Law or Anarchism? New Ruling for the Safety of Humans

in law •  8 years ago  (edited)

Since many accidents happened in the past caused by distracted car drivers using their phone - calling, texting and other things people use their phone for - holding a mobile phone was prohibited already years ago in the Netherlands - like in many other countries.

A law that kinda makes sense


Recently a judge decided that holding a mobile phone in one of your hands is to be interpreted widely, including touching a phone. This means that touching a phone in any way, is not allowed. Like for instance when the phone is in a cradle, it is not allowed to touch it in any way. Also, it is not allowed to lock the phone between the ear and shoulder or behind a headscarf. In addition - for example - you cannot tie it to your wrist and hold it to your ear.

The fine: 239 euros


The reasons given by the judge is that when operating a phone, only one hand is available for driving and steering the car and the driver is less aware of the road and that's just insecure.

But nothing is mentioned about operating an inbuilt navigation system, or eating or drinking. And what about all the people on bicycles and scooters? They are allowed to operate their phone, still.

Very strange ruling, since I would expect the judge to even further widen the interpretation of the law and include all vehicles, as well as other non driving tasks.

Or should we remove the law and allow anybody to do whatever he or she pleases to do while driving? Introduce Anarchism?


sources [1]

NJOY

follow me @edje

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

The thing about some of those other tasks you listed, like eating, is that they require less visual distraction. It's reasonable to assume that operating a cell-phone is more distracting than jamming french fries into your mouth, I think.

Other than that, the ruling is consistent with the law in other places which seems to be moving this direction. I, for one, am terrified at the number of drivers (mostly women) I see driving while texting.

A friend was texting and because of that drove his car against a concrete pole, that damages its sports car so much, it was worth nothing anymore. I agree, texting is very dangerous while driving a car, but also calling: the more intense the conversation is, the more the driver uses 'auto pilot' to drive the car. From personal experience I know that when being in a intense conversation, I don't even remember what part I drove while on the call.

Indeed, eating and drinking while behind the wheels may seem less dangerous, but what if the driver spills hot coffee on his body?

Someone suggested in another comment to force 2 hands on the steering wheel as a rule, but that prevents switching on eg tail lights for fog and other tools in the car that may be required while driving the car.

Ugh, that's terrible.

"Someone suggested in another comment to force 2 hands on the steering wheel as a rule"

This isn't feasible yet because of manual (standard) transmissions. You still have to shift with one hand regularly.

Honestly, I'm not fond of giving the state more power, but I wouldn't really mind if I stopped seeing people eating in the car too. Even if I think I'm capable of it (not that I do, since I rarely drive these days), most people probably shouldn't try it.

Agree

Loading...

The state should not dictate what people do with their cell phones..It seems like another revenue source for the state.

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

@automaton I dislike a lot of laws. (understatement) but texting while driving im a hazard on the road.
However the fines are ridiculous here in The Netherlands, and should be much, much lower.

I do not really have an opinion on how high the fines shall be; Maybe they shall be based on income, like in Finland. Maybe fines shall be something else, not money at all, but work some hours for the community.

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

I had for the last 9 months for a € 1000,- fines. I really try to do normal, just wrong place wrong time.

  • Didn't steal
  • No violence or what so ever
  • No fraud
  • Didn't put any one in danger.

That should be enough to get no fines.

Indeed, I rather did some community work. I'm not a fan of rich people should pay more. But "shake me down" for 1000 euro in 1 year is ridiculous.

Peace :)

WOW, 1.000 Euro is a whole lot! I know I had more fines while driving cars years ago. Mostly speeding, usually on roads without other cars, ie no real increase of danger. At one point the total sum of fines got so high that I decided to buy a car with a small engine and learn to use the cruise control at maximum allowed speed. Since then, I hardly get fines anymore and it didn't ruin my mood other than I like the fact I don't spend money on fines anymore :)

hehe:) Enough is enough I guess, before you know it you are full time working to pay of your fines. And its much more fun to have cruise control then those stupid fines.


600 euro of those fines where an icing on the cake, after arresting me twice innocent. All because I had the same colour jacket, and they had to arrest somebody. My hair is almost a half of meter long, they searched for a guy with short hair :S

Few months later, when they call the police because of a weed smell around my house, the police officer came to check if I wasn't growing weed. He told me, I really didn't understood why they arrested you. But we have to arrest somebody, or else it would not be cool for the victims.. (is up to you if you believe me)

i.m.o. They arrest somebody who can not pay a decent lawyer. Just to boost their figures. According to an expert whom I saw on t.v. They have to boost their figures, because they fail to fight crime, period. 70% of the cases they can not solve, or stay untouched in the computer.

Now the real suspect is still free, all those money wasted to arrest me.

  • 6 police officers to arrest me (in total)
  • 2 rechercheurs (don't know the Enlish word)
  • 4 prisons guards
  • 1 Lawyer (paid by the state)
  • 2 Prosecutors (don't know the English word)

And this happens all day every day. But if it wasn't for them I don't know if I were on Steemit. Everything happens for a reason I guess :)

WOW, this is an incredible story! I somehow can imagine the police need to arrest somebody just to show the public they do something, but to arrest just like anybody without a hint of proof is really crazy! I'm totally against any wrong doing, also by the police and law system. Although when somebody is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the police and law system should do their work, but to go after innocent people without any proof that is just the world upside down.

thanks. I dont want to sound dramatic. But it will effect your daily life.

I think we need "police" in a sense that we need people that are willing to even risk their life to serve the society. But slowly but surely it's more the police against the civilians. Which I really dislike the police and the people should be one.

I kinda agree with you, but when someone kills someone else by being careless, shall we just allow anybody to do whatever? Someone walking on the pavement cannot protect him or herself from just anybody driving a car, bicycle or whatever dangerous vehicle being careless.

It still happens regardless of the law...see California. Yet, the state uses the excuse of protecting it's citizens in order to generate a revenue stream.

the problem is why they do it, not that they do

Not sure if I understand what you try to say. In the end it is the distraction that can cause dangerous situations, regardless why the driver is distracted.

in the end if the logic behind the driver choosing to be distracted was rectified it would never happen

I certainly think there are individuals in politics who think like that, ie use fines as a form of taxes, and income to the state. However, I do think other individuals and politicians try to create a more safe environment for all of us to live in. I certainly do not believe everybody, or even the majority part of the state have 'bad' in mind and want to 'screw' the society.

the problem is the reason people use phones while they drive, not that they do.

Not sure if I understand what you try to say. In the end it is the distraction that can cause dangerous situations, regardless why the driver is distracted.

If state is the owner of the road, it can decide the security measures.
Private roads could be different

please be joking

It depends, what happens if the Islamic State is the owner of the road?

private property can only exist through a state

Exactly, property is a concession on state's control (use of the force). All the iusnaturalist law vision on property is bullshit, it is a simple "social" contract... whatever it means

Meme time again:

so why say private roads could be different if they are essentially the same thing

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

Because I love messing around with conservatarians

The same thing? You make the rules on your own road on private property. Go can go as fast as you manage to go, traffic rules only apply on the public streets and roads.

But most people don't have the acres needed to have use for a road in their garden if they are lucky enough to have a garden.

"without owners who will build the roads"

roads can either be collective property or owned by a newly created state in the form of the capitalist.

You can do what ever you want on your private circuit in your backyard, traffic wise that is.

Yes. If you don't agree a good read like this will still make you think.

I believe in people and progress and agree wholeheartedly that we don't need government. We are smart. Their law you have to break to enforce it. We need common sense sustainable solutions built free of their grasp. We can force them to change by civilly disobeying unjust laws enforced. When i think about it law isn't why I do anything good. And it isn't preventing many things. Bitcoin is a rebellion. All of these things are good. Thank you for this post.

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

I agree we should be able to use common sense and make agreements with each other rather than the government making those agreements for us. The road to no-government is however not that easy and straightforward since most of us are so used to having a government. I also think that many of us do obey the law because of the sanctions and fines one can get. How much "most" is and how many time "most" take a detour and do something that officially is against the law, I dont know to be honest.

I would argue more often than not. In my country the function of government has no limits. Our founding doctrine is a notable mention. It is circumvented routinely and often referred to as something written in a time when men wrote with feathers.

It seems fair to say their motives are unclear. There has been a regime change. We aren't adequately represented, although most agree.

I have big hopes for crypto currency, it aims to free us all!

Tip! Post

Crypto is one technology that can help to bring central managed assets to the people. Robotics will be another technology required to free the people from centralised power. We just have to make sure robotics/AI will be owned by all of us instead of by corporations.

I'm hopeful. The obvious obstacle there is the problem of limiting or restricting government intervention in the market.

Many challenges ahead to change the current system that we are so accustomed to.

Right you are! Yet we seem to be more accustomed to slow, gradual change. Not quick, radical change. Hard to say which it is the right time for. I can't, I don't believe in ruling my brothers and sisters.

Time is now for education, but in a way it is understandable by the mass and in a way that it is not too radical and use soft language instead of hard and rough words like many free thinkers do and use. At the same time we need to start realising the world is about to change dramatically due to robotics/AI. We will have to deal with less jobs, different way of survival, and ownership transition from corporates to the mass.

Hi @edje! You have just received a 0.1 SBD tip from @peacefulpatriot!

Check out the newest post from @peacefulpatriot: The Late Introduction Of The Peacefulpatriot. Also, A First Week In Review From A Newb And Steemian For Life!! and follow if you like the content :)

@tipU - send tips by writing tip! in the comment and get share in service profit :)
By upvoting this comment you support the service - thanks!

Where I'm from, you can get fined for punching in your GPS coordinates and eating while driving, but it's at the officers discretion. That's a grey area.

https://www.ontario.ca/page/distracted-driving#section-0

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

How interesting: Fines to the officer's discretion. Such law system we don't have in the Netherlands when it concerns car driving. Also interesting to read that in Canada switching on or off a handheld device is allowed. Thank you for sharing!

Cops in NL can decide to issue a warning instead of writing a fine at their own discretion.

Correct indeed.

Better drive subways :)
Kind of glad I don't have a car anymore because I don't like to be told by the state.
Shouldn't we all be wise enough to be responsible for others and our safety?

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

Shouldn't we all be wise enough to be responsible for others and our safety?

We should, but we are not and we never were. And 'we', may not be all of use, but some for sure are not responsible for others.

  ·  8 years ago (edited)

I agree @edje, If public safety was the true intention of the law, it would not be exclusive to cellphone use. That's my 2¢ anyhow. Here is what I imagine a "distracted driving law" to look like, IF the concern truly was public safety:
Drive with both hands on the wheel
This might actually eliminate the other instances of distraction behind the wheel, as you mentioned in your article, that aren't even part of the law. We have these laws in the US, in my state. They are seen to be just another mechanism to generate revenue - it doesn't save lives. We still have the same growing problem, but the only difference is in the state budget 😑

Many people drive cars with manual gear control. I see not big danger in driving with one hand on the wheel outside the city. Eating and drinking during driving is no problem for me. Only the problem is that it probably doesn't count for everybody. And the lowest denominator is what sets the bar for the rule/law/limit to be set at.

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

I see your point @b-free, I'm not saying we really need a law that forces us to drive with both hands; it does not matter to me. I've driven a manual transmission vehicle for 15+ years. Since the state cannot legislate common sense in the 'lower denominator', they need to think for them instead. I'm not suggesting there should be such a law that requires both hands to drive, but I'm suggesting that not everyone has driving ability. Many pass an easy test and are life-long domolition experts when they get into a vehicle. Then people impair themselves.. Impaired and distracted driving create many fatalities, BUT...

When you go to a bar/pub - there's a parking lot, right? Can't drink and drive though, right? Alcohol kills 30% or more of all motorist a driving-related fatalities. So much for legislating common sense..

I work as driving instructor and i think that only education can make new drivers safe and serious.

Eduction is probably indeed THE solution! You are the first who mention this and I appreciate that really much. In fact, good and meaningful eduction may be the road to lesser laws, ore understanding for each other, and a lower level of state influence. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Hi @edje,
nice posting, interesting suject, i had a fine once myself for holding my phone :-i
Some, if not all, governments are trying to solve every problem by making new laws, and i m not sure if that is the best way. Concerning the law forbidding to hold a cellphone while driving is even more ridiculous if you know that years ago different institutions did research on that very subject, and guess what they found... there is no difference in the response of drivers calling hand-held or hands-free. The problem is the distraction by the call itself!
I guess it's time for Anarchy!

The problem is the distraction by the call itself!

Instinctively and from own experience I can agree to this. However, when on a call the driver can still look at the road, while starting a call, the driver has to look at the phone, ie move away the eyes from the road. That part of the call is maybe the most dangerous part of the entire call. When the conversation is getting intense, the time our brains can spend on driving the car and look out for dangerous situations on the road is becoming less and we tend to go into 'auto pilot' mode.

Yes, and they know that they admitted at the time they implemented the phone in hand ban while driving. But the argument was that they could not detect someone calling hands-free reliable, they might as well be singing along with some music or just cursing on the other people in traffic. So enforcement was not realistic so they left that alone. But you can rest assured that as soon as they can do that reliable they'll start writing fines for hands free phone calls, hell if you give em the opportunity they'll even ban talking to passengers in your car.

239euros😲 ...I dont want to even convert that to naira. That is one hefty fine, its kinda good but looks a bit too harsh as well

The idea of a fine is for individuals to stop doing something that is unwanted for society. Fines should be in relation with what someone is able to pay. That is the reason why in Finland the fine is related to yearly income. Otherwise the poor will suffer while the 'rich' will not. Other fines for car drivers are for instance 90 Euro when not wearing seatbelt (less harmful to others, but increases causalities and collective costs through more medical services required) and 340 Euro when driving through red light (more harmful, since not that many drivers will be carefully watching the streets they are crossing when having a green light and personal damages (to others) can be quite sever.

Wow! I cant help converting to naira. The Finland law is very considerate

Or should we remove the law and allow anybody to do whatever he or she pleases to do while driving? Introduce Anarchism?

Exactly...

When someone kills somebody else being careless while driving a car; And this happened regularly (historical statistics); You still value the freedom a human being has higher than the life of another human being?

I believe people should be able to do as they please without the government being involved, as long as they are endangering others.

Of course I value human life, but do you believe the majority of the masses out there do as well? Are they wise enough to not text and drive or get distracted by their devices while they are behind the wheel of their 1-ton rolling death machine...unfortunately most are not.

Not to mention the laws passed by legislators and the like are commonly written in a very vague language which leaves each and every word open to 'loose' interpretations by law enforcement.

Of course I value human life, but do you believe the majority of the masses out there do as well? Are they wise enough to not text and drive or get distracted by their devices while they are behind the wheel of their 1-ton rolling death machine...unfortunately most are not.

I indeed think there are quite a few people who are not responsible enough, hence laws need to be created to protect those who fall victim to those who are not responsible. I may have misinterpreted you first comment; I thought you were in favour for freedom to the vehicle drivers to do whatever the driver pleases. When so, my bad.

No worries bud, I'm a Libertarian...not an Anarchist.

My goodness. That's a huge amount. The law is very tricky everywhere. Doesn't address so many loopholes and then people get confused and irritated.

Yep, fines are high in NL. In Finland fines are related to your income. There are cases of breaking laws while driving a car with fines into the millions of Euros. The problem with laws is that it can never be completely covering the subject, while we cannot just allow everything by not making a law.

Exactly. Really tricky.

This post received a 2.6% upvote from @randowhale thanks to @edje! For more information, click here!

This post has received a 100% upvote and a resteem from @melowd thanks to: @edje! For more information, click here!

Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by edje from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, and someguy123. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows and creating a social network. Please find us in the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.

If you like what we're doing please upvote this comment so we can continue to build the community account that's supporting all members.

@resteem.bot
Resteemed and 100% upvoted. Thank you for using my service!
Read here how the new green bot from Berlin works.
@resteem.bot