Hand-held cellphones to be banned while driving [Archive]

Swoop

11th June 2008, 12:10

Breaking news (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10515692)...

A proposed ban on drivers using hand-held cellphones has been announced by the Government in a bid to cut road accidents.

The proposed amendment to the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 is scheduled to be released for public consultation in August.

Transport Safety Minister Harry Duynhoven said drivers would still be able to use hands-free phones and two-way radio under the proposed ban.

An exception would also be made for motorists calling 111 when it was "unsafe or impractical to pull over to make a call" in a genuine emergency.

"The number of reported crashes involving the use of mobile phones has more than doubled over the last six years, with research showing that using a mobile phone while driving increases the risk of being involved in a crash by up to four times," Mr Dynhoven said.

He said "social conventions", meant drivers were more likely to respond to text messages immediately rather than waiting until they had reached their destination.

"This is only going to worsen as access to enhanced technology is increased."

Under the planned amendment, the use of Blackberries and Personal Digital Assistants while driving would also be banned.

Between 2002 and 2007 there were 411 crashes involving injury and 26 fatal crashes where the use of mobile phones or other telecommunication devices was identified as a contributing factor.

Transport Minister Annette King said at least 45 countries had already banned the use of mobile phones while driving.

"While awareness campaigns would continue to focus on the wider issue of driver distraction, the Government's decision to consider a ban on cellphone use recognised the unique nature of mobile phone distraction," Ms King said.

avgas

11th June 2008, 12:13

Silly people, i never put down my coffee/breakfast/newspaper/bottle/gameboy to answer the cellphone. You just use your elbow. The trick is not to let the steering wheel to slip the grip of your knees. While maintaining pressure on the accelerator.

Mikkel

11th June 2008, 12:17

This thread is useless without pictures...

Erhm, I mean - this legislation is useless unless they include stuff like drinking coffee, reading newspapers, changing clothes, putting on make-up, smoking, talking, day dreaming,... ,etc.
But no, the use of hand-held cellphones while driving should be banned I agree.

DarkLord

11th June 2008, 13:29

I agree too but somehow I doubt it will be an easy law to enforce, I can still see people doing it all the time whether there is a law against it or not...

Badjelly

11th June 2008, 16:40

It looks like hand-held cellphones are to be banned from use while driving.

Whew, you had me worried there, I thought you said hand-held cellphones are to be banned from use while riding! :sweatdrop

Toaster

11th June 2008, 16:46

So are you saying that talking on the cellphone whilst eating a doughnut and surfing KB on the laptop strapped to the bikes fuel tank is a bad idea? Since when??!!

Badjelly

11th June 2008, 17:07

There's already a thread on this (though in a different forum):

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=75673&highlight=cellphone

BiK3RChiK

11th June 2008, 17:57

I wonder if our local cop will put his phone down now whilst driving:jerry::jerry:

Flatcap

11th June 2008, 18:59

They should ban eating Maccas while driving

Tackle obesity and distraction crashes at the same time

pete376403

11th June 2008, 19:21

Not possible now to get such legislation through before Parliament rises for the elections.

So its fate will depend on the incoming government, whoever that may be

No legislation involved apparently, just a change in the regulations, provided there is enough support from the other parties.

Dave Lobster

11th June 2008, 19:25

Erhm, I mean - this legislation is useless unless they include stuff like drinking coffee, reading newspapers, changing clothes, putting on make-up, smoking, talking, day dreaming,... ,etc.

Precisely. There's so many distractions, why pick on just the one?

Isn't it already illegal to drive in a dangerous manner? And.. if a policeman sees someone doing it, he'll nick them for it. If not, why would he be more likely to nick someone talking on the phone?

Most of the dorks that try to kill me when I'm on the bike aren't on the phone. They're just inattentive idiots. And seeing as that is already legislated against, with no effect, what's the point of making cell phone usage illegal?
People will still do it. Revenue generation..

duckonin

11th June 2008, 19:50

And lets not forget the all important GPS and it's pretty little roads and all, ...Is that the right road (BANG):confused:

Dave Lobster

11th June 2008, 19:52

Yup. There's no end of cars now with their little TV on, stuck to the windscreen. Obviously that doesn't distract them, at all..

Yeah. Like fuck.

Hitcher

11th June 2008, 19:53

This is completely pointless legislation created by politicians who don't want to be accused of doing nothing. It's unenforceable and a total waste of time, not to mention discriminatory in terms of singling out one form of driver distraction.

No doubt dreamed up by the same people who believe that a dog with a microchip inserted behind its ear won't attack people.

Did I hear somebody say "election year"?

Bren

11th June 2008, 20:15

I agree too but somehow I doubt it will be an easy law to enforce, I can still see people doing it all the time whether there is a law against it or not...
...just like running reds and tailgating....cops just wont do anything about it...

1 Free Man

11th June 2008, 20:42

Would it not be fair to say that any legislation that helps to prevent people doing dumb arse things, while driving motor vehicles, which could lead to the loss of life is good legislation. Sure they are picking on cell phone but why not. It is about time NZ got in behind the rest of the world on this one. Hopefully they will target the coffee drinkers and the hair doers and the crazy bitch putting on her makeup at 100 kph the paper readers and all of the other silly fucks that forget they are in charge of 1 tonne of killing machine and they should have their mind on the job at hand.
I take heart in the hope that this piece of legislation may be the legislation that stops some stupid prick from rear ending me when I'm on my bike because he/she was on their cell phone.
next up the coffee drinker. The ones that feel they need their cafeine buzz that bad that they have to do it while driving their killing machine instead of taking two minutes out of their life to have their drink while stationary at the side of the road.
Lastly I would say when the over paid fuckwitts in parliament do some thing usefully don't knock it. Election year or not let them get on with it and get something right for all the money they cost us all.

Hitcher

11th June 2008, 20:44

Usarka

11th June 2008, 20:49

Did I hear somebody say "election year"?

Bang on. This wouldn't have been done any other year, like ummm the last 8.....

Research shows hands free is not much safer.

And if it is so dangerous will all commercial and emergency handheld radios be equally banned? Or are some more equal than others.......

Dave Lobster

11th June 2008, 20:50

I take heart in the hope that this piece of legislation may be the legislation that stops some stupid prick from rear ending me when I'm on my bike because he/she was on their cell phone.

What about the one that rear ends you because her baby is crying, and she's not paying attention?

Pity there's no law against that.

Steam

11th June 2008, 20:55

It's unenforceable and a total waste of time...
I don't think so. Seatbelt laws are the same, but people get pulled over for that sometimes if the cop has nothing better to do.

A lot of talkers and texters will be made more nervous, looking around for a cop car, so maybe they'll just wait.
Besides all that it is a matter of social change, social-engineering. The government is sending the message that it's not okay, and the majority of Kiwis agree.

Besides, mobile phones were implicated in 27* traffic deaths last year. Any attempt to fix the problem is good.

If a driver doesn't like it, just spend $50 more and buy a hands free kit. Problem solved.

* I remember hearing somewhere.

Hitcher

11th June 2008, 21:12

Only 27? That's less than a tenth of those who died from food-borne illnesses.

I know, let's ban food!

P38

11th June 2008, 21:13

This will be about as productive as a Wet Fart in a Wind Farm with the exception of generating impressive revenue streams for the Govt coffers.

This part of the exercise will be exceptional no doubt.

It's all part of the circle of life.

Govt gives it with one hand (Tax Relief), applies a multiplier, and takes it back with the other (Traffic Fines for Yapping on ya phone).:(

All in the interest of helping families and improving public safety in an election year.

Can't ya just feel the Love people.:yes:

Steam

11th June 2008, 21:24

Only 27? That's less than a tenth of those who died from food-borne illnesses.

I know, let's ban food!

What a silly comparison. You know better than that Hitcher.

Banning food will kill everyone.
Banning handheld cellphones while driving may just save a few lives.

Dave Lobster

11th June 2008, 21:33

Banning handheld cellphones while driving may just save a few lives.

The government isn't in the slightest bit interested in saving lives. If it was, it would increase the standard of driving in this country.
What it IS interested in is populist knee jerk reaction law changes to appeal to a population that isn't looking like it'll vote them back in to power.

avgas

11th June 2008, 21:41

Seatbelt laws are the same, but people get pulled over for that sometimes if the cop has nothing better to do.
Bwahahahaha i can't believe you said that - hasn't Ronald told you anything.
The cellphone thing MAY save a life if penalised, the seatbelt thing WILL save a life if resolved.
Kinda like putting knives in a draw - so that no one bleeds to death, rather than enforcing that the knives are to clean so that they don't cause infection.
While i believe enforcing cellphones out of cars, is a good idea - i do feel that it is overrated and would rather have my cops making sure the local 4-square owner is not dead on a floor.

Usarka

11th June 2008, 21:41

What a silly comparison. You know better than that Hitcher.

Banning food will kill everyone.
Banning handheld cellphones while driving may just save a few lives.

Banning cellphones while driving might hurt the economy, causing people to lose jobs, beat their wives and kids and turn to crime......

made sense to me...shrug... :lol:

1 Free Man

11th June 2008, 21:47

What about the one that rear ends you because her baby is crying, and she's not paying attention?

Pity there's no law against that.
Sounds like an idea. Contact your MP and run it by him/her. I'm sure he/she could make that one fly after all it's election year. That Sue Prattford got her crap legislation past them perhaps she might be the one to deal with. Mum's could put their sproggs in the boot that way the little shits wont interfere with the cell phone calls. There are controllable situations and uncontrollable situations. you can turn off a cell phone (controllable) but not a sprogg (uncontrollable).

1 Free Man

11th June 2008, 22:15

You are confusing legislation with compliance and enforcement. They are completely different things.
Yep Ya right. There's a book full of them called the road code.
LEGISLATION to which, when driving, we must be COMPLIANT. fail at any of them badly enough and you incure the wroth of the ENFORCEMENT.
they are there to hopefully help to keep us all alive while on the road so what's wrong with another rule,code, legislation???
For fuck sake we all got by without cell phone before so why cant we get by without them for the duration of a journey in a car. You are not allowed to use them on an aircraft. Why???? Do we comply with this rule???? YES. Why do we comply??? Because we don't want the plane to crash.
Last time I looked death by plane is just the same as death by car. Your just as dead either way. Death tends to be terminal how ever it comes.

Jiminy

11th June 2008, 22:28

It's about time. You won't get all distractions out of the car, but that one is fairly easy to judge. Plus, it's easy for people who want to use a phone in the car to get a hands-free kit, so it doesn't really affect the user but makes the road safer.

Govt gives it with one hand (Tax Relief), applies a multiplier, and takes it back with the other (Traffic Fines for Yapping on ya phone).:(

I don't use the phone in the car (in fact, I have no car), so I choose the tax relief and phone in car ban any day. :)

Dave Lobster

12th June 2008, 06:10

Yep Ya right. There's a book full of them called the road code.

Putting in said code Have a f*cking look to see your way is clear before changing your position in the road would save more lives. Those lives would be ten times as many if it was in in Mandarin too.

LEGISLATION to which, when driving, we must be COMPLIANT. fail at any of them badly enough and you incure the wrath of the ENFORCEMENT.

Only if it is convenient for the enforcers to do so at the time.

they are there to hopefully help to keep us all alive while on the road so what's wrong with another rule,code, legislation???

There is already an existing (unenforced) law to cover it.

For fuck sake we all got by without cell phone before so why cant we get by without them for the duration of a journey in a car.

You got by without a car before. Why not now?

You are not allowed to use them on an aircraft. Why???? Do we comply with this rule???? YES. Why do we comply??? Because we don't want the plane to crash.

Nonsense. You comply because the cell sites down point upwards. They're all tilted downwards. Just look at the guy who crashed his helicopter the other week because he dropped the call on his blackberry..

Owl

12th June 2008, 06:31

Yup. There's no end of cars now with their little TV on, stuck to the windscreen. Obviously that doesn't distract them, at all..

Yeah. Like fuck.

It's already illegal for the driver to be able to see a television screen while driving.

Banesto John

12th June 2008, 08:24

Gosh, what an enlightened thread.

I see revenue collecting has already been mentioned by several. That's what usually gets trotted out when there isn't actually a logical argument against something.

Then there are those that relate that the cops do nothing about seatbelts or red lights. Contrast that view with the whinging that comes from those who get seatbelt or red light tickets, who usually resort to the revenue collecting argument, see above.

One enlightened poster advises that's there's no law against a mother, distracted by her baby, running up yer arse from behind. Actually there are. Careless Driving and Failing To Stop Short are the two most used, and get used very frequently.

Without knowing it, that poster raised the big issue. It's not the actual running up your arse that is the problem, it was the distraction caused by the baby, or the newspaper, or the whatever. The cellphone is just one of the list of things that causes distraction.

I personally muse that an offence of Driving While Distracted would be good. Then that would cover the spilled coffee, the map book on the steering wheel, the cellphone, the baby.

One day we'll all be awesome drivers, then there will be no need for enforcement. Has anyone noticed that any time someone talks about crap drivers they are always talking about other people, not the person they see in the mirror each morning?

And please don't think it will not be enforced. Ironically the best placed traffic cop to enforce it would be a motorbike officer, with a better viewing position from being higher, and greater ability to stop a driver in heavy traffic.

It's always good to read the bollocks people think though, it gives context to the common sense most people possess. Keep posting the bollocks, it makes me smile.

That's all. Off the soap box now.:msn-wink:

portokiwi

12th June 2008, 08:28

About time.... I thought it was in place years ago lol

Hitcher

12th June 2008, 09:00

For all you police-state Pollyannas I have a prediction:

"In two years' time banning the use of cellphones by drivers will not have made one jot of difference to either motorists' behaviour or to the alleged death count attributable to the use of cellphones."

scumdog

12th June 2008, 09:31

Only 27? That's less than a tenth of those who died from food-borne illnesses.

I know, let's ban food!

Ya gotta eat.

Ya don't gotta txt/phone. (despite what the under 25s think)

Usarka

12th June 2008, 09:42

For all the pro-banners:

Do you think hands-free should also be banned considering studies have shown very little safety difference? (it's the conversation that takes the concentration, not the holding of the phone)..... If not, then why ignore the evidence and allow people to still partake in dangerous activities while driving?

pseduo sources, do your own research:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/25/local/me-distract25
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1412283.htm
http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/logistics/report-39637.html

Quote from the last one:

The eight driver distraction special section papers show that

Cell phone conversations alone, without dialing or answering, change the way drivers see the world and make them more likely to miss traffic signs and other important information.
Using a speech recognition system to reduce distraction, such as speaking an address into a navigation system, can make the task easier, but it can still disrupt driving, particularly the driver’s ability to control the vehicle’s speed. Drivers slow down when entering information manually or by voice.
Information (such as telephone numbers) presented by voice competes for drivers’ attention to a far greater extent than when the driver sees the same information presented on a display. Horrey and Wickens found that auditory information led to poorer speed control than was the case with visual displays of the same information.
The effect of distractions depends on when they occur. Interruptions to driving, such as answering a cell phone, are likely to be more dangerous if they occur during maneuvers like merging to exit a freeway.

Until they ban handsfree also OR come up with a better strategy then IMHO the law is entirely an electioneering waste of space aimed to placate the morons in our society.

Badjelly

12th June 2008, 10:38

Only 27? That's less than a tenth of those who died from food-borne illnesses.

Is that true, or just something you made up to score points on an Internet forum?

Not that it's relevant in either case, mind you, but I'm curious: do ~ 300 people in NZ die each year from food-borne illnesses?

Badjelly

12th June 2008, 10:40

One day we'll all be awesome drivers, then there will be no need for enforcement. Has anyone noticed that any time someone talks about crap drivers they are always talking about other people, not the person they see in the mirror each morning?

...

It's always good to read the bollocks people think though, it gives context to the common sense most people possess. Keep posting the bollocks, it makes me smile.

That would be the bollocks posted by the people you don't see in the mirror each morning? :innocent:

Hitcher

12th June 2008, 11:47

Not that it's relevant in either case, mind you, but I'm curious: do ~ 300 people in NZ die each year from food-borne illnesses?

I'll dig out a definitive source. Suffice it to say annual deaths from food-borne illnesses in New Zealand are about the same as the road toll.

Hitcher

12th June 2008, 11:58

Here's the second-hand smoke death toll:

http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesmh/1470

And some other interesting stuff, which says that "microbes" account for 6.5% of all deaths. Food-borne illnesses resulting in death will be a subset of that:

http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesmh/2956?Open

Here's a schedule of food-borne illnesses:

http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/consumers/foodborne-illness-stomach-bugs/index.htm

mstriumph

12th June 2008, 12:01

hand-helds have been banned in West Aus. for some time

- but i always thought it was because the Pollies had shares in the car-kit companies ....?:shutup:

Owl

12th June 2008, 12:15

Usarka

12th June 2008, 12:26

"The estimated number of traffic air pollution related deaths was about twice the number of traffic crash deaths"

http://www.transport.govt.nz/page-111/

You don't actually believe that crap do you Hitcher?

$10 says you are a smoker

- but i always thought it was because the Pollies had shares in the car-kit companies ....?:shutup:
It certainly may explain why Vodafone and Telecom have been campaigning for this.

Hitcher

12th June 2008, 12:35

You don't actually believe that crap do you Hitcher?

You'll have to help me here by defining "crap".

Banesto John

12th June 2008, 13:27

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety

A 1997 American study and a 2005 Australian study both estimated the risk of a collision when using a cellular telephone was four times higher than the risk when a cellular telephone was not being used. 699 and 456 drivers, respectively, who owned phones, were involved in crashes, and volunteered for the studies were examined. By collecting volunteers' cell phone records, scientists were able to determine who placed telephone calls shortly before the time of crash, and through case-crossover analysis (a technique often used in medical studies of heart-attacks and air pollution) of cell phone habits, calculated the increase in risk. Both studies found that hands-free devices were not considerably safer.
:bash:

Mental Trousers

12th June 2008, 13:54

About farken time too. Unfortunately this doesn't mean making phone calls when driving are totally banned, but it's a start.

Owl

12th June 2008, 17:37

You'll have to help me here by defining "crap".

I’ll give you an example. If a baby dies of cot death and one of the parents smoke, then that baby becomes a statistic of second-hand smoke, whether the parent smoked around the baby or not!

MisterD

12th June 2008, 17:50

One day we'll all be awesome drivers, then there will be no need for enforcement.

We'll never improve the standard of driving as long as we persist with this "don't think, just follow the rules" thing...

98tls

12th June 2008, 17:59

About farken time too. Unfortunately this doesn't mean making phone calls when driving are totally banned, but it's a start. In some ways we might be worse off as not only will people continue to txt they now have to concentrate on hiding the fact there doing it.

Mental Trousers

12th June 2008, 18:06

In some ways we might be worse off as not only will people continue to txt they now have to concentrate on hiding the fact there doing it.
There's always a down side unfortunately mate. You don't gain anything without giving something up. But it's still a start and that's better than nothing.

Skyryder

12th June 2008, 19:14

In some ways we might be worse off as not only will people continue to txt they now have to concentrate on hiding the fact there doing it.

All they gota do is to ban driving with one hand. Probably will one day.:bash::dodge:

Skyryder

FLYMO

12th June 2008, 20:51

bout time
the dickheads that use phones while driving are one of the most dangerous hazzards we face as bikers
like to see the cops enforce it though
more crime as a result eh?

Ocean1

12th June 2008, 21:13

There's always a down side unfortunately mate. You don't gain anything without giving something up. But it's still a start and that's better than nothing.

True, there's always a down side.

And there's literally no end to the list of behaviours that can be said to be undesirable.

See where we're headed here? How much do we give up?

I for one no longer bother to obey any given rule or law, not only are they numerous and onerous enough to substantially detract from my life I simply don't have time to bone up on the latest compliance fetish. Soon even the most dedicated and complaisant among us won't get past our front gate of a morning without fucking up half a dozen times.

I do adhere to my own rules, usually, and they seem to roughly match most peoples expectations of a fellow countryman. The difference is so small that I have yet to be incarcerated for breaking any law, and in fact I rarely get accused of even the milder forms of anarchy.

Am not one in fact. I am of the opinion, however, that society's role is to support the individual. Not the other way around. So let’s hear less about an individual’s responsibility to a purely nominal set of societal rules and a bit more about how our politicos can stay the fuck out of our lives.

Swoop

12th June 2008, 21:22

the law is entirely an electioneering waste of space aimed to placate the morons in our society.
The law will not even enter parliament before the election, so any promises are hollow. Intelligent people will see this.

Dave Lobster

12th June 2008, 21:25

Intelligent people will see this.

Heh heh.. because there's shit loads of those around.. :(

bikemike

12th June 2008, 21:49

I agree with Usarka - it's the conversation that's the problem. And in particular the remote conversation, which so far as I remember from an aviation research statistic some time back takes up to 40% or 60% of your cognitive power at the time. Sorry, can't recall or find it. Anyway, makes sense to me: the problem is one of relocation and empathy, you always empathise with the fellow caller wherever they are, when they are not in your car your mind is not in the car or on the road ahead, it's wherever the caller is.

Therefore, all telephone calls should be banned whilst on the move.

Can't radio triangulation catch this?

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the number of accidents caused by phone use is higher than reported and claimed so far.

sefer

12th June 2008, 22:11

As someone already mentioned:

In NZ we have a huge number of people who only use their phones to txt people due to the high cost of calls. Txting doesn't require you to lift you phone to your head, in fact most frequent txters will be able to write a message without looking, but will have to look down to read anything if they are trying to not reveal their phone to the passing plods. So they're now fully taking their eyes off the road (where they probably held their phone up to eye level in the past).

Personally I think that would be hugely more distracting and likely to cause accidents than someone with their phone to their ear.

(not that I don't think it's a good idea, but you have to look at the use of phones here compared to most other countries)

Banesto John

13th June 2008, 07:02

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the number of accidents caused by phone use is higher than reported and claimed so far.

The cops who attend crashes are the ones who write the causal report, called a TCR. The MInister yesterday said that before 2002 there were no records of cellphone related crashes. That's coz the cops didn't even ask people about things like that, so wouldn't report on it.

Can you imagine how many people have a crash and then admit they are on a cellphone? How can a cop who attends a crash tell if a phone was in use, when people in crashes have no obligation to even admit to owning a phone, let alone use one.

So, it's a reporting issue, and I expect that it is grossly under reported. Like, who is going to crash while texting then admit to texting?

And like, will cops soon have on the spot search warrants to demand phone use records, so we can get better stats? Tripe. We;ll just keep getting the skewed figures the pollies can use to excuse inaction.

Wow, getting a sore back from climbing on and off the soap box.:argh::argh:

Swoop

13th June 2008, 08:01

...in fact most frequent txters will be able to write a message without looking
They are rather clever!

I have to put my phone on the steering wheel and then stab at the letters.
It is a slow process, but with each button press, some bastard is honking their horn in my vicinity. When I have finished the TXT message, the road ahead of me is totally clear.
Weird really. I wonder why.

Dave Lobster

13th June 2008, 18:08

So, it's a reporting issue, and I expect that it is grossly under reported. Like, who is going to crash while texting then admit to texting?

And like, will cops soon have on the spot search warrants to demand phone use records, so we can get better stats? Tripe. We;ll just keep getting the skewed figures the pollies can use to excuse inaction.

So, it's like, totally bogus, you know? Kind of.. :yawn:

Banesto John

14th June 2008, 10:09

So, it's like, totally bogus, you know? Kind of.. :yawn:

Like, wow, toadally awesum dude. :Offtopic::Punk:

FJRider

14th June 2008, 10:29

I agree too but somehow I doubt it will be an easy law to enforce, I can still see people doing it all the time whether there is a law against it or not...

often the laws we ignore, are the one's we find "inconvenient" at the time.

Big Dave

14th June 2008, 10:36

About time.
It's heavily enforced in Sydney - and the enforcement works.

Jiminy

14th June 2008, 13:21

Both studies found that hands-free devices were not considerably safer.

Mmmmmh, wondering what the impact on texting will be, though. You can hardly text with a hands-free kit, and sure texting while driving is not anywhere safe.

We'll never improve the standard of driving as long as we persist with this "don't think, just follow the rules" thing...

A few rules might help a few think ;). Especially, it's not a big constraint on people, really.