QLD Mobile Phone $1k Fine from Feb 1. Also includes passengers.

[ozpacman]

Originally Posted by Tickford.

Isn't it though? Taxi drivers have to communicate with HQ when it comes to accepting or rejecting a call out, which involves pressing buttons on a visual display, which requires the driver to take their eyes off the road for a number of seconds. In other words, exactly the same as someone texting on their phone.

What about Uber drivers? They have to use their phones as their dispatch computers. Uber drivers are always operating their phones while driving??

Seen it so many times. The taxi/Uber is driving all over the road, at varying speeds, while the driver is concentrating on his dispatch computer in his car. How is this not the same as texting while driving? If one's phone was attached to a mounted cradle as the law requires, and you were to do the same as a taxi/Uber driver touching buttons on his mounted computer, you would be fined.

No you wouldn't Tickford. The offence is 'Driver use hand held mobile phone', so if it's in a cradle there is no offence committed. It must be held in your hand to fulfill the elements of the offence.

[ozpacman]

It's for the above reasons that use of a two-way radio is legal.

Whilst it is a communication device, two-way radio conversations are usually (not always, I know!) kept pretty brief and to the point. There's also the fact that users are aware that the conversation is able to be heard by others who may also be wanting to use the channel. Also the incoming conversation is coming through a speaker in the cabin and is not right in your ear like a hand held phone is.

The legislators probably quite rightly figure that there are a lot less of those devices fitted to road going vehicles than there are drivers with mobile phones.

I'd rather take my chances sharing the road with some truckies on the two-way, than with a bunch of drivers with their phones stuck to their ears and all engrossed in what so and so did on 'Married at First Sight' last night!

[73 4V XB]

Originally Posted by Tickford.

Isn't it though? Taxi drivers have to communicate with HQ when it comes to accepting or rejecting a call out, which involves pressing buttons on a visual display, which requires the driver to take their eyes off the road for a number of seconds. In other words, exactly the same as someone texting on their phone.

What about Uber drivers? They have to use their phones as their dispatch computers. Uber drivers are always operating their phones while driving??

Seen it so many times. The taxi/Uber is driving all over the road, at varying speeds, while the driver is concentrating on his dispatch computer in his car. How is this not the same as texting while driving? If one's phone was attached to a mounted cradle as the law requires, and you were to do the same as a taxi/Uber driver touching buttons on his mounted computer, you would be fined.

I don’t know all the answers, just giving my opinion.
I assume the taxi communication is like a two way radio/CB radio, both legal to use. As for Uber drivers, I’ve never been in one and don’t care to ever be in one.
It is what it is, like it or risk the fines imposed. If your stupid enough to do it you deserve to suffer the full consequences.

[Tickford.]

Originally Posted by ozpacman

No you wouldn't Tickford. The offence is 'Driver use hand held mobile phone', so if it's in a cradle there is no offence committed. It must be held in your hand to fulfill the elements of the offence.

Not in the case of a P1 driver. P1 drivers U25 cannot use a phone on a windscreen mounted cradle for anything. Not even for navigation, which is a bull**** law IMO.

Originally Posted by ozpacman

It's for the above reasons that use of a two-way radio is legal.

And that's contradicting isn't it? A P1 driver U25 cannot even use a cradle mounted phone for navigation, yet they can use a HAND HELD 2-way radio to talk??

Originally Posted by ozpacman

The *revenue hungry* legislators probably quite rightly figure that there are a lot less of those devices fitted to road going vehicles than there are drivers with mobile phones.

You are correct. And I edited your statement to point out the real reasons behind these contradicting rules.

Mobile phone laws in your state for example, states "These mobile phone rules do not apply to CB radios or any other two-way radios." And that law is the same here in VIC.

Here in VIC, my nephew is an apprentice electrician. 18 years old and on his P1's. He was fined for his windscreen mounted phone, in a cradle, when he was using it for navigation! His job requires him to navigate to multiple different sites, and communicate while on the road with HQ on a daily basis. They won't get him (or any others) a Navman, which is legal to use on P1. I can sort of understand the restrictions on mobile conversations, but for navigation?? Yet he is allowed to use a 2-way radio, which is mostly a hand held device, to communicate, which means he's driving mostly with one hand, and talking at the same time, which is exactly, or even worse than using a cradle mounted HANDS-FREE phone!??

IMO, a 2-way radio, or any other communication device that requires one to take one hand off the wheel to operate, is just as bad as using a mobile phone.

[jpd80]

In Qld P1 and P2 drivers are not permitted to use hands free mobile phones
It’s clear that the authorities are not going to distinguish between a phone being
used as a navigation device or making calls or texts. If you’re using a mobile phone as a navigation device, get a holder that clips into the air vent on your dash and don’t touch the bloody thing unless you’re parked.

Two way radios predate mobile phones by decades, I think there’s plenty of evidence that that using them is far less distracting.

[borough]

Originally Posted by Tickford.

Here in VIC, my nephew is an apprentice electrician. 18 years old and on his P1's. He was fined for his windscreen mounted phone, in a cradle, when he was using it for navigation! His job requires him to navigate to multiple different sites, and communicate while on the road with HQ on a daily basis. They won't get him (or any others) a Navman, which is legal to use on P1. I can sort of understand the restrictions on mobile conversations, but for navigation?? Yet he is allowed to use a 2-way radio, which is mostly a hand held device, to communicate, which means he's driving mostly with one hand, and talking at the same time, which is exactly, or even worse than using a cradle mounted HANDS-FREE phone!??

IMO, a 2-way radio, or any other communication device that requires one to take one hand off the wheel to operate, is just as bad as using a mobile phone.

Fining people for using a navigation device in a cradle is just a case of revenue rasing by the government. IMO that is muc less distracting than using a street directory on the passenger seat and trying to read the postage stamp sized street signs. Same with catching people going less than 10% over the speed limit. There is a road on my way to work that the police use as a speed trap, the speed limit is 60, however it feels more like a 70km/hr road. The highway patrol hide and pull over people, it is funny how they're usually there at the end of the month.

It's fine for 55 tonne B-double drivers to tailgate while using a CB radio, but heaven forbid if a P plater is using a phone for navigation.

[ozpacman]

I give up...

[Tassie f100]

Originally Posted by ozpacman

I give up...

Yeah you probably should.Some of your arguments for the use of 2 way radios are pretty illogical

[ozpacman]

No worries mate.

I just try and explain a bit of the reasoning and intent behind some of this legislation to help people grasp it, but obviously I'm just a dumb poor bugger that knows nothin'.

All good!

[borough]

Originally Posted by ozpacman

No worries mate.

I just try and explain a bit of the reasoning and intent behind some of this legislation to help people grasp it, but obviously I'm just a dumb poor bugger that knows nothin'.

All good!

It is just your argument does not hold water. How can a CB radio where you have to take your hand off the wheel to operate be ok for a P plate driver while a handsfree phone is not? IMO all non hands free communications devices should be banned for all drivers except emergency vehicles and all heavy vehicles fitted with inward facing cameras to ensure the drivers obey the law. The reasoning behind that is so that incidents like this don't happen
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/...27-p53ehu.html again.

[roddy1960]

On the face of I totally see the point that 2 way radio is more or less the same as phones. I have a UHF in both my Falcons actually that I turn on most days and especially on a trip . Lets you listen for school buses and trucks moving around on both our Passes as they have to use UHF to check for large vehicles coming the opposite way .

Found this from a little while back ..

https://www.unsealed4x4.com.au/is-it...while-driving/

The way I read it ..... It does say that while you can't be charged for simply using a two way device you can be charged by the cops if they believe inattention using your two way contributed to an accident .

I don't think any State or Territory has classified two way radios in the mobile phone legislation . Maybe they should because they could conceivably cause distraction while you're using them .

Actually even a radio or music playing device while driving and trying to switch stations or inserting a disc or USB plug could also... It's messy ...

[ozpacman]

Originally Posted by Tassie f100

Yeah you probably should.Some of your arguments for the use of 2 way radios are pretty illogical

Based on a over 30 years of using both when necessary whilst driving (legally of course, so no need to get excited!) I find that for mine, phones are way more distracting.

But that's just me, and obviously you're all adult enough to make up your own minds.

[Tickford.]

Originally Posted by jpd80

If you’re using a mobile phone as a navigation device, get a holder that clips into the air vent on your dash and don’t touch the bloody thing unless you’re parked.

Correct. And that's exactly what my nephew did. Copper simply saw an opportunity to raise revenue. Now he's 1 point away from losing his licence, and probably his job.

Originally Posted by jpd80

Two way radios predate mobile phones by decades

Yes. CB radios etc have been around decades before mobile phones. There were no laws against using them for decades. So why would the revenue raising legislators all of a sudden introduce laws against it's use? It has been ok to use for all these years, but not now?? Think about it. Whereas mobile phones laws were introduced quite early on after mobile phones became popular, and the legislators saw an opportunity to make money for the government.

[ozpacman]

Tickford I get that you're upset about your nephew getting booked, however it's probably a bit unfair to blame the copper. He didn't draft the legislation.

If I was in your nephew's position and I needed a satnav device to do my job then I'd buy one and claim the costs as a work related expense. Given that his employers won't buy him one I couldn't see why it would not be a legitimate claim.

As far as use of CB radios are concerned, there have not been any new laws introduced around their use as far as I'm aware.

Driving without due care is an offence that has been around forever though, and it applies to a multitude of situations.

Just as an example, driving while eating a burger isn't in itself an offence. However if you're driving and you put that burger on the seat beside you and start picking through it because you don't like pickles or onion, and you run up the back of another vehicle because you're busy dissecting your Big Mac, then you'd probably be charged with driving without due care and attention/consideration.

See what I mean?

[Citroënbender]

You’d be in a pickle and the onion would bring tears to your eyes?

[Tassie f100]

Originally Posted by ozpacman

Tickford I get that you're upset about your nephew getting booked, however it's probably a bit unfair to blame the copper. He didn't draft the legislation.

If I was in your nephew's position and I needed a satnav device to do my job then I'd buy one and claim the costs as a work related expense. Given that his employers won't buy him one I couldn't see why it would not be a legitimate claim.

As far as use of CB radios are concerned, there have not been any new laws introduced around their use as far as I'm aware.

Driving without due care is an offence that has been around forever though, and it applies to a multitude of situations.

Just as an example, driving while eating a burger isn't in itself an offence. However if you're driving and you put that burger on the seat beside you and start picking through it because you don't like pickles or onion, and you run up the back of another vehicle because you're busy dissecting your Big Mac, then you'd probably be charged with driving without due care and attention/consideration.

See what I mean?

I think you might find that it is actually illegal to eat or drink anything whilst driving.

[ozpacman]

Originally Posted by Tassie f100

I think you might find that it is actually illegal to eat or drink anything whilst driving.

Certainly not an offence in Queensland, however your state may vary.

[Tickford.]

Originally Posted by ozpacman

Tickford I get that you're upset about your nephew getting booked, however it's probably a bit unfair to blame the copper. He didn't draft the legislation.

No she didn't (female copper). But as I said before and I'll say it again, it's a BULL**** law.

Originally Posted by ozpacman

If I was in your nephew's position and I needed a satnav device to do my job then I'd buy one and claim the costs as a work related expense. Given that his employers won't buy him one I couldn't see why it would not be a legitimate claim.

Yea yeah.. I get all that. And yes, he has got one. And it is absolute rubbish (that's another thread). But that still does not take away from the fact that it is a BULL**** law.

Answer this. How is it 'safe' for a P1 probationary driver to use a CB radio, driving with one hand on the steering wheel, while talking on a hand held communication device, but it is 'unsafe' for a P1 probationary driver to use a hands free cradle mounted phone for navigation, which doesn't require you to drive with only one hand on the wheel, or talk while driving? How??

To me, holding a phone, CB or any other communication device while engaging in conversation and driving is exactly the same thing and should be outlawed. The end.

[ozpacman]

I think we're going around in circles here so yeah. The end.

[Tickford.]

Originally Posted by ozpacman

I think we're going around in circles here so yeah. The end.

Going around in circles?? Simple question is it not? You being pro CB radio legislation, but cannot answer a simple question on which is safer?
#Copout.

[Tassie f100]

Originally Posted by ozpacman

Certainly not an offence in Queensland, however your state may vary.

You are correct,it is not illegal in Qld,but you can still be fined for careless driving in that you are not in full control of the vehicle.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Tickford.

No she didn't (female copper). But as I said before and I'll say it again, it's a BULL**** law.


Yea yeah.. I get all that. And yes, he has got one. And it is absolute rubbish (that's another thread). But that still does not take away from the fact that it is a BULL**** law.

Answer this. How is it 'safe' for a P1 probationary driver to use a CB radio, driving with one hand on the steering wheel, while talking on a hand held communication device, but it is 'unsafe' for a P1 probationary driver to use a hands free cradle mounted phone for navigation, which doesn't require you to drive with only one hand on the wheel, or talk while driving? How??

To me, holding a phone, CB or any other communication device while engaging in conversation and driving is exactly the same thing and should be outlawed. The end.

Is he taking it to court to fight it?

[ozpacman]

Originally Posted by Tickford.

Going around in circles?? Simple question is it not? You being pro CB radio legislation, but cannot answer a simple question on which is safer?
#Copout.

I'm not particularly pro anything legislation. Maybe at the end of the day, the onus was on your nephew to be aware of the legislation regarding mobile phone use whilst he's driving, regardless of what particular function of the device he was using?

Obviously I haven't been able to provide you with a satisfactory answer to your 'What's safer' dilemma. Probably best if you lobby your local state member of parliament. They're the people who can influence legislative changes.

Cheers for the debate though - it's been interesting.

[jstanovic]

Surely it’s because a CB can be used without taking your eyes off the road? Using a phone requires you to look at it.

[73 4V XB]

Originally Posted by Tickford.

Correct. And that's exactly what my nephew did. Copper simply saw an opportunity to raise revenue. Now he's 1 point away from losing his licence, and probably his job.


Yes. CB radios etc have been around decades before mobile phones. There were no laws against using them for decades. So why would the revenue raising legislators all of a sudden introduce laws against it's use? It has been ok to use for all these years, but not now?? Think about it. Whereas mobile phones laws were introduced quite early on after mobile phones became popular, and the legislators saw an opportunity to make money for the government.

From your reply’s you seem to be fixated on the revenue raising side of the laws rather than the life saving side. I don’t have the statistics in front of me but can you not see the rise of traffic incidents associated with the use of mobile phones? If not you may want to pull your head out from where the sun don’t shine and open your eyes.
The laws aren’t made up for revenue, they are brought about by well documented incidences. CB radio’s have been around well before the introduction of mobile phones. The rise of incidents have risen by the amount of drivers failing to pay attention due to mobile phone use. This is a proven fact.
Should asbestos still be used for housing? No. It’s been proven to cause health issues.
Should leaded fuel be brought back? No. Once again, health issues.
Should mobile phones be used by inexperienced/experienced drivers? No. Fatality issues.
Your nephew should know the laws regarding GPS/mobile phone use if he is to drive during he’s daily work requirements.

[Tassie f100]

Originally Posted by jstanovic

Surely it’s because a CB can be used without taking your eyes off the road? Using a phone requires you to look at it.

.????????????

[jstanovic]

Originally Posted by Tassie f100

.????????????

Isn't that why CBs are allowed but phones aren't? Talking and driving is easy, using a device that takes your eyes off the road is not. Whenever I use my CB I never look at it, just press the talk button and talk, eyes never leave the road. Try doing that with your smart phone.

[Tickford.]

Originally Posted by 73 4V XB

From your reply’s you seem to be fixated on the revenue raising side of the laws rather than the life saving side. I don’t have the statistics in front of me but can you not see the rise of traffic incidents associated with the use of mobile phones? If not you may want to pull your head out from where the sun don’t shine and open your eyes.
The laws aren’t made up for revenue, they are brought about by well documented incidences. CB radio’s have been around well before the introduction of mobile phones. The rise of incidents have risen by the amount of drivers failing to pay attention due to mobile phone use. This is a proven fact.

Really?? If you had pulled your head out from where the sun don’t shine and opened your eyes, you would have probably read a previous post from me that stated...

Originally Posted by Tickford.

I can sort of understand the restrictions on mobile conversations, but for navigation??

Yes, I totally agree that people who have their phones IN THEIR HANDS while driving is 100% distracting and dangerous. Texting, phone at the ear, surfing the net, etc, etc, with a mobile phone IN YOUR HANDS is 100% not acceptable and deserves a fine and demerit points. Not arguing that fact. You seem to have missed what I am talking about, and what I think is a bull**** law. Which is the fact that...

Originally Posted by Tickford.

A P1 driver U25 cannot even use a cradle mounted phone for navigation, yet they can use a HAND HELD 2-way radio to talk??

Again, why is it legal for a P1 probationary driver to use a CB radio which requires them to drive with one hand on the wheel, while in conversation? But it is illegal for a P1 probationary driver to use a cradle mounted (as the law requires) smart phone for navigation?

To me, using a CB is far more dangerous than using maps on your smart phone, which does not require you to drive with one hand on the wheel, be in conversation, nor press/touch the phone while driving. All of which are part of using a CB radio while on the road.

If a P1 driver was to use a Navigation unit in a cradle, it's legal. A phone in a cradle used for navigation is illegal!? What is the big difference? You don't have to touch or operate the navi unit, or the phone, once you have set your destination. You are not driving with one hand on the wheel while in conversation as you'd be when on a CB radio. You are simply following the voice guided map. Both the navi unit and the phone on navigation do exactly the same thing. But the navi unit is legal and the phone is not. Don't you think this is totally wrong?

You could even compare a P1 driver using a CB, to a P1 driver using a phone in a cradle for calls through BT for example. The former requires you to drive with one hand on the wheel while operating a hand held device, while the latter does not require one handed operation of a vehicle, and is hands free, which is obviously much safer. Yet, for a P1 driver, the former is legal, and the latter is illegal. Don't you think this is total bull****?

[burnz]

why is it a CB arguments enter the realm of phone use??

CB have a track record of preventing a tragedy, the opposite is true for phone's..
how many times has a CB used to warn the masses; of a vehicle break down half over the fog line, or wide truck, or narrow bridge so the two don't meet in the middle..

[Tickford.]

Originally Posted by jstanovic

Surely it’s because a CB can be used without taking your eyes off the road? Using a phone requires you to look at it.

For having a conversation with someone? Which is what I am referring to? Since when are you required to look at the phone to talk to someone?

To have a conversation while driving, a CB/2-way radio requires you to drive with one hand while holding a hand held device in the other hand. A phone in a cradle with BT does not require you to drive with one hand on the wheel. Neither requires you to take your eyes off the road!