Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Odds and ends, iPhone
Aussie drivers: Buy a cradle, or no iPhone GPS for you
Live in Australia? Have an iPhone? Do you use the iPhone's built-in Maps app, Navigon, or TomTom [iTunes links] to navigate? If you answered yes to all three of those questions, then I have some bad news for you: under the Australian Road Rule 8th Amendment, all use of the iPhone in your car is soon to be banned unless you buy a cradle for it, including using it as a GPS navigator. An article from the Sydney Morning Herald initially makes it sound as though you won't be able to use such apps at all, especially after reading this quote from a spokesperson for VicRoads, the traffic authority for the Australian state of Victoria: "A phone will only be allowed to be used for its primary purpose. If it's a phone, it's a phone." But once you read farther down the article states, "Drivers will only be able to use mobile phones if they are placed in purpose-made cradles and operation is entirely hands-free." The language of the amendment itself also supports that interpretation.
So it's not the end of the road for iPhone nav apps in Australia, but if you want to continue using your iPhone for said purpose, you'd better go buy a cradle for it, because the fine for getting caught using your iPhone in the car without one is heinously expensive: AU$234! Even TomTom's iPhone cradle doesn't cost that much.
So far the new rule is only confirmed to be rolling out in Victoria, and not until November 9. But don't be surprised if other states and territories follow suit afterward.
New Zealand has a similar cellphone ban coming on November 1, but the NZ proposal is less draconian than the Australian version: the fine is only NZ$80, and the language in the proposal focuses on use of mobile phones for talking and texting, without making any mention of GPS or other uses.
The Australian law seems a bit of an overreach, but I fully support New Zealand's upcoming ban on talking and texting while driving (especially texting – I can't fathom why anyone would think it's okay to text and drive at the same time). I can't speak for Australia's roads, but the roads in New Zealand definitely require one's full attention. The iPhone in particular requires a lot of visual focus in order to use it as a phone unless you have a handsfree setup, and that kind of distraction from the task of driving could potentially lead to a fatal crash on our narrow, winding roads.
Of course there's a question of just how enforceable these laws will be in either country. Unless you're holding the phone up to the side of your head or using it at night, it's unlikely that a passing police car is going to see that your eyes are focused on what's in your hand rather than what's on the road. That's where common sense has to step in: is that phone call from your boss important enough to risk flying off the road? Probably not.
Thanks to reader Brian Rayner for sending this one in.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Ruben said 10:10AM on 9-22-2009
That's still cheaper than the fines here in the Netherlands, here it's 180 euros (about 266 usd) if I'm not mistaken. So well worth the investment!
Reply
rickydamelio said 10:22AM on 9-22-2009
I live in Victoria of Australia, and trust me when I say this is exactly what we need. The amount of road accidents can only be reduced by this, which is definitely a good thing.
Reply
LAGal said 11:04PM on 9-22-2009
yep. your hands should be on the wheel. not picking up the phone to do anything.
Gazoobee said 12:38PM on 9-22-2009
This article is lame. It spends a lot of time trying to make out like this new Australian law is an "overreach" when in fact it's not.
The author tells us that he agrees 100% with the underlying reasons of the law, yet somehow still prefers the "less draconian" laws of NZ. Then we get one of the oldest bad arguments in the world, which is the old line that, tells us not to worry because it's really hard to actually *catch* anyone breaking these kinds of laws anyway. This old nugget is code for "this law is a bit much and can usually be easily avoided.
Make up your mind, either you are for laws against using a phone when you drive or you are not. It's a very serious thing, it's not the same as a column on how to avoid paying your parking ticket.
Better yet, just report the facts, and leave the editorialising about how you "feel" about the law at home.
Reply
jonathan said 2:26AM on 9-23-2009
how about u hit up syndey herald or nytimes for facts. if you didnt notice, the W in tuaw stands for weblog, or blog for short.
therefore this entire site is made up of opinions based on facts. not the other way around.
leave the site if u dont like the articles. im tired of reading pointless comments that will not be followed by the author. DO U REALLY NOT KNOW WHAT A BLOG IS???
Kelmon said 3:53AM on 9-23-2009
Sorry, but are you trying to defend bad journalism? Yes, this is indeed a "blog" but I see no reason why we should not expect quality material and are entitled to point out flaws in articles if it will aid the production of better articles in the future. I see no reason why we should expect, or be tolerant of, bad journalism on sites such as this.
Gregg Palmer said 10:38AM on 9-22-2009
I wonder how long it will take for some moron in Washington DC to get this "good" idea?
Reply
Eric said 11:24AM on 9-22-2009
Washington doesn't need the idea, but it wouldn't hurt. A large number of states have made their own laws already.
Davo said 10:45AM on 9-22-2009
It's illegal to use any function of any phone that involves touching the phone while driving in Victoria. ie, it's always been necessary to be completely hands free. This is nothing new. It makes sense that you should have your phone in a cradle anyway, I mean you don't hold any other gps device while driving do you?
Reply
Angelo said 10:50AM on 9-22-2009
Well from a guy who lives in victoria, oz, all I know is that the Victoria Police are notorious for huge fines and enforcement... Seriously, very few places in the world have as many un-marked speeding cameras as we do and large fines for when you get done...
This is probably going to be one of those laws which are hard to enforce thats why they set the fine so high.. The people who do get caught would have to make it horrendously obvious (swerving, running red lights).. and probably deserve it?
Reply
bward74 said 10:54AM on 9-22-2009
I don't see what's bad about this. All phones in vehicles should be in cradles. Mine is, and here in the UK we have laws about this too- which most people agree with. I have seen people using their phones for calls with the phone to their ear and actually mounting pavements!
Reply
LD said 11:03AM on 9-22-2009
What if its primary purpose isn't to be a phone?
"iPhone is more than just a phone. It combines three devices in one: a revolutionary mobile phone, a widescreen iPod, and a breakthrough Internet device."
Sounds like at least 2/3 of its purpose isn't to be a phone at all :)
Reply
David said 11:23AM on 9-22-2009
I think the cops are going to concentrate on the "Phone" bit in the name "iPhone". And if you use your iPhone as a widescreen iPod and/or a breakthrough Internet device while you're driving, your driving will still be impaired compared to not using your iPhone at all.
mhenr18 said 6:34PM on 9-22-2009
Trust me, it's not hard to enforce. Moment you see a driver act weird, pull into the lane next to them and come up alongside them. Odds are that they're on their phone.
I don't see why you'd be against this law - it stops bad driving.
Reply
punkassjim said 6:56PM on 9-23-2009
I agree that it'd be easy to enforce. Even just in casual driving, I see a half-dozen people texting while driving every time I'm on the highway. If I can spot them, I guarantee that law enforcement can spot them. And once they're spotted, it doesn't matter if they've dropped the phone in their lap. The officer's word is trusted in the court.
But I wouldn't go so far as to say that any law stops bad driving :-)
Larry said 11:37AM on 9-22-2009
I don't see the big deal. Seems like a good law to me. If I use Navigon, or the iPod features I always have my iPhone in its cradle. If I'm expecting phone calls while on the road I always wear a BT Headset. Common sense stuff. However a lot of people don't seem to heed common sense and these are the people that have nearly run me down on numerous occasions.
Reply
Gregg Palmer said 11:50AM on 9-22-2009
Its not that using a cradle is a bad idea. Its more of the idea that sometimes its necessary to actually look at a phone and have some interaction (not texting mind you). Looking at a cradle as opposed to holding the phone close to your face so you can still see out the mirror or in front is preferable. More so, I would just like a little consistency in the application of laws overall. If banning cell phone usage is necessary, I dont see any difference in eating, drinking, reading a newspaper or book or putting on makeup for that matter. If you are going to ban one of the activities, then ban all of it...including the sacred coffee on the way to work.
Reply
Alex said 12:07PM on 9-22-2009
So.... using an iPod touch sans cradle (attached to your car stereo for music purposed) would be legal, but using an iPhone for the same purpose would not be? Awesome.
Reply
colouroflight said 12:11PM on 9-22-2009
Nanny state bullshit.
Reply
R. Ahrens said 12:32PM on 9-22-2009
The reason this and other laws that outlaw specific distractions make no sense is that there are literally thousands of ways to become distracted from your primary function as a driver.
Do we really need a law to cover each one?
Most jurisdictions that have reasonable laws to govern the behavior of drivers on the road have laws that generically forbid behavior that distracts one from the primary function of driving your car.
Is using one's iPhone as a GPS really worse than fiddling with a dash mounted GPS, when one is leaning forward to see a screen that's not much bigger but farther away?
Or worse than fighting with one's spouse or trying to stop the kids' fight in the back seat?
I know, let's pass a law making it illegal for passengers to talk to the driver, and for parents to have a babysitter in the back seat to control the kids.
Would that help? It certainly would make as much sense.
Reply