KiwiNZ: You could take the attitude that the Policeman was doing his job of trying to keep you and other motorists safe on the roads.

KiwiNZ:

mattwnz:

KiwiNZ: You could take the attitude that the Policeman was doing his job of trying to keep you and other motorists safe on the roads.

If they really wanted to do something, they would increase the fines and take a tougher line on actuall calling and texting, who are actually 'moving'. There are still a huge number people I still see driving with a phone next to their face (many are realestate agents). Many I suspect see the fine as a small price to pay for the loss of business of not answering the call.

That is not up to the Police, the Politicians make the Laws.

mattwnz:

KiwiNZ:

mattwnz:

KiwiNZ: You could take the attitude that the Policeman was doing his job of trying to keep you and other motorists safe on the roads.

If they really wanted to do something, they would increase the fines and take a tougher line on actuall calling and texting, who are actually 'moving'. There are still a huge number people I still see driving with a phone next to their face (many are realestate agents). Many I suspect see the fine as a small price to pay for the loss of business of not answering the call.

That is not up to the Police, the Politicians make the Laws.

Yes but it is up to the police to use their discretion when policing that law. That is why in this case I think a warning would have sufficed. If they aren't using discretion, then the laws need to be a lot better.

nakedmolerat:

tardtasticx: Lol the amount of people who have said "Omg you always say you're so broke blah blah" (I'm a full time student) is insane, they know this phone costs a lot but I got it on contract, taking $250 off the price to start with, and I got 12 month deferred payment, I havn't actually paid a single cent of this phone off at all yet.

excellent money management skill..

blair003: Very good point and true when it comes to a lot of recent laws. Many laws seem to me to be made mainly to appease the voting public, when the actual issue could have been addressed just as well by policing existing laws.

amigo: Hey, don't give in... play the game!

If do you receive a ticket, I would imagine that it would have a generic offence stated, which means there is no detail on record of what you actually did, except use your mobile phone.

So now you've got a good interpretation of the law you can use it to your advantage.

Challenge the ticket, stating that you used the phone to terminate an incoming phone call, while you were stationary for a period of time, due to an accident blocking the road ahead.

Don't get smart and start quoting any act of subclauses, just leave it as that, as it will sound more innocent, and if they are going to prepare a court case against you, then they'll look up the law.

Unless they have any other specific evidence against you, they will most likely drop the case as it is not worth going to court over. If they did summons you to court, make sure you clear the history of your phone, so it can't be used against. In the vary unlikely case they did go so far as to obtain a log from the mobile provider, your defense could be that it must have been an alarm going off using the same ring tone as the incoming call, and you had honestly thought you were terminating an incoming call, which you k new was well within your rights to do so. :)

SpookyAwol: I cant believe I wasted my time reading 7 pages of discussion and argument over something that hasnt happened.

That must be some kind of record.

BraaiGuy:

So you saying he should challenge the law by telling a lie? Good advice mate!

amigo:

BraaiGuy:

So you saying he should challenge the law by telling a lie? Good advice mate!

Think of it as more of a bluff to test the integrity of their evidence and record keeping. :)