WA Mobile Phone Rules for Drivers

Lately noted increased police officers on motorbikes peeking into cars when stopped for red lights.

The fines are expensive at $400 And 3 demerits points for anything to do with a phone.

My mate got done for answering an emergency call while stopped at red light. He was on loud speaker. He is a doctor and he naturally went for it.

Spoke to an Uber driver who almost got done for accepting a job. The cop let him go however.

And I have heard many others getting swatted like flies…

Looks like another way to increase revenue.
In any case avoid hefty fines.

https://roadrules.rsc.wa.gov.au/road-rules/mobile-phones

Penalties
Using, touching or holding a mobile phone whilst driving = 3 demerit points and $400 fine.

Creating, sending or looking at a text message, video message, email or similar communication, whilst driving = 3 demerit points and $400 fine.

Touching/holding includes resting on any part of the driver’s body (e,g lap). It does not include held in a pocket of the driver’s clothing or in a pouch worn by the driver.

Driving includes being stationary with the motor running (e.g. waiting at stoplights, stopping roadside).

Whilst driving, you can only touch a mobile phone to receive and terminate a phone call if the phone is secured in a mounting affixed to the vehicle. If the phone is not secured in a mounting, it can only be used to receive or terminate a phone call without touching it (e.g. using voice activation, a Bluetooth hands-free car kit, ear piece or headset).

Whilst driving, it is illegal to create, send or look at a text message, video message, email or similar communication, even when the phone is secured in a mounting or can be operated without touching it.

GPS may be used by a driver whilst driving if it is secured in a mounting and no touch of the keypad or screen is required.

Vehicle must be legally parked, with motor turned off, before a driver can legally hold a mobile phone.

Related Stores

rsc.wa.gov.au
rsc.wa.gov.au

Comments

  • +26 votes

    Did you have a question?

    Seems to be consistent with road rules in other states.
    The discussion has been had on here (regularly).

    If you don't break the rule, you won't get fined.

    • +17 votes

      If you don't break the rule, you won't get fined.

      Exactly.

      I spend a lot of time on the road and I'm sick and tired of people who think that they are such good drivers that they use their phone and can read and send texts while driving.

      They are the ones swerving all over the road.

      Follow the rules. Secure your phone properly and use Bluetooth, then no fine, it's not rocket science.

      It's not before time that the Police started fining drivers for breaking this law. The fines should be a lot higher IMO.

      • -23 votes

        So what about doctors stopped at traffic lights taking emergency calls (like the guy in the OP)? Do they bother you as well?

        And what about the person who was fined in NSW because their PASSENGER was using a mobile phone?
        Or the one that was fined because their passenger had a laptop?
        Or the Victorian cops disguised as homeless people in order to bust people at traffic lights?

        Now I'm all for reigning in idiots using phones while they are actually driving, as opposed to waiting for the lights to turn green, (except for handsfree calls (not texts etc)) but if you don't think the governments are using this as another excuse for more tax theft then you are very naive.

        • +10 votes

          Doctor taking an emergency call:
          I'm pretty sure it would be the exception for a doctor not to be driving a car with a bluetooth connection. If there were extenuating circumstances, I'm sure the doctor could appeal.

          The passengers with phones / laptops were caught showing the device to the driver, therefore distracting the driver. The driver is responsible for in-car behaviour.

          How the police catch people is up to them; the drivers must have broken the road rules to be caught.

          Regardless if we like a road rule or not, it is in place. Adhere or pay the penalty. If penalties are not enforced, there is no point.

          • +9 votes

            @GG57: Excuse me, when the doctor takes a call, its very unlikely they will know its an emergency before they receive it.

            And it doesnt excuse the doctor from not having a handsfree fixed cradle/bluetooth connection.

            Doctors arent specially trained in driving anymore than the rest of us.

            And they usually can afford a higher spec'd car anyway.

            Its a furphy and the OP is just trying to start something which doesnt ring true.

            You can speak on a loudspeaker if your phone is in a cradle. If the Doctor got fined, its because he didnt follow the rules, a "loudspeaker" without a cradle or bluetooth is illegal use in a car.

            •  

              @RockyRaccoon: He/she could be a hospital Dr with his/her ring tone set for calls from hospital or their work which would probably indicate an emergency, just saying! I would never use my phone in the car but really why should the penalty for glancing at your phone while stopped be the same as texting while doing 110 k's on the motorway. No common sense in that particular penalty, surely one is way worse than the other?

              • +1 vote

                @Hedgehog: Hospital calls are usually from private numbers (no ID, because calls are made from many extension phones in the hospital). There would be no way to tell which call from a hospital is an emergency or not. Also, if OP's mate is junior, it'd be unlikely an emergency call. If he's a senior, they could be receiving up to hundreds of calls a day if there on-call.

                From experience, if it's an emergency call from hospital and no one answers, the phone will keep ringing again and again until it's answered.

            • +1 vote

              @RockyRaccoon: Maybe I didn't express myself well.
              I fully agree with you, and tried to state that a doctor would be more likely to have a hands-free or bluetooth enabled car or other solution, so I doubt their need to handle a phone to take the call.
              They should indeed be penalised, and they can argue any extenuating circumstances if they wanted to.

          • +1 vote

            @GG57: Bluetooth enabled car? Sorry i spent all my money on courses.

          •  

            @GG57:

            I'm pretty sure it would be the exception for a doctor not to be driving a car with a bluetooth connection.

            There are exemptions in the Road Traffic Code for police, other emergency workers, tow truck drivers, road workers, speed camera operators and so on. If the government had intended that doctors were exempt from parts of that law they would have written it into the law. They clearly did not do so.

            If there were extenuating circumstances, I'm sure the doctor could appeal.

            Yes. Evidence of extenuating circumstances should be given in court under oath or affirmation for a magistrate or judge to weigh. It's not for the police to believe or investigate every excuse they are told.

          • +1 vote

            @GG57: A doctor in the situation described above should have the sense of mind to find the first available safe place to pull over, put on emergency indicators and take the call or call them back (in the case they don't have Bluetooth). Being a doctor doesn't make you immune to the fact that using your phone while driving a car puts others lives in danger.

        • +13 votes

          don't touch your phone while driving. what's so hard about that.

          • -14 votes

            @dcuksuop: Try thinking for yourself…what's so hard about that? Oh…wait….

          •  

            @dcuksuop: I don’t disagree, and can’t stand seeing people use their phones while driving/stopped etc - and am all for big fines for phone use.

            What I don’t get, is why police are so focused on stalking stop lights for people on their phones. No one using a phone at a stop light ever hurt anyone (other than stopping/slowing traffic) - seems their time could be better spent policing more dangerous/disruptive driving etc.

            Don’t get me wrong, those people are breaking the law and should be fined - but I see so many police chasing the red light phone user - to me that’s revenue raising.

            • +4 votes

              @geoffs87: I don't feel police are focused on just stationary phone usage. I still see lots of people use their phones at lights. If police see people using phones while driving, I'm sure (well hope) they stop them.

              Let's say it is legal, what will happen is people rushing to light and stopping quickly so they can use their phones. People then prepare to use the phone when slowing down or wrapping up phone usage while creeping from a stop. The line gets blurred. Also it's mental, people's minds are occupied over anticipating messages and responses instead of focusing on driving. And even when stopped, drivers should stay alert.

              People have just become too attached to their devices. People who use it when driving are also using it when stopped.

            • +3 votes

              @geoffs87:

              No one using a phone at a stop light ever hurt anyone (other than stopping/slowing traffic) - seems their time could be better spent policing more dangerous/disruptive driving etc.

              Both can be done at the same time??

            •  

              @geoffs87:

              why police are so focused on stalking stop lights for people on their phones.

              1) They can check multiple people quickly and safely.
              2) The likelihood of the people using their phones when they're driving is increased. Say the person at the lights messaged someone while on a red light. Light turns green, then the person they just messaged responds. Do you think they'll wait until they get another red light to see the reply? or will they pick up their phone and glance at it (in their mind, 1 second but reality it can be several seconds off the road).

    •  

      Sorry I honestly thought it was relatively new in WA.
      Plus the number of cops I have seen on bikes Checking the cars at a red signal is crazy high. So also to inform others of this.

  • +20 votes

    You'd think a doctor would have Bluetooth in his car so wouldn't have been fined answering an emergency call via that.

    •  

      Or his hands-free device broke and was on the way to get a new one.

    • -4 votes

      So you didn't read the OP?

      "He was on loud speaker."

      • +3 votes

        And he did the wrong thing by answering. While you are driving, driving is more important than phone calls. If you do choose to ‘quickly touch your phone at the lights’ you might cop a fine. Deal with it

        • +5 votes

          OK then so can someone explain to me, why adjusting the volume on my radio or changing stations while stopped at the lights (or actually driving) is OK but pushing a button on the phone isn't? I'm happy to listen to any reasonable argument, and no, simply muttering 'It's the law' is not reasonable nor convincing. Anyone?

          • +1 vote

            @EightImmortals: Because the temptation is too strong for our current drivers, to go from touching a Reject Call to ending up the rabbit hole of Social Media.

            …or at least, that's the only possible rationale the authorities can use.

          • -1 vote

            @EightImmortals: How are the police able to tell whether you're texting or just pressing a button? Your volume button isnt gonna start a convo with you and distract you with a cat pic.

            1 simple rule solves it, though apparently it's not so simple for many.

          • -2 votes

            @EightImmortals: It’s just the rules. Deal with it.

            I’d rather have no phone use at all for the driver. It takes too much additional concentration to have a phone conversation vs a conversation with a passenger. Must be something to do with the brain having to do extra processing to try and invent all the body language etc that you can’t see.

          • +6 votes

            @EightImmortals: Because pressing a radio button =/= answering a phone call, holding a phone to your ear and getting distracted by the conversation.

            If you can’t grasp what is so different between pushing a button on the dash to change the aircon and getting involved with a mobile phone and a conversation whilst driving, you seriously should consider handing your license in and walking.

            • -9 votes

              @pegaxs: And if some people can't talk and drive at the same time then maybe they should ban passengers as well?

              • +1 vote

                @EightImmortals: Interestingly, some drivers are limited in the number and ages of passengers they can have; for example in NSW:
                P1 drivers under 25 are not permitted to drive with more than one passenger under 21 between the hours of 11pm and 5am. P1 or P2 drivers who are issued with a new licence after a period of being disqualified from driving, will for 12 months only be allowed to carry one passenger

                • -9 votes

                  @GG57: Heh, I didn't know that. Sounds about right now that I think of it, they wanted a dumbed-down population and it looks like they got it. And as the old saying goes 'rules are for when brains run out' and I think this totally applies to the topic of this thread. If people can't talk and drive at the same time maybe they shouldn't be on the roads? Of course as others have noted, the overly excessive and heavy-handed abuse of 'fines' by greedy politicians has done nothing to stop this particular act of dangerous driving nor has it reduced the road toll in general so my cynicism is, I feel, completely warranted. But then we have the push for driverless cars and speed limited cars and all kinds of tracking to 'fix' the problem. Luckily I'll be long gone by they become mainstream so I can still enjoy driving the car instead of having the car drive me. But then if the robots are doing the driving, where will the government get it's fix from?

                  • +3 votes

                    @EightImmortals:

                    And as the old saying goes 'rules are for when brains run out'

                    Source? Never heard this saying and search engines are not turning up much…

                    Rules are more like SOP's. They exist for the guidance of what is to be expected. They are not a replacement for commonsense like you are trying to elude to. Rules exist to make things safe or fair, or for letting people know what is acceptable, not just because some people are stupid.

                    heavy-handed abuse of 'fines' by greedy politicians

                    All I read was "ReEeeEeE ReVeNuE RaIsInG". Don't want to pay the fines, play within the rules. If you don't like the rules because you think they are for stupid people, feel free to hand your license back if you don't agree with the terms and conditions.

                    As for your "dumbed down population" comment, what is your suggestion to fix that problem so we can get rid of rules??

                    If people can't talk and drive at the same time maybe they shouldn't be on the roads?

                    There is a gaping chasm between turning a radio knob and talking on a mobile phone while driving. There is also a huge gap between a conversation with a passenger and carrying on a conversation while holding a phone, while driving. There is no comparison between turning the aircon on and updating your Instagram feed while driving.

                    I really am lost between the thought that you actually believe what you are saying and comparisons you are making or if you are just trolling.

                    • -9 votes

                      @pegaxs: And I am really lost that you can't contain your rantings to the information given in the OP.

                      "There is also a huge gap between a conversation with a passenger and carrying on a conversation while holding a phone, while driving."

                      But as the OP said the guy was "was on loud speaker" which means he was not 'holding a phone' as you assert. What happened, according to the OP was NO DIFFERENT from someone sitting in a non-moving car turning down the volume on the radio so they could have a chat with their passenger. So unless you know something the rest of us don't stop conjuring up scenarios that don't apply. :)

                      (Off topic)

                      "If you don't like the rules because you think they are for stupid people, feel free to hand your license back if you don't agree with the terms and conditions."

                      1) Those 'rules' didn't exist when I agreed to accept my license.
                      2) I will not be encumbered by any rules that I have no say in and no control over.
                      3) And while you seem to be deciding how we should live our lives, If I don't use my phone while driving and still object to your fines am I still allowed to drive?
                      4) A society free society needs 'some' rules, dictatorships have LOTS of rules. Just a personal observation.

                      "Rules are more like SOP's. They exist for the guidance of what is to be expected."

                      Expected by whom? The politicians who write them? You know where that logically leads and you know how I feel about such slavish sentiments. :)

                      "As for your "dumbed down population" comment, what is your suggestion to fix that problem so we can get rid of rules??"

                      Heh, good question, I fear it might already be too late for that so apart from an individuals own self-motivated efforts in that regard I don't really have an answer for you.

                      • +3 votes

                        @EightImmortals:

                        you can't contain your rantings

                        I have contained my information given by OP and by you in your weird, off topic, irrelevant examples… OP only said that their "friend" was booked for being on loud speaker. Chances are that their "friend" was also holding the phone. If it was mounted in a cradle affixed to the vehicle, I doubt that OP's "friend" would have received a ticket.

                        OP said the guy was "was on loud speaker"

                        Again, if the phone was affixed to the vehicle in a cradle and answered, it wouldn't have been an issue. OP doesn't state if the "friend" was holding it or how it was mounted. Being on loudspeaker =/= docked. Plenty of idiots I see in a day with the phone in one hand and on loudspeaker while driving.

                        Onto your off topic rant;

                        1) You have never renewed your license since you first got it? On an old "grandfathered" plan?
                        2) Let's see how that goes in court, "freeman on the land".
                        3) a: I don't decide anything for anyone other than myself and my employees. b: And you can object all you like. That's why we have a government you can lobby if you want laws you don't like, changed.
                        4) You have obviously never left Australia if you think we are a dictatorship. I have found that counties I have travelled to that would be considered dictatorships have very little in the way of rules and laws. A very rudimentary set of laws that are administered quite harshly. I find that the more "civilised" a nation is, the more rules they have to keep the checks and balances, and the punishment for breaking any of those rules are usually just a slap on wrist, not the removal of the whole hand or head.

                        Expected by whom? The politicians who write them?

                        Rules/laws/legislation/etc are made by the political party at the time. We, as the people, get to vote in who we want and don't want to represent our views. The best part of this is, if you don't like the rules a political party makes, you can lobby your local member or even run for government yourself and make a change. The politicians are your representatives. But then again… Australia is a dictatorship, sooooo…

          •  

            @EightImmortals: It does not require much conscious thought to turn a volume control. It is a mechanical act with little thought required.
            Looking at a phone to read a message requires conscious effort which diverts the thought processes away from the core activity, namely driving safely.

        •  

          Attempting to make a distinction between a car stereo volume control/AC button or whatever is idiotic, unless you're talking about an old car. What if the stereo doesn't use a volume knob, but touch screen?
          Many cars have factory-fitted BT/Carplay/Android auto. There's a wide choice of affordable head units with same to update an older car too.

          For many of us, staying within the letter of the law is a simple matter of tracking down good deal(s) on car stereo upgrades. It's not much safer, but you're touching your properly installed head unit.

    • -4 votes

      Why does being a doctor mean you have hands free/bluetooth in your car? Is it a prerequisite?

    •  

      Yea he learnt it the hard way. He didn't hesitate to pay the fine nonetheless.

  • +3 votes

    Had this in Vic for several years now. Not sure when it was brought in. If the authorities failed to tell drivers then your mate could probably argue he didn’t know. If there was a massive campaign then no dice.

    Pretty simple, if your mate is a doctor surely he’d have a hands free thing. If he doesn’t they are cheap on eBay,

  • +2 votes

    My mate got done for answering an emergency call while stopped at red light. He was on loud speaker. He is a doctor and he naturally went for it.

    "We need you at the hospital right now, Doctor. Only you can save the President!"

  • +3 votes

    My phone calls are not that important, so I don't bother with a hands-free device. If your phone is so important that you can't miss a call while driving, you need to buy one.
    I don't even like to change the volume on the stereo while driving or change the song because I don't like to look away from the road. I don't understand how people can actually seriously look at a phone screen and send or read texts while driving and not kill everyone around them every single time they do it.

    •  

      They're just morons who (incorrectly) believe their driving skills are so good they don't need to pay 100% attention to the road.

  • +11 votes

    I've said it before (possibly here) that staunch policing of mobile phone use at red lights is leading drivers to use it whilst their vehicle is in motion.
    The road campaign has largely had all of the effect that it ever will (notwithstanding future generations) - there's only so many ways you can re-frame the message. People who are still using their phones behind the wheel will likely never be affected by such safety campaigns.
    They can also only drive up the fines so much and, if anything, increasing the fines is another contributing factor to people using their phone whilst in motion vs whilst stationary.

    You have to put yourselves in the mind of someone who uses their phone behind the wheel. The logic pertaining to safety concerns is irrelevant here, as it's had no tangible effect on these people.
    So if you really want/need to make a call, send/read a text, adjust GPS etc, then when will you be more likely to do it:

    A) When you are more likely to be caught and suffer an exorbitant fine?
    or
    B) When you are far more likely to get away with it?

    The obvious answer is B.
    It's significantly harder for a driver to be caught using the phone whilst they're in motion, relative to whilst stationary, since it is a lot easier for a police officer to peer in to a car that is sitting there, than it is to try to match speed for long enough to see, which is potentially dangerous in itself. In addition, there's the added risk of plain clothes police officers who pose as pedestrians. Everything points towards using their phone whilst moving, and I suspect that getting caught whilst at a set of lights will only further push them in this direction.

    This isn't too dissimilar to setting the BAC to 0.05 as opposed to 0.00.
    Of course 0.00 is safer, however by making it 0.05 we allow people to be able to drink (because that's important in our society, for whatever reason) whilst out, and still be able to drive legally. Having a 0.00 limit opens up the risk of the "in for a penny, in for a pound" attitude, such that someone will just keep drinking after having 1 or 2, since "if I'm over, I'm over". Sometimes you need to do something that sounds dangerous in order to make things safer.

    •  

      It is interesting that there are trials in traffic camera technology to enable identification of drivers who are using their phones whilst driving. I don't understand the technology, but if successful (along with police monitoring from cars / motorbikes in moving traffic) that should eliminate option B.

      Re the 0.05 vs 0.00: some drivers are restricted to a 0.00 limit.
      Drivers who are more experienced, or have not caught breaking that rule previously, are given a little grace on the basis that the impairment from <0.05 is limited.

      • -1 vote

        0.05 allows the police some leeway when the driver has had mouthwash, or drinks last night or happens to be in the car with a very intoxicated person and affects the result. It saves the hassle of dragging said low range persons back to the station only to find out they are not affected by alcohol.

        • -1 vote

          Lulwut

        •  

          0.05 allows the police some leeway when the driver has had mouthwash

          Recently having mouthwash will give you a much reading higher than 0.05

          or happens to be in the car with a very intoxicated person and affects the result

          That's why you blow into a straw

          •  

            @spaceflight: The straw typically isn’t used first up anymore. There is a little pump that sucks the air into the device while you speak into it. The stew might come out if the reading is close or first up if the officer thinks you are going to go over. then if it is still positive your off to the station for the calibrated actual machine

            •  

              @Euphemistic:

              The straw typically isn’t used first up anymore.

              I know

              The stew might come out if the reading is close

              That's incorrect.
              The first reading without a straw is only an indication, there is no value.
              It only gives 'positive for alcohol' or 'negative for alcohol'.

              They need to use a straw to get a BAC value

    •  

      I guess 12 month license suspensions or prison sentences if using the phone while in motion could help with that.
      I don't want to be killed so someone can read gossip on WeChat.

  • +4 votes

    Lol @ Doctor being fined. There is one dude who should have known better. With all the road trauma about that they possibly deal with as a result of inattentive arseholes on their phones, you would think a Dr. would use the inbuilt Bluetooth that their fancy BMW/Range Rover would have come with.

    Such as easy fix. If you don’t want to be fined, don’t use your phone whilst you are in the drivers position in the car. It isn’t rocket surgery…

  • +1 vote

    People are being killed and injured because people are using a mobile phone while driving.
    The number of accidents where people are hitting the right rear of parked cars is increasing.
    The fine isn't stiff enough. The attitude coming off your original post says that.
    Quite frankly, the government isnt doing enough to stop it.
    The doctor that got fined should have known better than most.
    Europe has figured this out. Just this week they are introducing laws that say if you kill somebody while on the phone in a car, you will face murder charges.

    •  

      France has just introduced laws that will result in a loss of license if a driver is caught using their mobile phone.
      The only type of mobile phone now legal to use in France while driving is one that is entirely hands-free and headphone free (so no touching the phone at all).

      •  

        A woman was running a police officer flat while repeatedly texting at 100km/h. Her lawyer argued her basic right to be social was more important than the police officer's life. Result has come in.

    •  

      The new law in europe should've been a thing from the very beginning

  • +1 vote

    The road rules for touching of phones I think are pretty clear. Where I think there's some grey areas, is for modern infotainment systems. Infotainment systems in cars especially those that support Car Play or Android Auto can have complex menu navigation compared to the old car stereos where there was a few buttons for CD/cassette playback and radio presets. Using one at the lights or while driving you could get a ticket depending on the cop that saw you doing it.

    Personally I use Car Play in my old VY Berlina that I upgraded the old factory unit with a new Sony double din unit. Works great, I mostly use Siri for navigating as much as I can but Siri is typically hopeless at finding the music I want so I have to navigate the menus for that task.

    •  

      Under which rule would police fine you for using the car's infotainment systems?

      My car has maps etc., but the navigation menu is greyed out when the car is in motion. I can use it when stationary, but I don't think that is against any rule?
      Other options (music source, radio stations, etc.) are all available, but I decide when to / not to interact with them.

      Some people (apparently) cannot ignore a call or message on their phone, as opposed to waiting to change stations.

      There are road rules.
      There is common sense.

      There are those that a just stupid.

      •  

        WA Police have a lovely catch all at their disposal "driving without due care and attention". $300 & 3 dermit points. A women was fined with that for eating while driving. An a-hole cop could fine you with that if your seen navigating the infotainment menu while driving.

        With Car Play I can adjust everything on the maps while in motion - eg adjust destination. While I typically do this sort of stuff before I set off, there has been a couple of occasions that I did this while stationary at some lights.

  • +5 votes

    How hard is it to stay off Facespace while, apparently, in control of a ton of potential energy?

    This is why science needs to be beaten into children.
    "Inertia bitch, it will (profanity) you up."
    "How many school children can a car, travelling at 60kmh, kill, in the time it takes to text 'yeah she's a skank'?"

    Sorry, not sorry.

  •  

    "Whilst driving, you can only touch a mobile phone to receive and terminate a phone call if the phone is secured in a mounting affixed to the vehicle."

    So, yes, whilst driving a phone can be "touched".

  • -3 votes

    A bit off topic but …

    In QLD (probably all over Australia as well), a CV two way radio mic/switch can be used (held) whilst driving.

    So it is about similar size and distraction as a phone but it is allowed.
    Talk about consistency.

    Of course nothing to do with the fact that everyone has a phone but mostly truckies, police and essential services have two way radios.
    Not revenue oriented legislation.

    •  

      Two way radio literally have TWO Buttons (you dont even need eyes for it to press it) and do not take driver's eye off road.

      Don't try to confuse the two.

      •  

        There is also that 2-way radio only requires you to speak or listen, not both at once. That is a much less taxing conversation for your brain.

      •  

        I belive is only one button. Press to talk, release to listen.

        Or you 'two' are confused?

    •  

      Try operating a smart phone WITHOUT looking at it.

      Anyone can use a CB radio with just 2 fingers with eyes looking ahead. You could look at it… but it just looks black most of the time.

      •  

        If it so, then the legislation should state: OK to hold the phone, not OK to look at the phone.

        How could you look at the phone whilst talking??? … its against your face.

    •  

      Recently a truckie got fined for causing an accident while using his cb. Anything to cause distraction can have an adverse effect. I wish cigarette smokers would face the same penalties!

  • +1 vote

    All the drivers i have seen who are using their phone are oblivious to anything happening around them

    Downright bloody dangerous bastards.

  • +1 vote

    These laws are nearly a carbon copy of Victorian Mobile phone laws. Look pretty similar.

    • +1 vote

      These laws are standardised throughout the country by Austroads and various jurisdiction's Centres for Road Safety.

  • +5 votes

    "Vehicle must be legally parked, with motor turned off, before a driver can legally hold a mobile phone."

    As someone living in WA, I did not know this.

    If i need to use my phone (usually to change song/playlist etc.), I pull off to the side of a road, put the car in park and put the handbrake on. But the engine is still on.

    Seems silly….

    Maybe if i had one of those new fancy cars which auto shut off the engine when the car is not moving….

    • +2 votes

      At least someone found something new.
      Yes i too find this over the top.
      Hope one of those super amazing citizen who are righteous and have never broken any law get fined for this one day.

      •  

        They used to have this rule in Vic but has been amended to be "parked" not necessarily ignition on.

      • -1 vote

        Hope one of those super amazing citizen who are righteous and have never broken any law get fined for this one day.

        I don't claim to be righteous, and I haven't seen anyone here claim to be, but one road rule I won't break is using my phone illegally when driving after seeing what can happen to drivers who do.

        Methinks that the people protesting are the ones who think they are super amazing drivers who the law shouldn't apply to.

        Waiting for the posts crying that they got fined for driving their cars while using their phone and want to know how to get out of it.

    • -1 vote

      Maybe if i had one of those new fancy cars which auto shut off the engine when the car is not moving….

      You can't illegally park at a traffic light

  • +1 vote

    Looks like another way to increase revenue.

    Sorry. I've seen the stats and mobile phone usage is one of the highest cause of accidents these days. It is NOT revenue raising but it really is meant to stop people from trying to text, operate their phone or play Candy Crush before they kill someone or wrap themselves around a pole.

    Honestly your doctor friend has no excuse - technology these days really can call without actually touching the phone itself through mobile assistants.

  • +1 vote

    The fine should be tripled. Don't use the (profanity) phone while you're driving!

    I wouldn't mind if they find people like $100 for looking down at the phone while slowly walking either. Idiots just walk across the road without looking.

    Bunch of zombies and it's only getting worse!

  • +1 vote

    The number if drivers I see in my rear view mirror stopped at the lights & darting their eyes up and down at their phones is scary. Usually when the light turns green, I'm 30 metres up the road before they have even realised. I guess they're addicted to their phones, like sitting at a restaurant with you real life friends but spending the whole time checking instagram.

  •  

    My mate got done for answering an emergency call while stopped at red light. He was on loud speaker. He is a doctor and he naturally went for it.

    His car doesn't have bluetooth?

  • Top