The Qld Goverment is upping the ante in regard to using mobile phones whilst driving by increasing the fine from $400 to $1,000.
Ouch.
2 Likes
Only Ouch if you do it 
3 Likes
Yes, but they need to be out and about enforcing the law. The fine could be $1M, but unless they enforce the law the fine means nothing and not a real deterrent. Everyday, I see heaps of drivers ignoring the current law by using their phones in their hands.
Maybe if they were serious, they would have targeted campaigns where people were fined and their mobiles were crushed when caughtâŠthe inconvenience of having to buy a new phone and new sim may send home a message.
4 Likes
I suppose the other option is to confiscate the phone say for 10 days for the first offence and then 30 days for the secondâŠwith the phone being crushed on the third.
Manditory removal of the phone from the user may have greater impact and inconvenience than a fine. It could follow a similar process to the hoon laws.
4 Likes
I was going to suggest the same idea but with confiscating it permanently on the first offence in addition to the fine.
1 Like
Another article regarding using mobile phones whilst driving.
I am amazed that there have only been 50,000 fines in 3 years in Qld.
They should be able to easily achieve that daily.
Exactly, this is the problem with defending yourself in Australia. I fought a U-turn infringment that I knew was incorrectly issued and the police had issued many thousands of infringement notices in this area. I had a statement from the department of transport that it was not a U-turn and that they had provided advice to the police in the past saying this.
I spoke to RACQ legal who told me to pay it as I was wrong. I spent hundreds of hours putting together my argument, video, photos and going over the evidence the police were using along with learning how the court worked. I went to court, met the prosecutor who refused to drop the case and gave me the transcript of a barrister who defending his client in the exact area with the same infringment and lost.
After two appearances on the same day the magistrate adjourned the case for a week to look into this further. I won the case, the magistrate said that it was clear that I did not perform a U-turn.
The police stopped enforcement in this area however all the people that paid never had their infringement notices withdrawn or points removed from their license. And to top it off I had to pay $300 for a transcript of my case.
The same problem in Victoria with the faulty point to point speed cameras, those who elected to go to court and lost ended up having their infringements withdrawn
many months later when they realised the cameras had incorrect times but those who paid (99.99%) did not.
The costs of fighting a speed camera etc are substantial as the police tell you up front you have to pay for the various experts time to give evidence if you are contesting the accuracy of the equipment. The cost of this is tens of thousands of dollars.
It will be the same for these mobile phone cameras. People wonât appeal because of the costs.
More police on the road and better driver education is the answer to the road toll, not excessive penalties.
4 Likes
$1000 fines are ridiculous and will do nothing to stop the problem. The fines in Australia are out of touch with reality. Is using a phone dangerous whilst using a car? Maybe in some circumstances but so can eating, drinking, talking, looking after children, looking at billboards and so forth. We already have laws that cover distracted or dangerous driving, phone laws are just duplicated and are not needed.
Driver training and enforcement of all road laws are required to reduce the road toll. Concentrating on issuing infringements for easily detected offences like speed and using a phone and issuing a ticket weeks later is not going to change driver behaviour. What will is seeing a visible police presence on the road, issuing warnings where appropriate and going after all offences like right lane hogging, dangerous lane changes, driving too slow, merging at a slow speed, not moving over for cars merging, following too close and so forth.
And if the phone doesnât belong to them? What happens if they end up seriously injured or worse because they are unable to call for help down the road? Or if children cannot call their parent and are placed in a dangerous situation? Or any one of many other scenarios that could eventuate.
Why not crush their car whilst youâre at it? Maybe cut their hand off as well.
What about drink drivers who are many many times more likely to kill or injure someone, is it ok that they keep their license and cars for low range offences?
Yet there are few accidents that can be attributed to mobile phone use. Does this tell you that the problem is not as bad as the government claims and they want to blame mobile phone users for the road toll instead of looking at the real reasons why itâs not dropping?
That appears not to be the case and the numbers are likely under reported because not in all cases can the use be easily identified. But a few articles might show how bad the issue is not just here but also overseas.
How many accidents are caused by texting and driving in the UK?
According to the latest 2018 Report on Motoring, released by the RAC, there has been no change in the number of motorists using mobiles behind the wheel in the last twelve months. A full 25% of drivers admit that they have used their phones whilst driving at some point in the last year. 25% of people admit to making or receiving a call when behind the wheel, 39% admit to making or receiving a call whilst the car is stopped but the engine is running. 19% of drivers have checked texts, emails or social media when driving (40% have done so with the stationery but with the engine running). 16% have actually posted on social media or sent texts or emails whilst driving (33% with the car idling). And 14% of drivers have taken photos whilst driving (22% with the car idling).
These numbers are huge and have changed very little since the 2017 Report on Motoring, which is a worrying trend. UK statistics are somewhat difficult to get, but there are plenty of worldwide stats around. In the US the National Safety Council estimates that cell phone use contributes to 1.6 million crashes per year and that 25% of accidents are caused by texting and driving, with texting being 6 times more likely to cause an accident than drunk driving. In India, 2,100 people were killed during 2016 due to mobile use whilst driving. Australian authorities estimate that 9% of fatal crashes are caused by distracted drivers, including mobile users. Irish authorities believe that mobile use whilst driving is causing more accidents than drink driving. And the World Health Organisation estimates that mobile use makes accidents four times more likely."
From a US article by a Law Firm
"
Cell Phone and Car Accident Statistics
USA Today reported on the National Safety Councilâs injury and fatality report. According to the report, cell phones caused 26 percent of car accidents in the U.S. in 2014. Text messaging causes 5 percent of crashes.
Any time the driver is distracted with a cell phone in hand, theyâre driving dangerously and are risking other lives on the road as well as their own. Holding a phone to talk, use the voice-to-text option, or scrolling to pick the next song means that one hand is off the wheel, which greatly reduces the driverâs control of the vehicle. They wonât be able to maneuver safely or quickly if an emergency happens.
Using a phone also means the driverâs eyes and focus are now on completing a task with the phone instead of the road. Taking eyes off the road for a second can have dire consequences, especially when one is traveling at high speeds on highways. If someone needs to brake, avoid, or use their horn to alert another driver about something, they may not have enough time because they werenât paying attention."
From QUT research is this pdf:
From a Drive dot com dot au article
"The use of phones while driving has overtaken people not wearing seatbelts as one of the major causes of fatal car accidents, said Marg Prendergast, general manager of the NSW Centre for Road Safety, but the difficulty of collecting conclusive data about the role of distractions meant such accidents were under-reported.
âThe problem is that people are addicted to their phones,â Ms Prendergast said. âThe key message that people need to understand is: no phone call, no message, no song is worth risking your life or somebody elseâs. I just donât think people get that yet.â
âThis is our mission for the next decade â to highlight the dangers and get people to adjust their behaviour.â"
2 Likes
Yes there could be thousands of scenarios or excuses of why someone needs to use a mobile phone (inc. while driving). As one of many non-mobile owners, including not allowing oneâs children to also have mobiles, we must pose and acceptable risk to ourselves and our children. One has to remember is was only about 25 years ago that almost no one had a mobile and the world didnât end back then
The same principle applies to thise who allow others to drive ones car, and are caught hooning.
This is the risk of allowing another to use ones phone, when driving a vehicle.
2 Likes
The other side of that same point is ⊠we still had many road fatalities 25 years ago.
The figures quoted above (" Australian authorities estimate that 9% of fatal crashes are caused by distracted drivers, including mobile users.") suggest that we should not be overly focused on mobile phones.
Those two points together suggest that there are some common factors causing the significant majority of road fatalities, which factors
a) have not changed in 25 years, and
b) are not related to mobile phones.
In other words, 25 years ago, âother factorsâ caused 100% of fatal crashes, and today âother factorsâ caused at least 91% of fatal crashes.
Itâs a bad principle in either situation. Noone else should be punished for âyourâ crime.
I just drove home from the airport and whilst pulled up at a red light, I witnessed a female idiot driving a large SUV turn right from the street on my left, with her right hand held up to her right ear using her mobile whilst negotiating the turn with only one hand.
I then saw that a police paddy wagon was the second vehicle behind her and I hoped that they observed her offending as they would have had a broadside view of her during the turn.
However, whilst glancing at my outside rear view mirror whilst waiting for the light to turn green, I did not see them pull her over.
As I posted above, they should be able to easily achieve 50,000 fines a day with a bit of effort, not a mere 50,000 in 3 years.
I guess the old speed traps are much easier and more lucrative.
1 Like
Your claim that the road toll has remained static is incorrect.
It is now the lowest it has ever been since the end of WWII.
It will be even lower when the authorities finally stop idiots from using mobile phones whilst driving.
1 Like
I donât see where I claimed that. However if I were to take your point to the extreme I could suggest that mobile phone use is leading to a reduction in fatalities. 
I was looking at the causes of fatal crashes and the percentage attributable to each cause. I would suggest that the big 3 (speed, alcohol/drugs, fatigue) have not changed a lot.
Declining fatalities could be attributable to a reduction in some of the causes or to an improvement in vehicle safety or to both.
1 Like
Look at the statistics, theyâre saying that 9% of fatal crashes are caused by distracted drivers including mobile users.
What about the ones that are caused by crap drivers? Why do other countries such as Germany with much lower and lenient fines have a much lower road toll? Is it the driver training perhaps?
What about all the suicides by car that are instead categorised as speed related?
And what about the people that use their phone as a car key? Or to pay for goods? Or to open their door at home? Or for banking?
The world has changed, Australia has ever increasing crime and most services are online via apps so surviving without a mobile phone and internet is becoming harder.
What right do your have to remove the assumption of innocent before guilty? A smartphone is much more then a communication device today.
And those laws are ridiculous and pointless and only there so stupid politicians can be seen to be doing something and to appease people that think it will make a difference. What happened to innocent before guilty? Why donât we incarcerate people without trial as well?
What about people with a work phone? Or a leased phone? Or a phone they are paying off? What about the environmental impact of destroying a perfectly good phone?
The assumption of innocence is a backbone of Australia law, however, it is relatively easily to prove guilt in relation to offences occurring with a motor vehicle (traffic offences). Speeding is one example, wearing a seat belt is anotherâŠboth which can be proven by the police and infringement notices issued on the spot. To have all traffic offences treated with innocent until proven guilty will costly to both the alleged offender and also to the taxpayer (with one having to go to court for any offence to prove that the offence did not occur, even though there was overwhelming evidence at the time the offence occurred).
One also has a process of natural justice, that if one thinks they are innocent of a traffic offence and believe the evidence the police have is incorrect (such as photograph evidence, witness statements etc), one has the right to appeal against an offence.
Yes the world has changed, and removing ones phone for a duration of time with potentially crushing after a number of offences is likely to be a good deterrent. Especially if one gets caught and needs to think about the consequences of being caught again. The anecdotal evidence suggests that a fine alone is not enough of a deterrent.
I beg to differ and suggest that you ask the family and friends of those who have died as a result of hooning. There are regular reports of hooning occurring and consequences of doing such.
The same applies for a driver licence. One drinks and looses their licence, one canât expect to be let off because one needs their licence for work (one needs to be responsible for ones own behaviour and be able to accept any consequences of behaviour not accepted by the broader community.
Yes, if one is leasing or paying off a phone it would be an additional financial burden, but no more of a burden to someone who has paid for a phone outright, having it confiscated and then having to buy another.
It is also worth noting that if one wants to take a call when driving, they have three options, either install a hand free kit into a car so that the phone is not touched while driving, let the call go to their voicemail and return the call later, or pull over, stop and take the call. These three are very simple to do (the last two at no cost to the consumer) and prevents a person potentially having a accident causing damage to the vehicle or themselves. Any accident in the end costs the community either through health costs, increased insurance premiums or emotional loss when a love one is severely injured or dies.
There is also research which shows that using a hand held phone when driving is akin to having a blood alcohol level far in-excess of the statutory limits. This is proof that a handheld phone is a distraction and increases the risk of an accident as a result.
These are the only those which it is proven die because of their phone use (or have killed someone else). There are potentially many other which couldnât be proven as this statistic is not definitive and likely to be higher.
Notwithstanding this, for every death, there are many more injured as a result of a vehicle accident. These injuries may stay with the individual for life and also place a significant burden on the family friends, health systems etc.
2 Likes
Why stop there, letâs punish everyone but allow them to appeal whilst they are serving their punishment. Police think youâre guilty of manslaughter and straight to prison you go and you can commence an appeal from inside.
Our system of innocent until proven guilty allows you to plead guilty to an infringement, to offer an explanation or to appeal it in court. What is wrong with this system despite the huge costs to fight an unfair infringement notice?
Why stop at traffic offences, this would save a lot of money if we locked up anyone accused of a crime.
So after your car has been impounded for weeks or your phone destroyed you can at huge cost pay to get an urgent appeal heard.
Why stop at removing their phone? And what about those who use their phone for other purposes like making payments or starting their car? Is it ok that they can no longer start their car or access their internet banking or lose photos?
Other countries like Germany have a 50 euro fine and no points for mobile phone use and they have a lower death rate on the roads. Maybe their driver education system and their policing of all the road rules and not just one or two that make money is the answer.
There are very few innocent people that die from hooning and these have not stopped with the laws that confiscate your car or whoevers car you are driving.
Another example is that burnouts in Germany or drifting in the snow are tolerated by the police and will often result in a warning being given unless it was performed in a dangerous manner. Again Germany has a lower road toll, yet another example of how Australiaâs approach to road safety is utterly useless. The only reason why the road toll has dropped is because of safer cars, it certainly isnât because of driver education or increased patrols.
Low range offences donât see a loss of license nor does it preclude them from receiving a work license.
How do you work that out. You have Person A on say $1000 a week who owns their $1000 phone outright and Person B on say $500 per week who is paying off their $1000 phone and still owe $1600 on their plan. You think that the impact is the same for both people?
Iâve been using mobile phones both held and handsfree in the car for 30 years and have yet to have an at fault accident and have never been in a position where I felt that my driving has deteriorated as a result.
And the statistic is likely to be a lot lower as they are manipulated to support whatever agenda the government is pushing.
Itâs been proven that driver education and training, enforcement of ALL laws and sensible speed limits save lives but we donât do any of these in Australia. We could save many lives but we choose not to, Queensland has further relaxed driver testing to the point where we may as well just issue a license in return for payment.
Even in Russia you have to attend a drivers school which runs for three months part time before you can get a license and this is already showing benefits. Like the German system you also have to undergo first aid training and understand the basics of how a vehicle operates.
The solution is in front of us but we refuse to make it harder to obtain a license and subsequently make the roads safer.
Agree with your statements. If you need to use a phone while driving you can either go hands free or pull over, anything else such as texting while driving, making a hands on call, surfing the internet is just plain careless, uncaring, dangerous and offensive to other road users. If you use your phone as a GPS mount it properly and set the details before you begin a journey or pull over to adjust or have a passenger do so for you.
Some people think the priviledge to use a phone is actually a right, it isnât nor is it necessary to be constantly connected. I am sure there would be some who disagree but we have become a more âentitledâ or âselfishâ society, where the greater good is no longer important for some and individual satisfaction/gratification has become paramount is some peoples eyes.
If around 26% is the average Worldwide then maybe we are currently blessed that it is less involving mobile use but things change rapidly. Do I think we are better drivers, no not at all but in many cases while we think our population density is high it is relatively low or moderate in most cases. People who insist on using while driving in an illegal manner need to be educated to change that behaviour, if that means large fines, withdrawal of licences, confiscation of goods so be it. The risk then sits with those who break the law and as it should be the consequences of their behaviour should sit solidly on their shoulders.
And as to Germany & other European countries the rules are strict:
3 Likes
