"Distraction" law - what do you think?

[vvega]

Driving an unsafe vehicle

A fine not exceeding $500
Driving an unsafe vehicle, or failing to comply certain Rules

Sect 34

A fine not exceeding $2,000


Reckless or dangerous driving



Sect 35
Imprisonment for up to 3 months, or a fine not exceeding $4,500, or both, and disqualification for at least 6 months
Increase in fine

Reckless or dangerous driving causing injury to or the death of another person


Sect 36

Imprisonment for up to 5 years, or a fine not exceeding $20,000, or both, and disqualification for at least 1 year
Increase in fine

Careless or inconsiderate driving



A fine not exceeding $3,000 and discretionary disqualification



Careless or inconsiderate driving causing injury to or the death of another person



Sect 38

Imprisonment for up to 3 months, or a fine not exceeding $4,500, or both, and disqualification for at least 6 months
Increase in fine

Causing bodily injury to or the death of another person by carelessly using a motor vehicle while speeding or overtaking or driving on wrong side of road



Sect 39
Imprisonment for up to 3 years, or a fine not exceeding $10,000, or both, and disqualification for at least 1 year
Increase in fine, decrease in jail term


Failing to stop after an accident where no other person is injured or killed

Sect 35

Imprisonment for up to 3 months, or a fine not exceeding $4,500, or both, and disqualification for at least 6 months
Increase in fine

Failing to stop after an accident where a person is injured or killed
Sect 36

Imprisonment for up to 5 years, or a fine not exceeding $20,000, or both, and disqualification for at least 1 year
Increase in fine

[b]Failure to report damage to motor vehicle or property (Traffic Regulations 1976)

Sect 47

Fine not exceeding $5,000

[vvega]

i rang the police prosucution officer for clariforcation on the OR
there are 2 different charges both with the same sort of punishment but as fivebob said they have a different set of qualifiing criteria for each......

if you disagree ring your local prosocutin police offier and argue with them


...

v

[V8MOFO]

I dont think banning cellphones in cars is all good.
When I worked in Albany and occasionally went out do do jobs with the boss, sometime we would be out on the road for a few hours in a day.
In that time it was very usual that he would get 20 phone calls all from customers / suppliers, most were very important phone calls.

I am sure a huge amount of people require to use their phone whilst on the go. Sure it is distracting but so are alot of other things that arnt important.

I understand as 'si' has listed the collisions statistics that in 2002, 44 crashes due to cellphone use that could risk being fatal, but I dont think banning cellphone use all together is a good idea, maybe modifying the rights and wrongs of cellphone use would be a better start?

[BlakJak]

Hmm. I searched high and low to find the difference and every single reference I found to one mentioned the other in the same context...

I'll take your word for it then.

[vvega]

thats why i rang to get claraforcation on the OR
i came to the same result as you
so i rang to talk to a procecuter...the next logical step

i guess it makes sence as it would not be mentioned in as both if there was only one charge

i have here a charge sheete from many years ago that simply states dangerous driving....... not reckless OR dangerious

lol and its not my word your taking im just quoting what i was told....

v

[fivebob]

That's how the solicitor described the difference to me, and I recall reading it in the Transport Act at the time. That was in the dim, dark past so I might just be having a "senior moment" as I can't find it in the current legislation.

[BlakJak]

Ok, I guess I failed in verbalising what I meant earlier re reckless v dangerous charges, so i was wrong, sorry (eg, I kinda knew what you meant, and fscked up trying to explain...)

However the links I quoted contained everything you just pasted in there vvega

[fivebob]

Back to the topic at hand

The police already have "Driving without due care and attention" why do they need to clog the courts with a new offence. Unless they're failing to convict on that offence, and they require one with less burden of proof, I can't see any valid (from their point of view) reason.

If that is indeed their reasoning then I don't believe the politicians should pander to their whims, and make an already biased system tilt more in their favour. Traffic laws are the only ones I know of where the presumption of innocence does no apply, and it's up to the defendant to prove that they didn't do what they are charged with

[vvega]

Ok, I guess I failed in verbalising what I meant earlier re reckless v dangerous charges, so i was wrong, sorry (eg, I kinda knew what you meant, and fscked up trying to explain...)

However the links I quoted contained everything you just pasted in there vvega

thats were thats post came from
just for those those dont click links


was a lot of great info in there blackjac pity most wont bother to spend time looking

v

[vvega]

Back to the topic at hand

The police already have "Driving without due care and attention" why do they need to clog the courts with a new offence. Unless they're failing to convict on that offence, and they require one with less burden of proof, I can't see any valid (from their point of view) reason.

If that is indeed their reasoning then I don't believe the politicians should pander to their whims, and make an already biased system tilt more in their favour. Traffic laws are the only ones I know of where the presumption of innocence does no apply, and it's up to the defendant to prove that they didn't do what they are charged with

like you said i guess with a adiquite defence you could prove that whilest listing on the phone you were no more distracted that listing to a radio......

with this new law you would have less of a chance of defence

it would seam the traffic laws are moving towards not working on a true crimnal system were you can defend againt silly indescretions and poinless laws..to the point were there very direct
i.e i dont care if you were distrated or not you were on your cell phone and that is your offence

if they were really keen they could retrofit cars with a signal jammer that activate when you stick it in gear.......

though a hands free kit solves the cell phone debate anyways...

v

[Difficult_E]

So they expect you to pull over everytime you want to skip a song you dont like? Thats stupid.

[Si]

44 accidents isnt that many, about 1% as i recall.

the ones that make me laugh are the stats for emotional upset, intentional collisions and impared due to old age.

i can just see it now:
"If you cry and drive, your a bloody idiot"

[V8MOFO]

haha, the one that got me was the unsuccesful suicide

But come to think about it, who could tell if it was a succesful suicide or not if it were fatal

[Si]

they could have left a note or something.

[peas]

This law is way to open to abuse by cops and when public opinion regarding the poilce and the under utilisation or more correctly under resourcing is down in the gutter I think that it is a bad time to give us anything else to complain about. Any discretionary law can be used as an excuse by them and I know of people being threatened with fines for things they haven't done unless they disperse.

I change CD's all the time while driving and have used a cell phone too on a few occasions and never had even a close call. It all comes down to how smart you are I think... if you have the ability to do more than one thing at once why not. I mean some people are just not co-ordinated or remember things like where the slot for their CD is... impossible to monitor that though... maybe we have tests at birth as to how smart you're going to be

Dumb people $&#$% me off!!

[Simon K]

How many times has this law been suggested before, a couple at least? I believe the same reasons it's been declined should stop it again(specifically commercial drivers who need to use RT's etc while working).

[Spannergal]

haha, the one that got me was the unsuccesful suicide

But come to think about it, who could tell if it was a succesful suicide or not if it were fatal

a bit hard to deem an accident "unsuccessful suicide" unless the person who was in the accident actually said that they were attempting, in my opinion at leas.
the whole definition of suicide(in the coroners terms) is a bit suspect anyway.

[rolla_fxgt]

On that list of accident causes there were way more higher number causes than cellphone use, so why focus on it?
I mean according to those statistics we should ban passengers too. Because they cause crashes. Guess we'd all drive round in single seater race cars then though.

I think there should be a stupidity test at birth & dumb ppl put down then & there.

[V8MOFO]

On that list of accident causes there were way more higher number causes than cellphone use, so why focus on it?
I mean according to those statistics we should ban passengers too. Because they cause crashes. Guess we'd all drive round in single seater race cars then though.

I think there should be a stupidity test at birth & dumb ppl put down then & there.

Cellphones directly distract a driver from what he is doing, by the time you look down to get your cellphone, unlock it, dial the number and put the phone to your ear anything can happen. Thus all responcibility is put on the driver
A driver cannot be at fault if they are distracted by a passenger.
Although I dont think it is a good idea to ban the use of cellphones whilst behind the wheel of a car, if it could potentially cause 44 less crashes a year that may or may not injure a person there is nothing wrong with that.

Also it would be quite easy for a police officer to notice someone using a phone while driving.

And your stupidity test idea really dosn't make sense.

[V8MOFO]

How many times has this law been suggested before, a couple at least? I believe the same reasons it's been declined should stop it again(specifically commercial drivers who need to use RT's etc while working).

yea exactly.