Drivers who cause fatal accidents while on mobile phones face up to 14 years in jail (Great Britian)

So true. Some people do go thru life saying that to anyone they disagree with. In fact, when someone says that, my default is to stop listening to them.

susie

Juries deal with this kind of evidence issue all the time.

Well they don't, and they shouldn't - there simply isn't enough evidence for them to make the right decision, and any judge that allows them to do so by guessing isn't doing justice.

Moreover, the overwhelming majority of cases settle before trial - for criminal defendants, that means a plea bargain and jail or probation. For civil defendants, that means a settlement that could force bankruptcy.

This kind of leave-it-up-to-the-jury thinking is what made Al Gore powerful and John Edwards rich.

Explain to me the difference constitutionally between driving intoxicated, which is against the law in all 50 states, and driving while texting or talking on a cell phone.

Why should one law be constitutionally legal but not the other? In both cases they can cause you to possibly lose control of a vehicle that can the kill people around you, yet you seem to see no correlation between both being impaired acts at all.

I have seen people driving erratically all the time, and 5 will get you 10 there is a phone stuck to their ear while it happens.

Heck, I don’t answer it when I’m driving. My cell phone has this amazing ability to take a message. I can call them back later. You should get a cell phone that can do that too!

The rest of your post is exactly what I predicted we would see on this thread. Thanks for posting it and proving me right.

susie

I was in California the first day their law went into effect on cell phone usage....and I broke it. I am a baaaddd man.

Considering that most people I know who do texting use both hands on the phone and are looking down at the screen while doing it, that’s a particularly chilling thought that a driver is doing that.

Of course kids today can text with one hand while the phone is still in their pockets.

but I’m beginning to think your average person cannot spend any time with themselves without boring the heck out of themselves

An excellent point. I suppose many people are accustomed to and require constant interactive stimulus, as evidenced by the videogame-addicted culture embraced by so many. My job can be very stressful, and I welcome the drive home in the quiet of the stoatmobile where I can focus on the driving and not have to verbally interact with others constantly.

I was in California the first day their law went into effect on cell phone usage....and I broke it. I am a baaaddd man.

LMAO

Yes, you'll surely burn in Hell for that :-)

((((snicker))))

Your question really doesn’t make sense when it asks for a constitutional difference between conduct by the citizens.

The Constitution is a definition of the structure that government takes once the source of its power (the citizens) has been declared. The amendments to the Constitution make clear that regardless of its structure, there are certain things that the government cannot do. One of those things is to seize a citizen without a really good reason. I think it is unreasonable to seize every person with a cell phone in a car just because you don’t like the way some of them drive. Anectdotal evidence is not a reasonable basis for criminalizing behavior.

Of course kids today can text with one hand while the phone is still in their pockets.

Since spelling and grammar haven't been of any particular concern for the past few decades, I suppose it all looks the same anyhow :-)

I’m perplexed. Where did anyone say anything about seizing anyone? I may have missed it, please point me to the post.
susie

"I think it is unreasonable to seize every person with a cell phone in a car just because you don’t like the way some of them drive. Anectdotal evidence is not a reasonable basis for criminalizing behavior."

The exact same thing can be said for drunk drivers too. Blow a .08 and you can still drive better than some people, yet your going to jail. My point was there is no difference between driving drunk and driving while texting/talking as far as passing a law that infringes on the rights of the people.

It is a proven fact that doing either is unsafe and can cause a fatal accident, yet you think that there should be a difference in laws dealing with each situation.

I however feel that if both actions have the same effect on the road, and there is solid proof that it does, then they should both be criminalized to keep people from doing it. The severity of the law should not be the same of course, but both should have some form of punishment to act as a deterrent IMHO.

there simply isn't enough evidence for them to make the right decision

You can declare that all a priori for all driving distraction cases? Amazing!

Well they don't, and they shouldn't

You don't believe in juries? Does this tie in with your naturalized status somehow?

any judge that allows them to do so by guessing isn't doing justice.

If I'm not mistaken, it is the role of the defense attorney to point this out.

Still coming up to speed on the American Justice System, are you?

The real question is whether you want to criminalize what constitutes an act of negligence (i.e an accident).

Thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of vehicular accidents happen everyday because of momentary inattention. Some are merely fender benders. Others result in fatalities. These accidents may occur because of a cell phone call. Accidents may occur because of a fussing child or any myriad of distractions which the driver allows to momentarily divert his or her attention from the roadway.

State laws have traditionally treated these as unfortunate accidents for which a traffic citation is issued and a fine is paid.

Do you really want to criminalize all accidents and incarcerate (for 14 years?) people who allow themselves to be distracted? If so, I suggest we need to increase the number of our prisons tenfold for these “dangerous” criminals.

It will come up before the thread is done, probably by someone who claims to do it every day and has never been endangering anyone and how can you even THINK to infringe on his/her rights like that...

More than likely a cop with two radios, a cell phone and a computer terminal in his patrol car.

Whats good for the goose.....

You can declare that all a priori for all driving distraction cases? Amazing!

Just the ones that try to tie a cell phone record or the mere use of a cell phone to the cause of an accident.

You don't believe in juries?

Umm, is that like asking do I believe in Santa Claus? I am pretty sure juries exist, and I am pretty sure the right to one is Constitutionally protected. But if that guarantee is to have any teeth, juries need to be given meaningful evidence to use.

If I'm not mistaken, it is the role of the defense attorney to point this out.

You are mistaken, probably because you are either not a lawyer, or you are a pretty poor one. Judges are supposed to be gatekeepers of the evidence that juries see and hear. Judges are supposed to follow the law. Judges ignore defense lawyers all the time, even when those lawyers are right. Before you put your hands in the life of a defense lawyer and a prosecutor's jury, you might want to consult with this guy or someone like him.

Still coming up to speed on the American Justice System, are you?

I am not sure what your personal attack means other than you are probably a xenophobe, a racist, or both. I am proud of my American citizenship, and I am pretty sure I have a better handle on this nation's laws than most people. If you care about this country's security, you should be encouraging naturalization, not taking potshots at it.

But greater men than me thought that there were better ways to handle disputes than to expose them to the vagaries of judges and juries. Jesus and Paul are two that come to mind.

Ummm, this should seem familar:

. . . they should get a long prison sentence . . . .

I'm going to repost what I actually said, and then you can apologize for misrepresenting it. I said:

If someone is doing ANYTHING stupid while driving (putting on makeup, eating, texting, trying to get something out of the floorboard) and causes a fatal accident they should get a long prison sentence.

Where did I suggest anyone be seized without a reason?

susie

First, you changed the question - you asked if anyone said anything about seizing someone, and I quoted you accurately.

Next, the police always have a reason for seizing someone, but throwing someone in jail to await trial for stupidly causing someone’s death is not what the Constitution allows the government to do.

Third, I think if you give it enough intelligent thought, you will realize that all fatal motor vehicle accidents involve someone doing something stupid.

That said, I have to say, I am appalled at how many people I see texting on their phones while driving (in the US). Exactly how stupid does one have to be to do that???

On a scale of 1 to 10 that's pretty close to 10.
But these people are convinced that they are not normal, they are super and the normal rules don't apply to them.

They should get jail time even if they don't kill anyone.
Having said that, there must be some range of punishment. An isolated moment of inattention does not warrant the same punishment as the repeat offender, otherwise where does the "punishment-fits-the-crime" factor come in?