2 years in jail for using cell phone

Her Majesty's loyal subjects face a 2-year jail term for using a mobile (cell) phone while driving, according to a Reuters report quoted on Yahoo. The article suggests that even users of hands-free equipment could be charged.

GASP!!! 

I don't talk on the  phone and drive, too. Too much busy work to feel comfortable driving.  :-\

That said, they must have a lot of unused jail space, over there! Around here, sometimes you need a reservation if you want a place to stay the night. Sometimes, we find out that we are not taking arrests for less than a certain level of infraction, and even for that, they have to evict someone, to give someone else a room and bed. It's pretty funny, in a not so funny way.  :

Busted, for talking on the phone? Thanks Tom. Gave me a big grin!  ;D

Ray D 

Ray,

Remember that they made a lot space in their jails by sending prisoners to Australia  ;D

Tom

The way I understand it is, the UK driver has to be committing (has committed) some other 'moving' violation (speeding / red light / stop sign etc) while using the cell phone.  That way a new charge of dangerous driving can be applied, which carries the 2 years.   It still is a violation to simply use the phone while driving, but committing the moving violation(s) at the same time ups the ante.

BT  

BT,

The article does say:

"In the most serious cases, they could be charged with dangerous driving, which carries a two-year maximum sentence and an unlimited fine..."

But the headline is sure an eye catcher  ;D

Hi Guys

We have just acquired loads of free space in our jails to place all these "cell phone criminals" - because our Government has just let thousands of muggers, rapists etc out of jail early due to a space shortage !!!!!

This place is really nuts.

How about getting penanlty points on your driving licence plus a fine of upto $5,000 for driving thru a puddle and splashing someone !!

Those and more can be read in this article from The Times newspaper.

Paul

Of course, if you put them in jail, they can't kill anyone. Just had an incident in Phoenix where a woman was talking on her cell phone while driving, crashed and killed 2 people IIRC.

But look how many people are killed each year by drunk drivers across the country and the still let them drive even after more than three offenses.  But then IMHO I think lawmakers themselves have a high percentage of drunks and they don't want to make laws that could put themselves in prison.  I any case the women that crashed and killed people while talking should be facing a manslaughter charge as a minimum.

Had an accident in Utah earlier this year that killed two people cuz this kid was text messaging someone on his cell phone and hit a car broadside.  And I understand this is almost a daily occurance in the US now.

We have some interesting stories about folks who have been talking on their cell phones while doing 90 in a 55 zone

Now; many states are trying to ban any form of 2-way radio in a car. this includes Ham Radio, CB (They usually remember to exempt police, fire, ems and the like) however I have driven with 2-way radios in the car for well, most of 40 years, and have not had a problem I can lay on the radio.  I find cell phones are a bit more "Distracting" than the other 2-way radios though.

I will answer the phone if it rings, but will inform the caller that I can't talk if it's going to be more than "On the way home, should be there in xx minutes" type of call  Then pull off and find a parking lot.

Ron said:

But look how many people are killed each year by drunk drivers across the country and the still let them drive even after more than three offenses.  But then IMHO I think lawmakers themselves have a high percentage of drunks and they don't want to make laws that could put themselves in prison.  I any case the women that crashed and killed people while talking should be facing a manslaughter charge as a minimum.

Click to expand...

California

DUI:

1st offence, 4 mo. license suspension
2nd offence,  2 year suspension
3rd offence,  3 year suspension plus possible vehicle confiscation.

Folks involved in a DUI fatal accident are in the way for a manslaughter charge.  Drunks with multiple offenses in a DUI fatal accident have been tried and convicted of 2nd degree murder in CA and that, friends, gets heavy duty slammer time.

Carl L said:

California

DUI:

1st offence, 4 mo. license suspension
2nd offence,  2 year suspension
3rd offence,  3 year suspension plus possible vehicle confiscation.

Folks involved in a DUI fatal accident are in the way for a manslaughter charge.   Drunks with multiple offenses in a DUI fatal accident have been tried and convicted of 2nd degree murder in CA and that, friends, gets heavy duty slammer time.

Click to expand...

IMHO all three offenses mentioned is too light for somebody that places the general public at risk by driving drunk.  The first offense should be 5 years in the pen and the second offense should be 10 to 20 and never to get the privlege to drive again.  If an accident occurs because of a drunk driver and anyone is killed 25 years for each death.

In Michigan I think any DUI conviction carries a mandatory suspension, plus six points, (12 points gets you a longer suspension) First offense is often probation and classes, plus of course your car got towed and you had to pay impound and towing fees, court costs, class costs over site costs, supervisory costs  (The money just keeps going and going and going out of your pocket)

2nd offense more or less guarantees jail time  (Plus all the above costs)

3rd offense is a FELONY

and though it's not yet common enough, death by drunk driver did result in at least one Murder 2 conviction. his Defense was "I was Drunk I didn't mean to kill nobody"  The jury heard the "I was drunk" and disregarded the rest.

In that case I saw the idiot's driving record....  Impressive it was... Why he was driving a car instead of cooling his heals in prison I do not know.

I'm a licensed amateur operator in Florida.  Regarding 2-way, ham radio, and cell phones, in Florida a law was passed some years ago that prohibited using scanners in cars.  However, there was a clause that exempt FCC licenced radios, including ham radio.  It is based on the possibility of restricting ham radio from participating in providing emergency communications in times of disaster.  Law enforcement sometimes did not understand the exemptions, so the FL Attorney General issued an opinion letter to clarify that hams ARE allowed to operate communications equipment, even if the equipment is capable of receiving public service frequencies.

Many other states have the same opinion letters regarding ham operators.  I always keep a copy of the letter in my vehicles for back-up along with a copy of my FCC license.

It's important to stay on top of such bills, as several conservative driven state and local governments will try to restrict or govern everything they can think of by passing reduntant, rediculous laws.  Sometimes these conservative state and local governments try to govern communications, but quickly get slapped because of federal preemption.

As for cell phones, I think eventually the US Supreme court will overrule these restrictive laws because the laws probably already exist.  A person is already responsible for their actions especially if they cause a traffic accident or break a driving law while using a cell phone or any other device.  Besides, I can't imagine the burden and impact on law enforcement, being required to arrest everyone in sight while using a cell phone.  As for ham operators, safety and common sense usually prevails so we just don't drive around all day talking on or rigs, espeically in an RV.  Communications are typically brief, and most hams tend to use hands free devices instead of mics.  Amateur radio operators have been operating 2-way radios from autos for 60-80 years.

There's also an issue of freedom of speech, and such laws tend to squelch our First Ammendment rights, even if it's involving 2-way radios or cellphones.

Next, we'll probably see bans on GPS screens!

As I understand it a couple of states have band on video screens (intended to ban television viewing by drivers, a very logical ban) that could be taken to ban GPS or navi-comp screens and even rear view monitors.  However I'm not the expert on those.

Michigan exempts Ham Radio operators (And a few others) on it's scanner law.

Several states have attempted to ban ANY 2-way radios in vehicles

It is not a first amendment violation by any stretch of the imagination.

Remember,  The constitution gives Congress the right to establish POSTAL roads.  We, the people have been graciously granted the permission to use those roads provided we conform to the rules that have been established for their use. The Post office granted the power to set those rules to the state.  But since use of the roads by other than post-office letter carries is NOT a right guaranteed,  the state may set restrictions on the grant of privilege that would not apply to a parking lot.

Several states have attempted to ban ANY 2-way radios in vehicles

It is not a first amendment violation by any stretch of the imagination.

Click to expand...

Not a first amendment but a violation of the FCC's exclusive authority for radio communication in the USA.  Even the states must license their radios

Well...... I'm not sure it violates the FCC's authority either.  For one thing I'm not sure the FCC has exclusive authority

However you are looking at it as regulating Radio.. I'm am looking at regulating highway use.

Two different points of view, two different answers.

However I will say this.. Every state senator who has advocated restricting amateur radio operators in any way has quickly found that a good number of CEO's and Legislators and legislative assistants are hams... In some cases the Senator is still feeling the burn as he wonders what happened to his seat.  In other cases they re-thought, quickly and kept their job.

My niece got ?60 fine for eating crisps (potato chips) whilst driving.
On every fatal crash i attended on recovery it was common for police to take cell phones for evidence

Well...... I'm not sure it violates the FCC's authority either.  For one thing I'm not sure the FCC has exclusive authority

Click to expand...

You betcha they do.  They have exclusive authority over any use of the radio spectrum.  I worked for a city, and our radios were under license by the FCC.

Carl...I may be wrong but I thought it was the radio freqeuncy - not necessarily the radio equipment that was controlled by the FCC.  Of course if the radio had one public agency frequency or was programmable to other puiblic agency frequency then the equipment would fall under FCC regs.  I thought there were about a dozen 'citizen band widths'  (frequencies) transmitting and receiving, which,  though alotted by the FCC, were basically uncontrolled.    When I worked for a public agency, as supervisor in a control room, we had to get FCC approval  to 'connect' to outside agencies (for transmission) and even log the times we did, for FCC audit purposes.

I don't think the two-way radios (and frequencies) are 'controlled' except for being licensed for use by the FCC.

BT