meanwhile, in traffic...

[Sinbad]

As I said brakes can't be fixed by hitting the "drop call" button. The car is impounded because it presents an immediate safety risk, it's brakes don't work. When it is impounded it's brakes STILL don't work. The cellphone call is over, the cellphone does not pose a risk. You cannot argue that the phone is being taken away for safety as it doesn't represent a safety problem unless it is being used while driving... when it is confiscated it isn't being used while driving... the call has ended.

Comparisons invalid.

its brakes, not it's brakes.

/grammar nazi
/ad hominem

[porchrat]

LOL, charged for murder without finding a body. What world do you live in porch?

Oh sorry I thought it had said the person was shooting people. In that case replace "murder" with "discharging a firearm illegally". The rest stays pretty much the same.

[Archer]

blablabla

Comparison valid

What is your actual point again? Cause it really looks like you're just arguing for the sake of it now.

[porchrat]

its brakes, not it's brakes.

/grammar nazi
/ad hominem

Not an ad hominem, you were correcting me. Thank you. I often get confused about the use of it's versus its. Your post encouraged me to check up on it and learn something. Thanks again.

Anyway I can see we are just going to continue to agree to disagree here. I'm not going ot bother pouring time into a pointless argument that just goes around and around. Have fun guys.

[eltherza]

Oh sorry I thought it had said the person was shooting people. In that case replace "murder" with "discharging a firearm illegally". The rest stays pretty much the same.

So I understand it, they should rather arrest people talking on the phone and take the phone as evidence.
(and then tow your 'illegally parked' vehicle)

Well, that would drastically decrease the number of people talking on the phone while driving for sure.

[Sinbad]

Not an ad hominem, you were correcting me. Thank you. I often get confused about the use of it's versus its. Your post encouraged me to check up on it and learn something. Thanks again.

Anyway I can see we are just going to continue to agree to disagree here. I'm not going ot bother pouring time into a pointless argument that just goes around and around. Have fun guys.

I was implying, maybe too subtly, that if you can't get a basic apostrophe right, the rest of your reasoning is invalid, of course

[porchrat]

So I understand it, they should rather arrest people talking on the phone and take the phone as evidence.
(and then tow your 'illegally parked' vehicle)

Well, that would drastically decrease the number of people talking on the phone while driving for sure.

I had already recommended earlier in this thread that people face jail time for talking on the cellphone. That I don't have a problem with. I have a problem with a policeman taking your property away without a warrant, without it constituting evidence or without it posing an immediate safety risk.

I was implying, maybe too subtly, that if you can't get a basic apostrophe right, the rest of your reasoning is invalid, of course

Oh well then that is an ad hominem then yes.


Anyway I'm out.

[eltherza]

I had already recommended earlier in this thread that people face jail time for talking on the cellphone. That I don't have a problem with. I have a problem with a policeman taking your property away without a warrant, without it constituting evidence or without it posing an immediate safety risk.

I actually agree with you, taking a cellphone from someone is immature and (as you say) trends on the side of being unconsitutional. Not to even mention the corruption that can occur from it.

Having said that, I'm all for the government making the roads safer so arrest cellphone people is fine by me.

[Conack]

I've followed this thread with quite some interest over the last few days but finding it pretty hard to believe how quick the majority is to back this by-law 'even if it saves just a couple of lives'.

While I applaud the attempted action to make our roads safer, this is not the way to do it. As some have pointed out, it's unconstitutional and opens a door to abuse. In a perfect world the law will work, but in SA where police corruption runs rife?

A couple of years ago I was involved in an incident where a traffic officer pulled me over for "talking on a cellphone", meanwhile I simply stuck a hand out to lower the volume on my XpressMusic (nokia, phone) as I was approaching a traffic light. Cop didn't give a damn to my explanation or asked to look at my 'music device', just wrote me a ticket for R500 because he believed he was following the law and I was talking on my phone.

Thing is, I could just as likely have adjusted an ipod - then what?

If you're taking your sunglasses out of your pocket and a cop decides it looks too much like a cellphone and pulls you over, then - not wanting to look like an idiot, confiscates your phone and writes a ticket - what can you do?

How do you prove you're innocent, it's simply his word against yours.
As Porchrat said earlier, isn't it innocent until proven guilty? Normally you get a ticket which you can pay or... you can go to court if it's BS, which seems legit. How can a small "by-law" suddenly give cops the right to judge and execute right there on the spot?
If your phone is taken without you having touched it and you do go to court afterwards to appeal, you could fight the cost of the fine but the harm has already been done..

Guns get stolen / go missing from police stations pretty regularly from what one reads. Tell me again how cellphones (where your mail, smses and just about everything is stored on the PHONE, not the memory card / sim) are not in danger of being stolen.

Should the law require the officer to provide picture or video proof on request of the accused, then sure.. a fine is fine... but taking your phone? I'm afraid this law has to be fought tooth and nail.

[Archer]

How do you prove you're innocent, it's simply his word against yours.
As Porchrat said earlier, isn't it innocent until proven guilty? Normally you get a ticket which you can pay or... you can go to court if it's BS, which seems legit. How can a small "by-law" suddenly give cops the right to judge and execute right there on the spot?

Or... you can dig around a bit, and find out that they have video evidence. But I guess going on a nice long rant is much more fun... The traffic cops use VIDEO EVIDENCE to prove you were on your phone. Heck, if you simply looked at the video in the OP, you'd know this (bloody hell, why didnt I do this earlier so that maybe porch would've stopped ranting). So tell me, is this still a case of "guilty until proven innocent," or are we actually looking at a "caught red handed" scenario?

[Conack]

Didn't see mention of video recording in any prior posts, and the OP link is just a picture. (For some reason a black one at that)
Regardless, thanks for that and I'm glad to hear it.

Perhaps then a lack of people questioning the quality of the video equipment and competence/experience of the officer using it.
If the video can show beyond a shadow of doubt that you're talking on the phone, fabulous, but how exactly will they see if someone's texting behind the wheel or just scratching nuts unless the cop gets a view as the car drives right by and the camera can peek in from the side?

[Drunkard #1]

Conack, some people have no idea how a civilised society works. These are the same people that think they have the right to assault anyone who they deem to be "an arsehole". It's some sort of warped "discipline and respect mentality", and it's the same reason there is so much violence in this country; they don't let the law follow it's course - they believe that everyone has the right to play judge, jury and executioner. It's obvious that this by-law is meant as a punishment to be dished out by the cops. Even it's supporters abandoned the "it's for safety" veil early on, and just admit freely that it's nothing more than a punishment. You can't argue with them, because you're arguing against 18 years of parental beatings and indoctrination.

[droplet]

i'd be interested to know whether this has resulted in fewer people using their phones while driving...

[waynegohl]

A guy just stopped his car in front of my house and he was yacking away on his cellphone and then rode on again still talking. I wish I had my phone to snap him.

[waynegohl]

Who in their right mind would put a bus shelter in this spot and leave the trees there which is just meters away from a corner and a pedestrian crossing? This picture was taken at the stop street of a side road going into Koeberg Road. To see pass the people and the bus stop and the trees you need to enter the main road which can be dangerous and if there is a bus standing there it's even worse.