Road Safety or Revenue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tombie

Really. How about a real world example.

Dump truck operator, gets a call and it says his Mum just hit the floor and is on her way to hospital.

He was tipping off a load at the time, done it thousands of times before.

His focus has suddenly shifted and forgot to lower the tray fully before moving off.

Tore out a Coke Ovens Gas main with the tray.



Now there may be many a conversation you can have that won’t take your attention away, and even if it did in 99% of cases won’t cause an issue.

But that one time, at that one moment……

---

Mum wore an emergency button monitored by MEPACS. I received a call from them telling me that mum, 96 at that time, had fallen and pressed her button , unable to get up. At the time I was on the Newell highway approaching Goondiwindi heading north.
I 1. Authorised the ambulance attendance
2. Contacted my wife to go and see
3. Contacted my niece to help
4. Notified my sister, just a FYI in her case.
5. Called a neighbour who was closest.

I was driving a 26 metre B-Double at the time. I was able to do all this without causing any hardship or risk to my fellow road users, I completed my journey without any problem, and arrived home five days later to visit mum in hospital. She had tripped over an extension lead, landed on her slate floor, and broken her shoulder.
Needless to say, those phone calls I mentioned were not the only ones I participated in.

That "real world" enough for you, Mike?

When all of the stuff happening in my life concludes, I may be looking for a job. From what you describe of the drivers in your employ, perhaps you need someone like me. Those that you have are possibly not up to the job.

I'll say it again: If you cannot think and drive at the same time, don't drive.

No, it’s not.

As I wrote 99/100 times the events don’t line up to cause an issue.

To claim you were 100% focused on the task of driving at the time is absolute BS - as there is absolutely no such thing as multi-tasking, it doesn’t exist in reality.

I’ve never had a vehicle accident - doesn’t mean one isn’t coming.

The only thing you should be thinking about when driving, is driving. Your call re your mother (and I can emphasise with you there) was an exception but wouldn’t it have been better to pull over?
AlanH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ATH

The only thing you should be thinking about when driving, is driving. Your call re your mother (and I can emphasise with you there) was an exception but wouldn’t it have been better to pull over?
AlanH

---

Have you driven a B-Double on the Newell? The answer to your question is NO. There needs to be a truck lay-by, for it to be safe. And my point is, and remains so, that I can think and drive at the same time, or at least I could.

In Victoria the Police are exempt from the phone laws whilst driving. Why is this? Are they superior drivers to you and me? Or is it that they they have more power than you or me? I can use a CB radio. I can operate a taxi dispatcher interface. I can change songs on an iPod. I can use a SatNav ( although i believe this has changed ). I can use a touch screen radio unit. All of the above require a visual/tactile input. My phone, on the other hand, talks to me ( in my case ) via a bluetooth interface directly to my hearing aids. I don't ever have to look at the screen. The caller is announced in my ear, I touch a button and then talk.

Tell me, Alan; do you talk to passengers in your car? If yes, how is that different to me talking on my phone? If your passenger wishes to talk for some time, do you pull over? I'll take a bet right now, and I'll bet, no you don't.

If you can't think and drive at the same time, don't drive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tombie

No, it’s not.

As I wrote 99/100 times the events don’t line up to cause an issue.

To claim you were 100% focused on the task of driving at the time is absolute BS - as there is absolutely no such thing as multi-tasking, it doesn’t exist in reality.

I’ve never had a vehicle accident - doesn’t mean one isn’t coming.

---

So, let me guess. When Tombie and Mrs Tombie and the little Tombies are out in the car, the journey is silent? Mrs Tombie won't take a call?

Sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ATH

Personally I fail to see what is so important about most calls that drivers feel they have to answer them immediately instead of waiting until they're parked up somewhere.

---

and yet the law allows police/emergency services to drive while talking on the phone. bit a double standard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tombie

It’s illegal to use “passing” function for other purposes.

---

Not in Vic. They tried that. Use of High Beam in Built Up Areas was the charge. Don't work anymore. High beams are legal in built up areas. Doesn't specify dark or light.

Road laws vary across borders, and enforcement depends on the bloody mindedness of the officer at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tins

Not in Vic. They tried that. Use of High Beam in Built Up Areas was the charge. Don't work anymore. High beams are legal in built up areas. Doesn't specify dark or light.

Road laws vary across borders, and enforcement depends on the bloody mindedness of the officer at the time.

---

def not the case in SA. had a taxi driver who was lost and using high beam at night with no cars around, tying to read street signs for the freeway. copped a fine. no common sense from the cop or the magistrate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eevo

and yet the law allows police/emergency services to drive while talking on the phone. bit a double standard.

---

What I said. There was a famous front page Herald Sun pic of a copper, higher up, driving on the Monash obviously texting. VicPol's response? 'We're exempt.' So, do as I say, not as I do.

It isn't a double standard, Eevo. It's NO standard. It's really no wonder people ignore it, if the people charged to enforce it ignore it as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eevo

no common sense from the cop or the magistrate.

---

That's pretty much the case these days.

Attachment 168788