What's Your Thought on This NSW Driver Being Penalised for Touching His Mobile Phone While Securely Mounted on a Cradle?

[Deactivated] on 24/05/2023 - 05:28
Last edited 24/05/2023 - 05:29

This is interesting to me that he being penalised for 5 demerit points and $362 fine for checking his Nav app.

Article is here.

From memory and I did check this few minutes ago to see if the rule has been changed but it seems that NSW drivers are able to touch their phone, provided that it is secured in a cradle and if used as a navigation, make/receive audio phone or even play music.

To which also begs the question as to what will happen if you touch your in-built touch screen system when you're waiting for traffic light to go green.

What's your thought on this?

Automotive

Comments

  • EightImmortals on 24/05/2023 - 06:19
    +20

    Government is a law unto itself and like most of it's action this is pure theft. If they get away with this then what is the difference between what this guy did and touching your car radio or sat nav? As for being stuck at the lights, if your car is not moving then you cannot crash into anything, more theft. And no, government doesn't need more money, just look at how much it wastes before trying to make that argument.

    Well, you asked. :)

    • Motek Benzona on 24/05/2023 - 06:30
      +3

      A "statute" unto itself. They are not even laws these revenue raising scammers get you to pay for.

      • EightImmortals on 24/05/2023 - 07:12
        +1

        Yeah I know but I was trying to keep it simple. :)

    • Sinnerator on 24/05/2023 - 08:00
      +8

      The problem is 50% of humans cannot be trusted, so if they use their phone stopped at lights they will (1) miss the green light and hold up traffic (2) most likely use the phone whilst driving BECAUSE THEY ARE ADDICTED, and so special they are not responsible for their actions.

      These fines are meant to ALSO be a deterrent.

      We managed to survive 30+yrs ago without driving and texting, so I am certain it won't kill us to drive without using our phones today.

      • EightImmortals on 24/05/2023 - 08:16
        +2

        "so if they use their phone stopped at lights they will (1) miss the green light and hold up traffic"

        I've noticed lots of people doing that lately whether on their phone or not. A quick toot of the horn usually wakes them up.

        "most likely use the phone whilst driving BECAUSE THEY ARE ADDICTED"

        Fair point but I'm not and only use it if someone calls me while I'm driving, all on handsfree of course.

        "We managed to survive 30+yrs ago without driving and texting, so I am certain it won't kill us to drive without using our phones today."

        Yes I agree with that too. What I disagree with is that government believes that if we DO touch our phone, even if the car isn't moving than that somehow means we automatically 'owe' them a heap of money. And if I wasn't clear enough in my previous reply I do not condone looking at your phone AT ALL if the car is moving but see no issue if the car is stationary.

      • alxr0101 on 24/05/2023 - 08:25
        +1

        "Distractions.."

        http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2014104…

        Driver to have proper control of a vehicle etc
        297 Driver to have proper control of a vehicle etc
        (1) A driver must not drive a vehicle unless the driver has proper control of the vehicle. "

        If you're not aware of surroundings and traffic lights (irrespective of being stationary) then you are not in control of your vehicle.

        Clearly you're not "parked" if you're stopped at traffic lights or "stuck in traffic".

        • ssfps on 24/05/2023 - 08:30
          +3

          People have been changing the volume on their radio since forever, but phones are an easy target because there is a loud minority of self-righteous brainwashed idiots who think your gps being on your phone instead of a dedicated device means its your fault a cop needs to ruin your day.

      • dizzle on 24/05/2023 - 08:51
        +1

        so if they use their phone stopped at lights they will (1) miss the green light and hold up traffic

        More to the point I've seen people stopped at traffic, start up and go through a red light because of the distraction. Normally they are looking down, then the car next to them moves (may have a green arrow to turn left/right), they see the movement and proceed through the red. They're halfway through the intersection before they realise - you see them slow down a bit halfway through, then decide it's best to keep going.

      • star-ggg on 24/05/2023 - 10:12

        If 50% of humans cannot be trusted, why are we letting them regularly control tons of steel at speeds of 120km/hr (60km/h in opposite directions)? If it's economic necessity, then isn't being able to navigate to a destination quickly an economic gain? We could go back to the UBD (if that's even sold anymore) but isn't a driver staring at a book more likely to miss the green light?

        • CurlCurl on 24/05/2023 - 15:10

          If 50% of humans cannot be trusted, why are we letting them regularly control tons of steel at speeds of 120km/hr (60km/h in opposite directions)?

          Some don't know 120KPH is a smidgen off 75MPH.

          Sorry, couldn't resist.

      • cookie2 on 24/05/2023 - 10:21
        +2

        I don't know how we got to comparisons on 30+ years ago and not using phones.
        Navigational devices (ie mobile phones), weren't really a thing 30+years ago. Maps were used. Do you prefer me sitting a map on my lap or passenger seat while figuring out where to turn next?
        Since you mentioned survival, there's a big difference between survival and living in a practical way.

    • Protractor on 24/05/2023 - 11:21
      +2

      Australian states are all police states. ( a few are worse) That's the price we pay for not calling it out decades ago. Compare NZ cops to ours. Is NZ better or worse for that ?
      The hierarchy (no matter what side of govt is in) is Police union wish list>police commissioner> police minister>premier >attorney general> law/power/control.
      The concept of police serving & protecting ALL citizens disappeared long ago.

      • wisdomtooth on 24/05/2023 - 12:08
        +2

        Compare NZ cops to ours.

        Is NZ less of a police state than Australia? The last 3 years evidenced otherwise.

      • payless69 on 24/05/2023 - 14:29
        +1

        Ireland does not even have a police. Just a Garda….

      • Euphemistic on 26/05/2023 - 17:35
        +1

        police state
        /pʊˈliːs ˌsteɪt,ˈpliːs ˌsteɪt/
        noun
        a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens' activities.

        If you think this is a police state, maybe go visit North Korea for a while.

        Just because we have rules (admittedly quite a lot) to make our roads safer doesn’t make us a police state. Nanny state - yes. Police state - not by a long shot.

        • Protractor on 26/05/2023 - 18:01
          +1

          Tasering a 95 YO lady on a walking frame? Then doing everything possible as an org to not call it out. The commish did not even watch the video.Then we find out the last words the cop used before firing.
          Shooting ppl with mental health issues.(on the rise everywhere) How does screaming at someone under massive duress calm anything down?

          Getting almost everything they want via the union.
          Playing bumper cars.
          Avoiding crime prevention and choosing reactive policing. We may not be NKorea,but the direction we are moving as far as community policing is more violent than it ever was. The decision for cops to carry a hardware store and guns has coincided with the 'compunction' to use them.
          Clearly the recruiting process is perverse and has failed the community. The Rolfe case proves that.As does the disgusting Taser death.

          We can and should be doing better.It starts with proper psych testing of all applicants, and a zero tolerance policy of misdemeanours.Not suspension on full pay for years.

          North Korea, not by a long shot. Best we can do, not by a long shot.

          • Euphemistic on 26/05/2023 - 18:21

            @Protractor: True, the cops do often overstep and the 95yo hit with a taser is fortunately quite rare.

            We can protest without being tear gassed or shot. We can choose to do lots of things that break the law and vast majority of the time you get cuffed and end up alive and well facing a judge, not getting shot in the streets. We can video police and generally escape any consequences as well.

            Not a perfect situation but I’d rather be here that the USA where they’ve militarised the police.

            Maybe my glass is half full regarding our police situation, but there are plenty of countries worse off than us.

            • Protractor on 26/05/2023 - 20:38

              @Euphemistic: Yes many places worse than ours, but our cops are getting way too trigger happy,macho and cowboy like.
              There is no logical reason to rush to apprehend or disarm. Shooting has become the go to policy.
              https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-26/family-of-willoughby-…

              I refuse to accept there is no alternative to lethal shooting, let alone multiple shots fired, when proper policing would have seen zero shots fired, and the victim getting the help they needed.
              The similarities in our and US police are greater than their differences,and that's because the police industry here wants it that way. They constantly adopt US policies,behaviours and equipment.

              As for we can do this or that. Some of us can't. I vividly recall the way police during the waterfront conflict back in the day were ramming truncheons into the rib cages of protesters on the wharf. Very violently.For no reason. This was just a few mixed aged codgers linking arms to make a point/
              There's a hundred examples like this every year in every state, over minor protests.Police choose who they come down hard on. In Vic that doesn't seem to be the far right, though. Make of that what you will.

              • wisdomtooth on 26/05/2023 - 21:59

                @Protractor:

                our cops are getting way too trigger happy,macho and cowboy like.

                Nah, the macho thing to do is to use bodily force, not plastic guns, to detain suspects. Just look at the stats and see that policewomen are much more likely than policemen to use weapons to detain suspects. Likewise, if you read up the cases of abuse of weapons by policemen, it's typically perpetrated by unfit beta males not confident in holding their ground and physically handling people (e.g. look at the officers that tasered a Brazilian guy to death in Sydney some years back: all unfit, ill trained, men and women).

  • bathuu on 24/05/2023 - 06:30
    +4

    Where is the poll?

  • Euphemistic on 24/05/2023 - 06:54
    +1

    Here’s the actual rules not a paraphrase

    http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/rr2014104…

    • alxr0101 on 24/05/2023 - 07:57
      +3

      And here is the explanatory page FAQ LINK, that explicitly states (if appropriately licensed) you CAN touch your phone for certain uses AND also (this refutes what the person was supposedly informed) you do NOT need to have the engine switched off when "parked".

      https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/stayingsafe/mobileph…

      (last updated 11 July 2022)

      The issue however is on what date was the infringement? The above links are for current rules…may have been relaxed since the date of infringement. AUstlii can identify rules in force at a particular time.

      And I would presume the onus is on the State (ie Police) to prove it was NOT being used for the referenced "OK" uses of audio/nav aid.

      "
      But it is important to be aware that the prosecution bears the onus of proving this offence beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is advisable for those who are unjustly penalised for these offences to consult a lawyer for advice about seeking to have the penalty notice withdrawn, defending the matter in court or, in certain circumstances, appealing any resulting driver licence suspension.
      "
      https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/can-a-driver-f…

      But the NSW info page and the Statute seems abundantly clear that, provided in a holder, the driver can touch the phone for certain uses.

      Government are just being d*cks as usual…as sure as you take it to court they will prob not contest it (after you've taken a day off work and turned up to court).

    • Chandler on 26/05/2023 - 16:03

      Here’s the actual rules not a paraphrase

      Here's the actual rules: https://legacy.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2014…

      If a driver was using the device in a (proper) cradle, to control audio or phone call as per 300 (1) (a) or navigation as per 300 (1) (b), they aren't breaking the rules.

      The Australasian Legal Information Institute is a good resource, but is not the actual source.

      • Euphemistic on 26/05/2023 - 17:32

        Cheers. Not previously aware of that difference.

        • Chandler on 26/05/2023 - 23:11

          All good - that's why I mentioned it :)

  • wisdomtooth on 24/05/2023 - 07:04
    -1

    Had to check Qld… The lawyers are all over the place:

    Recently, the Queensland Transport Department has implemented a new traffic law about using your mobile phone while operating a motor vehicle on the road. Whether you are texting, answering a call, using the map function for navigation or changing your playlist, you may receive a penalty of $400. (Ascent Lawyers)

    You are not allowed to use the hands-free functionality of your phone, which includes wireless headsets and loudspeaker functions. You are not allowed to touch, look, or operate your phone using voice. (EXCEED ICT)

    ‘Use’ of a mobile phone includes: …
    3. turning the phone on or off;
    4. operating any other functions of the phone (Gilshenan & Luton)

    However, the govt's website says:

    If you're an open or P2 licence holder, you are also allowed to touch your mobile phone for hands-free use if, for example, the phone is in a cradle attached to the vehicle. Hands-free use can include:

    • accepting a call
    • using navigation apps
    • skipping a song
    • accepting/ending a trip as a rideshare driver.
    • EightImmortals on 24/05/2023 - 07:13
      +5

      Clownworld.

      • wisdomtooth on 24/05/2023 - 08:04
        +2

        True. Also, what I didn't quite get is "you're allowed to touch your mobile phone" — with your hand, presumably! — "for hands-free use." Wut??

    • brendanm on 24/05/2023 - 07:24
      +2

      You didn't read your sources very well. Those additional restrictions are for P platers.

      • wisdomtooth on 24/05/2023 - 08:07
        +1

        The lawyers' writeups are not entirely clear about that. The govt's is clearer, but… How does one touch one's phone "hands free"?? Do they mean you're allowed to tap the mic button to dictate an address but not type it out, for instance?

        • brendanm on 24/05/2023 - 08:32

          It's very clear, they state "additional restrictions apply for P holders", and then go on to list those restrictions.

          • wisdomtooth on 24/05/2023 - 12:16

            @brendanm: No, it doesn't, e.g.:

            Holding an open licence doesn’t mean you can use your phone while driving. It merely allows you to talk on the phone via a hands-free or Bluetooth function.

            If your phone is fixed to a cradle in the motor vehicle you are operating, you are permitted to use your phone on loudspeaker so long as you are not touching your phone while driving.

            If you would like to use your phone for GPS navigation, you need to ensure that you set up everything before you start driving on the road. (Ascent Lawyers)

            • brendanm on 24/05/2023 - 13:24

              @wisdomtooth: Yeah, so pretty much what the gov website says. Not sure why you are trying to get information from random third parties rather than just getting it straight from the government, it's pretty easy to understand.

              • wisdomtooth on 24/05/2023 - 13:36

                @brendanm: What part of "so long as you are not touching your phone while driving" did you not understand?

                • brendanm on 24/05/2023 - 13:37

                  @wisdomtooth: What part of "read the government website" did you not understand?

                  • wisdomtooth on 24/05/2023 - 13:38

                    @brendanm: Did you? Here's what it says (again!):

                    If you're an open or P2 licence holder, you are also allowed to touch your mobile phone for hands-free use if, for example, the phone is in a cradle attached to the vehicle. Hands-free use can include:

                    • accepting a call
                    • using navigation apps
                    • skipping a song
                    • accepting/ending a trip as a rideshare driver.
                    • brendanm on 24/05/2023 - 13:39

                      @wisdomtooth: Yep, it lists the things you can do while the phone is in a fixed holder. Which part are you struggling to understand?

                      • wisdomtooth on 24/05/2023 - 13:41

                        @brendanm: The part in which you fail to see that what's on the lawyers' website is not "pretty much what the gov website says."

                        • brendanm on 24/05/2023 - 13:41
                          +1

                          @wisdomtooth:

                          Yeah, so pretty much what the gov website says. Not sure why you are trying to get information from random third parties rather than just getting it straight from the government, it's pretty easy to understand.

    • Flying Ace on 24/05/2023 - 07:54
      +1

      You really should only be citing the government source, as that is the only one that really matters.

      This is the part that matters to the majority of drivers:

      If you're an open or P2 licence holder, you are also allowed to touch your mobile phone for hands-free use if, for example, the phone is in a cradle attached to the vehicle. > Hands-free use can include:

      accepting a call
      using navigation apps
      skipping a song
      accepting/ending a trip as a rideshare driver.

      So in QLD you are allowed to use your phone if you're on your P2 or Open if it's in a cradle.

      • wisdomtooth on 24/05/2023 - 08:00
        -1

        What part of "all over the place" did you not understand?

        • Flying Ace on 24/05/2023 - 08:10
          +1

          What's "all over the place"? The rules seem quite straightforward. You can operate your phone in the cradle if you're on P2 or Open, you can't touch it or do anything with it if you're not.

          The first article you cited is 3 years old.

          • wisdomtooth on 24/05/2023 - 08:13
            -2

            @Flying Ace: Which part of "the lawyers are" did you not understand?

            • brendanm on 24/05/2023 - 08:34

              @wisdomtooth: You just lack reading comprehension skills.

            • Flying Ace on 24/05/2023 - 09:11
              +1

              @wisdomtooth: What does it matter what "the lawyers" said - 3 years ago?

              What is important is what the law is today.

              • wisdomtooth on 24/05/2023 - 12:11
                -2

                @Flying Ace: Just info still publicly posted as current. If they haven't pulled it down, they're representing it as still valid.

                • Chandler on 26/05/2023 - 16:22

                  @wisdomtooth: @Flying Ace

                  Ya'll should read the source: https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current…

                  Now I'd like to get a lawyer to translate the QLD rules since there's some legalese here, but rule 300 (1) pretty clearly states that a driver can't use a mobile phone unless the car is parked (parked ≠ stationary) and the notes/exemptions following don't appear to relax that for cradles etc like the NSW rules do. But it does define use as being in the hand or on the body, which to me means if it's in a cradle it is not in use (which to me doesn't make since, since you are using it, hence my pre-empting all this with "ask a lawyer")

                  There is rule 299 (2) (b) which allows drivers to have mobile phone screen in view of them for GPS/Navigation, but no mention is made of phone calls or audio media usage, and the rule is purely about the display being in sight, not about using/touching the display.

  • WreckTangle on 24/05/2023 - 07:34
    +3

    This fine is unfair

  • pegaxs on 24/05/2023 - 07:46
    +9

    Typical click bait news.com.au article to whip the bogans into a frenzy.

    This will go to court and get tossed out. Guy will say “it’s in a cradle and I was cancelling/answering a phone call/skipping a music track/etc.” So, unless they are a P-plate driver, this is a non-issue.

    • Euphemistic on 24/05/2023 - 08:09
      +2

      BuT iTz ReVeNuE RAiZiNg! ThE HumaNItY! ItZ nOt FaIR!

      If people learned to red the legislation and not Murdoch media we’d be better off.

      • ssfps on 24/05/2023 - 08:33
        -2

        Yeah, it's the people who are at fault, the cops here are hard-done by saints.

        • Euphemistic on 24/05/2023 - 09:18
          +7

          This was a camera and a civilian reviewing the images.

    • cookie2 on 24/05/2023 - 10:27
      +2

      It's an issue for the person having to stress about loss of demerit points (possible licence loss if low on points, possible work issues etc) and ofcourse the time and effort to argue something that should never have even needed a discussion.

  • Brian McGee on 24/05/2023 - 07:48

    To which also begs the question as to what will happen if you touch your in-built touch screen system when you're waiting for traffic light to go green.

    This is not a mobile device in a cradle or in your hand. And with most companies 'Teslafying' the HVAC and Infotainment systems it will be extra difficult for law enforcement to cite you for answering a text via carplay, or where you just adjusting the fan speed or temperature control?

  • Wiadro on 24/05/2023 - 08:09

    Meh don’t touch it, the cameras are so damn obvious

    • alxr0101 on 24/05/2023 - 08:43

      And not only the designated "mobile phone camera detection cameras".

      ANY "approved traffic enforcement device"… and even an approved TOLL camera … image can be used as evidence.

      ROAD TRANSPORT ACT 2013 - SECT 139A

      http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/rta201318…

      I just make a point of placing both hands on the wheel when near a camera…just to minimise stuffups.

  • WreckTangle on 24/05/2023 - 08:36
    +2

    I’m now wondering if the driver had a full licence. If its a P plater then it’s a valid fine (albeit a stupid rule).

    • pegaxs on 24/05/2023 - 09:44
      +2

      Like a good OzBargain post, it's always best if they leave this important information out to create the upmost outrage amongst the reader base.

      • blitz on 24/05/2023 - 16:14

        "Utmost". Utmost outrage. And I agree!

  • Loot N Plunder on 24/05/2023 - 09:01
    -8

    How simple is it to not touch the phone when your behind the wheel?
    These people are so entitled they think the rules don't apply to them.
    Its obvious the deterrent isn't enough so maybe a fine and loss of license might be a better option.
    It annoys me the amount of people i see using their phone when driving, they always have a piss poor excuse
    Take their drivers license away and they might learn the hard way while making the roads safer at the same time
    We had no gps no phones years ago and we didn't die from it and still arrived at our destination.

    • [Deactivated] on 24/05/2023 - 09:04
      +8

      The rule does not state that, in fact it actually states that people are allowed to use and touch their phone as navigation aid when it is mounted in a cradle. Had it stated otherwise, we wouldn't have this ambiguity.

      • Loot N Plunder on 24/05/2023 - 09:27
        -4

        Bullshit excuses again
        Pass the buck. OHH its not my fault
        If your destination is put in before you travel there is no need to keep touching it
        Does your navigation not update a new route if there is roadworks/problem?
        And how do we know if its the phones messages or gps you are playing with?
        Slap them all with a loss of license no excuses for the entitled.

        • cookie2 on 24/05/2023 - 10:30
          +4

          You define someone as entitled if they're using their phone in a way that they're legally allowed to to assist with navigation while driving?
          Warped.
          Your uses of They and We are very interesting. Do you happen to ask everyone that you see using their phone, their excuses? You mention they always have and all your generalisations must surely come from somewhere factual.

        • alxr0101 on 24/05/2023 - 12:16

          "Slap them all with a loss of license no excuses for the entitled…'

          Are you just making up the Rules as you stumble through justifying a lack of relevance to your reasoning?

        • bobbified on 24/05/2023 - 15:08

          Hi Karen! 🤭

  • Lunarboogie on 24/05/2023 - 09:09
    -2

    No sympathy from me. Road safety trumps this bozo's need to touch his phone. Lesson learnt.

    • Loot N Plunder on 24/05/2023 - 09:33
      -3

      Look at the entitled negging you and me as the truth hurts their little ego of entitlement.
      No phone no problem
      Phone touching when driving is rampant not one day goes by without seeing it first hand

  • El cheepo on 24/05/2023 - 10:36
    +1

    Easy… don’t pay the fine, take a day off work and do the court date to get it thrown out.

    Side note: I’m amazed how cheap that fine is there compared to WA.

    • wisdomtooth on 24/05/2023 - 12:13

      Easy… take a day off work

      🙄

      • El cheepo on 24/05/2023 - 12:22

        Strangely enough, not difficult to do for many people.

        Shouldn’t have to do it, but it is what it is.

        • [Deactivated] on 24/05/2023 - 12:31

          Side note: I’m amazed how cheap that fine is there compared to WA.

          it's the demerit points that most people worry about. 3 years (reset) in NSW is a very long time.

          • El cheepo on 24/05/2023 - 13:05

            @[Deactivated]: Same in WA.

            Thats why i would take the day off and go to court over it.
            Id rather waste half a day in court then have that sitting over me for 3 years.

            • wisdomtooth on 24/05/2023 - 13:22

              @El cheepo: That doesn't mean it's "easy."

              • El cheepo on 24/05/2023 - 14:20

                @wisdomtooth: Forgot to add my disclaimer

                “Personal experiences may vary and past experience is not a reliable indicator of future experience.
                Organised by the national iwriterandomcommentsandrepliesonozbargainanddontproofread party of Australia.”

  • payless69 on 24/05/2023 - 14:27
    +1

    Germany just had a case where a couple had a shag in front of a red light blocking trafic.
    German police fined them 20 Euro.
    Btw QLD is over 1k!!

  • hasher22 on 24/05/2023 - 15:06
    +1

    Unfair, how is this any different from touching your car's dash, radio, mirror……. More so with Tesla cars with everything pretty much controlled by their touch screen….

    No common sense with laws sometimes

    While you're at it, make a law stating cradles can not be mounted on the windscreen, stickers such as mechanic reminders, parking permits, disabled permits to be removed from the windows as it's a "distraction" and "obscures vision"…

    Or let's remove passengers as well, cause if changing the station on a radio is 'distracting' and can cause accidents, passengers are more likely to cause crashes if disruptive and talk to the driver….

    bruh

    • Euphemistic on 26/05/2023 - 18:15

      While you're at it, make a law stating cradles can not be mounted on the windscreen, stickers such as mechanic reminders, parking permits, disabled permits to be removed from the windows as it's a "distraction" and "obscures vision"…

      There’s already laws about obstructing your view of the road. Service reminders and disabled permits are generally in the corners and don’t block vision of the road ahead. Some clowns have their phone smack bang in the middle of the windscreen. It needs to be policed.

  • doctordv8 on 25/05/2023 - 09:58

    Confused. I use my mounted tablet for Maps every day. Same as the is driver in question.

    But, I set it before I move off, and never need to touch it during driving…so why does he?

    I do not understand why he touched it, does anyone here know why you would need to touch the device during the trip?

    I watched the UT Video, read all the pages and links, and the confusion I think is the true definition of Hands Free and the varying info supplied around Oz.

    When this became an issue initially years ago, I understood Hands Free to mean Do not Touch at all. Then there was cradles and finger tip use was allowed, that is Hands Free as we are not hold the device in our hands.

    Throw in Bluetooth/Steering wheel and or voice controls, and this in my logical terms is true Hands Free.
    I have seen the Phone BT to the dash screen for maps, which I read is fully legal to touch. While much Phone Hands Free, but now we are touching that huge TV screen the manufactures stuck in the dashboard.

    It is a dam sight more complex than the audio we dealt with before phones, and apart from swapping a cassette or disc, set and forget stations meant we concentrated more on the speed, mirrors, ahead, etc to be safe drivers.

    So when will we see plain English information? The same for every State, and suitable for locals, visitors, professional drivers and the aged, (any new driver in last 5 or more years has no excuse to not know and understand the law and all Road Rules where older drivers may have difficulties understanding it all).

    Plain information please to make every safer on the roads, keep everyone legal (if they so choose) and …have you seen the Owners Handbook Audio section recently for a new vehicle…it is thicker than the Workshop manual for 10yrs ago, so like the Fine print..who reads it fully?

    But, if the current Law is Do Not Touch the Phone, then pay the Fine. Create public awareness, change the definition or change the Rules.

    • [Deactivated] on 25/05/2023 - 10:55

      does anyone here know why you would need to touch the device during the trip?

      do you ever have change of mind or perhaps your wife or partner suddenly change their mind and say let's go to X instead? note that you're not familiar with how to get to X from where you're at the moment and tell me every time this has happened, that you will go to a quiet street, turn off your engine and then change the destination on your tablet? or perhaps you tell them there is no changing in route once it's locked in?

      But, if the current Law is Do Not Touch the Phone, then pay the Fine. Create public awareness, change the definition or change the Rules.

      i also feel the need to comment on this section of yours. But the current law stated otherwise (and that you CAN touch the phone). If you're going to fine someone because they breach the regulation then I agree with you in this case, change the rule/definition.

    • wisdomtooth on 25/05/2023 - 11:32
      -1

      if the current Law is Do Not Touch the Phone,

      It isn't.

  • ihbh on 26/05/2023 - 08:40

    Anyone know what the rules are for old GPS units? The website is not clear on this.

  • Mumbles on 26/05/2023 - 13:08

    From the photo in the article it looks like the young male driver is SMS'ing with one hand. The phone is in portrait mode and they are texting using their thumb whilst the car is moving.

    Why does a driver need to grasp the whole phone if its already held securely in a mount? … Maybe to text????

    • Gnilgorf on 26/05/2023 - 17:09

      Having a phone securely in a phone mount doesn't necessarily make it easy or accurate to use, even for legal purposes.

      This is purely anecdotal, but on numerous times I've accidentally exited the navigation, or almost rejected an urgent call, due to stupid presses caused by bumps and other vibrations in the road. So the extra (albeit temporary) stability helps a lot. And its hard to gauge, but both photos look like a relatively light grip, if any, given how much of the hand & phone are still visible.

      Heck even when driving newer cars with the screens, I still find myself occasionally stabilizing myself on the edges of the screen.

  • Protractor on 26/05/2023 - 18:15

    You should only be allowed to even HAVE a phone in your car if you are fully vaccinated for covid, and wearing a mask.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join