meanwhile, in traffic...

[The_Mowgs]

texting requires a certain degree of concentration.

So does typing in an address into a gps but they don't confiscate it? Same thing! The principle is still being destracted while driving...

 

[wily me]

So does typing in an address into a gps but they don't confiscate it? Same thing! The principle is still being destracted while driving...

Someone typing in an address on GPS while driving deserves to be punished as well.

 

[STS]

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.

in an ideal world, everyone should own a free hands kit

 

[The_Mowgs]

Someone typing in an address on GPS while driving deserves to be punished as well.

That's my whole point. I'm all for the confiscating of the phone but nobody says anything about being destracted by other things.

 

[wily me]

That's my whole point. I'm all for the confiscating of the phone but nobody says anything about being destracted by other things.

No friend, anything and many things hat distracts you are an offense and you will be punished if caught, phones are just a hot topic at the moment.

 

[daveza]

Amazing how we kick up a fuss about the nutters on the roads but when they try and make it safer then their is an uproar.

Perhaps if someone took out your family while texting you would see it differently ?

 

[porchrat]

Amazing how we kick up a fuss about the nutters on the roads but when they try and make it safer then their is an uproar.

Perhaps if someone took out your family while texting you would see it differently ?

Emotive appeal without considering legal implications is emotive.

 

[Archer]

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.

Ok... and impounding a car wont result in someone possibly losing income? Come on, think a little. You're not going to escape penalties because it prevents you from earning an income.
You could basically then say that taxi drivers should not have their licenses revoked because it will prevent them from earning an income... I mean really, just think

 

[waynegohl]

Let's lock up pedestrians rather, they cause accidents too and besides cars don't ride on pavements but pedestrians do walk in the road.

 

[porchrat]

Ok... and impounding a car wont result in someone possibly losing income? Come on, think a little. You're not going to escape penalties because it prevents you from earning an income.
You could basically then say that taxi drivers should not have their licenses revoked because it will prevent them from earning an income... I mean really, just think

Point has been addressed for you already:

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.

 

[Crowley]

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.

He should know it is against the law to talk on your cellphone while driving. Confiscating his phone for 24 hours will make him less likely to use it again while driving.

 

[daveza]

Person one uses phone for work.

If he doesn't use it while driving he will still have it for work use.

 

[eltherza]

He should know it is against the law to talk on your cellphone while driving. Confiscating his phone for 24 hours will make him less likely to use it again while driving.

And thus hopefully making cellphones drop from the top reason for accidents, ulitmately making the roads safer.

 

[TJ99]

I'm so happy to live in a country where people think it's OK for cops to be judge, jury and executioner. Fortunately giving the police that kind of power has never had any negative consequences anywhere in the world, ever.

 

[porchrat]

He should know it is against the law to talk on your cellphone while driving. Confiscating his phone for 24 hours will make him less likely to use it again while driving.

Well done on completely failing to address the point. Top notch job there.

 

[dualmeister]

My car DVD player is a much bigger distraction than my phone.

Good luck trying to get that out my dashboard though

 

[daveza]

I'm so happy to live in a country where people think it's OK for cops to be judge, jury and executioner.

They had cameras set up to show the individuals they had been caught on the phone - hardly any need to judge.

 

[Crowley]

Well done on completely failing to address the point. Top notch job there.

You miss the R10 million sales call and lose your job because you had your phone confiscated? Tough luck. You know the consequences of your actions so it is up to you to either follow the law or pay the price.

 

[TJ99]

They had cameras set up to show the individuals they had been caught on the phone - hardly any need to judge.

Of course there's a need to judge. Even if the police catch a criminal shooting someone in the face with a shotgun, in front of 1000 witnesses and capture it on 50 cameras, he still needs to be sentenced by a court first, the policeman can't just stick him in jail for life. If you're caught speeding on a camera, you can admit guilt by paying the fine, or you can make your case in court, and only then pay the fine they impose if you're found guilty. There's a reason for this stuff, police aren't allowed to just impose punishments as they like.

 

[Archer]

Point has been addressed for you already:

He said for safety reasons right? Hmmm, I wonder under which category being on your phone while driving is.... hmmmm safety perhaps?

edit: that actually made me lol, that you couldnt see that both are being done for safety reasons, haha