Hi all
In NSW, during double demerit points, driver can lose 10 demerit points.
With only 13 points at max, losing 10 point isn’t bit too much where driver has to wait for 3 years to earn points back?
With all latest safety features and safer cars (+ traffic forcing cars to go slow), what do you think?
But the lights turned red at the last minute, and I successfully stopped. I had to tweet about it urgently.
I saw a person using a mobile phone while driving, so I had to tweet about it.
I'm glad you did. What would we do without twitter and smartphones?!
It is extremely easy because you are already allowed to make phone calls, play music and navigate using your mobile whilst you are driving as long as it's in a phone holder not obscuring your view (and you have a full license). This should cover all your needs during driving.
The only things you're not allowed to do are browse the internet, play games, watch videos and text away, all of which are dangerous things that require severe attention draws away from driving.
In WA, you aren't even allowed to hold the phone full stop, even if it is to glance at the time.
In NSW, during double demerit points, driver can loose 10 demerit points.
Motorists in New South Wales starts with zero demerit points. They're then given points for performing different driving tasks.
More points the better. It helps to ease traffic congestion.
More points means best petrol savings, pay much less at the bowser.
The number of people who don't know the difference between Lose and Loose, very poor
The one that pisses me off the most is the then and than.
Not to sound racist, but I've noticed that anglo-aussies seem to make that mistake more than others. I have to say that I feel confused sometimes because english isn't their second language or anything and I remember being taught the difference in primary school.
@bobbified: Wow that's funny, because I find it's mostly Arab-Australians that confuse 'then' and 'than' and it always annoyed me, even those whose first language is English.
Oh and another thing, 'English' should always have a capital 'E'. What are you, an 'anglo-aussie'? :)
I find it's mostly Arab-Australians
I think I'm a little biased and notice it in anglo-aussies more because I have this expectation that people are at least proficient in their first language (especially if that's the only they know). I'm probably subconsciously more forgiving when it comes to people of other backgrounds.
What are you, an 'anglo-aussie'? :)
I'm actually yellow! hahaha
Effect and Affect too!
There, their, they're… Nothing to get all worked up about…
Do you think the economic impact of less traffic congestion is more positive than the economic impact of enough cars to have an impact on traffic congestion being unable to use their car as a form of transport?
Did you think this through, or is the air too thin up on your horse?
It's simple…
+1
Thanks for the PSSA jv
When they do this in Melbourne, public transport users is going to Sky rocket…
It's already 4 points here. So 8 during double demerit point season. Not far off.
Victoria doesn't have double Demerits.
Yes, it does
@idonotknowwhy: Actually champ, it does not:
https://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/story/5139855/do-we-hav…
@idonotknowwhy: No it doesn't, Although most people seem to think we do. I thought so up until last year too!
I'm sure i've seen it advertised, usually around Easter or Xmas
@bmerigan: Yeah I've had the understanding that Vic has double around Easter and Xmas also… like radio ads and TV…
I just asked a couple of Colleagues, we were all under the same understanding that Victoria does… and that there are TV Adverts run at the times, possibly because people head away to Echuca, over into NSW they're being shown?
Well learnt something new today… Vic does not!
https://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/story/5139855/do-we-hav…
Victoria has never had double demerits
Hmmmmm. Unrelated but, same author, same article, same photo, same everything:
Your link:
https://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/story/5139855/do-we-hav…
https://www.thecourier.com.au/story/5140098/do-we-have-doubl…
https://www.bordermail.com.au/story/4374072/victorian-myths-…
This is lazy (profanity) reporting and I'm immediately writing all three news sources off as pushing some sort of agenda without cross referencing it with another site.
LOL. Publishers do this all the time. e.g. All Fairfax papers will carry the exact same story. If you own multiple papers why would you keep rewriting it? Did you think there are independent papers?
@Wardaddy: Nah, but they don't make it obvious that they're owned by the same company.
Kind of like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo
They should take the licence off anyone caught using a phone illegally while driving, no excuses accepted.
As someone who was run off the road by an idiot using their phone and not watching where they were going the sooner these idiots are off the road the better.
Use Bluetooth or buy a hands free kit for a few dollars or if it's important pull off the road and then use your phone.
Lucky i drive without a license
I choke on my honey tea lol
Better still, don't use the phone at all while driving (hands free or not). It's just too distracting.
Yeah, and while we're at it, don't have a conversation with your passenger either!
[note: totally against using mobile phones, but not using hands-free is silly. So many other distractions that are equally as distracting (don't change radio station, don't sing along to songs, hell, don't listen to anything except the sound of the traffic!).]
Unfortunately that's not quite true. I'm not an expert on the matter but I've seen studies that show that phone use (including hands free) is more distracting than holding conversation with passengers. Passengers are more aware of the "current situation" and result in less distraction than when one party is unaware of the situation.
I won't pretend to know all the reasons why, but studies show that phone use is amongst the most distracting.
I have not read past the title (just dropping a link that look to suggest the same): https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161213093104.h…
@iDroid: Yeah, that's predicated on the passenger being aware of the situation though…
I get it though. I guess it's where you draw the line of 'dangerously distracted'.
@NigelTufnel: The studies suggest that on average the passengers are more aware of the situation. No result will be true for all instances (like any study on human behaviour and interaction), but averages work to tell the bigger picture and remove outliers.
I drive hands free…
We don't want to know how you steer!
@Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead: Do you bend over and pick up the pieces if you drop something? Always a good way to play peek-a-boo with the cars around you.
Or failing to indicate!
That's why you pay the BMW Tax
Agreed, I only use my mobile when doing 100KPH and chomping on a chicken supper.
LOL, some people don't get humour. :)
Who said I was joking;)
Indeed. :)
That's not a joke, heaps of people do this. Far more efficient if you're one of the top 1% of safe drivers who are incapable of getting into accidents because you know how to keep a 3 second gap. Easy to do on the highway (long straightish roads), easy to do in the city (lots of red lights).
It's called a deterrent, I am glad 10 points is scary enough for people to take this seriously.
Should be treated the same as drunk driving.
Unfortunately 0 bac is unfeasible. People would be constantly blowing over for having some small amount in food, etc. 0.05 is the level assessed to mean no impairment to driving below this. I think this is fine, and the messaging has been clear for a long time now: don't drink if you intend to drive.
I was taught this at school by visiting Police Officers. They even said you could go over 0.00 just from standing in a pub. That was their justification for the 0.02 bac for P-Platers. We were told we were not allowed to drink at all. The 0.02 was just a tolerance for food, hangovers, etc.
As a 21 year old after three years on P-plates, I was 1 month off getting my full licence, when I got caught in the early morning after a big night with a BAC of 0.035.
It was a hard lesson, I lost my licence for 6 months, had to restart my Green P's (2 more years), pay a $700 fine and complete an extensive Drink Driving course (10 x 1 hour).
But in hindsight it was probably the best thing that could have happened. It was a lot better then killing myself or worse, taking an innocent life.
These days I have a 0.00 restriction on my new motorcycle licence (for first 3 years), which I'm fine with. I personally believe the limit should be 0.02 for all drivers.
Alcohol is the worst possible drug to drive on:
"The data show just how dangerous it is to drive while drunk: The risk of crashing while driving with a blood-alcohol concentration of .05 or above is about seven times higher than the risk of crashing while sober. The likelihood of getting into an accident while using some other substances — including marijuana, antidepressants, opiates, sedatives and stimulants — is statistically not significantly higher than driving while sober, after adjusting for various demographic factors." Source
I prefer to be drunk when an idiot in a car pulls straight out in front of you when your doing 80,I find it numbs the pain lots more when they have to plate your Collarbone & Sternum back together!
@Micko179: pretty sure you're more likely to be held responsible for the whole thing, or die, if you're drunk at the time lol
I got caught in the early morning after a big night with a BAC of 0.035
Hardly a big night out, or your alcohol absorption capability is not good: 0.001 per hour, with a sleep of 6 hours ( early morning ),
puts you at 0.095 when you went to sleep.
I learned at the drink driving course that everyone is different and there is no easy way to calculate your level of intoxication.
For example your calculation doesn't take account various factors that determine how different people's bodies process alcohol:
- Age
- How fast alcohol is consumed
- Ethnicity
- Body fat content
- How much food was consumed
- Fat content of food consumed
- Medications
Plus a "big night out" doesn't mean I only had alcohol ;)
Plus a "big night out" doesn't mean I only had alcohol ;)
The stuff I have sobers me up pretty quickly (seems to anyway!)
Why?
Well this thread seems to have such a hard line stance on mobile phone use, yet everybody is against a hard line stance on alcohol consumption. I'm just highlighting the retarded thinking of people on here. Allowing alcohol consumption to a certain threshold while driving is like allowing mobile phone use in 5 second increments before you legally have to look back at the road.
Well using a phone while driving is shown to be more dangerous than a drunk driver.
Being under 0.05 is considered to have zero impact to someone's driving ability, hence why noone cares too much. If someone is over that and it does impact driving they lose their license straight away unlike mobile phone use where you might be able to keep your license.
Compare apples with apples.
Being under 0.05 is considered to have zero impact to someone's driving ability
This is based on what? not what the alcohol and drug foundation say?
https://adf.org.au/insights/blood-alcohol-levels/
Compare apples with apples.
Mobile phone use is temporary, whilst a study may prove it is just as dangerous, it is only dangerous for the split second somebody focuses on the phone while driving. Alcohol induced driving is permanent while the driver is under influence. Compare apples with apples.
Yeah people dont get it but you wont fix the phone issue by doing a blanket ban on it, it is part of progress and the younger the generation the more it is used and even needed. I know a lot of tradies and other industries that require the use of the phone pretty much all the time while they are on the go.
The problem is the blanket ban has pretty much made people who use the phone to use it whenever they want since its the same penalty no matter what the situation is.
They need to come up with other ways like hands free , voice activated / directed , as well as integrating it into car systems etc. which are all being done albeit slowly. I think if they had made it so its illegal while the car is in motion in any way but if it is at a complete standstill then it wasnt illegal, you would find a change in the way people use it. While it is not ideal perhaps it is still better than having people use it while the car is in motion because thats when the real danger is.
Sometimes you cant stop things or make casualties into 0% but you can vastly improve the odds by not being anal about it. The people making these laws probably dont identify with the people who may require it for work or the younger generations who use it and it is a part of their lives. IT would be like someone born in the era where cars really werent around saying well lets not have cars on the road because they kill people.
Sure its not the best comparison but just trying to say that sometimes what you should do is try to make reduce the damage dramatically than thinking you can completely stop it altogether. Right now since people feel the penalty is the same and they feel they need to use it or touch it at some point then they do it regardless of if the car is in motion or not.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2077-cellphones-worse…
Thats just talking on your phone makes you worse than a drunk driver.
https://www.techtimes.com/articles/8185/20140609/texting-is-…
Texting however makes you significantly worse than a drunk driver. The reason is simple people aren't looking at the road. Also what does it matter that it is while it is occuring? People are only drunk while they are drunk it's temporary should they be excluded? Skipping red lights is only momentary as well should we ignore that because it doesn't always happen as well? I suppose murderers don't murder all the time as well.
The laws are there and it has been identified that texting and driving is extremely risky behaviour so they are penalising in a way that is a huge deterrent.
As for the BAC under 0.05 doesn't have any significant impact on driving ability, I was wrong to say zero impact.
Coming from a country where this is the case (0% alc), I can tell you it makes no difference. I much prefer how it is here (I do not drive, I have <300 km driven in AU in 6 years). That being said… put the (profanity) phone down as it is the same as driving drunk. Look at all the lemmings on the street that bump into other lemmings because they cannot take their eyes off the phone.
Yep. No sympathy here.
Whatever you need to do on your phone is not more important than the safety of myself and my friends/family.
Inattention, of the major issues contributing to the ability to operate a motor vehicle effectively, is the biggest cause of road trauma. Distracted, drunk, tired. This is what kills people on our roads.
With all latest safety features and safer cars
Like hands free Bluetooth, so what's the excuse?
I surprised no one has ranted about "revenue raising" yet.
I surprised no one has ranted about "revenue raising" yet.
It's too early. The bogans haven't gotten out of bed yet. Give it a few more hours till they wake up…
No. Revenue raising was when they dropped the minimum amount of demerits for a small infraction from 3 points to 1 point while fibres remained the same amount of money, meaning that they could fine you many more times before your licence was suspended.
Any increase in demerit points means less revenue for the government.
would it be fairly reasonable if someone ran your mother over and killed her.
This.
In this instance, I'm not at all concerned about the inconvenience to you of losing 10 points.
The real risks & the severity of the potential outcomes are all that matters.
5 points during normal periods - and by extension 10 during double demerits when the risks are exacerbated - IMHO are entirely reasonable.
Phones require an inordinate amount of attention to operate - especially given that recent generations of smartphones come with no physical buttons for even basic function - so using a smartphone while driving is akin to driving whilst blindfolded.
So, go and live in QLD?
No one is stopping you.
NuclearWessels
Location
Brisbane
Uhh… I think they do, hence why they're bringing it up as an example.
I watched a girl come about 1cm from rear ending a truck when looking down towards her mobile phone. She gave herself the fright of her life. The irony is, judging by the amount of people you see using their phones here in Melbourne, she's probably still doing it. You even see massive semi truck drivers using their phone on a daily basis. It's not rare, it's everywhere. If you are caught it should be instant loss of licence for a month, and your car towed. I figure that would be the only deterrent.
Touche! I witnessed a Muppet doing 70 looking down at her phone texting she was I a lane which becomes right turn only & I was in a straight ahead one d was on my horn(admittedly Camry forklift horn) shaking my head at her & she was oblivious to the car stopped in front of her at the lights. She slammed into the back of this poor old couple at 70 & pushed them about 30 metres up the road, unfortunately she was UNINJURED & the dear old couple were! I reckon the cops would make a killing with cameras on poles out the front of my house, every second dipsh!t is on their phones! I've had 2 cars written off by them running up my arse!
90% of the time I get stuck behind a driver who has a large 100m gap between the next car infront of her, in peak hour on the freeway, it's a girl.
The ones I catch who don't make it super obvious, like leaving a huge gap and/or erratic driving, tend to be 50/50 split.
Actually a healthy gap helps with traffic.
Related articles
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lauriewinkless/2017/12/15/if-we…
https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/motoring/on-th…
I think the original study was "Coping with congestion: Understanding the gap between policy assumptions and behavior" in 1996 if you wanted a more academic reading.
Why are the driver's demographics relevant?
I don't really need to read any papers to know a gap can help with traffic. It's like a buffer between the erratic driver infront. But leaving a 20m/5second gap, when everyone is doing 60 and they're doing 40, like I occassionally see (my 100m is exaggeration), it doesn't help traffic one bit because people are always going to tailgate no matter the speed especially during peak hour.
If a 100 cars did that, then that's already an extra 500s to peakhour commute.
I remember when I was getting my Ls, the book had a graph and pointed out a particular driving style which encouraged smooth driving and less hard braking.
Everything about this kind of traffic can be modelled with a PID control function, and these slow people who leave huge gaps add unnecessary amount of damping to the system. Tailgating adds responsiveness. I don't know where you live but there are traffic lights on the onramp where I live, and that prevents massive step-changes to the traffic, which lowers overall speed.
The articles dont describe any of this and I suspect it's because the general public don't understand this simple math concept, and doesn't make for an interesting read.
The demographics aren't relevant but it doesn't help with breaking down the stereotype of women drivers.
Those safety features are great and all, but they don't really help the pedestrian you hit going 60km per hour.
losing 10 points is sfa compared to dealing with the guilt of killing someone (maybe even yourself although). Stay off your phone.
lose your license instantly would be a harsh but good wake up call.
I don't think many people would drive with guilt after killing themselves.
Don't use a mobile phone when driving. It's not hard.