I find it interesting that you can carry on a text conversation with someone without reading what they are typing.

Any time I have received IM's from someone texting while driving, they have been broken up, mis-typed, poor spelling, etc... You might not realize it, but the act of driving is a distraction from being able to type properly, and the act of typing is a distraction from being able to drive properly.

If you're thinking about what you are typing, you are diverting attention from driving, plain and simple.

On another note, I have seen many people, mostly "N" drivers, yapping on their cell phones or texting and driving since the law came into place. One was even driving a collision repair shop's loaner car. Go figure.

usually only outgoing texts as opposed to replies, if I read anything it was while stopped. I made driving the distraction from typing but most of the time my messages were fine, sometimes there would be one or two words wrong as I didn't arrow down enough with T9.

I use a cassette adapter for my mp3 player as my stereo system is stock. I run the shuffle function on it so I don't need to fiddle around with finding a song, unless my brother is in the passenger seat and wants to find a song.

The court is going to interpret your red light situation as being stopped rather than parked. The two are different and you would be found guilty.

this whole no cell phone thing is stupid
if a person can drive, he can drive whether he is driving with one hand or two


IF ppl gets distracted while talking on the phone, than technically talkin on headset is still distracting the driver. Those that drives manual always only have one hand available to drive.

buttom line, ppl needs to learn how to drive while keeping their eyes on the roads

It's more than just the distraction. Holding a phone to your head makes it nearly impossibly to shoulder check or turn to see your blind spots.

To quote back at you...


214.4 Section 214.2 does not apply to a person who uses an electronic device

(a) while operating a motor vehicle that is safely parked off the roadway or lawfully parked on the roadway and is not impeding traffic

The words that you need to actually read & understand are..."parked"...off the roadway. Being stopped in traffic is not lawfully parked. Concentrating away from traffic on your phone etc means your are NOT concentrating on traffic, lights, pedestrians, cyclists etc.

Sections 187-190 of the MV Act will explain a bit more.

So does it matter if the headset is wired or does it have to be BT?
Posted via RS Mobile

I heard a story on news1130 earlier in the week that a women was "pulled over" and given a warning when she was talking on her phone while stopped on the shoulder. The police's explantion was that her car was still on (ie: was still running) at the time.

My question is:
if I pull over safety on a shoulder, curb that allows parking etc... even if I am in "Park" (or neutral with the handbrake for the manual guys) am I legally allowed to be on the phone? or will I have to completely shut off my car?

That only happens if you rest your hand on the shifter.

If you stop and place the vehicle in park, in a location where you can legally park, as described in (a) above, you would be complying with the law. We don't know the full actual story you said you heard on 1130. People don't always tell the truth do they? Specially if they get caught doing something they were not supposed to be doing?

"(a) while operating a motor vehicle that is safely parked off the roadway or lawfully parked on the roadway and is not impeding traffic"

What exactly is "lawfully parked on the roadway" then? If you are stopped at a red light, you are not impeding traffic behind. If the car is out of gear, isn't that what "parking" is?

While I mostly agree with the law, it isn't hard to see when the light goes green you hang up the phone.

I suppose it is like drink driving laws. Even if you plan to not drive that night, simply being near your car while you are drunk gets you arrested because you obviously have every intention to drive. Simply being on the road with your phone while at a light clearly means that you will drive while holding the phone...

See, it's not the issue of one hand or two. If it was dangerous to drive only with one hand, people with one arm wouldn't be allowed to drive.

The goofy part about this law is that it still permits the more dangerous aspect of yapping on the phone while driving - engaging in a conversation with someone who is not in the vehicle.

It's not about keeping eyes on the road. It's not only about holding a device. It is the cognitive distraction caused by having the conversation that is the most dangerous aspect of yapping on the phone.

As for people who drive manual, the only time I need to have one hand off the wheel is to shift. 75% of the time driving both hands are on the wheel.

Good way to wear out the synchros quickly..

Parked in a curb lane where parking is permitted, for one.

And the minute the light changes, if you're not paying attention and don't start going, you're now impeding traffic.

Sebbery did you bother to read my post at all and check out the sections of the MV Act. I meaan, I know this is RS....but having tò define `park`is a bit silly. Where would you normally leave your car, unoccupied with the engine off...like when you `park`, you know. You`re beginning to sound like Bill Clinton...hope we don`t have to define ìs`to you as well. :)

This is so full of win!

:haha:

Sometimes I feel like I'm working the McDonalds drive thru and everybody is a few fries short of supersize? :)

The law exists because the human brain cannot safely process phone conversations and driving at the same time. Hazard perception and reaction times are significantly reduced because the brain is focused on the conversation instead of the driving. This isn't about having hands free or occupied - you don't need your left hand to understand that a red light means stop. People blow red lights and stop signs because they are distracted, not because they are holding something to their head.

The law permits the driver to engage in a conversation with someone who is not in the car while driving, which is the cognitive distraction for which this law is based on - the same distraction that causes people to blow red lights. If your brain is occupied with the conversation, you can still have both hands on the wheel and run a red light.

You can't crash into something while stopped at a light, so why is using a hand-held phone not permitted while stopped?

While I support the intentions behind this law, unless it prevents people from having a phone conversation completely, there's little point.

Read posts # 56 and 57. ...and I agree with part of your final point. Ask any Traffic Cops, they wanted NO cell phone access etc at all. The decision was made to woosie out again here in Lotus Land.

I have an interesting scenario,

say you are talking on your phone and you get into an accident. ICBC decides to dig through your phone records and sees that you have been talking right before the accident.
OR a witness says you were on the phone.

Reasonable claim to deny insurance?

Woosie out... or a small injection of common sense?

If you don't provide SOME method for allowing the use of phones still, and instead want to force everyone to pull off the road as their only option for making a call... then you're gonna hafta retool a LOT of streets with new parking lanes or wider shoulders.

I would think so, if you're breaking the law, or "lack of due care and attention" could be shown.

Problem is, I don't know of a single phone that actually logs Bluetooth or wired-headset use, so your phone logs could show you were on a call at the time, but not show whether you were legally using it "handsfree".

Two Provinces did feel the way that Cops feel..I know Nfld was one who totally banned them...can't remember who the second was. It was a cop-out...yes I intended the pun. :)

I can't say, but suspect that it would certainly help apportion blame.

I don't think this will become an issue unless you're talking about being distracted to a serious extreme. It's not as if ICBC denies coverage based on breaking the law - if that were the case, they'd hardly pay out ANY claims, as most people break 'little' laws daily, ie speeding, passing, driving without due care and attention, etc.

ICBC seems to care more about who to blame... not to deny coverage. If they can tag both drivers with 50%, they're the ones who win.

I still don't see the big deal with everyone having to talk on the phone while they're behind the wheel. Can't you wait til you get home? Or somewhere else? Maybe it's just me - I hate my cell phone, it's like a ball and chain. I'd rather not have a phone at all, I don't like being "connected" at everyone else's whim.