Stanhope jumps on "Mr Law and Order"

But have you NEVER done it? Is the Chief Minister willing to put hand on heart and say he’s NEVER done it?

Nope, but I’m not a “lora norda” scare mongerer either. Those in glass houses and all that.

I only believe in using your phone in the car when you’re drunk.

I think Big Al and Mr Shab have won the debate, but Les Whinin has got the award of the week for:

“Stephoneiac”

I honestly have never used a mobile in a car. I just don’t see the need to answer the phone the second it rings – you can always call back.
The concern with Bill S is that he is obviousley so used to doing it that he didn’t think twice, even while being filmed.

All praise be to Big Al, but Mr_Shab also makes bloody good sense.

Stanhope shouldn’t have got on his moral high-horse and cried about hypocrisy, he should be using his high profile to push Stephoneiac’s poor judgement as a need for improvements in driver attitude and behaviour.

My bad-criminal

I don’t actually know that 50% of people use phones in the car – I don’t.

But have you NEVER done it? Is the Chief Minister willing to put hand on heart and say he’s NEVER done it?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad Bill is going to be mocked about this for years and doubly glad that his big balled willy waving on law and order is going to be undermined.

A cranial record?? I this where someone just remembers the details but doesn’t write them down?
As for the road safety angle, we all know no government gives two craps, because if they did we’d have mandatory regular license retests and stringent vehicle inspections (like pilots and aircraft). Also, police would actually book people for traffic infringements other than speeding.

“…then a cranial record is attracted” – Is that when they get out a big felt-tipped pen and write “IDIOT” on the dope-users forehead?

A crime is a wrong punishable by the state compared with a wrong punishable by the wronged (using the mechanics of the state) eg breach of contract etc. Hence, traffic and parking violations are crimes and those that commit them are criminals. That the conviction of certain crimes does not attract a criminal record does not mean they are not crimes. Whether conviction of a crime attracts a criminal record is dependent upon a number of factors such; as whether society determines that the behaviour should be stigmatised with the perpetrators getting a criminal record. Probably one reason that some traffic crimes do not attract a criminal record is that they are crimes of absolute liability (ie there is no mental element to the offence, and “honest and reasonable mistake” cannot be used to exculpate) and they are common an often due to a mistake.
One example of a crime which may or may not attract a criminal record is minor cannabis offences, it is within the discretion of a police officer to issue an on the spot ticket to an offender, if the fine is paid (in the allotted time period), no criminal record ensues however if the fine is not paid, the matter then automatically proceeds to court and if found guilty (most often by default) then a cranial record is attracted.

Hate Stanhope, but have to agree that SMSing or whatever he was doing can kill. Nonetheless, Jon Stanhope’s a twat for thinking his staffer wasn’t a complete tosser.

I think Jon’s press release could have been a bit less dramatic, and highlighted road safety rather than dredging up the grafiti incident again.
but it is a worry that Bill S doesn’t even seem to understand that looking down at your phone and punching in numbers – even if you are pulling over – is not ok. I don’t actually know that 50% of people use phones in the car – I don’t.

I’m with Spectra here. Bill makes a point about pointing out the failing of others in the law yet easily dismisses his own action. What a hypocrite!
Stanhope did well in pointing this out.

And the winner is…. Big Al.

Ari – you don’t end up with a criminal record *if you pay the infringement notice*. Like a parking fine – if you don’t dispute it and pay the fine, then no further action is taken. Effectively you admit guilt, and then no record is made. But if you dispute it and take it to court, then you can be found guilty of a crime (eg. failing to stop, speeding, or using a mobile phone while driving). Traffic offences are criminal offences, it is just that usually people don’t dispute them and the infringement notice mechanism allows them to just pay a fine and lost the demerit points.

Agreed, Shabby – my original comment wasn’t meant to defent Sonic’s handling of the matter, only to point out that our (potential) leaders should perhaps be setting a bit better of an example.

I ride too, Chris, and I can well relate to just how blind (or more blind) people become when they’re on the phone. The law may view it as a minor traffic infraction, but that doesn’t, or at least shouldn’t, make it acceptable either.

Stefaniak = stupid fool!

I’m with Big Al. Bollocks to equivalence. This arbitrary sliding-scale of offences makes me sick. An offence is an offence for a reason. A prosecution/fine/whatever for breaking the law ought to be viewed as a mark of shame, rather than blithely dismissed as an inconvenience.

For the record, tags or stencils on my fence I can live with. Getting knocked off my bike and put in a wheelchair I’d rather not.

Stanhope is blowing this up for all the wrong reasons (i.e, he’s not highlighting this as part of a campaign to change driver attitudes and to improve road safety) but it doesn’t change the fact that Wild Bill acted like a dickhead, and should be a bit more bloody contrite.

Smackbang – you don’t end up with a criminal record for committing a traffic offence.

They are not substitutable terms.

What a crock! All you lot fat-mouthing off about equivalence between a so called ‘traffic’ offence and a property offence. By saying ‘oh no, painting a stencil on a brick wall is way, way more naughtier that talking on a mobile while you’re driving you twats are now compelled to dismiss as frivolous other traffic offences – like exceeding the speed limit by 60km/h in a school zone or driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.2 or running over a innocent person in the bus interchange whilst driving unlicensed and underage.

Please by all means, continue to cherry pick what offences are worthy of your pathetic moral outrage – you’re hypocrisy might give me the shits, but your stupidity amuses me.

perhaps one of you could explain to me the difference between a “traffic offence” and a “criminal offence”? i don’t understand the difference. an offence is a crime – they’re substitutable words.

Sounds like the fabric of society is withering away…when did a traffic offence gain the same weight in the eyes of the law as a criminal offence?

An interesting exercise would be to find out how many of the local pollies have amassed a ‘record’ of traffic offences. Could end up being a pot calling the kettle black.

I ride a motorbike and every so often nearly get cleaned up by stupid motorists using their mobiles. I’m with Spectra – graffiti is anti-social and criminal, but never killed anyone.

Dickheads that use mobiles while driving are ignorant, stupid, dangerous and bigger dickheads that Stanhope.

When I saw the program, I could not believe that Wild Bill could be so stupid as to not only be using his phone, but doing it while a crew was filming him. And his 3-stage response shows him in even worse light.

What a whacker!

The issue here is that most political activity seems related to pointing and shouting. It’s a shame that such a big deal needs to be made of this. Still, when in Rome…

Mr Evil says all that needs to be said

Stanhope = dickhead.

I’m sure I’ll start a flame war with this comment, but….I can’t remember a single reported fatality or serious injury where graffiti was a key contributory factor. I can recall at least two in recent times where using a mobile while driving was thought to be.

Just because lots of people do it, doesn’t make it right.

If the Chief Minister honestly believes that using a mobile phone while driving is the moral equivalent of vandalising public property then he’s a moral cretin unfit for any office.

Stupid equivalence.

Bill’s a dick but he’s committed a traffic offence, not a criminal one.

Canberra citizens who’ve used a phone while driving? 50%? Higher?

Canberra citizens who’ve vandalised with graffiti? I’m guessing less than one per cent.

I do, however, agree that it would be nice if Bill became more tolerant of the failings of others as a result of this experience.