Gareth wrote:jont- wrote:What's wrong with DWDCA?
Harder to identify in a believable fashion?
Easier to assert someone was holding a phone than to assert they weren't paying enough attention, because then you have to describe in what way they weren't paying enough attention and what resulted from not paying enough attention. If nothing resulted from 'not paying enough attention' then how can it be asserted believably that they weren't paying enough attention?
Well, if you say s/identify/prove in court/ then you might have an argument. If it can't be identified, then it's not a problem. If it can be identified, then demonstrably it is a problem. I think the issue is still a processing the offenders problem. If you have an easy "point" thing, you can do an FPN by post (without even getting me started on the get-out-of-jail scams/schemes), but sufficient motorists would probably argue a generic DWDCA by post to the extent the courts can't cope.