REVscene Automotive Forum
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page

REVscene Automotive Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/)
-   Police Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/police-forum_143/)
-   -   disputing electronic device bylaw (LEO replies only please) (https://www.revscene.net/forums/638261-disputing-electronic-device-bylaw-leo-replies-only-please.html)

Spidey 02-23-2011 04:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by parm104 (Post 7316232)
Whatever happened to mens rea LOL. If only peoples intentions were considered in cases like this rather than just the acts. I know the law is getting tougher on cases like this because of people who abuse the system/people who blatantly break the law.

In a case like this, it is unfortunate because your intention was not to use the device in any way. That being said, I think the playing field should be evened out by banning other activities while driving. Electronic devices are only a small aspect of the safe driving scene. SMOKING should be banned as well. It's just as easy to be distracted with a cigarette in your hand. Not only are you distracted with something in your hand, but also with something that has to be disposed of and ensured that you don't get burnt by it.
how about reading maps? that is worse than phones, imo.

also, my buddy knows a girl who got a ticket for eating a breakfast burrito and driving, lol. thing is, cell phone bannign didn't need its own law, they already have an umbrella term for "driving with undue care and attention", do they not?

Soundy 02-23-2011 07:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueG2 (Post 7316272)
they already have an umbrella term for "driving with undue care and attention", do they not?
No, they don't.

They have a "driving WITHOUT due care"... "WITH UNDUE care" means the exact opposite.

Spidey 02-23-2011 07:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy (Post 7316308)
No, they don't.

They have a "driving WITHOUT due care"... "WITH UNDUE care" means the exact opposite.
I would think without due care = with undue care. It is just worded differently. Without undue care would mean the opposite of with due are, wouldn't it?

It is like saying, he is not worthy= he is unworthy.

Soundy 02-23-2011 08:05 AM
No, it's not the same.

Quote:
undue (ʌnˈdjuː)

— adj
1. excessive or unwarranted
"Undue care" would mean "more care than is required."

Quote:
due (djuː)

— adj
3. requisite; fitting; proper
4. ( prenominal ) adequate or sufficient; enough
"Due care" would be the appropriate amount of care being taken in the circumstances.

"WITHOUT due care" means you're not exercising a requisite level of care.

"WITH UNdue care" means you're using more care than is warranted.

The former will get you a ticket... the latter will not.

Spidey 02-23-2011 08:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy (Post 7316350)
No, it's not the same.



"Undue care" would mean "more care than is required."



"Due care" would be the appropriate amount of care being taken in the circumstances.

"WITHOUT due care" means you're not exercising a requisite level of care.

"WITH UNdue care" means you're using more care than is warranted.

The former will get you a ticket... the latter will not.


Maybe undue care and without due care just gets improperly interchanged???.. because I found a bunch of links, http://www.5ive-o.org/forum/showthre...-amp-attention

http://www.bcsportbikes.com/forum/ar...p/t-13842.html

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Motor...ion372794.html

http://www.s2forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12571

Soundy 02-23-2011 08:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueG2 (Post 7316362)
Maybe undue care and without due care just gets improperly interchanged???..
Constantly. People hear and use the terms interchangeably without actually expending any thought to what either one actually means. And yes, that includes some cops, too.

Just because tons of people use the wrong phrase, doesn't make it automatically right.

Spidey 02-23-2011 08:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy (Post 7316377)
Constantly. Just because tons of people use the wrong phrase, doesn't make it automatically right.
It just sounded right, and the fact that there were google searches, made me believe they were interchangeable.. I had to dictionary.com the def of undue to realize it was wrong

Soundy 02-23-2011 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueG2 (Post 7316378)
It just sounded right, and the fact that there were google searches, made me believe they were interchangeable..
Alas, schools are teaching less and less of the BASICS of the English language, and forgoing any sort of encouragement of critical thought, so people just accept whatever they hear and read without actually paying attention to the MEANING of what they're saying. It doesn't help that the two phrases DO sound very similar (and really, "with undue care" does "flow" a little smoother).

Another example is, "I could(n't) care less": most people use the phrase to indicate that they care the least amount possible about something, which PROPERLY would be, "I COULDN'T care less"... but more often than not, the phrase it as "I COULD care less," which while not meaning the OPPOSITE, certainly doesn't mean the same thing.

I know there are plenty of other examples of the same thing, but no more come immediately to mind...

Quote:
I had to dictionary.com the def of undue to realize it was wrong
No you didn't - I quoted it above :troll:

Phil@rise 02-23-2011 12:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy (Post 7316377)
Constantly. People hear and use the terms interchangeably without actually expending any thought to what either one actually means. And yes, that includes some cops, too.

Just because tons of people use the wrong phrase, doesn't make it automatically right.
Welcome to english fail. At one time persons and peoples were not words.

But based on a now more clarified basis on this law would it be safe to assume it is now illegal to operate something as simple as a cigarette lighter unless the car is safely parked?

sebberry 02-23-2011 12:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zulutango (Post 7315779)
Cost me a lot of coffee and pie at Smittys to keep getting whacked with the clipboard for "mistakes" in my driving.
Good thing they didn't have tazer training back then ;)

Spidey 02-23-2011 06:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy (Post 7316391)
Alas, schools are teaching less and less of the BASICS of the English language, and forgoing any sort of encouragement of critical thought, so people just accept whatever they hear and read without actually paying attention to the MEANING of what they're saying. It doesn't help that the two phrases DO sound very similar (and really, "with undue care" does "flow" a little smoother).

Another example is, "I could(n't) care less": most people use the phrase to indicate that they care the least amount possible about something, which PROPERLY would be, "I COULDN'T care less"... but more often than not, the phrase it as "I COULD care less," which while not meaning the OPPOSITE, certainly doesn't mean the same thing.

I know there are plenty of other examples of the same thing, but no more come immediately to mind...



No you didn't - I quoted it above :troll:
woah woah woah settle down. lol.. i actually did google it before you posted it, as I was second guessing myself. My reason for believing it was interchangeable wasn't soley because it sounded right. When I hear or see the prefix "un" in front of a word, I automatically think opposite, or NON. Just like undisclosed, unintentional etc... To be honest, I never knew undue was a word on its own, and not "the opposite of due". That was my mistake.

zulutango 02-24-2011 08:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry (Post 7316643)
Good thing they didn't have tazer training back then ;)
It was called "corrective training". A Newfie driving instructor with a Taser...can you imagine the potential for pain there in "touch mode" alone? :devil:

zulutango 02-24-2011 08:17 AM
Mens rea only applies in Criminal trials. Traffic court trials are absoloute liability trials and it is not needed to prove that the driver intended to speed, blow a stop sign, unsafe lane change etc...only that it was done. If there is some explanation for the action that is based on having to do so to avoid death or injury, then that is taken into the determination of guilt. If you haver to run a stop sign because the car behind you is not stopping and will rear end you, then there would be the defence of necessity to do that and the JP would not convict.

Soundy 02-24-2011 10:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zulutango (Post 7317621)
It was called "corrective training". A Newfie driving instructor with a Taser...can you imagine the potential for pain there in "touch mode" alone? :devil:
"Here, touch this to your tongue...."
Posted via RS Mobile

zulutango 02-24-2011 12:11 PM
Nahhhhhhh...had to "do the Vegas strip ride" twice during my training to carry one. That was 2 times too many for me.

valent|n0 02-24-2011 12:31 PM
we can't grab a bite while driving too now?

I am not talking eating a whole sandwich the entire time , only grab one piece of food and put it in my mouth ...
I always munch, I have peanuts on the passenger seat

if that is not allowed?
how about drinking a bottle of water?

Spidey 02-24-2011 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by valent|n0 (Post 7317899)
we can't grab a bite while driving too now?

I am not talking eating a whole sandwich the entire time , only grab one piece of food and put it in my mouth ...
I always munch, I have peanuts on the passenger seat

if that is not allowed?
how about drinking a bottle of water?
I am sure it is up to the discretion of the officer who sees what you are doing. If it were me, I would follow the driver a bit, and see if it is distracting him. If someone were to try to eat a whole extra value meal, that is different than taking a sip of water, which imo, can be done at stop lights.

Rich Sandor 02-24-2011 01:34 PM
^ exactly. it's called common sense.

some people have it, some don't. unfortunately that applies to officers as well as civilians.

Rich Sandor 02-24-2011 01:36 PM
The fact is, there is a difference between trying to munch out of a bag of chips while you are stopped at a light, versus while you are trying to negotiate a 90deg left hand turn at 80kph with cars beside you and oncoming traffic as well. Both are illegal, but one is safe and one is unsafe.

tcoleman 03-09-2015 02:37 PM
Can I ask a related question regarding a ticket for the other section of this infraction?
I received a ticket written specifically to subsection (2) above (so 214.2(2), specific to communicating via email or text). I was indeed holding my phone at a stop sign and pressing a button... so I am of course guilty of subsection 1... but because he wrote it to subsection 2 I'm wondering if it's only valid if I was indeed emailing or texting. I had a browser page open, yes I have learned my lesson, but I would think his open-and-shut case might not be so easy to uphold since he specified section 2 without asking specifically what I was doing.

Any ideas?

mk1freak 03-09-2015 03:34 PM
:confused:
Spidey, I thought you were an active leo?
:confused:

xXSupa 03-10-2015 02:12 AM
Its funny seeing the same people arguing about the same thing, 4 years back LOL

meme405 03-10-2015 10:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcoleman (Post 8607131)
Can I ask a related question regarding a ticket for the other section of this infraction?
I received a ticket written specifically to subsection (2) above (so 214.2(2), specific to communicating via email or text). I was indeed holding my phone at a stop sign and pressing a button... so I am of course guilty of subsection 1... but because he wrote it to subsection 2 I'm wondering if it's only valid if I was indeed emailing or texting. I had a browser page open, yes I have learned my lesson, but I would think his open-and-shut case might not be so easy to uphold since he specified section 2 without asking specifically what I was doing.

Any ideas?
If you are asking if you can dispute because the officer wrote a different subsection, the answer is an overwhelming NO.

When you get to court the officer will simply be told to change the ticket to the correct subsection and you will still be on the hook.

Pay the ticket, learn the lesson. Quit trying to find technicalities.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:36 AM.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, 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