Back in 2005 when the law changed to make the use of hand-held phones an 'absolute offence', radio amateurs and magazines such as PW seemed to be rejoicing, saying 'great - it doesn't apply to us', inferring immunity from prosecution At that time, I'd been a magistrate for twenty years, had sat on more than 20,000 cases, about half of which were motoring offences, many of which had a tragic outcomes out of all proportion to the extent to which the standard of driving had fallen below that expected of a competent driver.
An 'absolute offence' is one where if you've done it, you've done it. There's no defence, though at the sentencing stage there may be mitigating (or aggravating) factors about the offence and/or the offender. Examples of 'absolute offences' include speeding, having no car insurance, no VEL, no TV licence, and using a hand-held mobile phone while driving.
Offences such as careless or dangerous driving, like most criminal matters - are not 'absolute offences' and have to be proved to the criminal standard of proof - 'beyond reasonable doubt' (not as often seen in films 'beyond ALL reasonable doubt'). There are three elements that make up an offence: The act itself (known in law as 'Actus Reus'), the intent behind it ('Means Rea') and the absence of a valid defence.
Lots of amateur at the time said things like: 'well the police use hand-held mikes, as do taxi drivers and other PMR users, so why not us?'. They probably don't do so now, but in any event, the mode of operation is quite different. PMR users only have brief exchanges of information, whereas radio amateurs aim to maintain contact for as long as they can - maybe a whole journey, which - through repeaters - can be quite a distance, often in busy urban traffic conditions. In the ensuing years since mobile phones came into use there has been ample research and evidence to show that even hands-free causes a lapse of concentration to a similar extent as hand-held.
If you are in a vehicle - even if stationary at red traffic lights - in law, you are 'driving' and must be in full control of the vehicle at all times. There are more than enough examples of motorists who have picked up three points and a fine for 'not being in control of their vehicle' for eating an apple or sandwich, or drinking from a soft-drink can while stationary in traffic. Similarly, there are untold thousands who have done such things and much worse with impunity and never been caught. Fine - as Clint Eastwood would say 'Do you feel lucky?'
I don't want to sound preachy but if any of us are doing anything which - had we done it during our driving test would have caused us to fail - then maybe we'd best not do it? I wrote an article on the topic which was published in June 2005 Radcom, written from my perspective as a then magistrate ( and husband/father/grandfather/driver/pedestrian), which I've attached, and might be of interest. My views haven't changed.
Alternative views were sought by RSGB and were later published to 'balance the argument' some of which expressed indignation bordering on rage about 'infringements of rights in a free country'. Well fine, but what is often overlooked is that along with 'rights' (about which we hear so much), go 'responsibilities' (of which we hear little).
Texting isn't the same as using a microphone or hands-free operating, but the article at this link is worth a read.
Texting wasn't the cause of the accident, but came to light as part of an investigation into a fatal accident:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/...gerous-driving
I've written this not so much for debate as for info as it's cropped up during this thread (albeit it's off the topic of how to mount a mobile antenna).
As the fairground disclaimers say: 'You ride at your own risk'.