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 02-23-2011, 05:29 AM   #26
RS Veteran
 
Spidey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: vancouver
Posts: 8,773
Thanked 1,264 Times in 617 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by parm104 View Post
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?
Advertisement
Spidey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2011, 08:05 AM   #27
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 BlueG2 View Post
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.
__________________
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 02-23-2011, 08:34 AM   #28
RS Veteran
 
Spidey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: vancouver
Posts: 8,773
Thanked 1,264 Times in 617 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy View Post
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.
Spidey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2011, 09:05 AM   #29
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
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.
__________________
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 02-23-2011, 09:21 AM   #30
RS Veteran
 
Spidey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: vancouver
Posts: 8,773
Thanked 1,264 Times in 617 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy View Post
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
Spidey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2011, 09:35 AM   #31
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 BlueG2 View Post
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.
__________________
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 02-23-2011, 09:37 AM   #32
RS Veteran
 
Spidey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: vancouver
Posts: 8,773
Thanked 1,264 Times in 617 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy View Post
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
Spidey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2011, 09:50 AM   #33
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 BlueG2 View Post
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
__________________
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 02-23-2011, 01:04 PM   #34
I contribute to threads in the offtopic forum
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: richmond
Posts: 2,834
Thanked 1,485 Times in 568 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy View Post
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?
__________________
Rise Auto Salon

11938 95a Ave Delta
I can be reached VIA text @ 778-232-1465

Oil change special $70 5 liters synthetic oil including OEM filter Fender rolling from $45 per fender
Car Audio:
Focal, Morel, Genesis, Clarion, Scosche, Escort, Compustar, GReddy, Blitz, Tomei, Motul, Endless, Defi, Cusco, Nismo + More


We specialize in:
Custom Car Audio
Race/4x4 Fabrication
Forced Induction
Engine Swaps
General Maintenance
Phil@rise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2011, 01:43 PM   #35
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
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
__________________
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 02-23-2011, 07:07 PM   #36
RS Veteran
 
Spidey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: vancouver
Posts: 8,773
Thanked 1,264 Times in 617 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy View Post
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
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.
Spidey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 09:12 AM   #37
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
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?
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 09:17 AM   #38
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
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.
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 11:00 AM   #39
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
It was called "corrective training". A Newfie driving instructor with a Taser...can you imagine the potential for pain there in "touch mode" alone?
"Here, touch this to your tongue...."
Posted via RS Mobile
Soundy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 01:11 PM   #40
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
Nahhhhhhh...had to "do the Vegas strip ride" twice during my training to carry one. That was 2 times too many for me.
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 01:31 PM   #41
My dinner reheated before my turbo spooled
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 1,787
Thanked 88 Times in 31 Posts
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?
valent|n0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 01:51 PM   #42
RS Veteran
 
Spidey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: vancouver
Posts: 8,773
Thanked 1,264 Times in 617 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by valent|n0 View Post
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.
Spidey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 02:34 PM   #43
racing & tech mod.
 
Rich Sandor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 4,027
Thanked 491 Times in 183 Posts
^ exactly. it's called common sense.

some people have it, some don't. unfortunately that applies to officers as well as civilians.
Rich Sandor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 02:36 PM   #44
racing & tech mod.
 
Rich Sandor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 4,027
Thanked 491 Times in 183 Posts
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.
Rich Sandor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2015, 03:37 PM   #45
RS Lurker, I don't post!
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Langley, BC
Posts: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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?
tcoleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2015, 04:34 PM   #46
all day, everyday
 
mk1freak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 19th hole
Posts: 2,011
Thanked 1,945 Times in 524 Posts

Spidey, I thought you were an active leo?
__________________
My Feedback
mk1freak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2015, 03:12 AM   #47
Even when im right, revscene.net is still right!
 
xXSupa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Not Richmond
Posts: 1,397
Thanked 2,710 Times in 569 Posts
Its funny seeing the same people arguing about the same thing, 4 years back LOL
__________________
oOoOooOOo what does this space do

-2011 BMW E92 335i- Current
-2009 Chrysler Sebring Convertible- SOLD
xXSupa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2015, 11:21 AM   #48
RS has made me the bitter person i am today!
 
meme405's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 4,625
Thanked 7,179 Times in 2,177 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcoleman View Post
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.
__________________

Barney Fucking Purple FX35
Brianna - 2008 FX35 - Build Thread
meme405 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 07:45 PM.


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