Comments by "" (@redtela) on "Drive With Music? You Need To Know This..." video.

@paulforman6414 also don't use the radio, or have passengers/pets, and heh, with the cost of fuel at the moment, why not just "don't use the vehicle"
38
I wonder what might have happened in the appeal if they had tried to argue that this case was no different to using the controls provided within the car, rather than trying to debate it on the communication aspect. Two examples here: Firstly, in my car, there is a control physically mounted to the car steering column (that I cannot remove) which will cause my phone to skip to the next track and change volume, etc. I can also control the same from the car radio itself. So for this case, I would posit that using the phones touch screen is no different to using manufacturer provided (and Type Approved) controls within the vehicle. Of course, much simpler to avoid a prosecution by using the vehicle mounted controls, rather than my phone (which I have chosen to mount to the vehicle). Secondly, and likely more difficulty for me to defend, on my bike, everything is voice controlled. I can, for example, say "Hey Cordo, next track" - and it causes my phone to switch to the next track. Clearly, I'm not using a hand-held device, but I am still communicating with a device designed to be hand held and it is communicating with both the internet and my bluetooth headset. In this case, however, I think an officer would find it quite tricky to read my lips (though my closed helmet) to know what I was doing to even have a chat with me.
25
my personal interpretation, yes, that is illegal. The way around it, would be to use a device that is designed as in-car sat nav, since that isn't a two-way communication device, regardless of if you're operating it by hand or not. Another way, is to use voice controls rather than touch screen (good luck to the officer trying to prove what you were saying).
11
@misamsung6191 one thing omitted from the video we're replying to, but evident in the actual case text - the defendant was holding the phone in their hand. It was not in a dash mount etc. Also, I think the appeal was based on both "communication" and "data" - that said, the idiot holding the phone was simply wasting the courts time IMO. I would be interested to see a case where the phone was in a dash mount, and being poked with a single finger, rather than being held.
5
@Barney Laurence perhaps you don't realise how case law is determined. It starts from the letter of the law, and then the courts interpret it. Until a case is heard that sets out the defence I suggest above, no-one knows if it would work or not. Further, my curiosity revolves around the use of the words "hand held device." Clearly, if holding it in your hand, that's illegal (and rightly so, IMO). But interacting with the device while it's not physically held in the hand, has as far as I'm aware, not been tested in a court.
2
@G58 have you seen any of the Aussie traffic laws? Just curious...
1
@Gruxxan a car radio also isn't a two-way communication device
1
Given he was holding it in his hand, the conviction is (in my opinion) sound. The interesting part though, is that section you quoted (6a, of reg. 110), seems to imply that a mobile phone counts under the legislation, regardless of how it is being used at the time of alleged offence ("...if it is, or must be, held at some point..."). Combine that sentiment with reg. 110 S 4 and it could be argued that regardless of how the device is being used, it is still a device that falls under the consideration of reg. 110. So, in theory, in-car controls that communicate with the phone, or voice control of the phone, may well count as "use" - and of course, until such a case is heard in a court, everything is simply speculation anyway.
1
@ArminGrewe I see what you're saying in respect of reg. 110 p6 (a), but with the stated definition of "communication" - (6)(c)(i) states that interactive communication includes "sending or receiving oral or written messages" - so it may yet be argued that verbal commands to a phone count under this regulation too. Again, until a case is tried, we have nothing but speculation. Had this chap not been holding it in his hand, he could have tried the route of "a mounted device doesn't count as handheld" - which might have set the tone for vocal prompts too. Or a magistrate would see sense, and class it as a distraction, which means we're not even talking about reg. 110 anymore.
1