British gal convicted of driving one-handed

wrote:
> [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.

Thank you for that extensive research. I agree and would go further
that it appears to be an injustice that the charge was upheld. Prima
facie, she was obviously well in control of the vehicle.

wrote:
>
> 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.

Why the exemption for two-way radios? So that cops can yack on
their comms while the rest of us have to pay a fine. Excuse me
while I vomit. Actually, my cell phone has a two-way radio mode.
I wonder if it would stand up in court, to say that I was using
it in that mode at the time.

In article . com>,
Old Wolf > wrote:
>
>Why the exemption for two-way radios? So that cops can yack on
>their comms while the rest of us have to pay a fine. Excuse me
>while I vomit. Actually, my cell phone has a two-way radio mode.
>I wonder if it would stand up in court, to say that I was using
>it in that mode at the time.

No, because "two-way radio" is defined by frequency band. (yes, it
is stupid)

Old Wolf wrote:
> Why the exemption for two-way radios? So that cops can yack on
> their comms while the rest of us have to pay a fine. Excuse me
> while I vomit. Actually, my cell phone has a two-way radio mode.
> I wonder if it would stand up in court, to say that I was using
> it in that mode at the time.

Even if not, I wonder if one could get (or make) a cell phone that
looks like a CB or amateur band rig, complete with push-to-talk mike.
I bet the cops wouldn't stop you for it even if it's technically
illegal.

All you'd really need to do is get somebody's junky old CB set and
"gut" it, keeping only the speaker, mike connector and power supply,
then turn a $5 Radio Shack headset kit into an adapter plug to
connect all three to a cell phone you have hidden away somewhere.
You might also want an extension antenna, so your reception doesn't
suffer from the cell phone being hidden inside the old CB chassis.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 23:12:06 -0500, "me" > wrote:

>"Bo Raxo" > wrote in message
link.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? ;^)
>

Yeah - he should have gotten a ticket.