Victoria has raised the costs for using phones while driving.
$433 and 4 Demerits points it hardly seems enough for those involved in a fatal traffic smash.
I feel it will not belong before all states follow, it is said doing this is the same as driving under the influence.
A justing makeup too needs addressing far too many smashes come because activity other than concentrating on driving is taking place.
A fatal road smash is some thing I hope we all never have to see, but am sure most of us have seen far too many.

Dear Belly,

VicRoads tells us that it is illegal in all Australian
states and territories to use a hand-held mobile
phone while driving. This included talking, iexting,
playing games, taking photos, et cetera. Yet people
continue to do it. Distraction has been identified
as a contributing factor in car crashes and near crashes
and truck crashes and near crashes.
Yet despite the dangers and illegality
people continue to carry on regardless. I'm not sure
if increasing the penalty rates will help - but something
has to be done. I would hate to have anyone lose a family
member as a result of distractions like these, or have
them be crippled for life.

I recently got caught myself, didn't deny it when asked if I was using the phone, but did get off with faulty brake lights. Nice country cop.

So I went and bought a hands free kit, one fir a hundred bucks that clips onto the sun visor.

I find this device far more distracting than using a hand held, one, because they are often useless, and two, because they are often useless, one spends much of your time focused on the device, not the road ahead.

Like most things, if the government wants us to be safer, make it affordable to do so by subsidizing the cost of a decent hands free device and ban the sale of inferier products.

The truth is, talking on a phone while driving is not the distraction they like you to think it is, at least not in my case, although texting etc definitely is.

I feel they are targeting easy revenue dollars in most cases.

In my job, where we are on the road a lot, driving company cars, the Insurance company will not cover us if we have an accident while using our mobile phones.

This includes hands free devices or the in-car Bluetooth technology.

The insurance companies know the road accident statistics better than anyone, so that's enough for me.
I don't use the phone unless I am safely pulled over by the side of the road.

Rechtub you disappoint me.
I expected to see in print those words, that it was a money maker.
Even that it is the Nanny State in action.
But no false passion from me here 22 years working on the roads before becoming a union official looking after my ex workmate tells a dreadful story.
Those years saw the death strip on the Pacific Highway as my factory floor and too carnage most have forgotten.
A young Mum reaching past the bucket seat she was sitting and driving in, at 100 klm to replace her bubs dummy on the back seat, both died.
Hands free *are not stick on the window*
Costing from $400 to $1000 to buy and have fitted real hands free is much safer.
Newer cars have blue tooth and it is far better.
IF we knew the numbers killed or maimed because drivers wanted to check face book with one hand and eyes of road?
After the insults from folk who do not understand what is taking place a road worker is in the end exposed to death and maiming even their own, because a road is their factory floor but a place that far too many fail to respect and understand death is waiting for its next victim, not always the driver doing the wrong thing, even his/her passengers may pay for lack of attention/care
Road rules become much more important when the dead is one of our own.

Belly, There are several thing more dangerous when driving than talking on a hand held phone.

Attending to an infant is one, eating a hot pie, tuning the radio or listening for a quiz clue, searching for your favorite track on the CD, or even searching the GPS data.

Another is talking to a passenger, as most people make eye contact when talking, something you don't have to do while on the phone.

Very few of these are policed, let alone attaching fines, WHY?, because they are too hard to police.

Mobile phones are easy to police and easy to verify the offense, so that's why I say, they are a great money spinner.

Now while you rightly say a good HF system costs $400-$1000, not many people can afford that, that's why I say if the government wants to get serious about road safety and mobile phones, make HF kits affordable and mandatory.

Butch it's not a matter of govt; subsidising your equipment it's more like keeping up with the times. The only safe phones are the ones you don't see, or blue tooth capable phones and blue tooth capable radios. That way no hands leave the steering wheel when the phone rings. Blaming revenue raising for tougher laws is just a cop out.

579 Quite right, but few understand, and in the case of not near new cars or radios it can not be done.
Telling a Butcher how to make sausages would make me look a fool without doubt.
But
*Evidence has shown talking on a phone is as bad as drunk driving is fact*
Now I can not transfer my work life experiences in to other heads.
Few who do not remember *the Pacific highway death strip* will believe.
But so very many times seeing death that never needed to be hurts forever.
Yes Rechtub is quite right other things kill, but note his list is death bought on by not paying attention, just the reason phones kill.
Every state, thanks Foxy, has laws against it.
NSW once fined only $90, and took I think 1 point.
Head on, smashes are increasing phones and the ability to set cruse control [some drivers miss use that] kills.
I ask what would we think if a driver killed our child/partner while using the phone?
Am I right in thinking we then would beg for far more than $433 and 4 points?
You bet we would!
We only take driving seriously when we become the victim.
Using a non hands free phone while driving should see our car taken and no right to drive for 3 years.
Doing it and killing? never again hold a drivers license.
Any of us driving near the twin service centers on the Sydney to Newcastle freeway will drive past twin bridges named after a mate, he was killed by a motorist using a phone.
Getting the bridge named after him did not bring him back, an ex workmate not the average person, will challenge my words but they are true my grief was made worse in dealing with his family post event.
We owe it to every one to drive with respect and care, we have no freedom or rights to kill and maim.

where I live driving a 4 wheel drive and speaking on a mobile seems to go hand in hand.

DONT DO IT!

It remains against the law.
And for good reasons,not cash gathering.
Should we forgive our selves if we kill or maim another while breaking the law.

If you are really serious about preventing phone caused accidents, a better idea would be a device that jams phone signals when ever the car engine is running. I can see no reason to waste tax payer funds on pandering to the "forever no the phone brigade". Besides, it would give the ladies ears & vocal chords a bit of much needed rest.

I was recently at a gathering of nine people. The 5 ladies were all staring at, or tapping on a little black box in their hands, the men were discussing matters of deep importance. These crazy things have taken over their lives, encouraging them may give long suffering men a bit of peace from constant chatter, but is a recipe for road trauma.

Truth be known, ladies using the phone while driving, probably has no effect on the road toll, it just changes the where & when of the accident. Those distracted by the things, are going to be distracted by something, it's part of their nature. Lets face it, the ladies so called multitasking ability is simply a lack of the ability to concentrate on the job in hand for more than a few seconds.

I am waiting for some enterprising surgeon to offer to implant phones in ladies wrists. That way my youngest could stop running around frantically looking for her phone, on those rare occasions when she actually puts it down.

In days gone by hasbeen that would have been considered hilarious, but nowadays it's seen as sexist.

On a serious note, the next thing these people are going to tell me is that some cop, hiding on the freeway in a hundred zone, straight road, slightly down hill is not revenue raising, as he/she is trying to prevent accidents.

Meanwhile people are constantly doing 60 down the main street, in a 40 zone and not a cop in sight.

Sorry, but you will never convince me they are doing little more than targeting easy cash, as any action that takes ones eyes from the road for more than a few seconds is far more dangerous than talking on a phone while driving.

Right again butch, all cars come equipped with brakes, you are supposed to use them.
I do not believe in revenue raising, the law is there to be observed. It is not compulsory to answer phones or speed at any times.
The police stand on corners here with walky talky, looking at phone users and seat belts, next thing you know a policeman with a stick waves you in.
Every year the road toll is getting less here, so something is working.

Hasbeen I got a grin out of that.
And the understanding you know the damage using one or other devices can bring while driving.
Rechtubs view concerns me.
Like Hasbeen has said he is I have always been a petrol head, even in my little shoe box 4x4 I can be found that bit above the speed limit.
*THIS SURELY IS NOT ABOUT OUR RIGHTS*
Road safety and the lack of attention while driving kills.
Look at how many Children are killed by Mum and Dads reversing out of the drive way.
Rechtub the driver is to blame every time not the kid.
And if other laws are broken, *we constantly* go in to print calling for bigger sentences!
And once we did very little about drunk driving, are the implications of that cash grabbing?
I support bigger fines and more lost points for this crime that more often makes other drivers/road users the victims of idiots claiming a right to break a law.
If we do not fine them how do we enforce the law?

....Look at how many Children are killed by Mum and Dads reversing out of the drive way.

My point exctly Belly, and the phone is not to blame.

Eating a hot pie, or even KFC, or burning yourself on a hot coffee are all more dangerous than talking on the phone while driving, yet, how many pies are consumed while driving and, how many drivers are fined for this offense.

Very very few, and why, because it's too hard to police, illegal all the same but almost impossible to prove.

However,I'm the first to agree that texting or face booking, even playing with a GPS should be stamped out.

Rechtub I remain convinced you are unaware how phones are used in cars and all road users.
People tex one hand, they look up and reply, to face book and twitter friends, while driving one handed.
The statement it is like drunk driving was not my opinion but research gave this.
We can, if we wish research on line and find death after death after cars or trucks crossed to the wrong side of the road while the driver was texting .
While all your facts are quite right, the phone could be left in its cradle/purse ext but this higher fines and points is an effort to make us all accountable while drive=ing, *it in some hands is the phone*

Belly, read my posts, I am dead set against texting/face booking while driving, always have been, my point is about talking on the phone while driving.

Hasbeen,

Put a device like that in cars and people will turn the engine off when going down hill so that they can have a chat on the phone.

I have a mobile phone in case of a breakdown but it is always switched off; I used to be a wireless op!

Thanks Is Mise, that gave me a laugh, perhaps because it is so true. It could be dangerous. A friend who turned off his ignition, as he rolled into one of those rest areas on the Hume highway, pulled the keys out as he did so. This eliminated the power on his brakes, & locked his steering. He only knocked a few bricks out of the amenities block, when he hit it, but really destroyed his left headlight.

I have a mobile like that Is Mise. My kids must think I am no longer competent, as they kept nagging me to get a mobile for emergencies, & finally gave up nagging, & gave me one of their old ones.

What a useless bit of kit. It is small enough to get lost in my shirt pocket, so the numbers are so small I can only push them with a fingernail, you can't read the thing in bright sunlight, & the sound is so poor that with my tinnitus I can barely understand a word on it.

It has over a hundred unread messages on it, but as I would have to dig out my reading glasses to figure out how to access or delete them, they just keep increasing.

After complaining I never answer her calls on it, my eldest discovered the ring thing was on mute & fixed it. That would explain why I have never had any calls on it, & probably all those messages. When I get time, & find those reading glasses, I think I'll put it back on mute. I liked it that way.

Rechtub mate in this case you are giveing me more evidence to prove my case.
Bloke City or country drivers and every one in fact of an age much younger than us live by phone.
And you said it all, we ring or receive normal calls, they send tex messages like a machine gun out of control.
In my view so boring is life for them they must send the details of every thing they do, by all the extras we ignore in phones.
Police have seen cars wobbling all over the road at speed and found the driver checking his/her social pages for messages.
NO hands on use of a phone is legal and it should always remain that way.
Last night on TV a woman caught and fined seemed to want police to take her phone! maybe she is evidence some are addicted to using it while driving.
I have been a passenger in a car driven through a red light while the driver texed twice!

I got this one very wrong not that post numbers outweigh comment value but thought we would mostly think saving life on the road is worth the fines.
Never thought it could happen to me, something people say after it is too late.
Bit of a petrol head still I put extra effort in to being aware when driving.

In the early 2000's I worked as a rep driving around the suburbs and city of Melbourne. yep mobile phone and all the trick bits that go along with selling your product and your soul, variously!

Think was my colleagues and I all hand a cradle installed on the transmission hump in front of the auto trans and the console! Speaker mounted under the glovebox/dash and the microphone about head height on the right hand side of the windscreen/door pillar.

Smartphones have docking stations which will wake you up, help you to sleep, whatever. Should be mandatory that a cradle kit is fitted to any car where the driver wants to use their phone.

Oh and btw yes if calls got a bit carried away, we pulled over and took notes!

Very curios yes quite true, but the costs of installing those full cradles has sky rocketed.
But blue tooth is being used in new cars and is no threat it can be used by almost any one safely.
In 2000I was driving Government car/truck and it was hands free but still mostly pulled over to use it.
Phones have evolved and as you will know actually using it to ring is not the major use for some.
I remain convinced in some hands it kills.

....I remain convinced in some hands it kills.

Most likely the best post of yours on this thread Belly, SOME HANDS.

So my point is, why punish all users.

Rechtub consider please.
We all know SOME traffic Cops are lets say unfreindly.
I have no idea how we tell them apart from great ones.
After speaking to them we can separate them.
Do we wait until after a fatal traffic accident to tell who should not use a hand help phone while driving?

I rather think if some one you loved died because Police stopped enforcing this law you would see my point.

I am confident Rechtub is unaware of the things other than taking or sending calls are done with mobile phones.
Hand held that is, last night another concern was aired.
It reminded me of just how bad this practice is.
It involves people walking across a road in front of cars bus and trucks while texting.
Eyes only for the phone not the traffic.
Now doing the same while driving at 100 klm?
I rest my case.

Belly, are you ignorant, or just stupid!

How many times to I have to tell you I support the laws against texting while driving.

Get it!

Anyone who uses a mobill when driving needs to be finded and lose their lisence

Rechtub you Sir are an//// why should I bother!
Rude crude and as usual not a very bright remark.
You took a stand against increasing fines for?
USING HAND HELD MOBILE PHONES WHILE DRIVING!
Even you must know you can not ask a Cop to tell the difference between text and calling!
Sorry but you should note I have made every effort to get along with you.
Your ability to talk in a civil or intelligent manner is under question.
Remember/Know I am far from the only one questioning your some times rants.

Karl x thanks my point and I suspect most agree.
A needless death is always dreadful.
One bought about by some one breaking existing law, and taking a stand against the law bought in to save lives fits your description.

....Even you must know you can not ask a Cop to tell the difference between text and calling!

Belly, please explain how on earth anyone can text with their phone held at their ear.

Need. Say more.

Besides, what's the difference between talking on a phone, or removing the wrapper from a pack of cigs.

One attracts a fine, the other doesnt.

Work that out.

Revenue raising from an easy target.

As for me being rude, simply acknowledge that I refer to phone calls and I will withdraw the remark.

Thanks Rechtub I except.
Now in my post above that one I said cool calm and no insult intended *I thought you dd not understand what people do with phones while driving*
Still do.
Hands free car phones modern Blue Tooth being the best, takes the danger out of phone use.
Now the costs of installing either hands free method is much less than a funeral.

Yes Belly, I agree, however, if the government is so hell bent on reducing the road toll, why don't they make retrofitting your vehicle affordable.

This way, there would be no excuse for non compliance and,According to governments, the road would be a safer place for all, users and non users of mobile phones (texts and games etc excluded)

Butch seeing that the govt; does not fund your request, you will just have to abide by the law. There is no option toe the line and quit winging.

Rechtub how?
Liberal policy's is not to get in the way of business.
Cutting prices would cut profits.
Meet you half way reenforce current nation wide law and new car current practice, and make them mandatory in all cards
A life saved is worth supporting any laws

Belly, if the government can subsidize the price on set top boxes, surely they can subsidize a device that has the potential to save loves.

As for loss of profits, may I suggest you delve into the profits made by many from the failed insulation scheme.

As an example, cost of insulation was $300, two installers at $300 each per roof, $700 profit for the owner of the company.

Multiply this by three houses per day.

So it can be done without business loosing out.

579, if the best you can offer to this debate is a snide remark, may I suggest you leave this topic to the grown ups.

Or better still, perhaps you can tell me why lighting and smoking a fag while driving is not policed, because after all, like talking on a hand held, it takes one hand from the wheel.

Or eating a hot pie even, or sipping on hot coffee.

What about tuning the radio, or loading/searching a GPS.

All of these are equally as distracting as talking on a hand held while driving, so why are they not policed.

Rechtub you are seeing a bitterness in my words that is not there.
I enter verbal combat with you thinking we are just swapping words and thoughts.
Let me be clear Ham Radio is a big part of my life.
I have used that gear to assist in many groups and events as a communications operator/officer for free.
We asked the Minister for Communications about two way Radio use in cars.
Our answer was, we have it in writing, as mike is held against mouth on a set known channel they are legal.
Car radios? mine stays on one channel, only and *idiot* would take their eyes of the road to surf radio channels

Here is where the bitterness starts, I truly honestly think a man of your age *is unaware just how much use is made of mobile phones/computers* than you know or understand.
Think about it.
One hand on the wheel texting eyes down phone near lap.
More often than sanity will let us understand today,s folk live on the face book page on trains and trams and while driving cars.
4 points off the license? $433 fine? not for nothing Rechtub, not cash grab but trying to stop fools killing them selves or much worse you and I

Gee whizz, here we go again Belly, for the fith time, I don't have a problem with laws against texting while driving.

It's phone calls I have a problem with, nothing more.

As for 2 way, out here where I work, QLD gas fields, the rodio in many trucks is on silent, simply because there is so much banter on there.

Why don't the authorities clamp down on that?

Driving a truck myself at times, you see yet another wide load approaching and, because you had the radio on silent, you have no idea how wide it is.

As for channel surfing, most mine sites, some containing hundreds of km of roads, have multiple channels which means constant tuning, albeit at 40kph.

As for me Being bitter towards you, sorry, was never my intention.

On a lighter note, What do think about the cricket?

What a turn around!