QLD Fines for for Mobile Phone Usage While Driving Is Going up to $1000

SlavOz on 28/11/2019 - 21:29
Last edited 29/11/2019 - 14:20 by 1 other user

Fining drivers for mobile phone use has become the government's #yolo

It's turned into such a massive fad that's its been dominating the talk shows with constant new warnings of harsher penalties. Apparently in QLD the fine is going up to $1000!

In NSW, the fine is just just over half of that with a 5 demerit point loss. Plus, they're bringing in cameras in December to monitor for it. It feels like a matter of time until they bring back the death penalty for mobile phone use. How much harsher can penalties get?

I've never been done for mobile phone use because I don't use my phone while driving, although I'm shocked to learn that just having the screen on with the phone in the passenger seat is illegal. So if you leave your phone anywhere within your direct line of sight in the car, and you suddenly get a notification which turns on your screen, you've suddenly broken the law.

The tagine used to be "Get your hands off it!", pointing to the fact that merely touching your phone while in the car was a crime. Now just looking at it or receiving a notification is the standard. Pretty soon just having the phone in the car at all will be the new rule. Its becoming a farce, mainly because we already know that fines are not the most effective detterent of bad behaviour.

Automotive

Comments

  • loulou1 on 28/11/2019 - 21:42
    +23

    Studies show that driving a vehicle while operating a mobile phone is similar to driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Fines for drink driving are still higher. First time offence between 0.5 and 0.9 can yield a fine of $1,593.90 in QLD.
    Easiest way to avoid the fine is to put your phone in glove box or handbag so that notifications etc do not distract you and don’t cause you to receive a fine.

    • Mokr on 01/12/2019 - 21:48
      +1

      I can touch a button on my dash to change the radio station. If I touch my mobile phone to pick up a call and its mounted on the dash I am given a 1k fine.

  • theHMASfriendship on 28/11/2019 - 21:44
    +12

    Pretty soon we'll have the death penalty for mobile phones use

    I disagree.

    Capital punishment isn't likely to be legalised in Australia anytime soon.

    • WreckTangle on 28/11/2019 - 21:54
      +1

      Agreed, but it might be time to review. Maybe not for phone use though!

    • kahn on 28/11/2019 - 21:55
      +6

      Only because it would count towards the road death toll.

    • Seraphin7 on 28/11/2019 - 22:19
      +1

      Capital punishment isn't likely to be legalised in Australia anytime soon.

      And ain't that a shame.

      • theHMASfriendship on 29/11/2019 - 07:56

        Why?

        • SlavOz on 29/11/2019 - 08:44
          -1

          Given that governments are so susceptible to corruption, delusion, error, or injustice, trusting them to determine what is and isn't a capital punishment offense is never a good idea. Source: WWII

          • theHMASfriendship on 29/11/2019 - 09:18

            @SlavOz: So you're equating a decision to increase fines for mobile phone use while driving with the decisions made by the German government leading up to the holocaust?

  • FXx on 28/11/2019 - 21:49
    +22

    Victoria - "A fully licensed driver can use a phone to make or receive a phone call, to use its audio/music functions or perform a navigational (GPS) or intelligent highway vehicle system (in vehicle warning system) function but only if the phone:

    • is secured in a commercially designed holder fixed to the vehicle, or
    • can be operated by the driver without touching any part of the phone, and the phone is not resting on any part of the driver's body."

    You can't be fined for just looking at it, nice drama though. If you do need to look at it / are distracted by it, mount it on the dash or pull over!

    You've put together such a dramatic post with no real point or alternative solution. The fact of the matter is, more people need to be fined, not the penalty made harsher (though this shouldn't bother anyone who doesn't break the law). I still see idiots using their phones daily when I'm on the road, how do you think your attitude would be if someone you loved was killed by a distracted mobile user? Yes, exactly!!

    BTW, I think we all know you've been busted, otherwise you wouldn't be so frustrated by this. ;-)

    • Meeb on 28/11/2019 - 22:11
      +10

      I agree, OP was a tad melodramatic. Definitely must have got done for it recently.

      • pegaxs on 29/11/2019 - 08:15
        +2

        There isn’t much else to do in an automatic Mustang when your travelling under 4000rpm…

    • spackbace on 28/11/2019 - 23:56
      +4

      You've put together such a dramatic post with no real point or alternative solution.

      You just need to see OP's post history to know you just described him to a 'T'.

      • SlavOz on 29/11/2019 - 08:45
        -8

        Plenty of alternative solutions offered. Try reading.

  • CaptainHoltisDad on 28/11/2019 - 21:55
    +1

    Could you point towards where you found out that receiving a notification is a crime in NSW? It seems like you have over-dramatised most of the issue here. If the screen is on and it's in the passenger seat then any officer who pulls you over can fairly safely assume you were using it and chucked it aside (if it's been unlocked that is). I have read that you are permitted to touch your phone in order to hand it to a passenger.

    In my opinion, anyone who uses their phone while their car is moving is simply an idiot and deserves a large fine. I argue whether as large a fine should be given to those who use their phones while stationary (e.g. at red lights) but it should still be punished to deter such behaviour.

    • fossilfuel on 28/11/2019 - 23:17

      I argue whether as large a fine should be given to those who use their phones while stationary (e.g. at red lights) but it should still be punished to deter such behaviour.

      IMO it should stay as a large fine or a larger fine as so many people
      currently do this. Any idiot on the phone could accidentally release their foot from the brake pedal and rear end someone, collide with a pedestrian crossing in front of their car or run a red light onto incoming traffic perpendicular to them if they're at the front of the line. They also obstruct traffic by not moving when the light turns green for a good 3-5 seconds because they're fixated on their phones.

      I find it unreasonable in NSW that you need to have the phone in a cradle but a magnetic mount is not allowed - both serve the same function. Also unreasonable that you're not allowed to use the phone when you've pulled over to the side, put the hand brake on but kept the engine running - no different to parking and handy if you need to change your route on google maps etc.

    • singingwolf on 29/11/2019 - 09:20

      In NSW, it is true that if your phone is say in your drink holder and the maps are on, you will be booked. I don't think it applies to just being lit up.

      • pegaxs on 29/11/2019 - 10:16

        A "drinks holder" is not a phone holder that is secured to the vehicle. (Aust. road rule: 300)

        In NSW, it is true that if your phone is say in your drink holder and the maps are on, you will be booked.

        It seems that the guy from this post may be better equipped to answer that for you. But, I would say "yes".

  • GUYANDSON on 28/11/2019 - 21:56
    +1

    I'm all for the fines, just not where they go. We are already way too lenient as a country on driving given most people seem to not understand that they are driving >1 ton metal boxes and that our road systems are designed to be driven in certain ways.

    Money should be going to education programs, driver education is very pitiful while applying for a license and non-existent after you do get one. If you're lucky enough, you may be part of a school or a business that sponsors a hazardous driving training course. At the moment habits simply get passed on, both the good and the bad. Or people learn for themselves, also the good and the bad.

    Just preying on a poorly educated public as it is.

    • gyrex on 29/11/2019 - 14:19
      +1

      The fines already go to state and federal treasuries where that money is spent on education, policing, roads, health and a raft of other expenditures the state and federal governments already spent money on. This ridiculous misnomer which is often touted by ignorant people that the money goes into police coffers is absolutely asinine.

  • Hybroid on 28/11/2019 - 21:56
    +7

    Fining drivers for mobile phone use has become the government's next step to trying to fix the epidemic on the roads today.

    FTFY. Yet another SlavOz troll provocation post.

    • Meeb on 28/11/2019 - 22:12

      Yep it’s clear bait at this point.

  • TheMindsetTraveller on 28/11/2019 - 22:08
    -2

    I really can't wait for fully autonomous driving.

    Driving has become dull and boring, you spend 90% worrying what the speed limits are because they change every two meters and also depending on the time of day.

    • Meeb on 28/11/2019 - 22:15
      +8

      Dull and boring? Far from it. It’s more of a gauntlet now. Avoiding all the idiots and getting home without almost having someone hit you because of poor driving skills and lack of attention/care for others on the road seems to be the norm in Melbourne at least.

      I agree though, bring on fully autonomous cars ASAP so I can nap during my commute.

    • core101 on 29/11/2019 - 01:51
      +1

      Tomorrows problem could be that government mandate fully autonomous vehicle be connected to the control grid, and the owners be charged per/km, variable zone rates, be monitored and fined for anti-social behavior, etc.

      • Meeb on 29/11/2019 - 07:35
        +1

        Good.

  • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2019 - 22:20
    +4

    It's going to be another one of those laws where generally law abiding citizens with poor judgement are going to shit themselves when they're caught and probably cop the full weight of the law, and delinquents will probably be let off because we don't want to "hurt their employment prospects"… or something to that effect.

  • jjjaar on 28/11/2019 - 22:22
    +14

    You. Are. Driving. A. Death. Machine.

    If any driver loses focus for one second, they can cause death.

    We go on and on about guns in America being dangerous and how many people are killed by guns, but not enough focus is put on how many people are being killed on our roads.

    The word “accident” is disgusting too, they’re not accidents when they’re preventable and result in death. They’re people not paying enough attention. This year we have seen a spike in deaths relating to cars, so for me any action against this is good.

    I work in road safety. I see all of the detailed information. I see how many innocent people are unnecessarily killed on our roads, with many of the crashes avoidable if someone was just watching a little bit more closely or wasn’t trying to beat everyone else. Someone had to get there quickly so now someone else won’t be coming home ever again.

    *note the “you” in the first line isn’t directed at OP, but rather the collective “you” for anyone who gets behind a wheel.

    • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2019 - 22:28
      -8

      Seriously, by that logic there shouldn't be a tachometer in front of the steering wheel because that would cause drivers to be distracted.

      No one is "for" driving while distracted but making the penalty $10,000 and a decade in jail isn't the solution. It will just create a big far incentive for bribery and other criminal activity.

      On one hand the country wants to give victim status to idiots that don't insure their homes and/or voluntarily put themselves in debt but we pretend it's some sanctimonious achievement to push draconian punishment.

      If someone gets into an "accident", punish them harshly for the accident. Here, we have practically no interest in collisions. No police investigations, it is a civil matter. I don't care why someone crashed. It is cause and effect. Punish the idiots that are crashing, not find ways to create risk groups and scare the shit out of people.

      • jjjaar on 28/11/2019 - 22:32

        That is a completely different thing, and you know that.

        One is part of the driving process, and the other fills your brain with completely new information, preventing you from focusing on driving.

        If you honestly get distracted by that then please hand in your keys now, for the sake of everyone else around you.

        Punishing them after the accident is ridiculously reactive and won’t bring back anyone who has been killed, and won’t help anyone that has been seriously injured and can’t function without constant care (the unspoken road toll).

        I agree the punishment for drivers who cause injury or death is not nearly strong enough, and don’t get me started on the fact they’re ever allowed to drive again, but we need to stop this from happening at all.

      • Meeb on 28/11/2019 - 22:35
        +2

        Fallacy of relative privation (also known as "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as") – dismissing an argument or complaint due to the existence of more important problems in the world, regardless of whether those problems bear relevance to the initial argument.

        • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2019 - 22:37
          -2

          You can point out one small part of the response and point out a definition. That's called cherry picking or taking something out of context. Maybe you can also Google the definition of those.

          • Meeb on 28/11/2019 - 22:38
            +1

            @[Deactivated]: You heavily edited your comment after the fact….

            • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2019 - 22:39
              -1

              @Meeb: You mean a small addition and I cannot "edit" comments minutes after your reply.

  • ChrisLevo on 28/11/2019 - 22:23
    +2

    Your paranoia must worry those close to you.

    My tagine (Le Crueset) loves me putting my hands on it.

  • gmail92 on 28/11/2019 - 22:29
    +8

    It's pretty obvious; if people are still willing to use their phones, the fines are not high enough to discourage them from using it. The higher the fine, the less likely people are willing to take a chance to use their phone.

    There was a story yesterday about a truck ploughing into a family car, instantly killing a 10 year old and potentially due to phone distraction.

    Either you just want to have a little whinge, or you're one of those who 'supposedly' dont use their phones.

    • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2019 - 22:35
      +1

      Shouldn't we also punish the daylights out of people who rear end others?

      Why should we care why the rear end happened? Is it any less dangerous if the driver is just a crap driver or if someone was distracted?

      • gmail92 on 28/11/2019 - 22:45

        It's likely the leading cause of rear end accidents; diverts attention considerably and has a relatively simple solution.
        People who use their phones whilst driving are likely to continue doing so as well, unlike the odd case on inattention or the bad driver actually trying to pay attention.

        Happy to hear your thoughts on a more effective strategy on reducing accidents on our roads.

        • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2019 - 22:48
          -1

          At fault drivers to be stripped if their license and their cars cubed (sometimes with the driver still inside).

          … or penalizing people who cause collisions more severely, and criminal charges against people who fail to stop after a collision or lie about circumstance of collision.

          Penalty as a deterrant must not be more significant than the actual collision.

        • SlavOz on 28/11/2019 - 23:00
          -1

          Really? There are tons of ways. Better driver education, a serious license system where we keep track of who was approved by which specific instructor or testing official, rewards for good driving, cost of rego should be based on individual driving record, the beat goes on.

          This is like thinking upping the price of cigarettes is more effective than actually banning them all together. It's not.

          • whooah1979 on 29/11/2019 - 04:58

            @SlavOz:

            a serious license system

            This sounds expensive. Will you be selling your house to pay for this?

            • SlavOz on 29/11/2019 - 08:51

              @whooah1979: Dude, Bosnia has a much more accountable and education-focused licensing system. No reason we can't afford it. I'm more than happy for my taxes to go towards something which will save endless lives. In fact, we have a moral obligation to be doing so.

              The fine revenue for a few years alone would cover it.

              • Ughhh on 29/11/2019 - 13:53

                @SlavOz: Do you honestly think that people using their phones while driving didn't know it is illegal and dangerous?

                • SlavOz on 29/11/2019 - 16:53

                  @Ughhh: Of course they do. They also know the fine is hefty. Which begs the question - why are they still doing it?

                • Ughhh on 29/11/2019 - 17:25

                  @Ughhh:

                  Which begs the question - why are they still doing it?

                  So you think an education-focused licensing system is going to stop them?
                  Because people are people, with individual perspectives on morals, ethics, importance, entitlement etc. Culture also has a big part in behaviour.

                  I'm more than happy for my taxes to go towards something which will save endless lives

                  No method is going to "save endless lives", unless you control every single little they do, or control their mind.

              • whooah1979 on 29/11/2019 - 16:30

                @SlavOz: Well I'm happy for the police to dish out more fines to irresponsible drivers so the state may have more funds to do other things.

          • gmail92 on 29/11/2019 - 21:31

            @SlavOz: None of those strategies are practical. Rewards for good driving is discounted license cost and is already implemented.

            Banning is just not practical or realistic. Increasing fines has the same impact on smoking as accidents; simple economics.

            https://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-13-taxation/13…

      • BobLim on 28/11/2019 - 22:52

        Shouldn't we also punish the daylights out of people who rear end others?

        Absolutely!

        • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2019 - 22:55

          Sadly, there isn't any nor are there plans for change.

          Though some people consider having to pay for damages "punishment". It's like a killer being told the guilt is "punishment" enough.

          • Ughhh on 30/11/2019 - 09:25

            @[Deactivated]:

            It's like a killer being told the guilt is "punishment" enough

            You'll pull a lot of things from your ass. Must be huge.

    • SlavOz on 28/11/2019 - 22:51
      -2

      The issue isn't with mobile phone fines. It's the comedy of errors that the system is susceptible to. I agree with the laws, but the way they are enforced is ineffective. Instead of stopping bad behaviour, we just make it illegal so we can get money every time someone does it.

      Fines like this only apply to the middle class of society. The mega poor have no money to lose anyway - the fine will go uncollected or just come out of their Centrelink payments (in others words, you and I are going to be paying for it). The mega rich have too much money for any fine to really mean anything, so the punishment doesn't deter their behaviour.

      • Ughhh on 28/11/2019 - 23:10
        +2

        Instead of stopping bad behaviour,

        How do you stop bad behaviour?

        Taking away license - doesn't physically stop people from driving.
        Education - we all know that when you do your Learners test, you exaggerate every move ie. moving whole head to check mirrors. As soon as you get the license, do you still move your whole head?
        Jail- seems a little harsh to put them in the same room as actual murderers. Jail can also make an ok person turn bad.
        How about a social credit system like China and forgo freedom? Knowing your crappy driving can prevent you from buying a house or travelling will probably make you behave.

        • fossilfuel on 28/11/2019 - 23:26

          How do you stop bad behaviour?

          Have mandatory dash cams? One fitted facing the front windscreen and another that captures the driver and passenger seat. They're relatively affordable nowadays and keeps drivers accountable. It'll cut down on all the time wasting to prove who's at fault.

          • Ughhh on 29/11/2019 - 13:41

            @fossilfuel: Will be dash camera be able to see the phone on the other drivers lap?

        • SlavOz on 28/11/2019 - 23:36

          Mobile phone jammers fitted to cars which make them inoperable while the car is in use, unless they're fitted to a dock.

          This sort of technology already exists in some form. Of course implementing it will take a while but its a step towards totally making it impossible to use a phone while driving.

          Then again, that's asking the government to spend a lot of money to develop something that will stop them from making a lot of money. Hmm, I wonder why they won't be doing it…

          • GG57 on 29/11/2019 - 12:44

            @SlavOz: That solution would also need to accommodate phones linking to the car entertainment system.

          • Ughhh on 29/11/2019 - 13:42
            +1

            @SlavOz: Will that jam GPS and Spotify too?

            Then again, that's asking the government to spend a lot of money to develop something that will stop them from making a lot of money. Hmm, I wonder why they won't be doing it…

            You would think if people don't want a fine or lose points, they wouldn't touch their phone. Perhaps people actually want to donate money, and if people want to give you money, then you (the police) might as well take.

            • SlavOz on 29/11/2019 - 16:51
              -2

              @Ughhh: Donations shouldn't be conflated with having money forcibly taken from you at gunpoint.

              • Ughhh on 29/11/2019 - 16:54
                +2

                @SlavOz:

                from you at gunpoint.

                Where is the gun point? Your wife on the phone who will nag you till death if you dont answer the phone (while driving)? The voices telling you to run that red light? Right…yeah you had no choice…

                • SlavOz on 29/11/2019 - 21:53

                  @Ughhh: We're talking about fines…if you don't pay the letter of demand, you'll get more and more warnings and court orders until the government forces their way into your bank account and takes it from you, or comes to your home with armed men to seize you or your property to settle the debt. That's gunpoint, not a donation.

                  • SydStrand on 29/11/2019 - 22:04

                    @SlavOz:

                    until the government forces their way into your bank account and takes it from you, or comes to your home with armed men to seize you or your property to settle the debt. That's gunpoint, not a donation.

                    WTF are you talking about? You went from driving fines to the death penalty (bit melodramatic, but okay). Now you're suggesting that these fines will only lead to people getting the Fallujah treatment for using their phone. Wow.

                    • SlavOz on 29/11/2019 - 23:45
                      -1

                      @SydStrand: How are you not following to this? Ughhh said people who use their phones while driving are basically donating their money to the police - my response is that fines (and the ways they are forcibly collected) are not comparable to donations.

                      • Ughhh on 30/11/2019 - 01:07

                        @SlavOz:

                        my response is that fines (and the ways they are forcibly collected) are not comparable to donations.

                        How about the reason for the fines? Are people held at "gunpoint" when they decided to take actions that result in a fine?

                        You're talking like if it's impossible to not get fined. I don't understand how this whooshes pass you.

                      • whooah1979 on 30/11/2019 - 06:14

                        @SlavOz:

                        basically donating their money to the police

                        The fines goes to Revenue NSW and is used to pay for services provided by the state. Law enforcement is only one of many services.

  • subywagon on 28/11/2019 - 22:44
    +4

    Good. Should be road side executions for using phones while driving. No arrests, no trials, no excuses.

    • pegaxs on 29/11/2019 - 08:23
      +1

      Omg, yes. I would apply for the job in a heartbeat.

  • SydStrand on 28/11/2019 - 22:52
    +2

    It feels like a matter of time until they bring back the death penalty for mobile phone use. How much harsher can penalties get?

    Yeah, that's not melodramatic at all.

    I've never been done for mobile phone use because I don't use my phone while driving, although I'm shocked to learn that just having the screen on with the phone in the passenger seat is illegal.

    It's illegal because idiots leave the phone on the passenger seat to look down while driving. Several times a week, I'm stuck behind someone who's doing this at the lights. It's especially obvious when they have long hair, because you can see them leaning left and tapping something on the seat. It's the same people who don't notice the green, then suddenly panic and gun it when someone beeps them.

    Pretty soon just having the phone in the car at all will be the new rule. Its becoming a farce, mainly because we already know that fines are not the most effective detterent of bad behaviour.

    No. It's not a binary choice between letting L-platers dual-wield phones or banning them altogether. You can have sensible laws restricting phone misuse in the car, while letting drivers take advantage of features like navigation, media, or calls.

    As someone who's had several near-misses on the bike with distracted idiots, good. I also don't see you offering any alternatives to fines. Something tells me you just got an envelope in the mail.

    • SlavOz on 28/11/2019 - 23:02

      Plenty of alternatives offered by myself and others in the thread.

      Your post proved my point - you think making something illegal because a lot of people do it is the solution. It's not. This logic has been disproven by multiple governments for countless different laws, like abortion and drug use.

      Let's also not pretend police officers aren't human beings who are also suspective to being distracted on the road, but of course they get to use their phones, radio devices, laptops, etc while driving all the time.

      • SydStrand on 28/11/2019 - 23:23
        +4

        Are you serious? For your sake, I'll sidestep the implication that abortions are akin to drug use or driving illegally.

        Firstly, you're arguing against a point that no one made, because no one claimed fines are perfect. Secondly, if you're seeking perfection, then you're deluded; laws are broad rules applied universally, in this case, to discourage behaviour with public health risk. Lastly, fines in conjunction with demerits and education can absolutely be an effective means of enforcement. Just look at how many auto threads pop up here regarding speeding, illegal parking, or collisions. Anecdotally, who here has gotten a speeding ticket and didn't watch their driving afterward?

        Let's also not pretend police officers aren't human beings who are also suspective to being distracted on the road, but of course they get to use their phones, radio devices, laptops, etc while driving all the time.

        Yep, SlavOz, graduate of Police Academy. You must know all about it. Please tell us how Western Sydney's finest use their laptops while driving.

        • SlavOz on 28/11/2019 - 23:30
          -1

          Again - you've proved my point, so what are you still debating exactly? You agree that fines are not perfect, so there is definitely room for discussion on how to make the detterent system better. Moving on.

          You agree that countless drivers are committing offenses, even if we only take the posts on Ozbargain as evidence. Laws have been around for decades yet we still see countless topics about people breaking them. That tells you they don't work. We need a better system, that's what this thread is discussing.

          • SydStrand on 29/11/2019 - 00:00
            +5

            @SlavOz: You're whinging about fines in the first sentence, but fines don't have to be perfect to be useful, and no one here is claiming that fines should be used in isolation. Education? Yes! But if you think this will stop people from breaking the law (the impossible standard we see below), you're deluded. For the average driver on today's road, it's not memories of their license exam that's keeping them honest, it's the fear of copping a fine.

            Laws have been around for decades yet we still see countless topics about people breaking them. That tells you they don't work.

            Modern medicine has been around for centuries but people are still dying from measles. Does that tell you vaccines don't work? Has it ever occurred to you that law enforcement works, even if we don't live in a crime-free utopia? You're like reverse Homer.

            • SlavOz on 29/11/2019 - 08:59

              @SydStrand: The difference is that modern medicine is improving every hour of every day, and when discussions are bought up on how to make it better, people don't shrug it off because it's already "good enough". That's what you're doing. Why are you against discussing how to make the fine system better?

              • SydStrand on 29/11/2019 - 21:56

                @SlavOz: Firstly, no one is claiming that fines alone are 'good enough' (your words). Again, you're arguing against strawmen. The fact that penalties are becoming more severe (the root of your grievance), shows that the law is not static.

                Secondly, your point that 'people still break laws, so they don't work' is ridiculous. Any epidemiologist will tell you that it's much harder to quantify the impact of preventative interventions as opposed to curative ones. Your argument precludes the possibility (read: certainty) that fines discourage behaviours like DUI, speeding, or driving on the phone, that would likely occur more frequently without them.

                Lastly, you're not offering any real alternatives other than pie-in-the-sky suggestions like an ignition interlock device for phones (lol) or PRC-style social credit system (double lol). If the government started enforcing ignition interlocks or raised taxes to pay for these programs, I bet my next paycheck that you'd be the first person complaining about it on Ozbargain.

                You suggest some vague education-focused licensing like Bosnia? Okay. But Bosnia has more than triple our road fatalities per capita. If experts in every developed country in the world, from all over the political spectrum, have independently settled on essentially the same laws and means of enforcing them, I doubt a random dude on Ozbargain has cracked it. Maybe stick to explaining why you drive a REAL manual.

                • SlavOz on 29/11/2019 - 22:15

                  @SydStrand: More severe penalties are still just fines. Whether it's $1000 or $10, 000 - it's still just a fine, and we've already acknowledged that fines alone do not solve the problem. You've skipped past countless points in this thread - such as that fines really only apply to law-abiding middle class people. Poor people and rich people are virtually immune from the detriment of financial penalties.

                  I also never said fines are useless, just that they need to be enforced with other proper measures. Using them mostly in isolation is a cheap way to raise revenue while doing nothing to actually stop the behaviour.

                  We have ignition interlock for drunk drivers already. Shame you think something that is apparently so much more dangerous than drunk driving shouldn't have it as well. What's the problem? You seem to be content simply playing the Reductio ad Hitlerum card by likening any activity China does as bad…China also uses money, banks, fines, police officers, microwaves, cars - are all those things "double lol" too? The government is already raising taxes for useless initiatives - this idea that we're somehow at the limit of financial spending is ridiculous.

                  I'd wager that Bosnia has higher road fatalities because it's a war-torn, third-world country with mass corruption and almost no enforcement of road laws, or roads at all for that matter. But from what I've read, their licensing system trumps ours in terms of driver education and training. The cost of being taught how to drive there is also very high comparative to wages, so this alone filters out the stupid or non-serious people looking to get their license just so they can learn as they go.

                  • whooah1979 on 30/11/2019 - 06:19

                    @SlavOz:

                    Poor people and rich people are virtually immune

                    That is why the state have a demerit point system. It doesn’t care how many zeroes one has in their bank accounts.

  • Bid Sniper on 28/11/2019 - 22:58
    +7

    "death penalty for mobile phones use"

    Well thats exactly whats been happening….

    • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2019 - 23:08
      +2

      Well, we should be thankful that OP didn't think that distracted drivers would eventually be sent to a camp to improve their concentration.

      • try2bhelpful on 28/11/2019 - 23:10
        +2

        Do you recommend the fish? Will you be there all week?

  • [Deactivated] on 28/11/2019 - 23:06
    +1

    The tagine used to be "Get your hands off it!"

    Yum Tagine! I can never keep my hands off that moroccan specialty ;)

  • try2bhelpful on 28/11/2019 - 23:07
    +1

    When there are known cases of people being killed by drivers distracted by their technology why shouldn't there be penalties that try to get people to "keep their hands off it". There is no reason why people should be trying to fiddle with, or look at, their technology whilst on the road. If people want to use their phone then they should pull over in an appropriate area. Having a licence is a privilege, not a right. If people can't drive safely they shouldn't be driving at all.

  • netjock on 28/11/2019 - 23:22

    A few bought this upon the rest of us. Those who can least operate a phone in the car do because they have zero brains what it will do for the rest of us.

  • Donaldhump on 29/11/2019 - 01:13
    +1

    good, if your beloved was killed by a gronk using their phone driving, you want more than the fine imposed.

  • Euphemistic on 29/11/2019 - 06:00
    +7

    We already have a death penalty for driving while using a phone. Unfortunately, it is often an innocent person who gets that penalty while the driver who was distracted gets off with a few hundred dollars fine.

    I don’t think you should be allowed to make phone calls while driving, hands free or not. It’s just too distracting.

    I believe Distractions are the number one cause of crashes.

  • crashloaded on 29/11/2019 - 08:52
    +3

    How hard is it to not use a phone for short periods? People are so addicted, no wonder attention spans are so bad these days. Glad I have a job that I can't use my phone. It gets me away from it for a while.

  • Levathian on 29/11/2019 - 09:30
    +5

    How hard is it not to touch your phone while driving..? Why do people feel the need to start texting at traffic lights? Not only is it dangerous but it's terrible for traffic flow. I say confiscate the phones of repeat offenders.

    • [Deactivated] on 29/11/2019 - 16:10
      +1

      I would actually be very much for removing the offender's phone vs setting an arbitrary amount that given the precedence will keep increasing.

      Drop kicks aren't going to pay the fine and are likely to keep offending. Take away their phone, be it a $100 or $2400 phone.

      This would probably deter the rich and the poor equally. The rich would suffer the inconvenience of losing their data and probably a more expensive phone. The poor would have no choice but to surrender their possession on the spot.

      Of course, this will never happen because it removes the most important aspect of penalties.

      • Levathian on 29/11/2019 - 16:13

        Yep. On the spot confiscation.

        A far better outcome than like.. running over someone.

      • Ughhh on 29/11/2019 - 16:52

        The rich would suffer the inconvenience of losing their data and probably a more expensive phone.

        With cloud backup, will the small inconvenience be painful enough to deter them from doing it again? Is a rich person a rich person if they can't afford another new phone?

        What if I have another phone as a decoy? Or another 20 phones in my glove box? So will taxpayers have to pay for someone to store, log and look after the phones?

        • [Deactivated] on 29/11/2019 - 17:12

          Destroy the phones.

          With cloud backup, will the small inconvenience be painful…

          Yes. It will be more painful than paying a fine. If a member of the board or an employee has lost a phone, they need to get a replacement from HR and the work data is also in a separate cloud. This would be very embarassing and potentially damaging to their career.

          Also, phones that execs and higher paid employees tend to be flagship phones that cost well over the new fines.

          What if I have another phone as a decoy? Or another 20 phones in my glove box?

          Then someone needs to be given a medal of preparedness.

          There's always people who would go way out of their way to game the system and often in a non-feasible manner. No law can be adapted to basket cases.

          • Ughhh on 29/11/2019 - 17:38

            @[Deactivated]:

            Destroy the phones.

            What about someone who runs a red light? Destroy their foot?

            • [Deactivated] on 29/11/2019 - 17:47

              @Ughhh: No, destroy the lights.

  • nasz on 29/11/2019 - 09:34
    +2

    About time. I've had too many near misses by drivers on their phones

  • Hoobz on 29/11/2019 - 10:07
    +1

    Road toll is going up.

    Single car crashes going up.

    Mobile phone use while driving is going up.

    See a pattern?

    • Euphemistic on 29/11/2019 - 15:45
      +2

      Yes. ‘Going up’ on the end of each line.

    • [Deactivated] on 29/11/2019 - 16:04
      +2

      Uh. By that logic…

      Sugar consumption is going up.

      Youth violence is going up.

      Price of avocado is going up.

      The pattern is clear… We need to jail people for consuming sugar in order to prevent violent outbreaks during schoolies so we can all have cheaper smashed avos.

  • OzHunterNSW on 29/11/2019 - 10:12
    +1

    Each time you use your phone whilst driving, it is YOU that is initiating the death penalty upon other drivers.

    Why do you think is has to be so severe?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join