10 Years for Phone Usage. Fair or Not?

Using a hand held phone whilst driving is illegal in Victoria, but as some vehicles now come with 8" or larger display screens containing a multitude of programs which also can distract a driver it's not long before their use will need to be banned as well. Even tuning an old fashioned AM radio is a distraction. Where will it all end?
 
I agree with all the above comments. My iPhone is in my top right hand pocket. It is in a rubberised protection case which needs two hands to pull it out. It also has a message bank, list of missed calls, list of numbers dialled and numbers trying to reach me. It is never used in the car as I need to stop the car to get the phone out. Also phone calls are not that important to interrupt more important activities. Who answers their phones whilst copulating?

As to other distractions, I burn copies of CDs (Eagles Greatest Hits), make MP3 copies from Youtube of favourite tunes and use them. Typically they just keep cycling through the tunes until I replace the CD. This is only done when the car is stopped, usually first thing in the morning. Being a hydraulic Citroen, I have this captive time for a few minutes, whilst the suspension rises, to do this housekeeping. Often the same CD remains in the car for a month (pays to only have your favourite tunes on it).

Some people say having passengers in a car can have the same distraction as a phone. I disagree. Most passengers I have also read the traffic conditions and cease talking when appropriate. I will stop talking mid sentence if conditions dictate and then continue as though nothing happened.

I think the sentence was appropriate.

John
 
JBN said:
I agree with all the above comments. My iPhone is in my top right hand pocket. It is in a rubberised protection case which needs two hands to pull it out. It also has a message bank, list of missed calls, list of numbers dialled and numbers trying to reach me. It is never used in the car as I need to stop the car to get the phone out. Also phone calls are not that important to interrupt more important activities. Who answers their phones whilst copulating?

As to other distractions, I burn copies of CDs (Eagles Greatest Hits), make MP3 copies from Youtube of favourite tunes and use them. Typically they just keep cycling through the tunes until I replace the CD. This is only done when the car is stopped, usually first thing in the morning. Being a hydraulic Citroen, I have this captive time for a few minutes, whilst the suspension rises, to do this housekeeping. Often the same CD remains in the car for a month (pays to only have your favourite tunes on it).

Some people say having passengers in a car can have the same distraction as a phone. I disagree. Most passengers I have also read the traffic conditions and cease talking when appropriate. I will stop talking mid sentence if conditions dictate and then continue as though nothing happened.

I think the sentence was appropriate.

John
Click to expand...

I think he got off lightly, should of been 10 years for each life taken.
 
Lets ban the hundreds of distracting road and warning signs as well, I guess we should also ban children from cars as well!!!!
Kim Luck said:
Using a hand held phone whilst driving is illegal in Victoria, but as some vehicles now come with 8" or larger display screens containing a multitude of programs which also can distract a driver it's not long before their use will need to be banned as well. Even tuning an old fashioned AM radio is a distraction. Where will it all end?
Click to expand...
 
JBN said:
Most passengers I have also read the traffic conditions and cease talking when appropriate. I will stop talking mid sentence if conditions dictate and then continue as though nothing happened. John
Click to expand...

Is that the silence before the scream???

however the sentence is to light, the family will never regain the loss.
At least the family had an instant death, no life long disabilities and no suffering.
 
Last edited:
dvr said:
Lorry driver Tomasz Kroker jailed for 10 years for killing family on A34 | Metro News

You know my views about texting or using your phone while driving. It should be treated the same as PCA.

So what do others think?
Click to expand...

for starters, this isnt a case of "10 years for phone usage".
it is 10 years for operating an app on his phone, while driving a heavy vehicle, and having an accident, which killed three people.

as you ask, i think your views on using the phone while driving are hobby-horse, un-nuanced and extreme.
driving while under the influence of alcohol, is something which affects you the whole time you are behind the wheel. so to the extent it presents a risk, it presents it for the entirity of your journey. whether speaking on a phone presents a risk or not, seems to me to depend very much on the individual, but that aside, you know quite well that you can be fined for touching a phone in a stationary car, where you present zero risk. that would certainly not be appropriate for treatment like PCA. you are also lumping speaking on a phone, and texting, in together, despite that the latter so obviously is much more risky than the former (as the above story verifies). further, wanting to criminalise one form of being distracted when driving seems quite excessive given the other range of things which can distract you. like, kids in the car for instance. or eating maccas. or reading a traffic information sign strategically placed to draw your attention from the road. and all the other unidentified things which have distracted people when they crash their cars.

seems to me that some people (eg government policy makers!) are quite obsessed with phones-as-distractions, simply because this is a distraction which can be clearly identified. yet, if you run into the back of a car - as thousands of people do - then something must have distracted you, right? so why treat one distraction as a criminal matter when the result is no different? if you really think 'distracted driving' is such a big deal, then at the least, everyone who prangs a car should cop a criminal charge, as they must have been distracted.

all that said, i agree that texting while driving is quite debilitating, and the circumstances above certainly make it hard for the driver to complain too much.

Fivedoor: i dont see that as a fair comparison. that driver simply ran into the back of a car, without the aggravating factor of fiddling with an app on the phone. what is more, he was actually sentenced to 2.5 years anyway, even if part of it was non custodial. note that the UK driver, despite the 10yr sentence, will likely be free well before that.


as for families of victims, i personally have much diminished sympathy for ones who (almost inevitably) think that no punishment is good enough, and call for excessively long sentences. particularly where it involves things done inadvertently or recklessly, but unintentionally. all fine for them to be hanging judges full of spite, and satisfied by nothing, but there is never any consideration for other people affected, eg the families of people who crashed a car because they werent thinking, and it had a really bad outcome. then they have the audacity to say that due process in court isnt "justice" because it hasnt satisfied their blood lust. i really switch off when i hear people going on like that.
 
Last edited:
The sentence is supposed to act as a deterrent, not revenge.
Killing a person or persons with a vehicle is manslaughter and the penalties should be appropriate.
No, penalties can't bring back those killed or fix those maimed but a suitable penalty might make someone else think twice about using a phone while driving and therefore avoid another collision/injury/death. There are no statistics on accidents avoided, only on the 'successful' accidents so it is nigh on impossible to prove a deterrent works. Road toll figures don't tell the full story because of the large number of variables.

I know of people there are people that can't go for 5 minutes without doing something on their phones but the truth is that one can get through a car journey without using one's phone and they are distracting so making it illegal is appropriate.
Some other distractions like road signs etc. are necessary. Fiddling with radios or ones touchscreen, yelling at the kids in the back, etc. are distractions but how do you prove or enforce a ban on these activities.


P.S. It wasn't 10 years for phone usage as stated in the title, it was 10 years for causing the deaths of 3 people. Had the driver been just caught using the phone he'd have received a fine for a few quid and a few demerit points. Perhaps if the police were in greater numbers and were enforcing phone bans this might not have happened.
 
Last edited:
Alexander, I think a sentence of 10 years is appropriate (even though he will serve much less) as this was a professional truck driver, he had just signed an agreement with his employer not to use his phone whilst driving, his distraction lasted long enough for him to travel a kilometre and he killed three people. I expect the sentence was a warning to other professional drivers to review their habits.

Apparently his sentence would have been longer, but the judge gave him a discount because the other vehicle involved was a Citroen.

John
 
Kim Luck said:
Using a hand held phone whilst driving is illegal in Victoria, but as some vehicles now come with 8" or larger display screens containing a multitude of programs which also can distract a driver it's not long before their use will need to be banned as well. Even tuning an old fashioned AM radio is a distraction. Where will it all end?
Click to expand...

Voice activated devices, more than likely. And ultimately driverless cars which aren't as easily distracted. :clown:
 
I wonder how many years gaol a driverless car would get if it malfunctions and kills someone?

On an obtuse but related topic, there is talk of reopening the search for MH370, a pilotless aircraft that got lost.

John
 
JBN said:
On an obtuse but related topic, there is talk of reopening the search for MH370, a pilotless aircraft that got lost.

John
Click to expand...

Don't know why? The plane won't be any good anyway :wink2:
 
There is something strange with the law which I have never managed to understand.

Today, for instance, I was riding a motorcycle. Observing that the driver of the SUV in the lane to my right was holding a phone I pulled back, but as I did so the SUV moved rapidly into my lane, nearly hitting my front wheel.

So, the driver's behaviour was clearly a threat to my life. Indeed, had I not seen the danger I might very well be dead. Had a police officer seen the incident the talking driver might have been fined a few hundred dollars and some points. If I had been killed then potentially a long gaol term.

What strikes me is that the driver's offence was IDENTICAL, the different outcome was only due to my actions.

My feeling is that manslaughter charges are like lotto, only chance. Unless there was intent to cause injury or death how can a fatal accident be more severely punished than a near miss? Conversely how can a careless lane change be any less serious than a fatal lane change?

My view? Ten years gaol for use of a mobile while driving, fatal consequences or no.

(As a motor cyclist I am a bit sensitive on these issues :) )
 
I wonder how many years gaol a driverless car would get if it malfunctions and kills someone?
Click to expand...

I believe the person supervising the car's operation would be held responsible.

Unless it can be considered "collateral damage" as other some parties equivocate unfortunate deaths.:)
 
michaelr said:
There is something strange with the law which I have never managed to understand.

Today, for instance, I was riding a motorcycle. Observing that the driver of the SUV in the lane to my right was holding a phone I pulled back, but as I did so the SUV moved rapidly into my lane, nearly hitting my front wheel.

So, the driver's behaviour was clearly a threat to my life. Indeed, had I not seen the danger I might very well be dead. Had a police officer seen the incident the talking driver might have been fined a few hundred dollars and some points. If I had been killed then potentially a long gaol term.

What strikes me is that the driver's offence was IDENTICAL, the different outcome was only due to my actions.

My feeling is that manslaughter charges are like lotto, only chance. Unless there was intent to cause injury or death how can a fatal accident be more severely punished than a near miss? Conversely how can a careless lane change be any less serious than a fatal lane change?

My view? Ten years gaol for use of a mobile while driving, fatal consequences or no.

(As a motor cyclist I am a bit sensitive on these issues :) )
Click to expand...


There is an underlying issue there, legislation exists but is not enforced. The driver moving in an adjacent lane has to give way. In some legislations (such as the one where I took my license) you lose your license instantly for any instance where you failed to give way, accident or not.

I am sure there are things in legislation here that can be applied, but I have never seen or heard of anything being done.

A lot of people ask for examples of the laws not being enforced when it is suggested that the authority goes for the easily enforceable, revenue raising legislation and try to justify their actions (or lack thereof) by brain washing everybody into believing their claptrap. Well, this is one example.

And no, I don't accept the excuse that enforcing such legislation would result in court cases the police could not win. Even if they don't win, their actions make a point, and drivers who have no idea about give way rules have another (belated) chance to learn something.

Current state of affairs however is that if you can't win in court, it is not worth wasting your time with it, and the police are playing it by the instruction manual from what I have seen.

Again, I advocate for a differentiated license system based on voluntary action and choice. If you are happy to stay on a basic license, that's fine, but if you want to be allowed higher speeds, heavier or more powerful cars and so on, you have to pay and get tested/educated/experienced/checked regularly and be ready to lose privilege if you're found to be at fault. That will allow drivers to self select in tune with their aptitude and skill and will help create a pecking order of sorts on the road.

That and a system based on the police being able to take your license away on the spot for serious errors. Failure to give way is not an oversight (as is drink driving), the more so since it can kill immediately, unlike speeding.
 
Sounds great but what sort of licence does a Yobbo in a big SUV with bullbars who can't drive but can talk and does, require?


John
 
That's the point.

It is very easy to categorise vehicles by mass (we already have such categories), power or both and very easy to restrict the basic license to small shitboxes and make SUV a class or five above. Want to drive an SUV? Well, that means you need to go up two or three or five categories in your license, come this way, sir, you need such and such conditions satisfied. Let them pay for it and test them accordingly. Make it compulsory to take tests every year or so, and they'll get the point, plus a lot of people who don't really need an SUV (like the vast majority) will just give up and stay with something a little bit less antisocial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top