Police not knowing the rules

Forums › Off topic › Police not knowing the rules

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15

2870 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 666

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#715220 10-Nov-2012 17:06

This topic is just going around in circles and for no apparent reason other than getting the last word in or wringing every last post for whatever reason only known to Op

Your thread topic is misleading as it infers the police are wrong over something that again may not happen and we only have your side of what happened.

Frankly I think it should be closed as nothing more of any value will be added as most of the good points were in first few pages.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

stagnant16

206 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 10

#715244 10-Nov-2012 17:36

tardtasticx:
jeffnz: +1 networkn.

Maybe geekzone needs a badge for those that can create something out of nothing

If people thought hard enough they could achieve anything without a forum, and then this site wouldn't be here. Forums are for discussing AFAIK

Hooray!! With out getting into it I totally agree with you and I doubt you'll ever see an infringement notice!

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15469

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#715251 10-Nov-2012 18:04

KiwiNZ:
networkn: My God! How do these threads keep going. There is no ticket, not yet, wait till a ticket arrives! Seriously!

Kept going by folks posting in the thread

Well that would seem fairly obvious wouldn't it?

tardtasticx

3084 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 483

#715253 10-Nov-2012 18:11

jeffnz: This topic is just going around in circles and for no apparent reason other than getting the last word in or wringing every last post for whatever reason only known to Op

Your thread topic is misleading as it infers the police are wrong over something that again may not happen and we only have your side of what happened.

Frankly I think it should be closed as nothing more of any value will be added as most of the good points were in first few pages.

Well there is an unsubscribe button in the email if you want to eject yourself from this discussion?

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 666

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#715254 10-Nov-2012 18:16

you could also ask for the thread to be closed or has it not achieved what you are after.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

tardtasticx

3084 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 483

#715273 10-Nov-2012 18:47

jeffnz: you could also ask for the thread to be closed or has it not achieved what you are after.

Nothing in particular I was after, I enjoy discussing things, after all thats why I joined this site. I like talking with the people on here because we all have a different view point on everything, as evident in this thread, gives us all a chance to project our opinion. A lot of my threads have done this: http://www.geekzone.co.nz/forums.asp?forumId=48&topicId=106840 gay marriage thread for example. All the responses were not going to change the law or anything, they were discussing what they thought about the topic, and it got quite heated in some parts. But it was fun none the less.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80658 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41071

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#715365 11-Nov-2012 07:48

jeffnz: you could also ask for the thread to be closed or has it not achieved what you are after.

No reason to lock it as there's no breach of FUG. One advice: stop feeding.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

plod

272 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 66

#715403 11-Nov-2012 10:07

The fact the OP has a $1000 phone but can't be bothered with a cradle to use it hands free is what gets me.

blair003

557 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 19

#715409 11-Nov-2012 10:49

Not sure if a cradle would allow you to take pictures.

What gets me is how because its defined as a 'phone', the law says you can't use it even though you are not using the phone functionality.

And people argue that if he had used a camera in the same situation that would be perfectly OK, but they don't question the silly law that makes that irrational logic possible by focusing on the specifics of the device being used rather than the behaviour the law is trying to stop.

DravidDavid

1907 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 305

#715410 11-Nov-2012 10:52

As mentioned before...If he was holding a clunky DSLR, the story would have been different.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#715470 11-Nov-2012 16:06

blair003: Not sure if a cradle would allow you to take pictures.

What gets me is how because its defined as a 'phone', the law says you can't use it even though you are not using the phone functionality.

And people argue that if he had used a camera in the same situation that would be perfectly OK, but they don't question the silly law that makes that irrational logic possible by focusing on the specifics of the device being used rather than the behaviour the law is trying to stop.

Noone said it would be OK. Everyone just said it would be legal. And yes, it's a dumb law. However, the problem is that if you paint too broad a brush like Australia did with their law, you end up with situations where officers are issuing tickets for popping a stick of gum in your mouth because "your attention was diverted".

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

Nil Einne

469 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 35

#715620 12-Nov-2012 05:03

tardtasticx:
Kyanar:
tardtasticx:
Also, "should be drivers not knowing the rules" How do I not know the rules? If you read the whole thing, you would know that I was full aware of the rules around this law, its more interpretation of these rules that we've been talking about here.

You clearly weren't aware of the rules, because there is nothing to interpret! Either it was normal flow of traffic, in which case using your phone for anything is an offense, or it was not normal flow of traffic, in which case using your phone for anything bar calling is an offense.

You broke the law. There is no other way to interpret it. I would be right behind you if you were calling someone to say you're stuck in traffic at an accident and would be home late and the officer ticketed you, but that isn't the case. You text messaged (illegal) and you used your phone to take a photo (illegal).

Well no, I didnt text message because the message wasn't opened, I glanced at the lock screen before going straight to the camera. It doesnt specify anywhere that taking photos while driving is illegal.

Well firstly it depends what you mean by 'text'. The fact of the matter is, by your admission you did read a text which is explicitly forbidden by the law. The fact that you didn't unlock the phone and only glanced at it briefly doesn't seem to make a difference under the law as written. I don't see any way you can realisticly argue reading the preview isn't reading the text message. For starters I presume as with most Android phones on an iPhone 5 the preview can easily be the entire message. And even with a simple old phone, most still show what can be called a preview but if the phone isn't locked often there's no difference between the 'preview' and the SMS, you just have to scroll down if it's too long. The law doesn't say you have to read the entire text or have to manipulate the phone, it just says you can't read a text message. Note that while subclause 7 allows you to glance infrequently and briefly at the phone, it only allows it for the purposes of making/receiving phone calls or anything not specified. It doesn't seem to allow it for reading texts which is specified in subclaue 1(b).

Note also, as others have already said while subclause 6 allows you to use your phone when stopped for a reason other then normal starting and stopping of the flow of traffic, it's a moot point as it only allows it it for the purposes of phone calls. And as others have also said, subclause 1(f) specifically covers all usage of the phone not otherwise covered which would surely including taking photos.

If you put this together with the earlier, you may realise that you can possibly get out of the taking photos bitprovided you only manipulated and glanced at your phone briefly and it was mounted. I'm presuming you didn't send the photo to anyone while driving. If you did, even if this was completely automated or simply an automatic upload to a cloud server which allows public access, this could easily come under subclause 1(e) and so you'll still have no out. In any case, it's a moot point here since as I mentioned above, there doesn't seem to be any allowance for reading an SMS under any circumstances while driving regardless of whether your stopped at an accident or even if you don't touch the phone and it's mounted. (You may be able to get off if Siri or something read the SMS for you since you may be able to argue you weren't reading the message, simply listening to it so it should be covered under 1(f). Although I can also see this coming under 1(e) so even if you have SMS completely automatedly read to you, you may still be screwed.)

Bearing in mind IANAL and this isn't legal advice, the only possible loophole two get out of both possible offences under then act (other then getting a friendly judge or hoping the police drop it) is if you try to argue you weren't a driver so weren't covered at all by the entire section. But I find it hard to believe this would work.

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#716121 13-Nov-2012 00:27

1) The OP states the Officer replied to his enquiry about why he was getting a ticket with "don't text and drive". He isn't being fined for using any other function of the phone. If he is allowed to use his phone as a camera or not is a moot point, this isn't what he was told the fine is being issued for.

2) The law (like most) is not black and white and is open to interpretation. This is where the concepts of legal precedent come into play (common law). Prior cases (if any) in similar circumstances may help decide the fate of this one (If it comes to that). The fact the NZTA website states what is does, clearly demonstrates the lack of clarity in the law.

3) Issuing of the ticket is up to the discretion of the issuing officer. Likewise, the potential rescindment of the ticket can also be up to the dicrection of the issuing authority.

4) If you can present a logical argument for your use of the phone based on the advise given on the NZTA website, I think you would have a very good change of having the fine waived based on the fact NZTA is the government transport authority and it is reasonable to expect that such specific advice should be expected to conform to the law. The test that should be applied here by the issuing authority or hearing (if it came to that) should be would a typical citizen, after reading such advice from a reputable government authority on transport, be reasonably justified in trusting the information. IMO, this is clearly a yes.

5) This last point is my opinion only, given the circumstances (The vehicle was stationary, as was surrounding traffic. The officers felt safe enough to approach your vehicle (Arguably a more dangerous position to be in that inside a stationary vehicle)) etc, I can't see no robust argument for safety being the issue here. This become even more true if the car was in park, brake(s) were applied and/or the engine was turned off.

Additionally to point 5 above, I believe the interpretation by the NZTA, and possibly even the intent of the clause in law itself, was to recognise that being stopped for an often unknown time by a road accident is a good reason to make contact with someone (With the vast availability of communications there days), even being home 20 minutes later than when you said you planned to be, could be cause for concern. Better to make the call or the text while you are stationary, than to get it when you are moving again. The caveat here is that common sense should be applied as to the risk, before the personal makes the call or sends the text.

Even pulling off to the side of the road to legally make or receive calls or texts has dangers not that dissimilar to his situation (and perhaps more so, as faster moving traffic is likely to be passing you).

Ultimately, the law is not black and white enough for this thread to give you conclusive advice, however my opinion is that based on the facts, you have a very good chance of having this ticket rescinded, should you ever receive it. (Be polite with your argument)

Twitter: ajobbins

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#716136 13-Nov-2012 06:50

May I add communication with police generally will not reverse a ticket as you tend to get an arrogant you are wrong we are right response ... I usually just pay eighty dollars and be done with it than to argue my case in court

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#716141 13-Nov-2012 07:19

ajobbins:
2) The law (like most) is not black and white and is open to interpretation. This is where the concepts of legal precedent come into play (common law). Prior cases (if any) in similar circumstances may help decide the fate of this one (If it comes to that). The fact the NZTA website states what is does, clearly demonstrates the lack of clarity in the law.

This is not true. If you actually read this particular law, it is very much not open to interpretation. It lists 5 things you may not do with your phone while driving, and adds "or anything not listed above". It then proceeds to state that an exception is that if you are stopped in traffic which isn't normal (such as approaching an accident), you may make or receive a phone call. It specifically only mentions a phone call - texting, taking pictures, etc, are still forbidden as only the clause which prohibits you making phone calls is overridden by the exception. It's very clear, and I can't even begin to imagine how the NZTA made such a blatant muck-up in their advice, which is absolutely wrong.

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15