Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

U.K. drivers could face jail for using cellphone

Reuters

Latest comment posted at 2:51 AM EDT 21/12/07

Using a hand-held cellphone while driving was banned in 2003, but thousands flout law each day ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. J Came from Canada writes: Police State Alert!

    Jail time for talking on phone--WTF!
  2. dallas mcquarrie from Regina, Canada writes: J Came from Canada writes: Police State Alert! Jail time for talking on phone--WTF!

    I'll tell you WTF! Suppose some donkey is text messaging or yapping with his pal and the lack of attention to driving results in your family being killed. A drunk driver goes to jail when he/she kills someone on the road. Why should it different for somebody who is negligent for other reasons?
  3. mark vickery from Canada writes: This nothing to do with Britain (or now Quebec) being a police state. It's about safety of the responsible driving public who are not on the phone. We must all by now have witnessed idiotic driving by persons conversing about something undoubtedly so important that it couldnt wait until a moment that would not put the rest of us at risk of injury by distracted motorist. Tough if you don't like it, common sense is coming to a Province or town near you, eventually.
  4. Tony Mareschealle from mississauga, Canada writes: Unfortunately in canada the passage of such laws lies with the Province. Even so it will be a step in the right direction if all of the Provinces enact similar legislation AND enforce it.

    In Britain, when an accident occurs Mobile phone records are checked as a routine procedure to establish if there was a a possible linkage to the accident. We should be doing the same here.
  5. Jason Fournier from Acton, Canada writes: Key difference dallas mcquarrie from Regina: You get jail time in Canada for KILLING someone. I do not recall a case of jail time for impared driving without causing injury to someone. You can speed over 200 km/h, drive drunk, tired, stoned, etc and you will not go to jail if you don't hurt anyone. I agree with J Came -- the Brits have simply gone too far.

    This one study about "four times the risk" has been so overused it isn't funny. What would do you think the increase in risk would be if they studied the risk of having children in the backseat? I'll tell you from first hand experience -- it is considerably more distracting and risky than just ONE person on a cellphone. The study has to do with distraction, not the "dexterity" issue that some stupid laws latch onto (handsfree is OK but not handheld). What about cops and firefighters and pilots who drive with one hand and talk/fiddle with radio with the other. Are they superhuman or something? No, they simply understand risk management in a vehicle and it is my opinion that risk management of various lawful and possible future unlawful distractions should still be left up to the driver as it is now.
  6. Tom W from Taipei, Taiwan writes: The article hints at the real problem: police can't or won't enforce existing laws on the books re: reckless or dangerous driving!

    We don't need more laws, we need better more consistent enforcement of our current ones. That means more dedicated traffic police in our major centers, particularly around intersections where routine traffic violations like running red lights (or ridiculously late yellows) are commonplace - and yes - many of those reckless drivers are talking on their handhelds.
  7. dallas mcquarrie from Regina, Canada writes: Jason Fournier from Acton, Canada writes: Key difference dallas mcquarrie from Regina: You get jail time in Canada for KILLING someone. I do not recall a case of jail time for impared driving without causing injury to someone.

    Actually, repeat offenses for drunk driving to get people jail time, whether or not someone was injured. And fire fighters or police officers using a radio while driving is not the same as someone yapping about the weekend hockey game while rolling down the street. That sort of comparison is drivel. Drive responsibly or go to jail - the notion that someone has to be injured before jail time is warranted is rubbish. Driving is not a right, and safety comes before the warped judgment of speed demons, phone yakkers and all the rest who seem to think they can put other people at risk on public highways. Driving is not a right! Spare me the twaddle about 'risk management'. How 'bout some common sense behind the wheel?
  8. Jim **** from Canada writes: I think we all know that people talking on cell phones are seriously distracted. And that applies equally to hands free.

    Based on my own experience, I think that using a cell phone occupies the same parts of the brain as driving. There's something about a cell phone conversation that is more distracting than talking to a passenger, eating, changing cd's, or any number of things that we do in the car.

    I wouldn't look to police to enforce reckless driving laws with repect to cell phones--I see many police using cell phones in their cars.
  9. Night On Earth from Canada writes: "dallas mcquarrie writes:
    A drunk driver goes to jail when he/she kills someone on the road. Why should it different for somebody who is negligent for other reasons?"

    It should not. You should enforce responsible driving, meaning strictly punishing reckless and dangerous driving, NOT sending people to jail for using a cellphone regardless of what they do on the road. Plenty of people drive extremely well when on the phone, and plenty are irresponsible even without a cellphone. Driving is not a right (legally true, debatable philosophically), but not being targeted with draconian legislation in the name of "public safety", when the effect of this law is far from certain, IS a right, and it is the responsibility of all citizens to protect themselves from this.

    Anyways, Britain always led the way to socialism before the common sense was somewhat restored by Thatcher. I guess they've learned their lesson economically, but now it's back to the nanny state in terms of laws and restrictions on personal freedom.
  10. Jim **** from Canada writes: Night on Earth's defense of some drivers as being safe while using a cell phone sounds like the drunk who believes that he's a safe driver while drunk, even if others aren't .

    Most statistics on the danger of using cell phones seem to have been derived from accident records. I wonder if there have been lab studies that measure driving performance while distracted by cell phones. That would determine whether some people can handle both tasks while others cannot.
  11. Night On Earth from Canada writes: " Jim ** from Canada writes: Night on Earth's defense of some drivers as being safe while using a cell phone sounds like the drunk who believes that he's a safe driver while drunk, even if others aren't .

    Most statistics on the danger of using cell phones seem to have been derived from accident records. I wonder if there have been lab studies that measure driving performance while distracted by cell phones. That would determine whether some people can handle both tasks while others cannot."

    So you drew your conclusions and made that silly comparison before you checked whether there's any proof that cell phones impair your driving in a similar way to alcohol (i.e. physically)?
    Either way, the burden of conclusive proof in this case is on those wishing to restrict freedom. By the way, I don't mean some statistical correlation, the last resort of the ignorant. I mean proving the cause/effect. Whether this is done, I don't know. If it is, any references would be welcome.
    So unless there's a cause-effect relationship like with alcohol or drugs, I maintain that only the irresponsible should be punished. Assume innocence until proven guilty.
  12. Slippery Slope from Canada writes: England 2008: Police State. Cameras at every corner, License plate readers, Excessive Surveillance.
  13. Rollo Tomasi from Belgium writes: Enforcement is everything. Cell phones were 'banned' in Holland years ago with a hefty 50 euro fine. As such, it is a non-issue, though the reality is that nothing has changed, just the potential for a meaningless fine. Threatening jail won't change anything either.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top