NSW mobile phone detection cameras

[GT450]

You're right now it's becoming easier and does not take up the blitz procedures the police often carry out, as for money that always comes into government consideration. As far as i'm concerned bring it on, and anyone who thinks very few accidents are caused by people on mobile phones is deluding themselves. Personally I think 5 points, a large fine and confiscate their phones it has to be stopped one way or another.

GT450

[GT0132]

Couldn't come soon enough. Driving while texting is worse than DUI…At least if you're ****ed you are still watching the road albeit through a fog , unless of course you're using your phone as well

If the government make revenue out of it. I'm OK with that…bring it on

So many times I've been close to being side swiped by some idiot looking down on their lap

[b0son]

Originally Posted by GT0132

Driving while texting is worse than DUI

That isn't saying much. DUI below 0.08 is fairly harmless (crash rates don't start going up until you reach this point), yet how many fines are handed out for 0.05-0.08 infringements?

This is the problem across the board. Safety initiatives that make relatively safe activity (eg. exceeding speed limits by 5-10kph) the focus of 90-95% of enforcement activity. The focus is money, any safety improvement is purely incidental.

[You Yangs]

Sooooo.....
How does the camera know if you're holding the Phone?
Does it take a photo of every vehicle and then trained monkeys sift through every image?
Would love to know!

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by You Yangs

Sooooo.....
How does the camera know if you're holding the Phone?
Does it take a photo of every vehicle and then trained monkeys sift through every image?
Would love to know!

Camera looks into the cabin from above.

AI matches shapes and movements to someone holding a phone.

Computer flags possible offences.

Trained monkey then confirms before issuing fine if required.

[lra]

Originally Posted by You Yangs

Sooooo.....
How does the camera know if you're holding the Phone?
Does it take a photo of every vehicle and then trained monkeys sift through every image?
Would love to know!

If I happen to be scratching my ear or nose while passing said camera, I wonder if the trained monkey will recognise that for what it is.

[roKWiz]

Maybe so but If you except a drivers licence from a gov. road authority you except the laws governing what they can do and how they enforce them.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Fiji

I think it's an invasion of privacy. What if a girl is not wearing her bra and the cameras get a bit of downblouse

She gets to be famous on the interweb when the pics are leaked.

[Cav]

[blueoval]

I have no issue with this rule. Anyone who is against it, is part of the problem.

[guzzis3]

Couple of points, which no one will care about because actual data is boring right ?

If you can be bothered reading the qld transport annual reports into road safety from the late 90's - early 2000's you will see when Beatie came to power and introduced speed cameras and massively increased the anti speeding campaign deaths and injuries due to carshes caused by excessive speed did not decline at all. What did change was an approximately 20% INCREASE in deaths/injuries/crashes caused by inattention. This was long before smart phones but was in part due to nokias.

When people are routinely driving over the limit they are looking for cops so as not to get booked. While doing so they automatically do their collision avoidance. Once the traffic slowed people stopped paying attention and those drivers are not safe at any speed. This wasn't helped by the "every k over is a killer" type ads. To some people that read "if I'm under I'm safe no matter what I'm doing".

As a result the decline in road trauma that had started in the late 70's abruptly stopped in 98 rose slightly and plateaued for the next 12 years until a spike in petrol prices reduced driving miles and thus the toll.

What p's me off about this current range of laws is the deliberate ambiguity. Pull over ? You can have your ignition on but the engine must be off. And of course the points made above. This is done deliberately so they can ping more people. Once again revenue disguised as safety.

[Franco Cozzo]

In my travels around Adelaide I've noticed they had cops in foot in the CBD looking into people's cars at intersections and cops on motorbikes checking everyone as they went past.

Here in Melbourne never seen them doing that

[stig_3754]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

In my travels around Adelaide I've noticed they had cops in foot in the CBD looking into people's cars at intersections and cops on motorbikes checking everyone as they went past.

Here in Melbourne never seen them doing that

Cops on pushbikes hang around some major intersections doing the same thing above in Melbourne.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

In my travels around Adelaide I've noticed they had cops in foot in the CBD looking into people's cars at intersections and cops on motorbikes checking everyone as they went past.

Here in Melbourne never seen them doing that

Think you should visit CBD and suburbs more often, seen plenty of them on foot & pushbikes, even the odd trail bike cops snooping around booking motorists.

[Yellow_Festiva]

Further to the above, I recall something along the lines of being 'parked' as having the keys removed from the ignition.

Could be an urban myth as it seems to not be mentioned anywhere but what do those with smart key fobs do in that case?

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

Further to the above, I recall something along the lines of being 'parked' as having the keys removed from the ignition.

Could be an urban myth as it seems to not be mentioned anywhere but what do those with smart key fobs do in that case?

Yes, I've read that too.

I discussed this with a work colleague who searched the net and sent me an extract from a website which claimed as much...only problem was it was a British site called sell your car to Jack or something which has zero relevance to SA law.
The only thing I've read which related to an incident in SA was where someone's friend got pinged in a Kmart carpark.

[Vesper Martini]

A few years back in Melbourne they had a blitz on window tinting. Police were on foot doing this at busy city intersections. I recall because My car at the time had slightly darker than legal tint so I avoided the city..

VICPOL like a good Blitz, catching people out for things like the wrong colour shackle on your trailer chain etc.
nothing like catching people unaware, fines on these major offences can be 2-3 hundred

[Citroënbender]

As I drive with my doors locked, when I park to handle the phone I put the car keys where they’re visible on top of the dash. It’s unnecessary IMO but cuts out the jobsworths and do-gooders from being an issue.

Why aren’t stop signs enforced consistently? I was in a messy smash years ago caused by someone who had no regard for such - and then lacked the courage to stick around and own their efforts. Surely it would be straightforward enough to make mobile enforcement tech for these?

[Tonz]

Originally Posted by Citroënbender

Why aren’t stop signs enforced consistently? I was in a messy smash years ago caused by someone who had no regard for such - and then lacked the courage to stick around and own their efforts. Surely it would be straightforward enough to make mobile enforcement tech for these?

this is why we have mobile phones, can can be held and take photos where dash cams cant

[jinksie]

link for mobile phone use
https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov...the-rules.html

[.:4:.]

Originally Posted by Citroënbender

As I drive with my doors locked, when I park to handle the phone I put the car keys where they’re visible on top of the dash. It’s unnecessary IMO but cuts out the jobsworths and do-gooders from being an issue.

Why aren’t stop signs enforced consistently? I was in a messy smash years ago caused by someone who had no regard for such - and then lacked the courage to stick around and own their efforts. Surely it would be straightforward enough to make mobile enforcement tech for these?

I actually received a fine because my brother didnt come to a full stop in my car at the end of his street, he just treated as a give way. So i guess it is enforced on slow news days. It is a 0 demerit fine so i didnt go stat dec on it but made him pay.
My ex mrs got done for phone use a while back. All i heard was excuses, but a bike cop was lane filtering and got her on helmet cam so no excuse. She was late paying the fine and lost her licence for 2 weeks because of that.
For work i have to be contactable. But i made sure i spent a bit extra on a really nice dash mount thats magnetic to cover my rear. Im in a rental car at the moment but i made sure to bring my mount as obviouly rentals dont come with phone mounts and i spend a lot of time on the road relying on google maps for directions, so i need all bases covered as i need my licence for work. My personal car i do not mount my phone, but it hasnt got bluetooth so if im driving i dont want to talk to anybody. So it stays in my pocket. If its machine gun calls or texts ill pull over and drop the keys on the floor..

[guzzis3]

Originally Posted by Bevsta007

VICPOL like a good Blitz, catching people out for things like the wrong colour shackle on your trailer chain etc.

Wait! WTF ??? You have colour coded shackles in victoria ? FFS...

[russellw]

Originally Posted by guzzis3

Wait! WTF ??? You have colour coded shackles in victoria ? FFS...

No. This was one of those urban myths going around about the police in various States pinging people for not having 'load rated' shackles, which are yellow. While they are recommended by several bodies (including the Caravan Industry Association) but as far as I am aware no State legislature requires their use and the NCOP certainly doesn't.

Originally Posted by b0son

That isn't saying much. DUI below 0.08 is fairly harmless (crash rates don't start going up until you reach this point), yet how many fines are handed out for 0.05-0.08 infringements?

Sorry but I'm not letting that piece of stupidity go unchallenged. Impairment has been proven to start at any level of alcohol absorption and the legally mandated level is only what is deemed 'acceptable risk' at the time. The fact that we were once 0.08 and are now 0.05 has no relevance and does not imply that levels between 0.05 and 0.08 are 'fairly harmless'. If you'd like links to the research then I'm happy to provide them.

[Citroënbender]

It’s one of the few “advances in technology” outside of curative medicine, that I’m looking forward to - a change in roadside enforcement abilities to recognise impaired driving as opposed to alcohol or a selected narrow range of drugs.

WRT the use of phones, I’d like to see how effective the cameras are in the face of those polarising visors and heavy tint to the sides. Will there soon be a sub-law for obstruction of a compliance system with implied guilt, such as the one for possession of a radar detector?

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Citroënbender

It’s one of the few “advances in technology” outside of curative medicine, that I’m looking forward to - a change in roadside enforcement abilities to recognise impaired driving as opposed to alcohol or a selected narrow range of drugs.

The tech probably exists now. We have tech to detect lane departure or emergency braking … X strikes and the vehicle slows/shuts down for an hour? There'd be a lot of stopped cars by the side of the road....

[guzzis3]

Originally Posted by Citroënbender

It’s one of the few “advances in technology” outside of curative medicine, that I’m looking forward to - a change in roadside enforcement abilities to recognise impaired driving as opposed to alcohol or a selected narrow range of drugs.

We used to have that, it was called a white line

[b0son]

Originally Posted by russellw

Sorry but I'm not letting that piece of stupidity go unchallenged. Impairment has been proven to start at any level of alcohol absorption and the legally mandated level is only what is deemed 'acceptable risk' at the time. The fact that we were once 0.08 and are now 0.05 has no relevance and does not imply that levels between 0.05 and 0.08 are 'fairly harmless'. If you'd like links to the research then I'm happy to provide them.

You don't need to, I've seen them.

The problem is you need to understand the concept of relative risk in some sort of context. 0.08 is approximately double the relative risk, but relative to what? The risk of a crash compared to the average population. This crash risk is exceedingly small, 0.47 per 100,000,000 km travelled, equivalent to once every 111 lifetimes (assuming 15,000km (which is actually a little higher than the most recent ABS stats say) per year over a 60 year driving span). Doubling that risk is hardly taking your life in your hands. Arguably, it goes up by far more than that simply by going out on a rainy day.

Then consider other lawful behaviours that have no legal consequence but raise the crash risk, like driving tired. We don't require people who have worked multiple shifts to be driven home, or require private drivers to maintain a logbook of rest breaks for trips > 3hrs, etc. Hell, the crash risk of drivers over 75yo is equivalent to a BAC of 0.10, but they're still allowed to drive. This right is in fact fiercely defended by many.

Point is, there are a lot of behaviours or factors that impair drivers. Just because some can be easily policed doesn't mean those pinged for them are necessarily manifestly unsafe. IMO, the penalties should fit the risk, so a 0.05-0.08 would be an on-the-spot fine and you're on your way. Statistically at least, it doesn't warrant being dragged before the courts. And as I've mentioned elsewhere, it's hypocritical of the police when they refuse to attend actual crashes.

[russellw]

Originally Posted by b0son

Point is, there are a lot of behaviours or factors that impair drivers. Just because some can be easily policed doesn't mean those pinged for them are necessarily manifestly unsafe. IMO, the penalties should fit the risk, so a 0.05-0.08 would be an on-the-spot fine and you're on your way. Statistically at least, it doesn't warrant being dragged before the courts. And as I've mentioned elsewhere, it's hypocritical of the police when they refuse to attend actual crashes.

I'm not arguing that there aren't other factors but alcohol levels are certainly one of those and one which we can police. Some States (albeit only SA and WA) agree with you and don't suspend for low level offences choosing to issue a TIN instead.

If NSW drivers think these changes are bad, wait until you catch up with Victoria which not only offers a 90 day immediate suspension for a low level offence (which is also only 0.05-0.69) but also mandates all offending drivers attend a drink driver behaviour change program; enforces a Zero BAC requirement for a minimum of 3 years and insists drivers enter the alcohol interlock program for at least 6 months after their suspension ends. Total cost for a < 0.69 BAC offence is thus $2,880 of which only $496 is the actual fine!

[Burnout]

[lra]

BENT 8, not a criticism, but your employer rules can be more stringent and explicit than State rules.
As a NSW ex- bus driver, or rules were..
No incoming calls to be taken.
If you had to make call, park the bus safely, neutral, park brake on, engine stopped, get out of driver's seat and make call while standing on the front step.
Failure to comply = instant dismissal, and there were dismissals which the Union backed up, no running to the Union rep with tears and sad stories.
But personally, I can't see the difference between that, and using our 2 way radio, which was allowable.