Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Avani Terraces - Greenway
Life is looking up

190 distracted drivers busted by the dog hating police

By johnboy - 30 August 2012 27

In a month where ACT Policing focussed its attention on the issue of driver distraction, 138 motorists were issued with Traffic Infringement Notices and another 52 were cautioned for these and related traffic offences.

Of the 138 drivers issued with TINs, 129 were fined for using a hand-held mobile phone while driving. Eight others were issued with a TIN for failing to drive without proper control of their vehicle and in one particular case, a 32-year-old man from Chifley was caught driving with a dog – a white Maltese terrier – on his lap in contravention of Section 297 (1A) of the Australian Road Rules.

ACT Policing has revealed that a driver travelling in an 80km/h zone who is distracted from the road ahead for three seconds is effectively driving a distance of 60 metres blindfolded.

Officer-in-Charge of Traffic Operations Sergeant Rod Anderson said that alarming scenario highlighted the importance that driving is a skill that requires your full attention.

“Anything that takes a driver’s attention away from the road could result in a collision and the potential for loss of life,” Sergeant Rod Anderson said.

“Three seconds (such as checking a mobile text message, dealing with the kids in the back seat, or applying make-up) whereby a driver’s attention is taken away from the road could have fatal consequences.”

ACT Policing targeted driver distraction throughout the month of August as part of its multi-agency road safety strategy. As part of this strategy, the target for September will shift to seatbelts and the proper use of child restraints.

[Courtesy ACT Policing]

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
27 Responses to
190 distracted drivers busted by the dog hating police
colourful sydney rac 4:08 pm 30 Aug 12

Mysteryman said :

DrKoresh said :

helium said :

a good start but this is only a minuscule number of those using phones,
still saw MANY people on the phone during the blitz ?? including a cement truck driver (Truck safety week, remember)

They should target tradies for mobile use, there seems to be a culture of thinking that because they taking/making calls related to work that they should be exempt from being pulled over for it.

I see a lot of this too.

Ditto – more concerning for me is the number I see driving with one hand on the wheel and the other clutching a stubbie, or can of pre-mix spirits.

Mysteryman 3:51 pm 30 Aug 12

DrKoresh said :

helium said :

a good start but this is only a minuscule number of those using phones,
still saw MANY people on the phone during the blitz ?? including a cement truck driver (Truck safety week, remember)

They should target tradies for mobile use, there seems to be a culture of thinking that because they taking/making calls related to work that they should be exempt from being pulled over for it.

I see a lot of this too.

helium 3:50 pm 30 Aug 12

DrKoresh said :

helium said :

a good start but this is only a minuscule number of those using phones,
still saw MANY people on the phone during the blitz ?? including a cement truck driver (Truck safety week, remember)

They should target tradies for mobile use, there seems to be a culture of thinking that because they taking/making calls related to work that they should be exempt from being pulled over for it.

+1 Tradies seem have a different perception on safety (e.g also speeding), is this because they work in (relatively more) dangerous jobs. They are also in demand, so time poor.

So you might think that a Tradie that has taken the time+money to put their mobile number on a vehicle might also buy a $20 bluetooth headset ?? cos they might be expecting a call ?? maybe ??

devus 3:40 pm 30 Aug 12

helium said :

a good start but this is only a minuscule number of those using phones,
still saw MANY people on the phone during the blitz ?? including a cement truck driver (Truck safety week, remember)

Last week I saw a cement truck driver get pulled over by an opportunistic cop for being on his phone in Mitchell, just metres from returning to his depot. Warmed my heart.

DrKoresh 3:17 pm 30 Aug 12

helium said :

a good start but this is only a minuscule number of those using phones,
still saw MANY people on the phone during the blitz ?? including a cement truck driver (Truck safety week, remember)

They should target tradies for mobile use, there seems to be a culture of thinking that because they taking/making calls related to work that they should be exempt from being pulled over for it.

helium 3:06 pm 30 Aug 12

a good start but this is only a minuscule number of those using phones,
still saw MANY people on the phone during the blitz ?? including a cement truck driver (Truck safety week, remember)

c_c 2:38 pm 30 Aug 12

Pity they didn’t get the idiot on Drakeford this morning. Some ditz driving along while texting. Slammed on the brakes in a round about, almost went off the road twice. Didn’t help she looked half asleep too. Would rather they put the money they’re spending on P-P speed camera into ore visible policing. P-P cameras don’t catch 90% of the stupidity on the roads.

DrKoresh 2:34 pm 30 Aug 12

Henry82 said :

(1A) A driver must not drive a vehicle if a person or an animal is in the driver’s lap.

for those who were wondering

Yeah, i was thinking it had to be something other than having an unrestrained dog in the car, i almost never see such restraints, and the ones i have seen would only work on small dogs. So it’s specifically having it sit on your lap that is the offence here, not having him in the car with you. I’ve seen so many dogs in cars that I can’t believe it’s a crime.

Henry82 2:29 pm 30 Aug 12

(1A) A driver must not drive a vehicle if a person or an animal is in the driver’s lap.

for those who were wondering

Deref 2:15 pm 30 Aug 12

About bloody time.

Fining people for having Rover unrestrained in their car is not dog-hating; having Rover unrestrained in your care is human-hating, potentially suicidal as well as homicidal.

wrigbe 2:11 pm 30 Aug 12

hmmm other than pulling over (which is sometimes not possible), how do they suggest we deal with the distraction of the kids – screaming ‘be quiet’ or something less pleasant works on some kids but not all.
Maybe :
police-issued gags ? 🙂
A police escort in the car with you to keep the kids quiet ? 🙂
Oh I know, a huge rottweiler in the front seat to scare them into submission – oh wait you aren’t allowed unrestrained dogs in the front seat are you?

Whining kids that go on for hours can be a major distraction to your driving.

p1 1:53 pm 30 Aug 12

I in no way intend to detract from the seriousness of sending a text message, applying make-up, or owning a white Maltese terrier – but three seconds is a *really* long time when you are driving a car. People who take their eyes right off the road for that long are not inattentive, they are crazy.

Watson 1:52 pm 30 Aug 12

poetix said :

Section 297 (1A): A male driver possessing a dog that might be seen as a threat to masculinity is an offence.

Interesting that they had to mention the type of dog.

Even though I would imagine that driving round with a Bull Mastiff on your lap would be way more distracting.

colourful sydney rac 1:37 pm 30 Aug 12

poetix said :

Section 297 (1A): A male driver possessing a dog that might be seen as a threat to masculinity is an offence.

Interesting that they had to mention the type of dog.

🙂

poetix 1:31 pm 30 Aug 12

Section 297 (1A): A male driver possessing a dog that might be seen as a threat to masculinity is an offence.

Interesting that they had to mention the type of dog.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site