NZTA speed cameras

[rastuscat]

The thing with cellphone offences is that they are the tip of the iceberg of distracted driving. The law we have was written in 2008, introduced in 2009. Before smart phones. Before Android Auto and Apple Carplay.

I'm looking at buying a new car at the moment, and the salesmen all want to tell me about how big, powerful and useful the touch screens in their latest models are.

Take the Ranger and Everest. The touch screen is huge, and you can't even turn the heater up without using it.

Mazda appears to be bucking the trend by using a non-touch screen, controlled by a knob down by the centre console. I'm on board with that, as it's nowhere near as distracting as a touch screen.

I'd be willing to bet a lot of crashes are due to distraction by things other than a mobile phone. Cars are being built to distract these days.

I recall attending crashes back in the 80s where drivers were busy ejecting the cassette to flip it over, failed to take a bend etc. Or using a dial to find a radio station.

I like tech, but it's getting out of hand in new cars.

[R650R]

Legislation also needs updating to include smart watches. Had trainee driver who I wondered why he was so obsessed with checking time then realised he’s wearing a smart watch.

Who thought it was great idea to create a device with even smaller print than a phone?

[nerrrd]

I like tech, but it's getting out of hand in new cars.

I've heard of systems which beep if the driver takes their eyes off the road for more than a second when underway – regulate that so it's really loud and can't be disabled?

I'm amazed touchscreens are so common, would have thought responsible manufacturers might push back on that (unless for passengers).

[F5 Dave]

The thing with cellphone offences is that they are the tip of the iceberg of distracted driving. The law we have was written in 2008, introduced in 2009. Before smart phones. Before Android Auto and Apple Carplay.

I'm looking at buying a new car at the moment, and the salesmen all want to tell me about how big, powerful and useful the touch screens in their latest models are.

Take the Ranger and Everest. The touch screen is huge, and you can't even turn the heater up without using it.

Mazda appears to be bucking the trend by using a non-touch screen, controlled by a knob down by the centre console. I'm on board with that, as it's nowhere near as distracting as a touch screen.

I'd be willing to bet a lot of crashes are due to distraction by things other than a mobile phone. Cars are being built to distract these days.

I recall attending crashes back in the 80s where drivers were busy ejecting the cassette to flip it over, failed to take a bend etc. Or using a dial to find a radio station.

I like tech, but it's getting out of hand in new cars.

Do you realise you have used the Whataboutism argument?

Surely there's lots of distraction in a car, but something that you have to hold in one hand and interact with someone, or worse, type something is important enough to try tackle as a safety low hanging fruit?

[pritch]

My car is old tech. It has a touch screen but the stereo settings are to my liking now so I don't adjust that. The GPS presumably only contains maps of Japan if any. My phone can be connected wirelessly to the radio but only for telephone calls. Not interested.

There is though an old iPhone connected to the stereo by wire. Most apps on the phone have been deleted, there is no SIM card, but the phone contains music. The thought has occurred that while I can legally change a CD or a station on the radio, changing a song on the phone could potentially bring a fine. That would appear to be the downside of using a phone as a juke box. If my journey is going to take longer than a CD I set the phone to shufflle.

[rastuscat]

A fatal crash happened killing 2 people a couple of years back at Saltwater Creek. Driver crossed the centreline when handing a milkshake to a passenger.

And we still have an out of date law.

[jellywrestler]

The thing with cellphone offences is that they are the tip of the iceberg of distracted driving. The law we have was written in 2008, introduced in 2009. Before smart phones. Before Android Auto and Apple Carplay.

I'm looking at buying a new car at the moment, and the salesmen all want to tell me about how big, powerful and useful the touch screens in their latest models are.

Take the Ranger and Everest. The touch screen is huge, and you can't even turn the heater up without using it.

Mazda appears to be bucking the trend by using a non-touch screen, controlled by a knob down by the centre console. I'm on board with that, as it's nowhere near as distracting as a touch screen.

I'd be willing to bet a lot of crashes are due to distraction by things other than a mobile phone. Cars are being built to distract these days.

I recall attending crashes back in the 80s where drivers were busy ejecting the cassette to flip it over, failed to take a bend etc. Or using a dial to find a radio station.

I like tech, but it's getting out of hand in new cars.

yip, did renatl last week top of south island only way to search radio was touchscreen, the hand control searched pre set stations, at night i chucked something over the screen as it was way way too bright, i guess there was a dimmer but i couldn't find it.

Either way my query is about sell phone use and you have tried to steer away from that subject repeatedly, first by saying everyone will moan, and now this stuff, seems you are like the coppers and given up?

[rastuscat]

yip, did renatl last week top of south island only way to search radio was touchscreen, the hand control searched pre set stations, at night i chucked something over the screen as it was way way too bright, i guess there was a dimmer but i couldn't find it.

Either way my query is about sell phone use and you have tried to steer away from that subject repeatedly, first by saying everyone will moan, and now this stuff, seems you are like the coppers and given up?

Nope, I still think more needs to be done to discourage cellphone use while driving.

People often quote the fines in Queensland being $1000. Well, has that stopped people from using their phones? Nope.

Before we go down the track of making huge fines the answer, perhaps we need to ask "but does it solve the problem?" because it hasn't anywhere in the world yet.

Cellphone cameras are a good start, it's the increased chance of being caught that is a far greater deterrent than higher fines.

You could make the fine $10000 but if nobody thinks they'll get caught, it won't change much.

[pritch]

They could make the fine $1,000 but there's a significant portion of the populace don't pay fines.

[jellywrestler]

Nope, I still think more needs to be done to discourage cellphone use while driving.

People often quote the fines in Queensland being $1000. Well, has that stopped people from using their phones? Nope.

Before we go down the track of making huge fines the answer, perhaps we need to ask "but does it solve the problem?" because it hasn't anywhere in the world yet.

Cellphone cameras are a good start, it's the increased chance of being caught that is a far greater deterrent than higher fines.

You could make the fine $10000 but if nobody thinks they'll get caught, it won't change much.

so last year when that mufti cop dressed up as a window washer it caused a hell of a stink, since then i've not seen any enforcement of a similar nature on my local bridge, did the cops actully listen to the whiners and quit doing this sort of policing or what?
it doesn't matter how much the fines are if they are not being administered it's almost irrelevant

[rastuscat]

:
it doesn't matter how much the fines are if they are not being administered it's almost irrelevant

Those little mini-ops are called spot-n-stops. For a prosecution to be successful, the offence has to be detected, the car needs to be stopped, the driver identified, and the ticket written. Separating out the detection (the spotter) and the identifications (stoppers) means that two cops have to go to court to prove the offence. The one who saw the offence, and the one who can ID the driver.

What saves spot-n-stops is that most people accept the ticket, and just pay the fine. Normally because they accept that they got caught. yes, I know, not everyone is innocent.

Deterrence is a product of 3 concepts

1. Relevant penalty, which has some impact on the offender
2. Detection close to the offence being committed
3. The offence being prosecuted in a prompt manner.

You are right, if an offence is unlikely to be prosecuted, the penalty is pretty irrelevant.

The system lost some impact when the cops stopped writing tickets on the spot. A ticket received some days later in the post loses some of the impact of an agent of the state handing you a ticket on the spot. Camera tickets also have this problem.

Just putting fines up, as many suggest, is pointless. And if you put them up too high, it'll have the effect of people just not bothering to pay.

The real impact will come from increasing the perception of the risk of detection, and making it hurt straight away.

[Racing Dave]

[QUOTE=rastuscat;1131236811
I'd be willing to bet a lot of crashes are due to distraction by things other than a mobile phone. [/QUOTE]

I watched a video on FB a day or two ago, where a bike rider on Danseys Pass Road (the sealed part in the north) came across a Moto Guzzi upside down in the grass. That rider declared that he was checking his GPS at the time. Given that he crashed on the RH side of the road, he was jolly fortunate no one was coming towards him.

[jellywrestler]

The one who saw the offence, and the one who can ID the driver.

.

A body cam is a pretty simple thing these days, and the investment can be proved to save dollars easily.

[jellywrestler]

I watched a video on FB a day or two ago, where a bike rider on Danseys Pass Road (the sealed part in the north) came across a Moto Guzzi upside down in the grass. That rider declared that he was checking his GPS at the time. Given that he crashed on the RH side of the road, he was jolly fortunate no one was coming towards him.

moto guzzi riders are still on old cell phones mostly, he was lying about having technology like GPS's

[rastuscat]

A body cam is a pretty simple thing these days, and the investment can be proved to save dollars easily.

Body cams come with their own challenges. Data management is the main one.

The footage needs to be stored regardless of evidential value, as you never know when something filmed might become relevant.