Police not knowing the rules

Forums › Off topic › Police not knowing the rules

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

3084 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 483

#716305 13-Nov-2012 12:37

Well the nzta can't afford to make mistakes about this kind of stuff because it is extremely misleading to a lot of people. Given they're a government organisation, they would have checked then triple checked this before putting this out there. I doubt they would make such a stupid mistake like this.

cisconz

cisconz
1348 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 179

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#716331 13-Nov-2012 12:58

MED Self service kiosks anyone?

Hmmmm

SpookyAwol

639 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 54

#716349 13-Nov-2012 13:15

Can you point out the exact mistake they have made? Im struggling to find it after 11 pages.

tardtasticx

3084 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 483

#716352 13-Nov-2012 13:20

Apparently the mistake is the way they (the nzta) interpreted the law on their site. It is not wrong from what I can tell.

SpookyAwol

639 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 54

#716357 13-Nov-2012 13:22

Link?

tardtasticx

3084 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 483

#716358 13-Nov-2012 13:24

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/rules/road-user-amendment-2009-qa.html#1 , see section "can calls and texts be sent while a driver is stuck in traffic"

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

SpookyAwol

639 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 54

#716365 13-Nov-2012 13:35

I can see where you may be misled - however the webpage was updated prior to the amendment rules coming in.

Questions and answers are provided to accompany a new Rule or amendment Rule when it is signed. Please note − these versions of the Questions and answers are not updated to take into account any later amendments to the Rule and are retained for historic interest only.

The links to law on that page clearly show that part about accidents etc was not included and the q&a is purely a matter of historical record.

IntegerIsNumber

877 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 2

#716383 13-Nov-2012 13:54

Next time just buy or bring a Camera with you in the car. You can snap pictures without getting any tickets because it is not a phone lol.

tardtasticx

3084 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 483

#716409 13-Nov-2012 14:17

Yeh I should just buy a massive slr and drive down the motorway at full speed snapping pics just to prove a point, apparently that's not as dangerous as taking a photo with my phone while stopped at an onramp.

IntegerIsNumber

877 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 2

#716445 13-Nov-2012 14:54

tardtasticx: Yeh I should just buy a massive slr and drive down the motorway at full speed snapping pics just to prove a point, apparently that's not as dangerous as taking a photo with my phone while stopped at an onramp.

I'm starting to wonder if using my phone GPS while driving is also illegal.

Because it is a phone and as long you are looking at it and navigate via tough screen is technically far worst than taking picture with it.

hmmmm

TinyTim

1058 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 167

Trusted

#716446 13-Nov-2012 14:54

tardtasticx: Yeh I should just buy a massive slr and drive down the motorway at full speed snapping pics just to prove a point, apparently that's not as dangerous as taking a photo with my phone while stopped at an onramp.

You're still not allowed to drive dangerously or recklessly. (In fact the reason the mobile phone ban failed the first time around is because it was argued they could already be considered banned under existing reckless driving laws.)

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#716450 13-Nov-2012 14:56

TinyTim:
tardtasticx: Yeh I should just buy a massive slr and drive down the motorway at full speed snapping pics just to prove a point, apparently that's not as dangerous as taking a photo with my phone while stopped at an onramp.

You're still not allowed to drive dangerously or recklessly. (In fact the reason the mobile phone ban failed the first time around is because it was argued they could already be considered banned under existing reckless driving laws.)

Still trying to digest these comments from tardtasticx. Is this the mentality here on this forum ??

tardtasticx

3084 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 483

#716463 13-Nov-2012 15:05

BraaiGuy:
TinyTim:
tardtasticx: Yeh I should just buy a massive slr and drive down the motorway at full speed snapping pics just to prove a point, apparently that's not as dangerous as taking a photo with my phone while stopped at an onramp.

You're still not allowed to drive dangerously or recklessly. (In fact the reason the mobile phone ban failed the first time around is because it was argued they could already be considered banned under existing reckless driving laws.)

Still trying to digest these comments from tardtasticx. Is this the mentality here on this forum ??

Not quite sure what you're trying to get at with that comment, I dont intend on doing such a thing either way, I don't use a mobile while I'm driving (the car in motion and in the flow of regular traffic) because I know its a stupid thing to do. I only done this because myself and all the cars around me were completely stopped, and I believed I was well within my rights to do so.

TinyTim

1058 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 167

Trusted

#716464 13-Nov-2012 15:06

BraaiGuy:
TinyTim:
tardtasticx: Yeh I should just buy a massive slr and drive down the motorway at full speed snapping pics just to prove a point, apparently that's not as dangerous as taking a photo with my phone while stopped at an onramp.

You're still not allowed to drive dangerously or recklessly. (In fact the reason the mobile phone ban failed the first time around is because it was argued they could already be considered banned under existing reckless driving laws.)

Still trying to digest these comments from tardtasticx. Is this the mentality here on this forum ??

As he says, he's just trying to make a point about the illogic of phone cameras being banned but dedicated cameras are not.

Have to remember that laws are not logical but are reactionary, so if people did start causing accidents while driving and using SLRs, they would probably be specifically banned too.

blair003

557 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 19

#716466 13-Nov-2012 15:11

TinyTim:
BraaiGuy:
TinyTim:
tardtasticx: Yeh I should just buy a massive slr and drive down the motorway at full speed snapping pics just to prove a point, apparently that's not as dangerous as taking a photo with my phone while stopped at an onramp.

You're still not allowed to drive dangerously or recklessly. (In fact the reason the mobile phone ban failed the first time around is because it was argued they could already be considered banned under existing reckless driving laws.)

Still trying to digest these comments from tardtasticx. Is this the mentality here on this forum ??

As he says, he's just trying to make a point about the illogic of phone cameras being banned but dedicated cameras are not.

Have to remember that bad laws are not logical but are reactionary, so if people did start causing accidents while driving and using SLRs, they would probably create another bad law so they can be specifically banned too.

There, fixed that for you :)

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