Mobile phone use exemptions - how is this acceptable road safety ??

[warthog1]

Sorry about the soppy music but it is still a powerful message.
Should be compulsory viewing in schools imo

[Cycleops70]

The incentive is not being fined for using a phone while in control of a multi ton vehicle in a public place.

The penalty is the same whether you are moving or stationary so there is no incentive to wait until stationary to use the phone.

Why is using your phone in traffic "safer behaviour"?

Safer to use while stationary than moving. Surely you can't disagree?

Don't want a fine for touching your phone while sitting in traffic, then don't touch it!
Seems to me that there isn't a problem that requires a solution.

No problem? Mobile phone use is as bad as ever despite increased fines and enforcement. Obviously what we are doing now is not working. So I'm suggesting a change to encourage safer behaviour.

You are suggesting relaxing the law, which can only encourage more use.

What you are saying is; people aren't taking any notice of the law, so let's remove the law, & that would increase compliance.

In the same way that removing speed limits would reduce speeding fines.

[Cycleops70]

Safer to use while stationary than moving. Surely you can't disagree?

Yes, I will disagree. It is NOT "safer". It is less risky.

It's like saying jumping from 10m onto concrete is SAFER than jumping from 20m
It is still not acceptable, and can be completely avoided by pulling over, if it's so important.

[wellington_street]

You are suggesting relaxing the law, which can only encourage more use.

I disagree - I think rejigging the law may lead to less use of phones when it is actually dangerous to do so, as there is an incentive to wait for a red light.

What you are saying is; people aren't taking any notice of the law, so let's remove the law, & that would increase compliance. In the same way that removing speed limits would reduce speeding fines.

I'm not suggesting removing the law, I'm suggesting altering it to get a better outcome.
It is common knowledge that setting realistic speed limits for the road environment increases compliance, so you can draw a comparison there.

Safer to use while stationary than moving. Surely you can't disagree?

Yes, I will disagree. It is NOT "safer". It is less risky.

It's like saying jumping from 10m onto concrete is SAFER than jumping from 20m
It is still not acceptable, and can be completely avoided by pulling over, if it's so important.

Safer, less risky, same same.
There is no evidence that use of a phone in a stationary vehicle ever caused a crash - only in moving vehicles.

[Cycleops70]

I disagree - I think rejigging the law may lead to less use of phones when it is actually dangerous to do so, as there is an incentive to wait for a red light.

What is your evidence for that?
People use their phone because they want to, & they think they are perfectly safe (evidence does not support that) and they can get away with it (this is an enforcement issue, not a law issue).

Safer, less risky, same same.
There is no evidence that use of a phone in a stationary vehicle ever caused a crash - only in moving vehicles.

No it is not the same. "safer" or less risky does not make something SAFE. It is still not acceptable to use your phone when in charge of a vehicle that can kill.

Am I to conclude from your responses that you think using your phone while at traffic lights is ok? And do you do that?

[Mulger bill]

I do agree that the penalties should be scaled, taking into account comparative risks.
Talking handheld, first offence: $1500 fine and 11 demerits.

All other uses, impound phone and vehicle, suspend licence and mobile coverage for 6 months, $5000 fine for first offence.
Second and subsequent, confiscate and sell vehicle and device, suspend licence for 5 years.

All of the above supported and policed by detection technology harnessed with image capture for ID

[wellington_street]

I disagree - I think rejigging the law may lead to less use of phones when it is actually dangerous to do so, as there is an incentive to wait for a red light.

What is your evidence for that?
People use their phone because they want to, & they think they are perfectly safe (evidence does not support that) and they can get away with it (this is an enforcement issue, not a law issue).

Enforcement plays a huge part. That's why you will probably see less use of phones at lights as that's your highest chance of getting caught but negligible reduction in use of phones on the move as there is less chance of being caught.
I have no specific evidence that my suggest will lead to less use of phones while dangerous, much the same as you have no evidence that using a phone in a stationary vehicle is unacceptably dangerous. I can only offer an opinion.

No it is not the same. "safer" or less risky does not make something SAFE. It is still not acceptable to use your phone when in charge of a vehicle that can kill.

What is the difference between parked and stationary that makes one all good and the other unacceptable in your eyes?

Am I to conclude from your responses that you think using your phone while at traffic lights is ok? And do you do that?

Yes and yes.

[mikesbytes]

I regards with the fine being the same if you are driving or stationary, I think the penalty should be different as the level of danger is different

[Mulger bill]

This arvo, after being followed part of the way home by a female in a BMW bullybus who, while stopped at lights leaned over to read her cradled phone and absolutely failed to realise that she'd lightened up on the brake pedal and started creeping forward, methinks it maybe time to ban the sale of vehicles with automatic transmissions.
Human nature being what it is, using while stopped will quickly devolve into the first few seconds of movement, then a few more until Dunning and Krueger make them believe that updating your status on the tablet attached to the steering wheel at 70 km/h on Footscray Rd at night, in rain is perfectly acceptable.

[il padrone]

No it is not the same. "safer" or less risky does not make something SAFE. It is still not acceptable to use your phone when in charge of a vehicle that can kill.

What is the difference between parked and stationary that makes one all good and the other unacceptable in your eyes?

Parked - stopped vehicle, engine off, brake engaged. The vehicle cannot go anywhere (excepting actions of earthquake or landslip)

Stationary - stopped vehicle, foot on brake, halted in traffic. About to move off as soon as the light goes green or traffic moves on.

I can see the distinction, and the clear safety implications Road safety is all about much more than mere mechanics; in particular it is about driver behaviour. You may well put your phone down or cancel the call when the lights go green or traffic moves on - very many do not!

[Mulger bill]

Nailed it Pete, tho I will admit to leaving the engine running in neutral, handbrake on if I've pulled out of traffic and parked for a call.

The biggest problem these days isn't the phone side of things unless handheld, it's the whole SMS and social media thing that ramps up the whole distracted zombie thing to a terrifying level

[wellington_street]

Parked - stopped vehicle, engine off, brake engaged. The vehicle cannot go anywhere (excepting actions of earthquake or landslip)

Stationary - stopped vehicle, foot on brake, halted in traffic. About to move off as soon as the light goes green or traffic moves on.

I can see the distinction, and the clear safety implications

Road safety is all about much more than mere mechanics; in particular it is about driver behaviour.

In both of those scenarios it is a human action which changes the car from stopped to moving. Driver behaviour would include overlapping tasks which most do (e.g. you start moving before fitting your seatbelt or take it off as you're pulling over)

You may well put your phone down or cancel the call when the lights go green or traffic moves on - very many do not!

and I'm saying it should remain illegal to be touching your phone while the vehicle is moving. I'm skeptical that continuing to focus on people using their phones while stationary is actually going to measurably reduce dangerous mobile phone use. The same way police focus only on low level speeding in good conditions on safe roads yet it has not stopped speeding.

[il padrone]

In both of those scenarios it is a human action which changes the car from stopped to moving. Driver behaviour would include overlapping tasks which most do (e.g. you start moving before fitting your seatbelt or take it off as you're pulling over

Driving off when the traffic clears, or the light changes to green, while still reading that text-message. Driver behaviour !!

and I'm saying it should remain illegal to be touching your phone while the vehicle is moving. I'm skeptical that continuing to focus on people using their phones while stationary is actually going to measurably reduce dangerous mobile phone use. The same way police focus only on low level speeding in good conditions on safe roads yet it has not stopped speeding.

I will beg to differ. Experience shows us that many, many, drivers cannot be trusted to distinguish between on-the-phone (stopped) and on-the-phone (moving). Especially in our urban stop-start-slow traffic.

Reducing ALL mobile phone use whilst in control of a motor vehicle in traffic will measurably improve road safety - of this I have no doubt.

[wellington_street]

I will beg to differ. Experience shows us that many, many, drivers cannot be trusted to distinguish between on-the-phone (stopped) and on-the-phone (moving). Especially in our urban stop-start-slow traffic.

How can say that experience shows it when there has never been a distinction in penalties between the two and therefore no incentive to distinguish between the two?

Reducing ALL mobile phone use whilst in control of a motor vehicle in traffic will measurably improve road safety - of this I have no doubt.

I don't think this is going to be achieved by simply pinging drivers stopped at the lights.

[il padrone]

I will beg to differ. Experience shows us that many, many, drivers cannot be trusted to distinguish between on-the-phone (stopped) and on-the-phone (moving). Especially in our urban stop-start-slow traffic.

How can say that experience shows it when there has never been a distinction in penalties between the two and therefore no incentive to distinguish between the two?

Umm..... because I see them 'on-the-phone (moving)' all too often Have even observed 'surfing-the-web (moving)' a few times

[wellington_street]

I will beg to differ. Experience shows us that many, many, drivers cannot be trusted to distinguish between on-the-phone (stopped) and on-the-phone (moving). Especially in our urban stop-start-slow traffic.

How can say that experience shows it when there has never been a distinction in penalties between the two and therefore no incentive to distinguish between the two?

Umm..... because I see them 'on-the-phone (moving)' all too often Have even observed 'surfing-the-web (moving)' a few times

How is this experience relevant to a scenario where there is no penalty for phone use while stationary and a penalty for phone use while moving?
Your experience shows me that when all phone use is illegal there is no incentive to distinguish between the two and some drivers will choose to use their phone regardless.

[il padrone]

Whatever you say, man !

[Mulger bill]

...some drivers will choose to use their phone regardless.

Which they already do anyway. Water down the laws and this demographic won't modify their behaviour in any positive way. Chances are many will see this as vindication of their own opinion that they are a good enough driver to do it anytime, anywhere.

I don't have any objection to the plucking of low hanging fruit until it becomes the end not the means.

Frankly, I'd love to see cruising unmarked cars with a sworn officer at the wheel and all aspect constantly recording cameras and a button on the wheel that can be used to flag portions of the recordings for further evaluation and possible action. Of course, this isn't as lucrative as privatised cameras on the side of the road obsessing about one small part of the problem.

[il padrone]

Frankly, I'd love to see cruising unmarked cars with a sworn officer at the wheel and all aspect constantly recording cameras and a button on the wheel that can be used to flag portions of the recordings for further evaluation and possible action. Of course, this isn't as lucrative as privatised cameras on the side of the road obsessing about one small part of the problem.

Easily enough to get done (but you know about this MB)

[mikesbytes]

^^^^ I think the use of under cover police on motorbikes is in WA

Good healthy debate and what should and shouldn't be allowed while driving, as with anything, its a matter of where you draw the boundary.

Taking it to the n'th degree anything that takes the drivers eyes off the road, even for a second increases the risk of an accident, it takes about 2 seconds to look for the aircon button and press it, a navigation system is constantly taking your eyes off the road constantly, should they be banned?

And then there's audio, we could ban radio's, make it mandatory that windows are wound down, as how else are you expected to hear bicycle bells and other motorists practicing the Saxon language on you. And finally we ban passengers, as they can distract the driver.

The point being is that no one is wrong in this thread, its a matter of determining what is an acceptable risk and we all have views on that. What could fine tune or views is some quality data, is there any?

[wellington_street]

Frankly, I'd love to see cruising unmarked cars with a sworn officer at the wheel and all aspect constantly recording cameras and a button on the wheel that can be used to flag portions of the recordings for further evaluation and possible action. Of course, this isn't as lucrative as privatised cameras on the side of the road obsessing about one small part of the problem.

Easily enough to get done (but you know about this MB)

There's that low hanging fruit. Not one of the drivers in the video was in any danger of causing a crash.

[Thoglette]

There's that low hanging fruit. Not one of the drivers in the video was in any danger of causing a crash.

Until the lights change. And based on where he stopped, Mr Red Sedan was on his phone before he stopped.

Given the current legality of using hands-free phones these are examples of "I can't be *****d" behaviour. After all, rules are for other people. (Cue appropriate Dennis Leary song)

In short, these sort of drivers are always "in danger of causing a crash".

What could fine tune or views is some quality data, is there any?

Yes. Both in terms of the level of distraction that mobile phones cause (v.s. for, example, passengers) and in the impact that sociopaths have on the rest of us. Try five minutes with Google Scholar (or similar)

[wellington_street]

There's that low hanging fruit. Not one of the drivers in the video was in any danger of causing a crash.

Until the lights change. And based on where he stopped, Mr Red Sedan was on his phone before he stopped.

Given the current legality of using hands-free phones these are examples of "I can't be *****d" behaviour. After all, rules are for other people. (Cue appropriate Dennis Leary song)

In short, these sort of drivers are always "in danger of causing a crash".

Even with hands-free kits or mounts you're not allowed to touch the phone (except to receive or terminate a call) unless pulled over. So if these people were touching their phones mounted on hands free kits at the lights they would also be pinged.

The main reason police are targeting drivers who are stopped at lights is that it is the easiest way for them to enforce the law, just like speed cameras. Nothing to do with the relative safety of the practice. I recall the news from Victoria about the long distance camera which police can use to ping people on their phone while moving - that I 110% support. This I don't.

[Mulger bill]

So by that logic, on the stretch of the Calder Freeway near the Keilor market gardens that Vicroads did a cheap and nasty peak hour bottleneck fix by turning the emergency lane into a third lane and wound back the speed limit to 80 to compensate I should be able to do 100 through it at 0500 when there's much less traffic?

[wellington_street]

So by that logic, on the stretch of the Calder Freeway near the Keilor market gardens that Vicroads did a cheap and nasty peak hour bottleneck fix by turning the emergency lane into a third lane and wound back the speed limit to 80 to compensate I should be able to do 100 through it at 0500 when there's much less traffic?

I don't see why not - it's illegal but not dangerous. Just like using your phone at the lights.
Differential speed limits for traffic and weather conditions are in place on many roads throughout the world, including some Australian roads (e.g. the M1 north from Sydney)