of setting up and removing the protective measures
every working day or the further danger to the workers doing that.

You can't have it both ways. Either the speed restrictions are there to
protect the workers or they're not. If they are and there's no workers then
why are there still speed restrictions? If they're not to protect the workers
then what exactly are they for?

And don't even suggest that switching off the cameras at knocking off time
would be an arduous task to implement.

B2003

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 08:47:34 +0100, Roland Perry wrote
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.


Indeed. So let's assume it's not forbidden to use an iPod. It could,
however, be argued that using the iPd functionality on an iPhone is illegal.

Now consider the case of iPod Touch which shares a common user interface with
iPhone and, apart from the ability to make phone calls, is all but identical
to an iPhone.

Would using the iPod functionality on that device be illegal?

It's can of worms innit? :-)

wrote in message

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:36:09 +0100
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 15:53:26 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 16:46:31 +0100
"Peter Masson" wrote:
make it a 6 point offence to clear drivers who have little thought
for other road users off the road more quickly.

I'm not sure why you think making progress is having little though
for other drivers.

A major use of average speed cameras is through roadworks. Workers
carrying out the roadworks are at serious danger from speeding
motorists, that's why

No doubt. Except that for the majority of a 24 hour day there
generally isn't any bugger working on most roadworks. They should
be renamed roadcan't-be-arsed-I'm-off-home.

Complaints about "nobody is working there" seem to ignore the
impractibility of setting up and removing the protective measures
every working day or the further danger to the workers doing that.

You can't have it both ways. Either the speed restrictions are there
to protect the workers or they're not. If they are and there's no
workers then why are there still speed restrictions? If they're not
to protect the workers then what exactly are they for?

And don't even suggest that switching off the cameras at knocking off
time would be an arduous task to implement.

Often there are also narrowed lanes next to motorway roadworks with
50mph limits, so it wouldn't be safe to drive at 70mph, whether or not
there are any roadworkers present.

In message k
Stimpy wrote:

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 08:47:34 +0100, Roland Perry wrote
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.


Indeed. So let's assume it's not forbidden to use an iPod. It could,
however, be argued that using the iPd functionality on an iPhone is
illegal.

Now consider the case of iPod Touch which shares a common user interface
with iPhone and, apart from the ability to make phone calls, is all but
identical to an iPhone.

Would using the iPod functionality on that device be illegal?

No, it is not a phone. However the usual caveats about possible
dangerous/careless driving still apply.


It's can of worms innit? :-)


Not really but it is the usual uk.r habit to create a can of worms if at all
possible.

--
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 11:24:43 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
You can't have it both ways. Either the speed restrictions are there
to protect the workers or they're not. If they are and there's no
workers then why are there still speed restrictions? If they're not
to protect the workers then what exactly are they for?

And don't even suggest that switching off the cameras at knocking off
time would be an arduous task to implement.

Often there are also narrowed lanes next to motorway roadworks with
50mph limits, so it wouldn't be safe to drive at 70mph, whether or not
there are any roadworkers present.

Often however there arn't - its just a lane closed off and nothing else
changed.

B2003

In message k, at
10:40:43 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.

Indeed. So let's assume it's not forbidden to use an iPod. It could,
however, be argued that using the iPd functionality on an iPhone is illegal.

Now consider the case of iPod Touch which shares a common user interface with
iPhone and, apart from the ability to make phone calls, is all but identical
to an iPhone.

Would using the iPod functionality on that device be illegal?

It's can of worms innit? :-)

Not really, because that was the exactly situation I described above!
(Sorry if it wasn't clear that I was thinking of the iPod Touch, but
that's the one with the most iPhone-alike interface).

It's not a can of worms at all (the situation is quite clear), but it is
(arguably) somewhere between an unintended consequence and the drafters
forgetting the golden rule about [not] being technology specific.

The worms only appear if (for example) you have a phone switched into
"flight mode" (so no calls are possible) being used for something else
(perhaps as a camera) while you are "at the wheel". Note that the law
also does not discriminate between the situations of bowling along a
motorway at 70mph versus being sat at (ObRail) a level crossing with the
gates closed, the gearbox in "park", while you snap a passing train.
--
Roland Perry

On Aug 3, 12:08*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message k, at
10:40:43 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.

Indeed. *So let's assume it's not forbidden to use an iPod. *It could,
however, be argued that using the iPd functionality on an iPhone is illegal.

Now consider the case of iPod Touch which shares a common user interface with
iPhone and, apart from the ability to make phone calls, is all but identical
to an iPhone.

Would using the iPod functionality on that device be illegal?

It's can of worms innit? :-)

Not really, because that was the exactly situation I described above!
(Sorry if it wasn't clear that I was thinking of the iPod Touch, but
that's the one with the most iPhone-alike interface).

It's not a can of worms at all (the situation is quite clear), but it is
(arguably) somewhere between an unintended consequence and the drafters
forgetting the golden rule about [not] being technology specific.

The worms only appear if (for example) you have a phone switched into
"flight mode" (so no calls are possible) being used for something else
(perhaps as a camera) while you are "at the wheel". Note that the law
also does not discriminate between the situations of bowling along a
motorway at 70mph versus being sat at (ObRail) a level crossing with the
gates closed, the gearbox in "park", while you snap a passing train.

But a police officer does discriminate between the two.

In message
, at
04:38:59 on Tue, 3 Aug 2010, Mizter T remarked:
The worms only appear if (for example) you have a phone switched into
"flight mode" (so no calls are possible) being used for something else
(perhaps as a camera) while you are "at the wheel". Note that the law
also does not discriminate between the situations of bowling along a
motorway at 70mph versus being sat at (ObRail) a level crossing with the
gates closed, the gearbox in "park", while you snap a passing train.

But a police officer does discriminate between the two.

Only when it suits them. It's a very dangerous situation when there are
laws that TPTB says "but we will never use them like that". Which is
pretty much where we are today with many officers' interpretation of the
terrorist/photography laws.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 12:45:25 +0100, Roland Perry wrote
In message
, at
04:38:59 on Tue, 3 Aug 2010, Mizter T remarked:
The worms only appear if (for example) you have a phone switched into
"flight mode" (so no calls are possible) being used for something else
(perhaps as a camera) while you are "at the wheel". Note that the law
also does not discriminate between the situations of bowling along a
motorway at 70mph versus being sat at (ObRail) a level crossing with the
gates closed, the gearbox in "park", while you snap a passing train.

But a police officer does discriminate between the two.

Only when it suits them. It's a very dangerous situation when there are
laws that TPTB says "but we will never use them like that". Which is
pretty much where we are today with many officers' interpretation of the
terrorist/photography laws.

Does the PC have sufficient knowledge to distinguish between a driver holding
an iPhone whilst using the iPod function and holding the same iPhone the same
way whilst using the phone and loudspeaker?

(I know.. I know... but it's fun to idly speculate :-))