Tragic for everyone involved. Phones are a distraction and using them is against the law and dangerous.But lets be consistant. We have all tuned our radios , changed CDs , Eaten Crisps and been drinking coffee and Soft Drinks in our cars and had near misses. When are we going to outlaw adjusting Radios etc in fact they are a distraction even without adjusting them.
Likewise eating and drinking in our cars when on the move. Both Hands should be on the wheel at all times.
As for Sat Nav - well thats actually a help as it takes away the added frustration and loss of concentration when driving to a place we dont know the way to- so we can actually watch the road and not the signposts and the map on the seat next to us.
Again why paint the picture of this unfortuante person in her 4 x4 - thats surely not relevant to the report.

Peter Harte, Glasgow , Scotland

No calls made or answered at the time of the collision. How is she guilty then?

Dan, London,

simple answer is she was using pay as you go... no generic records are kept unless of course your a terrorist.

withheld, witheld, witheld

Dan T. of Guildford, Surrey - hear, hear, just what I was going to say and well said!

But I would like to add somethingelse, namely - why is it even being mentioned that this woman was in a 4x4? What difference in blazes does it make whether she was driving that, a tractor or a trycicle?

The main point is that, by whatever cause, she sadly and unfortunately killed an old lady, with an extra to be considered - whether or not she was on her mobile - only with regards to emphasising to the public what horrendous consequences that action may have, and in this case did have.

IF indeed she was on her mobile.......

Cornelia Hanning, Pathhead, Scotland

"Mobile phone records show that no calls were made or answered at the time of the collision."

So how can she be convicted of using her phone? One witness's word is given more weight in court than phone records? Seems strange to me.

Alison, Falkirk, UK

She got what she deserves. She should have been given a longer sentence due to her lies though.
The number of people who think they can drive with a phone to their ear is unbelievable. A hands free kit costs less than a human life and a jail sentence!

Mike Jones, Farnborough, Hampshire

If you have a 4x4 you seem to think that you can drive on motorway hard shoulders and bus lanes, cut out without giving way, and drive while using a mobile phone, even phoning, driving and lighting a cigarette at the same time. It's all part of the selfish attitude of driving these dangerous polluting monsters, as if you are telling everyone - "look at me I'm too rich to observe the law or normal standards of decency." Ban them altogether where there is no reason (i.e. agricultural purposes) for their possession and use..

BK, Edinburgh, Scotland

I don't get this, the report here says that there are no records of any conversation at the time of the accident so no calls were made or received and yet this person has been found guilty of causing death by driving whilst using a mobile on the say so of another driver passing by.
Isn't it more likely that the convicted driver was having an animated conversation with herself and was presumed to be talking on the phone. I see this a lot and have even been known to do it myself behind the wheel.
I certainly think it is unsafe to convict on this basis......

Paul, Phuket, Thailand

Result!

Charlie Farley, Folkesone, Kent

The law is an ass, from the evidence here it does not sound conclusive that she was actually on the phone, it also sounds like they are trying to make an example of this woman to prevent other people using their phone while driving. Accidents do happen! As regards 4x4 drivers, it is stupid to blame her for the car she is driving, and comments about being selfish and driving on hard shoulders etc is pathetic, drivers of all cars are selfish..people with a hangup on 4x4's becuase its the cool thing to do need to really grow up!

Dan T, Guildford, surrey

only two years?

outrageous.

Andrew, Stirling,