So in case you missed it ,the fine for using a mobile phone while driving is going up to $1000 per offence tomorrow - I think it's just NSW and QLD for now (I could be wrong)
Before the 'nanny state' whinging starts, would you feel the same way if people read books or watched movies while driving?
A car is a multi kilogram guided missile people, at least pay attention where you are guiding it.
should be inb4 "help, i've been fined $1000 for being on my phone while driving"
This will be the challenge to "car accident and no insurance" thread.
They could make it $10,000 and 40 demerit points and it still wouldn't affect me.
See you on Whirlpool forums moaning lol
I think he means, as would I, that he never uses his phone.
And it seems you do. People that use their phones while driving have no regard to anyone but themselves.
I wonder if the guy that mowed down the kids in Sydney was on the phone?
Don't know, but "allegedly" the driver was 3 times over the the limit for DUI. So, if huge fines, instant loss of license and gaol time are not a deterrent to these types, I have my doubts that a $1,000 mobile phone fine is going to have the required affect either…
Is probably a <Profanity> driver even when sober.
I ride a motorcycle, so it's near impossible for this to affect me.
Yes, I'm sure some people manage to use a phone on their bike, but mine is safely stowed in my bag, and I couldn't use it with my gloves on even if I wanted to.
some people manage to use a phone on their bike
*cough* uber eats/deliveroo/menu log/foodora/etc… *cough*
With great holders like quadlock and ram mount as well as most top end gloves now being 'touch screen friendly' its a real thing.
Good.
Excellent.
Awesome.
spectacular…
Yes good, but thing that really annoy me is that using mobile phone when the car is stationary, in the red light, is also in this $1000 category. I mean how can I be a danger to anything? Annoyance yes, but $1000 danger?
To use mobile phone, the car must be legally parked with engine off.
You cannot even check the time.
Way too common in traffic lights once the light turns green, you see this car in front of you not moving within reasonable time.
A bit like a dislexia person… delay delay.
No but I agree with the original point. Given the core rule of road safety is speed (speeding, road work speed limits, school zones, etc.) it is wrong to equate the danger of a stopped car to one that is moving.
Yes it should depend on the severity, like speeding. When stopped my car shuts the engine off and holds the brake, till I touch the accelerator. So almost no chance of endangering someone's life. That shouldn't be the same as typing a message going 80kph
I'm guilty of checking my notifications at traffic lights, but I know the cycle of the light's in my area.
We will recognise your $1000 contribution to the state, and thank you for it.
Yes and the local police can tell it’s only “Bypass” who knows all the lights in his area, so he’s ok,. Then the person who gets booked for this same offence comes and complains, why he got pinged while Bypass didn’t?
And of course a passing out of area copper, will then call his supervisor, to check everyone he sees, just in case they are driving in the area they know and the car they drive shuts down at the lights?
Are you really that serious?
What are they doing to increase the penalties associated with drug driving?
I dunno what are they doing in relation to height of your motorcycle's rear reflector needs to be from the ground?
I'm missing something here… context pls. :)
edit: NVM… /r/woosh
I thought we were adding completely unrelated motoring laws?
Those people would not have $1000 so no point to fine them.
Can always try and sell the iPhone :p
Or any other offence…. What about detection?
I drive a lot - more than average I'd guess, one booze bus in 12-18 months, have driven past the thing that detects if your car is registered like twice, rarely see mobile speed cameras or cops on the side of the road with their speed detector out.
The reality is, detecting people on their phone is easier and cheaper, whack a cop on a bike and have them ride up and down lines of traffic in peak hour when it's bumper to bumper and cars are stopped at lights, it's gone from never seeing it to seeing it every 2-3 days now in the span of 6 months.
It's good but at the same time, so much stuff is going undetected, unpunished and attract lesser fines, simply because they are harder to detect.
Tailgating is the one that always annoys me. It's more dangerous than speeding by far, but, because it's harder to detect, and is somewhat subjective* it almost never gets reported.
*I mean, if someone merges close in front of you then you're technically tailgating through no fault of your own, so it requires a judgement call as to how quickly you slow down to open a safe space again. This is why you can't have tailgating cameras.
Keeping a safe gap in traffic and you can be sure some (profanity) will see it as a gap for them to squeeze into.
A lot of the testing they use only detects if drugs have been in the system, not if the user is currently under the influence. One of the QLD Police Commissioners (I'm not sure if it is the current one, or one past) came out and said she was against routine drug tests until they can test if a driver is currently under the influence.
what about applying Mascara & Makeups while driving ?
… or reading a newspaper spread across the steering wheel with a hole cut it in the middle so you can see the road ahead?
I saw people flossing while driving, even window wiper won't help
I've seen it all, shaving while driving, make up while driving, even seen someone eating cereal while driving, surely there must not have been any milk in it??? What a monster.
@Nebargains: What's worse than eating cereal while driving? Getting to work and eating your cereal with company milk, on company time, and clink, clinking your spoon on the bowl! That's whats worse!
I can floss with one hand, does it count?
But those facebook likes are super important…
You can also be fined if your passenger is using a phone in such a way as to distract you.
That's something I've never heard of but that does make sense.
Not specifically. That's just general dangerous driving for which you can be doing anything dangerous to receive a fine.
Hope they also increase the fines in Victoria and make the second offence loss of licence.
Yay!
Should bring in mandatory 3 (or 6) months loss of licence.
There is zero excuse for using a phone while driving (unless under pursuit by crazed person threatening your life and you're calling for help).
Even that wouldn't fly…
But it's an "excuse" non-the-less.
Plot twist: said craze person is just trying to get you off the phone
As a victim of a head on collision because the idiot girl was texting and ran into my lane, this is fantastic news. Luckily she was only doing 40 and I managed to stopped my car. Can't wait for driverless cars because i'd rather trust fallible engineered systems over social network obsessed teens.
Because the car is stopped there is significantly less energy in the impact.
No one wins in a head on.
That is literally what I said. But in a car in car impact, the car with the momentum tends to win.
@[Deactivated]: No. You literally said the benefits of stopping are debatable. They are not debatable. Lowering the energy of the impact benefits both parties.
Of course getting out of the way is by far preferable, but not always possible.
@Euphemistic: Omg, is this guy suggesting that you continue at your current speed and the outcome of a head-on would favour you?
With that logic, speeding up would be preferable isn't it?
@[Deactivated]: Ok, same 2 vehicles collide in 2 separate scenarios.
One of the vehicles (let's call it vehicle A) sees the oncoming vehicle (vehicle B) and stops in time, and vehicle B plows into them.
Vehicle A was asleep at the wheel and did not apply brakes at all. Vehicle B's speedo is at the same exact speed at collision as scenario 1.
So Burnertoasty, in which scenario do you think vehicle A will fare better?
@[Deactivated]: That's bollocks. The impact energy is equally split between the two cars. It's the other things that make the difference such as head-ons are usually being between two different vehicles and as such they react differently. In two identical vehicles a car under heavy braking will be slightly lower at the front than one that is stopped. Every crash is different and I suggest no two will ever be identical.
@Plug: Not equally though, but proportionally to weight of each vehicle. That’s why SUVs are killers
@Euphemistic: No, I clearly said that the overall energy is lower, but the stationary car is going to come off worse.
@[Deactivated]: Why is that? For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction, so isn't the energy shared? And the less energy to share the better?
@[Deactivated]: Where's the answer to my simple question? I'm guessing someone who doesn't understand physics has downvoted it…
@[Deactivated]: So which scenario fares better, scenario 1 or 2?
All your replies suggest you believe scenario 2 gives a better outcome for vehicle A.
@CMH: I think you’ve got some kind of comprehension issue. I couldn’t be writing more clearly, but you’re still here trying to argue with yourself.
In a car on car collision the benefits of stopping the car (for the stopped car) are debatable. You lower the overall energy of the crash, but because you're stationary, the moving car is going to transfer more energy into your car.
in a car in car impact, the car with the momentum tends to win.
Your words dude.
@[Deactivated]: The car without momentum would win, actually.
As already stated, one car being stopped drastically lowers the total kinetic energy in the crash - looking at Scenario 2 offered by CMH, of both vehicles at the same speed, this would be lowering it by 75% (Scenario 2: KE=KE1+KE2=0.5mv1^2+0.5mv2^2; Scenario 1 = KE=KE2=0.5mv2^2)
Looking at CMH's scenario 1, Car A (stopped) vs Car B (moving); assuming identical make/model and loading.
Car B hits Car A and starts transferring some Kinetic Energy (conservation of momentum). This results in (intentional) structural failures in the front chassis of Car A (crumpling). Also due to said conservation, Car B also experiences similar crumpling due to the EQUAL but OPPOSITE force applied by Car A to Car B.
Thus, between CMH's two scenarios - and any scenario - the one which involves less energy is better for ALL parties.
This is also ignoring that in the scenario outlined above, Car A will likely move backwards (even will full brakes applied), removing more energy from the actual impact.
To put it another way - would you rather run (at 5kmph) head on into a car going 5kmph, or be hit standing still by a car going 5kmph?
What if both cars are stopped?
This is horrible advice that is going to kill someone. That’s not how physics works. By that logic you should try and accelerate into a head on which is insane. The speed of each car relative to the ground is irrelevant, and only the speed relative to each other is important. One car slowing down is always going to be better.
Clear and simple answer. Someone needs to redo high school physics.
No, this is you showing your rudimentary understanding of physics, without actually being able to comprehend even the simple concepts explained above. The results of a car accident can't just be explained by the total amount of energy involved. Your entire argument revolves around there being less energy in the accident, without taking into account the momentum of the approaching car, and the effects on the stationary car and the people inside those cars. I've clearly stated from my first response about the total energy being lower.
@[Deactivated]: Ok I’m genuinely interested if you can show some working or evidence for your claims. I won’t claim to have a degree in physics or anything, but thought I had a good idea of the basics at work here, happy to be proved wrong so I can learn something new. Here’s a video and reference link outlining Newton’s 3rd Law, and why I don’t believe your statement holds up (specifically your statement on the benefits for the stopping car being debatable). Video Link. It’s the same physics why the force of a head on collision between 2 identical vehicles travelling at 50km/hr isn’t the same as 1 vehicle hitting a wall at 100km/hr.
@Milkywayss: This seems true to me. 40+40 is the same as 0+80.
Scenario 1: car A at 40 + car B at 40, crash, both cars lose half of the total (80/2=40) and thus end up doing 0.
Scenario 2: car A at 80 + car B at 0, crash, both cars lose 40, so car A drops to 40 and car B does 40 backwards.
All described cars lose 40 thus the passenger's experince is the same.
Scenario 1: car A at 40 + car B at 40, crash, both cars lose half of the total (80/2=40) and thus end up doing 0.
Scenario 2: car A at 80 + car B at 0, crash, both cars lose 40, so car A drops to 40 and car B does 40 backwards.
All described cars lose 40 thus the passenger's experince is the same.
Do you even physics?
Total kinetic energy in a moving object is .5 x mass x velocity x velocity.
Which means scenario 1 (assuming mass is the same): total kinetic energy = .5 x mass x 144 (calculated in m/s, not km/h) x 144 + .5 x mass x 144 x 144 = [20736] x mass
In scenario 2, you get: total kinetic energy = 0.5 x mass x 288 x 288 + 0 = [41472] x mass.
That's DOUBLE the amount of energy in scenario 2. It is NOT EQUAL to scenario 1. Car A will drop to 56.6km/h and car B does 56.6km/h backwards.
@CMH: Huh well there you go.
I didn't bother to lookup the kinetic energy formula.
Thanks @CMH, your maths looks right.
@[Deactivated]: I think you explain it quite poor. There is no way it is better that 2 cars travel at 100km/h each than one 100km/h and one stationary. It can be a different scenario if you compare two car travel at 50km/h each and 100km/h + stationary.
Agreed phone should be lock away while driving. Increasing fine is definitely revenues driven.
E.g. reading map/books, wearing make up, playing movies is distracting too.
Increasing fine is just a cheap shot at drivers/consumers. Because it is much harder getting a law to pass to ban certain products & behaviour in the car.
If a fine (or increased fine) doesn't work, how will "banning certain products & behaviour in the car" help?
That'd likely be as effective as thoughts and prayers.
I believed they will keep increasing penalty until they see the statistics number figure reduced.
And they will come out claimed that they strategy is working and score they cheap political points.
I wish more government funding came from criminals (people like you always act like some greedy guy in the government is trying to enrich themselves, when the reality is that fines are used to provide us all with public services). I'm never going to give any sympathy to someone fined for breaking a law they knew existed, is easy to comply with and is designed to save lives.
Your points aren't even internally consistent. What are you talking about?
You claim this is just revenue raising, but also agree that it will lead to a real world reduction in the problem of mobile phone use while driving.
Then you claim that when such a reduction occurs, this will simply be scoring cheap political points, rather than evidence of the success of the program.
Is your logic this rigorous in everyday life?
As far as I'm aware from someone working in that area, a politician made an off-hand comment to the press about how fines should be $1,000 which drove this ultimately. In order to not look like they were backtracking, it was put in place.
Nothing to do with revenue raising (Otherwise why not just make all fines $1000?).
Oh, thank god i can still use my ipad…
At last something sensible done by a state government(Of course it's a cash grab but it's better than doing nothing to curb this problem)….Hope they increase the fine and demerit points even further in Victoria.
These days every second driver in traffic seems to be checking between their legs as if something was missing there. I ride a motorbike daily to work and fear for my life every time I stop at a traffic light in case the idiot behind sends me flying as he/she was busy updating facebook instead of keeping their eyes on the road.
“ …I speed constantly and often use my phone but I am not a dangerous driver.“
That’s the mindset of pretty much everyone that’s killed someone else on the road.
Upvoted because you actually made the effort to read the wall-o-text.
@pegaxs: Omg. Either a troll or someone who's about to get into a serious collision while watching Desperate Housewives or something while driving.
You speed constantly and use your phone? Dude get the (profanity) off the road, take your own advice and use public transport you dick.
InB4: "It'Z jUsT ReVeNuE rAiSiNg!!11!1!!!1"
They could make it $10,000 and 40 demerit points and it still wouldn't affect me.