meanwhile, in traffic...

[eltherza]

I'm pretty sure if you go around shooting random shots off with a gun, they'll take your gun away without your consent... matter of fact, they might just remove that right to life without a judge present.

 

[Sinbad]

Note that a cellphone that is no longer involved in a conversation is NOT unsafe. You can't magically fix the brakes on your car by hitting the "drop call" button but you can do that with a cellphone. Comparison invalid.

Until the second it rings or beeps again, then it becomes a distraction again.
Non-functional brakes aren't dangerous either, until you need to slow down.

 

[eltherza]

Speeding... they send you the bill as though you are guilty without a court case.

 

[porchrat]

Speeding... they send you the bill as though you are guilty without a court case.

You can choose to contest it and have your day in court. Paying it is an admission of guilt. In fact beyond certain speeds it is a default non-admission of guilt and you have your day in court where the court decides upon the fine.

 

[porchrat]

Until the second it rings or beeps again, then it becomes a distraction again.
Non-functional brakes aren't dangerous either, until you need to slow down.

Slowing down is a standard function of driving the car. The car cannot be driven until such time as the brakes are repaired.

You can't drive choosing not to slow down, you can drive choosing not to answer the phone. Comparison STILL invalid.

 

[Archer]

I see you added the bold bit. Perfectly reasonable. Asking that the cops move it somewhere else is impractical and potentially unfair. There may be nowhere nearby to move it to and in that case the owner would not be able to find his/her vehicle. So "go to the impound and get it" is the default. We need to treat everyone equally and so everyone's car gets treated in the same manner - impound.

So then the driver does get [-]punished[/-] inconvenienced for endangering the safety of others? All without a warrant, or consent, or a day in court. Are we on the same page yet? Sounds a lot like whats happening with the phones to me...

Note that a cellphone that is no longer involved in a conversation is NOT unsafe. You can't magically fix the brakes on your car by hitting the "drop call" button but you can do that with a cellphone. Comparison invalid.

Unroadworthy vehicles can be impounded on the spot... Which means... the car wont be a danger to people anymore.... the same as... taking away the phone for a bit... So how is this comparison invalid? In both cases the unsafe condition has been removed.

 

[porchrat]

I'm pretty sure if you go around shooting random shots off with a gun, they'll take your gun away without your consent... matter of fact, they might just remove that right to life without a judge present.

You will be arrested, charged with murder and your gun will be taken as evidence. The phone is not being taken as evidence.

 

[Archer]

Slowing down is a standard function of driving the car. The car cannot be driven until such time as the brakes are repaired.

You can't drive choosing not to slow down, you can drive choosing not to answer the phone. Comparison STILL invalid.

For ****s sakes then, how about wheels with little or no tread left. The car will perform its function, but it technically makes the vehicle unroadworthy. You really are just arguing for the sake of it. I've never had the displeasure of you arguing such utterly inane points.

 

[Archer]

You will be arrested, charged with murder and your gun will be taken as evidence. The phone is not being taken as evidence.

LOL, charged for murder without finding a body. What world do you live in porch?
So you think its ok to be arrested for murder when all you've done is shots fired? Talk about being arrested for "future" crimes

 

[porchrat]

So then the driver does get [-]punished[/-] inconvenienced for endangering the safety of others? All without a warrant, or consent, or a day in court. Are we on the same page yet? Sounds a lot like whats happening with the phones to me...

No the car get impounded because it poses a danger to others in it's current state. A cellphone, once the call is ended, does not.

Unroadworthy vehicles can be impounded on the spot... Which means... the car wont be a danger to people anymore.... the same as... taking away the phone for a bit... So how is this comparison invalid? In both cases the unsafe condition has been removed.

As I said brakes can't be fixed by hitting the "drop call" button. The car is impounded because it presents an immediate safety risk, it's brakes don't work. When it is impounded it's brakes STILL don't work. The cellphone call is over, the cellphone does not pose a risk. You cannot argue that the phone is being taken away for safety as it doesn't represent a safety problem unless it is being used while driving... when it is confiscated it isn't being used while driving... the call has ended.

Comparisons invalid.

 

[Sinbad]

As I said brakes can't be fixed by hitting the "drop call" button. The car is impounded because it presents an immediate safety risk, it's brakes don't work. When it is impounded it's brakes STILL don't work. The cellphone call is over, the cellphone does not pose a risk. You cannot argue that the phone is being taken away for safety as it doesn't represent a safety problem unless it is being used while driving... when it is confiscated it isn't being used while driving... the call has ended.

Comparisons invalid.

its brakes, not it's brakes.

/grammar nazi
/ad hominem

 

[porchrat]

LOL, charged for murder without finding a body. What world do you live in porch?

Oh sorry I thought it had said the person was shooting people. In that case replace "murder" with "discharging a firearm illegally". The rest stays pretty much the same.

 

[Archer]

blablabla

Comparison valid

What is your actual point again? Cause it really looks like you're just arguing for the sake of it now.

 

[porchrat]

its brakes, not it's brakes.

/grammar nazi
/ad hominem

Not an ad hominem, you were correcting me. Thank you. I often get confused about the use of it's versus its. Your post encouraged me to check up on it and learn something. Thanks again.

Anyway I can see we are just going to continue to agree to disagree here. I'm not going ot bother pouring time into a pointless argument that just goes around and around. Have fun guys.

 

[eltherza]

Oh sorry I thought it had said the person was shooting people. In that case replace "murder" with "discharging a firearm illegally". The rest stays pretty much the same.

So I understand it, they should rather arrest people talking on the phone and take the phone as evidence.
(and then tow your 'illegally parked' vehicle)

Well, that would drastically decrease the number of people talking on the phone while driving for sure.

 

[Sinbad]

Not an ad hominem, you were correcting me. Thank you. I often get confused about the use of it's versus its. Your post encouraged me to check up on it and learn something. Thanks again.

Anyway I can see we are just going to continue to agree to disagree here. I'm not going ot bother pouring time into a pointless argument that just goes around and around. Have fun guys.

I was implying, maybe too subtly, that if you can't get a basic apostrophe right, the rest of your reasoning is invalid, of course

 

[porchrat]

So I understand it, they should rather arrest people talking on the phone and take the phone as evidence.
(and then tow your 'illegally parked' vehicle)

Well, that would drastically decrease the number of people talking on the phone while driving for sure.

I had already recommended earlier in this thread that people face jail time for talking on the cellphone. That I don't have a problem with. I have a problem with a policeman taking your property away without a warrant, without it constituting evidence or without it posing an immediate safety risk.

I was implying, maybe too subtly, that if you can't get a basic apostrophe right, the rest of your reasoning is invalid, of course

Oh well then that is an ad hominem then yes.


Anyway I'm out.

 

[eltherza]

I had already recommended earlier in this thread that people face jail time for talking on the cellphone. That I don't have a problem with. I have a problem with a policeman taking your property away without a warrant, without it constituting evidence or without it posing an immediate safety risk.

I actually agree with you, taking a cellphone from someone is immature and (as you say) trends on the side of being unconsitutional. Not to even mention the corruption that can occur from it.

Having said that, I'm all for the government making the roads safer so arrest cellphone people is fine by me.

 

[Conack]

I've followed this thread with quite some interest over the last few days but finding it pretty hard to believe how quick the majority is to back this by-law 'even if it saves just a couple of lives'.

While I applaud the attempted action to make our roads safer, this is not the way to do it. As some have pointed out, it's unconstitutional and opens a door to abuse. In a perfect world the law will work, but in SA where police corruption runs rife?

A couple of years ago I was involved in an incident where a traffic officer pulled me over for "talking on a cellphone", meanwhile I simply stuck a hand out to lower the volume on my XpressMusic (nokia, phone) as I was approaching a traffic light. Cop didn't give a damn to my explanation or asked to look at my 'music device', just wrote me a ticket for R500 because he believed he was following the law and I was talking on my phone.

Thing is, I could just as likely have adjusted an ipod - then what?

If you're taking your sunglasses out of your pocket and a cop decides it looks too much like a cellphone and pulls you over, then - not wanting to look like an idiot, confiscates your phone and writes a ticket - what can you do?

How do you prove you're innocent, it's simply his word against yours.
As Porchrat said earlier, isn't it innocent until proven guilty? Normally you get a ticket which you can pay or... you can go to court if it's BS, which seems legit. How can a small "by-law" suddenly give cops the right to judge and execute right there on the spot?
If your phone is taken without you having touched it and you do go to court afterwards to appeal, you could fight the cost of the fine but the harm has already been done..

Guns get stolen / go missing from police stations pretty regularly from what one reads. Tell me again how cellphones (where your mail, smses and just about everything is stored on the PHONE, not the memory card / sim) are not in danger of being stolen.

Should the law require the officer to provide picture or video proof on request of the accused, then sure.. a fine is fine... but taking your phone? I'm afraid this law has to be fought tooth and nail.

 

[Archer]

How do you prove you're innocent, it's simply his word against yours.
As Porchrat said earlier, isn't it innocent until proven guilty? Normally you get a ticket which you can pay or... you can go to court if it's BS, which seems legit. How can a small "by-law" suddenly give cops the right to judge and execute right there on the spot?

Or... you can dig around a bit, and find out that they have video evidence. But I guess going on a nice long rant is much more fun... The traffic cops use VIDEO EVIDENCE to prove you were on your phone. Heck, if you simply looked at the video in the OP, you'd know this (bloody hell, why didnt I do this earlier so that maybe porch would've stopped ranting). So tell me, is this still a case of "guilty until proven innocent," or are we actually looking at a "caught red handed" scenario?