CY 187 761 Mazda Double Cab

[BBN]

However, at that point he was not breaking the law. You cannot speculate as to what he would or would not have done as it has not been done yet.

 

Is there any proof of his intent to drive while talking on the phone? he could just as easily have put the phone on speaker and left the phone on his lap or in the console and carried on. He would then be using the handsfree.

 

I Drive a Hyundai, so that may make things a bit different from a Mazda, but at least it has number-plates on, is licensed and only drives on........ ho what the hell maybe it does none of the above.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure that if you are on the road and your engine is running you are considered to be driving.

[urbanroyal]

However, at that point he was not breaking the law. You cannot speculate as to what he would or would not have done as it has not been done yet.

 

Is there any proof of his intent to drive while talking on the phone? he could just as easily have put the phone on speaker

and left the phone on his lap or in the console and carried on. He would then be using the handsfree.

The way I understand the law ...as explained to me by a cop...."having the phone in your hand " is the offence.....????

[FCH]

 

 

Are you mad!!!!!

 

Are you seriously equating talking on your cellphone while stationary, with murder, kidnapping and assault?????

 

I see now why you intervened in the first place. You live in this hazy-crazy twilight world where littering is the same as stabbing someone in the face.

 

What kind of imbecilic world do you live in? :eek

 

Imbecilic..... right then, i can see why you will loose your cool if someone points out a trangression.

Anyhow, its called the broken windows theory written by an embicil called James Q Wilson, the name itself should give away the idea; but look it up.

Our current state of affairs in SA is a posterchild of this concept.

I have read you stating that you are not advocating breaking the law, but your reaction says the opposite; someone pointing out you are wrong- is smug..... One crime is more acceptible than another.....

I was taught the measure of a persons maturity is if you can accept responsibilty when you are wrong, the driver was wrong, he obviously does not feel any need to take responsibilty for it. Just another man-child with superiority issues.

[Guest Smimby]

However, at that point he was not breaking the law. You cannot speculate as to what he would or would not have done as it has not been done yet.

 

Is there any proof of his intent to drive while talking on the phone? he could just as easily have put the phone on speaker and left the phone on his lap or in the console and carried on. He would then be using the handsfree.

 

I Drive a Hyundai, so that may make things a bit different from a Mazda, but at least it has number-plates on, is licensed and only drives on........ ho what the hell maybe it does none of the above.

Unfortunately he WAS breaking the law, as it does not state that you can talk if you stationary at a traffic light or stop street.

 

You can only talk if you pull over to the SIDE of the road so he WAS breaking the law at THAT moment.

[Dicky DQ]

This is the point right here. Maybe he is Dick's amigo!!

It may be my 2nd profile ??

[Kranswurm]

NO driver is permitted to use a hand-held communication device while driving. This includes a cellphone, microphone or other communication device, per the South African National Road Traffic Act.

Summary:

• You may use such a device ONLY IF it is NOT being held in your hand or with any other part of your body (e.g. it may NOT be gripped under your chin either).
   
• You may also not use the cellular phone at traffic lights even when the vehicle is not moving – if the engine is running you are considered to be driving.
   
• Transgressing the Rules of the Road includes taking photos, browsing the internet and participation on social media platforms when driving.
   
• Officials are NO LONGER exempted. They used to be in the past (if it was in the course of executing their official duties), but that exemption was removed from the Regulations a few years ago. So don’t let any traffic officer or metro police official try to tell you otherwise.

The wording of the official Regulations

 

Regulation 308A: Prohibition on use of communication device while driving

 

(1) No person shall drive a vehicle on a public road—

(a) while holding a cellular or mobile telephone or any other communication device in one or both hands or with any other part of the body;

(b) while using or operating a cellular or mobile telephone or other communication device unless such a cellular or mobile telephone or other communication device is affixed to the vehicle or is part of the fixture in the vehicle and remains so affixed while being used or operated, or is specially adapted or designed to be affixed to the person of the driver as headgear, and is so used, to enable such driver to use or operate such telephone or communication device without holding it in the manner contemplated in paragraph (a), and remains so affixed while being used or operated.

 

(2) . . . . . .

[sub-r. (2) deleted by r. 67, GNR.1341 w.e.f. 25 September 2003.]

 

(3) For the purposes of this regulation—

(a) the word “headgear” includes for the purposes of this regulation a device which specially designed or adapted to allow the driver to use a cellular or mobile telephone or other communication device in such a manner that he or she does not hold it in one or both hands or with any other part of the body, and which is connected to the cellular or mobile telephone or other communication device concerned, directly or indirectly, while being fitted to or attached to one or both ears of the driver; and

(b) the phrases “cellular or mobile telephone or any other communication device” and “cellular or mobile telephone or other communication device”, excludes land mobile radio transmission and reception equipment operating in the frequency band 2 megahertz to 500 megahertz that is affixed to the vehicle or is part of the fixture in the vehicle.

[SAGecko]

Dude, maybe relax a little. This has now turned into an attack on the OP who did not the break the law. I think you have assumed some things like "smugness" "sticking heads through windows" "self righteousness".

 

There is NOTHING wrong with politely pointing out someone breaking the law, there is however lots wrong with the reaction as well as breaking the law in the first place!! It's the LAW! And at the rate that cyclist are being run over and the lack of action taken against drivers breaking the law, it is to be expected from us, actually its our obligation to try and make the roads safer in an amicable way.

 

As for your admission to how you would react, well that says a lot.

No, I would remonstrate against someone driving recklessly while yaking on the phone. I wouldn't have told him to get off the phone whilst stationary. In my opinion that is the act of a self-righteousness individual. And the smugness in this instance, I see in the OP wanting to broadcast this incident on the Hub.

 

But you're right, I am getting a little hot under the collar over this. I am particularly offended by people who upbraid others for minor misdemeanours that they themselves are guilty of.

 

As for my reaction saying a lot about me? Please elucidate. I'm fascinated by armchair psychology.

[Tubehunter]

Gecko, please answer the following questions:

 

1 - When last you commuted in to work on your bicycle during high traffic volumes?

2 - Total kilometres done in the past 4 weeks of said commuting...

 

I would just like a little perspective....

 

Reason I ask is about 3 hours ago I had some dude in a double cab Mitsubishi brush my left elbow with his driver side mirror trying to make a left turn in the turning lane (I was going straight on), steering with his knee, using one hand to change gears and the other holding his phone to his ear. It was not intentional that he get that close and I was somewhat expecting a close call and moved over as much as I could. (Had a bus on my right at the time and cramped for space). I had overtaken him 3 times before during traffic buildup and already politely suggested he get off the phone at one of these previous encounters.

 

He got a decent fright! Will he continue to make calls whilst driving? Probably. He seems like one of those 'gifted' people who think that 'stuff like this doesn't happen to me' types...

 

Edit: Oh let me add, that he had been stationary at many points along that stretch and whilst his vehicle certainly had moments where it didn't move, his driving focus never got out of neutral. Driving was entirely secondary to his call.

 

Oh and lets consider that if he had caused me to fall over at the roughly 10 - 15 km\h we were doing at the time and I had fallen badly the chances the bus driver would've known I was down and stopped before the wheels of the bus used me as a speed bump, were most likely non existent.

 

Everyone here is full opinions until it becomes relative to them and then you see how quickly your opinion of what is safe and what's sweating the small stuff gets real perspective!

[Guest Karma]

Unfortunately he WAS breaking the law, as it does not state that you can talk if you stationary at a traffic light or stop street.

 

You can only talk if you pull over to the SIDE of the road so he WAS breaking the law at THAT moment.

 

No point in arguing with all the experts on the Hub...

[Guest Smimby]

What should be banned is eating fast food while driving. Now THERE's a Friday topic for y'all. 

Fast food should be banned.....full stop     

[GLuvsMtb]

Google 'distracted driving', there's plenty of studies. The main gist of it is the following:

 

The National Safety Council has compiled more than

30 research studies and reports by scientists around

the world that used a variety of research methods,

to compare driver performance with handheld and

hands-free phones. All of these studies show handsfree

phones offer no safety benefit when driving

(Appendix A). Conversation occurs on both handheld

and hands-free phones. The cognitive distraction

from paying attention to conversation – from listening

and responding to a disembodied voice –

contributes to numerous driving impairments.

 

So, given that you understand this observation, and believe it to be true, are you going to stop using your handsfree device?

 

It's an interesting scenario, a reversal of the 'don't follow laws blindly if they don't make sense' argument; in this case, the law lags behind the research.

I can find an equal (if not greater) amount of "studies" that prove the opposite. Is that going to deter you from applying common sense when interpreting data from your "studies"? 

[Dicky DQ]

Mod note:

 

Thread contents under review. A number of comments have already been removed and warnings issued.

 

Personal attacks, baiting and offensive language will not be tolerated.

But what about poor Dick? It is PK Dick 24hrs, maybe I should lay low for a while. If the poster's can't take the heat they  should stay out of the kitchen. 

 

Admin, it an arbitrary thread with a lot of smoke being blown let it ride, let it ride............ it is almost Friday and the start of the big relax.

[Dicky DQ]

The way I understand the law ...as explained to me by a cop...."having the phone in your hand " is the offence.....

But he was not driving at the time....

[Guest Smimby]

Gecko, please answer the following questions:

 

1 - When last you commuted in to work on your bicycle during high traffic volumes?

2 - Total kilometres done in the past 4 weeks of said commuting...

 

I would just like a little perspective....

 

Reason I ask is about 3 hours ago I had some dude in a double cab Mitsubishi brush my left elbow with his driver side mirror trying to make a left turn in the turning lane (I was going straight on), steering with his knee, using one hand to change gears and the other holding his phone to his ear. It was not intentional that he get that close and I was somewhat expecting a close call and moved over as much as I could. (Had a bus on my right at the time and cramped for space). I had overtaken him 3 times before during traffic buildup and already politely suggested he get off the phone at one of these previous encounters.

 

He got a decent fright! Will he continue to make calls whilst driving? Probably. He seems like one of those 'gifted' people who think that 'stuff like this doesn't happen to me' types...

 

As long as you did not ask him while he was stationary.....as it is only dangerous when they move 

[Dicky DQ]

Unfortunately he WAS breaking the law, as it does not state that you can talk if you stationary at a traffic light or stop street.

 

You can only talk if you pull over to the SIDE of the road so he WAS breaking the law at THAT moment.

Not so much.

 

<Road Traffic Ordinance

Regulation 308A

Prohibition on use of communication device while driving

As at January 2006

(1) No person shall drive a vehicle on a public road –

(a) while holding a cellular or mobile telephone or any other communication device in one or both

hands or with any other part of the body;

(b) while using or operating a cellular or mobile telephone or other communication device unless

such a cellular or mobile telephone or other communication device is affixed to the vehicle or

is part of the fixture in the vehicle and remains so affixed while being used or operated, or is

specially adapted or designed to be affixed to the person of the driver as headgear, and is so

used to enable such driver to use or operate such telephone or communication device without

holding it in the manner contemplated in paragraph (a), and remains so affixed while being

used or operated

(2) Sub-regulation (1) does not apply to the following persons while driving in execution of their duties:

(a) The driver of a fire-fighting vehicle;

(b) The driver of a rescue vehicle or an ambulance;

© A traffic officer;

(d) A member of the South African Police Service and a member of a municipal police service,

both as defined in Section 1 of the South African Police Service Act, 1995 (Act 68 of 1995);

(e) A member of the South African National Defence Force; and

(f) Any person driving a vehicle while engaged in civil protection in accordance with an ordinance

made in terms of the Civil Protection Act, 1977 (Act 67 of 1977):

Provided that he or she drives the vehicle concerned with due regard to the safety of other road users.

(3) For the purposes of this regulation –

(a) the word “headgear” includes for the purpose of this regulation a device which is specially

designed or adapted to allow the driver to use a cellular or mobile telephone or other

communication device in such a manner that he or she does not hold it in one or both hands

or with any other part of the body, and which is connected to the cellular or mobile telephone

or other communication device concerned, directly or indirectly, while being fitted to or

attached to one or both ears of the driver; and

(b) the phrases “cellular or mobile telephone or any other communication device” and “cellular or

mobile telephone or other communication device” excludes land mobile radio transmission

and reception equipment operating in the frequency band 2 megahertz to 500 megahertz that

is affixed to the vehicle or is part of the fixture in the vehicle.

Notes

• Sub-regulation (3) substituted by Government Notice R761 of 31 July 2000 with effect

01 August 2000.

• Paragraph (3) (b) substituted by Government Notice R941 of 22 September 2000 with effect

22 September 2000.

• All preceding paragraph (3) (b) apply to the cellular or mobile telephone service.

• Paragraph (3) (b) applies to the Land Mobile Radio Service and the Amateur Radio Service. >

 

Your determination is that he was driving the vehicle. This would naturally be contested as what is "Driving"?

[Dicky DQ]

Interesting point, maybe he was with the neighborhood watch and was communicating with a response team. Yho I never knew this. 

 

See:

(2) Sub-regulation (1) does not apply to the following persons while driving in execution of their duties:

(f) Any person driving a vehicle while engaged in civil protection in accordance with an ordinance

made in terms of the Civil Protection Act, 1977 (Act 67 of 1977):

Provided that he or she drives the vehicle concerned with due regard to the safety of other road users.