Two Year Jail Sentences For Using Mobile Phone In UK While Driving

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23411328-details/Drivers+risk+two+years+in+jail+for+using+their+mobile+phones/article.do">http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23411328-details/Drivers+risk+two+years+in+jail+for+using+their+mobile+phones/article.do</a><br /><br /><i>"Motorists who use a hand-held mobile phone or fiddle with a satellite-navigation system while driving could be jailed for up to two years. Prosecutors have said they could be charged with dangerous driving in a dramatically tougher approach to such offences. Those caught fiddling with an MP3 music player or texting on a mobile at the wheel could also face the charge. "</i><br /><br />Wow! 8O I personally strongly oppose the use of a cell phone while driving unless you have a hands free headset, and that means only voice activated dialing too. My cell phone never leaves my belt while I am in the car. However, two years in jail. That is life changing. And fiddling with an MP3 player? Uhm.... :worried: blame Audible for that. :wink: Fortunately for me, it has "page breaks" between articles when listing to the Wall Street Journal, so I can skip an article by touch, which is less effort than changing radio stations for me. UK denizens, take note!

[Jason Dunn]

Two years in jail? Oh come on! A fine would be more than enough deterrent - jail time is just stupid. If they hurt someone because they were distracted, then it's vehicular manslaughter or whatnot...this just seems like overkill.

[Mark Kenepp]

My first thought was Wow! 8O as well and since I am heading over there tomorrow, made me think twice about how I will be using my Loox n560 to get around. But, after reading the article, it sounds like this only applies if you are considered to be "driving dangerously."

Prosecutions will be brought whenever it is judged that using the equipment posed a danger, such as forcing a car to swerve or causing a distracted motorist to jump a red light.

That makes sense to me but, why are they picking on mobile phones, MP3 players and navigation systems? Why not just say dangerous driving is punishable with a possible two year prison sentence no matter what the underlying cause or distraction?

Does this mean that if you are drinking coffee and doing your makeup and that causes you to drive dangerously that you will not be prosecuted?

[virain]

Politicians need an enemies to justify their existence without solving real problems. In international affairs it's Russia, in economy it's big corporations, in technology it's handheld devices.

[BevHoward]

I know I am in the minority on this, but I support such severe measures since areas which have imposed fines have not had a significant impact on cellular use and the rise in accidents related to that use.

Using aircraft radio communication for most of my adult life lead me to believe that using a cellphone in a car would be a non issue, but within a month I determined to never use a cellphone while driving because of the impact that it had on my driving performance and haven't since.

As an example, my sister was talking with a friend when the phone went dead... in addition to the phone, the friend, who was driving, was dead as well, apparently because she was not aware of the car that killed her because she was on the phone.

Watch _anyone_ using a cellphone in a car... it's evident even from a distance that using a phone reduces their situational awareness while driving... which should be a full time job.

It would be my assumption that, in practice, this type of law would be implemented primarily in cases where the driver's performance was being observed as impaired, drifting, non responsive, tailgating, etc.

The GPS aspects are going to be interesting as well... especially since they are becoming "standard equipment"

Beverly Howard [MS MVP-Mobile Devices]

[Shaun Stuart]

Does this mean that if you are drinking coffee and doing your makeup and that causes you to drive dangerously that you will not be prosecuted?

I live in the uk and I think you will find that all dangerous driving could result in this action including drinking coffee if it can be proved it had a direct impact on your driving at the time.

The uk introduced a ban on using phones (unless they are handsfree)in cars over a year ago, the problem is that a lot of people ignore the ban and accidents are still happening. The law is just getting tougher.

Initially the ban annoyed me as I had been using my phone without issue, but a couple of months ago I passed my 19 year old daughter driving in her car clearly checking a sms and not looking at the road.

***long quote trimmed by mod JD***

[JesterMania]

I know I am in the minority on this, but I support such severe measures since areas which have imposed fines have not had a significant impact on cellular use and the rise in accidents related to that use.

I totally agree with you. I guess this makes 2 of us at least. My opinion is that severe measures such as these are meant to get the point across. If they imposed a fine, many people will still take the chance because they know it is only a fine - nothing too serious. People who act accordingly and never use a mobile while driving have absolutely nothing to fear. It's like saying that jail time for robbery is a severe punishment (I know that's a stretch but bear with me for a second). If you never commit robbery, you never have to worry. That is my point - same goes for this situation. If you never commit such dangerous acts as using a cellphone while driving, you don't have anything to fear. For me, I couldn't care less what the punishment is because I know I will never get caught - because I will never do it. :wink:

[Jason Dunn]

It would be my assumption that, in practice, this type of law would be implemented primarily in cases where the driver's performance was being observed as impaired, drifting, non responsive, tailgating, etc.

If there was genuine, observed driving impairment, then I'd support this. But if it was enforced like a seatbelt law - a police officer sees a person in a car using a cell phone, then to me two years in jail seems too harsh.

I find it hard to believe that someone would just shrug off a hefty fine, say $1000 or so.

[griph]

Two years in jail? Oh come on! A fine would be more than enough deterrent - jail time is just stupid. If they hurt someone because they were distracted, then it's vehicular manslaughter or whatnot...this just seems like overkill.

The table within the article clarifies the situation here in the UK:

Using a mobile phone etc whilst driving 60GBP fine and three points on your license.
Dangerous Driving (due to any cause due to lack of driver control).
There is also a lesser offence of driving without due care and attention (careless driving) for which there is only a fine.

There are two aspects to the offence of dangerous driving that the prosecution have to prove. Firstly that the standard of driving fell far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver. Secondly it also has to be shown that it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous. The burden of proof always lies with the prosecution.

The way the UK legal system operates I would be astounded if anyone was actually jailed on a first offence unless there was injuries (excluding death - there is a further charge of 'causing Death by Dangerous Driving'). The quoted jail term is the MAXIMUM penalty, and would I believe only be imposed on a relatively minor number of cases. However, the maximum penalty is there in the event that the defenfent really does deserve it.

It seems that they have just bumped up the maximum penalties - which I would agree should (assuming the driver to be sentient, sober, stable and sensible enough to understand - and many are NOT) provide a more realistic deterent to the mounting problems encountered by drivers.

[Brad Adrian]

What perfect sense. I mean, who would expect that somebody would be tempted to used their car-mounted GPS system while driving?

I'm all in favor of being strict with goofballs who do ANYTHING that's unsafe behind the wheel. I'm just lucky that they never imposed these laws for being distracted by things like kids or a wife who's backseat driving...!

"Don't you make me pull this car over!"

[virain]

Shouldn't humans take responsibilities for their actions in to their own hands? Do you want your government to control and regulate every aspect of your life? Smoking, driving, mobile phones, what you eat, what you wear, what you read? And you call UK a free democratic country? Do you really think it is all done for your own good? What's next? Burn Mary Poppins? She uses her umbrella to fly, and some goofy kid dicides to jump off a roof with Umbrella. Are you people or sheeps? :devilboy: Start thinking for yourseves!

[griph]

Shouldn't humans take responsibilities for their actions in to their own hands? .... Start thinking for yourseves!
The trouble is that when [some] humans are left to take personal responsibility for their actions, others still get hurt. We seem to live in an age where responsibility is someone elses problem - The "I missed my plane - what are YOU going to do about it?" brigade. Sometimes laws just have to be introduced to try to protect people from the moronic actions of others. I accept that we are increasingly living in a Nanny state, but some rules need to be there to protect the innocent.

[jeisner]

So what about changing the radio station on the car stereo??? Shouldn't that be 2 years too? or at least 1 year in jail?

How many years before we have more people in jail than out?

Fines and loss of licence (12 months) for multiple offences seems OK, but jail term, seems complete stupidity..

[virain]

The trouble is that when [some] humans are left to take personal responsibility for their actions, others still get hurt. We seem to live in an age where responsibility is someone elses problem - The "I missed my plane - what are YOU going to do about it?" brigade. My answer is "I can sell you ticket for the next flight at a full price" Sometimes laws just have to be introduced to try to protect people from the moronic actions of others. I accept that we are increasingly living in a Nanny state, but some rules need to be there to protect the innocent.
Then what does makes you better than a Red China? At least they are honest about their idiology.

[griph]

My answer is "I can sell you ticket for the next flight at a full price"
I think you are missing the point somewhat. What I meant was that an increasingly significant number of people just dont take responsibility for their own actions - something goes wrong and it's someone else's problem. If by persistently not taking action themselves, to minimise the risk of their actions harming others, then surely there needs to be some direction - at least in order to protect the innocent!
Then what does makes you better than a Red China? At least they are honest about their idiology.
Honest about their idiology? You are kidding!! You must be some sort of anarchist if you think there should be no rules, and if they are, we are like Red China - do you perceive grey tones, or is everything always black and white with you? :roll:

[Jonathon Watkins]

And you call UK a free democratic country?

Sure do. :wink:

Do you really think it is all done for your own good?

Umm, yes. :) That's what laws are for. I've seen too many idiots driving with one hand clamped to their ear on the the phone and driving erratically. Once I was a guy on the phone, smoking a cigarette while taking a tight corner one handedly. I was on the pavement and he nearly did';t make it. Fortunately he did and I am still here.

Do Are you people or sheeps? :devilboy: Start thinking for yourseves!

You've been reading too many Mac adverts. ;-) I for one am happy the law is there and that it is available to prosecute irresponsible idiots. I trust our system of law and order. If everyone decides what laws apply to them and which don't, then that's awfully close to anarchy. If everyone obeys the laws, everyone benefits. If a few break the law, they can gain a temporary advantage. If everyone breaks the law, everyone looses.

[virain]

And you call UK a free democratic country?

Sure do. :wink:

Do you really think it is all done for your own good?

Umm, yes. :) That's what laws are for. I've seen too many idiots driving with one hand clamped to their ear on the the phone and driving erratically. Once I was a guy on the phone, smoking a cigarette while taking a tight corner one handedly. I was on the pavement and he nearly did';t make it. Fortunately he did and I am still here.

Do Are you people or sheeps? :devilboy: Start thinking for yourseves!

You've been reading too many Mac adverts. ;-) I for one am happy the law is there and that it is available to prosecute irresponsible idiots. I trust our system of law and order. If everyone decides what laws apply to them and which don't, then that's awfully close to anarchy. If everyone obeys the laws, everyone benefits. If a few break the law, they can gain a temporary advantage. If everyone breaks the law, everyone looses.

Well, in this case define your understanding of a freedom. By the way, then more you rely on someone else to tell you what to do and how to act, then less you use a common scence. Such as I didn't know that it is unsafe to stick two fingers into electric outlet, there were no disclosure. Here comes stuppid lawsuite for wich we, consumers pay. You surrender your freedom to think for yourself, you became more depended on your government, and ANY government is a control freak. and not always have your best interests in mind. I don't say we don't need laws, but laws should not control every aspect of our life. Why do you think in a bible God introduced only TEN basic laws? There are too many idiots on the road? That's because they rely on government to think for them and decide what is good and what is not. If chatting on the phone while driving cost few pounds then it is not too bad, right? Maybe military style state will be much better to live in? What do you think?