REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum


Welcome to the REVscene Automotive Forum forums.

Registration is Free!You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   REVscene Automotive Forum > Automotive Chat > Police Forum

Police Forum Police Head Mod: Skidmark
Questions & info about the Motor Vehicle Act. Mature discussion only.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-07-2010, 09:16 PM   #51
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by underscore View Post
Yes I will admit I have texted while driving, however my eyes never left the road and driving was still my primary focus.
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.
Advertisement
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/

Support Road safety through education, not speed enforcement.
sebberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2010, 09:24 PM   #52
Willing to sell body for a few minutes on RS
 
underscore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Kel-pwn-a
Posts: 11,983
Thanked 4,971 Times in 2,174 Posts
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.
__________________
1992 Toyota Celica GT-S // 1991 Toyota Celica GTFour RC FOR SALE // 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD

Quote:
Originally Posted by maksimizer View Post
half those dudes are hotter than ,my GF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevYouUp View Post
reading this thread is like waiting for goku to charge up a spirit bomb in dragon ball z
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good_KarMa View Post
OH thank god. I thought u had sex with my wife. :cry:
underscore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2010, 09:25 PM   #53
"Entertainment" mod.
 
CorneringArtist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Surrey, BC
Posts: 4,593
Thanked 2,877 Times in 872 Posts
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.
__________________
MX73->B3->MX83->AE92->BL3FW->5K(MkVI)->UCF11->JZX110
CorneringArtist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2010, 09:31 PM   #54
Retired Traffic Cop
 
skidmark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Nanoose Bay, BC
Posts: 9,023
Thanked 115 Times in 66 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry View Post
The way I read this, using a hand-held phone (while holding it) while stopped at a red light is permitted. Correct?
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.
__________________
Have you ever met anyone that would admit to being less than a better than average driver ??

Learn more at DriveSmartBC
skidmark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2010, 03:14 PM   #55
Banned (BBM)
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,146
Thanked 627 Times in 368 Posts
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
Mugen EvOlutioN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2010, 03:41 PM   #56
I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
 
Soundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,731
Thanked 12,144 Times in 3,366 Posts
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira View Post
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta View Post
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
Soundy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2010, 04:04 PM   #57
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry View Post
The way I read this, using a hand-held phone (while holding it) while stopped at a red light is permitted. Correct?
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.
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2010, 04:10 PM   #58
Banned (ABWS)
 
azzurro32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: west vancouver
Posts: 878
Thanked 82 Times in 33 Posts
So does it matter if the headset is wired or does it have to be BT?
Posted via RS Mobile
azzurro32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2010, 05:30 PM   #59
YOU CANT CUT BACK ON FUNDING! YOU WILL REGRET THIS
 
CP.AR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: FL400
Posts: 5,833
Thanked 3,018 Times in 1,025 Posts
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?
__________________
My Babies:
2004 Camry Special Special Edition (Van)
1997 Mazda Eunos 500 (Oz) (Sold... obviously)
CP.AR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2010, 05:42 PM   #60
RS controls my life!
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 741
Thanked 19 Times in 13 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mugen EvOlutioN View Post
Those that drives manual always only have one hand available to drive.
That only happens if you rest your hand on the shifter.
Bath Tussue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2010, 05:45 PM   #61
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
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?
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2010, 06:09 PM   #62
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by zulutango View Post
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.
"(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...
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/

Support Road safety through education, not speed enforcement.

Last edited by sebberry; 01-12-2010 at 06:20 PM.
sebberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2010, 06:16 PM   #63
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mugen EvOlutioN View Post
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
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.
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/

Support Road safety through education, not speed enforcement.
sebberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2010, 06:17 PM   #64
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bath Tussue View Post
That only happens if you rest your hand on the shifter.
Good way to wear out the synchros quickly..
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/

Support Road safety through education, not speed enforcement.
sebberry is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 01-12-2010, 09:37 PM   #65
I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
 
Soundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,731
Thanked 12,144 Times in 3,366 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry View Post
"(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?
Parked in a curb lane where parking is permitted, for one.

Quote:
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?
And the minute the light changes, if you're not paying attention and don't start going, you're now impeding traffic.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira View Post
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta View Post
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
Soundy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2010, 08:45 AM   #66
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
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 tÚ 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 žs`to you as well.
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 01-13-2010, 11:10 AM   #67
CRS
ninja edits your posts without your knowledge
 
CRS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 14,365
Thanked 5,490 Times in 1,481 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by zulutango View Post
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 tÚ 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 žs`to you as well.
This is so full of win!

CRS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2010, 02:31 PM   #68
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
Sometimes I feel like I'm working the McDonalds drive thru and everybody is a few fries short of supersize?
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2010, 02:47 PM   #69
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
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.
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/

Support Road safety through education, not speed enforcement.
sebberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2010, 08:44 PM   #70
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
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.
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 09:20 AM   #71
Everyone wants a piece of R S...
 
no_clue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: vancouver
Posts: 351
Thanked 45 Times in 30 Posts
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?
no_clue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 09:37 AM   #72
I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
 
Soundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,731
Thanked 12,144 Times in 3,366 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by zulutango View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by no_clue View Post
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?
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".
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzira View Post
Does anyone know how many to a signature?
..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianrietta View Post
Not a sebberry post goes by where I don't frown and think to myself "so..?"
Soundy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 12:02 PM   #73
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
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.
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 12:34 PM   #74
Retired Traffic Cop
 
skidmark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Nanoose Bay, BC
Posts: 9,023
Thanked 115 Times in 66 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by no_clue View Post
Reasonable claim to deny insurance?
I can't say, but suspect that it would certainly help apportion blame.
__________________
Have you ever met anyone that would admit to being less than a better than average driver ??

Learn more at DriveSmartBC
skidmark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2010, 01:24 PM   #75
I *heart* Revscene.net very Muchie
 
jlenko's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Burnaby, BC
Posts: 3,562
Thanked 330 Times in 163 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by no_clue View Post
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?
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.
__________________
Don't be the next RS.net statistic - If you drink, don't drive. You'll lose your licence, and the rest of us will laugh at you.
jlenko is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Revscene.net cannot be held accountable for the actions of its members nor does the opinions of the members represent that of Revscene.net