Mobile phone use while driving???

300a subparagraph g line 2 probably changes that, but nobody is allowed to know.

So in that case, all emergency services, especially the police are breaking the law.

Wonder how that would hold up in a court of law.

Cruiser,

305 of the Road Rules is the exemption for police and emergency workers from these Road Rules.

-Still no exemption from the Road Safety Act - Drink driving and serious offences.

Tim.

yep ..police and safety are exempt

however i do belive two way is aloowed in SA.....cos you dont have the phine to your ear...same as hands free kits for phones

but you could still get caught for driving with undue care if something happened..like lane straddling or even something worse

geezus...wish i didnt have any thumbs

thtas bloomin terrible...ooops there's that thumb again

Same as NSW.
"USE" is described as using any functio on a mobile phone ie camera holding it inyour hand to text or talk, listening to MP3's etc.
Tim

So it's legal to use a handheld MP3 player - but illegal to use the MP3 function on a phone ??????

of course Mike...you cant have MP3 secs!

"Speed doesent kill, its the sudden stop at the end" :)

lose?????

x2... what you mean lose?

u still alowed on this site truckie...hehehe

lose, as in no longer have or come to be without.

Mike was saying (using other words, not that here was anything wrong with what he said); any wonder people no longer have respect for the law.

Buggered if I can understand the confusion, seemed like perfect, simple English.

'Lose' implies that something was there to be 'lost' in the first place.

OK V8, now I get it.

Cheers,

Jim.

"it's got me beat how they think they might police this."

- the way they do now. If the police reckons you're holding something illegal, you'll have to prove otherwise.

Macdonalds will never let it happen. They would loose millions.

...Or even lose millions.

They can do it now anyway under current laws - Inattention or undue care or something. Have had a couple of mates pulled over several years ago for eating while driving (one had 2 hands wrapped around a burger while doing the Hume at 110). I think the introduction of the new law is more so the public can see that it is illegal.

Thanks for the correction Off-track.
Lose millions.

R.

You mean I will need a designated driver after a lousy day at work?

I can believe that. Have you noticed how some drivers cannot talk to a passenger without looking at them? Radios/CDplayer/Tape decks on 100 series Cruisers are dangerous or is it me. I have to look at the buttons to figure out which one I should be pressing.
Wasn't there a song written about all this ----- "keep hands on he wheel, keep your eyes on the road, -----" or something like that.

There sure was. But my name was never Fred, I was always the one in the front seat :((

Gawd i'm old i remember that song.
Saw it on Brian Henderson's Bandstand ARRRGGHHHHH

As mentioned before:
I refer you to Victorian Road Rule #300.

It's difficult sometimes....

Mike Harding

Sorry rescue134 but that's not true. Mike is right.
Same as in QLD rule section 300 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road Rules) Regulation 1999

see page 249 on the link below
http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/T/TrantOpRURR99.pdf

R.

>It's difficult sometimes....

Very difficult Mike, lots of wrong info gets posted here at times, I just shrug my shoulders, you deserve a medal.

well i stand to be created but with out looking up vic road traffice act road reg that is what i belived

Otherwise taxi aand courier drivers would be in trouble !!!!

The overrider for a lot of these anomalies is that if they can prove negligence than they'll have you in any case, especially if there is an accident and the use of the radio or equipment was a contributing factor.

It is a bit like emergency vehicles, as far as I'm aware they can run red lights in the case of an emergency all day long, but if they have an accident doing it, they'll be in the wrong......once again the overrider being a duty of care.

All comes down to, as The Landy mentioned- duty of care and 'reasonable actions'
If an emergency vehicle was to have an acident whilst under emergency vehicle status, then it could (and would) be questioned as to whether that person was acting reasonably in that situation. Just because they have a flashing blue or red light and an audible warning device, does not make them excepmt from the road traffic act. they are given certain excemptions.

Also, an emergency vehicle operating under emergency vehicle status, because of their nature and the circumstances, assumes responsibility for all that occurs on the road. For example, if emergency vehicle went through a green light and a car went through a red and had an accident with the emergency vehicle, the driver of the emergency vehicle would be held culpable because of their status, as they, in the eyes of the law, were not acting reasonably and fullfilling thier duty of care.

>Also, an emergency vehicle operating under emergency vehicle status,
>because of their nature and the circumstances, assumes responsibility
>for all that occurs on the road. For example, if emergency vehicle
>went through a green light and a car went through a red and had an
>accident with the emergency vehicle, the driver of the emergency
>vehicle would be held culpable because of their status, as they, in the
>eyes of the law, were not acting reasonably and fullfilling thier duty
>of care.

I find this concept hard to understand, let alone accept - will/can you supply any supporting evidence for your assertion?

Mike Harding

Mike

I should/will be in the office in the morning and I will look up my training resources. This was told to me several years ago on an emergency driving course.

I shall search for information, and hopefully provide supporting evidence from the Road Traffic Act.

Cheers

Mike W

NSW Rural Fire Service certainly doesn't give any advice along those lines about Emergency Response Driving.

Thanks Mike W - 'cause if that's correct... it need changing!

I agree that the advice is 'strange' and hard to fathom. So far I have been unable to locate 'supporting evidence' as I stated in my reply to Mike H, that this was told to me, and could have been due to wrong interpretation on the trainers part.

I can understand, to some degree, how the act could be interpreted in this way, as it states "...in the course of his duties and when it is expedient and safe to do so.."

One could argue, that it was not safe to do so, as the driver should have been aware of the other driver and the going ons of their surroundings. It does, however seem a little unfathomable.

All I have available to me at this moment are excerpts of the RTA, but without having the full act, It his difficult to understand the full context of the previous post. I will endeavour, when at work, as I have access there to the RTA, to try to shed some light on my quoted statement. If it proves the contrary, I can see my self having a busy day on the phone, and looking somewhat the fool LOL

Not long ago a truck driver in the UK got 5 years inside for killing a bloke who was talking to the driver of a car parked beside the road in a layby.
He didn't even know he'd hit someone and carried them down the road and it was proved he was texting at the time.
The driver of the other vehicle was the dead mans mother.
Alan H

and the clincher....

a young italian girl (im guessing from all the italia stickers on the car) on her mobile phone, on the freeway at 100km/h talking the way Italian's do- with her hands!!! I chit myself, almost literally

If that was the Kwinana, I saw a Coke rep. recently with phone stuck between his shoulder and ear with a pad on the steering wheek taking notes!!!
Must be something to do with the road.

"If that was the Kwinana"

the one and only. For some reason, you see some starnge things on that stretch of road.