CY 187 761 Mazda Double Cab

[Dicky DQ]

So what makes all these excluded people better at driving than Joe Soap, seeing a Jo Soap, could be a member of many civil protection bodies.

[Kranswurm]

So what makes all these excluded people better at driving than Joe Soap, seeing a Jo Soap, could be a member of many civil protection bodies.

• 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.

[Guest Smimby]

snip

 

Driving to me means you are on the road, engine running....anything except for being "PARKED" we all know what a parked car looks like. ie you can not park at a stop street or traffic light....

[Dicky DQ]

Answered

[FCH]

Dick you are fishing here..... And I like it!

I believe the courts will likely say if you are on a public road even if stationary for the duration of the traffic light you are still regarded as a motorist operation on a public road, with all its laws applying... My 2 cents worth.

Does remind me of years back when a physics wiz brain managed to prove in court that a vehicle is in actual fact standing complete still when driving over the old "gatsometer" lines that use to be used before radar.

Drifting off topic, still supporting OP.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

[Skubarra]

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 You cannot speculate as to what he would or would not have done as it has not been done yet.

 

 

Words pot and kettle comes to mind

 

 

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.

 

 

Since we are all speculating, lets speculate what a judge or a traffic cop's reaction would be when you try that excuse in court or when pulled over.

[marko35s]

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.

You speak with such misplaced authority for someone that is wrong so often.

It is breaking the law, that isn't even a debate.

[Bloukrans]

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.

Dick, now I understand you.

[Dicky DQ]

You speak with such misplaced authority for someone that is wrong so often.

It is breaking the law, that isn't even a debate.

Unfortunately that IS THE DEBATE.

 

The whole thread is about the fact that the OP called out someone for doing what he perceived as being illegal and the response ilicited. The debate is thus around the legality or not of what the person in the Mazda was doing.

[Tubehunter]

Unfortunately that IS THE DEBATE.

 

Nought dude! Get with the program, even if it was legal to drive with a phone, making calls behind the wheel of a car is not just foolish, but rather deliberately stupid!

 

I enjoy when threads like this come up, cos you get to see exactly who is actually spending time on their bikes and who has one that sits in the garage. If you ride your bike regularly, there is no way possible that you could feel any desire whatsoever to contemplate the validity of someone operating a vehicle and a phone simultaneously. Nope, no chance. EVER!

[Iwan Kemp]

Unfortunately that IS THE DEBATE.

 

The whole thread is about the fact that the OP called out someone for doing what he perceived as being illegal and the response ilicited. The debate is thus around the legality or not of what the person in the Mazda was doing.

 

Stopping at a Traffic Light or Stop Sign is part of "driving". Driver wasn't "parked", he "stopped".

 

Do talk on your phone in your vehicle you need to be off the road (could even be argued that this does not include pulling off and stopping inside the yellow line) with your car's ignition turned OFF. 

 

Same with drunk driving. We've had this argument with traffic cops the couple of times on of our drives got drunk while at a truck stop somewhere in the country. He can be storm dronk, as long as the ignition is not turned on he is not operating the vehicle or driving and therefor not drunk-driving.

 

No debate, Dick about the legality of talking on your phone while stationary. If you're on the road with the ignition on, you're not allowed to talk on your phone.

[Skubarra]

Unfortunately thatis IS THE DEBATETROLLING.

 

The whole thread is about the fact that the OP called out someone for doing what he perceived as being illegal and the response ilicited. The debate trolling is thus around the legality or not of what the person in the Mazda was doing.

 

There, fixed it for you.

[marko35s]

Unfortunately that IS THE DEBATE.

 

The whole thread is about the fact that the OP called out someone for doing what he perceived as being illegal and the response ilicited. The debate is thus around the legality or not of what the person in the Mazda was doing.

Fair enough.

He was on a public road with the engine running, he was driving.

How is that difficult to comprehend?

['Dale]

Lekka storm in a tea-up here

Hehehe

 

Take a breath....

Relaaaaaxxxx.....

 

[Kranswurm]

Nought dude! Get with the program, even if it was legal to drive with a phone, making calls behind the wheel of a car is not just foolish, but rather deliberately stupid!

 

I enjoy when threads like this come up, cos you get to see exactly who is actually spending time on their bikes and who has one that sits in the garage. If you ride your bike regularly, there is no way possible that you could feel any desire whatsoever to contemplate the validity of someone operating a vehicle and a phone simultaneously. Nope, no chance. EVER!

Sweeping nonsensical statement........

Next time you are in the queue at a cycling event look around at the other drivers

Secondly next time when out riding with the gang take note many cyclists use their cellphones while riding

[Tubehunter]

Here's an interesting study for you that proves that a drunk driver is less dangerous than a driver using a cell phone:

 

The brief:

 

We used a high-fidelity driving simulator to compare the performance of cell-phone drivers with drivers who were legally intoxicated from ethanol. When drivers were conversing on either a hand-held or hands-free cell-phone, their braking reactions were delayed and they were involved in more traffic accidents than when they were not conversing on the cell phone. By contrast, when drivers were legally intoxicated they exhibited a more aggressive driving style, following closer to the vehicle immediately in front of them and applying more force while braking. When controlling for driving conditions and time on task, cell-phone drivers exhibited greater impairment than intoxicated drivers. The results have implications for legislation addressing driver distraction caused by cell phone conversations.

 

41 people were used and all were tested against their own baseline, so the results are quite conclusive and not biased to different driving skills between different people.

 

The full 19 page study paper is on this link and you select the download the page option.

 

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=570222

 

Yes, you guessed it, the cell phone operator was the most dangerous scenario!