In the news

Well, obviously I don't know what happened in this case; I was just guessing that the legal point I mention may have played a role. I do think that point is important. That it can be abused is clear, but I really don't think putting 'representatives' (not your word, of course) of particular transport users on juries would solve it. You'd only end up having people at loggerheads over whose interests they're supposed to 'represent'. Everyone's a mixed-mode user, anyway, to whichever degree they may use this or that mode.

Again guessing, I think it's likely that with all those mobile phone/tablet distraction cases, the main problem is that whether or not someone was distracted by using a device like that becomes a, or the, criterion for 'dangerous driving' or 'careless driving'. This is troublesome because whether or not something was dangerous or careless (a distinction that, as I've said before, I think is a bad distinction that is very much in need of reform) has a much broader meaning, and then homing in on the mobile or tablet narrows it far too much whether something was 'dangerous' or 'careless'. How about that it's dangerous to hit someone on a straight road in good visibility conditions straight ahead? That's dangerous in my book, i.e. 'falling far below the standard expected of a competent driver'. If you tie it to whether the driver was merely listening to a device or watching its screen (when the latter apparently can't be proven), you only make yourself a hostage to fortune. It doesn't matter whether he hit the person out of distraction by a device; 'he hit him, and here's how he fell far below the standard expected of a competent driver'.

That's not to say that mobiles and the like are not a huge problem, and the fact that some drivers seemingly want to be distracted by them, but unless you have 100% clear evidence that one was being watched, it generally not being considered too much of a distraction to listen to the radio in a car, you should probably not bring it into a case.