Driving Phone Law

[Graeme S]

So what practical solutions do you offer?

What would your reaction be if officers are banned from using cellphones but are permitted to use radios, will that be an acceptable solution to you, or would you mention the fact that police are still allowed to use radios and that Zulu has mentioned that it is also distracting?

What if officers were banned from using their laptops at stoplights (as people have mentioned here) because it was distracting?


While I understand the view of constructive criticism, the point I think is lacking in your posts is the constructive aspect. Whenever anyone brings up a reason or a rationale, you mention a study or a newspaper article which shows exactly what it is you were saying. Yet there are no real solutions to be offered by you.

Officers need to communicate. Radios are not always the most convenient (and I don't mean "it would take too long to pull over to make a call", so please don't nitpick me on this point) or expedient or what have you. When you remove an officer's ability to communicate effectively, you restrict his ability to do his job.

Yes, unfortunate accidents happen. And yes, they can destroy and change lives. And yes, they are made by the people who have more power than ordinary civilians. And no, I am not suggesting that we look at things "as a balance of issues"; that people who do more good can also do more harm.

But I am also very much against uniformly shitting on the people whose job it is to protect us and help us. If there is a problem when I go to the doctor, and there is a mistake that is made (perhaps something relating to her experience or exhaustion, as some doctors will work 24-hour shifts) I will be upset. I will want remediation. I will not demand that she recuse herself from her job and never practice medicine again except in the case of gross neglect. Mistakes are mistakes. Problems are problems. Individuals are individuals.


If it were my place in this forum, I think I would have lost patience and simply locked you out of it. But The Powers That Be seem content to let you stay here and harp at the officers who on a daily basis are out and about saving lives and yes, ticketing speeders.



If you really think you know better than the people who made the laws (who are really at fault here, not the police whose job it is to enforce it), go run for government or work for the bureaucracy. I am just so sick and tired of your tactile diarrhea here.

[sebberry]

If you'd prefer I'd be happy to re-focus my posting onto questions like "lol, i no its illegal to tint my taillites but i want to do it anyway cuz its cool looking will i get a ticket if its only a little tint? like not blacked out but still some tint?"

At least I reference studies or articles on the matter, unlike some of the members who come on here saying "well its stupid to not be able to use the phone in the car, I don't get distracted".


Where did I EVER post that I didn't think officers should use their two-ways while driving?

When have I ever "shit on" the people who put their life on the line to protect us? I've always tdirected my frustrations at the concept, not the officers.

You have your opinions, I have mine. This is a discussion forum after all.

[Graeme S]

Originally Posted by sebberry

If you'd prefer I'd be happy to re-focus my posting onto questions like "lol, i no its illegal to tint my taillites but i want to do it anyway cuz its cool looking will i get a ticket if its only a little tint? like not blacked out but still some tint?"

At least I reference studies or articles on the matter, unlike some of the members who come on here saying "well its stupid to not be able to use the phone in the car, I don't get distracted".


Where did I EVER post that I didn't think officers should use their two-ways while driving?

When have I ever "shit on" the people who put their life on the line to protect us? I've always tdirected my frustrations at the concept, not the officers.

You have your opinions, I have mine. This is a discussion forum after all.

And done it by continuously telling officers and naysayers why they are wrong. Not offering solutions (ie: petitions to change legislation, finding out methods of contacting MLAs to discuss upcoming legislation &c &c).

While you see yourself as fighting "the concept", I (I'm not sure about the others) see you as constantly shitting on the people who not only spend their days enforcing the laws that have been made and are out of their control, but also who come here to talk with people.


And no, I wouldn't rather you go to asking about taillights...but you have nearly 1500 posts, and I would venture a guess that nigh on half of them (if not more) have been generated solely solely in this specific subforum. This makes you seem like a one-trick-nag-pony.


I very much doubt I'll change you, and I don't want to detract from the purpose of the thread. But by simply arguing over "what is and isn't distracting and is and isn't acceptable and to whom" with people who are not trying to justify the law that was made by someone other than them, but explain why they do what they do.

[sebberry]

This thread started off with a question from someone who has a clear "no electronic devices" restriction on his DL asking if he could use a handsfree phone while driving.

It was followed by various posts full of profanity and unfounded claims that using a handsfree device isn't distracting and you go and crap on me for trying to bring some intelligence into the conversation?

I do admit that I get frustrated with the police when they praise the government for giving them the power to lay administrative penalties based on wonky ASD readings - who wouldn't?

And yes, most of my posts are in this sub forum because these are the topics I enjoy discussing. I really don't have any interest in Vancouver music and clubbing or fashion and shopping. Sorry.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

I do admit that I get frustrated with the police when they praise the government for giving them the power to lay administrative penalties based on wonky ASD readings - who wouldn't?

How about, anyone who doesn't drink and drive in the first place? People bitch about "not being able to have even one drink" as if it was a life-and-death matter.

By the same token, all the bitching about not being able to use handsfree with an L or N, etc, etc, is just retarded. I was driving for ten years before I even got my first cell phone, and somehow I managed to survive without it. My dad drove truck for 15 years, and had another 15 years of driving his contractor's truck all over BC for work, and actually did it without even HAVING a cell phone, let alone ever needing to use one.

So, please, crying about how you can't use your new car's built-in handsfree is nothing short of pathetic. Get through your N years like a good little boy and then use it all you want, hmm? Or just buy a car without it and you'll have nothing to complain about.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Soundy

How about, anyone who doesn't drink and drive in the first place? People bitch about "not being able to have even one drink" as if it was a life-and-death matter.

I have about 5 glasses of wine a year, and never before driving. But it doesn't mean I have to support these laws or agree with the police who support them.

Originally Posted by Soundy

By the same token, all the bitching about not being able to use handsfree with an L or N, etc, etc, is just retarded. I was driving for ten years before I even got my first cell phone, and somehow I managed to survive without it. My dad drove truck for 15 years, and had another 15 years of driving his contractor's truck all over BC for work, and actually did it without even HAVING a cell phone, let alone ever needing to use one.

So, please, crying about how you can't use your new car's built-in handsfree is nothing short of pathetic. Get through your N years like a good little boy and then use it all you want, hmm? Or just buy a car without it and you'll have nothing to complain about.

We finally agree on something, look at that.

[zulutango]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Thank you, Zulu. There are just some things that a brain cannot be taught to do. Just out of curiosity, did you interact with the MDT while stopped at traffic lights?



As you are aware the BC government commissioned a review in 2003 of our speed limits. It showed that there was a statistically significant increase in compliance with the posted limits and reduction in collisions in test areas where the speed limit was raised.

This was in stark contrast to what has been observed in other countries. So you can point to "countries that have properly implemented photo radar" and say "it works over there, why don't we do it?" all you want, but it doesn't mean that it will translate into the same results over here.

I would only take a quick look if the damn MDT was boinging annoyingly because a call had just been dispatched to me...preferred to pull over & stop completely out of traffic....and it was safe enough to take that glance.

As far as the study goes...I'm aware of what happened when the limits were raised where I worked...within a short period of time the speeds went back up again 10-20 k over the new posted limits. I don't know if the studies you quoted went back after a year or so to see if they found what I found. I bet they would, if they had done so.

The "proper" implementation of photo radar in Australia for example, where BC looked to see how they did it, started with a long term saturation campaign tghat told drivers it was coming. They then jacked the speeding fines by a huge $$ figure, made suspensions and prohibitions come in with as little as 2 tickets and made the systems covert instead of sitting at roadside beside a sign and strobe light telling you they were there. The also warned drivers that they would be running into thousands of radar units at almost any point. The they did exactly what they said they would do. Instant drop in speeders and crashes and major drops in injuries, fatals and saved tens of millions of $$ in injury costs. Ou Govt didn't have the cohones to do the same here. In places where they did what the Aussies did they found similar results.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by zulutango

within a short period of time the speeds went back up again 10-20 k over the new posted limits.

I'll bet you a box of donuts that despite some people continuing to exceed the limit by 10-20kph, there was a higher rate of compliance with the increased speed limits.

Originally Posted by zulutango

The "proper" implementation of photo radar in Australia for example, where BC looked to see how they did it, started with a long term saturation campaign tghat told drivers it was coming.

When $$$ and lobbyists are involved, statistics can be twisted and manipulated into anything the government wants. Let's not forget other advancements in road safety, better road and signal design, safer cars, etc... have also contributed greatly to collision and injury reductions.

I get even more skeptical when reports like these and these are becoming increasingly more common.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by zulutango

The "proper" implementation of photo radar in Australia for example, where BC looked to see how they did it, started with a long term saturation campaign tghat told drivers it was coming. They then jacked the speeding fines by a huge $$ figure, made suspensions and prohibitions come in with as little as 2 tickets and made the systems covert instead of sitting at roadside beside a sign and strobe light telling you they were there. The also warned drivers that they would be running into thousands of radar units at almost any point.

I dunno, it always seemed to me that having speed traps (photo or otherwise) highly visible would serve two purposes: rather than just catching speeders, it helps particularly to weed out those who AREN'T PAYING ATTENTION.

If traps are positioned such that a driver who's paying attention to the road ahead can see them and slow down, well, that's "positive reinforcement" for being awake and alert behind the wheel. If a cop is sitting out in plain sight and you're not only speeding, but so oblivious that you miss him entirely until he waves you down, then you REALLY deserve that ticket... and probably a warning for driving without due care.

Just parking an empty cop car on the side of the highway is usually enough to get everyone to slow down. Back in the photo radar days, I worked for a gov't agency that had the little Chevy Astro vans as service vehicles, and some of the people who used them would frequently laugh about how they could pull off to the side of the highway and watch everyone slow down as they passed.

[sebberry]

I was in someone's car the other day and he was going on about how great photo radar was, etc, etc...

He was doing a good 10kph over the limit as he was praising the orwellian system.

[10-9]

Originally Posted by sebberry

I'll bet you a box of donuts that despite some people continuing to exceed the limit by 10-20kph, there was a higher rate of compliance with the increased speed limits.



When $$$ and lobbyists are involved, statistics can be twisted and manipulated into anything the government wants. Let's not forget other advancements in road safety, better road and signal design, safer cars, etc... have also contributed greatly to collision and injury reductions.

I get even more skeptical when reports like these and these are becoming increasingly more common.

ever think that the higher compliance was due to the fact that drivers may have not known the speed raised from, say, 60 to 70... therefore when they go their usual 70, they went from going 10 over to complying?

In a city like Vancouver, you would have to be driving at very early or late hours of the day to be able to really pick up speed excess of 60km/h and not run into a red light every other block or so. In the end, what is the rush? What is so important, that you need to go 20km over the speed limit, all the time? People are just impatient, and some are just idiots behind the wheel. Those are the people causing accidents. Speed, IMO, is regulated to prevent the damage and fatality of car collisions that are inevitable regardless of speed limits.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by 10-9

ever think that the higher compliance was due to the fact that drivers may have not known the speed raised from, say, 60 to 70... therefore when they go their usual 70, they went from going 10 over to complying?

I'm not sure I understand your logic here.

In order for drivers to "go their usual 10 over" they must have knowledge of the posted limit. Are you suggesting that when the speed limit is raised, drivers suddenly become unaware of what the posted limit is?

Originally Posted by 10-9

People are just impatient, and some are just idiots behind the wheel. Those are the people causing accidents.

Shouldn't the solution then be to target dangerous and aggressive drivers? Please don't automatically assume that all "speeders" are tailgating, weaving, driving aggressively and running lights. The two don't go hand in hand.

[Transience]

I'd bet you a box of doughnuts that the people going 20-30 over the limit are the same ones who say it was "unsafe" for them to stop when the light was turning amber/red, subsequently causing a T-bone at an intersection.

[sebberry]

1) It's not difficult to slow down on approach to an intersection. If intersection lights along highways were timed to reflect actual travel speeds, there would be fewer issues at these intersections.

2) If the posted speed limit really was reflective of the upper limit of safe travel speeds, why do the police routinely allow for 20kph over the limit before issuing tickets?

[zulutango]

Because if we wrote you for 1 km over the limit (the actual definistion of speeding in BC) posters would be here bitching about how unfair that was. The whining would never stop. Why are you complaining because most people get a break? Do you want the Cops to paper drivers at 1 k plus? Your sig line says you want safety thru education so Cops should write tickets for every single violation to the max fine permitted under law? That would sure educate drivers in a hurry....pun intended.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by zulutango

Why are you complaining ...

Because that's what he does.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by zulutango

Because if we wrote you for 1 km over the limit (the actual definistion of speeding in BC) posters would be here bitching about how unfair that was. The whining would never stop. Why are you complaining because most people get a break? Do you want the Cops to paper drivers at 1 k plus? Your sig line says you want safety thru education so Cops should write tickets for every single violation to the max fine permitted under law? That would sure educate drivers in a hurry....pun intended.

If speed limits were set more reasonably, it wouldn't be unreasonable to begin enforcement at 5kph over. Set speed limits at the upper end of safe travel speeds and enforce those who continue to break them.

Speaking for myself, I'm calmer, more focussed and better able to manage the space around my vehicle when I drive with the flow of traffic. Unfortunately I'm also at risk of prosecution, penalty points and increased insurance rates.

[yogenfruz]

I agree that there are some areas of cities where 50km/h is actually pointless because everyone does 60+ anyway. This goes for sections of highways saying 90km/h when everyone does 100+. As vehicles become more responsive, obtain better braking technology and safety features, I believe that there are some areas where the limit should be brought up slightly.

However, a close friend of mine works with engineers, as an apprentice, who determine "safe" travel speeds for sections of cities, highways, etc. There's a lot of science going into G-Force limitations, road angle/slope, weather condition possibilities, etc. that determine posted limits.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Bedroom Eyes

There's a lot of science going into G-Force limitations, road angle/slope, weather condition possibilities, etc. that determine posted limits.

Yet we still end up with blanket statutory speed limits that are often significantly below the design speed of the road.

There's plenty of evidence that when speed limits are adjusted, travel speeds remain relatively unchanged. Why? Because drivers are already picking safe speeds as dictated by the factors you mentioned.

In fact, the Institute of Transportation Engineers' own literature states that crash rates are lowest at the 85th percentile speed.

If the 85th percentile speed is the speed at which crash rates are lowest (and often below the speed at which the police target for enforcement) then why not fix the speed limits so that the safe and reasoanble actions of the majority of motorists are no longer illegal?

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Speaking for myself, I'm calmer, more focussed and better able to manage the space around my vehicle when I drive with the flow of traffic. Unfortunately I'm also at risk of prosecution, penalty points and increased insurance rates.

Maybe you just shouldn't be driving at all - sounds like all the pressures and opposing forces are just too much for you. Perhaps you should just switch to riding a bike, before you have a stroke at at 25.

[sebberry]

EDIT: No need to poke the bear...

[zulutango]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Maybe you just shouldn't be driving at all - sounds like all the pressures and opposing forces are just too much for you. Perhaps you should just switch to riding a bike, before you have a stroke at at 25.

If he switches to a bicycle then he can break all the traffic laws he wants, drive anywhere and do anything he wants...and he will fit right in and never get a ticket.....or have my observations about 99% of cyclists been wrong?

[sebberry]

I've had several cyclists either pass or attempt to pass me, including on double-yellows.

One cyclist passed me in a school zone only to get nabbed by a police officer. Is there a law requiring bicycles to have speedometers?

[10-9]

Originally Posted by sebberry

I'm not sure I understand your logic here.

In order for drivers to "go their usual 10 over" they must have knowledge of the posted limit. Are you suggesting that when the speed limit is raised, drivers suddenly become unaware of what the posted limit is?




Shouldn't the solution then be to target dangerous and aggressive drivers? Please don't automatically assume that all "speeders" are tailgating, weaving, driving aggressively and running lights. The two don't go hand in hand.

my logic states that driver's who are unaware of the rise in speed limit kept thinking they were still going 10 over the old limit, when in reality, they were driving at the actual limit, unknowingly abiding by the law. not everyone looks at the posted speed signs, especially if they take the same route every day, what are the chances of someone really looking to see if the speed limit has changed.

police do target aggressive and dangerous drivers.. they also target people who speed. I never once said people who speed are the same people who are dangerous drivers. In the end both are targeted, and the ones that are doing both, are going to get dinged even more.

Why do you think what you believe will work in Vancouver, or any city/town in BC for that matter? I mean, sure you have some studies that may prove it worked for their respective community, but there are people who are paid big bucks to actually create these laws, and who analyze traffic patterns and accidents etc. You can armchair quarterback all you want, but at the end of the day, you don't call the shots, so all you can really do is complain.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by 10-9

my logic states that driver's who are unaware of the rise in speed limit kept thinking they were still going 10 over the old limit, when in reality, they were driving at the actual limit, unknowingly abiding by the law. not everyone looks at the posted speed signs, especially if they take the same route every day, what are the chances of someone really looking to see if the speed limit has changed.

Or perhaps they're oblivious to their own travel speed and are instead simply caving to their natural tendency to go with the flow of the surrounding traffic, unaware of what they've been doing safely for years is blatantly illegal.

I bet if you ask most drivers if they "speed" the answer will usually be no. Ask them if they occasionallg go 5-10kph over the limit when surrounding traffic does the same and you'll probably get a "yes".



What are your opinions of the ITE's recommendations to set posted limits according to the 85th percentile? If the posted limit truly is the absolute maximum safe travel speed, why does study after study (including the ITE's own literature) state that it isn't purely speed that causes collisions - it's the deviation fron the mean travel speed that puts drivers at risk?