507 cellphone crashes out of 3.8 million vehicles

Forums › Off topic › 507 cellphone crashes out of 3.8 million vehicles

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

264 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#247777 17-Aug-2009 16:34

Asmodeus: I approve of the ban

$80 is a joke though. Should at least be $150

I disagree, but then again, I disagree with the entire 'set fine for all' system. Personally I believe fines should have a base rate, with a percentage added on based on your income in the last financial year. For you, $80 may be a joke. For a student who gets $150 a week living cost allowance, or that guy working for minimum wage, it can mean a lot more.

I know some people see that as encouraging people on lower incomes to break the law more, but personally I see it the other way, that it forces the rich people to actually pay notice when they actually have to pay a sum that means something to them.

drajk

204 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 19

Trusted

#248356 18-Aug-2009 21:12

8d52797c436:
Asmodeus: I approve of the ban

$80 is a joke though. Should at least be $150

I disagree, but then again, I disagree with the entire 'set fine for all' system. Personally I believe fines should have a base rate, with a percentage added on based on your income in the last financial year. For you, $80 may be a joke. For a student who gets $150 a week living cost allowance, or that guy working for minimum wage, it can mean a lot more.

I know some people see that as encouraging people on lower incomes to break the law more, but personally I see it the other way, that it forces the rich people to actually pay notice when they actually have to pay a sum that means something to them.

You have got to be joking!

There are many middle income EARNERS who miss out on various subsidies/grants/benefits and already do far worse than many beneficiaries but I suppose your suggestion would penalise the 307 beneficiaries who are on more than $1000/week more than someone who is on the average income.

Without knowing all circumstances there is no way of knowing how a fine may affect an individual. They may have no income because they are dishonest and use creative accounting, they may have won lotto and not need to work. they may be wealthy by inheritance etc...

1gkar

722 posts

Ultimate Geek

#249567 21-Aug-2009 23:40

After reading this entire thread, all I can say (to start with

) I hope Batman doesn't drive a bat mobile! Otherwise, there wouldn't be any crimes sorted; a bit hard when when it's stuck up the arse of Robin's bike.

More serioulsy, though. As someone who spends some 30% of my workday in the poxy van, just when I think I've seen it all, some drongo comes along to redefine the meaning of incompetent. I've seen a woman (Jaffa) weaving all over the motorway whilst using a cellphone in one hand; a manilla folder spread over the wheel & gesticulating with the other hand. Yeah, she's real good at multitasking! I also saw a guy doing the same thing recently: white, grey & balding.

Multitasking definition: a word to describe someone who does several things at once averagely!

I've even seen some toss-wit literally driving along the footpath at speed just to jump the queue! & this was in the morning just when kids were going to school.

My point: ANYTHING that removes distraction from dirvers can only be good. It is a situation that should never have been. If the dickheads running the Country at the time cellphones were introduced had implemented this, we wouldn't have a generation who think it's their God-given right to do as they please on the roads.

The only issue I have with the recently drafted law is it will just be another law that WON'T BE ENFORCED. In this country, unless it involves drinking or speeding, the cops won't give a toss about it after a period after its introduction. I recently witnessed a car running a red light, in front of a cop car that was turning. The cop car had to abate its turn to allow this car to pass without incident. What did the cops do about it: they just kept driving! No wonder I'm losing my respect for the Police, when it comes to moving violations. Do the pr*&ks that run red lights, can't be bothered to indicate, use the low-volume lane as their own personal undertaking means to jump-queue. Don't know what keep left means when turning left. That covers about 80% of Aucklanders.

Bring back the MOT, that's what I say.

Silverstone LC14 HTPC Case/Intel E4600 CPU/GA-EP35-DS3 MOBO/Asus EN9500GT graphics/2GB RAM/total 2TB HDD space/HVR-2200 & 2X 150MCE tuner cards/LG GGC-H20L BD Drive/MCE2005/Mediaportal/TVServer 1.1.0Final/LG 55"3D LED-TV/Denon AVR-1803 receiver/X1 projector

BlueToothKiwi

282 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 3

Trusted

#250143 24-Aug-2009 16:51

I have not been paying too much attention this story in recent days - but just been reading this thread: I want to know what the definition of being on the cellphone while driving is.

Say you have a mobile and a Bluetooth head set that you wear when you are driving....
Someone rings you. You take your eyes off the road for 0.1 second to press the green button on your mobile and then you talk to the caller using the Bluetooth headset.....
At the end of the conversation, the caller hangs up - which ends the phone call.

Does this consistent to an infringement of the proposed law?

Tim M, Auckland
Blog: http://paddler.co.nz

vinnieg

2260 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#250946 27-Aug-2009 11:08

BlueToothKiwi: I have not been paying too much attention this story in recent days - but just been reading this thread: I want to know what the definition of being on the cellphone while driving is.

Say you have a mobile and a Bluetooth head set that you wear when you are driving....
Someone rings you. You take your eyes off the road for 0.1 second to press the green button on your mobile and then you talk to the caller using the Bluetooth headset.....
At the end of the conversation, the caller hangs up - which ends the phone call.

Does this consistent to an infringement of the proposed law?

I think that would be an infringement, as bluetooth handsets should have a steering wheel or close to gearstick button. Just so you wouldn't take your eyes off the road?

That 0.1 second to press the green button means you look away from the road etc and lose concentration.
That's why they say texting or reading texts while driving is bad, because you look down, so you'd effectively lose about 1-2 seconds? I dunno though, while I do support the lawy it's probably going to be mislabelled. What's it going to be labelled by the media? from banning of handheld devices while driving to "anti-driving/cars should be phone boxes" bill

Just hope there isn't a waste of money with a large referendum like the current: "Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline" changed by the media to "anti-smacking" and then changed again in a poll where only just over half the voting public decided to vote to "is it safe from gods point of your view if your child is lovingly hit as it's your will to be a good parent"....haha, great way to spend $9 million dollars

I also like this:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/2547977/77pc-oppose-anti-smacking-poll

I have moved across the ditch. Now residing in Melbourne as a VOIP/Video Technical Trainer/Engineer.

Dratsab

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#251044 27-Aug-2009 17:07

BlueToothKiwi: I have not been paying too much attention this story in recent days - but just been reading this thread: I want to know what the definition of being on the cellphone while driving is.

Say you have a mobile and a Bluetooth head set that you wear when you are driving....
Someone rings you. You take your eyes off the road for 0.1 second to press the green button on your mobile and then you talk to the caller using the Bluetooth headset.....
At the end of the conversation, the caller hangs up - which ends the phone call.

Does this consistent to an infringement of the proposed law?

Not 100% sure of the English in your question, but think you're asking if you would have infringed

Go back a couple of pages and read the link I've posted to...you should be able to figure out all the answers to these sort of questions from there - it's written fairly plainly and is not at all hard to understand.

In relation to your question:
- If the phone is mounted - no infringement.
- If the phone is not mounted - infringement.
- If the phone is not mounted but you can press a button on your bluetooth set to answer - no infringement (you have not held or manipulated your phone in any way)

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

BlueToothKiwi

282 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 3

Trusted

#251054 27-Aug-2009 17:40

Thanks Dratsab

Tim M, Auckland
Blog: http://paddler.co.nz

kyhwana2

2572 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 233

#251062 27-Aug-2009 18:10

freitasm: I think this is a great move. I've seen people completely disregard traffic regulations while on the phone - they can't change gears correctly, indicate, stop on the lights, etc.

I've almost been run over by some chick on her cellphone at an intersection (I was walking). It looked like she was going to turn left, her right indicator wasn't on (I couldn't see her left) and she was talking on the phone. I had to jump out of the way and she kept driving, talking on her phone..

BurningBeard

1030 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 100

Trusted

#251227 28-Aug-2009 10:25

kyhwana2:I've almost been run over by some chick on her cellphone at an intersection (I was walking). It looked like she was going to turn left, her right indicator wasn't on (I couldn't see her left) and she was talking on the phone. I had to jump out of the way and she kept driving, talking on her phone..

Scary when that happens innit?

I've seen one woman nearly clip a car in a carpark, and when another driver abused her for being on the phone, her reply was "I'M ON A BUSINESS CALL"... as if that makes a lick of a difference.

My very metal Doctor Who theme

old3eyes

9158 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1364

Subscriber

#251240 28-Aug-2009 11:04

Dratsab:
In relation to your question:
- If the phone is mounted - no infringement.
- If the phone is not mounted - infringement.

- If the phone is not mounted but you can press a button on your bluetooth set to answer - no infringement (you have not held or manipulated your phone in any way)

You should have a look at todays NZ Herald business sect and see what the Ozzy tax collectors are ticketing people for over there. Like using you dash mounted iphone for a navigation unit. $A250 fine..

Regards,

Old3eyes

Dratsab

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#251415 28-Aug-2009 20:02

old3eyes: You should have a look at todays NZ Herald business sect and see what the Ozzy tax collectors are ticketing people for over there. Like using you dash mounted iphone for a navigation unit. $A250 fine..

Should I?

Australian regulations differ to what's being proposed for New Zealand. That makes what's happening over there irrelevant to:
a. what's proposed for NZ and
b. this thread.

Geekzone support

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

old3eyes

9158 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1364

Subscriber

#251553 29-Aug-2009 14:16

Dratsab:
old3eyes: You should have a look at todays NZ Herald business sect and see what the Ozzy tax collectors are ticketing people for over there. Like using you dash mounted iphone for a navigation unit. $A250 fine..

Should I?

Australian regulations differ to what's being proposed for New Zealand. That makes what's happening over there irrelevant to:
a. what's proposed for NZ and

b. this thread.

While the regs differ but the same will happen here. It's happening in California as well.

Oh and I see the cops are going to be exempt from these held held regulations..

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10593913

Regards,

Old3eyes

vinnieg

2260 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#251560 29-Aug-2009 14:50

old3eyes:
While the regs differ but the same will happen here. It's happening in California as well.

Oh and I see the cops are going to be exempt from these held held regulations..

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10593913

This part makes sense mostly. Due to the fact that police when doing raids or recieving a call about a homocide etc, switch from their unsecure police radio to cellphones. Just so the media doesn't follow them to a call or the criminals listening don't get informed about a raid.

Personal calls though, if a police person has a crash and is on a personal call then yeah I'd like to see them charged :)

I have moved across the ditch. Now residing in Melbourne as a VOIP/Video Technical Trainer/Engineer.

wmoore

510 posts

Ultimate Geek

#253649 7-Sep-2009 02:38

The dangers of texting and driving

Click here

More info here

"In the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years." -
-- Abraham lincoln

Four_seven

38 posts

Geek
Inactive user

#253675 7-Sep-2009 10:01

To build on wmoore's post

Serious link: car and driver's investigation on the issue

Not so serious link Don't text and drive while listening to queen

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6