Two mobile phones for the win!

jessieduck said :

Jono said :

ImagineThat said :

… and not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign ….

OK. I’ll bite. What’s the difference between coming to a stop, and coming to a “complete stop”? The first means that you’re no longer moving. Presumably the second means that you’re really, really not moving?

You have to come to a complete stop at a stop sign- ie, don’t move until you count to three. If you just pause, it’s not a complete stop.

Please tell me you don’t really believe that.

And for the physicists in the room…

Are we ever truly stopped?

ImagineThat said :

Based on my observations, surely talking on a mobile phone (without a hands-free setup) while driving, and not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign would both top the Canberra Police ‘easy money’ list.

Your observations are based on the fact that your aren’t driving around in a marked police car. Of course someone will still talk on their phone in front of a nobody. Have a police car drive up behind you and most people will make sure they follow road rules (except for the idiots we read about in police media releases)

Jono said :

jessieduck said :

You have to come to a complete stop at a stop sign- ie, don’t move until you count to three. If you just pause, it’s not a complete stop.

I assume (hope) that you’re joking here? Right??

I can count to three really quick. And I can come to a stop without the suspension rocking at all.

IP

Aeek said :

ImagineThat said :

based on my observations, surely talking on a mobile phone (without a hands-free setup) while driving, and not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign would both top the Canberra Police ‘easy money’ list.

Cycling without a helmet would be even easier, but that might upset the international students.
Non enforcement sends a message.

Other easy money:
no lights on bicycles at night
cyclists not dismounting for pedestrian crossings (and going through them at speed of light but expecting cars to be able to stop for them)
tailgating, including the NSW traffic cop I saw doing it today so s/he could hide behind the car in front of him/her
cars with broken lights
cars with fog lights on weeks after the last reported fog
cars not indicating to change lanes
cars turning right from left hand lane of roundabouts (except for those mad roundabouts where you are actually allowed to, just to unnecessarily disrupt traffic flow!)
basically, having ACT number plates – because that’s a licence to drive badly in a badly maintained vehicle
oh, and diplomatic number plates, because that’s a licence to drive badly, sometimes in a very expensive vehicle
oh and taxi plates, because that’s also a licence to drive badly in a badly maintained vehicle

If the cops enforced traffic law:
a) the ACT government would be rich and
b) other crime would be rampant because the police would be too busy with all the traffic idiots

IP (who has never steered with a knee while using a handheld mobile phone and smoking a cigarette and drinking a coffee, honestly Ociffer)

jessieduck said :

You have to come to a complete stop at a stop sign- ie, don’t move until you count to three. If you just pause, it’s not a complete stop.

I assume (hope) that you’re joking here? Right??

ImagineThat said :

based on my observations, surely talking on a mobile phone (without a hands-free setup) while driving, and not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign would both top the Canberra Police ‘easy money’ list.

Cycling without a helmet would be even easier, but that might upset the international students.
Non enforcement sends a message.

LSWCHP said :

This clown must’ve read that report and decided that it seemed like an obvious way to save time.

Yeah, its probably the first time in history someone has ever held their steering wheel with a knee.

Jono said :

ImagineThat said :

… and not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign ….

OK. I’ll bite. What’s the difference between coming to a stop, and coming to a “complete stop”? The first means that you’re no longer moving. Presumably the second means that you’re really, really not moving?

Phases of stopping:
Brakes are applied.
Vehicle motion slows.
Forward motion reduces to near stop.
Wheels cease rotating.
Vehicle occupants believe car to be “stopped” in colloquial speech.
Vehicle rocks forwards.
Vehicle rocks backwards.
Rocking continues in decreasing magnitudes until springs and components are “at rest”.
No further forwards or backwards can be detected by astute eyes from a few paces away.

“Complete stop” achieved.

Jono said :

ImagineThat said :

… and not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign ….

OK. I’ll bite. What’s the difference between coming to a stop, and coming to a “complete stop”? The first means that you’re no longer moving. Presumably the second means that you’re really, really not moving?

You have to come to a complete stop at a stop sign- ie, don’t move until you count to three. If you just pause, it’s not a complete stop.

Copy cat stupidity. Unfortunately I don’t have a reference, but a guy in England was busted a few weeks ago for doing about 70 mph on a motorway while talking on 2 phones and steering with his knees. This clown must’ve read that report and decided that it seemed like an obvious way to save time.

Thoroughly Smashed said :

Ugh, Muphry’s Law (almost) strikes.

Muphry’s Law. One of my favourites.

Skidbladnir said :

PS: Have mentioned this before as a pet peeve, in that ACT Police Media don’t know their own systems.

completely agree, these media releases are very poorly written. I *hope* that the person writing them is a rushed constable, not a dedicated writer.

Take a poll of a group of average slobs and you’ll probably find that they believe all sorts of ridiculous crap.

Skidbladnir said :

p1 said :

Thoroughly Smashed said :

Surely he should have been given demerit points, rather than losing them.

I wonder when ACT Policing’s going to get it’s terminology right?

While what you say might be techincally accurate, every single person I have ever spoken to thinks in terms of having twelve points, and loosing them as part of the punishment for traffic offences.

The idea of infringement demerit points is that they are points acquired for non-meritorious action.
They are imposed upon you as a penalty, and at the accumulation of twelve such points in a 36 month period they suspend you.

This is how it works everywhere else in the country, and the ACT is no different.

PS: Have mentioned this before as a pet peeve, in that ACT Police Media don’t know their own systems.
-3 credits for ACT Police Media this time, -1 credit for you and your friends.

I don’t disagree with how it works, nor am I suggesting it should change. I would be interested to see a poll on which way round most people think about it in their heads…

urchin said :

Thoroughly Smashed said :

Surely he should have been given demerit points, rather than losing them.

I wonder when ACT Policing’s going to get it’s terminology right?

Probably around the same time you start using “its” and “it’s” correctly. Glass houses and all that.

Ugh, Muphry’s Law (almost) strikes. Usually I’m the idiot pedant picking on apostrophe abuse.

Regardless of that, I would suggest that a misplaced apostrophe is not even on the same level as ACT Policing’s continuing misunderstanding of its own procedures.

ImagineThat said :

… and not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign ….

OK. I’ll bite. What’s the difference between coming to a stop, and coming to a “complete stop”? The first means that you’re no longer moving. Presumably the second means that you’re really, really not moving?

That is what I call DEAD STUPID. I say Good on the police for catching this particular lunatic!! Sgt Kennedy need not have to explain why this press release was put out!

‘ACT Policing has issued 276 Traffic Infringement Notices to motorists for using a mobile phone while driving in the past month (August 1 to 31) as part of its ongoing traffic campaign.’

If they have only issued 276 fines in the last month, they’re obviously not trying very hard.

Based on my observations, surely talking on a mobile phone (without a hands-free setup) while driving, and not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign would both top the Canberra Police ‘easy money’ list.

Pity they couldn’t just let natural selection take it’s course (but then you’d have arguments about the people in the other car)…

Not only was the driver using his mobile phone(s), he was entering in data into them which really indicates that he has a death wish…

p1 said :

Thoroughly Smashed said :

Surely he should have been given demerit points, rather than losing them.

I wonder when ACT Policing’s going to get it’s terminology right?

While what you say might be techincally accurate, every single person I have ever spoken to thinks in terms of having twelve points, and loosing them as part of the punishment for traffic offences.

The idea of infringement demerit points is that they are points acquired for non-meritorious action.
They are imposed upon you as a penalty, and at the accumulation of twelve such points in a 36 month period they suspend you.

This is how it works everywhere else in the country, and the ACT is no different.

PS: Have mentioned this before as a pet peeve, in that ACT Police Media don’t know their own systems.
-3 credits for ACT Police Media this time, -1 credit for you and your friends.

Using both knees seems a little stupid, unless the car has a significant pull to one side the left knee should be sufficient leaving the right foot free for braking and accelerating.

Thoroughly Smashed said :

Surely he should have been given demerit points, rather than losing them.

I wonder when ACT Policing’s going to get it’s terminology right?

Probably around the same time you start using “its” and “it’s” correctly. Glass houses and all that.

p1 said :

While what you say might be techincally accurate, every single person I have ever spoken to thinks in terms of having twelve points, and loosing them as part of the punishment for traffic offences.

Yes…so giving demerit points would decrease the number of points you have. As Smashed suggested.

Losing demerit points could actually increase the number of points you have…provided you had been given demerit points in the past.

Clear?

Thoroughly Smashed said :

Surely he should have been given demerit points, rather than losing them.

I wonder when ACT Policing’s going to get it’s terminology right?

While what you say might be techincally accurate, every single person I have ever spoken to thinks in terms of having twelve points, and loosing them as part of the punishment for traffic offences.

Surely he should have been given demerit points, rather than losing them.

I wonder when ACT Policing’s going to get it’s terminology right?

It’s quite amazing how people risk so many lives, just to save 15 seconds.

Only $271 and 3 points? Surely at least double that.

that is hilarious.

even more newsworthy is that a 26 year old man is married…

Shouldn’t he be penalised twice, one for each phone?

And we have our winner!!!!!!!