meanwhile, in traffic...

Perhaps we should realise that driving is a dangerous activity and just be sensible about. Drivers allow babies to sit on their laps or front seat passengers lap where they are totally at risk. Perhaps the option is to confiscate the baby for 24 hours? There is myriad of rules and regulations to regulate our behaviour because we don't regulate ourselves and place other persons at risk!
 
porchrat said:
Hanging the dude upside down naked on a portable stage in the centre of town brutally torturing him is also a much better deterrent. Doesn't make it a fair or valid one.
Click to expand...

did he rape someone in the car? :p

if that is the case why don't we just confiscate weapons of people that commit murders and give them fines? there is a reason for each kind of punishment. it's an inconvenience to have to lose your phone and still go and fetch it the following day.

the reality is that the majority of offenders are repeat offenders. people drive drunk until caught, people commit burglaries until caught, people commit rape until caught, and in some cases people even continue to do so after being caught. no rights are being violated here, and even if you feel rights are being violated, the people committing the act are already breaking a law and endangering people
 
smalltownsky said:
did he rape someone in the car? :p

if that is the case why don't we just confiscate weapons of people that commit murders and give them fines? there is a reason for each kind of punishment. it's an inconvenience to have to lose your phone and still go and fetch it the following day.
Click to expand...
In an ideal world there is a valid reason for each kind of punishment but justice systems are not perfect.

Would you argue that the laws regarding Apartheid had valid reasons we should have been supporting? Didn't think so.

The justice system can be challenged for the very reason that we know it isn't perfect and can indeed make mistakes. Someone who assumes that a law is fair just because it is part of the legal system is a blind fool.


the reality is that the majority of offenders are repeat offenders. people drive drunk until caught, people commit burglaries until caught, people commit rape until caught, and in some cases people even continue to do so after being caught.
Click to expand...
You have contradicted yourself but I think it is just a slight misunderstanding. You claim the majority of offenders are repeat offenders and then go on to say that some people continue to do it after having been caught. A repeat offender is someone who goes on to commit the same crime again after having been convicted. Someone that does it multiple times before being convicted is not described using the term "repeat offender".


no rights are being violated here, and even if you feel rights are being violated, the people committing the act are already breaking a law and endangering people
Click to expand...
As far as I can see the right to property might be being violated.

Those committing offences still have rights. Just because you commit an offence that does not mean you lose your right to property for example. To even hint at such a thing is insane.

It makes sense to confiscate something when it poses an immediate danger to society but you can't use that reasoning with the cellphone because the call is over.
 
When was the last time they had a safety campaign preaching to the pedestrians in this country?
 
daveza said:
I think Porchrat is a habitual cellphone driver.
Click to expand...
Yea I mean it isn't like I was suggesting prison sentences as an alternative to confiscation earlier in the thread. Thanks for this insightful garbage Sherlock. :rolleyes:

Why is it that there are some idiots on this forum that think that just because someone has an aversion to one particular penalty for something they are automatically in support of the offence itself. Words cannot explain how utterly braindead you have to be to suggest such a thing.
 
Last edited:
This doesnt really effect me, I ignore my phone completely while driving (or switch it to silent if I am driving far).

But if they really wanted to make a impact, they should fine R400 for actual penalty, and R400 for a compulsory hand free kit that the finehee is forced to purchase.

I think it will probably have a psychological effect on the person as they had to purchase the kit and now have to use it els its a waste.

Confiscating doesnt help any one,repeat offenders will still do it, forcing them to use a alternative, just might.
 
As I understand the bylaw you still get a fine and the added inconvenience of having to go to the Trafic Dept at Gallows Hill, in the middle of Cape Town to collect your phone after 24 hrs. Would make me think twice before using fone whilst driving!
 
Just talking on the phone, whether it is held to your ear or you are using a headset is distracting. This has been shown in the UK. It is only marginally worse holding the phone with one hand than actually just speaking with it. The safest bet by far is to switch off the ringer and vibrate when you are driving and get the missed calls when you stop
 
FaSMaN said:
This doesnt really effect me, I ignore my phone completely while driving (or switch it to silent if I am driving far).

But if they really wanted to make a impact, they should fine R400 for actual penalty, and R400 for a compulsory hand free kit that the finehee is forced to purchase.

I think it will probably have a psychological effect on the person as they had to purchase the kit and now have to use it els its a waste.

Confiscating doesnt help any one,repeat offenders will still do it, forcing them to use a alternative, just might.
Click to expand...

I like this idea, but I would alter it so that the guilty person has to either pay a fine for MORE than the cost of a hands free kit, or buy a hands free kit and not have to pay the fine :p
 
FaSMaN said:
This doesnt really effect me, I ignore my phone completely while driving (or switch it to silent if I am driving far).

But if they really wanted to make a impact, they should fine R400 for actual penalty, and R400 for a compulsory hand free kit that the finehee is forced to purchase.

I think it will probably have a psychological effect on the person as they had to purchase the kit and now have to use it els its a waste.

Confiscating doesnt help any one,repeat offenders will still do it, forcing them to use a alternative, just might.
Click to expand...
Excellent idea!! and Julias Malema's company can supply the hands free kit... which we are all forced to buy!

Then we could create even more laws that force people to buy other stuff sold by cadres. Man why didn't the government figure out that gravy train earlier!! All these years of wasted opportunities! :eek:
 
You know, I don't really care if you think it is theft or unconstitutional, if it stops another idiot causing an accident because he HAS to stay in contact with the world 24/7, I think it's great!!
 
Now the cops will be watching for people on phones whilst the unroadworthy car driven by an unlicensed driver jumps a red light.
 
R13... said:
Why? Are cops in CT only allowed to focus on one offence at a time?:wtf:
Click to expand...

:wtf: I seriously think there are worse "crimes" getting committed every day on our roads and they want to nab people talking on their phones? Why add another "illegal" activity to the mix when the cops can't really police any of the others?
 
Fazda said:
You know, I don't really care if you think it is theft or unconstitutional, if it stops another idiot causing an accident because he HAS to stay in contact with the world 24/7, I think it's great!!
Click to expand...
You need to take your rights more seriously. You are far too quick to toss them aside for any excuse involving safety without checking whether it is a case of the thin edge of a wedge. They are the only things that protect you from exploitation at the hands of your government. Frankly I am grateful for their presence and will not give them up easily.

I imagine you are the sort of person that is all for the government being able to monitor and censor websites and other communications involving citizens, with no judicial oversight, in order to keep the kids safe as well.
 
porchrat said:
You need to take your rights more seriously. You are far too quick to toss them aside for any excuse involving safety without checking whether it is a case of the thin edge of a wedge. They are the only things that protect you from exploitation at the hands of your government. Frankly I am grateful for their presence and will not give them up easily.

I imagine you are the sort of person that is all for the government being able to monitor and censor websites and other communications involving citizens, with no judicial oversight, in order to keep the kids safe as well.
Click to expand...

Oh God, don't come to me with that crap.

There are certain things that SA drivers are doing and killing people in the process.

If confiscating a phone saves one life then it's worth it.
 
porchrat said:
You need to take your rights more seriously. You are far too quick to toss them aside for any excuse involving safety without checking whether it is a case of the thin edge of a wedge.
Click to expand...

The flipside of rights is responsibilities. You can't have rights if you're not responsible enough to exercise them correctly... Take their phones away. It works on teenagers - and people who drive on the phone are not much more evolved than they are IMHO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X