meanwhile, in traffic...

[daveza]

There's a reason for this stuff, police aren't allowed to just impose punishments as they like.

Well if you are in Cape Town, find someone you don't like, phone the Stompie Hotline, give them a licence plate number and they will receive a R1000 fine.

If they don't wish to pay it, all they need do is prove they didn't throw a lit cigarette out the window.

Living in Cape Town is such an infringement on one's personal liberties

 

[daveza]

or you can make your case in court

I'm not sure what case you can make when the evidence is a clear photo of you driving with a cell phone being held next to your ear.

Emergency ? Nah, you could pull over and use the phone.

 

[TJ99]

Well if you are in Cape Town, find someone you don't like, phone the Stompie Hotline, give them a licence plate number and they will receive a R1000 fine.

If they don't wish to pay it, all they need do is prove they didn't throw a lit cigarette out the window.
Living in Cape Town is such an infringement on one's personal liberties

For reals? :wtf: You're guilty until proven innocent?

 

[TJ99]

I'm not sure what case you can make when the evidence is a clear photo of you driving with a cell phone being held next to your ear.

Emergency ? Nah, you could pull over and use the phone.

That's irrelevant. I'm not saying there's an excuse for it or whatever. Even if there's all the evidence in the world and everyone including you knows you're guilty, it's still up to the court to impose punishments, not the police.

 

[porchrat]

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

The guy has been fined for talking on his phone and now is no longer talking on his phone... explain to me exactly how taking the phone away at that point is for safety?

Are you going to say "he might do it again"?... please tell me you aren't going to say that because that would just be really hilarious.

 

[Drunkard #1]

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.

So will confiscating his car. Why don't we do that as well. Or (like KZN wanted to do before they were shot down) confiscate peoples 4x4s for fishing without a recreational fishing permit.

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.

You'll also be in favor of 50 year sentences without parole for littering? Because a R 10 000 000 punitive fine imposed by someone who's not a judge, for talking on your phone, seems perfectly reasonable to you.

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

Well that's what the municipality will argue, but only an idiot would believe them. And judges aren't idiots (magistrates excluded), so they'll most likely see this for what it is: a punishment without trial.

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

So the accused shouldn't be allowed to raise the defenses detailed in the traffic legislation? He's just guilty without trial?

 

[daveza]

For reals?

The city amended its fire safety by-law in June 2007 to make it easier to issue fines for throwing butts out of car windows.

It’s not necessary for the prosecution to prove who threw the burning item. Instead, the car owner will be held responsible.

To be fair they normally just send a warning - the first time.

Call the Stompie Hotline!

Take down the offending driver's car numberplate number and call

021 4247715

with a description of the vehicle and the area where the incident occurred.

 

[daveza]

You miss the R10 million sales call and lose your job

Anyone who relies on our cell signal for a 10 Mil deal should be fired anyway.

 

[droplet]

my mind boggles at how people can complain about this! talking on a cellphone has been shown in numerous studies to be worse than FOUR drinks over the legal limit.

nobody here is saying that drunk driving should be allowed, on the basis that because making drunk driving illegal does not address the other dangerous driving activities! and yet the specious argument that addressing the cellphone issue is unfair because a radio is also a danger is very much in evidence here.

if people have a problem with the punishment, they shouldn't do the crime!

 

[Archer]

The guy has been fined for talking on his phone and now is no longer talking on his phone... explain to me exactly how taking the phone away at that point is for safety?

Are you going to say "he might do it again"?... please tell me you aren't going to say that because that would just be really hilarious.

Previously people got fined, but the total numbers of fines never decreased. So, if you actually look at the evidence, yes, I will say exactly that - he will do it again. Actual real world facts prove that. So, change the punishment a bit, and maybe this time it will make a bigger difference
If you concede that using your phone while driving is dangerous, then you have to concede that any punishment is to try and improve safety. Simple

 

[porchrat]

Previously people got fined, but the total numbers of fines never decreased. So, if you actually look at the evidence, yes, I will say exactly that - he will do it again. Actual real world facts prove that. So, change the punishment a bit, and maybe this time it will make a bigger difference

Awesome idea. Lets start punishing people for crimes they might do in the future! Brilliant. Perfectly fair and rational too!!

Seriously. What. The. Fsck.

If you concede that using your phone while driving is dangerous, then you have to concede that any punishment is to try and improve safety. Simple

LOL you are trying to pretend that the legal system is perfect. It isn't. It makes mistakes all the time. So no just because I conceded that driving while using your cell phone is dangerous does not mean I have to concede that any punishment dreamt up by the legal system is for safety. After all the legal system could decide that the punishment is to force the person responsible to drive at 120kph wherever he/she goes. That certainly isn't for safety.

 

[Archer]

Awesome idea. Lets start punishing people for crimes they might do in the future! Brilliant. Perfectly fair and rational too!!

Seriously. What. The. Fsck.

I'm going to pull a porchrat, and get you to quote exactly where I said we must punish people for future crimes. Go, do it now. What I said was, current punishment is not working, so it has been made more harsh, in order to try and get people to not be repeat offenders. For clarity - that means you are being punished for what you have already done (just more harshly since the previous punishment was clearly not effective, and therefore not fitting of the crime).

LOL you are trying to pretend that the legal system is perfect. It isn't. It makes mistakes all the time. So no just because I conceded that driving while using your cell phone is dangerous does not mean I have to concede that any punishment dreamt up by the legal system is for safety. After all the legal system could decide that the punishment is to force the person responsible to drive at 120kph wherever he/she goes. That certainly isn't for safety.

I'll pull a porchrat again. Show me where I assume the legal system is perfect. Go, do it now. As for the rest, so you are arguing that forcing people to be without their phone for a period will encourage them to use their phone while driving (when they get their phone back of course). Thats what it sounds like, and I hope I've misunderstood. My point is that the aim of (any) punishment, is to discourage the action occuring again. Your example is silly, cause it doesnt really do that

 

[STS]

Awesome idea. Lets start punishing people for crimes they might do in the future! Brilliant. Perfectly fair and rational too!!

Seriously. What. The. Fsck.

LOL you are trying to pretend that the legal system is perfect. It isn't. It makes mistakes all the time. So no just because I conceded that driving while using your cell phone is dangerous does not mean I have to concede that any punishment dreamt up by the legal system is for safety. After all the legal system could decide that the punishment is to force the person responsible to drive at 120kph wherever he/she goes. That certainly isn't for safety.

what punishment should drivers be given then, and what is a better deterrent?

 

[PostmanPot]

I think it's quite a good thing when being considerate about life/lives, but definitely agree that average motorists are soft and well off targets, so would like to see more efforts put into the poor's transport and safety, because they're the ones getting killed, who need it the most.

Question. When comparing the death toll over the years since +-2005, since Blackberry's and smart phones started becoming more and more popular, there has been quite a decline in the death rate. Not saying that cell phones don't lead to more accidents (that would be an interesting stat), but one would think the death toll to be higher... Unless it's because of clamping down in other areas.

 

[porchrat]

I'm going to pull a porchrat, and get you to quote exactly where I said we must punish people for future crimes. Go, do it now. What I said was, current punishment is not working, so it has been made more harsh, in order to try and get people to not be repeat offenders. For clarity - that means you are being punished for what you have already done (just more harshly since the previous punishment was clearly not effective, and therefore not fitting of the crime).

How is taking away the phone because someone might do it again not punishing someone for a crime they may or may not commit in the future?

If you aren't taking it away because they might do it again in the future then you cannot use that excuse to justify that it is "for safety". Can't have your cake and eat it there Archie.

I'll pull a porchrat again. Show me where I assume the legal system is perfect. Go, do it now.

It was implied when you said that any punishment for using your cell phone would always be for safety. Which is of course utter garbage because there could be any number of punishments dreamed up by the legal system that in no way enforce safety. Those of course would hopefully quickly be kicked into touch when challenged as they should be.

As for the rest, so you are arguing that forcing people to be without their phone for a period will encourage them to use their phone while driving (when they get their phone back of course). Thats what it sounds like, and I hope I've misunderstood. My point is that the aim of (any) punishment, is to discourage the action occuring again. Your example is silly, cause it doesnt really do that

I'm not saying taking the phone away is or isn't going to stop people talking on their phones, I can't see the future and so hold no opinion on it. Society is far too complex to be able to accurately predict what some new law will and won't do. All we can say is what we intend for it to do which is an entirely different matter.

I'm arguing as to whether or not police should be permitted to take someone's property away without their permission and without a warrant. As far as I can see that is theft. To the best of my knowledge there is no situation in South African law that allows for that.

 

[STS]

I think it's quite a good thing when being considerate about life/lives, but definitely agree that average motorists are soft and well off targets, so would like to see more efforts put into the poor's transport and safety, because they're the ones getting killed, who need it the most.

Question. When comparing the death toll over the years since +-2005, since Blackberry's and smart phones started becoming more and more popular, there has been quite a decline in the death rate. Not saying that cell phones don't lead to more accidents (that would be an interesting stat), but one would think the death toll to be higher... Unless it's because of clamping down in other areas.

i believe the death toll is lower, but what about the accident rate? i see people bump into each other everyday and survive. you do lose concentration when you are on your phone and some people already have a slow reaction time. even a radio demands your attention, but never as much as a phone, with a phone you need to press a succession of buttons as well as think of a response and check for spelling mistakes if you are SMSing. if you are talking, you are removing one hand which prevents you from turning or changing gears properly. i feel confiscating a phone forces people to reconsider this and to also buy a hands free kit

 

[porchrat]

what punishment should drivers be given then, and what is a better deterrent?

I don't know. That doesn't mean we should embrace something that gives cops the power to take your possessions from you without a warrant and without your permission.

Perhaps the answer is some jail time.

 

[STS]

I don't know. That doesn't mean we should embrace something that gives cops the power to take your possessions from you without a warrant and without your permission.

i think you should think of a better solution or people will be forced to use this one in the mean time. fines do not work, as most people i know have at least 2 outstanding fines they refuse to pay, and a lot of them talk on their phones

 

[eltherza]

I'm arguing as to whether or not police should be permitted to take someone's property away without their permission and without a warrant. As far as I can see that is theft. To the best of my knowledge there is no situation in South African law that allows for that.

They shouldn't be allowed to issue speeding fines without warrant and a full court case either then? Because techically, that money is my personal possession.

 

[porchrat]

i think you should think of a better solution or people will be forced to use this one in the mean time. fines do not work, as most people i know have at least 2 outstanding fines they refuse to pay, and a lot of them talk on their phones

Think of an alternative solution or we will use the potentially illegal one in the meantime? This makes no sense.

If an approach is wrong you don't adopt it anyway just because you don't have another yet.

"Yea I know putting children on a medieval rack is perhaps a flawed approach but give me an alternative or we will just use this rack proposal". Come on.