Joyce to ban cellphones in cars

June 2nd, 2009 at 8:29 am by David Farrar

Very disappointed to read in the Herald that is set to ban hand held .

This does not affect me personally as my cellphone uses bluetooth to operate the stereo as a hands-free device. But regardless I think it is a bad decision, based on emotion and the need to be seen to do something – rather than than logicial analysis.

Why is this is bad move?

  • Research shows that hands free cellphone use is just as distracting as hand held use.
  • Research shows other distractions are more of a hazard – such as smoking while driving
  • We already have a law that deals with distractions while driving
  • Any law change should target all distractions – not just pick one out
  • Most research on the benefits of banning cellphone use in cars fails to scrutinise the costs of such a ban
  • The Government is moving straight to regulation without trying education first

The last one is one I have pushed for some time. Before they ban something, try education. Just as we have drink driving ads, have cellphone in cars ads showing accidents by gettign distracted and maybe giving some advice to drivers such as “Have a passenger answer the phone”, “Pull over to talk if the conversation is more than a minute”, “Never text while driving”.

The proposed ban will not make roads safer. It will just force people to buy hands free kits, and result in fines for those who don’t.

Also the proposed rules wil ban voice calls and texting. How about twittering? How abotu checking email on the Blackberry? This is the problem of having a specific rule targeting cellphones rather than improving a general rule about distractions.

Tags: ,

78 Responses to “Joyce to ban cellphones in cars”

  1. Brian Smaller (4,028 comments) says:

    How do the police prove that someone was using a cellphone. Holding one to your head may just be you listening to music. Unless the law includes some sort of search/seizure rule so that the cops can take the phone and look at your calls, i can’t see how it will work. Fines will have to be pretty big to cover the costs of doing searches on cell phone records to get the exact timings of calls.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Rebel Heart (249 comments) says:

    Sigh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Rebel Heart (249 comments) says:

    :(

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Gulag Archipelago (162 comments) says:

    Cellphones are one of the first things looked for in an vehicle accident. See a vehicle dawdling through a roundabout bet on it a cellphone is being used. Necessary law and quite justified.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. dutchie down south (25 comments) says:

    Haven’t we all been guilty about talking on our cellphone while driving and find that we have reduced speed or we are hugging (or going over) the centre line ?
    However I’m convinced that both talking on a handheld phone as well as a handsfree while driving are equally desturbing, so banning the use of just hand held phones is just a load of nonsense…leave alone the dangers of txting…
    The minister should look at better ways to reduce the dangers of using a phone while driving that just implementing a total ban..Joyce do your homework first instead of forcing a labour like restiction upon us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Father Ted (85 comments) says:

    Oh my Lord, how will boy racers text each other so they can gather to frighten the crap out of joe public?
    Will they crush the cellphone as well as the car?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Gulag Archipelago (162 comments) says:

    Do you support a ban on hand-held cellphones in cars?
    87% at this stage in a NZ Herald poll favour banning cellphones while driving.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. ben (2,414 comments) says:

    Who do we vote for to not get Nanny State?

    More of the same Labour shite from the blue team.

    And David, you’re right. There are 100 ways to make a call and not put a cell phone to your ear. Any law banning one particular way to answer your phone has unintended consequences written all over it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. big bruv (13,571 comments) says:

    Fucking typical, Neville asks one of his ministers to look at this issue only after carefully considering if it will piss any swing voters off.

    I am bloody sure that the people of NZ voted to get rid of the Nanny State.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    National- Just another bunch of braindead interfering socialists.

    Just like Labour, ready to interfere in our lives at any level on the bogus grounds of “safety”.

    Joyce needs to wake up to the fact that the Ministry of Transport is a gathering of jack booted fascists thugs, and it is his damn job to protect us from these knuckle draggers, not do their bidding so gormlessly.

    Especially given they’re mindset is a far greater danger to society than cellphone use in cars.

    What an idiot Joyce is morphing into.

    Get some balls Joyce, and get some damn principles. You let these scum do things on the grounds that they’re responsible for our safety at every level and you’re opening the door to all kinds of interferences and nanny state legislation.

    I’m beginning to get really pissed off with National.

    JOYCE – DO YOUR DAMN JOB AND GET THE FASCISTS AT THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT UNDER CONTROL.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    The minister should look at better ways to reduce the dangers of using a phone while driving that just implementing a total ban.

    Why does the minister have to do that? Can’t you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Angus (536 comments) says:

    Redbaiter, have a read of this:

    http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Thanks Angus, read that some days ago. Amazing isn’t it that the slide into communism is so obvious to those who have experienced it, but not noticeable to the US sheeple.

    The dumbing down of the population through a corrupt education system and an amoral “pop” culture is a big part of it, but so is letting the government get away with big brother legislation like this. Another law to be enforced at the whim of police rather than universally as laws should be.

    Just as they did in the nineties, the Nats do nothing to halt our slide into socialism. They merely pave the way for the left to return with vengeance. Our rate of descent might be slowed a tiny bit, but once the left get back in, we’re plunging headlong again.

    God National are useless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Angus (536 comments) says:

    Agreed RB, they are hopeless and I’m not surprised.

    They only thing I take solace in is that, at least, the Nats are unlikely to push dopey laws like lowering the age of sexual consent to 12, bullshit “hate” speech laws and taxing ruminating herbivores for burping and farting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Is that link working?

    From Pravda-

    It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

    True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

    Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

    First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their “right” to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our “democracy”. Pride blind the foolish.

    Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different “branches and denominations” were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the “winning” side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the “winning” side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

    The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama.

    Read that bit again folks-

    ———————————————-

    the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

    ———————————————-

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “They only thing I take solace in is that, at least, the Nats are unlikely to push dopey laws like lowering the age of sexual consent to 12, bullshit “hate” speech laws and taxing ruminating herbivores for burping and farting.”

    One would hope so. One would hope so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Gulag Archipelago (162 comments) says:

    Phone use increases the crash risk by up to nine times, researchers say. The US is far from finished.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Phone use increases the crash risk by up to nine times, researchers say.”

    Fuck em and fuck you. Life is not risk free and never will be. Surrendering every responsibility to the state, no matter how minor, on the grounds that some risk is reduced, breeds a nation of sponge brained morons who are a far greater risk to the life of any free man than cellphones.

    Can you not witness these outcomes already in the NZ psyche?????

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Andrew (60 comments) says:

    This isnt new – the Ministry of Transport have already held consultation on this after Duynhoven and King asked them to draft a transport rule change around it (a legislative response isn’t needed).

    Its point 7.3A (Limiting the use of hand-held mobile phones while driving) under the Draft Land Transport (Road User) Amendment Rule [2009] – Rule 61001/1 – http://www.nzta.govt.nz/consultation/road-user-amendment/index.html

    To bring it into effect Joyce just has to run it by Cabinet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. He-Man (270 comments) says:

    The Govt. are just using this cellphone thing to hide the other more important news that they just screwed the country out of superannuation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. starboard (2,492 comments) says:

    “Phone use increases the crash risk by up to nine times, researchers say

    …makes sense to me..ban ‘em…good one SJ

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Jeff83 (771 comments) says:

    Redbaiter – some might think you are trying to write the sequal to Paradise Lost.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Murray (8,842 comments) says:

    Is he going to ban mothers in law in cars?

    MUCH more distracting than phones.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. toad (3,673 comments) says:

    Ah, another ban from the freedom loving National Party…

    Hey, at this rate we might yet persuade them to flip-flop on junk food in school tuckshops.

    [DPF: This one would earn a place on the ban list. Maybe the Greens can redeem themselves and vote against]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:


    Fuck em and fuck you. Life is not risk free and never will be. Surrendering every responsibility to the state, no matter how minor, on the grounds that some risk is reduced, breeds a nation of sponge brained morons who are a far greater risk to the life of any free man than cellphones.

    Can you not witness these outcomes already in the NZ psyche?????

    By that justification, I take it driving drunk is OK in your book?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Gulag Archipelago (162 comments) says:

    Countries that ban cell phones while driving
    http://www.cellular-news.com/car_bans/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. big bruv (13,571 comments) says:

    Speaking of Flip flops….

    How is life in the centre Toad?, that is one huge dead rat that the Greens have had to swallow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Murray (8,842 comments) says:

    Another ban from Nation toad? Do you really want to get into a ban pissing contest with National? The paid mouthpice of the banning party.

    Good god you have no shame at all don’t you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Rhino (19 comments) says:

    One could argue that the problem is not that we use cellphones in the car but that we dont use cellphones ENOUGH in the car and therefore do not aquire the skills neccesary to drive and txt or call at the same time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Gulag Archipelago (162 comments) says:

    We once did not have compulsory seat belt use but we did adapt and Western civilisation did not collapse after its legal introduction. You will survive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Will de Cleene (485 comments) says:

    Will National be crushing the cellphones of repeat offenders?

    [DPF: heh]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Razork (375 comments) says:

    How about banning hot pies?
    there is nothing more distracting that having a pie explode all over your hand while steaming down the motorway!

    Seriously the thing that gives me the shits is people that drive with little dogs sitting on their lap.
    I pulled up beside a car last week and the stupid bitch driving the car next to me had a little mobile moccasin sitting on her lap barking it’s nuts off at other cars. Fucking madness!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “We once did not have compulsory seat belt use but we did adapt and Western civilisation did not collapse after its legal introduction. You will survive.”

    Take your incremental destruction of our spirit to soviet Russia.

    Oh you can’t. It collapsed didn’t it?

    Giving governments the right to monitor our safety at this level is a serious mistake if you put any value on liberty.

    And your fake push polls mean fuck all too.

    And I’ll bet the research would fail intense scrutiny too.

    And who the fuck cares what other countries are subjecting themselves to the same oppression of spirit?

    If the idea had any real logic you wouldn’t need to resort to these fallacious points.

    This is an opportunity for Joyce to bring those fascist scum in the Transport Ministry into line and he should do it by telling the fat gutted shiny arsed cardigan wearing losers to take their bullshit back to their desks and tidy it up and put their belongings in a cardboard box and get the fuck out into the streets and look for a job that keeps their damn fascist ideas out of the NZ community.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Look how easily they succumb.

    Arse licking and craven statist knuckle draggers without a thought in their heads that hasn’t been put their by the socialists.

    NZ is gone.

    Poor brain dead commies already and they don’t even know it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Jeff83 (771 comments) says:

    “Giving governments the right to monitor our safety at this level is a serious mistake if you put any value on liberty.”

    Here is the thing, using cell phones ‘arguably’ lead to increased accidents, which affect people who were not using their phone. So the thing is why you can yabber on about one’s right to use a phone, what about the other right of other road users to have people driving on the road with their full attention so as their risk of damage to them selves by others is minimised. I think you would have a stronger argument stating compulsary seatbelts are a restriction of liberty as only those who dont use them would be worse of for doing so.

    The key to me is what effect does cell phone use have on creating crashes. I dont know that answer, if it is low to minimal then unreasonable incursion, if its high then less so. Also things like hands free kits how well do they work, DPF says not at all, if someone can point me in the direction to the stuff that says so then I would take that into account in my view as well.

    So yeah possibly an over reaction, “maybe” but I would put more serious restrictions on liberty on review before this certainly (i.e. banning of party pills etc).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. big bruv (13,571 comments) says:

    How much of this proposed ban is simply another way to raise revenue?

    Where are the Nat’s screaming about our police and the quota’s that we all knew they had under Labour?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Jeff83 (771 comments) says:

    Redbaiter I think you need to look up the definition of communist, i.e. no personal property, no free media, no free speech, no political parties except ‘the’ party. As a general rule I dont think not being able to use one’s cell phone in the car they ‘own’ as a sign of the coming Communist revolution.

    If New Zealand is now communist, or America (snigger) then I would state that the meaning of the word currently has no relation at all to its definition in the oxford dictonary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. senzafine (455 comments) says:

    I’d be happier if they gave me the power to get out and scone the retard infront of me who’s lane drifting, driving below the speed limit and generally just being a menace because he’s on his phone.

    Vigilante Justice would be a lot more effective, me thinks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. toad (3,673 comments) says:

    DPF said: This one would earn a place on the ban list. Maybe the Greens can redeem themselves and vote against

    Don’t think it will come to a vote, because it will be done by regulation rather than statute.

    And the Greens support it in any case – with the same rational that they support keeping junk food out of school tuckshops – the risk of both cellphone use in cars and poor nutrition among children is to the health budget that we all pay for, not just to the individual.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. starboard (2,492 comments) says:

    redbaiter..me thinks you should replace the first 3 letters of your name with master…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    And the Greens support it in any case – with the same rational that they support keeping junk food out of school tuckshops – the risk of both cellphone use in cars and poor nutrition among children is to the health budget that we all pay for, not just to the individual.

    Sorry Toad, there is no comparison between the two, eating junk food would only endager myself without adequate fitness, using a cell phone while driving your vehicle endagers OTHERS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Redbaiter I think you need to look up the definition of communist, i.e. no personal property, no free media, no free speech, no political parties except ‘the’ party. As a general rule I dont think not being able to use one’s cell phone in the car they ‘own’ as a sign of the coming Communist revolution.”

    If you are indeed so narrow in your political perspective as to think that is what I meant, then it is a sign of such terminal brain damage, there is really no point in trying to correct you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    “Any law change should target all distractions – not just pick one out”
    Why?

    [DPF: Okay we are going to pass a law that bans driving after consuming wine, but not after drinking spirits. And don't ask why]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    “Research shows other distractions are more of a hazard – such as smoking while driving”

    Please explain how “therefore don’t ban cellphone use” is a logical conclusion from this???

    [DPF: The law should be consistent. If smoking in a car is a higher risk, then that should be banned if you are going to ban cellphone use. Personally I prefer a law that has no absolute bans and just has penalties for any sort of careless driving]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “redbaiter..me thinks you should replace the first 3 letters of your name with master…”

    You’re in bed with the “ban everything” Watermelons. Doesn’t this set off any red alerts in your obviously tiny mind??? Drooling idiot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. starboard (2,492 comments) says:

    “You’re in bed with the “ban everything” Watermelons.”

    ..some things should/need to be banned…texting and talking on phone whilst driving is one of them…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. grumpyoldhori (2,416 comments) says:

    Will de Cleene, you posted,( Will National be crushing the cellphones of repeat offenders)

    Why just the cellphone, it is a bloody sight faster to crush the entire car of a dickhead who comes over the white line when I am at the wheel of forty odd death dealing tonnes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    Pardon me, but these objections sound like those of someone whose libertarian values (freedom above all else) are offended by the idea of banning anything; and who is trying to produce rational supporting arguments that agree with the general “freedom” principle.

    I would like the open road speed limit to be 150km/h, I believe I could drive to that speed perfectly safely under most conditions. However, with speed bans as with phone bans, the safety of everyone else on the road is the issue here not my right to some sort of cart blanche freedom to take whatever risks I alone think are acceptable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. toad (3,673 comments) says:

    Bevan said: Sorry Toad, there is no comparison between the two, eating junk food would only endager myself without adequate fitness, using a cell phone while driving your vehicle endagers OTHERS.

    It doesn’t matter where the physical risk lies – under a public health system the financial risk of both is with the taxpayer, regardless of who is endangered. Your argument would only hold sway if everyone had to pay for their own healthcare (which I know some of you guys support, but I don’t).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    DPF: “Okay we are going to pass a law that bans driving after consuming wine, but not after drinking spirits. And don’t ask why”

    The oversight in omitting spirits seems silly but that does not invalidate banning driving post- wine consumption IMHO.

    The road rules are full of odd specific things that are banned eg yellow headlights, a tv set that the driver can see or operate. I do not see how adding cellphone use to this list is a significant step in the wrong direction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    PS: I would be more interested in the inconsistency between:

    (1) It is illegal to “cruise” up and down the same stretch of road, in full compliance with all other road rules, but in a car that has chrome mags or a big bore exhaust/ spoiler or otherwise “looks like a boy racer car” in the opinion of a police officer, vs

    (2) It is not illegal to be talking on a hand-held cellphone (a known factor increasing risk of distraction-related crashes.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “using a cell phone while driving your vehicle endagers OTHERS.”

    Driving on its own endangers others. In fact, with their obsession with CO2, the Watermelons have determined that even your BREATHING endangers others.

    How much liberty are you prepared to cede to the State on the grounds that they are responsible for every degree of risk you might face in your daily life???

    Don’t you see the Pandora’s box you open when you buy into this bullshit.

    Fuck SOCIALIST NZers are hopeless. Why don’t you all fuck off to commie China and leave NZ to the Indonesians? They’re all far better drivers than you gormless brain dead state worshiping lemmings. And every one rides bikes in China. The risks on NZ roads for others and your own risks will be reduced immeasurably.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    “Don’t you see the Pandora’s box you open when you buy into this bullshit.”

    And the alternative to government road rules/bans that apply to everyone (Helen Clark excluded of course) is a libertarian’s / anarchist’s paradise where you drive however fast you like, on whatever side of the road you like, while typing text messages into whatever sort of onboard appliances you like. Hell, why not download a movie at the same time? If you kill me, hey your insurance can always pay restoration to my estate so it’s all good.

    In the real world, (unlike in a libertarian’s paradise that is all about ME AND MY RIGHT TO FREEDOM) other people exist and they may want/deserve to be protected from the actions of free individuals that may harm them. Is this wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. transmogrifier (522 comments) says:

    RB, a quick question. Do you favour the idea of a country with no road rules at all?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “where you drive however fast you like, on whatever side of the road you like, while typing text messages into whatever sort of onboard appliances you like.”

    The fact that you need to ally cellphone use with extremist and irrational behaviour only underlines the fact that you have no real logic to support your view.

    We desperately need to start turning back the interference of the statists, those faceless shiny arsed desk driving empire building fascists in Wellington, and this is as good a time to start as any.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    New Zealanders driving cars, Baiter. It is ENTIRELY appropriate to be talking about extremist and irrational behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. village idiot (748 comments) says:

    Ban, ban, ban, ban, ban, ban,ban,ban..begining to sound like a dirge for a failing government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Personally I prefer a law that has no absolute bans and just has penalties for any sort of careless driving”

    That is right, and of course these laws already exist.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. transmogrifier (522 comments) says:

    So where is the line between a rational road rule and socialism? After all, driving wherever I like is only a problem if someone else gets in my way, just as driving distracted while using a cellphone is only a problem if someone gets in my way. At least in the first case there is a greater chance of me reacting to avoid the danger.

    There is a fuzzy line there, and I’m not really sure where it is. But your reacting with such anger that I assume you have a pretty clear idea, and I’m interested in where you think it is, so I judge whether you have a valid point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    My point is clear enough in the post above your own.

    As a secondary issue, there is plenty of argument that allowing the government to insert itself into road law enforcement to the extent it does has a negative effect.

    http://pc.blogspot.com/2009/06/libertarian-sus-road-tolls-tax-cuts.html#c2792223891679890404

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Driving on its own endangers others.

    Wow, who would have thought, Redbaiter standing up for his socialist watermelon buddies!

    Fuck SOCIALIST NZers are hopeless. Why don’t you all fuck off to commie China and leave NZ to the Indonesians?

    Instead why don’t you make it easier and fuck of out of the country yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. transmogrifier (522 comments) says:

    Penalties for careless driving are fine, except in the case of loss of life. If I get killed by a drunk driver, do you think I really care what happens to them? I’d much rather be alive.

    Whether cellphone distraction is actually responsible for any deaths is something I have no idea about, but I’m fine with the idea of the ban in principle pending actual data. The actual risk is important, and what we should base these decisions around.

    If it turns out cellphone distraction has never caused a death, well, I’d think the ban is an overreaction and rather pointless. Anyone got any good studies?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. s.russell (1,580 comments) says:

    As fast as you outlaw stupidity, people will find new ways to be stupid. I can personally attest to having discovered many of these myself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. transmogrifier (522 comments) says:

    Related to your comments in that thread you post RB, I think there is a limit to the power of examples. I have lived in Korea for a while, and it has an atrociously bad road toll (it was first in the OECD, but may have dropped since I last checked). The thing is, technically, Koreans are superb drivers – they have to be to manouver around roads not really built for cars in the first place. But they are also reckless and risk takers, especially the older drivers, who get their confidence from the Korean cultural heirarchy (ie older people are kings).

    I’m not saying there is a direct correlation, but it shows that it can work the other way.

    Confidence in yourself is good, I reckon, but disdain for and impatience with others is so often the downfall.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “If it turns out cellphone distraction has never caused a death, well, I’d think the ban is an overreaction and rather pointless. ”

    Power poles “cause” deaths, so- Should all power transmission lines be underground, on the basis that by doing so, it WILL SAVE ONE LIFE, AND THAT MAKES ANYTHING WORTHWHILE.

    Ask any liberal.

    “Confidence in yourself is good, I reckon, but disdain for and impatience with others is so often the downfall.”

    Good example even tho its not tootally relevant.

    So what do you want? North Korea or South Korea?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. transmogrifier (522 comments) says:

    I’ve never thought about powerpoles really. I don’t have a stand. I prefer underground for aesthetic reasons, but I can appreciate the economics involved. :)

    Me? South Korea, though I find their absolute dedication to making money and doing nothing but work spiritually deadening in a way, even if I admire unconditionally what they did with their country after the desolation of the Korea War (the country was absolutely trashed). Is there no way to combine their work ethic with a little bit of enjoying life?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Brian Smaller (4,028 comments) says:

    I think children should be banned form cars. From experience I know how damn well distracting they can be. I wonder how many road accidents are caused by kids playing up in the back seat compared to road accidents caused by distraction of cell phone use.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Brian Smaller (4,028 comments) says:

    Will it apply to taxis, trucks, delivery vans, and dare I say it, police who use RT hand sets while driving?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. RainbowGlobalWarming (295 comments) says:

    Wait for the rush of infringement notices issued. ker-ching.

    It might help the mobile ph witterers give up the blathering habit while driving a deadly machine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. jarbury (464 comments) says:

    Geez what a Nanny state government we have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Gulag Archipelago (162 comments) says:

    Observers of cellphone use in cars/vehicles on streets/roads and its consequences seem to be virtually non-existent here. More ideological than practical, wonder why so many professional drivers are against the practice?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “More ideological than practical, wonder why so many professional drivers are against the practice?”

    I do not think anyone disagrees that people should be prudent in their use of cellphones while driving. The issue is whether its something that needs regulating.

    I say it does not. There are enough laws. This is just the anti-smacking beast raising its ugly head again. A bunch of panty waisted nancy boys with a fascist mindset (yeah, don’t worry, there were plenty of them working for Adolf too) in Wellington trying to justify their existence.

    Joyce needs to pull them into line, not pander to their empire building self serving strategies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    “Will National be crushing the cellphones of repeat offenders?”

    No, they’ll make them switch to Vodafone as a punishment

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Gulag Archipelago (162 comments) says:

    Unfortunately people’s careless use of cellphones has prompted this law. Education will not work, one could educate for example the boy racers to the cows come home with little success. They are inconsiderate anarchists with no regard for any law except their own who will only learn when they see their idols crushed in a car crusher. National are doing what Labour were too gutless to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. village idiot (748 comments) says:

    Nanny State, Nanny State, Nanny State! Fucken hypocrites on the right. You should be ashamed. Nanny State. Nanny State!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    You appear to be seriously considering a switch to National Mr Idiot. well it appears to have everything you want. Good on you! – (and at least those hypocrites are in government)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Viking2 (11,284 comments) says:

    Stuff poll says 86% agree with ban.
    History says that 86% disagreed with Bradfords bill to which the Nats et al agreed.
    Forgone conclusion.

    And yes I agree that you selfish pricks who consider yourself to be absolutely capable and conscientious drivers are mindlessly stupid if you think you can drive safley and use the cellphone at the same time. See you every day driving like fruit cakes to an accident waiting to happen.

    $250 instant fine in Queensland and they are much better drivers than you lot.

    Epitome of the gen y ultimate mother.

    Large 4 wheel Remuera cruiser at 3.15pm going all the way around a roundabout in dense traffic, steering with one hand and the other holding a cellphone, the mouth going full on, whilst yelling at the three kids and a dog in the back seats. And of course shouting “oh my God, oh my God” .
    As bad as having full on sex with a cellphone to her ear while she makes the lunch and yells at the kids having breakfast.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Alan Wilkinson (1,850 comments) says:

    “Large 4 wheel Remuera cruiser at 3.15pm going all the way around a roundabout in dense traffic, steering with one hand and the other holding a cellphone, the mouth going full on, whilst yelling at the three kids and a dog in the back seats.”

    Strange that you should think that using a cellphone badly and stupidly is somehow different from driving badly and stupidly? Or do you believe that just because some people drive badly and stupidly then all people drive badly and stupidly?

    And so everyone should be banned from driving?

    Or that everyone is at the same risk of causing a crash no matter how they drive, how they use a cellphone or how they talk to their passengers in the front or back seats?

    That kind of belief is actually the epitome of irresponsibility. The daft (and socialist) notion that how individuals behave is irrelevant so long as they comply with the law which must be designed and detailed to remove all risk – which of course it never does but actually increases risk by removing relevant localised information from decision-making.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.