Slashdot Mirror
For New Zealanders, No More Phones As Sat-Nav Devices
rixth writes "From the 1st of November, it will be illegal to use cell phones while driving in New Zealand. Today, the Government clarified that you can't use your mobile phone as a navigational device, even if it is mounted on the dash board."
Not sure what all the fuss is about, as you will be allowed to use your mobile phone via a hands-free kit. So as long as your phone does navigation over the hands-free, it's fine to use.
A recursive sig
Can impart wisdom and truth
Call proc signature()
What if the phone is offline? Is doesn't differ from "normal" navigator then.
They are going to implant an exception to the rules for mobile devices with certain restrictions (how much interaction is allowed...)
At first glance I thought this was a terrible decision. Clearly, the government just rushed a response to whether it would be illegal to use cell phones as navigational devices. But actually, it might make sense. The article says you can still use your phone to make phone calls, just nothing else. It gave an example of someone rear-ending another car while using a cell phone in a cradle as a navigational device. A cell phone usually would have a much smaller screen than a regular GPS device, since it is designed as a cell phone and not as a GPS system. This might lead to longer times spent glancing at the screen and higher chances of accidents happening.
" 2 degrees chief executive Eric Hertz admitted rear-ending another vehicle at an intersection in Auckland a few weeks ago while glancing at directions on his iPhone, which was mounted on a hands-free kit in his car. Under the new law, that would be illegal"
If the law takes that tact then It makes me wonder how children being taken to school rates on the distract-o-meter.
As little johnny stabs his sister with a blunt pencil, I would presume it to be less so than an iPhone on the dashboard.
But yes, it would be political suicide to go near that hot potato.
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
you can, only its going to cost you $30 instead of $300.
Slashdot is a bit behind the times - Steven Joyce, Minister of Transport in NZ has instructed officials to fix this oversight in the law.
http://www.iphonewzealand.co.nz/2009/all/breaking-common-sense-prevails-law-is-to-be-amended/
New Zealander here, thank god I bought "Personal communication device with voice transmission capabilities" instead of that evil cellphones. I'm safe right?
As a New Zealander I cant say that I am very happy with this decision. I think that an exemption must be made for hands free kits for these phones/satnavs. The rest of the new law was banning talking on a cellphone or txting while driving a vehicle, is commendable, but common sense needs to bear with laws like these.
This law needs amendment.
One of those new Weinersnitzel Angus beef dogs, 2 Chili Cheese Fry's burrito's, and a large mountain dew all while driving. I was struggling with the box my Angus Beef hot dog came in, and recklessly looked in my lap to figure out why I couldn't get the damn box open by touch.
I turn into a real stupid ass when I drive. My mind started to wander and I had this gruesome image of my head wearing a glass necklace (slang term for when your head goes through the windshield) with a hotdog still stuck in my mouth. This mental image disturbed me even further when I thought that some jackass would probably take a snap with his camera phone and my mug would be all over ogrish.com or the like for eternity.
Then I finished my hotdog, chili cheese fry burritos and washed it down with my soda, all while driving with my knees.
I just replaced just such a phone with an iPhone at ten times the prices. Yes, the iPhone signal/reception is weak. Only borderline acceptable. Thing is the old cheapie had lousy software. But the other features of the iPhone are too useful to me. I wouldn't want to go back.
It will *not* be Illegal to use a cellphone in a motor vehicle, "it will be illegal to use a mobile phone as a satellite navigation aid while driving".
Your passenger will operate the GPS and navigates which is a far less dangerous practice than trying to navigate, operate a GPS, drive a vehicle *and* avoid bumping into people and other cars.
Regards Sinesurfer A Nerd is someone who lives for technology, A Geek is someone who lives for technology and loves it
But, wen can still carry a lamb for sexual gratification right? I mean, you can't take that away from us can they?
I used a simple solution to the cellphone problem. When I heard about his law change I decided it was time to buy a laptop and use that for texting instead, as a bonus I'm posting on Slashdot right now as I'm driving home from work. Although i must admit navigating my iTunes library while driving can be a bit scary for passengers.
The the same should apply for tape/cd players, mp3 players, and radios.
Why stop at just phones and gps devices?
It doesn't even stop there. You could be fined (at least in the UK) for not having both hands on the wheel because you were eating an apple while driving
10:30pm news about 5 minutes ago confirms that it's going to be changed ... you will be able to use your phone as a satnav. Just not a a phone. Doh.
No, it's not allowed.
You can use your hands-free phone to make phone calls. You are not allowed to use it for naviation.
You can also use a dedicated GPS unit, as long as you can't make phone calls with it.
Presumably, you can use both in the same car at the same time, but they must be separate devices.
(That law must be sponsored by Garmin and Tom Tom.)
One does not simply follow the GPS into Mordor it seems!
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
... when you're a company that makes dedicated car navigation devices. Ain't it great when the guv'ment creates a captive audience for what you happen to be selling? All the auto insurance CEOs jizzed all over themselves the day that California mandated auto insurance but then didn't provide any. The same thing happened twice again when California also mandated helmets for motorcycles and bicycles, but then didn't provide any and didn't even use the state's collective buying power to negotiate a good deal for all the state citizens. Of course they should have done at least that much for auto insurance, too (and they kinda did, very belatedly).
Let's see if New Zealand screws up just as bad or surprise everybody and do it right. If you're gonna require something by law - or effectively do the same thing by banning something else - you'd damned well better keep a lid on the profiteering that is sure to ensue.
I guess you can't just use that one ring for everything.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
From the article "The restriction does not apply to navigation systems that do not have a mobile phone function" So they have a problem with mobile devices according to the article.
> "The Road User Amendment Rule 2009 means drivers will not be able to look at
> a navigation aid on a mobile phone when driving, even if it is mounted on
> the dashboard.
I'd go a step further and require all windows to be painted black so that
drivers may not look at the mountains or ogle at cute women they pass...
So lets see if I got this correctly, they can't use phones to navigate and they can't use them to make phonecalls.
Anyone wanna buy an island, it's located a bit outside Australia and for some reason all the people that used to live there are lost in the woods.
Most of the "dedicated' GPS units on the market actually have bluetooth which technically turns them into proxy mobile phones. So aren't they really saying that almost all GPS units are now illegal?
So you can make calls on a mobile (in a cradle) while driving, and use a GPS while driving, but you can't use a phone in a cradle as a GPS????
http://americas-best.com/graphics/pics_south-carolina-vice-agent.jpg
So, GP. It's pretty clear that if you hold your phone to your ear while driving in Australia, you could cause a death or injury in the United States.
If that's not a reason to abstain, I don't know what is.
www.clarke.ca
This interpretation of the new law is probably intended to protect the Navman GPS devices designed and (formerly) made in New Zealand. Senior government Minister, Murray McCully, is the MP for the electorate where navman is located (East Coast Bays). Other government ministers (Dr. Wayne Mapp - North Shore and Jonathan Coleman - Northcote) are also from the same area. The Prime Minister, John Key, is MP for Helensville.....right next door to East Coast Bays. Yes, this law is dumb.....But the current government knows few limits to dumb when the public interest gets in the way of filling the pockets of their cronies and donors: 1. gutting rail to favour the trucking lobby. 2. Hobbling commuter train growth to favour the bus operators. 3. Delaying the ETS application to their farmer base.....forcing all OTHER taxpayers to subsidise their national Party voting farmers. I could go on all day. This government is a crony feeding frenzy.
Only boring people are ever bored.
This sounds like a silly idea. If they're only concerned with the distraction that looking at the screen provides, then they should remove all DVD players, handheld consoles, laptops, radios, mp3 players, etc. How anyone can justify removing one tiny distraction but leaving a multitude of others is beyond me.
"Chance favors only the prepared mind." -Archimedes
How about steering-wheel mounted Nav system controls? We have them for radios, and they help people maintain their attention on the road when changing stations or volume. We have them for cruise control. A well-designed steering-wheel mounted Nav interface could provide tactile and voice feedback so it could be operated without looking down, or leaning forward to reach the touchscreen.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
Problem solved.
Dear
Are what we need. We can monitor the children in the back and auto-prod them possibly - see how they like it, talk to our pals, ogle at babes with an adjustable camera We can also then think we are all Top Gun pilots and the Government can pay. It would prob cost less than a bailout to a few banks or bankers bonuses.
On a long enough timeline. The survival rate for everyone drops to zero. Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, 1996
I'm wondering about unintended consequences here: if people really started pulling over all the time to answer phone calls, check their GPS, etc, then you would have a lot more merging and lane-changing on highways and busy streets, which will increase accident rates. This should be taken into account-- maybe it's an insignificant factor, but then again maybe it's not.
At least the Garmin's our family seems to buy beg to have a key pressed occasionally (new voice feature). You could set it and go, but I often zoom it out or in manually to see were we are in relation to another place or road. I would not try using it to find a motel, or place to eat while driving however, and deprive the passenger of there assigned duties. If the phone takes similar key presses to a "real" gps, it is simply another bad law.
Problem solved.
Not quite. From TFA:
The restriction does not apply to navigation systems that do not have a mobile phone function
I am not a crackpot.
No officer, it's not a cell phone - it doesn't have any reception.
If you can't get a call it's not a cell phone, right?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I've noticed this article and all its comments make the assumption that all Kiwis will obey the new law, and since it's a stupid law, everyone wishes it were changed or revoked. But is that really a correct assumption to make? Here in Japan, whenever they pass a stupid law, everyone just ignores it and does whatever is sensible. People are people, not sheep, and they can decide what to do on their own sometimes.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
I was looking at a Thomas Guide a few years ago, glancing at it every few minutes looking for my offramp. A cop drove by, saw me looking down, clearly distracted, and just waved me over.
Busted?
No, I lifted the Thomas Guide which are recognizable from 100 feet away and he saw that, nodded, and we both kept on going.
And yet, I was completely, totally distracted.
Let's face it, driving is often both boring and dangerous to do while distracted. The sol'n is not outlawing tech, but innovating automation and heads up displays.
Here I thought New Zealand was the last of the English-speaking non-nanny states. In fact, in Queenstown I'd expect them to offer some sort of activity where you have to navigate a course blindfolded, on the open roads, aided only by sat nav directions, while having a phone conversation with one of the other customers.
just great... but it can avoid accidents and can help accidents... http://www.techandgizmo.com/
This sounds good to me. Anything that can save more lives is a positive. I wouldn't care if this didn't potentially affect other people, but like drunk driving, most often those paying the price are those who aren't doing anything wrong. More cities in the U.S. and around the world should follow suit, though it probably won't happen.
I can see being illegal for drunk driving. However, You can technically drink and drive legally, up to 0.8% bac. Likewise, if you turn on your NAV unit and type in "take me to bob's pizza parlor in walla walla washington" while at a stop sign or street light, that seems to me to be below the limit... but it's illegal. You're not screwing around with it while moving, you're not putting other people at risk. There needs to be a hard line where these things apply/don't apply.
Here in VA we have a law against texting while driving however, it's *NOT* a primary offense. Meaning you need to have been pulled over for some other reason (swerving, speeding, running red lights, expired tags, etc...) before they can technically hit you with it.
And if you can't even use hands free devices to control a nav unit (as I'm sure will be next) what's different between this and talking to passengers? Particularly those that are engaging in deep or complex conversations. I know personally, though I can multi-task and talk on a cell phone perfectly fine, if my wife brings up a particularly hard to explain or interesting topic, It's a much larger time slice drain than simply a simple cell phone conversation or interacting with a hands free nav device.
-=JML=-
I've read up on many (not all, so I can't say for ALL) of those tests and they all have one flaw to rig the test to show that cell phones are "bad" - they do NOT let the driver say "hang on" or put the phone down for any reason. I rarely talk on my phone while I'm driving because I have a manual and it's just too annoying. However, when I do if I get to a tricky bit of road I say "Hang on" and drop the phone in my lap or in few cases where someone cut me off and I had to hit the brakes and swerve, I simply dropped the phone and it landed wherever.
It's not hard to shut up and / or drop the phone when you need to really concentrate on the road. The tests are going out to prove that cell phones are bad (not sure WHY they want that conclusion) and they rig them to show what they want.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Back in the 80s when I was in college we used to get German exchange students getting drivers licenses here in the US, which they then could convert in Germany, without all the lessons.
One of the later years, I vaguely recall that they might not be able to do that anymore. Just curious if that loophole was closed.
Obviously we need a whole bunch more studies.
And a commission, I think.
And then more statistics and some charts.
Where's Ross Perot's campaign team when your need them?!!
I think its pretty obvious at this point that only motorcycles and bicycles should be allowed on any roads.
Cup holder technology will have to be completely re-engineered.
Too many to count, mutha 'uckas...
Bow-ties are cool.
How are they defining phone here? That seems key to this argument and I haven't seen an actual definition. Is anything that can make/receive calls a phone? Is a laptop with a 3G card a phone?
What is the difference between a phone with GPS capabilities and a GPS with phone capabilities? Seems like too fine a line to hold up under severe scrutiny.
They should ban car manuals in the car. The driver might be compelled to read it, while driving.
I drive on a major freeway to work every single day. Hundreds of thousands of vehicles pass along this same highway. Am I seeing an epidemic? Far from it. I don't even see many accidents. I haven't ovserved a fatality on this stetch of highway in years (although I'm sure that there have been). In fact, I've seen studies that that have shown that the number of fatalities while driving is lower than it has been in more than 40 years (US). I am not going to argue that using a hand held navigational device does not increase the liklihood that a driver will be in an accident. My argument against this law is simply that this is not an epidemic, and that the convenience of using such devices outweighs the increased liklihood of getting into an accident. Its all about cost-benefit. There comes a point where the benefit of increased regulations no longer outway the benefit. I prefer of life of convenience, even if its at the expence of a little bit of safety.
There's no talking on the phone while driving, which I totally agree with, and then there's governments' stupidity.
While in theory, I greatly admire the strictness you have described, according to NationMaster figures, Germany's road death toll is just slight of Australia's, which has a pretty easy driving test.
Putting death toll aside, are there any other benefits of this test? More considerate driving? Less road rage? Death toll is not the ultimate measure of road usability, so it would be interesting to hear about whether the strict testing has any effect on road culture.
This is assuming that NationMasters' figures are more-or-less accurate.
you can, only its going to cost you $30 instead of $300.
What is this phone you speak of?
Latest news on this http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/gadgets/2912318/SatNav-mobiles-won-t-be-banned-Govt
I find it a little odd that so much time/money/effort is spent on driving regulations, when smoking kills ~ 5,000 people each year in New Zealand.
It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
According to this:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/gadgets/2912318/SatNav-mobiles-won-t-be-banned-Govt ...the minister in charge reversed the ban. You may still use Google Maps on your iPhone, just don't overdo it.
Or you could get one of those for free with a contract.
My phone has a SIM card. If I take that out, I can't use it as a phone. If I have a map file saved to the phone, I can still use it as a GPS. Is it still a phone if the SIM is out?
What if your car has phone and GPS built in? Then the whole car is illegal.
Just letting you guys know, I'm from New Zealand and I believe this law is absolutely ridiculous. It's just the NZ government being facetious and pedantic.
And anyway, as per this morning GMT +12, SatNav phones will not be banned.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/gadgets/2912318/SatNav-mobiles-won-t-be-banned-Govt
I'd guess your Countach is safe. But if you wanna trade . . . just to stick it to the man, you know.
I am not a crackpot.
Steven Joyce has clarified that you will be able to LEGALLY use a Phone as a navigation device. And childed authorities for making such a statement. Story here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/gadgets/2912318/SatNav-mobiles-won-t-be-banned-Govt -Joel W Pauling (aenertia)
AEnertia
Witty, tag line goes here
That is not a flaw in the tests. A dangerous situation does NOT wait for a driver to say "hang on" and put the phone down.
Reaction time for an non-distracted human is at least 1.5 seconds, with a vehicle travelling at 50 KM\h you will have travelled 20 Metres before even reacting (source PDF Warning). If you have to say "hang on" and put the phone down it will take at least twice that amount of time doubling the reaction distance. Even simply dropping a phone will take another precious second away from a drivers attention whilst travelling at full speed. One single second is the difference between a near miss and t-boning a truck.
Besides you have missed the point of all these studies, it is not just about a severely reduced reaction time, that is secondary, the tests primary look at the drivers ability to perceive problems before they occur. A distracted driver is less likely to notice objects they might hit. You may think it's safe to drive whilst on the phone but studies have proven otherwise, in the time it takes you to shut up and drop the phone you will have travelled two to three the reaction distance at full speed as well as failed to spot many hazards in the first place.
So the test is not flawed, your understanding of the tests goals and tested variables is flawed.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Just an observation.... the driving, cell-talkers I see are just plain crappy drivers from the git-go! (Reason I see them talking is because I looked at them because of their crappy driving. ) They don't have a clue about 'driving in context', and don't see anything wrong with driving the speed limit or below, even if it means there are a hunnert honking cars behind them, all flashing their lights and fingers. They are in another world! These kinds of drivers are dangerous even without a cell phone! But WITH one, they are more than a menace. I can't image one of THEM, a bit near-sighted, leaning over the console to get a closer look at the dash mount to see where they are.... Me? I talk and drive. But I drive FIRST, and talk secondarily. I also follow the rules of the road in the first place.... 1) Keep up or Move Over! 2) Drive between the dotted lines! 3) Don't hit nuttin'! thanks for lis'nin' seekertom