Driving while talking on a mobile phone

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by fmc351

I was directly asking about, one day you post the government sticks its nose in everything, and the next it isnt sticking it in enough. I just wondered how bored you are?

I was thinking that too. We often get on here and complain when the government axes good ads about cars such as the BMW Z4 ad and then we also complain when they don't axe ads, don't quite get it.

I have not seen the ad either but if it does not show someone with a mobile phone in their hand or sitting on their lap, it is not illegal at all and no reason for the government to intervene.

I would suggest that if the above is true and the government did axe the ad, some here would be jumping up and down about government censorship and our rights.

[ThaFlash]

thanks for the compliment gasoline, unfortunately i am a lowly warehouse pick/packer/despatcher/inward good receiver part time forum antogonist...

further to flappists argument and conterary to aussiblu, not only do cars currently facilitate the use of mobile phones, much the same way internet service providers allow you to download tons of illegal copyrighted material with their huge bandwidth alowance but, they will fully incorporate the use of communication technoligies within cars on a ultra futuristic scale which will include every single form of "digital distraction/entertainmnet/convenience"

while they may ban a mobile phones while driving (ill conceived law), that law will be defunct because mobile phone devices will be superceded by something much more advanced and no will even have a mobile phone.

the law will become like the "getting hanged for a stealing a cow law" it is still there and it's the law, but who the hell is gonna steal a cow and who the hell will enforce it?

in this day and age all road related stuff is measured by 2 things, money and death.

SHOW ME THE MONEY OR SHOW ME THE STAT!!!

P.S. there is nothing easier than talking on a mobile phone while driving, except driving itself.

[sarrge2001]

According to the government, is it the act of talking on a mobile that is dangerous, or just holding on to it?

And if 30% of accidents involve someone on a mobile, doesn't that make 70% of accidents involve people not on a mobile - sounds like talking on a mobile could be a safety feature........

Gotta love statistics......

For the record, my opinion is that the girls in the car in the ad seem far more interested in the phone interface that the road. But what is more dangerous? That girl in the ad at the speed limit, or someone doing 5 over the limit concentrating on their driving. I know what I think, but i don't make the rules.

Most ad's don't get pulled until there are complaints. Speeding in an ad attracts the attention of the Scruby's of this world who are a vocal minority. Chatting hands free whilst applying makeup and shaving your legs hasn't been demonised to the same extent as yet.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

Butting out the ciggie?
Lighting the damn thing with the air conditioner on and window down?

When I was smoking these were the two most distracting things I found. I found myself often holding the smoke for a long long time before I found a stretch of road, or a condition, that allowed me enough time to fulfil this task.

Putting out a ciggie is something that cant be stopped midway through, and needs your eyes (unless you have very tolerant fingers).

I do believe talking on the phone and driving is dangerous, hands-free included. But I still do it, cause it's legal.


The biggest difference between most of the examples given are that you can choose your moment to light a ciggie, or change the radio/CD, but the conversation continues even when you may not want it to, or normally wouldnt have chosen to do something.

[Smoke Pursuit]

So are handsfree kits legal or illegal?? Thats the big question we are faced with now.

My belief is after having a run in with the law a few weeks ago for having my phone in my hand (long story which I am fighting), that if you have a hands free kit, providing you don't touch the phone itself its legal to use. So in the case of the FG Falcon providing you use the button on the steering wheel and the voice tags to make a call, and the button to answer / reject then theres no issue.

Therefore whats the issue with manufacturers advertising bluetooth hands free? I think I'd rather my kid having the ability to answer their phone while driving with a hands free device rather then picking up the handset. BTW im 99% sure P platers in some states arent allowed to use a mobile with a bluetooth equiped car or not.


I have been driving for nearly 10 years and I've always had phone kits in my cars for work purposes and used them to make / receive calls, for me its no worse then talking to someone else in the car or concerntrating on talk back radio. I dont know what the big deal is here with all these stats, theres plenty of other things that contribute to people having accidents, e.g. a screaming baby in the back seat. If we are going to ban mobile phone use altogether (including bluetooth handsfree devices), lets ban Ipods, rear DVDs, radios and dual zone climate control while we are at it. How many studies have looked at whether these devices or distractions have caused accidents.

Sadly people will take risks and die as a result of those risks. It doesnt matter how many laws the authorities implement people will still die on our roads, negligent behavour will always exist...

[EgoFG]

The law is about touching your phone, hands free is not illegal.

Oprah did a thing on the distraction of talking over the mobile being more dangerous than just talking to a passenger, but I could find no reliable science or research behind it.
http://www.oprah.com/pressroom/Oprah...one-Zone-Day_1

Some great tragedy stories, but no real science.

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

The Mythbusters did the tests too and showed how driving performance deteriates when teh driver is distracted by using mobile phones.

They tested by getting the drivers to go around an obsticle course with a driving instructor. they found their test subjects made the same number of 'errors' as when they were 0.08 (california's limit), not 0.05.

i'm sure 99% of errors dont cause anything, but it's that 1% that kills you.

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by flappist

As we all know (because we have been told over and over again on TV) talking on a mobile phone while driving is extremely dangerous.

Have we been scammed yet again by the politically correct nanny agenda?

Originally Posted by flappist

Fair enough, hey why don't I just make a phone call while I am in the circuit or on finals Oh sorry, done it lots of times.....

Well Flappist, it seems to me that every time I take a domestic flight somewhere, they are most insistent that we switch our mobile phones off before departure and then not to reactivate them until we are well inside the terminal (something to do with messing with the instruments or something), yet you have proven that this is not a problem or a hazard by performing this task in a circuit or on a final.
Have we been double scammed???

Bud Bud.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by DASH GT

So are handsfree kits legal or illegal?? Thats the big question we are faced with now.

Illegal for Red P platers here in Vic.

[WMD351]

Having a ciggie, swigging from a can (of non alcoholic beverage), adjusting the volume of the car stereo (provided you're familiar with the controls), these are things that I would class as being something you can do subconsciously, and as a result I don't think they really occupy your cognitive function all that much.
Unless you're just saying "yes dear yes dear yes dear" while the missus is going on about something, I don't think it's really possible to have a subconscious conversation with someone.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

Well Flappist, it seems to me that every time I take a domestic flight somewhere, they are most insistent that we switch our mobile phones off before departure and then not to reactivate them until we are well inside the terminal (something to do with messing with the instruments or something), yet you have proven that this is not a problem or a hazard by performing this task in a circuit or on a final.
Have we been double scammed???

Bud Bud.

It was shown that some aircraft (we are talking computer controlled aircraft) are not 100% sheilded against a mobiles microwave interfearance.
Hold your mobile next to a TV or your computer and you can see and hear what it does when a call comes in or when its scanning for a cell tower.

A small light aircraft or any old aircraft which lacks computers with "steam driven" dials isnt affected.

Its been shown time and again in the past that people using a mobile phone in flight have caused uncommanded autopilot responses....

Back to the thread....

[ThaFlash]

i aint a psychiatrist but i'm pretty sure you can be alert subconsiously and react accordingly, that is what i was getting at.

what springs to mind is the banning of subliminal messages on tv and at theatres that actually target your subconsious to make you buy products.

lot of weird stuff out there and in closing, one for the metaphysicians.....

whose to say the accident wouldn't have happend anyway, whether your were on your phone or not, who made the person you hit, leave their house that day and make them be right there at the time of impact, not sure a mobile phone call while diving can do that.....

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

Well Flappist, it seems to me that every time I take a domestic flight somewhere, they are most insistent that we switch our mobile phones off before departure and then not to reactivate them until we are well inside the terminal (something to do with messing with the instruments or something), yet you have proven that this is not a problem or a hazard by performing this task in a circuit or on a final.
Have we been double scammed???

Bud Bud.

That is a comany regulation not a law and many other carriers outside Australia don't care.

In saying this the playstions with wings (scarebusses) have lots of wierd little computers that can and often do have little dummy spits so I would not use anything electronic on one.

In saying that all the junk I fly does not have computers in any of the control systems (think of XY Falcon with wings) so it does not matter.

Just for the record I very seldom used a phone in the circuit if there was network coverage on the ground, unfortunately once you leave the coast phone coverage is very scattered.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by flappist

That is a comany regulation not a law and many other carriers outside Australia don't care.

In saying this the playstions with wings (scarebusses) have lots of wierd little computers that can and often do have little dummy spits so I would not use anything electronic on one.

In saying that all the junk I fly does not have computers in any of the control systems (think of XY Falcon with wings) so it does not matter.

Just for the record I very seldom used a phone in the circuit if there was network coverage on the ground, unfortunately once you leave the coast phone coverage is very scattered.

I thought phone coverage would be pretty good up in the sky because you'd have line of sight to all the towers?

[tyson_8238]

i love peoples reactions when they see police when there on a mobile lol classic! smack 300 dollar fine

[JC]

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

Well Flappist, it seems to me that every time I take a domestic flight somewhere, they are most insistent that we switch our mobile phones off before departure and then not to reactivate them until we are well inside the terminal (something to do with messing with the instruments or something), yet you have proven that this is not a problem or a hazard by performing this task in a circuit or on a final.
Have we been double scammed???

Bud Bud.

I once left my mobile on (by accident) for an entire flight. Flight was from Canberra to Melbourne, and I thought it starnge when we landed in Peru. OK, the Peru bit is a lie, we landed in Melbourne, and it was only when I retrieved my phone to turn it on that I relaised it was never off. It does not affect anything navigational (a bit like the Y2K bug, I think), but imagine if they allowed them to be on - how annoying would it be with all these people all having different conversations.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by JC

I once left my mobile on (by accident) for an entire flight. Flight was from Canberra to Melbourne, and I thought it starnge when we landed in Peru. OK, the Peru bit is a lie, we landed in Melbourne, and it was only when I retrieved my phone to turn it on that I relaised it was never off. It does not affect anything navigational (a bit like the Y2K bug, I think), but imagine if they allowed them to be on - how annoying would it be with all these people all having different conversations.

Actually there is a potential for it effect electronic equipment. New planes now screen this stuff out. Its older planes that the potential is there for it to interfere with electronic equipment. The plane isn't gonna fall out of the sky.

If you want BS the do not make calls at a petrol station thing is the one that makes laugh.

[Ben73]

Emergency services get away with everything. Yesterday saw a cop car do a u turn illegally. The proceed to do a burnout halfway up the road. Some may say that's ok because he was train with special driving courses, but when a racing car driver does z burnout on a public road they get in trouble and told they could of crashed. Pretty sure racing drivers are more skilled drivers then police

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by JC

I once left my mobile on (by accident) for an entire flight. Flight was from Canberra to Melbourne, and I thought it starnge when we landed in Peru. OK, the Peru bit is a lie, we landed in Melbourne, and it was only when I retrieved my phone to turn it on that I relaised it was never off. It does not affect anything navigational (a bit like the Y2K bug, I think), but imagine if they allowed them to be on - how annoying would it be with all these people all having different conversations.

As far Im aware, it has to do with potential problems from many phones. Or something like that.

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I thought phone coverage would be pretty good up in the sky because you'd have line of sight to all the towers?

but mobile phone towers don't look up. Digital phones use timing to decide which tower is the closest, if you are too far from the nearest tower, you don't get a signal at all. (this is what nextG overcomes). i found you loose signal pretty quickly in a plane, mostly because the fusalage has very high attenuation (ie blocks a lot of signal).

Originally Posted by fmc351

As far Im aware, it has to do with potential problems from many phones. Or something like that.

correct, also, no one wanted to pay to test the equipment to make sure.

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by flappist

(think of XY Falcon with wings)

flying falcon?

[Brent]

Personally I think that there's a single act that's more dangerous than a thousand mobiles in a car..........taking home some takeaway Indian or Thia food. Hell, when I've got a container of beef randang perched on top of a container of chicken tikka which is then precariously balanced on top of a container of steamed rice, I'm not swerving or stopping for anyone!!!

[MAD]

I'll see your Thai and raise you a couple of jumbo size 7-11 slurpees held in the passenger front seat by the seat belt (and my hand when cornering).

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Emergency services get away with everything. Yesterday saw a cop car do a u turn illegally. The proceed to do a burnout halfway up the road. Some may say that's ok because he was train with special driving courses, but when a racing car driver does z burnout on a public road they get in trouble and told they could of crashed. Pretty sure racing drivers are more skilled drivers then police

Two questions for you.

If his district duty officer had seen him do a burnout as you describe, do you really think he would get away with it?

If you caught him doing said burnout on camera and sent it to the his commissioner, do you think he would get away with it?

The U turn he can get away with if there was an operational need to do such a move, the burnout as you describe I can assure you they do not get away with. Just because you saw it and none of his bosses did, does not mean he legally gets away with it, it just means he was not caught. Just like when you do a burnout and are not seen by the cops, you get away with it too.

[Jack91]

Having a conversation over a UHF takes far more concentration with a phone, you can hardly hear the guy on the other end and have to try and decipher what is being said. Surprised they havent banned them yet.

[tyson_8238]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Two questions for you.

If his district duty officer had seen him do a burnout as you describe, do you really think he would get away with it?

If you caught him doing said burnout on camera and sent it to the his commissioner, do you think he would get away with it?

The U turn he can get away with if there was an operational need to do such a move, the burnout as you describe I can assure you they do not get away with. Just because you saw it and none of his bosses did, does not mean he legally gets away with it, it just means he was not caught. Just like when you do a burnout and are not seen by the cops, you get away with it too.

So true

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Two questions for you.

If his district duty officer had seen him do a burnout as you describe, do you really think he would get away with it?

If you caught him doing said burnout on camera and sent it to the his commissioner, do you think he would get away with it?

The U turn he can get away with if there was an operational need to do such a move, the burnout as you describe I can assure you they do not get away with. Just because you saw it and none of his bosses did, does not mean he legally gets away with it, it just means he was not caught. Just like when you do a burnout and are not seen by the cops, you get away with it too.

Well I guess that is true.

But I don't burnouts anyway, my car can physically not do them. Even in the wet under full acceleration up a hill!
I need a new car.

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by flappist

As we all know (because we have been told over and over again on TV) talking on a mobile phone while driving is extremely dangerous.

But WHY is it dangerous?

Because you do not have both hands on the steering wheel?

Well how come drivers of manuals do not crash every 5 seconds?
Or drivers who operate any of the other 40 bazillion gadgets in modern cars?

Because you are not primarily concentrating on driving?

Well how different is that to 100dB of doof doof or having a car full of peers or children?

And of course as soon as you put on an emergency services shirt you are instantly safe talking on a phone even though in many cases you are actually concentrating of your two way radio, things happening outside in all directions and other events within your vehicle.

Apparently as long as the ACTUAL phone is not touching you it is safe.

To quote the altitudinally challenged Westralian........WOT THA?

Now I see there are several ads on TV for new bubble cars showing operating a phone while driving that must be perfectly safe because it is on TV despite one ad showing a girl looking every direction except at the road and the other showing the phone control being operated by hand.

So what is the truth?

Have we been scammed yet again by the politically correct nanny agenda?

Or is this just a secret plan to kill off bubble car drivers......

Having a conversation requires thought unlike listening to music.

I agree with ya, but they're not the same, a phone is the most distracting thing depending on the person. most people just don't care about the road and direct all their attention to the conversation. I can do it fine and sure most others can, but you have mums in 4WD's doing literally 20 in a 50 zone because they're incapable of multitasking. The only people I see who drive unbearable slow (more than half the speed limit) are ALWAYS on phones.

Should just have R plates for retarded drivers so everyone knows to keep their distance, then it would work!

[flappist]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

Having a conversation requires thought unlike listening to music.

I agree with ya, but they're not the same, a phone is the most distracting thing depending on the person. most people just don't care about the road and direct all their attention to the conversation. I can do it fine and sure most others can, but you have mums in 4WD's doing literally 20 in a 50 zone because they're incapable of multitasking. The only people I see who drive unbearable slow (more than half the speed limit) are ALWAYS on phones.

Should just have R plates for retarded drivers so everyone knows to keep their distance, then it would work!

I though that was what a bowtie badge was for......

[aualright]

I am often hands free on the phone for work when driving and I believe it does distract me from driving on some occasions, especially when you have to answer a doozy of a question. It is similar to having my screaming kids in the car, but I can block that out :-) .

Having said that, one time I have pulled over on a side street in a nice residential area to talk and a police car pulled up behind me, got out and questioned what I was doing. They profiled me because my car is an AU XR8 and I guess they figured I was a bit suss. When I completed the call they proceeded to follow me for a while.

Wonder if they would have done the same thing if I was in my wife's Volvo?

Try to do the right thing and...