Using Mobile Phone in Maccas Drive through

ipiok on 22/04/2019 - 10:10
Last edited 22/04/2019 - 10:28 by 1 other user

So this actually happened to me today and really got me thinking…. I was in the Maccas drive through with my mobile phone in my hand to tell the operator my Maccas code from their mobile phone app. A police car happened to pull up behind me in the drive through and it then hit me that I’d never considered referring to your phone while using the drive through to give the operator your discount code as breaking the law but maybe it is.

Do these types of laws only refer to public roads and not private areas, or is it simply whenever operating a car? This could have large implications as essentially every single person using the Maccas app in the drive through could be breaking the law by doing so. Thankfully the police car did not approach me and funnily enough I could see them using their own phones while in the drive through.

Automotive

Comments

Scrooge McDuck on 22/04/2019 - 10:20

+16

AFAIK, the road rules apply to roads and road related areas. The drive through is one of the latter and hence it is unlawful to handle a mobile phone there while driving.

So if the police had a poor attitude, they could book you for it.
- pegaxs on 22/04/2019 - 10:48
  
  +1
  
  Same as people who think "I'm in a shopping centre, cops cant book me here. I'm on private property!!"
  
  Road related areas are areas that are not a defined road, but are still used by vehicles (this includes private property or publicly accessible areas, ie: Maccas parking lot and drive through).
  
  Aus. Road Rules 2014: Rule 13 "What is a road related area."
  
  13 What is a road related area
  (d) an area that is not a road and that is open to or used by the public for driving, riding or parking vehicles.
  
  Also to note is the legislation with regards to mobile phone use (ARR: 300) has absolutely no reference to where the vehicle is at the time of the offence (ie: it doesn't say on a road or road related area, it just mentions the state of the vehicle, either moving or stationary but not parked.)
  
  (1) The driver of a vehicle must not use a mobile phone while the vehicle is moving, or is stationary but not parked
  
  On a side note, in reference to your "Well, the police were using their phone in the car as well…" One of the exemptions to using a mobile phone in a vehicle is;
  
  (c) the vehicle is an emergency vehicle or a police vehicle
  - ipiok on 22/04/2019 - 11:10
    
    So essentially every single person who uses the Maccas drive through and shows the staff their discount code on their phone is breaking the law?
    - pegaxs on 22/04/2019 - 11:45
      
      +3
      
      I guess, potentially, yes, realistically, no.
      
      I would certainly fight this in court were I to receive a fine for using my phone to pick up an order at a drive though. I would imagine that most magistrates would just toss this kind of thing out.
      
      But it is the case with NFC "Pay Pass" payments from your phone? I don't take my wallet with me and have to pay using my phone. I guess this too would be legally an offence under the road rules. Its a grey area, because, technically, I'm not "using it" but merely holding it next to a payment terminal. Could it be argued that it is not a phone at that point and merely a contactless payment machine?
      - Kandrew on 22/04/2019 - 12:00
        
        @pegaxs: I’m curious because I want to not take my wallet with me all of the time.
        
        Do you have a digital license? If not, then where do you ‘hold’ your license?
        
        pegaxs on 22/04/2019 - 13:01
        
        @Kandrew: Most of my stuff is digital. Cards, memberships and the like are all stored on my phone. My license is the only thing that hasn’t been made available, yet. It is coming though.
        
        My license resides in my main car at all times. It is seldom used for anything. Even if I get pulled over with no license, the police now look up your details or give you a certain number of days to provide it at the police station. So, it’s no big deal.
        
        brendanm on 22/04/2019 - 18:55
        
        +4
        
        @Kandrew: In Qld you don't have to have your licence on you if you have an open one. Not sure about other states.
      - trapper on 29/04/2019 - 12:54
        
        +1
        
        @pegaxs: Holding your phone while driving is illegal, you don't need to be 'using' it.
        
        pegaxs on 29/04/2019 - 15:06
        
        @trapper: From the Aust. Road Rule: 300 (Use of mobile phones);
        
        use, in relation to a mobile phone, includes any of the following actions by a driver:
        (a) holding the body of the phone in her or his hand (whether or not engaged in a phone call), except while in the process of giving the body of the phone to a passenger in the vehicle,
        (b) entering or placing, other than by the use of voice, anything into the phone, or sending or looking at anything that is in the phone,
        (c) turning the phone on or off,
        (d) operating any other function of the phone.
        
        Correct.
        
        And I guess, since the Maccas terminal operator isnt a "passenger in the vehicle", I cant hand it to them…
    - andyhui01 on 23/04/2019 - 09:21
      
      +4
      
      I think the proper lawful way is to put your car in Park and switch off the engine.
      
      I believe there was an article some time ago about someone who pulled over to a legal parking spot to use the phone. They still got booked because the car was running and in gear. To be parked, it had to be in P without the engine running.
      - chumlee on 23/04/2019 - 15:51
        
        @andyhui01: ^this
      - athk on 23/04/2019 - 22:57
        
        +1
        
        @andyhui01: My manual has no "P" ;)
      - PAOK11 on 24/04/2019 - 11:29
        
        -1
        
        @andyhui01: I'm not sure of exact wording for the legislation surrounding mobile phones but for an person to be deemed "driving" there must be "propulsion" or "control/steering" of the vehicle. Although failing to complete the act of driving for example not putting the vehicle in park and engaging the handbrake is still "driving". what i'm trying to say it depends on the situation
        
        pegaxs on 24/04/2019 - 16:04
        
        @PAOK11:
        
        for an person to be deemed "driving" there must be "propulsion" or "control/steering" of the vehicle.
        
        You're wrong.
        
        I'm not sure of exact wording for the legislation surrounding mobile phones
        
        The answer is literally just above you.
        
        Aus. Road Rule 300:
        
        300 Use of mobile phones
        
        (1) The driver of a vehicle must not use a mobile phone while the vehicle is moving, or is stationary but not parked…
        
        The Aus RR Dictionary goes on to say…
        
        drive includes be in control of.
        
        There is nothing about the vehicle being in gear, hands on steering wheel, wheels turning, propulsion, hand brakes applied or anything else. It just says "control of". If you are sitting in the drivers seat, you could be deemed to be "in control of" said vehicle.
        
        PAOK11 on 24/04/2019 - 19:40
        
        @pegaxs: It doesnt matter what the dictionary says. It matters what the court decides. In the case of Koutroulis V Tac, the court decided that a bus driver was not driving when he stopped the bus and let a passenger out even though the engine was running.
        
        Section 3(1) of the Transport Accident Act 1986, defines “transport accident ” as an incident directly caused by the driving of a motor car”.
        
        They deemed that the bus driver was not driving when he pressed the wrong button for the back door and accidentally closed the front door on a womens arm. Just sitting in the drivers seat is not driving like you indicate.
        
        pegaxs on 24/04/2019 - 20:27
        
        @PAOK11:
        
        It doesnt matter what the dictionary says
        
        It does. It forms part of the Australian Road Rules. It defines a lot of what is written in the legislation.
        
        Australian Road Rules: Dictionary (Feel free to not read this part of the legislation either…)
        
        And nice use of incorrect legislation and examples. We are not talking about "accidents" or operation of defined vehicle control systems, so your examples are moot.
        
        The Aus. Road Rules, 2014 legislation says about "driving" as in control of. The legislation with regards to mobile phones says "moving" or "stationary but not parked". It mentions nothing about buses or pressing wrong buttons or accidents.
        
        Just sitting in the drivers seat is not driving like you indicate.
        
        Just in case you missed it, I'll make it easier to understand…
        
        If you are sitting in the drivers seat, you COULD be deemed to be "in control of" said vehicle.
        
        PAOK11 on 24/04/2019 - 21:55
        
        @pegaxs: My question to you then is why do you keep arguing about the word "driving" when the section doesnt use the word "driving".
        
        "Stationary but not parked" is what it says. Parked can have a narrow meaning, the gear in Park and the handrake up but I think the meaning of Parked is wider and could mean pulled over at a rest stop with your foot on the brake. For example a vehicle is stationary but not parked when it is at a red light or going through a drive thru
        
        The case I wrote about has a lot of relevance if the word "driving" was used in the section. Driving is far more complex than your dictionary meaning. It is discussed in detail in Koutroulis V TAC as the appelant needs the bus drivers action of accidentally pressing the wrong button to not be deemed a traffic accident. The reason for this is Koutroulis wants to pursue the bus company for damages rather than a claim under the TAC. In order to rule for the appelant the court must deem that the bus driver was not driving even though he was in the drivers seat and the engine was on. This would mean he's in control of the vehicle as per your strict definition of the word driving. They ruled in favour of the appelant.
        
        This case is not binding on NSW courts its merely persuasive. Also can be distinguished as you say as the facts of the case are different but the judge can still consider how the Vic Supreme Court came to their decision on the word driving.
        
        pegaxs on 24/04/2019 - 22:32
        
        @PAOK11:
        
        why do you keep arguing about the word "driving"
        
        Because your original comment was and still is erroneous. You mentioned “driving”. You made up your own definition and the fact that you admitted you didn’t even read the legislation before making a comment that was based on your own incorrect interpretation of the legislation that you admitted that you had no idea of what it actually said.
        
        Your information was and still is misleading with regards to the specific legislation that pertains to mobile phone use. Even by your own admission, you had not read the legislation, even though it was posted, with source references, only a few posts above your comment.
        
        You then went on to rattle off some totally irrelevant case in another state that has absolutely no relevance to mobile phone use within the framework of Aus. Road Rule legislation. Pushing a button on a bus control system is not the same case law as using mobile phone while in control of a vehicle…
        
        The point is, you’re wrong. Your original definition of “driving” and how it pertains to road rules (in particular; mobile phone use in a vehicle) is inaccurate. So inaccurate in fact, that it is misleading. I posted the road rule for mobile phone use as well as the road rules dictionary version of what it considers to be “driving”.
        
        So, please, provide me with a source to some legislation that backs up your claim that “driving” requires “propulsion” and/or “controlled steering”… and how that relates to mobile phone use as a driver in control of a vehicle…
        
        PS: It’s not ”my” dictionary, it’s the governments. I even posted a link to their dictionary… The definition of “park” is also in that dictionary if you bothered to actually click the link and read it…
        
        PAOK11 on 24/04/2019 - 23:11
        
        @pegaxs: I did not make up my own definition of the word "driving". I have read the case of Koutroulis V TAC the ratio was there was no propulsion or steering and when the bus driver pressed the button he did not intend to drive. I understand its much easier to read a definition buts thats not how cases are determined.
        
        Thats why we have lawyers in our system. If I was found to be in control of the vehicle when it is parked and the engine is off and handbrake up. I would argue that I was not in control of the vehicle. Although in reality there are external factors which may limit how far you can take your defense; cost of lawyers, cost to have your case listed, stress, family commitments and time off work ect.
        
        I can assure you the judge wont look at the dictionary and instantly make a decision based on the definition. He/she will need to consider what parliament intended with the use of the wording "control of the vehicle".
        
        This leads back to my first comment about it how depends on the situation which you claim is misleading and deceptive.
        
        pegaxs on 24/04/2019 - 23:37
        
        @PAOK11:
        
        I did not make up my own definition of the word "driving".
        
        You most absolutely did. You even admitted that you did not know what the legislation said. Ergo, your statement about the definition of driving is made up and false. (Unless you have the specific legislation that tells me otherwise???)
        
        flogged dead horse straw man irrelevant case cited about a bus driver pushing a button
        
        Still irrelevant…
        
        If, if, then if if if…
        
        We are not dealing with “if”. If my auntie had balls…
        
        dictionary spiel again
        
        It’s “their” dictionary. It’s “their” definition. It’s not my dictionary, or Oxford’s, it’s the legislations dictionary. It would most certainly be considered, or else it would not be included… and “their” definition does not even come close to what you said was considered “driving”.
        
        it’s situational…
        
        No, no it’s not. We are talking about mobile phone use while in control of a vehicle. What we are NOT talking about is buses, buttons, accidents, and interstate case law that has nothing to do with the road rules legislation as they pertain to mobile phone use in a vehicle.
        
        So, Ah, yah still wrong. Not only were you wrong, you were misleading. Your information that you gave could give people the impression that “driving” was only through “propulsion” and “control/steering” when the governments own dictionary (not mine or Oxford’s) and the legislation pertaining to mobile phone use makes no mention of these factors.
        
        PAOK11 on 25/04/2019 - 00:56
        
        @pegaxs: Theres no definition for "driving". That's why the judge had to look to extrinsic material to work out the meaning. In control of the vehicle means nothing. Sitting in the drivers seat of the car is that control ? If you are the owner of the car are you in control? If the keys are in the ignition but nothing is on is that control? This is why we have judges to determine the outcome.
        
        Firstly you keep asking for legislation for the meaning of the word "driving". Im telling you it doesnt exist, so that must means the legislation dictionary is the answer.Lets consider your angle, the meaning of drive is "control of the vehicle" okay was the bus driver in control? he was sitting in the drivers seat, the ignition was on he was readying the bus to move off. Who else could be in control, It sure as hell wasn't the passengers of the bus they wernt in control. It wasnt Koutroulis as she was getting off the bus. So it must be the bus driver! If the bus driver was in control how come he wasnt deemed to be driving?
        
        You want the perfect case exactly on the topic we are discussing but one doesnt exist and ill tell you why.
        
        1 - they dont get reported because they are usually by people who cant afford the fine, so they self represent themselves.
        
        2- People with money arnt going to appeal a case to the supreme court if the judge rules against them in a lower court (which im sure they get off anyway) why risk thousands to save $500. Even if your going to lose your license it will most likely be for a short period.
        
        pegaxs on 25/04/2019 - 09:00
        
        @PAOK11:
        
        Theres no definition for "driving".
        Im telling you it doesnt exist
        
        There is. I even provided it AND a link to where to find it in the legislation…
        
        Really? You still flogging that bus driver straw man?
        
        I wanted to point out to other people reading your comment, that your definition of driving was false as it relates to the control of a motor vehicle under the road rules and as it relates to the mobile phone usage legislation. It’s was misleading statement to say the least. I feel as though I have let people know that your statement was erroneous and misleading.
        
        While ever you continue to talk about a random court case in another state that has absolutely nothing to do with the specific legislation relating to mobile phone use, it just further reinforces that you have no clue on what you are talking about.
        
        So, either produce the legislation that defines “driving” as you outlined in your original post and then produce the relevant legislation or a relevant court case on how this pertains to mobile phone use whilst in control of a motor vehicle.
        
        You’re wrong. You are wrong, you were wrong and will continue to be wrong for as long as you cannot produce any relevant evidence to back up your original statement. (Button pressing on a bus =/= mobile phone use.)
        
        Just show me the relevant part of the road rules legislation that says driving must contain “propulsion” and “control/steering”. Then show me that part of the road rules legislation that says anything about “driving” and mobile phone use… Because I have shown so far that it contains neither.
        
        The legislation states, if you are the driver and the vehicle is moving, or the vehicle is stationary and not parked, you are committing an offence. The minimum requirement is not “propulsion” and “control/steering”. You don't have to be "driving" to receive a ticket for mobile phone use whilst in control of a motor vehicle.
        
        PAOK11 on 25/04/2019 - 15:00
        
        @pegaxs: Im not going to waste my time looking for legislation and a case to prove something to a random on the internet. Whos going to reply with look at the dictionary and chant you are wrong.
        
        Also who appointed you as the white knight to save the feebleminded from a comment on a forum. Surely they can decide whether or not my comment is true or false on their own merits.
        
        I dont agree with the legislation dictionary meaning of the word "drive" because I have read the case which discussed the word "driving" in significant detail and if it was as simple as the legislation dictionary the case would not 30 to 40 pgs long.
        
        lets look at "stationary but not parked". Accordinging to the RACV website on phone use as long your vehicle is legally parked and the car is in park with hand brake you can leave the keys in the ignition and the engine may be left running. This is synonymous with the koutrolis case where the bus driver had the engine running but was deemed not to be driving. So its possible that even just a foot on the brake could be deemed parked. I dont think this exact situation has been heard in a court room but there you go. Before you go on your same little spiel let me do it for you.
        
        You didnt read the legislation. Correct, I was at work and I said if the word driving is in the legislation there needs to be propulsion or steering.
        
        Until you can prove legislation or a relevant case; As i've said there is no case that is specific to mobile phone use because the adversarial system is too expensive to challenge mobile phone use technicalities.
        
        The legislation dictionary says; this part is fun because here you discuss the word "drive" just to prove im wrong but muddle yourself up because the word drive is not in the section you are referencing.
        
        pegaxs on 25/04/2019 - 16:25
        
        @PAOK11: You were wrong and this is just turning into nonsense now.
        
        You were wrong and I have called it out for the misleading information that it was.
        
        Dress it up however you like. Bring up irelevant data and make "what if" comparisons all you like. The fact is, you were wrong. End of story.
        
        Instead of eating some humble pie and reading the actual legislation and broadening your knowledge (a fact you admit you lacked when you made your original comment), you continued on some fruitless crusade and choked up a thread with worthless garbage over some dented sense of pride.
        
        For the sake of other people trying to read this thread, I'm not going to indulge you any further. You were wrong, you are still wrong and it will always be wrong. So, have at it, but count me out.
    - EnALup on 24/04/2019 - 17:04
      
      Will it work if you put car's gear in Parking and hand brake up before using your mobile to pay or show code.
      - trapper on 29/04/2019 - 12:58
        
        @EnALup: Turn off engine to be safe
  - HeWhoKnows on 23/04/2019 - 15:10
    
    Debateable as this only references public roads and footpaths. It makes no reference to private roads, private car parks or private property.
    
    The Maccas drive through is a private road for McDonalds customers only hence not a public road or related area. You have clearly left the public road and related areas.
    
    Also you are stationary and attending to your Maccas order. To be certain its best to turn your engine OFF. Its a bit hard to be judged as driving if your engine is OFF.
    
    If it went to court I doubt the judge would endorse any such fine under these conditions as the judge would look at and interpret the intent of the law.
    - pegaxs on 24/04/2019 - 16:22
      
      Like always… yah wrong.
      
      Car parks, service stations, shopping centres, fast food places and the like, all fall under the "road related areas", be it private or public property.
      
      an area that is not a road and that is open to or used by the public for driving, riding or parking vehicles.
      
      A Maccas drive though is open to and used by the public for driving, riding and parking of vehicles. So it 100% falls under the definition of a road related area.
      
      So, what you are basically saying is, that because certain areas are "private land" I can do what I want on them? If I want to go at 100km/h in a shopping centre car park, I can? And if the cops try to do anything about it, I can just play the "it's private property!" card?
      
      If it is my own private land and it is not open to the public, yes, I could potentially drive around my own paddock without my seatbelt, on the phone and drunk. As soon as the property is opened up for public free access, it becomes a road related area.
      
      Just glad you are not a traffic lawyer.
- endotherm on 22/04/2019 - 10:53 Comment score below threshold.
  - EightImmortals on 22/04/2019 - 11:10
    
    +7
    
    Their job is to keep society safe, not to raise taxes for the state. Looks like the cops in the OP had their brains engaged at the time and could figure out that the OP wasn't being a danger to anyone. Taxing him would have been a great example of using the letter of the 'law' to defeat the spirit of the law.
    - whooah1979 on 22/04/2019 - 12:47
      
      -2
      
      The NSW police moto is Punishment Follows Close on Guilt.
      
      Don't use the phone while driving if you cant afford the fine.
      - EightImmortals on 22/04/2019 - 13:22
        
        @whooah1979: He wasn't driving.
        
        Scrooge McDuck on 22/04/2019 - 15:06
        
        +1
        
        @EightImmortals: If you're in the driver's seat of a vehicle that isn't parked, to the law, you're driving.
- Seraphin7 on 24/04/2019 - 08:42
  
  This is 100% correct. The drive through would be considered a road related area and strictly, use of a mobile phone would be an offence. I agree with others that you would have to be pretty stiff to get booked though.
RockyRaccoon on 22/04/2019 - 11:17

Really

They are lined up behind you waiting for their meal.

Its going to delay their getting their own meal being served, and if they pull you over after they got their food, it would be getting cold.

Unless you have facial Tatts you really shouldnt worry yourself.
Rumbaar on 22/04/2019 - 13:08

-5

My understanding, the only driving offence you can get done for is 'Drunk driving' on private property, the drive through is private property and not a open to public driving. It can be closed. The same for 'gated' car parks are non-public driving areas.
- whooah1979 on 22/04/2019 - 15:36
  
  +2
  
  Necropost from ten years ago.
  https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1244330
  
  https://tinyurl.com/y53rmrq3
  
  New South Wales police have revealed not only can a mobile phone not be held while in a drive-thru, it shouldn’t be touching any part of the driver’s body, including their lap and being held between their shoulder and ear.
  
  “The offence is that you’re not supposed to be driving while using a mobile phone, if the vehicle is moving through a car park, including a drive-thru, drivers can be done,” a NSW police spokeswoman told Yahoo News.
  - Speckled Jim on 23/04/2019 - 09:47
    
    +1
    
    it shouldn’t be touching any part of the driver’s body
    
    So if it's in my pocket, it's in contact with my body. I'm technically in breach.
    Another hopelessly outdated law torpedoed.
    - rompastompa on 23/04/2019 - 15:50
      
      -1
      
      Why do you have holes in your pockets :O I'd be worried shaking hands with you after you've had your hands in your pockets.
    - trapper on 29/04/2019 - 13:00
      
      Pockets are specifically mentioned as an exception in the law.
  - HeWhoKnows on 23/04/2019 - 15:14
    
    -1
    
    So simple. Just turm the engine OFF whilst ordering your meal and looking up the code on your phone.
    - [Deactivated] on 23/04/2019 - 16:38
      
      +1
      
      In WA the law states the vehicle must be parked in a proper car park. You can't turn your car off at a red light and use the phone.
PR0r on 22/04/2019 - 13:18

Would this be the same as pulling over, parking the car, and using your mobile phone?
You're basically doing that. Stopping the car, using your phone, and then off you go.
- HeWhoKnows on 23/04/2019 - 15:15
  
  -1
  
  As long as you turn the engine OFF in any such instance you are OK.
  - bobz79 on 23/04/2019 - 22:23
    
    +2
    
    pulling over, parking the car is important as well, just turning OFF engine is not enough!
seedyrom on 22/04/2019 - 15:10

+3

I can have a cigarette in one hand, a coffee in the other, and be eating a laksa balanced in my lap.
The police would just smile at me as i fumbled with the GPS unit, whilst channel surfing the radio.

But god forbid I use my mobile to check the time.
- John Kimble on 22/04/2019 - 15:17
  
  +3
  
  You can still be booked.
  
  https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2017/01/is-it-legal-to-eat-whi…
  - seedyrom on 22/04/2019 - 19:00
    
    From your link:
    “In short, eating while you drive isn't explicitly illegal but you should consider whether it will compromise your ability to have full control of your vehicle.”
    
    On the Highway Patrol motorbikes Show, the two cops got alluppity thinking that they were about to bust a guy for using his mobile phone. They then burst into laughter when it was just a meat pie, and drove off.
    So yeah, I’ll take my chances with a laksa in my lap.
    - John Kimble on 22/04/2019 - 19:10
      
      +1
      
      WTF…Do you love laksa that much? Eating a laksa whilst driving is a terrible idea, even if it's technically legal…or are you just using that as a ridiculous example to make a point?
      - seedyrom on 22/04/2019 - 20:16
        
        +4
        
        @John Kimble: Really thought I wouldn’t need to spell it out, but of course it is a ridiculous example to make a point.
        
        Your own reference article says that whilst dangerous, it is perfectly legal to do everything I said in my original post. Yet the article also says that even having a mobile phone (off or on) physically touching part of my body. I am breaking the law.
        I can’t even have it held between my thighs.
        
        I’m all for laws to make road travel safer … just have them consistent.
      - serpserpserp on 23/04/2019 - 22:12
        
        +3
        
        @John Kimble: Excuse me, eating a laksa while driving is the ONLY way to do it. This is the traditional way, and has been done so for thousands of years.
  - HeWhoKnows on 23/04/2019 - 15:17
    
    +1
    
    John Kimble. Read your reference….
    
    "Currently, there are no laws in any state or territory that specifically prohibits eating food or drinking (non-alcoholic) beverages while driving."
    - John Kimble on 23/04/2019 - 15:32
      
      I did read it, did you? My statement "you can still be booked", stands. Not saying it will happen a lot though.
      
      Eating and driving may be considered a cause of distraction when incidents are investigated. If the police decide your mobile picnic is causing you to drive erratically they are allowed to fine you - even if no specific road rules have been broken.
      
      In short, eating while you drive isn't explicitly illegal but you should consider whether it will compromise your ability to have full control of your vehicle. Driving with one hand off the wheel so you can partake in a snack definitely fits into this category.
      - HeWhoKnows on 23/04/2019 - 15:40
        
        +1
        
        @John Kimble: John. Clearly there is no law in relation to consuming drinks or food. That is what your quote says!
        What you have quoted can be applied in any instance of ERRATIC driving. Regardless of the cause.
        
        John Kimble on 23/04/2019 - 15:43
        
        -2
        
        @HeWhoKnows: Of course, but I was specifically responding to seedyrom's comment…chances are they wouldn't book him, but it's still a possibility…that's all I was trying to point out.
- chumlee on 23/04/2019 - 15:53
  
  Wow, how did you pass your licence test?
Ashbargin on 23/04/2019 - 09:42

Just put your car in park before taking the phone out to show the person at the window.
- HeWhoKnows on 23/04/2019 - 15:18
  
  Not good enough!
  Engine must be turned off and police might even insist that the key must be removed as well.
  - JayEmmGee on 24/04/2019 - 17:44
    
    My Mazda3 has the auto engine stop and push button start so that solves those issues (while still being in drive!)
[Deactivated] on 23/04/2019 - 16:36

-1

A friend got charged with drink driving in a maccas car park, the police never saw him drive on the road and said they didn't need to, this was all upheld in court, so I guess you could be charged for using a phone
- bargainhunter87 on 24/04/2019 - 12:36
  
  everyone always has a friend…
- caviar on 25/04/2019 - 00:03
  
  In WA using your phone is an offence under the road traffic code, and must be committed on a road. Drink driving (as well as the hoon laws, dangerous driving causing death etc.) Come under the road traffic act, which allows for the offence to have been committed anywhere open to and used by public upon payment or otherwise
H E B on 23/04/2019 - 19:39

+1

Who says police don't use the maccas app for their maccas drive thru?
- serpserpserp on 23/04/2019 - 22:14
  
  +2
  
  They don't go to maccas. They eat laksa's balanced on their lap while driving. It is a cop thing.
  - H E B on 23/04/2019 - 23:56
    
    This. I need a link for.
- bargainhunter87 on 24/04/2019 - 10:30
  
  Automatic 50% off.
Blugok on 24/04/2019 - 01:26

can you sue maccas if you get caught by police because of using the app?
claim whatever trauma you can name of
- xuqi on 24/04/2019 - 02:06
  
  No, you can't shift blame..After all it would be the driver's choice to 'pickup at drive-thru', when he/she could have chosen 'pickup in-store'.
  - seedyrom on 24/04/2019 - 05:51
    
    +6
    
    Those new self-ordering kiosks make it hard to get your car all the way to the counter
Milk tea on 24/04/2019 - 06:37

-1

You know you can just read the code out to the worker while your phone is secured…
- ipiok on 24/04/2019 - 06:39
  
  Sure, you’d still need to physically touch your phone while operating the car though to open the app in the first place or even to just turn the screen on which apparently is also illegal
  - xuqi on 24/04/2019 - 10:52
    
    The act of physically touching the phone whilst it is secured in a mount isn't against the law:
    
    https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/stayingsafe/mobileph…
    
    Can I dial a number if my mobile phone is in a cradle?
    Yes, if you have a full unrestricted licence. You can use a mobile phone for calls if it is secured in a mounting fixed to the vehicle. Using a mobile phone legally can still be distracting. Consider if the call is urgent and the demands of the traffic before using your mobile.
    
    Can I use the GPS function on my mobile phone?
    Yes, if you have a full unrestricted licence. You can use a mobile phone as a driver’s aid, such as GPS, as long as it is secured in a mounting fixed to the vehicle and doesn’t obscure your view of the road. You cannot hold your phone to use the GPS function.
    
    The chance of getting done looking up an order code whilst in a Macca's drive through with a securely mounted phone would be very minimal. Certainly much better than it being in you hand, or lap.
    - ipiok on 24/04/2019 - 11:18
      
      -1
      
      To make or answer a call
      ONLY if the phone is either:
      
      In a cradle fixed to the vehicle and doesn't obscure your view of the road
      can be operated without touching any part of the phone, such as via Bluetooth or voice activation
      To use the audio playing function (e.g. music)
      As a driver's aid (e.g. navigation, Speed Adviser app)
      
      Using the McDonald’s app doesn’t seem to be on that list…
      - xuqi on 24/04/2019 - 11:19
        
        +1
        
        @ipiok: Yes, but still far better than using it with your hand or in your lap. Think "risk minimisation".
  - Milk tea on 26/04/2019 - 22:06
    
    Why can't you stop in the carpark first with your engine off, have the backlight setting on for 5 mins or close to while having the app open while the phone is mounted. Then you wouldnt need to touch your phone at all. Geez, doesn't take a genius if you really want to do the right thing.
bargainhunter87 on 24/04/2019 - 10:11

+6

You wouldn't get fined.

Picture this - you're a cop. You've just ordered a bacon and egg meal with a large OJ and an extra sausage and egg on the side. 3 hours to go in your shift. Life is good. All you can think about is how juicy this bacon and egg will be. Nothing will and should come in between your bacon and egg. Its all about this burger at this point in time.

Then… you see someone stationary showing the discount code to the maccas drive through. Would you really delay your pleasure of indulging in a bacon and egg to make an unwarranted fine? Perhaps? Maybe.. I just think any self respecting officer would take the burger over their duty to uphold a strict interpretation of the law.
- kolorijo on 24/04/2019 - 10:25
  
  +1
  
  mmmm bacon….
- H E B on 24/04/2019 - 21:20
  
  Clearly in Brad H's instance they ran out of bacon and eggs:
  
  BradH13
  I've been in a car where the driver has been parked in McDonald's car park, with the ignition off but accessories on listening to music, in park, eating our meals with phone in hand, and a cop in a bad mood pulled up next to us, flashed his torch at the ignition and booked the driver for using mobile phone whilst driving.
  
  When we questioned it, he said you're considered in control of a vehicle anytime you're sat in the drivers seat with a key in the ignition, it apparently didn't matter if the car was running or not, just that the key was physically in the barrel.
  
  The driver paid the fine and didn't contest it so unsure if actually correct, but that's an experience I've had in South Australia.
OzzyOzbourne on 24/04/2019 - 12:44

+2

Presumably cannot tap and pay with your phone either
- dazweeja on 24/04/2019 - 17:30
  
  Very good point
DEvok on 24/04/2019 - 14:40

What about you have your cards inside your phone wallet, you will need to still touch your phone.
- Milk tea on 26/04/2019 - 22:08
  
  Get them out while your car is turned off in the carpark first…….
seedyrom on 24/04/2019 - 18:20

+1

Digital drivers licenses will be interesting
Todes Angst on 24/04/2019 - 18:54

If you did get "booked" take it to court. I would like to think this kind of frivolous undertaking would be thrown out very quickly.
twister292 on 24/04/2019 - 19:01

That's why I normally put my gear into N and put the parking brake on, then take the phone off the cradle and tap the terminal if I'm at a drive-thru
BradH13 on 24/04/2019 - 19:48

+1

I've been in a car where the driver has been parked in McDonald's car park, with the ignition off but accessories on listening to music, in park, eating our meals with phone in hand, and a cop in a bad mood pulled up next to us, flashed his torch at the ignition and booked the driver for using mobile phone whilst driving.

When we questioned it, he said you're considered in control of a vehicle anytime you're sat in the drivers seat with a key in the ignition, it apparently didn't matter if the car was running or not, just that the key was physically in the barrel.

The driver paid the fine and didn't contest it so unsure if actually correct, but that's an experience I've had in South Australia.
- serpserpserp on 24/04/2019 - 22:04
  
  but that's an experience I've had in South Australia.
  
  Why am I not surprised…
  - DEvok on 25/04/2019 - 20:27
    
    Looks like someone’s low on KPI and about to get questions, so make up a few extra targets for being an (profanity). Normally cops wouldnt go really such low unnecessary demands. They could also pull you out and go through your trunk saying just checking for drugs etc and waste everyone’s time.
- Levathian on 29/04/2019 - 14:08
  
  -1
  
  How would that work for a car with keyless entry and ignition?
caviar on 24/04/2019 - 23:50

A lot of people on here are quoting "Australian" law, yet it differs state to state. I can't speak about other states, however in WA, at the start of the road traffic code 2006 (Where the offence comes from, for using you mobile phone) there is a section that details the scope of the legislation. The offence can only occur on a road. A carpark or drive through, by definition is not a road. You don't even have to wear your seatbelt in a car park.

Please note that there are some roads that go through/around car parks. Joondalup shopping centre is a good example of this.
- whooah1979 on 25/04/2019 - 06:09
  
  +2
  
  You don't even have to wear your seatbelt in a car park.
  
  It's like the wild west over there.
seedyrom on 25/04/2019 - 16:47

20 years and 2 hours behind.

I shouldn’t be harsh. Since 2012, WA has even had Sunday trading
l005e on 29/04/2019 - 12:57

I called the cops while I was in drive-thru to report a naked person walking thru drive-thru and they didnt book me so its prolly fine.
[Deactivated] on 29/04/2019 - 18:38

+1

Daily Mail appear to be avid OzB readers …

Using Mobile Phone in Maccas Drive through

Comments

New Forum Topics