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 06-16-2012, 08:52 PM   #1
I subscribe to Revscene
 
k3mps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: vancity
Posts: 1,929
Thanked 1,315 Times in 385 Posts
Driving Phone Law

Hey guys so I have been wondering about this for awhile now.
Obviously talking on your phone is illegal.
As far as I'm aware of, bluetooth devices are only illegal if you have an N.
What I wanted to know is (because I have an N) are hands-free bluetooth systems illegal?

I know for my case, bluetooth systems (earpieces, earphones) are illegal, but my car comes with bluetooth and I can just speak normally. If i answer a call on my steering wheel, is that considered illegal?

So far, what I have been hearing is 50/50.
Some say it is illegal because it is still a blue tooth device, others say it isn't because it's a car equipped hands-free and earpiece free device.
I've also been told that it may even depend if the officer declares it as using your phone or not.

Just wanted some clarification.
Thanks in advance!
Advertisement
k3mps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2012, 11:21 PM   #2
Banned By Establishment
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Infiniti
Posts: 2,470
Thanked 2,121 Times in 669 Posts
I dont know the answer to your question, but I think the phone law is fucking retarded.

They might as well make a law that people cant eat and drive as well. because I personally think food distract me more (ex:box of fries with ketchup on the side, dip and eat) than me holding a device to my fricking ears.
xilley is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 06-16-2012, 11:52 PM   #3
I contribute to threads in the offtopic forum
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: richmond
Posts: 2,518
Thanked 1,352 Times in 445 Posts
My guess.. If it goes to court, you ARE using a bluetooth device. Your claim is moreless on the loophole..so I'd advise not to use it if you don't want a ticket.
vafanculo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2012, 01:06 AM   #4
Need to Seek Professional Help
 
geeknerd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: vancouver
Posts: 1,055
Thanked 388 Times in 166 Posts
You are not allowed to use a cellphone at all anyways. The stricter restriction is because a conversation can be too much of a distraction for new drivers, not because pressing a button on your ear/wheel can be hard for new drivers.

Got the following quote from the first link on google by searching "icbc phone law":

Quote:
In addition to the above restrictions, new drivers enrolled in the Graduated Licensing Program are prohibited from using hands-free communications devices while driving, including cellphones.
geeknerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2012, 01:45 AM   #5
Revscene.net has a homepage?!
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,241
Thanked 486 Times in 177 Posts
I think it's more dangerous people are trying to hide the fact that they bbm/sms while driving
jackmeister is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 06-17-2012, 03:12 AM   #6
VAC Head Rotang Mod
 
Raid3n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: GP
Posts: 10,377
Thanked 1,180 Times in 523 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by xilley View Post
I dont know the answer to your question, but I think the phone law is fucking retarded.

They might as well make a law that people cant eat and drive as well. because I personally think food distract me more (ex:box of fries with ketchup on the side, dip and eat) than me holding a device to my fricking ears.
i think you could get a ticket for "distracted driving" or some similar such wording... not 100% sure though lol
__________________
1990 FC3S
1984 GSX-R 400
2001 CBR600F4i

My Feedback (10-0-0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fei-Ji View Post
haha i can taste the cum in my mouth
Raid3n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2012, 09:13 AM   #7
...on a mission....
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: n
Posts: 281
Thanked 60 Times in 30 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by xilley View Post
I dont know the answer to your question, but I think the phone law is fucking retarded.

They might as well make a law that people cant eat and drive as well. because I personally think food distract me more (ex:box of fries with ketchup on the side, dip and eat) than me holding a device to my fricking ears.
Wrong....it is NOT the act of HOLDING the device to your "ficking" ears that is the problem!!!!! You and the government have this all wrong. It IS the act of CONCENTRATING on the conversation with a "remote" person that is distracting!!!!! I don't know why this is so hard to understand!!! Your MIND is taken away from concentrating on driving...to concentrating on the conversation.

On that part...why are officers allowed to use the phone while driving? I believe they should still have to pull over to use the phone....OR be required to use a bluetooth set up as the rest of "us". Yea yea....I know...they are "specially" trained to drive.....but I have yet to see a video of them being trained to drive WHILE talking on a cell phone!!!!

I am a professional driver....with many years more experience driving than many of the young officers on the road....what makes them "better" at driving than me? I'm not saying they are NOT good drivers....I'm saying they are not better than a lot of the drivers on the road......
Simnut is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 06-17-2012, 11:20 AM   #8
RS.net, helping ugly ppl have sex since 2001
 
Great68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Victoria
Posts: 8,505
Thanked 2,593 Times in 845 Posts
It would be pretty stupid if you're not allowed to use a feature that came installed in your car from the factory.
__________________
1968 Mustang Coupe
2008.5 Mazdaspeed 3
1997 GMC Sonoma ZR2

A vehicle for all occasions
Great68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2012, 12:07 PM   #9
...on a mission....
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: n
Posts: 281
Thanked 60 Times in 30 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great68 View Post
It would be pretty stupid if you're not allowed to use a feature that came installed in your car from the factory.

Unless it was pretty stupid for manufacturers to even install that feature in the first place............ ESPECIALLY when science hints to the fact that hold a conversation on a cell phone(even hands free) impairs the driver to the equivalent of a BAC of .08.....WHICH by the way....is elidgeble for a criminal charge in Canada. Whats wrong with that picture?

Here, read this:
Why Cell Phone Conversations Distract Drivers - Harvard Health Publications

Here, read this:
Drivers on Cell Phones Are as Bad as Drunks - University of Utah News Release: June 29th, 2006

Here, read this:
http://www.nsc.org/safety_road/Distr...straction.aspx

Do some research......none of the talk about cell phone distraction has ANYTHING to do with HOLDING it. It is all about the "act of the conversation"!

If we are so "up and at 'em" about drinking impairment, drug impairment...distracted driving....then why aren't we "up and at "em" about cell phone usage PERIOD while driving? It IS just as dangerous!
Simnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2012, 03:11 PM   #10
I subscribe to Revscene
 
k3mps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: vancity
Posts: 1,929
Thanked 1,315 Times in 385 Posts
well I talked to two officers I saw while at a blenz.
they said that it's best that I don't use it while I have my N although they acknowledged the fact that it came with my car and it does not involve any bodily attachments.

they said they personally wouldn't have given me a ticket, unless I had an earpiece even though I had my N because technically I don't have a handsfree device on my body.

when i asked what they would do if i had my class 5, they said:
"well its a standard safety feature rather than holding your phone, I don't see why I'd prohibit you from using something that you paid for from the factory."
one of the officers noted that although it's talking via hands-free, you're talking to your steering wheel as if you were singing to a song on the radio.

I dono, i'm just gona resist pressing that "accept call" button for now

kind of silly how you can't use a system that's standard on your car that's designed to stop you from using your handheld.
distracting or not.
k3mps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2012, 04:00 PM   #11
...on a mission....
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: n
Posts: 281
Thanked 60 Times in 30 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonestock View Post
kind of silly how you can't use a system that's standard on your car that's designed to stop you from using your handheld.
distracting or not.
You answered it yourself....because it's distracting..........

Do we want distracted drivers on the road????
Simnut is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 06-17-2012, 07:01 PM   #12
I subscribe to Revscene
 
k3mps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: vancity
Posts: 1,929
Thanked 1,315 Times in 385 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simnut View Post
You answered it yourself....because it's distracting..........

Do we want distracted drivers on the road????
i didn't answer my own question.
my question was "is it illegal to answer a bluetooth device that is standard on my car, and isn't an attachment to my body" which I was getting mixed answers for.

I could be doing 100 more distracting things than talking to my steering wheel that are considered "legal"
k3mps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2012, 08:50 PM   #13
I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
 
Soundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,730
Thanked 12,143 Times in 3,365 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonestock View Post
kind of silly how you can't use a system that's standard on your car that's designed to stop you from using your handheld.
distracting or not.
This is nothing new. Lots of cars come with vanity mirrors in the driver's visor - it's illegal to use those while driving too, whether you're an N or not.

Some learner/new drivers have additional restrictions like not driving after dark - is it silly for car manufacturers to include headlights just because a small segment of their market can't legally drive when they'd need to use them?

Maybe the real silliness is for you to BUY a car that includes a system you know you won't be able to legally use?
__________________
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 06-17-2012, 10:51 PM   #14
I subscribe to Revscene
 
k3mps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: vancity
Posts: 1,929
Thanked 1,315 Times in 385 Posts
well i didn't BUY the car myself.
i don't think that's "silly" at all
k3mps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2012, 11:19 PM   #15
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
If you think you can drive and talk at the same time, give this a shot:

MSF

This isn't your eyes "playing tricks on you", this is your brain's inability to handle processing multiple sources of information at the same time.


I was sitting at a red light today pressing the "next" button on my factory deck. Four buttons, up and down to flip through the folders on my MP3 CD, left and right to change tracks. I'm still confused as to why that was a legal act, but pressing the "next" button on my phone is illegal.

For the most part I agree with the handheld device law, but some parts of it have been poorly thought out. Like pressing "next" at a stop light, or the fact that police officers can use their phone while driving, keeping in mind that their brains aren't any different from everyone elses when it comes to multitasking.
__________________
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 06-17-2012, 11:30 PM   #16
I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
 
Soundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,730
Thanked 12,143 Times in 3,365 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonestock View Post
well i didn't BUY the car myself.
i don't think that's "silly" at all
Oh, so it's Daddy's car? So it's a feature that HE can use, but YOU can't - why is it silly for the manufacturer to include it then?
__________________
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
This post thanked by:
Old 06-18-2012, 10:23 AM   #17
I *Fwap* *Fwap* *Fwap* to RS
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,506
Thanked 102 Times in 61 Posts
I still see people using their handheld device while driving and more often than not, they are doing something stupid, like not making the turn when it's clear already or driving at snail's pace and being oblivious to all around them. At times too, I see them not going when the light changes or running a red at the same speed they were going before (ie. not speeding up to run a red cause you want to, but running a red cause you just didn't notice it). Wish there was a cop around when those people are driving.
wing_woo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2012, 03:31 PM   #18
I subscribe to Revscene
 
k3mps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: vancity
Posts: 1,929
Thanked 1,315 Times in 385 Posts
what the fuck?
im just asking if it's legal for me to use my fucking hands-free system on my car.
you don't think i know that using a phone is distracting? If i didn't know that I'd be holding my phone up to my ears.

i don't understand why the fuck you're turning this around on me.
I got my answer, now let's move on and close this thread
k3mps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2012, 03:50 PM   #19
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonestock View Post
what the fuck?
im just asking if it's legal for me to use my fucking hands-free system on my car.
you don't think i know that using a phone is distracting? If i didn't know that I'd be holding my phone up to my ears.

i don't understand why the fuck you're turning this around on me.
I got my answer, now let's move on and close this thread
Easy tiger...

As has been said before, it is not the act of holding the phone to your ear that's distracting, it's the act of concentrating on the conversation that is the problem.

So, you tell me - can you avoid concentrating on the conversation simply by using a bluetooth hands-free system?
__________________
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 06-18-2012, 05:54 PM   #20
The Lone Wanderator
 
Graeme S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 12,089
Thanked 4,367 Times in 1,137 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry View Post
Easy tiger...

As has been said before, it is not the act of holding the phone to your ear that's distracting, it's the act of concentrating on the conversation that is the problem.

So, you tell me - can you avoid concentrating on the conversation simply by using a bluetooth hands-free system?
An un-enforceable law is an invalid law. You can't tell if someone is chewing gum or talking to themselves or talking to another person if they're having a handsfree conversation. Unless you wish to legislate the operation of phones within motor vehicles...I think it comes down to enforceability.
Graeme S is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 06-18-2012, 06:00 PM   #21
RS.net, where our google ads make absolutely no sense!
 
i-VTEC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 904
Thanked 297 Times in 116 Posts
If a police stop you, just say you were singing to the music to keep yourself awake
i-VTEC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2012, 06:50 PM   #22
I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
 
Soundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,730
Thanked 12,143 Times in 3,365 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry View Post
As has been said before, it is not the act of holding the phone to your ear that's distracting, it's the act of concentrating on the conversation that is the problem.
Actually, I always found that holding the phone to my ear carried a whole other set of problems - specifically, difficulty shoulder-checking and difficulty making some steering manoeuvres. Nothing abstract like whether or not it's distracting... my body just doesn't twist that way.

Of course, that was before it was illegal... and even when it wasn't, I still avoided holding the phone to my head for precisely those reasons: it physically interfered with various driving activities.
__________________
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
This post thanked by:
Old 06-18-2012, 06:54 PM   #23
I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
 
Soundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,730
Thanked 12,143 Times in 3,365 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonestock View Post
i don't understand why the fuck you're turning this around on me.
In large part, due to stupid comments like "kind of silly how you can't use a system that's standard on your car" - as if you're the only person who will ever buy that model of car and will be an "N" driver for the rest of your life.

Quote:
I got my answer, now let's move on and close this thread
A couple things you need to understand about RevScene: threads almost never get closed, and NEVER at the insistence of an OP who's been pwned... and when an OP gets pwned and says "close the thread", that usually a good indicator that it's headed for Fight Club.
__________________
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 06-19-2012, 08:09 PM   #24
NOOB, Not Quite a Regular!
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 37
Thanked 15 Times in 9 Posts
1) cell phones are a distraction whether you are talking on it, or texting

2) they don't have rules against "eating while driving" because there isn't a world wide problem with people eating and crashing their vehicle. cell phones are owned by almost everyone, and everyone uses them while they drive, even with the new law.
besides, you can get a VT for eating, puting on makeup etc, if it is causing you to drive without due care.

3) police officers use cell phones, computers, radios etc. as part of their daily duties.

Careless driving prohibited
144 (1) A person must not drive a motor vehicle on a highway

(a) without due care and attention,

(b) without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway, or

(c) at a speed that is excessive relative to the road, traffic, visibility or weather conditions.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) (a) or (b) is liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $100 and, subject to this minimum fine, section 4 of the Offence Act applies.
10-9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2012, 08:22 PM   #25
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10-9 View Post
1) cell phones are a distraction whether you are talking on it, or texting
Yep, we know that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 10-9 View Post
3) police officers use cell phones, computers, radios etc. as part of their daily duties.
There's nothing biologically different about a police officer's brain than a civilian's brain. Tell me how using those devices while operating a motor vehicle somehow isn't distracting to them?
__________________
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
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 06:30 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