Well if you are looking down and texting I can see that, but not holding a phone having a voice conversation.

one thing came into my mind today, i guess it is also illegal to charge your phone while driving (I do wear bluetooth earpiece ) ?

Since the phone will be visible on front passenger's seat or in my case cup holder.

Probably best to run the cord to the trunk just to avoid any possible confusion :rolleyes:

^ lol, for real ??? haha

Just treat it like booze. If it is within reach, you're obviously using it while driving.;)

As I have not worked there for quite some time, I'm not aware of the specifics of the legislation. The systems can be legal IF they are NOT used while it is being driven. Just like now in BC...phone is not illegal, just using it while driving. The only Nfld Edition vehicle I'm aware of was the "Bonavista Edition" 4X4 a while back. Called the the "Chilkoot" out here.

I don't see GPS devices listed in the definition of "Electronic device", or are the NMEA data strings that it receives considered "Text based messages"? If so, this could potentially include some garage door opener systems.

How do you enforce laws against hands free devices? It would be pretty hard to spot their use. I can see the automotive industry lobbying against it too.

There are "radar detector-detectors"...so I guess some sort of RF meter could be marketed. Not very difficult. There is likely something already available in Broadcast equipment.

You can call someone, have them answer, and complete a call before a light changes? unlikely

It shouldn't be too difficult for them to modify the system to only work while the vehicle is in park.

Red light can be what, a couple of minutes or more at a large intersection?

I used to do it all the time. Ring a client to let them know I was running a few minutes late, call a coworker to see if he wanted me to grab a coffee for him on the way in, etc... Always ended the call by the time the light changed to green and the car in front of me started to move.

I can think of many calls that can be completed at a red light.

With the advances in bluetooth technology, many people play music from their phone or other device through their vehicle's entertainment system via bluetooth. While radar detector-detectors only go off in the presence of a radar detector, a bluetooth detector would go off in the presense of any bluetooth signal, phone call or not.

Yeah, I think this law is stupid too. I'm all for totally banning cellphone use as it's the conversation that's taking the drivers attention away. I'm glad someone brought up a study on attention and cognitive load. BUT, that'll simply slide down into not engaging the driver in conversation with passengers and thus relegating all drivers to L drivers and their passenger restrictions.

I see it like the dumb law of not displaying cigarettes in stores. If it's such a concern, ban smoking entirely! But I guess they still want the taxes that come from every pack sold.
Posted via RS Mobile

My understanding is that the technology exists right now for just about all cell phones to be disabled if a vehicle is in motion. The phone detects movement from changing tower distances, the phone won't work. Not enough political will to do it yet.

Radar detector-detectors work on the transmitted signal. I'm assuming the cell phone RF detector would look for a transmission rather than just a signal emission or general RF field.

They do?? I wasn't aware radar detectors actually transmitted a signal; doing so would be illegal in itself unless you were a licensed operator for that band.

Problem with that is that cel phones are constantly communicating with the towers. Granted I'm not a specialist in the field, but other than maybe a boost in power, I don't think you'd be able to tell via outside signal sniffer whether a conversation is actually in progress or not.

^ my guess would be the size/type of packets would change, from a few blips back and forth to a solid stream. but then what if the passenger is using the phone?

I wouldn't see that being too reliable, even watching your phone you can see the signal strength changing without you going anywhere. That plus the accuracy of the towers triangulation, ie if you drove under a certain speed it would still work, plus you have to account for people walking with their phones, as well as passengers using their phones. To kill off every phones use just because it is moving would be somewhat silly.

I do not think that it would be implented, what if I am on the bus and its in motion, what if I am on the train going 70kph?

By "tranmitted signal" maybe I should rephrase it...by the rf coming from the set when it is turned on. Here.

VG-2 Interceptor was the first device developed for this purpose, although more current technology such as the Spectre III (Stalcar in Australia) is now available. [1] This form of "electronic warfare" cuts both ways and since detector-detectors use a similar superheterodyne receiver, many early "stealth" radar detectors were equipped with a radar-detector-detector-detector circuit, which shuts down the main radar receiver when the detector-detector's signal is sensed, thus preventing detection by such equipment. This technique borrows from ELINT surveillance countermeasures. In the early 1990s, BEL-Tronics, Inc. of Ontario, Canada (where radar detector use is prohibited) found that the local oscillator frequency of the detector could be altered to be out of the range of the VG-2 Interceptor. This resulted in a wave of detector manufacturers changing their local-oscillator frequency. Today, practically every radar detector on the market is immune to the VG-2 Interceptor[citation needed].

The Spectre III detected almost every radar detector certified for operation in the United States by the Federal Communications Commission as of December 2004. However counter technology has evolved rapidly, so that by July 2008, even budget radar detectors were able to avoid detection by the device.[2] Then in late 2008 the SpectreIV was released, citing improved range over the Spectre III and reliability.

We used to use a really simple radar detector-detector. Drive a really ratty unmarked car or truck in traffic and turn on a radar set. Watch the brake lights come on for no other reason and pull the vehicle over. Worked every time.

The cell phone disable technology was reported on several news and science type shows a little while back. They made the claims and as it was on several different programmes, I tend to believe them this time.

Abstract:

The invention describes a method implemented on a mobile phone that will disable a cellular phone to prevent an incoming and outgoing or re-route an incoming cellular phone call/text/video/messages and the like if the cellular phone is known to be moving at a predetermined speed corresponding to an unsafe operation of a vehicle. The system and method will determine if the cellular phone is travelling at the predetermined speed and if so will alert the user, then perform any one or all of, a set of predetermined actions such as shutdown the phone, re-route all call to voice messages, store all text messages, shutdown the display, prevent outbound calling/texting, and the like. The invention prevents an individual from using their cellular phone while operating a moving vehicle at or above a predetermined speed.

Read more: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/2009...#ixzz0eXYtWMCV

But that still kills off any cell phone travelling in a bus/as a passenger above that speed. They have no way to pick out if the cell phone belongs to the driver or what.

Maybe you should be speaking with the inventors or the patent office? Do a google and look at the rest of the tecchy stuff on it.

Skimming that link you provided I am fairly certain the suggested setup wouldn't work. They mention referring to Google Maps for reference (:lol) and enabling the phones if you are found to not be on a road. There's also something about riding a horse. Maybe someone who is more used to reading patents can understand it better, but like I said, very unlikely this would be implemented, or very functional.

Or for that matter, what about passengers in that car?

Actually, if memory serves, the "detector-detector" is tuned to pick up the emissions of the detector's IF oscillator, which in the early days at least, were rarely shielded.

Of course, all this only really matters in jurisdictions where radar detectors are illegal, which DOESN'T include BC.

I'd be interested in knowing whatever became of the challenge in the US that claimed anti-radar-detector laws themselves were "unconstitutional", since the right of citizens to receive any radio signals was protected. And really, all a radar detector is, is a radio receiver with a signal-strength meter, tuned to three or four very specific frequencies. Granted, the last I heard of that was over 15 years ago...

The results of that court case will be delivered shortly in a black helicopter by Magna Carta Airlines. :)