Many will have seen such trauma or heard about it in the news, using a phone while driving is against the law yet people die because they or others continue to do it,nanny state? hardly , no driver should have the right to put any one in danger, and too, no driver should have to live knowing they ran over a pedestrian walking blindly on to the road while using a phone

Despite policing and heavy fines, the offences continue. Cancelling of drivers licences might help, but then people will drive without a licence. We live in a lawless society. Authorities are too frightened to act. So, it seems that, as with the stream on rape, we have to look out for ourselves.

Road workers, and I was one for over 22 years, see the results all too often Police and Ambos, rescue squads, fire brigades all have too.we need a device that will not start a car if the hand held is turned on,what do we do if it is a pedestrian? both ears blocked by mikes or just texting?while walking blindly

Dear Belly,

Mobile phones are a danger.
I see people crossing streets talking on
their phones, and not looking where they're going.
Drivers are even worse. Not sure what the answer
is to solving this problem. Losing licenses may
help, stiff fines as well. How about having
some sort of a device in cars that would stop the
phones from working in a car? Perhaps an inventor
could come up with something? Just a thought.

when you bring up such a self centred generation its no wonder they flout the law at every level. People who drive while txting are akin to drunk drivers. Often the drunk driver is more attentive.

Foxy, there have been suggestions to use a similar idea that has been
tested in gaols. A transmitter is placed onto the frequency of the
mobile phone control channel. This prevents a call being made or received.
However a call already in progress would not be prevented.
There is another problem it is illegal to jam a radio frequency.
$10,000 plus or 12 months hard labour.
No matter how low a power level was used by the jammer it would likely
interfere with another legally operating phone.
Also a passenger could not use their phone.
Emergency calls also could not be made.
Anyone working or living close to a highway would hardly ever be able
to make or receive a mobile phone call.
If a neighbour left his keys in his car in his drive you may not be
able to use your mobile phone.
This why such a technique has not already been used.

There is one other tecnique suggested using the GPS of the phone.
If it appears to be on a road and moving faster than say 5km/hr the
phone would not operate.
Problem is everyone on the bus would not be able to use their phone either.
Oh dear, catch 22s everywhere.

Dear Bazz,

Thank You for that.

It is mind-boggling.

Look how far we've come over the past decades. From
computer floppy disks, VCR's, Walkmans,
computer programs, digital cameras, laser printers,
personal PC's, cell phones, and so on.

The speed and impacts of these changes should remind
us not just to observe the changes but to understand
the changes and respond as necessary so that we can thrive.

I'm sure that as with other things - someone will come
up with an answer to the problems we're currently facing.

My radio club made inquiry's about radio being used while driving, the then Minister came back with it is ok,a new devise has been tested in NSW it simply takes photos of drivers using mobiles, it caught over 300 in a short time, at some point in time it will be used surely? sat along side a work mate as he drove straight in to a red light, could have killed us, he texted a new girl friend many times every day, surely he risked murder? fine is good second offense should be treated like high range drink driving every time

How is talking on a mobile any more distracting than talking on two-way radios? Which the drivers on the buses I catch do on a regular basis.

For that matter, how is talking on a hands free any more distracting than talking to someone in the back seat?

The rather arbitrary laws against mobiles but not against two-way radios or conversing with passengers (or sleep deprived new parents driving around with a screaming child in the car... how are they less distracted than people on the phone?) suggests to my inner cynic that this is less about road safety and more about revenue raising.

You're right about pedestrians who never look up from their phones, though. Just because you're not driving doesn't mean you don't need to watch the road.

If only Facebook was as dangerous as mobile phones. Imagine the revenue from nailing every public servant several times a day.

People who use mobile phones whilst driving should face the same penalties, in regard to licence suspension and confiscation, as a licenced firearms owner who points a stick at someone and says "Bang Bang".

Note that the firearms owner's action entails no possible physical harm; unless the said owner cops a bunch of fives!

Yes Toni, how often do we hear of a driver being fined for eating a hot pie, or drinking a hot coffee while driving. Or for that matter smoking, as it's not hard to drop a smoke in your lap.

While I agree that looking at your phone while driving, I don't agree that making a call while driving is distracting to any great degree.

Thankfully very few have seen the amount of trauma a road workers who have along history on the pre upgrade Pacific has, needless head on, multiple deaths, not near nice,a petrol head all my life, still, it became clear a very long time ago, I and every driver has no right to put any ones life at risk,we got along without mobiles once, we should see only blue tooth in cars, and finding an answer to zombie like pedestrians walking on the roads foot path and even in to open man holes must be considered over personal freedoms

There is a fundamental difference between use of a two way radio and a mobile phone.
Hands free two way radio is easily setup. I had it in my car.
The transmit/receive control only needs the thumb while holding the
microphone to speak. No need to look away from the road.
Being familiar with the radio means you can even change channels
just by feeling the buttons, just like you do on your BC radio.

No sending text messages which need constant checking to check for errors.
It is the intense contact to the mobile phone screen.
Of course blue tooth to a mounted phone is similar when answering a
call and that is not illegal. Making a call could be a problem but
voice dialing regular contacts would be OK I imagine.

//There is a fundamental difference between use of a two way radio and a mobile phone.
Hands free two way radio is easily setup. I had it in my car.
The transmit/receive control only needs the thumb while holding the
microphone to speak. No need to look away from the road.
Being familiar with the radio means you can even change channels
just by feeling the buttons, just like you do on your BC radio.//

Phones can be used hands free as well - no need even for the thumb, and certainly no need to take your eyes off the road. I reckon they're probably a bit safer than two-way radios.

But hardly anybody has two-way radios, so there's no point banning them because you don't stand to make much revenue out of doing so. Whereas if you ban phones... well, everybody has one of those. So the state revenue office can make a killing out of phone ban.

I got to say as a bus passenger, I only have to look out the window at any red light and I'll see a driver on mobile. The one I see using a phone while driving, out of all proportion to their numbers on the road, are "tradies". I also know as a pedestrian when someone is using a mobile at a red light, the light turns green and the car sits there with the driver staring down at their phone, texting away.

How rude of some people, walk up to a counter with a phone at their ear, yak yak yak, slap down a bill to be paid, say at the post office, not utter a word to the person behind the counter. Just expecting to be served.

The other thing I get a laugh out of is on a bus or train. The bloke sitting next to me, say about 30 years old, in a business suit, going the clappers with his fingers on the phone, what's he doing, I glance across....playing some stupid game a 7 year old would play. Then there is the silly girl down the back of the bus or on the train, who thinks everyone on board is interested to hear her side of the CONVERSATION.

Using Mobile Phones whilst driving. Grrrrr… My pet hate.

While I was working in the Queensland Rail I had to attend a number of Derailments. I was in the Break down Gang.

The first Accident I attended caused by a Mobile Phone was at the Brandon Rail Xing. A guy ran into a cattle train. Killed, of course. But so were a number of Cattle & many more injured & had to be put down. The second one was just south of Ingham where a bloke & his family tried to beat a train to a Xing. I had to help cut the Toyota of the front of the Diesel after they extracted the bodies including children. The next was a semi driver who went through a Xing while the lights were flashing. Also a Cattle train. The Diesel hit the Semi just behind the Drivers Compartment where the fuel tanks are located. The Semi burst into flames & some visiting US Marines pulled the driver out of the wreck. He died later. I found his Phone some distance from the wreck & gave it to the Coroner. He was on the phone to a mate of mine at the time.

What happened to the Diesel. According to witnesses it went end for end in the air & landed about 100 metres from the crash site. We are talking about 90 tons here. The Cattle wagons were bent into a Z & most of the cattle were killed. Those that weren't were maimed with legs broken & hanging off the rest were running around traumatized & dangerous.

Cont

Cont

Now I'll get to the Shunter, Train Driver & the Assistant. The shunter, amazingly survived with a few scratches. He was riding on the front of the Diesel & thrown clear. How is a miracle. The Assistant was still in the Cabin, dead with his guts hanging out & blood everywhere. I had to retrieve the Paperwork. The Driver was missing & presumed to be underneath the Diesel. I was the Crane Slingsman so I had to fix the slings to lift the Diesel off him. When the Crane lifted the Diesel I had to fix a rope on the body in order to drag it clear of the wreck.

Strangely, the people the Police had the most trouble in keeping Gawkers away was from the women with their children & prams in tow.

At the Time I was on my annual leave & was brought in to do the dirty work because no-one else wanted to do it. They said I was used to dead mangled bodies because of Vietnam, that's why I was called in.

Did I ever tell you why I don't like people using Mobile Phones whilst they are driving?

Toni, hands free mobile phones are legal in all states I believe.

Bazz yes radio is quite different, and police know it and use it, and yes to the comment hands free are legal this if it is about human rights should be about the right of innocent victims not the users

//The other thing I get a laugh out of is on a bus or train. The bloke sitting next to me, say about 30 years old, in a business suit, going the clappers with his fingers on the phone, what's he doing, I glance across....playing some stupid game a 7 year old would play. Then there is the silly girl down the back of the bus or on the train, who thinks everyone on board is interested to hear her side of the CONVERSATION.//

I hear ya, brother. I catch the train a lot, and I always go for the quiet carriage. And I'd say that on average, on about one out of five trips, there is some twat who can't read the signs that say 'Quiet Carriage... turn off phones and keep conversation to minimum (some of us are trying to sleep)'.

My strategy is to get up and change seats - so that you're sitting right next to them. And then just sit there silently, as quiet carriage etiquette dictates. For some reason it tends to make people nervous, and they usually bolt after they've finished whatever tedious business they were up to with their wretched telephonic device.

There are laws in place, in every state that bans the use of mobiles whilst driving.
The use of a mobile of itself is not the enemy or the problem.
According to the law makers, they have come at it from a safety angle. To clarify, it's not the talking that's the problem, but the fact that you will be driving with only one hand on the wheel, and that's all. What I do is answer the phone one button later, activating the speaker, or hands free, which I can do with my eyes on the road, having done it so many times before and it is a simple act.
Then immediately proceed to put it back in my top pocket and talk with both my hands on the wheel.
It's exactly the same act as if I took it out to turn it off, only quicker.
Now before you all come jumping in with the idea that for those few seconds I was handling the phone, I was distracted.
Gotcha there.
It takes me less time and no distraction or deviation to the job at hand, driving, to answer the phone than it does if I want to use any of the buttons and switches on the dashboard and console or anywhere else within the drivers control.
As I have said previously, I do not respect the law because it was conceived to make life easier for the legal system and nothing to do with safety or saving lives.
This is just their sales pitch, all along focusing on the true prize.
Revenue. If you really want to know how low these vermin are, and only one of the reasons they should be beaten to a pulp, including the govy's. To ensure they bleed people of as much money as they can, in WA if you pull over and not just become stationary with the handbrake on or in 'park', as long as the keys are in the ignition, you will be deemed to be driving, or as they put it, 'in control of a motor vehicle'.

continued..............
and you will cop a fine, which can double on public holidays and the like.
Now if you don't think that booking someone for doing the right thing, pulling over, stopping the car and taking himself out of harms way, is not a good and appropriate thing to do, then your as evil and
conniving as the legal system and the govt.
Because those empowered with the job of protecting the public either are just not up to it or they have taken on an attitude of superiority.
There is no valour in what these cops do.
They are just scum and I for one demonstrate no respect but much indifference towards them.
They're that bad that the police force need publicists and advertising campaigns to try to garner a modicum of respect from the public.
Well only the neuters and marshmellows think they're OK.
For every act of good they do they really play it up with adverts and bravery medals and all the usual BS, they have a list of hundreds of stuff ups you don't hear about.
They will not get this respect they so desperately seek while they keep up this moronic revenue raising policy and un-ethical and arrogant posturing.

It is as Bazz has highlighted, about death, blood and guts, under the car, a pedestrian run over by a texter, the family taken out by a phone in hand driver are our personal freedoms ever to be more important than the victims? blue tooth costs far less than an arm or leg left forever on the road

Belly, ultimately, like guns, it's not the guns or the phones, it's the people.
People have always been the problem.
You can make laws till the cows come home, but they're useless if they are not obeyed.
Now I don't, as a rule, obey the laws, as I don't believe in following a set of rules which insists on forcing people to do things a certain way, when it clearly does not apply or hinders ones performance.
There are things that must be adhered to, such as, driving on a road.
What a mess it would be if everyone drove on any side of the road or worse, down the middle of the road.
There is no doubt that texting is the enemy, because as far as I am concerned whether I am talking to someone in the car or on the phone, apart from the 'two hands on the wheel' mantra, there is no difference.
Now I can do these things because driving has been my life.
Where-as most people see driving as another chore and tedious or boring I have always enjoyed it.
I began as a child of approx 3-4 years old by sitting on my fathers lap and steering the car, as at the time we lived in the country which was a much more exciting lifestyle for a child.
I would obviously later drive around by myself on the property/farm, it was the norm in those days.
I slowly obtained every license available to mankind.
Even to the extent of a pilots license, and of course the fixed wing/rotary wing aircraft to go with them.
I can still legally drive a road train or a taxi or bus/coach for hire or reward.
Boat licenses did not exist back then so never bothered.
Now what I'm eluding to is, that with all my years and distance of driving, (been all over Australia at random times and places), I have NEVER had an ACCIDENT/INCIDENT or whatever you want to call it.
As long as people remain morons, people are going to die.
So get used to it.

ALTRAV,

A bit off topic, but in all your driving experience, how many times have you seen the broken line go around blind corners, over crests or through concealed dips that can hide an oncoming car?

I don't really want a figure as I'm sure that by now it's countless (rave over).

ALTRAV fine and yes agree, but re think your view, is it OK to drive a car drunk? do we just say get over it people are like that? now look again, as the parent brother sister father of a dead person,when I spoke about my road workers days it was on the then highway of death, a section of the Pacific highway that killed many every year,three times in one month four dead in one smash, another poster here knows that is true, I however went on every call back, to see first hand the carnage, it hurts still, we can fix this, current fine is over 400 in this state, make the second offense two years off the road and third life! subsidize the re fitting of every motor truck car what ever with blue tooth, by paying no rego that year,but fix it

Issy, I get your point.
Again people.
Even if there is no broken centre lines, how smart do you have to be to cross to the other side without knowing if it's safe to do so?
Belly, no they should not drive drunk.
I am making a social observation that most people are morons.
I do not mean at just driving.
Now I have to pick you up on one of your points.
I have written to the respective authorities about this issue previously.
On the question of removing someones license for DUI, especially when it was a random stop and blow, it is asinine of a judge to remove the persons license for such extreme lengths of time.
I have seen these guys lose their job, home, car and ultimately, their family.
This is insane, and I don't care for it.
If he had just killed someone DUI that's another matter.
MOST of the time they never recover from the results of their stupidity, and sometimes their suffering is far greater because no-one will console or support them, where-as the family has many people to lean on.
No my suggestion to these judges, by all means give them a hefty fine, much higher than currently.
Next, let him keep driving, with or without lock-out devices, but the benefit of this is, firstly he will get enough tough love from his wife who now will have to cut back on some luxuries, and secondly by retaining his license he will be able to continue his job, only work longer hours to make the money to pay the fine.
This will restrict his free time and definitely his disposable income to afford to buy any alcohol for some time.
He won't lose his job, his house his car, and most of all, his family.
My way he is still punished but at least his family and children, who did nothing wrong, will not be punished for far longer than the family of the deceased.
This is a much better way of handling DUI when no-one was injured or killed.

ALTRAV,

"Even if there is no broken centre lines, how smart do you have to be to cross to the other side without knowing if it's safe to do so?"

I travel frequently on the Gwydir Hwy, between Inverell and Glen Innes, and have been passed and passed cars on one particular straight, yet only two days ago, was surprised to see a car emerge from a dip in the road that I never suspected was there.
This is not the only unguarded dip on that particular road.

So I have crossed to the other side thinking that it was safe and, as I said, I've seen others do so in all innocence, being guided by the lines, that have legal standing, put there by the State Government.

Is Mise: I travel frequently on the Gwydir Hwy, between Inverell and Glen Innes,

Oh, you poor b@$t@#d! I just did that. Never again. Left the New England on the Bald Nob Rd & met the Gwydir Hwy on the way to Grafton with a Caravan, through to Woolgoolga. Never again. Never again.

Sorry guys, I'm from the West so am not familiar with the rd you are talking about.
But it seems that this section of road should be reported so as to find some way of making it safer.
Are there many accidents or worse on it ,do you know?

Jayb,

You have my sympathy!

The road to take to the coast is the one from Tenterfield to Casino, it's at least three times worse.

The Gwydir has only 18 kilometres of advertized bends whereas the other one has 38 kms.

One wonders what all the other twists and turns are called :-)

ALTRAV I can report on my once road of death, it was while now part of our national highway not so then so poorly funded, yet it took over a third of our big city's holiday traffic, speed and a shear seeming wish to get to the many coastal places killed, good road turned to goat track but some drove like it was a race track,unpleasant memory's and fear of more, saw emergency workers police, and yes road workers leave the job, some times work force mobiles, bricks in that time, had the new toy thing about them, and the device that let you put a car in cruise control killed too,many of those horrific deaths involved the very young on long late night post party trips

ALTRAV,

Locals have made many reports about the Gwydir Hwy, yet for over thirty years there have been, and still are, two crests that have the broken line over them and consequently no warnings.

To add to the hazards there is now approx. 45 km of the road where there are wind turbines in towering view, have personally seen two near 'head-ons' as a driver apparently was garping at the novelty.

Is Mise: 45 km of the road where there are wind turbines in towering view

Missed them. I was too busy concentrating on the road to look up. Boing! Boing! Boing!

Using Mobile phones whilst driving is just as bad, if not worse than drink driving, especially texting.

I believe one thing that would certainly help, was if it was made compulsory for all drivers to attend an Additudinal Drivers Workshop.

http://mypolice.qld.gov.au/blog/2014/02/11/harsh-lessons-learnt-attitudinal-drivers-workshop/

No it's and no but's; No Additudinal Drivers Workshop, No License

It is apparently an offence to look at a mobile phone to see the time but not to look at a watch, ditto other non-phone functions.

I have heard but don't know the truth of it that when one stops to use/answer the mobile that unless the engine is turned off one is deemed to be driving.

Issy, correct. I answered this one in one of my previous posts. Here in WA, you have to be parked in an 'approved' or 'appropriate' area or location, and the keys out of the ignition, thus rendering the car un-driveable or in their stupid legalese, you are then deemed not to be in control of a motor vehicle.
The phone one you speak of is a beauty as well.
My watch sometimes decides to display the time of another country, so I reach into my top pocket, where I keep my phone, a quick glimpse, (quicker than looking at my watch, as the numbers are huge on my phone. Granny phone).
No I don't have a camera or a computer who's minor function is a phone.
I have a PHONE whose minor functions are whatever they are.
As I explained previously.
For these bastards to extort money out of us they have to make laws that are unworkable to us.
So their sales pitch is that it's not only that we are distracted by looking at the phone we are taking one of our hands off the steering to do this, and this, according to these deadbeat brainiacs is the main reason it is unsafe.
So I can't wait for the opportunity to go to court and argue that if you own a vehicle with a manual gearbox, you will be breaking the law every few seconds as you shift through the gears.
When your not changing gears you are turning things on or off on somewhere other than the steering wheel.
Have you ever tried driving and playing with your nav/sat or any kind of a switch.
So the moral of the story is you blow tens of thousands of dollars on a new car or you blow a few hundred dollars a year on fines.
I know which one these bastards would rather we went for.

Ever since I was a young bloke I thought the whole 'Control of a Motor Vehicle' argument was a load of crap.
There were times when I occasionally went out somewhere, ended up drinking heavily and had no intention to drive home, but still fumbled into the safety of the backseat of the car to crash for the night.

If caught doing this with keys on you, you'd risk being charged for drink driving.

'Control of a Motor Vehicle'.
My theory is if you own a car then you're in control of a motor vehicle.
Doesn't matter if it sat in the back shed unregistered for 15yrs and hasn't been started in 10, you're still in control of a motor vehicle, and this however is completely different to actually driving a motor vehicle.

Maybe there's a reason for it, and maybe O Sung Wu can interject but it seems like revenue raising by deceit to me.
You're either driving the car or not driving the car.

Obviously they say "Use of Mobile Phone whilst in Control of a Motor Vehicle" to make it sound more sinister and that you're a legitimate danger to society; but really it's only because "Use of a Mobile Phone whilst Parked" seems like something that should instead be ridiculed and laughed at, and exposes the real motive - revenue raising / theft.

AC, look those of us with our heads not up our arse or in the sand or even in the clouds know what it is.
Your right, it's theft pure and simple.
We know this but there's nothing we can do about it.
If you grabbed one these mongrel ministers or even those pricks in the civil service who write up these stupid laws, backed them into a corner with a gun to their head, they'll only come back screaming that because we, the public, place so many demands on them, they have to get the money from somewhere.
As all this only comes back to us by virtue of services the govt supplies, they merely manage the money and it is we that are forcing them to extort all this money from ourselves.
My response to that load of BS is simple.
Firstly stop stealing all the money through bogus companies to your back pockets.
Secondly stop throwing millions at minorities and worthless groups just because they are a noisy demanding irritating bunch of morons.
Thirdly stop the frivolous spending on more suspect scams and projects, which also mostly ends up in their pockets anyway.
And fourth, budget with the money you have.
Stop increasing your spending just because you know you can find more ways to steal it from us.
The other thing that angers me is the way they write the wording of the laws.
They make sure that you have to plead guilty because that's how it was designed to work.
Like the mobile phone laws.
How do you argue not guilty to the wording 'in control of a motor vehicle'?
In reality your only in control of something when it is in motion, but no that won't do because you can argue around that very easily and they don't want that to happen.
So they interpret the wording to mean exactly the way it's written so they control the discussion and the terms of reference.
It's another one of those more sinister versions of PC.

Hey ALTRAV,
"In reality your only in control of something when it is in motion..."

Well done mate, it's not too often that others will disagree with me and win the point on merit.

- And not that you actually disagreed with me, (or that I was necessarily wrong in my statement), but I've got to hand it to you, you're right.

- I argued that if I own a car, then I'm in control of a car, but that its different to driving a car;
But you struck gold, pointing out that no one controls a stationary vehicle, it has to be moving to be controlled.

You're right in your other points too.
The law does seem written as to be deliberately obscure, and in a way that would be difficult to defend against.

Surely no one has ever been booked for being on a phone AFTER stopping? answer while driving no! no personal freedom should over ride the rights of others to be safe from such a driver but if mine rings it is in my pocket and not until I have stopped will it come out

Belly, you would be surprised at some of the things we get booked for over here.
I totally agree with not touching the phone to text, unless stationary, I don't text, it takes too long, it's a phone so I'd rather talk, it's quicker and more efficient.
But I can assure you, if the phone rings, and I'm driving, I WILL answer it, because I don't need to take my eyes off the road to press 'speaker'.
Then I might just put it back in my top pocket where it usually sits or down on my lap, depending which car I'm driving.
Either way, other than the answering and hanging up, which in each case takes less than a second and less distraction than playing with some accessory on the dashboard, I will answer the phone then talk with both my hands on the steering wheel.
That, in my view, is a 'hands free' telephone conversation.
You can keep your blue tooth or whatever it's called.
As far as getting booked 'after stopping' goes, it is like an epidemic here because we are not lawyers, who BTW have also been booked, so we as consumers don't know the laws other than the obvious ones.
We find out about these obscure laws when we get booked.
I used to write to the police ombudsman regularly, complaining about something or other.
Now they no longer have them.
When I last tried to enquire they told me to contact the relevant minister.
You see this is how they get their way.
If I say they have removed our access to complain and criticise a govt department, they simply say, no we haven't, you can still complain, but to the minister.
As if the minister gives a crap.

ALTRAV would never do that in my state baby faced cops, both sexes, hunt for victims and remember one such booked a mail man for? riding on the foot path then? parking on it out side the PO many good cops willing remind you they are not all like that

Belly, I used to think cops were someone to look up to.
As a teenager and even a little older I remember when a cop would stop to enquire as to what you were doing and depending on the answer, we get a fair slap on the head and told to move on.
All this was done with a slight smile or smirk, and even as teenagers we regarded cops as more like our fathers, uncles or big brothers.
And we did not dislike them, quite the opposite.
They were mature enough to know that young men are cheeky or cocky, it's quite normal.
But today's PIGS have no respect for the public, they don't even look you in the face when interacting with you.
This new anti cop times we live in was created by them.
If they want respect THEY have to change and earn it, otherwise they will start to get a little more than they dish out.
I will say that the country cops were much better and more mature.
Sergeants too were good, more mature and understanding.
Both of these treated people like friends and it was reciprocated.

ALTRAV pointless trying to say you are not right, my life has been full of good cops from my youth playing football with and against them to my years at road trauma sites sharing quietly a pain we never spook of, BUT YES general duty cops will tell you, some, highway patrol cops are the reason we, well, distrust fail to like cops, recent roadside breath test got ugly, big mouth small brain youth in the wrong job swore at me, it got heated no reverse gear in my case if wrong is done,his site senior came to my aid and said sorry, maybe that youth will do far more harm to every good cop in his career than ten criminals

Belly, I don't know what state your in and the exact circumstances surrounding the incident you speak, but I will say this, anyone dealing with the public MUST first learn the art of diplomacy.
If not situations will develop very quickly and not for the best.
Anyone dealing with the public in a position of authority, must know that they are immediately perceived as the enemy, because they are there to challenge and threaten them with some wrong doing.
No-one, absolutely no-one is happy to be told they have done something wrong and are now liable for a fine.
You might say, the cops are not psychologists.
Well unfortunately if they don't want things to get worse, or just because the public want to see them treated with respect, it is the cops duty to comply. Lest we forget, as much as they don't want to hear it, too bad, they are public servants.
I hold the American police doctrine to high esteem.
'To Protect and Serve'.
Now there's a mantra to be proud of.
Not deride, threaten and bully.
And yes I can quote examples of such behaviour over here by the cops.

Continue...............

Belly, just quickly, I too had good experiences with cops when I was young.
I said so in my post.
You might have glossed over it.
It is these current crop of cops that I am referring too.
Oh if only they were like the cops of old, we would not be having this conversation.
So no they WERE great, both country cops and sergeants.
Once upon a time.

ALTRAV no agree and it is this current crop that concerns me, maybe they need more of the older cops around them?

Belly, hear, hear!

I agree some police now-a-days can be too authoritarian, but I suppose that comes from being treated like $#it by young fellers. There is a difference in behaviour between young fellers & older people.

Eg; the accident on TV last night where a young fellers car crashed & the Emergency Services turned up to cut the lads out. Their mates turned up & made the whole place a laughing stock.

Although I've had three incidences in the last three years where a policeman tried to intimidate me. I don't intimidate. It's something to do with Prisoner of War Training. Twice, when I called for them. The Senior Policeman in both cases realized what was happening & put a stop to it before I had really made the young Cop out to be a fool. A little over enthusiastic.

So yes it's a little of both.

We in this area went through an ICAC investigation in to poor police behavior, long time ago but, it included all services likely to be at road trauma events, as to what they saw, some serving officers fell as a result, others? well for some time acted only on the loss not the truth,it took time, and a Chief Inspector, to fix that,yes younger police do some times over use the authority they have, and do, tend to act like every one is a criminal,thankfully not even near most of them

Belly, the reason I even make mention of the negative attitudes of the current crop of cops, is that I have witnessed several incidents first hand, and reports of these actions being a part of the new world order.
I am the first to say, grab the baddies, lock em up and throw away the key.
The cops know who they are, but for differing policies and philosophies within the dept, some baddies are retained and even protected for such purposes as informants and the like.
And so it is that we have this collaboration between the criminals and law enforcement.
It is then a very short distance for the police becoming corrupted because of exposure or contact with the criminals.
These are not the cops I speak of.
It is the run of the mill, or traffic cops.
There is no humility or connection with the public.
They are trained to be cold and distant.
They are told, that they are not the courts and so just book em and if they (the public) don't like it they can take it to court.
Well we all know that that's just BS.
For two reasons. One is, you will never get off a charge because of the wording.
And two, no-one can afford to take time off work.
So we find ourselves in a state of Marshall Law.
People should know that when an incident occurs, such as a serious traffic incident, the cops actually try to coerce the person into admitting fault so as to make their job easier and help get the numbers up.
They're not satisfied that the person is traumatised enough already.

Do not get me wronging I am known as a supporter of Police, even some of them have thanked me for that, that too is the reason the few are in my sights,courts do not back up police, for that matter us, in some results we see all too often,while working I had two bridges named after a worker killed at work, tried and still do, to get the same for all first res ponders to horrific road trauma sites that took a toll on them all,better roads have stopped that but they will never forget nor will I.

Belly,

Some of the things that police and other responders go through are truly horrific.
A friend of mine, under whom I studied First Aid, was an Ambulance Officer and he once sat for some time talking with and holding the hand of a man who had run into the railings of a bridge.
One rail had gone through his chest and through his car seat; there was nothing to be done except comfort him till he died; apparently, he was in little or no pain and died very quietly.

Not to seem unsympathetic or uncaring to these tragic situations, but I feel that you have to be strong enough, naturally to engage in very, very extreme cases, that 'normal' people 'MUST NOT' be exposed to.
If this means you have to either get another job or be transferred to another section of that industry, then so be it.
It is moronic to expose a person who is clearly badly and emotionally affected, even indirectly, by doing their jobs.
I am incensed and angered when I hear or see on TV where a police commissioner says stupid things like 'our officers are sick and tired of having to witness these horrific scenes'.
So these people died in very extreme and painful situations just to piss of some weak cops.
My retort has always been, 'get another job'.
Your obviously not cut out for this one.
The commissioner is saying stop these horrific accidents because some of our more weaker cops don't have the maturity or the stomach for this part of the job.
Having lived and frequented many countries in my career, most of which were third world.
I have seen my fair share of cringe-worthy material.
One might say it must have affected me in some way.
Well maybe, but I feel I have always had a strong disposition and am immune to these otherwise extreme gut wrenching situations.

as a ham radio operator, one who has served in a few volunteer groups who use radio, let me assure you it is chalk and cheese, phone users even text! and road death toll shows us our eyes should be on the road,the very same pedestrian walking blindly some times get in to a car and continues to do just that, no persons personal freedoms should over ride innocents right to live

Is mise of all the horror my worst memory is of a great young cop, talking to the dead son of his best mate at such a scene, that cop, once used to warn about such events ended his life in a caravan in his ex wife's back yard

Belly,

A few years ago a car load of teenagers were coming back from an evening at a camping/party spot on a local river near Glen Innes, the car left the road on a bend and crashed into the only tree on that bend.

The local Constable who attended experienced the horror of finding his son among the dead.

Guys, There is nothing to say after hearing those stories.
I believe it makes my point for me.
And that point is;
If you do not have the kind of emotional make up to withstand these kinds of experiences, you should not expose yourself to them.
Or at least the dept Psych. should not have cleared you for that particular type of work, assuming the dept. gives everyone an EQ assessment.
If they don't, then someone stuffed up again or as usual.
Those who set out the terms of reference for these cops, only demonstrated that the dept is flawed from the top down.
It seems that govt depts. all come in with the band-aids after the event.
Yet we are attacked as consumers for wrong doing before the event, or no event at all.
Which is what the law is all about.
Fining or punishing you on the assumption that you 'might' do something wrong.
Of course if you do something wrong well, no comment.
To explain.
If I travel at a speed well in excess of the legal limit.
I arrive at my destination event-less, I can be booked for speeding, yet nothing happened.
Had something happened then I am guilty of causing the thing that happened anyway, speeding or not.
It still does not mitigate the speed.
I could have been travelling within the speed limit, and still have had something happen.
This example clearly highlights my point, that we get fined for doing no 'wrong', but the 'possibility of doing wrong'.
I almost think that the govt should be sued or held accountable in such situations, because they said if you travel at or below this speed you will be safe.
They even call it a 'safe speed'.
There is no doubt in my mind, the law is an ass and it is made on the run as there is no consistency or depth of thought in it's creation.
Only it's implementation.
And we're sick of it.

ALTRAV if only! all those years ago in rural but coastal NSW a job was gold, I and I think every road worker at that time, had no other choice, it did not begin on day one, the first may have been several years in to the job,from that first time a little bloke, much loved and a land owner, was seen to be suffering, others never went to a callout, that horrible middle of the night phone call, I because it was known I would not have been on the grog, got them all ,kids to look after and no other choice I stayed, police Ambo, you name it, much the same, *some one has to do it*two Nuns in one car two who had cash lots of it, and drugs in their car, all dead, what if one had a mobile phone in hand?

Belly, sorry, did you mean the nuns had cash and drugs in their car or have I read it wrong?
And what was the mobile phone about?
How did that fit in to all this?

I heard in some Asian countries, traffic offenders are much easier to get caught. This is because of the heavy surveillance that they have installed on their streets. Almost every other street lamp has a CCTV installed which gets reviewed randomly to spot traffic offenders. Most of the caught offences comprise of speeding as well as mobile phone usage while driving. This type of surveillance system is also useful when analyzing accident situations.

ALTRAV that smash, one of three that fortnight killed two Nuns, from a local convent, and two drug dealers in a wrong side of a straight road head on,police from those dark days, and they are dark past days, never found an explanation for night time head ons on straight roads,phones, and cruise controls, even drivers using one or both falling asleep are the main suspects, now back to your view no one should expose themselves to that? in the end some one must do it, and a road worker who is available to be called to such a site for traffic control and final clean up, like everyone there, has no choice, no driver, ever, has the right to maim and kill because they think it is ok my list could be long our highway earned its highway of death name, but is no longer that road

Micheal today NSW has made it a loss of an extra point, making it 5 points and heavy fine and has told us they intend to put cameras that catch drivers using phones on our bridges seems other share my view it kills