Police on handheld cellphone ban

October 27th, 2009 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

will be using their discretion as motorists adjust to the pending law that bans use of handheld cellphones while driving.

Good. Not that it affects me as I have handsfree.

From Sunday, motorists must have a handsfree device if they want to use their mobile phone. If they’re caught using it without one, they face an $80 fine and 20 demerit points.

I’ve still yet to see any research from overseas showing a reduction in road tolls, after such a law change.

National road policing manager Superintendent Paula Rose said staff had been told that a period to allow the “bedding in” of the legislation was appropriate. …

Ms Rose doesn’t answer the phone when she’s driving. Instead she puts it in the boot, so if it does ring, she can’t get to it to take the call.

Ummm, does the Superintendent’s phone not have an off button? Putting it in the boot seems somewhat unnecessary.

She said she was excited about the new law because New Zealanders might think more about driving safely.

“In policing we’ve seen some really stupid things – people getting changed, putting their makeup on, eating their breakfast.

Personally I think a ban on women applying makeup while driving is more pressing!

Tags: ,

26 Responses to “Police on handheld cellphone ban”

  1. Scorpio (385 comments) says:

    I swear this is true. I have a friend who used to shave her legs while driving to work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Steve (4,313 comments) says:

    “Ms Rose doesn’t answer the phone when she’s driving. Instead she puts it in the boot, so if it does ring, she can’t get to it to take the call.

    Ummm, does the Superintendent’s phone not have an off button? Putting it in the boot seems somewhat unnecessary.”

    Once again, common sense is not that common anymore!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,663 comments) says:

    Hell, if she was the Commissioner, she’d leave the mobile in her office.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. david (2,482 comments) says:

    Nah Adolf, If she was the Commissioner, she would have a Sergeant Driver/bodyguard/PA and could talk on the phone all day. If she was Helen Clark she would leave it to the PS driver to answer and allow him to take the hit for breaking the law.

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

    “Ms Rose doesn’t answer the phone when she’s driving. Instead she puts it in the boot, so if it does ring, she can’t get to it to take the call.”

    She’s an idiot, and typifying why so much of NZ is a mess right now (especially with the Police) in that gender takes preference over skill, intelligence, experience and ability.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. starboard (2,447 comments) says:

    She said she was excited about the new law because New Zealanders might think more about driving safely.

    ..excited about the new law ?!! What a jackass..another one that needs to get out and about more often…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Pete George (21,789 comments) says:

    Some people seem to have an aversion to switching their mobile phones off – but there could be reason for leaving the phone turned on here. If it is switched off you go straight to the mailbox message incurring a connection charge? But if the phone is on and rings you can hang up if unanswered (or choose to wait and leave a message).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Steve (4,313 comments) says:

    Why make excuses for her? The woman is an idiot, an excited idiot!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Pete George (21,789 comments) says:

    I’m not making excuses. Just suggesting there could be reasonable reasons for not turning her phone off. But even if there are it still seems silly to put it in the boot – it isn’t difficult to ignore a ringing phone. Is it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. david (2,482 comments) says:

    She was actually misquoted. What she really said was that the police aimed “to put the boot in” over cellphone usage while driving.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Steve (4,313 comments) says:

    David, you are saying that the Herald item by Yvonne Tahana is incorrect?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Master Hogwash (239 comments) says:

    “Ms Rose doesn’t answer the phone when she’s driving. Instead she puts it in the boot, so if it does ring, she can’t get to it to take the call.”

    If she lacks any kind of self control (going by that statement, she clearly does) I expect to see her clambering over the seats trying to open the back seats into the boot while steering with her feet doing 100 kph down the motorway.

    Hey, she should suggest legislation banning that kind of driving!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Maybe they’ll sell cars with handfree’s now as a matter of course.
    Mine works fine.
    Sadly Can’t txt though as it’s not safe to txt and drive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. deanknight (263 comments) says:

    Remarkable! The Police using their discretion and common-sense not to prosecute or fine in appropriate case… Who knew…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. freedom101 (439 comments) says:

    I’m very surprised to see that National has extended the nanny state to banning cellphones in cars, without any serious emperical proof that it will reduce road accidents. On the other hand, this is the same government that is pursuing the ETS without a proper regulatory impact statement. Tweedly Dum and Tweedle Dee …. why did we go to all the trouble of having an election last year?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Brian Smaller (3,915 comments) says:

    Remarkable! The Police using their discretion and common-sense not to prosecute or fine in appropriate case… Who knew…

    On Sunday I got pulled over by a cop for going through a temporary speed restriction zone (one of those orange triangle signs on the side of the road for road works – or in this case becasue the 4×4 club were having a rally just north of Turakina off SH3). It was a $170 fine and 35 demerits apparently – going through a temporary speed zone above stated speed is classed as dangerous driving. I honestly didn’t even see the signs and was only going 90kph. He let me off with a lecture.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. deanknight (263 comments) says:

    oops… my tongue-in-cheek *grin* was misread as HTML code..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Scott (1,614 comments) says:

    I do understand your point freedom 101 — we have had far too much of a government telling us what to do over the last decade. However in this particular case I think the government has got it right. Even in the small town I live in I have observed many drivers going through intersections, while talking on their cell phones, seemingly oblivious to what is happening around them. I just cannot see that drivers can properly concentrate on their driving while holding a cellphone clamped to their ear. Apparently the empirical testing does back up this observation.

    And as for texting while driving I cannot think of a more dangerous practice. At the end of the day we have to share the road with other drivers. So in this limited case I am with the government.

    But don’t get me started on showerheads, anti- smacking, massive welfare state, exorbitant government spending, government agencies advertising on television telling us what to do every 10 minutes, political correctness, the Ministry of education regulating school tuckshops — the list goes on and on.

    If you have had enough of the nanny state — I too share your pain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. menace (407 comments) says:

    I think th edemerit points aspect of it is a little too much, i think a fine is enough.
    Answering your phone being the tipping point for you actually loosing your lisence sux big time.

    I wilol keep roling me fags as ive always done though, and everything else i do while im driving that is easily equivilant to talkin on the phone.

    Never had anything go wrong while im multitasking.

    Im sure there are some imcompitant people around though that probably dont have my abilitys. so the law is justified,

    Demerits still sux htough

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. menace (407 comments) says:

    brian> give me your money.
    thats all the scum want.
    when i get ticket or fine i find unjust i find ways of getting th emoney back out of the government so that they actually fine them selves.

    im always entitled to go bludging to the government. not my style, so only when i feel like the establishmet is attemping to farm me a little to hard do i do dipping.

    other than this i stand on my own feet though;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. wreck1080 (3,516 comments) says:

    About time this law is passed. Some bastard just about took me out the other day while yakking on his phone.

    It didn’t help that some kids ran across the road ahead of him, but his attention was diverted by his phone call and he was unable to take the correct course of action (ie, to slow down, rather than veering into my lane).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. MT_Tinman (2,790 comments) says:

    My thinking was the demerit points bit was way over the top.

    Was until the other day.

    I watched a sheila sit in the right turn lane of a very busy intersection, Main North Road, QEII Drive in ChCh, through two sets of lights while she held a conversation.

    Maybe the demerit points should be altered to apply to those failing to drive while talking on a telephone. ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Steve (4,313 comments) says:

    David, re your post at 9.36am.
    “She was actually misquoted. What she really said was that the police aimed “to put the boot in” over cellphone usage while driving.”

    Was she mis-quoted? or are you mis-quoting? I can not find anything about the Superintendent being mis-quoted.
    You are bending and twisting the words of Yvonne Tahana I think. Some people call it “making stuff up”
    Or are you really Superintendent Paula Rose?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Paul Marsden (935 comments) says:

    At least this will mean an end to all the childish and pathetic, ‘Dob In’ campaigns. Or, will it…??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Viking2 (10,687 comments) says:

    Scorpio; Are you sure she was shaving her legs and not the fluffy bit between?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. noodle (151 comments) says:

    I am a dear, sweet person generally, but if I miss the turn right arrow because the driver ahead is too busy on the phone to notice the arrow went green, then I want to kill that person and, not being able to, my BP rises alarmingly.

    Viking2. ” Scorpio; are you sure she was shaving her legs and not the fluffy bit between?” You dirty boy! If I ever come across you wanking while driving, I will “fire extinguish” your nasty bits. Oh dear, I need a lie down.

    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.