meanwhile, in traffic...

[xrapidx]

Yes!! Take away everything!!

Look at it this way. There are 5837 different ways to get distracted while driving. But now, there are only 5836 ways. So its one less way that you can meet an early demise. I call that a good thing

Still 5837 as now the cop is distracting you to pull you over.

 

[Archer]

Still 5837 as now the cop is distracting you to pull you over.

You're being silly and short sighted

 

[Billy]

This. I can't believe the constitution allows for this, it's theft. No warrant, no arrest, just take your stuff? Doesn't seem right.

I agree. I think it is only a matter of time before we see it in the Constitutional court.

Al levels of Government have a habit of making laws without checking if it is in line with the Constitution, which trumps CapeTown Bylaws.

 

[Drunkard #1]

I give this law a week before it's declared unconstitutional. By law, punishments have to be fair, and confiscating a R 6 000 phone from someone who uses it extensively is not the same as confiscating a R 150 phone from someone that uses it now and then, so it's not fair (there are several cases testing this principle). There's also the "innocent until proven guilty" laws (which only a court can decide), and the "everyone has the right to a fair trial" laws, and the potential infringement of the "right to security" laws (not having a cell phone is a significant safety risk in certain circumstances).

As usual the traffic authorities are behaving against the law.

 

[xrapidx]

I give this law a week before it's declared unconstitutional. By law, punishments have to be fair, and confiscating a R 6 000 phone from someone who uses it extensively is not the same as confiscating a R 150 phone from someone that uses it now and then, so it's not fair (there are several cases testing this principle). There's also the "innocent until proven guilty" laws (which only a court can decide), and the "everyone has the right to a fair trial" laws, and the potential infringement of the "right to security" laws (not having a cell phone is a significant safety risk in certain circumstances).

As usual the traffic authorities are behaving against the law.

Loop hole... just keep one of those budget R99 phones in the car

 

[MickZA]

Some of the attitudes displayed here explain the high accident rate on our roads.

Once knew a guy who had 11 accidents in just over a year. His most famous occurred when coming back to the office from the panel beaters in his newly repaired company car

Not saying phone use was the cause but, generally speaking, if you wanted to shoot him in the head you'd aim for his phone

 

[eltherza]

WTF? Trying to do something to make the roads safer for all of us and people complain.

 

[Archer]

By law, punishments have to be fair, and confiscating a R 6 000 phone from someone who uses it extensively is not the same as confiscating a R 150 phone from someone that uses it now and then, so it's not fair (there are several cases testing this principle).

As usual the traffic authorities are behaving against the law.

Fail argument
So if I park a R2mil Audi R8 on a red line and its impounded, but a 20 year old VW Beetle does the same, and also gets impounded, the punishment doesnt fit the crime? "How is impounding a R2mil car equal to impounding a R10k car? It isnt fair" - thats your argument in a nutshell

Gosh, heaven forbid the authorities try to do something that would improve road safety

 

[snugglez64]

I'm all for this. It irritates the **** outta me to see people BBMing/Texting while driving. Calling not so much but especially when you gotta look at your phone to do whatever it is you doing/typing/whatever!

 

[waynegohl]

I don't drive at all so this whole issue does not apply to me and whilst i see asswipes driving kak only to find them on the phone (I have a picture I took on my facebook page of just such an asswipe), I think there are plenty other issues that distract the driver and the cellphone issue is but one of them.
How many of you drivers that smoke have dropped a cigarette and or ash in your lap or spilled that coffee and or soda or had the kids fighting in the back of the car which caused you to turn around to shout at them, these are all distractions which can lead to accidents.

The same argument goes for the banning of smoking and drinking, I wonder what the statistics are for fatal accidents caused by smoking?

 

[xrapidx]

WTF? Trying to do something to make the roads safer for all of us and people complain.

I have no problem with it - I'd just like them to do something about an even bigger problem, taxi's....

How often do you see a news report where 20 people were killed/injured because of someone talking on the phone?

This "law" has no effect on me as my car has blueteeth.

 

[MickZA]

The same argument goes for the banning of smoking and drinking, I wonder what the statistics are for fatal accidents caused by smoking?

Once had a girlfriend (blonde) who got us rear ended in what she regarded as a routine driving manoeuvre, her cigarette lighter fell under her seat so she stamped on the brakes to slide it forward. The relationship went downhill rapidly from there on

 

[wily me]

My phone is also my GPS navigator. I wonder what they will say if they see me driving along with a phone telling me where to turn

"GPS" in hand? Get a window mount!

Now what about Taxis with TV's

 

[Drunkard #1]

Loop hole... just keep one of those budget R99 phones in the car

Who doesn't? This just adds more fuel to the "not equal before the law" argument.

Fail argument
So if I park a R2mil Audi R8 on a red line and its impounded, but a 20 year old VW Beetle does the same, and also gets impounded, the punishment doesnt fit the crime? "How is impounding a R2mil car equal to impounding a R10k car? It isnt fair" - thats your argument in a nutshell

Gosh, heaven forbid the authorities try to do something that would improve road safety

No, it's not the same. A red line is there for a reason, so leaving the car there would pose a significant safety risk. Ergo, the car is removed - the primary reason being safety, not punishment. That can't be said for this hair-brained scheme. The primary reason for confiscating phones is punishment, which by law has to be fair and procedurally correct. This isn't.

No-ones saying that using a phone while driving shouldn't be punished, but breaking one law to enforce another is a slippery slope. This by-law might make perfect sense in an ideal world, but the practical considerations of using it in the real world make it a stupid idea.

 

[MickZA]

Who doesn't? The primary reason for confiscating phones is punishment, which by law has to be fair and procedurally correct. This isn't.

But it's a punishment based on deprivation (24hrs) so I don't see how value enters into the equation, they tried that with fines which, it would seem, rich offenders happily coughed up.

 

[Archer]

No, it's not the same. A red line is there for a reason, so leaving the car there would pose a significant safety risk. Ergo, the car is removed - the primary reason being safety, not punishment. That can't be said for this hair-brained scheme. The primary reason for confiscating phones is punishment, which by law has to be fair and procedurally correct. This isn't.

Lets summarise
Cops take away your phone
Person one with a R10k phone cant make phone calls/text with that phone for 24 hours
Person two with a R100 phone cant make phone calls/text with that phone for 24 hours
24 hours later person one and two get their phones back

Where is this inequality you speak of? Nobody loses value on their phone. They get it back... If you can explain why person one actually loses more money than person two you'd have a leg to stand on perhaps

 

[porchrat]

Lets summarise
Cops take away your phone
Person one with a R10k phone cant make phone calls/text with that phone for 24 hours
Person two with a R100 phone cant make phone calls/text with that phone for 24 hours
24 hours later person one and two get their phones back

Where is this inequality you speak of? Nobody loses value on their phone. They get it back... If you can explain why person one actually loses more money than person two you'd have a leg to stand on perhaps

Person one uses phone for work. Without it cannot earn a living. Person two does not.

Just a thought, don't know how relevant it is.

 

[daveza]

It really doesn't matter whether it is against the law, against the Constitution or against the law of the Universe - if you don't hold your cellphone while you are driving nobody is going to do anything to it.

So it's up to you.

 

[porchrat]

It really doesn't matter whether it is against the law, against the Constitution or against the law of the Universe - if you don't hold your cellphone while you are driving nobody is going to do anything to it.

So it's up to you.

It doesn't matter whether it is against the law, against the Constitution or against the law of the Universe - if you don't wear pants we aren't going to rape you to teach you a lesson.

So it's up to you.

 

[Mouse]

"GPS" in hand? Get a window mount!

Now what about Taxis with TV's

I already have a window mount. I'm just wondering what the average [-]idiot[/-] cop would say about having the phone within viewing distance. Is it a distraction to have the phone showing me a route as well?