10 Years for Phone Usage. Fair or Not?

I have to admit that I use a phone whilst driving. My early model Koleos doesn't have built-in bluetooth so I snaffled a $49.00 dollar job from the internet which also plays music from my phone via my FM radio. I have a Windows phone which I have taught to understand most of what I say. Cortana will within reason do just about anything I ask, all by just moving my mouth. Considering that when driving alone or with passengers I keep up a running commentary on the actions of the fools and incompetents around me I don't see the use of the bluetooth phone or Cortana any more of a distraction, and I don't see the need for anyone else to be handling a phone in their lap when they can be using cheap voice operated equipment.
 
Generally when we talk and communicate with others we do so face to face. Body language plays a big part in comprehending. Once that face to face element is removed something mentally happens which requires a higher degree of concentration.

Being on a phone without the other party in front of us does that. It requires a higher degree of concentration and sacrifices other tasks we are doing. Think of the times at home where we ask our kids or wife or whoever to stop upsetting our train of thought while on the phone. However that type of phone usage isn't unsafe or threatening to others though (unless you're wiring up 240v, carving the ham or so).

It all changes once we're in control of a car. Ever wondered why people on 2 way radios sign off after each thing they say or receive? Phone usage in a car whether by text or voice is dangerous to others as well as the user.
 
Another incident, with a rather different outcome

Woman who stopped for ducks, caused fatal crash, gets 90 days behind bars

Published Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:12AM EST
Last Updated Thursday, December 18, 2014 7:12PM EST

MONTREAL -- A widow whose husband and daughter died when their motorcycle crashed into a woman's car as she helped ducks on a highway is satisfied with the 90-day jail term the accused received Thursday.
Besides serving the time on weekends, Emma Czornobaj must do 240 hours of community service and is prohibited from driving for 10 years.

After Czornobaj stopped her car in June 2010 to rescue ducklings on the side of the highway, the motorcycle carrying Andre Roy and his teenager daughter Jessie slammed into her vehicle.

A jury convicted her of two counts of criminal negligence causing death and two counts of dangerous driving causing death.
Pauline Volikakis, the wife and mother of the victims, welcomed the sentence.
"I'm just happy that.. .we can now move on, maybe turn the page and continue with a positive attitude, instead of a negative (one)," she said outside the courtroom.
Volikakis said the judge "did what she had to do."

In passing sentence, Quebec Superior Court Justice Eliane Perreault noted that Czornobaj, now 26, showed no remorse during the trial and had described the tragedy as an accident.
Perreault said the accused showed a "reckless disregard for the safety of others" when she left her vehicle to tend to the ducklings.

Czornobaj's lawyer, Marc Labelle, later told reporters his client had difficulty expressing her feelings.
"She does have regrets and she does have remorse," he said. "It's only that she's a shy person, an inexperienced person and she was not able to explain that properly during the court process."
While Perreault was addressing the court, Czornobaj leaned forward in her chair and listened but showed no emotion when the sentence was rendered.

The Crown was seeking nine months of detention and the 240 hours of community service, while the defence argued she should only get the community service.
Labelle said he likely won't appeal the 90-day jail term.
"It seems to me it is a fit and reasonable sentence, although we will ask the Court of Appeal to look into the driving prohibition for 10 years," he told reporters.

Crown prosecutor Annie-Claude Chasse disagreed and supported the judge's ruling.
"She wanted, I believe, to send a clear message to society that the action that Madame Czornobaj did -- this is criminal negligence and this is not action that people should do when they have a driving licence," she told reporters.

Labelle has already indicated he is appealing the conviction.
Click to expand...


So, here the person who stopped on the motorway was guilty of criminal negligence, and the person who failed to look where they were going and ran straight into the back of the parked car, is the victim! go figure.

the factual difference is that the guilty party stopped when she didnt have to, rather than some other reason. yet, from the point of view of the person behind, it makes no difference why you stopped - it surely is your responsibility to be able to stop. what if this driver had stopped because a person was lying on the road? then she would have been praised for stopping and the motorcyclist would have been at fault. despite that, someone who was the guilty party in the qld case mentioned above, is the victim in this case. one thing never changes, however, is a family of the deceased blaming it all on someone else.
 
Last edited:
Coming back to Sydney from Temora on a wet day, I noticed up ahead what first registered as a mustard coloured giant snake. Wondering what substance I had for lunch, I kept looking at this apparition to try to determine what it really was. Then at about 500m I worked out it was a mother duck with all her ducklings waddling behind, the line of ducklings producing the wriggling effect at a kilometre. I was well ahead of the herd so I put on the emergency flashers and straddled the line between the two lanes the ducks were on, tapping the brakes intermittently. When the ducks made it to the left lane I placed my car there. There was no problems with the following vehicles, firstly because they didn't need to slow much, if at all and secondly they were wondering what I was doing so they held back until that question was answered.

I think all the people were happy the ducks made it across. Blood, feathers and quaking are a disturbing sight on a Sunday with many cars having kids on board. I am sure the sight of the ducks on the side of the road would have delighted the kids.

John
 
Getting back to the original topic, I think I have the answer:

The Smartphone is now the number one hand held device.
Penis has slipped to the second spot.
Can you believe it!

John
 
Yeah. and the smartphone is probably smarter than the average penis.
 
JBN said:
Coming back to Sydney from Temora on a wet day, I noticed up ahead what first registered as a mustard coloured giant snake. Wondering what substance I had for lunch, I kept looking at this apparition to try to determine what it really was. Then at about 500m I worked out it was a mother duck with all her ducklings waddling behind, the line of ducklings producing the wriggling effect at a kilometre. I was well ahead of the herd so I put on the emergency flashers and straddled the line between the two lanes the ducks were on, tapping the brakes intermittently. When the ducks made it to the left lane I placed my car there. There was no problems with the following vehicles, firstly because they didn't need to slow much, if at all and secondly they were wondering what I was doing so they held back until that question was answered.

I think all the people were happy the ducks made it across. Blood, feathers and quaking are a disturbing sight on a Sunday with many cars having kids on board. I am sure the sight of the ducks on the side of the road would have delighted the kids.

John
Click to expand...

Great sacrifice that, forgoing an opportunity of a Sunday roast:D
 
dvr said:
Generally when we talk and communicate with others we do so face to face. Body language plays a big part in comprehending. Once that face to face element is removed something mentally happens which requires a higher degree of concentration.

Being on a phone without the other party in front of us does that. It requires a higher degree of concentration and sacrifices other tasks we are doing. Think of the times at home where we ask our kids or wife or whoever to stop upsetting our train of thought while on the phone. However that type of phone usage isn't unsafe or threatening to others though (unless you're wiring up 240v, carving the ham or so).

It all changes once we're in control of a car. Ever wondered why people on 2 way radios sign off after each thing they say or receive? Phone usage in a car whether by text or voice is dangerous to others as well as the user.
Click to expand...

During evolution some humans learned to communicate with other humans using a telephone, out of sight of each other. That tradition continues with the advent of wireless communications and voice activated software. I am constantly astounded at the number of people I see who when using bluetooth hands free devices still find it necessary to gesticulate wildly whilst talking to someone who can't see them. Perhaps these are the people who need our attention?

P.S: If police and others can use radio communication devices whilst driving they can't be that dangerous even though they aren't (as far as I know) voice activated yet.
 
This is nothing new. Bear in mind the case of a woman who was drunk and drugged, hopped in the 4WD, ran down and killed a man, and fled the scene. The lawyer said that the only reason the accident happened was because she sneezed. The judge agreed, 3 month loss of license, small fine.

In my opinion, and indeed I think even in reality, this will not change until the victim is either a) lawyer or b) a judge.

Then, you would have a case of either some opportunistic vulture having to defend the actions of someone who killed a fellow opportunistic vulture. Will or lose, he will still get paid.

Or, you will have someone who is ignorant and hopelessly out of touch with real life having to pass sentence on someone who killed a fellow out-of-touch ignoramus. But didn't mean to kill them, as if lack of intention was an excuse.

Road rules are in place so this does not happen. As has been stated, choosing to disobey them is not just a road-rule breach, it is manslaughter. You may not have chosen to kill someone, but you chose to break the rules.
 
back in the day there was no problem with a truck driver rolling a fag and lighting it ,eating lunch etc .i dont use my phone whilst driving but finding and inserting a CD or casset is ok ,is using your phone as a GPS classified as useing your phone ?
 
Hi.

The rules in Victoria Australia changed 23 March 2023. The salient part copied below from here: https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/saf...ext=Using a phone as a,a fine of $545 applies.

A key point is that you can't even touch the phone, even if you are not actively using it you can be fined. I have a habit of putting the phone under my thigh, so if seen from an overhead camera, I could be fined according to the new law. I will need to find another spot for my phone.

Cheers.

1695596120074.png
 
pugwash said:
back in the day there was no problem with a truck driver rolling a fag and lighting it ,eating lunch etc .i dont use my phone whilst driving but finding and inserting a CD or casset is ok ,is using your phone as a GPS classified as useing your phone ?
Click to expand...
you casn do those things with your eyes on the road. with old phones with T9 text, you could also text without looking at the phone. these days phone needs your attention because there is no physical feedback, you can't feel what you're doing, which is the issue. even touchscreen car controls like radio etc are an issue and car manufacturers are looking to go back to physical buttons. cheap chinese manufacturers etc won't as that costs more than a single screen and software, but some espiecally luxury car makers are going back to it.

GPS's on the windscreen is also something that makes me wonder, modern cars have enough blind spots as is...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top