Should a hand held mobile phone be confiscated if you use it while driving?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by gozza

In saying that flappist people should be able to make there own judgement on wether to smoke or not...Yes its addictive... but people know that before they smoke these days

i agree with what your saying in the most part but that seems a little contradictive

That is the point.

Some mobile phone usage is bad so we ban ALL phone usage for our own good.
Some smoking is bad but we allow people to choose because they know it can be dangerous.

See the hypocracy?

[gozza]

actually Yes.. I knew what you were saying but in that light its more obvious.....good point

[SpoolMan]

Originally Posted by b2tf

What were you doing driving in the ocean Mark

I chatting away then 2 guy's in blue uniform in a white unmarked land cruiser directed me to pull over, took my details and sent the fine out.
This was in Synott St Werribee.

[Psycho Chicken]

Agree 100% Fappist. Taking phones off people is nothing but a band aid fix. Something this country needs a lot less of.

[all4ford]

Originally Posted by flappist

That is the point.

Some mobile phone usage is bad so we ban ALL phone usage for our own good.
Some smoking is bad but we allow people to choose because they know it can be dangerous.

See the hypocracy?

Couldn't agree more. Banning mobile phone usage for ALL means they can fine everyone who uses a mobile phone while driving. Where as, putting more police on the road or driver training would cost the government money.

The same as leaving cigarettes legalised means the government can make an absolute fortune in luxury goods tax, but banning them means no more money for the government.

What they always fail to see is the long-term implications of these short-term solutions.

[Grunter]

Originally Posted by flappist

...Do you disagree with that?...

Can't say that I disagree on the most part.

So do we remove all driving laws and start again? At what point do we need a law added or taken away? What needs to happen before we agree that a particular law is a good idea? And most importantly, how do you cater for the lowest common denominator with a particular law to protect the "common man" from that lowest common denominator?

If using a phone is ok, should it's use be included in driver training?

[jason71]

Just a small question

Are truckies aloud to use cb radios while driving?

If so whats the difference?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Grunter

Can't say that I disagree on the most part.

So do we remove all driving laws and start again? At what point do we need a law added or taken away? What needs to happen before we agree that a particular law is a good idea? And most importantly, how do you cater for the lowest common denominator with a particular law to protect the "common man" from that lowest common denominator?

If using a phone is ok, should it's use be included in driver training?

This is the difficult part. What is the solution? Better training? Better attitude?

All I know in the solution is NOT namby pamby feel good warm and fuzzy "it's for your own good" knee jerk legislation that, when it fails, is just enforced more and more strongly until something breaks.

In QLD the penalty for drug trafficing used to be mandatory life. The penalty for killing police and/or witnesses was life. After a few "incedents" it was decided that the "nothing to lose" syndrome was becoming a bit prevalent and dangerous.
Likewise in USA mandatory death penalty for rape was abolished when the ratio of dead to live rape victims got a bit high. No witnesses.

I am waiting for some idiot ricer hoon to do a runner when he has been caught on his last chance and has nothing to lose if he wrecks his car.
If while wrecking his car he manages to kill a number of innocent children watch the lawyers go wahooo.....

And no I don't agree with car confiscation, to most of gen Y money is free, cars are free, everything is free, you just get another loan.

I do suspect, however, you can't do much hooning while a guest at a low security DCS farm can you?

When I was a teenager, a friend of mine was a serial drink driver. For those who do not remember the '70s, to get caught drink driving meant you did something really stupid or had an accident because random breath testing was illegal. On his third conviction he got 2 weeks in Boggo Road. He NEVER drink drove after that even if he had only one beer.

[uranium_death]

The excuse, "I can drive while talking on the phone" is like somebody saying, "I can drive just fine when I am inebriated."

It has been found through studies (ohh, doesn't that turn you on?) that when driving while having a phone conversation, hazard perception is compromised.

Sure...you feel you can do it now, but wait until you see something dangerous come your way...will you be so engrossed in your conversation on the phone that you'll not notice the 4 year old girl crossing the street with her doll pram or the 6 year old boy chasing a basketball out of his driveway?

And it was also found that conversations in the car with passengers did not affect driving ability.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by uranium_death

The excuse, "I can drive while talking on the phone" is like somebody saying, "I can drive just fine when I am inebriated."

It has been found through studies (ohh, doesn't that turn you on?) that when driving while having a phone conversation, hazard perception is compromised.

Sure...you feel you can do it now, but wait until you see something dangerous come your way...will you be so engrossed in your conversation on the phone that you'll not notice the 4 year old girl crossing the street with her doll pram or the 6 year old boy chasing a basketball out of his driveway?

And it was also found that conversations in the car with passengers did not affect driving ability.

Isn't it amazing how "expert" studies ALWAYS support the legislation. WHO found this gem? Scruby and associates? Some "expert" academics that rely on government funding?

What you are saying is a whinging partner in the left seat or fighting kids in the rear seats has no distracting effect? Is that REALLY what you are saying?

[uranium_death]

No idea...heard it on the radio or some ****. But hey, I support it. Anything for safer roads.

And even if some can do it legit, others will not.

[Falcon_Phill]

Unless you ban the driver from holding anything, i dont see a difference. Drinking a coke from maccas while talking to the passenger is no different than holding a mobile phone.

[uranium_death]

Originally Posted by Falcon_Phill

Unless you ban the driver from holding anything, i dont see a difference. Drinking a coke from maccas while talking to the passenger is no different than holding a mobile phone.

Having a conversation down a phone is different to holding a Coke.
Whereas on a phone people may divert a large portion of their attention to the conversation (meaning a compromise in concentration on driving), drinking a Coke is instinctive and requires no real concentration.

[all4ford]

Personally I think talking to passengers in some cases is more dangerous as most people whilst talking like to look at whom they are talking to, it is basic human nature. Of course while driving you know it is dangerous to take your eyes off the road, but I still think there is more chance of you taking your eyes off the road to look at a passenger while talking then to talk on a phone.

[HLC]

back when i was at school. i had my phone confiscated from me once. for talking on it in class.

but after i said that that was illegal, they gave it back to me after lunch. lol.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by uranium_death

Having a conversation down a phone is different to holding a Coke.
Whereas on a phone people may divert a large portion of their attention to the conversation (meaning a compromise in concentration on driving), drinking a Coke is instinctive and requires no real concentration.

Do you actually drive?

You have never hit a bump while swigging on a coke (or beer) and had it go down the wrong way causing a coughing fit and more than a slight amount of distraction?

[Falcon_Phill]

Originally Posted by uranium_death

Having a conversation down a phone is different to holding a Coke.
Whereas on a phone people may divert a large portion of their attention to the conversation (meaning a compromise in concentration on driving), drinking a Coke is instinctive and requires no real concentration.

Ahh whatever. Somebody would nit-pick at what ever I said so I dont really care for your explanation. Holding something and talking is holding something and talking.

And since when isnt talking instinctive?

[b2tf]

You know in light of all of the threads about how the country is going to crap and how we're losing out rights etc, I feel that we should just shoot anybody who display a flag, is a P plater, drives a V8, owns a Holden, uses a mobile, listens to doof doof or does anything else socially unacceptable.

:

[flappist]

Originally Posted by b2tf

You know in light of all of the threads about how the country is going to crap and how we're losing out rights etc, I feel that we should just shoot anybody who display a flag, is a P plater, drives a V8, owns a Holden, uses a mobile, listens to doof doof or does anything else socially unacceptable.

:

No you can't guns are banned. :

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by b2tf

You know in light of all of the threads about how the country is going to crap and how we're losing out rights etc, I feel that we should just shoot anybody who display a flag, is a P plater, drives a V8, owns a Holden, uses a mobile, listens to doof doof or does anything else socially unacceptable.

:

seconded.

[uranium_death]

Yeah, I do drive.

But I don't hold stuff while I am driving. At the lights maybe.

And I don't buy soft drink from McDonald's. I don't believe in paying 2 bucks for a drink that costs McDonald's 3 cents to make.

I secure all my cargo.

And I don't talk on my phone while driving.

So Moose Bees!

[b2tf]

Originally Posted by uranium_death

And I don't buy soft drink from McDonald's. I don't believe in paying 2 bucks for a drink that costs McDonald's 3 cents to make.

Fight the power.

[Falcon_Phill]

Well, when you cant fight the point.

[uranium_death]

Originally Posted by Falcon_Phill

Well, when you cant fight the point.

I made my point.

I do the right thing and therefore give myself a greater chance of survival.

I can't make others see my point of view.

If they want to fight the rules, that's not my problem.

[b2tf]

Originally Posted by uranium_death

I do the right thing and therefore give myself a greater chance of survival.

:lookedat:

always knew that ronald mcdonald really was an evil bastard......

by the way: he's behind you. hamburgler's going to hold you down and theyre going to pour an extra large thickshake down your pants.

[all4ford]

Originally Posted by uranium_death

And I don't buy soft drink from McDonald's. I don't believe in paying 2 bucks for a drink that costs McDonald's 3 cents to make.

I'm guessing you don't buy cans of coke either because they cost coke 18 cents each to make. (Total production cost of a can of coke back in 2003 when I did the tour lol)

[all4ford]

Originally Posted by b2tf

:lookedat:

always knew that ronald mcdonald really was an evil bastard......

by the way: he's behind you. hamburgler's going to hold you down and theyre going to pour an extra large thickshake down your pants.

Pure Gold!!!!

[uranium_death]

Originally Posted by all4ford

I'm guessing you don't buy cans of coke either because they cost coke 18 cents each to make. (Total production cost of a can of coke back in 2003 when I did the tour lol)

I don't drink Coke. I hate the flavour.

All I drink is tap water and beer.

Off topic?

We disagreed on the subject. Leave it at that.

[GXL078]

Wow, I am surprised how many of you are actually supportive of the idea. You all need to be commended.
On the issue of car kits and "Telstra values safe driving 1800 etc." I was overtaken buy a Telstra van a few years ago and that was OK until I saw that he was talking on the phone. Then I saw the number on the back and couldnt resist calling it up (when I got home) I was called back by a supervisor who told me all Telstra vans has hands free kits installed and the driver was unable to explain why he wasn't using it. He was placed on 12 months probation and monitoring, what ever that means.

Travelling down the M4 today in the T2 lane (with my wife).This young fool decides to tailgate us. He is in his "ute", on his own and on the phone!! As usual I refused to speed up for him and he had to go around a truck to get in front of me and nearly caused an accident as he did so.

I still think holding a lighted cigarette while driving is inherently more dangerous than holding a phone to one's ear.

[all4ford]

Originally Posted by xcgxl

Wow, I am surprised how many of you are actually supportive of the idea. You all need to be commended.
On the issue of car kits and "Telstra values safe driving 1800 etc." I was overtaken buy a Telstra van a few years ago and that was OK until I saw that he was talking on the phone. Then I saw the number on the back and couldnt resist calling it up (when I got home) I was called back by a supervisor who told me all Telstra vans has hands free kits installed and the driver was unable to explain why he wasn't using it. He was placed on 12 months probation and monitoring, what ever that means. .

Gee that must of made you feel so good. Personally not my style.

Originally Posted by xcgxl

I still think holding a lighted cigarette while driving is inherently more dangerous than holding a phone to one's ear.

I agree with that.