meanwhile, in traffic...

smalltownsky said:
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
Click to expand...

I understand how cell phones, radios, GPSes, children, sweet packets, can all lead to loss of concentration.

Would you say that most of your argument relies on the assumption that it is cell phones leading to the accidents, and the ones you witness, etc. ? I'm looking for an answer besides "accidents happen due to a loss of concentration". :)
 
porchrat said:
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.
Click to expand...

You take the phone away because the guy already commited a crime... Already - past tense... in the past. Not future. They've only added this because the previous punishment wasnt working.
Thought exercise - if the punishment for murder was a R100 fine, and you then increased it to life imprisonment, are we now punishing people for future crimes, or trying to prevent crime with a more harsh punishment?

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.
Click to expand...
Does using your phone while driving decrease your (and others) safety? Yes... Was I trying to imply anything? No. If the law is followed, a phone would only be taken away because you have used it while driving. The aim of this law is to improve safety of course. Therefore taking the phone away and fining you is an attempt to improve safety. Do traffic cops have quotas they need to meet? I dont know, but if they do then yes, maybe some abuse will occur. But that would happen irrespective of whether this new law had been passed or not.

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.
Click to expand...

They already can (impounding an illegally parked car for example), for reasons that I think are similar in nature. So...? I'm confused why this specific case is theft whereas impounding a car is not?
 
From a report on the December road deaths:


The following have been found to have been among the most common causes of the crashes:

 Speeds too high for conditions, especially, during inclement weather and at night;
 Dangerous, reckless and/or inconsiderate driving, particularly barrier line infringements;
 Abuse of alcohol by drivers and pedestrians;
 Fatigue, especially amongst public passenger drivers;
 Vehicle fitness, particularly tyre failure and defective brakes, and
 Pedestrian negligence (jay walking, walking on freeways, not visible at night and drunken walking).

Note! No cell phones as cause.

You are most likely to be killed in a motor accident if you are a pedestrian. (Presumably talking on your cellphone and ignorring the traffic.
 
porchrat said:
Think of an alternative solution or we will use the potentially illegal one in the meantime? This makes no sense..
Click to expand...

Its not illegal as has been said multiple times. Would you like a link to the law that pertains to impounding illegally parked cars?
 
Just to put the topic in perspective, the relevant bylaw which came into force in June 2012 and is quite clear is below

COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES
Prohibition on use of communication device while driving
38. (1) Subject to any other law, no person shall drive a motor vehicle on a public road—
(a) while holding a cellular or mobile telephone or any other communication device in one or both hands or with any other part of the
body;
(b) while using or operating a cellular or mobile telephone or other communication device unless such a cellular or mobile telephone or
other communication device is affixed to the vehicle or is part of the fixture in the vehicle and remains so affixed while being used or
operated, or is specially adapted or designed to be affixed to the person of the driver as headgear, and is so used, to enable such driver
to use or operate such telephone or communication device without holding it in the manner contemplated in paragraph (a), and
remains so affixed while being used or operated.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
(a) the word ‘‘headgear’’ includes a device which is specially designed or adapted to allow the driver to use a cellular or mobile telephone
or other communication device in such a manner that he or she does not hold it in one or both hands or with any other part of the body,
and which is connected to the cellular or mobile telephone or other communication device concerned, directly or indirectly, while
being fitted to or attached to one or both ears of the driver; and
(b) the phrases ‘‘cellular or mobile telephone or any other communication device’’ and ‘‘cellular or mobile telephone or other
communication device’’, excludes land mobile radio transmission and reception equipment operating in the frequency band
2 megahertz to 500 megahertz that is affixed to the vehicle or is part of the fixture in the vehicle.
(3) Subject to subsections (1) and (4), an authorised officer may, in the public interest and safety of the public, confiscate and impound a hand
held communication device.
(4) The authorised officer must, when confiscating any hand held communication device—
(a) inform the owner of such communication device of the reasons of confiscating and impounding;
(b) issue a receipt to the owner of such hand held communication device, stating the place at which such device may be claimed; and
(c) follow all procedures contained in any policy of the City dealing with the confiscation and impoundment of property.
 
Last edited:
Billy said:
From a report on the December road deaths:


The following have been found to have been among the most common causes of the crashes:

 Speeds too high for conditions, especially, during inclement weather and at night;
 Dangerous, reckless and/or inconsiderate driving, particularly barrier line infringements;
 Abuse of alcohol by drivers and pedestrians;
 Fatigue, especially amongst public passenger drivers;
 Vehicle fitness, particularly tyre failure and defective brakes, and
 Pedestrian negligence (jay walking, walking on freeways, not visible at night and drunken walking).

Note! No cell phones as cause.

You are most likely to be killed in a motor accident if you are a pedestrian. (Presumably talking on your cellphone and ignorring the traffic.
Click to expand...

On the radio, someone [minster of safety?] said that cellphones are the 4th leading cause of motor accidents.
 
Archer said:
Its not illegal as has been said multiple times. Would you like a link to the law that pertains to impounding illegally parked cars?
Click to expand...
Did you miss the word "potentially"?

As far as I can see this is the taking of property without a warrant and without my permission. I wasn't aware that police were allowed to do this. So no I don't want something about impounding cars I want the laws on confiscating property.
 
Billy said:
Note! No cell phones as cause.
Click to expand...

http://www.nsc.org/pages/nscestimates16millioncrashescausedbydriversusingcellphonesandtexting.aspx

NSC updated its annual attributable risk estimate in 2011 using new data from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The updated assessment estimates that at least 23 percent of all traffic crashes - or at least 1.3 million crashes - involve cell phone use per year.

An estimated 1.2 million crashes each year involve drivers using cell phones for conversations and at least 100,000 additional crashes can be related to drivers who are texting. Cell phone conversations are involved in 12 times as many crashes as texting.
Click to expand...

http://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/cell-phone/statistics.html

Of the 5,474 killed because of distracted driving, 995 involved reports of a cell phone as a factor. However, the number of fatalities caused by cell phone use could be much higher. For those who were injured, 24,000 involved reports of cell phone use as a distraction.
Click to expand...

Haven't found a site yet which says using a cell phone while driving is safe.
 
PostmanPot said:
I understand how cell phones, radios, GPSes, children, sweet packets, can all lead to loss of concentration.

Would you say that most of your argument relies on the assumption that it is cell phones leading to the accidents, and the ones you witness, etc. ? I'm looking for an answer besides "accidents happen due to a loss of concentration". :)
Click to expand...

i agree that a lot of things can lead to an accident. there are some people who can control their phones quite nicely in the car too, however i think most people have been stuck behind a person using their phone in traffic after the other cars have gone. i don't think it's loss of concentration, i think it's a different kind of concentratio nthat takes them away from focusing on the road because they feel it is safe, and the misjudge the time.

i think the biggest cause is people taking risks and chances, like shooting out in front of a car, trying to jump a red as it's turned red, peopel speeding. i feel that phones do contribute to this and also hinder correct manueverability to prevent an accident if one were to happen. as far as distractions go i think it is one of the biggest
 
porchrat said:
Did you miss the word "potentially"?

As far as I can see this is the taking of property without a warrant and without my permission. I wasn't aware that police were allowed to do this. So no I don't want something about impounding cars I want the laws on confiscating property.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the words "its not illegal" :confused: Impounding a vehicle does not require a warrant.
 
In terms of the bylaw I posted earlier, metro police are specifically given the authority to confiscate cell based on certain criteria and actions that they must comply. Later in the bylaw they are given authority to issue fines, so why is it illegal
 
TonyA said:
In terms of the bylaw I posted earlier, metro police are specifically given the authority to confiscate cell based on certain criteria and actions that they must comply. Later in the bylaw they are given authority to issue fines, so why is it illegal
Click to expand...
A law can say whatever the fsck it wants that doesn't mean it stands up to challenge. I want ot know where the police get the power to take property without a warrant or permission.

I can understand where the property poses an immediate safety risk such as with a car abandoned in the middle of the street or an illegal weapon or something but you are going to find it very hard to justify that with a cellphone. I want to know where the power to confiscate property when it doesn't actually pose an immediate safety risk comes from. What law?

and no "yes a cellphone is a perfectly legal device but he might do something naughty with it later" is unacceptable.
 
Billy said:
So I quote a South African Site Arrive Alive with no cell phones as a cause of accidents, and you quote overseas sites, where the main cause of accidents is driving on the wrong side of the raod.
Click to expand...

Well, the South Africa Site Arrive Alive has this

Texting and Distracted Driving

http://www.arrivealive.co.za/pages.aspx?i=2894

and all their stats are from the US as well.
 
porchrat said:
A law can say whatever the fsck it wants that doesn't mean it stands up to challenge. I want ot know where the police get the power to take property without a warrant or permission.

I can understand where the property poses an immediate safety risk such as with a car abandoned in the middle of the street or an illegal weapon or something but you are going to find it very hard to justify that with a cellphone. I want to know where the power to confiscate property when it doesn't actually pose an immediate safety risk comes from. What law?

and no "yes a cellphone is a perfectly legal device but he might do something naughty with it later" is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

to be fair it will pose a risk any time it is used, you might be called 2 minutes later or want to resume your conversation before the cops pulled you over. it is dangerous and as long as people use it irresponsibily then they should be taken away.

look at it like this, if you don't use your phone in the car, you have nothing to worry about, which is what people are supposed to do anyway.

edit: on top of that, how responsible will the cops be if they let you go with something that can cause an accident and pose a risk? they might as well let drunk drivers go and hope they don't crash into anyone
 
Last edited:
38(1)(b) above is a little daft. Let's say you've got your phone in a cradle, hooked up to a handsfree or using the built-in speakerphone function. Now, let's imagine your phone either doesn't have voice-dialling or it's playing up. Are they really suggesting poking at it in the cradle would be less of a distraction than taking it in hand & dialling the number?
 
porchrat said:
Sure but the law TonyA provided referenced more than mere vehicle impounding... did you not read it?
Click to expand...

I actually have no clue what you are trying to say here. It doesnt change the fact that the officer does not need a warrant to impound your cell/vehicle/whatever given that he has reasonable grounds to believe given current information a judge would provide a waarant. The cop has seen you commit the crime, and hence would have reasonable grounds to act without a warrant

porchrat said:
and no "yes a cellphone is a perfectly legal device but he might do something naughty with it later" is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Thats also silly. By that reasoning you can say that vehicle with non functioning brakes is not an offense. He has not yet had an accident, so fining him for non working brakes is unnaceptable! He hasnt killed anyone yet right? Right! Challenge that law, gogogo!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X