Should a hand held mobile phone be confiscated if you use it while driving? - Page 4

GXL078 · 24-01-2007, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by all4ford

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

Yes, it made me feel great.

red_hotxr6 · 25-01-2007, 07:54 AM

Yes definitely, i do a lot of driving and i see so many near accidents with people holding the phone and trying to drive at the same time, not worth it. If i can afford to get an ear piece that clips on for $60.00 and leave my hands free so can your ordinary brickie, chippie and other assorted tradesmen.

:

JC · 25-01-2007, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by red_hotxr6

Yes definitely, i do a lot of driving and i see so many near accidents with people holding the phone and trying to drive at the same time, not worth it. If i can afford to get an ear piece that clips on for $60.00 and leave my hands free so can your ordinary brickie, chippie and other assorted tradesmen.

:

Actually, for what they charge these days, your "ordinary" brickie, chippie etc could buy a whole box load of earpiece/handsfree kits!

As if the talking on the mobile isn't bad enough (but really, no worse than listening to music or talking to passengers), it's the fact that you have one hand full of something, for an extended period of time, other than car controls that's the problem. Also the fact that most people have to look at the keys to dial a number, and even to answer a call. Plus the fact that the (mainly) young drivers that don't have years experience driving, who then concentrate on the phone call and not what they're doing is what makes this really dangerous.

A parallel to this is in the good old days of Bathurst when they used to wire one or three drivers up and talk to them - they never did it across the top of the mountain, it was only ever down conrod where not so much driver input is required, or under pace car conditions. in fact I think this practice ended when one driver actually grazed the wall anyway (DJ???).

all4ford · 25-01-2007, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JC

As if the talking on the mobile isn't bad enough (but really, no worse than listening to music or talking to passengers), it's the fact that you have one hand full of something, for an extended period of time, other than car controls that's the problem.

You mean the same way any person driving a manual in the city does? Yes, you did state for things other than car controls but whats the difference?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JC

Also the fact that most people have to look at the keys to dial a number, and even to answer a call. Plus the fact that the (mainly) young drivers that don't have years experience driving, who then concentrate on the phone call and not what they're doing is what makes this really dangerous.

I'll agree that most people look at the numbers, not me personally, but most. But I just cannot grasp this idea that a phone conversation demands so much more concentration than a conversation with a passenger. There is no difference in the concentration needed to hold a conversation be it on the phone or in person. Of course if you have bad reception its a different story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JC

A parallel to this is in the good old days of Bathurst when they used to wire one or three drivers up and talk to them - they never did it across the top of the mountain, it was only ever down conrod where not so much driver input is required, or under pace car conditions. in fact I think this practice ended when one driver actually grazed the wall anyway (DJ???).

These guys are driving right on the edge at 110%, any little mistake can mean the difference between leaving the track in your own car or in an ambulance.

**Grunter** · 25-01-2007, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by all4ford

You mean the same way any person driving a manual in the city does? Yes, you did state for things other than car controls but whats the difference?
....

I'm not sure how you can compare holding a phone to your ear to changing gears? You'll have both hands on the wheel more if your driving a manual, vs holding a phone for a given period of time. Yes you will remove your hand from the wheel for 2-3 seconds a gear change, but it should go straight back on. If your holding a phone to your ear, your not quickly putting it up there for 2-3 seconds, putting it down and then grabbing the wheel again. Your hand stays off the wheel for the entire time of the call.

Wouldn't you agree that driving a manual and holding a phone would lessen your ability to be in control of a car?

all4ford · 25-01-2007, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grunter

I'm not sure how you can compare holding a phone to your ear to changing gears? You'll have both hands on the wheel more if your driving a manual, vs holding a phone for a given period of time. Yes you will remove your hand from the wheel for 2-3 seconds a gear change, but it should go straight back on. If your holding a phone to your ear, your not quickly putting it up there for 2-3 seconds, putting it down and then grabbing the wheel again. Your hand stays off the wheel for the entire time of the call.

Thats why I stated in the city, as in traffic you are constantly up shifting then down shifting and so on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grunter

Wouldn't you agree that driving a manual and holding a phone would lessen your ability to be in control of a car?

Yes I would to some degree but as stated before different driving conditions call for more or less concentration.

Annie1962 · 26-01-2007, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

I hate talking on the phone and driving is a good excuse not to answer it!

:

So do I... if my phone rings while I am driving, it stays ringing... I then get to my destination and then see who's rung me..

If it's that important, they'll call back.

MITCHAY · 26-01-2007, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Annie1962

So do I... if my phone rings while I am driving, it stays ringing... I then get to my destination and then see who's rung me..

If it's that important, they'll call back.

I usually don't call back regardless of who it is

:

Let's just say if I call you back, you're lucky because I could be bothered to do so.

nugget378 · 26-01-2007, 11:42 AM

Whats the problem?
I only use the phone for texting while I drive,and only then while drinking a JD and smoking a cigarette,I can even still flash slow drivers in the right lane at the same time...
The cars a manual,so I find skipping half the gears works best..

cupic · 26-01-2007, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Annie1962

So do I... if my phone rings while I am driving, it stays ringing... I then get to my destination and then see who's rung me..

If it's that important, they'll call back.

Ditto

RIPGMH · 26-01-2007, 02:51 PM

As has already been said if you can't do two things at once, maybe you shouldn't be driving. I think I could maintain more concentration half cut while talking on a mobile phone and rolling a cigarette than alot of the people on the road today. But we can't make individual laws for people. Confiscating personal property is taking it abit far though.

Steffo · 27-01-2007, 01:14 AM

Confiscation of personal property, that you payed good hard earned for? And people are voting in its favour?

Just one question to those people... are you all mad?

They can take something of mine from me... AFTER they've given me the money I payed for it. Otherwise, forget it.

red_hotxr6 · 27-01-2007, 07:23 AM

No not mad, very sensable, see we are thinking about avoiding accidents possibly deaths, real good choice when you come to think of it.

Pedro · 27-01-2007, 07:55 AM

Most business people like me drove with car-phones when they first came in and moved up to mobiles as time went on. We found them to be a wonderful business tool as they saved time and increased your daily productivity, and very few crashes were attributed to in-car phone useage. But as we moved into the 90's and onwards it seemed to become the in thing with the majority of empty-heads, to drive, walk, sit, eat, or anything else with a phone glued to their ear, paying scant attention to anything else.

jabba · 27-01-2007, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Yes - confiscated and rammed down their throats or some other orifice. I have strong feelings about this as my last three accident were people on mobile phones running into the back of me while I was stopped at traffic lights and one was still do 60 kpm plus when they hit.

So what about if the person who ran into you weren't on the phone and were changing radio stations or inserting a CD into the player.. What if they dropped a cigarette butt. What if they were trying to stop the kids in the back seat from fighting.... Should we now ban radios, smoking, and kids while driving... What about conversation with passengers. Yep that's dangerous. Just as dangerous as talking on the phone....

What a crap issue to start a thread about... if you can have a conversation with a passenger in the car without weaving all over the road, then surly you can do the same while talking on the phone.... I don't have a car kit and I don't intend on getting one any time soon. Maybe it's just retarded drivers that have a problem doing 2 things at once..

Steffo · 27-01-2007, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by red_hotxr6

No not mad, very sensable, see we are thinking about avoiding accidents possibly deaths, real good choice when you come to think of it.

Avoiding accidents and deaths? That's acheived by teaching people to properly control a vehicle and also by the instillment of the correct attitude to people, not by taking away civil freedom in a supposedly (but hardly so) "free," country and taking away their property which they worked and payed good money for.

In fact, some people are bound to get really angry if this sort of thing happens, and what happens when you've got an angry, irritated and not so good driver behind the wheel of a car? Not a good mix.

I'd rather keep what freedoms I have then have more taken away for a stop-gap bandaid fix that does absolutley nothing except make fools of the authorities and the mindless drones known as the general public who follow them.

GXL078 · 27-01-2007, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

I'd rather keep what freedoms I have then have more taken away for a stop-gap bandaid fix that does absolutley nothing except make fools of the authorities and the mindless drones known as the general public who follow them.

Well you already DO NOT have the freedom to talk on a mobile phone while driving but this is clearly not a big enough incentive for many people. The only mindless droning that's going on are the mostly unneccessary mobile phone calls form the general masses that is generating zillions of bucks for the telcos. I remember when CB radios were all the rage. Once you bought your CB that was IT, There was no ongoing expense except for the annual license, which only those "fools" would bother paying for anyway. We would have been outraged if every converation cost you a couple of bucks. Now, kids, the unemployed, drug dealers/addicts all "need their mobile". What suckers for mass consumerism and convenience we all are. I reckon the most asked question on a mobile phone would be " where are you now or what are you doing". Like something you can't wait to find out.

Keepleft · 27-01-2007, 08:39 PM

This desire of even considering an expansion of what 'privately owned property' that can be sceded to 'the state' - is unhealthy. Don't be so willing to give your stuff away. The penalties for the offence in question are surely strong enough?!

NB to the CB reference above. As 'practical information', we have text suggesting the use of a CB radio 'to alert approaching traffic of danger' and for road information in the primary driver manuals of WA and SA. I have asked TAS and NSW to come on board.

Basis, civil defence and safety. A BIG country.

flappist · 27-01-2007, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xcgxl

Well you already DO NOT have the freedom to talk on a mobile phone while driving but this is clearly not a big enough incentive for many people. The only mindless droning that's going on are the mostly unneccessary mobile phone calls form the general masses that is generating zillions of bucks for the telcos. I remember when CB radios were all the rage. Once you bought your CB that was IT, There was no ongoing expense except for the annual license, which only those "fools" would bother paying for anyway. We would have been outraged if every converation cost you a couple of bucks. Now, kids, the unemployed, drug dealers/addicts all "need their mobile". What suckers for mass consumerism and convenience we all are. I reckon the most asked question on a mobile phone would be " where are you now or what are you doing". Like something you can't wait to find out.

Not all mindless droning is on mobile phones. Some of it is on internet forums....

Steffo · 27-01-2007, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xcgxl

Well you already DO NOT have the freedom to talk on a mobile phone while driving but this is clearly not a big enough incentive for many people. The only mindless droning that's going on are the mostly unneccessary mobile phone calls form the general masses that is generating zillions of bucks for the telcos. I remember when CB radios were all the rage. Once you bought your CB that was IT, There was no ongoing expense except for the annual license, which only those "fools" would bother paying for anyway. We would have been outraged if every converation cost you a couple of bucks. Now, kids, the unemployed, drug dealers/addicts all "need their mobile". What suckers for mass consumerism and convenience we all are. I reckon the most asked question on a mobile phone would be " where are you now or what are you doing". Like something you can't wait to find out.

The point isn't a mobile phone. The confiscation of anything which is a legal item to own shouldn't be permissable. That is erosion of freedom. Freedom is already becoming more and more scarce. We need not erode more of it. Especially when the ideal that would cause said erosion would not actually solve a single problem it seeks to.

And as for mobiles, there are those who truley do need them on a day to day basis. You'll also find that most of the time they tend to be the most responsible of us too.

Keepleft · 27-01-2007, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

The point isn't a mobile phone. The confiscation of anything which is a legal item to own shouldn't be permissable. That is erosion of freedom. Freedom is already becoming more and more scarce. We need not erode more of it. Especially when the ideal that would cause said erosion would not actually solve a single problem it seeks to.

And as for mobiles, there are those who truley do need them on a day to day basis. You'll also find that most of the time they tend to be the most responsible of us too.

Steffo, you and I agree. I am not comfortable with this twenties something generations willingness to give away much so easily.

MITCHAY · 27-01-2007, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

The point isn't a mobile phone. The confiscation of anything which is a legal item to own shouldn't be permissable. That is erosion of freedom. Freedom is already becoming more and more scarce. We need not erode more of it. Especially when the ideal that would cause said erosion would not actually solve a single problem it seeks to.

And as for mobiles, there are those who truley do need them on a day to day basis. You'll also find that most of the time they tend to be the most responsible of us too.

Do you reckon hoons shouldn't have their cars confiscated? It is legal to own a car as much as it is to own a mobile.

They can confiscate a person's car which the price difference is quite significant in comparisson so why should it be any different?

flappist · 27-01-2007, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

Do you reckon hoons shouldn't have their cars confiscated? It is legal to own a car as much as it is to own a mobile.

They can confiscate a person's car which the price difference is quite significant in comparisson so why should it be any different?

Actually it would be quite interesting to test this law. I wonder if it is unconstitutional.
The Commonwealth and States must compensate for things "confiscated". Best example, MABO.
Confiscation of things used in a crimial act only applies to actual criminal acts.
Is hooning a criminal act or just a misdemeanor. Speeding is not a criminal act but drink driving is.

Where is Rumpole when you need him.

P.S. I am going shooting with a senior QC tomorrow, I will bounce this off him.

MITCHAY · 28-01-2007, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

Actually it would be quite interesting to test this law. I wonder if it is unconstitutional.
The Commonwealth and States must compensate for things "confiscated". Best example, MABO.
Confiscation of things used in a crimial act only applies to actual criminal acts.
Is hooning a criminal act or just a misdemeanor. Speeding is not a criminal act but drink driving is.

Where is Rumpole when you need him.

P.S. I am going shooting with a senior QC tomorrow, I will bounce this off him.

Yeah when you do put it that way. I would have nothing to worry about though since I don't use my mobile whilst driving. Maybe empathy is lacking in my case

:

Jasinex · 28-01-2007, 12:20 AM

i think it should be if you have it to your ear.. i never put mine up.. i just use speaker

jasinex

Steffo · 28-01-2007, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

Do you reckon hoons shouldn't have their cars confiscated? It is legal to own a car as much as it is to own a mobile.

They can confiscate a person's car which the price difference is quite significant in comparisson so why should it be any different?

I'm firmly against vehicle confiscation. Yet another breach of civil freedoms.

Keepleft · 28-01-2007, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

Actually it would be quite interesting to test this law. I wonder if it is unconstitutional.
Snip -
P.S. I am going shooting with a senior QC tomorrow, I will bounce this off him.

Challengable.

nobbystang · 28-01-2007, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

I'm firmly against vehicle confiscation. Yet another breach of civil freedoms.

By breaking laws you should forfeit your rights to these freedoms!!! Maybe a harsher stance might lead to people thinking before acting for a change. I know some laws out there are ridiculous but you would hope that the laws are only applied to serious offences like drink driving, street racing, etc.

Police don't have enough power to do anything anymore and criminals have too many rights!!!!

GXL078 · 28-01-2007, 10:47 PM

The idea is you don't break the law in the first place and you get to keep your stuff.

**GasoLane** · 28-01-2007, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

Not all mindless droning is on mobile phones. Some of it is on internet forums....

10/10 Mr Flap

As for phones and driving. Dont be cheap, get a bluetooth.

View Poll Results: I support the idea of confiscating mobile phones used while driving
Yes, absolutely	87	51.48%
No, I am a struggking tradesman/ socialite and I just have to talk while driving.	34	20.12%
I support the idea but only for P platers	17	10.06%
It's not going to happen because the Government is not interested in ideas that might actually work.	31	18.34%
Voters: 169. You may not vote on this poll