Mobile phone payments ban at takeaway drive-throughs in Australia

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

I wonder if my Nexus 7 would count (it actually has NFC, though it hasn't been used). It'd have to be tethered via wifi/BT to my phone, but still...they specify mobile phones. Not tablets. Or better yet, smart watches.

I think you'd get a way with a smart watch.  If you try to use the tablet they might also accuse you of watching tv while being in control of a car.  That is also illegal after in dash DVD players became a thing (IIRC the driver must not be able to see a movie screen unless the park brake is on).

[Trik'Stari]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

I'm not saying there shouldn't be an exception, they definitely need to update the law.  I am just pointing out that the law applies to privately owned and privately maintained roads where the public have open access to them.    It is not a new interpretation from the police force but actually defined as such in law.  This is why they can arrest you for having an open alcoholic beverage or disturbing the peace in a shopping center (which is privately owned).

 

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/vic/consol_act/soa1966189/s3.html

 

 

An interesting difference between laws in the US and AUS.

 

In the US, you could be arrested for DUI or open container, on any property, because it's a criminal charge and not a moving violation (speeding is a moving violation). So for example, doing burnouts on public roads is illegal because you are "failing to maintain control of the vehicle" (which is a bullshit excuse) but if you're on private property, they can't say shit about it.

 

Speeding as well. Although my particular state has a set of "reckless driving" laws that create the biggest bullshit legal grey area imaginable. You could theoretically drive as fast as you want on your own property, but if a cop decides you are "being reckless" it can become a criminal charge and then the officer can charge you with that.

 

Basically, reckless driving is whatever the officer decides it is, and is not clearly defined by code of law.

[leadeater]

14 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

An interesting difference between laws in the US and AUS.

 

In the US, you could be arrested for DUI or open container, on any property, because it's a criminal charge and not a moving violation (speeding is a moving violation). So for example, doing burnouts on public roads is illegal because you are "failing to maintain control of the vehicle" (which is a bullshit excuse) but if you're on private property, they can't say shit about it.

 

Speeding as well. Although my particular state has a set of "reckless driving" laws that create the biggest bullshit legal grey area imaginable. You could theoretically drive as fast as you want on your own property, but if a cop decides you are "being reckless" it can become a criminal charge and then the officer can charge you with that.

 

Basically, reckless driving is whatever the officer decides it is, and is not clearly defined by code of law.

Odd, here once it's private property any and all road safety laws don't apply. That's how teenagers are allowed to drive farm vehicles and dirt bikes etc, same goes for having a beer for the adult, totally fine on private property. But like Aus if it's private but publicly accessible then there are things like drunk & disorderly and disturbing the peace etc laws that do apply. Basically if you want to build a 30m ramp on your land and drive off it at 200 km/h while downing a beer that's totally fine, but you'll have to pay for all rescue costs if you live.

[randandy7]

3 hours ago, porina said:

I don't know the details of the law, but if this were the UK, drive throughs would be on private land and the laws that apply to public highways probably would not be enforceable.

 

Edit:

here in Australia basically if a road is accessible to the general public with no gate shutting it off then it is classified as a public road private or public land

[Totallycasual]

Shit like this is why so many Aussies dread the sight of the cops, our interactions with them as we grow up tell us that their main purpose is to pump out tickets. 

[randandy7]

3 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

So, in Australia, you're legally required to turn the car off to use a phone's Mobile Pay system, but you can hand cash or credit card and it's fine?

In Australia, if you pull over into a car park to answer your phone you also have to turn the engine off or get out of the car to be legal even if its 40C outside and you want the A/C on

[randandy7]

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

That's just straight up ass fuckery. If they are this pedantic to bitch about mobile phone usage in a god damn car (while standing next to a drive through window at the restaurant?!?!?!?!), I guess it's ok then to have a full on lunch while driving. Coz nothing in the law states anywhere that you can't have a 5 course launch while driving. Aussies, go home, you're all drunk.

aaaactualllllyyyyyy the police in Australia are cracking down on "inattentive driving" which can be anything from drinking a coffee from a takeaway cup, eating fast food to using a satnav or fiddling with CD's in the radio even women doing their makeup while at stoplights. All under "Inattentive driving"

[Technous285]

Okay...

First off: Victorian cops can just go fuck off with their bullshit causing everybody to drive fucking 90km/h in a fucking 100km/h zone like a damn open-road highway, because the cops always trust their radar traps (even though those things HAVE been proven to be faulty over time and are black-boxed so you can't challenge the code or reading accuracy of the fucking things) when the federal law allows for a little bit of 'slop' between what a car says it's doing and what radar or rolling road might say it's doing in terms of car construction.

 

Second of all: Are they seriously going to be such big fucking douche nozzles that they'll try to ping a Macca's client when it's the PASSENGER who does the order on their phone without the driver's attention and it's the PASSENGER that pays for it through the MyMaccas app, simply because "(A) phone was used to make and pay order for drive-thru"?!

Buncha fucking tossers can go suck themselves off if they try to harass a driver for something the driver had no involvement in.

[dalekphalm]

5 hours ago, floofer said:

I don't think anyone would use the phone payment anyway, when you usually just use change in your car. 

Maybe it's more common where you live, but here in Canada, change is becoming increasingly infrequent to have on your person. I literally never have cash on me at all, let alone change. I use my card for just about everything, since Debit and Credit payment is so incredibly common (and there's no downside from my perspective).

4 hours ago, RejZoR said:

That's just straight up ass fuckery. If they are this pedantic to bitch about mobile phone usage in a god damn car (while standing next to a drive through window at the restaurant?!?!?!?!), I guess it's ok then to have a full on lunch while driving. Coz nothing in the law states anywhere that you can't have a 5 course launch while driving. Aussies, go home, you're all drunk.

Depending on the country, eating lunch while driving (especially a "5 course meal") is 100% against the law, because the law isn't about "mobile phones" specifically, but about "distracted driving".

 

This could mean that messing with your radio could be (but isn't always) illegal, if it causes you to become distracted while driving. Same goes for eating or using mobile devices - though most distracted driving laws specifically and explicitly ban the use of mobile devices, while also leaving the law open for other distractions.

4 hours ago, yolosnail said:

Hold on, people actually use drive throughs? Do people not realise they always give you less food than if you actually went in and picked it up!

As someone who has worked in multiple drive-through's, that's straight up false - at least, in Canada. You're getting literally the exact same food you otherwise would, except it's inside a paper bag instead of ontop of a plastic tray.

 

Other places might be different, I suppose, but I find that claim hard to believe.

 

[yolosnail]

27 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

As someone who has worked in multiple drive-through's, that's straight up false - at least, in Canada. You're getting literally the exact same food you otherwise would, except it's inside a paper bag instead of ontop of a plastic tray.

 

Other places might be different, I suppose, but I find that claim hard to believe.

It's the case at the McDonalds drive throughs I've been to, at least here in the UK. 

Even when I'm with other people in the car, I would go inside so I could get my Student discount and 90% of the time I would get more fries and more ice cream in my McFlurry.

 

If someone wants to fund the.... 'experiment', I'm more than happy to go and do the research  

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, yolosnail said:

It's the case at the McDonalds drive throughs I've been to, at least here in the UK. 

Even when I'm with other people in the car, I would go inside so I could get my Student discount and 90% of the time I would get more fries and more ice cream in my McFlurry.

I don't discount your experience, but my experience has been the complete opposite. I've gone to McDonald's many times - both inside and via drive-through - and I've never once gotten less food (fries or otherwise) by going through the drive-through.

 

Maybe UK McDonald's just sucks and is unethical?

[IntMD]

19 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I don't discount your experience, but my experience has been the complete opposite. I've gone to McDonald's many times - both inside and via drive-through - and I've never once gotten less food (fries or otherwise) by going through the drive-through.

 

Maybe UK McDonald's just sucks and is unethical?

Nope, I usually end up with similar amounts anytime I've been to one in the UK. It just depends who is serving you and whether they just throw an extra ton of fries in the bag or not or if they hold down the button for longer on the flurry machine while chatting to their friends or not.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, IntMD said:

Nope, I usually end up with similar amounts anytime I've been to one in the UK. It just depends who is serving you and whether they just throw an extra ton of fries in the bag or not or if they hold down the button for longer on the flurry machine while chatting to their friends or not.

Indeed - some amount of variability is expected when eating at fast food. Some workers are just working too quickly and not paying attention and unintentionally skimp you a bit on your food.

 

Other workers may like you (know who you are, find you cool, find you attractive - whatever) and intentionally give you extra.

 

But the idea that Drive-through's, specifically, would have some policy (stated or unstated) that gives less food to drive-through customers is absurd. What would the possible reason for such a policy be?

 

Most restaurants prefer drive-through customers, because it means the customer leaves right away (doesn't take up space inside, doesn't leave a mess behind requiring cleaning, doesn't require as much staff for customer service related reasons, etc) - and they can generally serve more customers faster via drive-through, making them more money.

 

If anything, they would have an incentive to give preferential treatment to drive-through customers.

[Brooksie359]

7 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

wait, that can't be right ._. like for phone wallet payments to be banned outright they actually have to specifically write "phone payments" into law. how does--

 

oh -_-

That's actually ridiculous. Are they trying to say that if you have the car in park with the engine on its illegal to use your phone? I do that all the time. I pull off somewhere and park my car and use my phone when I need to. Seem similar to the person who got in trouble for sleeping it off in their car instead of driving home drunk. People getting in trouble for making a safe decision is just plain irritating. 

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

That's actually ridiculous. Are they trying to say that if you have the car in park with the engine on its illegal to use your phone? I do that all the time. I pull off somewhere and park my car and use my phone when I need to. Seem similar to the person who got in trouble for sleeping it off in their car instead of driving home drunk. People getting in trouble for making a safe decision is just plain irritating. 

Whether or not the vehicle needs to be turned off will depend on the country - apparently in Australia, the vehicle needs to be parked and turned off.

 

Other countries may not share that specific variation of the law. I do know that a person in Canada (Surrey, BC - Linus territory) got a ticket for using their phone in a Drive-Thru, but it wasn't specific about whether the person was parked or not (because many people just hold their foot on the brake pedal rather than actually putting the car into park).

 

Keep in mind, this was in BC (The Canadian province of British Columbia) - every province sets their own road laws, and while most (possibly all, now?) of the provinces have distracted driving laws that cover mobile phones, there are variations among the laws between each province.

[Dedayog]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

as pedantic as it is (any cop fining for that is a tosser), it does highlight how technology is moving too fast for laws to keep up.  

 

 

No, you mean technology is moving too fast for human idiots to keep up.

 

I'm sure someone paid with a phone and let their car hit something.

[WelshDdraig]

So, let me get this right.

I have a contactless NFC/RFID Debit Card and the same card on my mobile device - again, using NFC with Apple Pay/Google Pay/Samsung Pay (you get the idea).
Now, I don't need to unlock my phone to pay, but both require the same action, as simple as a hover or tap on the reader and that's it. The same amount of time, the same action.
So If I use my phone - that's against the law, but yet if I used my card - that is fine?

Either I'm misunderstanding this or the law needs to be updated to avoid this very issue...
If a police officer enforces this (due to the use of a mobile device in a vehicle), they need to think twice about it. I doubt this would hold up in court (but I've been wrong before and will most definitely be wrong again - will this be an exception, I don't know.) 

[dalekphalm]

26 minutes ago, WelshDdraig said:

So, let me get this right.

I have a contactless NFC/RFID Debit Card and the same card on my mobile device - again, using NFC with Apple Pay/Google Pay/Samsung Pay (you get the idea).
Now, I don't need to unlock my phone to pay, but both require the same action, as simple as a hover or tap on the reader and that's it. The same amount of time, the same action.
So If I use my phone - that's against the law, but yet if I used my card - that is fine?

That is correct - due to the fact that you're still "operating" a mobile device in a car.

26 minutes ago, WelshDdraig said:

Either I'm misunderstanding this or the law needs to be updated to avoid this very issue...

I do think a lot more exceptions need to be written into law.

26 minutes ago, WelshDdraig said:

If a police officer enforces this (due to the use of a mobile device in a vehicle), they need to think twice about it. I doubt this would hold up in court (but I've been wrong before and will most definitely be wrong again - will this be an exception, I don't know.) 

In most countries with distracted driving laws, it would almost certainly hold up in court, simply because that's the way the law is written.

 

The law itself isn't dumb (people texting and driving are a serious risk to everyone around them), but the law needs a lot of fine tuning and refinement.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

so... In india there's something called FastTags on cars, all you have to do is drive your car and it scans your windshield for the sticker and makes payment, also.... Phones do have NFCs these days, all you have to do is link your card to phone and tap your phone to the machine.  

OH
and, picking up my phone to tap and pay is no different to me going through my wallet and getting out my card or cash to pay.

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, jstudrawa said:

No, you mean technology is moving too fast for human idiots to keep up.

 

I'm sure someone paid with a phone and let their car hit something.

??

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

??

I think he's implying that someone crashed their car while using a phone in a drive-through.

I know that the person in BC (Canada) that got a ticket for distracted driving in a drive-through did not crash, so I doubt his example is correct.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I think he's implying that someone crashed their car while using a phone in a drive-through.

I know that the person in BC (Canada) that got a ticket for distracted driving in a drive-through did not crash, so I doubt his example is correct.

As far as I can tell nothing has happened that the police knew about or were involved with.    I also don't understand what is dumb about humans, the process that lead to this situation is pretty logical.

[Dabombinable]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

I think you'd get a way with a smart watch.  If you try to use the tablet they might also accuse you of watching tv while being in control of a car.  That is also illegal after in dash DVD players became a thing (IIRC the driver must not be able to see a movie screen unless the park brake is on).

CAn't say that if the tablet has no video files, period.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

CAn't say that if the tablet has no video files, period.

I would hope so, but we both know reality and common sense rarely share the bed.

[S w a t s o n]

Yikes, the fact they even felt the need to point out that it's technically illegal to use phone just because you're "driving" in the drive through goes to show the real motivation. Don't dare break the law scoundrels!!!! We will use this to fill quotas