Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

I do not read that as it being illegal to have the phone in your pocket if it is not being used.

https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety ... he%20phone.

A bit of a follow-up on the Daylesford decision. Mostly explaining hypoglycaemia:

ABC News

Once hypoglycaemia gets worse, it is quite common for people to lose judgement, to become mentally confused and certainly be quite cognitively impaired, which you could compare to drunkenness.

I still don't understand why we have zero tolerance for someone getting behind the wheel whilst drunk/drugged, but this driver seems not to have been held accountable in any way.

There is some possibility that prosecutors will decide to take the matter to court through a procedure known as "direct indictment"

ABC News

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:50 pm

I do not read that as it being illegal to have the phone in your pocket if it is not being used.

https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety ... he%20phone.

Agree. Its not illegal to have a phone in your pocket.. It's about having the display visible while driving, or using the phone while driving. The law did allow a driver to pass a phone to a passenger in NSW (at least a while back).

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:50 pm

I do not read that as it being illegal to have the phone in your pocket if it is not being used.

https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety ... he%20phone.

You are right, I think. On the page you linked to:

If your phone is in a pocket of your clothing or a pouch you're wearing, you must not use it in any way. This includes touching it, looking at it or operating it with your voice.

This refers to provisional drivers not being allowed to use the voice function of phones, but it implies it is OK for drivers to have the phone in their pockets.

I know a lady in QLD was fined for having her phone tucked into her bra!

foo on patrol wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:42 pm

New mobile phone rules start today
Centenary Crime Prevention Unit on Jul 26, 2021 (AT) 3:31pm
Did you know that from today ( July 26, 2021) new rules will be come into place to make it illegal for a driver to hold a mobile phone in their hand or have it resting on any part of their body, including their lap? The phone doesn’t need to be turned on or in use.

Foo

In NSW it must be in a holder fixed to the vehicle if you want to use it for navigation, but just "hands free" it can only be for music or podcasts. "When driving, you must not hold a mobile phone in your hand. It must not rest on your leg, be between your shoulder and ear or any other part of your body."

I ride my motorcycle with the phone in my pocket connected with earbuds[1]. I never touch it while riding I have a bluetooth controller attached to the mirror for that.

If I use it for navigation same thing, but I usually have it playing music at the same time, the music is muted when the navigation software speaks up.

I dunno how a cop would be able to ping me for using the navigation audio but it would be fun in court to argue that clearly the in a holder thing is for interacting and there's no difference between a podcast and navigation audio.

Zebee

[1]. earmolds actually. Far better ear protection and sound than even the noise cancelling silicone earbud things I was using. As good ear protection as high class industrial earplugs. Strongly recommended if you spend a lot of time on a motorcycle.

Anyone want to tell me the difference between having the phone "on your person" = either by in a pocket or lap whilst driving and it not having any contact with your body then, because there was an interview with a top level cop that said...No part of your body and that included pockets and if one of the overhead camera detectors picked up a phone protruding from a shirt pocket and not in a holder, then you will be fined?

Foo

redsonic wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:57 pm

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:50 pm

I do not read that as it being illegal to have the phone in your pocket if it is not being used.

https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety ... he%20phone.

You are right, I think. On the page you linked to:

If your phone is in a pocket of your clothing or a pouch you're wearing, you must not use it in any way. This includes touching it, looking at it or operating it with your voice.

This refers to provisional drivers not being allowed to use the voice function of phones, but it implies it is OK for drivers to have the phone in their pockets.

I know a lady in QLD was fined for having her phone tucked into her bra!

So if the phone is in my pocket, but is being used by way of wireless CarPlay (for navigation) that would be illegal - because “ you must not use it in any way”. Hmm.

Actually I don’t use wireless CarPlay but rather the cabled version and then the phone just gets stuck in whatever space it will fit into, usually the cup holders which I don’t use.

foo on patrol wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:42 pm

Andy01 wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 21, 2024 12:15 pm

I have a mate who has diabetes and has been using those continuous monitoring devices for 3 years now (they are not that new).



I may have misread above, but I don't think it is illegal in any state to have your phone in your pocket while driving - as long as it stays in your pocket and doesn't get touched or fiddled with while driving.



I struggle to see how this person could argue that they didn't know about their condition if they had continuous monitoring

QLD.

New mobile phone rules start today
Centenary Crime Prevention Unit on Jul 26, 2021 (AT) 3:31pm
Did you know that from today ( July 26, 2021) new rules will be come into place to make it illegal for a driver to hold a mobile phone in their hand or have it resting on any part of their body, including their lap? The phone doesn’t need to be turned on or in use.

Foo

Yes, aware of that rule, but that doesn't say that you can't have the phone in your pocket (where it obviously can't be seen).

elantra wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 21, 2024 1:17 pm

foo on patrol wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 21, 2024 10:09 am

jasonc wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 21, 2024 9:52 am

You can have your phone in your pocket here. 99% sure

You have too wonder why, we can't have uniform laws all over the country, it's a complete farce that you can do things in one State and not in another.

Foo

It’s mainly insulin medication that causes issues with driving (apart from ignorance or incompetence of any person who drives)

I am happy to be corrected, but I don't think it is the insulin medication that causes issues with driving. Generally it is a low blood sugar level that causes a person to experience diminished cognitive and physical abilities, until they ultimately can lose consciousness. I seem to remember that an extremely high blood sugar level can also result in similarly undesirable responses from a person. The low blood sugar needs to be "treated" with something like "full strength" Coke Cola or jelly beans, and the high blood sugar needs to be treated with insulin.

Based on my mate's learning curve (he had most of his pancreas & spleen removed due to pancreatic cancer) he could predict with a fair degree of accuracy what his blood sugar was going to do based on his intake (food & drink), and exercise levels. It didn't often come as a big surprise when the monitoring device's alarm went off (either high or low).

And this last bit is what makes this story all the more disturbing - the chances are that the driver would have known that his sugars were heading up or down based on experience (with eating, drinking & exercise/exertion), and was warned several times by the monitoring device, and still managed to get caught by surprise and have a "medical episode" - very sad.

redsonic wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:57 pm

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:50 pm

I do not read that as it being illegal to have the phone in your pocket if it is not being used.

https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety ... he%20phone.

You are right, I think. On the page you linked to:

If your phone is in a pocket of your clothing or a pouch you're wearing, you must not use it in any way. This includes touching it, looking at it or operating it with your voice.

This refers to provisional drivers not being allowed to use the voice function of phones, but it implies it is OK for drivers to have the phone in their pockets.

I know a lady in QLD was fined for having her phone tucked into her bra!

I seem to remember that in QLD it is illegal for L platers and red P platers to use the phone at all - even on a proper hands-free device. I think from green P plates forward it is OK to use on hands-free. I don't know if this restriction also applies to using the phone as a navigation system ?

Andy01 wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 22, 2024 10:45 am

I am happy to be corrected, but I don't think it is the insulin medication that causes issues with driving. Generally it is a low blood sugar level that causes a person to experience diminished cognitive and physical abilities, until they ultimately can lose consciousness. I seem to remember that an extremely high blood sugar level can also result in similarly undesirable responses from a person. The low blood sugar needs to be "treated" with something like "full strength" Coke Cola or jelly beans, and the high blood sugar needs to be treated with insulin.

The reason why a diabetic's blood sugar levels can get very low (hypoglycaemia) is because they have taken insulin. Hyperglycaemia is the "normal" state for an untreated diabetic. People taking insulin need to plan meal and activity times to keep their blood glucose levels in an acceptable range.

foo on patrol wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 22, 2024 4:15 am

Anyone want to tell me the difference between having the phone "on your person" = either by in a pocket or lap whilst driving and it not having any contact with your body then, because there was an interview with a top level cop that said...No part of your body and that included pockets and if one of the overhead camera detectors picked up a phone protruding from a shirt pocket and not in a holder, then you will be fined?

Foo

As far as I know, the difference is that if it is in your pocket in such a way that the phone screen is not visible to the driver and obviously the driver does not touch the phone, there is no way you can be fined.

Even if the phone was in a shirt front pocket with a small amount sticking out, the driver would have to touch it to be able to see anything on the screen or "use" the phone, so as long as this interaction did not happen, you could not be fined. This may be different if the phone was in use and not connected to an approved hands-free device - ie. the phone was on speaker mode ?

I think that the "woman & bra" incident was where the phone was on speaker mode (not connected to a hands-free, and had the screen active and showing outwards such that she could see it and touch it.

Clearly these situations are completely different to me having my phone in my shorts pocket (completely out of sight) and connected via BlueTooth to my car's audio system so that I can use the hands-free or listen to audio (songs) from it. I interact solely with the car's screen or steering wheel buttons and never touch the phone. The mobile phone cameras or a physical policeman in a passing car would never know that I even have a phone in the car.

redsonic wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 22, 2024 10:51 am

Andy01 wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 22, 2024 10:45 am

I am happy to be corrected, but I don't think it is the insulin medication that causes issues with driving. Generally it is a low blood sugar level that causes a person to experience diminished cognitive and physical abilities, until they ultimately can lose consciousness. I seem to remember that an extremely high blood sugar level can also result in similarly undesirable responses from a person. The low blood sugar needs to be "treated" with something like "full strength" Coke Cola or jelly beans, and the high blood sugar needs to be treated with insulin.

The reason why a diabetic's blood sugar levels can get very low (hypoglycaemia) is because they have taken insulin. Hyperglycaemia is the "normal" state for an untreated diabetic. People taking insulin need to plan meal and activity times to keep their blood glucose levels in an acceptable range.

I think the reason people's blood sugar levels can get very low is because they have taken too much insulin. If they were managing their sugar effectively, it (hypoglycaemia) happens very rarely. Diabetics generally get to know what and when they need to take because it depends on their intake & activity levels - it isn't supposed to be a one size fits all - "take 2 units every morning after breakfast" like it is with blood pressure pills. It should be adjusted (managed) according to the situation at the time.

The law should say that if you have a known medical condition that may impair your ability to drive then you are responsible to ensure that you are aware of when you are not suitable for driving. With something about devices. This would ensure that there are no exemptions to road infringements based on medical grounds

mikesbytes wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 22, 2024 2:53 pm

The law should say that if you have a known medical condition that may impair your ability to drive then you are responsible to ensure that you are aware of when you are not suitable for driving. With something about devices. This would ensure that there are no exemptions to road infringements based on medical grounds

I would have thought this would be the default, especially given the need for a doctor to sign off on the ability of someone with one of these conditions to drive.

mikesbytes wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 22, 2024 2:53 pm

The law should say that if you have a known medical condition that may impair your ability to drive then you are responsible to ensure that you are aware of when you are not suitable for driving. With something about devices. This would ensure that there are no exemptions to road infringements based on medical grounds

This is exactly what my mate was told - both by doctors and by the specialist nurse who called him from Diabetes Australia when he was put on the diabetes/insulin register. He was also told that if he was a regular insulin user he had to get a annual check-up and letter from his doctor - much the same as the requirement for people older than 75yo. He is in QLD, but he got the impression that it was a national requirement, but not sure.

nezumi wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 22, 2024 10:21 pm

mikesbytes wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 22, 2024 2:53 pm

The law should say that if you have a known medical condition that may impair your ability to drive then you are responsible to ensure that you are aware of when you are not suitable for driving. With something about devices. This would ensure that there are no exemptions to road infringements based on medical grounds

I would have thought this would be the default, especially given the need for a doctor to sign off on the ability of someone with one of these conditions to drive.

Yep, there's a very strongly set standard to drive in diabetes requiring insulin.

Private standards

A person is not fit to hold an unconditional licence:

if the person has insulin-treated diabetes.
A conditional licence may be considered by the driver licensing authority subject to at least 2-yearly review, taking into consideration the nature of the driving task and information provided by the treating doctor on whether the following criteria are met:

there is no recent history of a ‘severe hypoglycaemic event’; and
the person is following a treatment regimen that minimises the risk of hypoglycaemia; and
the person experiences early warning symptoms (awareness) of hypoglycaemia (refer to section 3.2.1) or has a documented management plan for lack of early warning symptoms; and
there are no end-organ effects that may affect driving as per this publication.
For private drivers who do not meet the above criteria, a conditional licence may be considered by the driver licensing authority, taking into account the opinion of

an endocrinologist or consultant physician specialising in diabetes and subject to regular specialist review.

Which I imagine the driver in the Daylesford incident may well have met, at least the way he told the story to his GP. He certainly didn't meet the criteria at the time of the crash and I agree has therefore violated his requirements for holding a license and should be considered culpable in my book.

To have such a brilliant piece of technology as a CGM in place and then completely ignore it... But don't blame his GP unless he somehow didn't meet those criteria above, and didn't lie to his GP.

Mr Purple wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 23, 2024 10:08 am

Yep, there's a very strongly set standard to drive in diabetes requiring insulin.

Private standards

A person is not fit to hold an unconditional licence:

if the person has insulin-treated diabetes.
A conditional licence may be considered by the driver licensing authority subject to at least 2-yearly review, taking into consideration the nature of the driving task and information provided by the treating doctor on whether the following criteria are met:

there is no recent history of a ‘severe hypoglycaemic event’; and
the person is following a treatment regimen that minimises the risk of hypoglycaemia; and
the person experiences early warning symptoms (awareness) of hypoglycaemia (refer to section 3.2.1) or has a documented management plan for lack of early warning symptoms; and
there are no end-organ effects that may affect driving as per this publication.
For private drivers who do not meet the above criteria, a conditional licence may be considered by the driver licensing authority, taking into account the opinion of

an endocrinologist or consultant physician specialising in diabetes and subject to regular specialist review.

Which I imagine the driver in the Daylesford incident may well have met, at least the way he told the story to his GP. He certainly didn't meet the criteria at the time of the crash and I agree has therefore violated his requirements for holding a license and should be considered culpable in my book.

To have such a brilliant piece of technology as a CGM in place and then completely ignore it... But don't blame his GP unless he somehow didn't meet those criteria above, and didn't lie to his GP.

Different standards in different states, but agree that the critical issue is no recent history of severe hypoglycemic event. Am in furious agreement about the benefits of continuous glucose monitoring & the culpability for ignoring it. As I understand it CGM alerts the user before their hypo is severe & also has the capacity for direct reporting to the treating Dr or specialist, which obviates any capacity for the patient to mislead their GP or simply not measure their blood when they know its low.

He is reportedly a type 1 diabetic, hence the use of the CGM, what surprised me from the media reports was that his blood sugar had fallen to 2.9 mmol/l by 5:17 pm & the first alert wasn't sent until 5:18 pm & the crash at 6:07pm - I thought the alert was meant to be set at something like 3.9 mmol/l

The CGM data is not readily available to the GP at least - though I believe specialists may be able to access it. Even then it wouldn't be live and would generally require access to the device I imagine. I've actually seen specialists fit a CGM for a week to type 2 diabetes to approve them for a commercial licence which I think is an excellent idea.

The frequency of readings can be varied but is apparently generally set to five minutes - which would explain the nine alarms over 40 minutes.

Either way I'd expect a diabetic of 30 years to a) know what a hypo is like, b) know the situation where they'd be likely to get a hypo, and c) not ignore 9 alarms from a CGM.

The standards are set in the AFTD booklet and are a national standard.

Om gosh no I didn’t mean to suggest drs should be monitoring patients live - sorry for not making that clear. The point I meant to make is that if I was certifying that a type 1 diabetic with a cgm was fit to drive- I would want to see at least a report from the cgm showing no severe hypos

As for the standards, I read your earlier post as saying in Qld diabetics can only get a conditional licence. I’m only familiar with NSW where a conditional licence restricts the driver to 50 km from home & IIRC roads with a speed limit of 80km/h or less. In NSW an insulin dependent diabetic can have a regular licence & needs a 12 monthly medical that they’re fit to drive

From the media reports, Victoria only requires a 2 yearly medical & this particular person, despite having type 1 for almost all of his 67 years only had his first medical in 2015

‘Conditional’ licence can mean any conditions - you can literally specify anything on it.

If this guy only had his first medical done a few years ago then something’s definitely amiss. The two year review and conditions in type 1 diabetics has been in place for years!

find_bruce wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 23, 2024 7:32 pm

……..,

As for the standards, I read your earlier post as saying in Qld diabetics can only get a conditional licence. I’m only familiar with NSW where a conditional licence restricts the driver to 50 km from home & IIRC roads with a speed limit of 80km/h or less. In NSW an insulin dependent diabetic can have a regular licence & needs a 12 monthly medical that they’re fit to drive

From the media reports, Victoria only requires a 2 yearly medical & this particular person, despite having type 1 for almost all of his 67 years only had his first medical in 2015

I think that in QUEENSLAND the State Law (Drivers Licensing) - a “Conditional” License is one that comes up for Medical Review “every year”

That’s what it usually means, no such automatic restriction on speed or distance or whatever.
Of course if appropriate additional conditions CAN be imposed on a person’s Conditional Drivers License in Qld, but the vast majority of Conditional Drivers licenses here would be just the one restriction - Annual Medical Review !

I used to work in this field - not a happy place !
And yes, additional restrictions are sometimes (often) added to the “yearly medical review”
Often related to eyesight, typical restrictions would be the somewhat vague “local area only” plus or minus the less vague “daylight hours only”
Which is not necessarily relevant to the driving capability of an Insulin-treated diabetic, but it may be if they have any visual handicap from it.

But just because you put these conditions on a Driver’s License it does not automatically follow that they are religiously adhered to.

find_bruce wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 23, 2024 1:13 pm

He is reportedly a type 1 diabetic, hence the use of the CGM, what surprised me from the media reports was that his blood sugar had fallen to 2.9 mmol/l by 5:17 pm & the first alert wasn't sent until 5:18 pm & the crash at 6:07pm - I thought the alert was meant to be set at something like 3.9 mmol/l

My mate's CGM issued the first alert at 4, and frequently after that. I can't remember the exact numbers but at 4 the person is generally not considered to be impaired, but needed to do something to address the drop in sugar before impairment started. I seem to remember (but not sure) that impairment was expected to start around 2.5 or 2.8, and got worse quite quickly below that.

I cannot understand how a court cannot find the person culpable if they were a long "experienced" diabetic and ignored multiple warnings from the CGM - in my opinion that becomes willful negligence at the very least. This shows how bizarre and ineffective our justice system has become.

elantra wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 24, 2024 7:22 am

I think that in QUEENSLAND the State Law (Drivers Licensing) - a “Conditional” License is one that comes up for Medical Review “every year”

That’s what it usually means, no such automatic restriction on speed or distance or whatever.
Of course if appropriate additional conditions CAN be imposed on a person’s Conditional Drivers License in Qld, but the vast majority of Conditional Drivers licenses here would be just the one restriction - Annual Medical Review !

I used to work in this field - not a happy place !
And yes, additional restrictions are sometimes (often) added to the “yearly medical review”
Often related to eyesight, typical restrictions would be the somewhat vague “local area only” plus or minus the less vague “daylight hours only”
Which is not necessarily relevant to the driving capability of an Insulin-treated diabetic, but it may be if they have any visual handicap from it.

But just because you put these conditions on a Driver’s License it does not automatically follow that they are religiously adhered to.

It's all good, we were talking at cross purposes, based on different arrangements & perspectives - that diversity is one of the things I like about this forum. Whether something meets a particular statutory definition is often important in my line of work and completely irrelevant to everyone else

In NSW annual medical review is not a condition that's printed on the licence. The requirement exists, but not in that way. It seems that's different in Qld, but it probably doesn't make any difference in practice.

With you 100% that drivers do not always comply with the conditions.

Andy01 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 24, 2024 9:47 am

My mate's CGM issued the first alert at 4, and frequently after that. I can't remember the exact numbers but at 4 the person is generally not considered to be impaired, but needed to do something to address the drop in sugar before impairment started. I seem to remember (but not sure) that impairment was expected to start around 2.5 or 2.8, and got worse quite quickly below that.

I cannot understand how a court cannot find the person culpable if they were a long "experienced" diabetic and ignored multiple warnings from the CGM - in my opinion that becomes willful negligence at the very least. This shows how bizarre and ineffective our justice system has become.

As I understand it the CGM alert level is a setting that can be adjusted. Any information I have is what filters through the media reports so could be inaccurate. As best I can figure he was 7.9 at 4:00 pm at Clunes, had insulin before he left Clunes at 4:50 pm, was down to 2.9 at 5:17 pm, tried to eat at 5:21 pm but was turned away & resumed driving at 5:36 pm, crashing at 6:07 pm.

The magistrate was critical of the Crown case that the negligence BEGAN at 5:36pm when he got back in the car. The problem with that is that it appears he was already at a point where his judgment was impaired. I'm no expert, but I would have thought that his negligence commenced by taking insulin without an immediate plan to eat & without a backup plan - the diabetics I know always carry a quick source of glucose (fruit juice, jelly beans etc) in case they're caught out because they know how dangerous a hypo is. This is even more so for a person who knew he been having hypos before dinner.

The Director of Public Prosecutions could still directly indict him, but who knows if he will or not.