Disputing a driving without due care ticket

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Spidey

-OP had the remote that made the car move forward (Care and control)

Having a remote starter is different than having a remote that just unlocks/locks a vehicle.

-You can get an impaired driving charge for simply walking to your car but not driving it

For care and control, you have to meet certain elements. Walking up to your car is not, and would never get charge approval from Crown.


-You can get a distracted driving ticket for simply moving your phone (not using it) while stopped at a light (not actively driving)

that is because there is a specific law stating you cannot even hold your phone in your hand. I am sure you have seen this http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/share...le-driving.pdf

What has been established by the laws I've referenced is that you don't have to be driving your car to be charged under the electronic device regulations, you don't even have to be in your car to be charged under the drink-driving regs, so therefore if the OP had the remote that caused his car to start and move, he was very much in care and control of the vehicle and the charge of driving without due care could very well stand.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Spidey

that is because there is a specific law stating you cannot even hold your phone in your hand. I am sure you have seen this http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/share...le-driving.pdf

And what line in the MVA supports the claim in that document that a device being used for music playback needs to be securely mounted (and not loose in a cup holder for example)?

[Spidey]

Originally Posted by sebberry

What has been established by the laws I've referenced is that you don't have to be driving your car to be charged under the electronic device regulations, you don't even have to be in your car to be charged under the drink-driving regs, so therefore if the OP had the remote that caused his car to start and move, he was very much in care and control of the vehicle and the charge of driving without due care could very well stand.

Give me one case where someone was convicted for impaired care and control, where the accused was not inside their car. And I am not talking about a driver who WAS in the car, drove drunk, and was found outside later, where continuity was established.. I am talking about your exact example of someone who is intoxicated and was simply walking towards their car.

Originally Posted by sebberry

And what line in the MVA supports the claim in that document that a device being used for music playback needs to be securely mounted (and not loose in a cup holder for example)?

This. Since the PDF is directly from the Gov of BC....

Power to make regulations
214.6 The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations as follows:

(a) prescribing classes or types of electronic devices for the purposes of paragraph (c) of the definition of "electronic device" in section 214.1;
(b) setting out actions for the purposes of paragraph (d) of the definition of "use" in section 214.1;
(c) for the purposes of section 214.4 (c), setting out the manner in which, or the extent to which, a hands-free electronic device may be used in a telephone function;
(d) for the purposes of section 214.5;
(e) regulating the installation or mounting of classes or types of electronic devices in motor vehicles;
(f) exempting or excluding, with or without conditions, classes or types of electronic devices, classes of persons or classes of vehicles or classes of persons while driving or operating a motor vehicle or class of motor vehicle from the operation of a provision of this Part.

[sebberry]

1) Zulu has repeatedly said over the years here that drivers can be charged for drunk-driving since the vehicle is under their care and control.

2) Great - now we can be charged for things that don't even appear in the act, but on a PDF full of crappy pictures clipped and edited by 5 year olds. (Not even linked to by the relevant section in the act...)
Better write me a crapload of tickets then, I've been setting my phone in the cupholder almost daily to play music for the last few years now. Securely mounted vs. in a cupholder - I wonder what genius came up with the logic for that one... the same 5 year old that clipped the photos for the PDF?

[Spidey]

Originally Posted by sebberry

1) Zulu has repeatedly said over the years here that drivers can be charged for drunk-driving since the vehicle is under their care and control.

2) Great - now we can be charged for things that don't even appear in the act, but on a PDF full of crappy pictures clipped and edited by 5 year olds. (Not even linked to by the relevant section in the act...)
Better write me a crapload of tickets then, I've been setting my phone in the cupholder almost daily to play music for the last few years now. Securely mounted vs. in a cupholder - I wonder what genius came up with the logic for that one... the same 5 year old that clipped the photos for the PDF?

Your interpretations are just as ridiculous and childish as the 5 year olds that you claim to have put together that PDF.

Someone sitting in the driver's seat of a vehicle, drunk, and the keys in the ignition (whether the car is on or not) can be considered in care and control. The car does not have to be in motion. When did Zulu ever say that someone walking to their, or A car, could be charged? I guess whenever you have a few drinks, you leave your car remote/key at home, since you believe the simple act of having your car keys in your possession constitutes care and control..

[SumAznGuy]

Originally Posted by Spidey

Your interpretations are just as ridiculous and childish as the 5 year olds that you claim to have put together that PDF.

Someone sitting in the driver's seat of a vehicle, drunk, and the keys in the ignition (whether the car is on or not) can be considered in care and control. The car does not have to be in motion. When did Zulu ever say that someone walking to their, or A car, could be charged? I guess whenever you have a few drinks, you leave your car remote/key at home, since you believe the simple act of having your car keys in your possession constitutes care and control..

So if I was out drinking one night and end up sleeping it off in my car in either the back seat or passenger seat with the keys not in the ignition ie in the glove box, could I still be given a ticket for driving while intoxicated?
I understand why with the keys in the ignition.

[Spidey]

Originally Posted by SumAznGuy

So if I was out drinking one night and end up sleeping it off in my car in either the back seat or passenger seat with the keys not in the ignition ie in the glove box, could I still be given a ticket for driving while intoxicated?
I understand why with the keys in the ignition.

It all depends on the circumstance. I can't say yes or no but I can say it will be hard to argue that you had intentions to drive or operate a vehicle while sitting in the back seat. If you were sitting in the driver's seat it may or may not matter whether the keys are in the ignition or not, but it definitely does not help your cause if it were. A ticket would be the least of your concerns if you were being investigated for Impaired care and control.

[zulutango]

Dear Spidey...if it rains tomorrow will I get wet? Dear Sebbery....no you will not, because you never went outside....or yes you will....if you don't wear a raincoat ...but if you do only parts of you might wet...if they were not inside the coat. Sorry.....couldn't resist. My bad.

[sebberry]

The solution is simple - have the government regulate precisely how our raincoats must be done up and how much they must cover. That way nobody gets wet.

[zulutango]

But what about those of us...."Freemen of the Land"....who refuse to wear raincoats because they have sprayed themselves with silicone spray that repels the water? Life is just not that simple you know.

[sebberry]

People making decisions for themselves? Never, we can't have that.

[Spidey]

If everyone were able to make sensible decisions for themselves (or even at all for that matter), there would be no need for "law", and subsequently Police.

[sebberry]

At this week's IRSU discussion on job security: pressuring the Justice ministry for more and more regulations under which to stop and fine drivers.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Perhaps the same way they can levy a drunk-driving charge on an intoxicated individual for walking up to his car to get something out of it...

[Spidey]

Although the majority of what Sebberry complains about (aside from highway speed limits) are the lack of discretion officers use... he fails to recognize that 99.99999% of police work IS discretion. Could you imagine if every offender were charged under Municipal, Provincial, and Criminal Code offences they committed?

The odd driver who posts here, and other forums about how they were not given a break and ticketed for what they believe were an unjust offence, probably got away with 100+ other offences they committed in the past, and probably continue to commit in the future.

[sebberry]

Getting a ticket for taking your phone out of your pocket to move it somewhere else isn't using discretion. The police have been screaming for extra power to fight distracted driving, then they go and apply it to situations that are less distracting than that good looking lady crossing the road in front of your car...

It's not discretion, it's fishing.

[zulutango]

Then don't swim around with yer mouth open iffin ya don't wanna get hooked.

[Spidey]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Getting a ticket for taking your phone out of your pocket to move it somewhere else isn't using discretion. The police have been screaming for extra power to fight distracted driving, then they go and apply it to situations that are less distracting than that good looking lady crossing the road in front of your car...

It's not discretion, it's fishing.

It is discretion.. The officer saw it... Decided to pull the car over... and then with whatever information he obtained from the driver and and/or information from the driver's driving history, DECIDED to issue a ticket, using his discretion.

I have done both, where I have gotten on the PA, and called driver(s) out, rather than pulling them over. As a driver getting busted at a red light using their phone... so they got caught, what?, once out of every red light they hit during their commute for the last year? Seems like a pretty good ratio... Driver def got their money's worth to me!

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Spidey

It is discretion.. The officer saw it... Decided to pull the car over... and then with whatever information he obtained from the driver and and/or information from the driver's driving history, DECIDED to issue a ticket, using his discretion.

Except the rest of the story goes like this: Court date arrives, cop apologizes for his aggressive manners that night, admits he overstepped his boundaries and withdraws the ticket.

So no, they don't always use their discretion at the roadside.

[underscore]

Originally Posted by sebberry

So no, they don't always use their discretion at the roadside.

Of course not ya goof, nothing is even an absolute. Except for the part about nothing being an absolute, which is in fact an absolute.

[Spidey]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Except the rest of the story goes like this: Court date arrives, cop apologizes for his aggressive manners that night, admits he overstepped his boundaries and withdraws the ticket.

So no, they don't always use their discretion at the roadside.

Yes this happens 100% of the time... If this were the case, no MVA charges would go to trial. The fact that the officer in your "scenario" withdrew the charge sounds like discretion to me. So again, they DO use discretion. Are you done wasting everyone's time on here, or is your trolling level at its all time high?

[zulutango]

Maybe he's lookin' fer open mouths with his big, sharp hook?

[dotdot]

Just pay the fee man

[Jgresch]

Forgot to update this thread last week.

So prior to my hearing I called the officer requesting his notes. He was really helpful with how the process was suppose to go and what I needed to exactly do. So I just flat out asked him if he would consider a lesser charge that wouldn't put me at risk to lose my license. Right away he said of course, seeming almost relieved that I asked, and he said he was re-thinking his charge anyways and said he would come up with something more appropriate before the court date and we would just go in and request a change.

I can't exactly remember which charge he went with but I believe it was something along the lines of negligence causing vehicle malfunction. It was only $109. I'll get the exact wording when my ticket is updated.

The judge actually laughed at what happened when the officer explained it, asked if I caught it on video.

Anyways, thanks for all the help everyone, all the feedback was greatly appreciated!

[kross9]

Originally Posted by Jgresch

Forgot to update this thread last week.

So prior to my hearing I called the officer requesting his notes. He was really helpful with how the process was suppose to go and what I needed to exactly do. So I just flat out asked him if he would consider a lesser charge that wouldn't put me at risk to lose my license. Right away he said of course, seeming almost relieved that I asked, and he said he was re-thinking his charge anyways and said he would come up with something more appropriate before the court date and we would just go in and request a change.

I can't exactly remember which charge he went with but I believe it was something along the lines of negligence causing vehicle malfunction. It was only $109. I'll get the exact wording when my ticket is updated.

The judge actually laughed at what happened when the officer explained it, asked if I caught it on video.

Anyways, thanks for all the help everyone, all the feedback was greatly appreciated!

Happy endings are the best!