British gal convicted of driving one-handed

"Bo Raxo" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "yaffaDina" > wrote in message
> ...
The article doesn't mention whether the car was a manual shift, but those
> are much more common in the UK than in the US. Driving a stick shift
while
> holding an apple in one hand might be a bit dangerous. Not very, but then
> going 5 mph over the limit isn't very dangerous, yet enough to get you a
> ticket. Roughly the same kind of low-level risk.

anyone ever see that episode of Mr Bean where he's late for the dentist
and gets dressed in his car while he's driving? ;^)

Careful; you may overload both it's brain cells with that logic. :-D

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> >Larry Bud Jan 26, 5:16 am
>
> >This is nonsense. This is the problem right here. She WAS in
control,
> while there are numerous people out there driving with both hands
that
> are clearly NOT in control.
>
> Hey stupid. There is no way to tell if she was in control or not.

Of course there is. She didn't get a ticket for not being in control
of her vehicle.

> Do you also think drunk driving should be allowed except when the
drunk > is all over the road? URAMORON

I think actions should be punished, and not actions that "might"
happen.

Again, the cops are not allowed to pick and choose who to pull over. If
you're driving with a cellphone in one hand or an apple while
attempting to drive, you're a ****ing moron and you deserve the damned
ticket.

Picking up a coffee cup or soda, twiddling with the radio, putting
makeup on while you're driving, talking on your cellphone, trying to
grab a kid whom you haven't bothered to put into a carseat properly, or
watching a DVD or TV while you're driving are all potential accident
situations. (And I admit to the first two, myself, like alot of other
people.)

One of our local cops told me once that he pulled a guy over because
his head was turned towards the passenger seat, and he had only one
hand on the wheel. Turns out he had his laptop and was checking his
stocks on his way to see his stockbroker. He thought the ticket was
stupid, too -- said he made $400/hr and didn't have time to waste on
such crap, and tried to leave the scene. Basically, he got arrested
for being stupid and thinking he was hot ****.

Would you grow up, please, before posting such adolescent crap?

ONE MORE TIME -- THERE ARE NO "IF/THEN" CLAUSES IN THE TRAFFIC LAWS.

EITHER YOU'RE DOING IT RIGHT OR YOU'RE NOT.
GOT IT??????????????????????????????

Bo Raxo wrote:
>
> Yeah, I hate that about Yaffadina. After a really vigorous debate she
> wants to coddle and talk about it, and I just want to roll over and go
> to sleep.

If I could think of something really cutting and clever to say, I'd say
it Right Now!
yd -- thinking thinking thinking

wrote:
> ONE MORE TIME -- THERE ARE NO "IF/THEN" CLAUSES IN THE TRAFFIC LAWS.
>
> EITHER YOU'RE DOING IT RIGHT OR YOU'RE NOT.
> GOT IT??????????????????????????????

Shhhhhhh.... Ok. Now, I might have missed it in reading through this
thread, but is there actually a law there in the UK that requires that
motorists always have both hands on the wheel? ISTM that this is
impractical, i.e., manual transmission requires one hand off the wheel
during shifting. So perhaps you are incorrect that this was a
black-and-white situation.

So does anyone know what the law is that this woman was charged with
violating? Can a cite be provided so we can read it?

wrote:
> Again, the cops are not allowed to pick and choose who to pull
over...(snip)

The police not only *are* allowed to pick and choose whom to pull over;
they *must* do that. They cannot possibly pull over everyone. It is
always a pick-and-choose situation.

[Mr. Flynn:]

> So does anyone know what the law is that this woman was charged with
> violating? Can a cite be provided so we can read it?

It is a pretty easy inference from the press reporting that Ms.
McCaffery was charged under =A7 3 of the Road Traffic Act and Regulation
104 of the Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations. It would
not have been legally possible to use directly the provisions of the
Construction and Use Regulations which prohibit the use of hand-held
mobile telephones while driving (Regulation 110).

This portion of the legislation is abstracted in the Highway Code as
Rule 127, which reads in pertinent part:

"You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times. You
MUST NOT use a hand-held mobile phone, or similar device, when driving
or when supervising a learner driver, except to call 999 or 112 in a
genuine emergency when it is unsafe or impractical to stop."

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/12.shtml

The Highway Code is an officially endorsed summary of road traffic law
and a guide to what the British government considers "best practice" in
driving. It is NOT a statement of law. However, failure to follow its
recommendations can be cited as evidence against the defendant in
driving-without-due-care prosecutions.

The Road Traffic Act 1988 is online:

"3. If a person drives a motor vehicle on a road without due care and
attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using
the road, he is guilty of an offence."

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988...en_2.htm#mdiv2

Regulation 110, which states the actual ban against hand-held
interactive communications equipment, is also online, as part of the
Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations
2003.

http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/s...3/20032695.htm

This statutory instrument inserts Regulation 110 in the C.&U.R. and
allows the police to prosecute drivers specifically for using a
handheld mobile telephone. Note that the ban is restricted to
interactive communication devices which are not two-way radios, and can
by no stretch of the imagination be considered to extend to an apple.

However, Regulation 104--which is not online--gives the police more
latitude to make "in control of vehicle" determinations in situations
where a driver has something in his or her hand which is not
immediately required to maintain control of the vehicle. Its intent is
expressed in this D.F.T. document which was issued as part of the
consultation into what eventually became Regulation 110, which reads in
pertinent part:

"At present the police may prosecute drivers under Regulation 104 of
the Construction and Use Regulations 1986 (C&U Regulations) for failing
to have proper control of their vehicle. Offenders may be offered a
fixed penalty notice of =A330."

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...age/dft_rdsaf=
ety_505017-01.hcsp

Without reading court transcripts or C.P.S. files connected to the
case, I can only speculate on the legal argument, but it is clear from
the press reporting that the police constable pulled Ms. McCaffery over
initially because he thought she had a mobile phone in her hand. If
this had been the case, it would have allowed the police to prosecute
her under Regulation 110. However, failing that, Regulation 104 would
have come into play.

Frankly I think the police and the C.P.S. made an error in judgment in
pursuing this case. Although they may have been technically correct in
doing so, it still represents unreasonable interference with a driver's
discretion to decide what is necessary to maintain control of a
vehicle, and it would have been a better use of public funds simply to
have let her go.