1) Owning and driving a car is not a fundamental and inalienable human right.
2) No matter what the cause, if you’re so easily ‘distracted’ that you’re responsible for causing injury or serious property damage you’ve no business being behind the wheel. Ever. No exceptions. No ‘discretion’. Life means life. A couple of thousand people finding they don’t much like having to organise their lives around public transport schedules, and the convenience and generosity of others, should do the trick.

Data on pre-banning v post-banning may not be too useful because as far as I can tell everyone still uses their phones while driving in the UK! Some people also ride bicycles and talk on their phones at the same time!

About all that has changed is that people will deny that they were on the phone when they had an accident.

Oh and while we’re at it, the same penalty for the people who uses hands free when walking down the street, so I have no idea whether I’m being approached by the village idiot in the middle of a chat with his imaginary leprechaun before stabbing me in the head, or a wanker who’s planning where to go for drinks after work.

Every time you see a driver using a hand held phone you get infront of them and then perform the standard Police procedure of a moving block to bring them to a stop You then open their door and grab their cell phone and grind it under the heel of your shoe.

Problem solved.

Not because I believe driving whilst talking on a handphone is less dangerous than any other activities. But because of the rather silly signal it sends.

Drivers should not use handphones. Period. It is a distraction that is entirely avoidable and I would be quite happy if the police were to be given the powers to prosecute any use of a handphone as reckless – as pointed out by Sean @3.11pm. Despite what the boy-racers and owners of BMW’s may think, a car is a lethal weapon and should be handled with extreme caution.

If we legislate to improve behaviour then we have lost the game already. I’ve lived for a while in a country where that was the norm and the predictable end result was a populace that needed permission to tie its own shoelaces.

I would rather the resources that may be spent on legislating a handphone ban be put into proper driver education. Compulsory defensive driving course for all learner drivers with a very liberal sprinkling of graphic pictures of people who were ripped apart and had their insides smashed out of them in car accidents.

Of course, while we are banning distractions from the car, we should not forget the ultimate one – small children!

No need for additional legislation. All it needs is for the bacon boys to actually enforce the existing law.

Should apply to cellphone users, people telling children off, changing CDs, putting on makeup, doing one’s hair, eating or drinking and any other in vehicle behaviour where that results in a vehicle being driven carelessly or without reasonable consideration.

A couple of times, parked-up Police cars have just flashed their headlights at me because I’ve (inadvertently) been doing 112-ish. I guess it must have been clear even to *the evil pigs* that I wasn’t really creating much of a hazard to anyone at that moment. They aren’t all the cynical, revenue-collecting bastards that everyone here clearly sees them as!

On a donut break, perhaps? I too have encountered the occasional reasonable Police officer. Like the one who pulled me over for doing about 110, let me off that, breathalysed me and told me I was under the limit but that as I clearly had a long drive ahead of me (I was just leaving a country town, having been to a dinner) I should be aware that breath alcohol readings actuallt rise for a while after you stop drinking. I didn’t know that, so made sure I paid extra attention to my driving. Till then I had no idea of that nasty trap, and will in future allow a longer time to elapse between the last glass of red and my drive home.

So – satisfied taxpayer who’s been given some advice which will contribute to future road safety and will check his driving on that particular occasion.

Then there were the two bastards who pulled me over in the city when I was lost and getting directions on my cellphone. Broad daylight, not a drop of alcohol had passed my lips. They ticketed me for using the phone (it’s already illegal in Australia) and wrote one for changing lanes when I shouldn’t have (again, I explained I was lost and unfamiliar with the road, being a Kiwi). They smirked and said “welcome to Perth” as they handed me $400 in fines.

In other words, every new law just provides an opportunity for “pigs” who are “evil” to persecute motorists if they feel like it. More law or less isn’t really the issue – it’s consistency across the actions of Police that’s needed.

Meanwhile BlairM suggests:

I’m afraid not all of us are white, middle-aged, or have good cleavage, which seems to be a prerequisite for “being let off with a warning” these days.

Well I have two out of three (I don’t think man boobs count) and it’s never done me much good

I’m afraid not all of us are white, middle-aged, or have good cleavage, which seems to be a prerequisite for “being let off with a warning” these days.

Seriously though, air traffic communication is extremely simple and repeditive. You can do it with your eyes shut (bad analogy I know but you get my drift).

The laws are already there. The laws are meaningless if they are not enforced.

However if you start picking on banning specific items you can make them instant fine actiivities and the police can get on with doing their primary job. Raising money for Labour to buy another election/

Yes – and a ban gives the Police the opportunity to spot individual offenders who they believe ARE posing a risk, and pull them over. A couple of times, parked-up Police cars have just flashed their headlights at me because I’ve (inadvertently) been doing 112-ish. I guess it must have been clear even to *the evil pigs* that I wasn’t really creating much of a hazard to anyone at that moment. They aren’t all the cynical, revenue-collecting bastards that everyone here clearly sees them as!

I, for one, would rather have roads with more rules than fewer rules. The general unwashed f*cktards around you on the road have no well-informed general principles of safety to guide them. They NEED a list of discrete things that are not allowed!

Exactly, unless the vehicle is stationary. Parked at the lights and watching people drive past, eyes on the mobile phone as they write a text. Who crosses an intersection with their eyes on a phone, not on the road? Idiots. But there is existing legislation to cover dangerous distractions, because there are situations where using a mobile phone might not be dangerous to anybody but yourself.

They do not need more.