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 09-03-2012, 09:48 AM   #26
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
The fact remains that your brain can only deal really well with driving, or really well with the phone call. It can't do both really well.
Advertisement
__________________
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 09-03-2012, 11:46 AM   #27
...on a mission....
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: n
Posts: 281
Thanked 60 Times in 30 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry View Post
The fact remains that your brain can only deal really well with driving, or really well with the phone call. It can't do both really well.
.....dang....cant' argue with that! lol Did you get that from someone else Sebberry? hehehehe
Simnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2012, 11:51 AM   #28
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Nope, made it up myself
__________________
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 09-03-2012, 01:28 PM   #29
...on a mission....
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: n
Posts: 281
Thanked 60 Times in 30 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry View Post
Nope, made it up myself
Good job!
Simnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2012, 05:55 PM   #30
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
While I disagree with some people here that you can text and drive or chat and drive safely, I don't support the ban on handheld electronic devices.

I think the law in its current state is flawed and a recent MIT study tends to agree.

Despite the rules, I still see people texting and driving on the highway. Texting and driving through intersections. "N" drivers texting and chatting on the phone. As smartphones become more prevalent so will texting and driving.

Prior to the introduction of the handheld device ban, there were already laws on the books that dealt with inattentive driving. In fact I preferred this because not only was there some discretion to be had on the part of the police officer, the officer also had to demonstrate that inattentive driving was taking place.

Reading or composing a text while operating a moving vehicle? Pretty clearly inattentive driving. Failing to go when the light turns green because you're looking down at your phone with other cars honking at you? Pretty clearly inattentive driving. Glancing at the time on the phone or pressing the "next" button on the side of your MP3 player while you're stopped and the cross traffic has the green light? Pretty hard to prove inattention.

You know the old saying that locks only keep honest people out? This law only serves to make sure that people who wouldn't pick up the phone while driving in the first place continue to abstain from picking it up. Those who don't care or who are addicted to texting will continue to do so, just like drink drivers continue to drive drunk.

The rules have also removed the officer's ability to use discretion in determining whether or not the device is causing a distraction for the driver at that time and place.

By having one piece of legislation with one penalty blanket any and all contact with the device, the law is effectively saying that moving the device from the cupholder to the console bin while stopped at a light is equally as dangerous as texting on a busy freeway at night.

A personal example: When I use my cell phone for playing back music in the car, it sits in the cup holder right next to my seat heater control. The action I must take to change a song is virtually identical to adjusting the seat heater dial, yet doing so puts me at risk of being carged with an offense as dangerous as texting on a busy freeway at night. In fact, I could easily demonstrate that skipping a song on my phone is less distracting than skipping a song on my car's stereo or adjusting the air conditioner knob. To operate those controls in the car I have to take my eye off the road and glance down.

But because officer discretion has been removed and the provincial government is too thick to see that not all uses of a handheld electronic device are the same, drivers are now forced to use potentially more distracting built in controls.

What's next, Minister Bond? Pull over and legally park to adjust the air conditioner?
__________________
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 09-03-2012, 08:26 PM   #31
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
So, to paraphrase the MIT study you linked.....because they are bad drivers anyway without the cell phones, we should let them text & talk because it won't make any difference?
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2012, 09:38 PM   #32
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
And if there were already laws on the books that dealt with distracted/inattentive drivers, why did we need another one layered on top? I don't see these already sloppy drivers dropping their cell phones now that we've banned them, in fact I see more people all the time using their phones. If the existing laws were simply applied to those offences, you wouldn't need the new laws.

And why is it legal for me to use my factory radio which requires more attention to operate than performing the same action on my cell phone?
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/

Support Road safety through education, not speed enforcement.

Last edited by sebberry; 09-03-2012 at 09:49 PM.
sebberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2012, 08:18 AM   #33
I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
 
Soundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,730
Thanked 12,144 Times in 3,366 Posts
We need a law against chopsticks...

__________________
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 09-04-2012, 08:40 AM   #34
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
"Driving without due care" not good enough for you, Soundy?
__________________
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 09-05-2012, 04:48 AM   #35
...on a mission....
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: n
Posts: 281
Thanked 60 Times in 30 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy View Post
We need a law against chopsticks...
We do, it's called distracted driving....
Simnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 07:54 AM   #36
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
We should get rid of all existing traffic laws and regulations and then let some women redesign the whole regulatory thing. They will come up with one rule only, which will cover every possible traffic infraction, that's the good news. The bad news is that the rule will change at any time (and you are expected to know of the changes and comply immediately), at their discretion and offences will be come retroactive and punitive....and if you are right and innocent and did nothing wrong, the punishment will be even worse, because you were right & they were not. Hey, any of you guys who are married know exactly what I'm talkin about.
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 09-05-2012, 02:01 PM   #37
The Lone Wanderator
 
Graeme S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 12,089
Thanked 4,367 Times in 1,137 Posts
I think one of the problems with laws like Driving Without Due Care is that it is in and of itself a kind of...vague law.
"He was driving without due care and attention"
"Did I cause an accident?"
"no."
"Was any damage incurred?"
"no."
"Then how can you prove I was driving without due care and attention?"


On the other hand, "using an electronic device" is something that's specific and easy to tell the judge. It's like I say, you can't legislate morality nor stupidity.
Graeme S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 02:07 PM   #38
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
By your logic, if I get a speeding ticket I should be able to go to court and say "well there wasn't a crash, prove that I was being dangerous"

There's enough science and study behind the effects of talking/texting on a phone while driving that it should be pretty easy to ticket someone for driving without due care when they're typing away on the phone.

I was watching one young woman today driving while texting on her white iPhone in a pink case. Well, when she wasn't sipping her Tim Hortons iced cap that is. I noticed a "baby on board" sign in the back window, so she obviously cared deeply for the two toddlers in the back seat.

This law doesn't fix stupidity.
__________________
Consider reading the research before commenting on photo enforcement: http://thenewspaper.com/

Support Road safety through education, not speed enforcement.

Last edited by sebberry; 09-05-2012 at 02:24 PM.
sebberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2012, 06:32 PM   #39
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
That requires a combination of karma and Darwin....and perfect timing.
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 09-06-2012, 11:54 AM   #40
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Hummer driver saves children at Edmonton crosswalk | Edmonton | News | Edmonton Sun

CN: Driver on phone almost hits 4 kids in crosswalk, despite cell phone ban. Driver not charged with "using handheld device" but rather "dangerous driving".

Proof that you don't need a handheld device ban in order to charge someone for using a handheld device.
__________________
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 09-06-2012, 06:31 PM   #41
I WANT MY 10 YEARS BACK FROM RS.net!
 
Soundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Abbotstan
Posts: 20,730
Thanked 12,144 Times in 3,366 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry View Post
Hummer driver saves children at Edmonton crosswalk | Edmonton | News | Edmonton Sun

CN: Driver on phone almost hits 4 kids in crosswalk, despite cell phone ban. Driver not charged with "using handheld device" but rather "dangerous driving".

Proof that you don't need a handheld device ban in order to charge someone for using a handheld device.
You also don't need to be using a phone to be charged with dangerous driving.

How about, "Driver not charged with 'driving without due care' but rather 'dangerous driving' - proof that you don't need a 'drive without due care' in order to charge someone for using a handheld device'".

Might as well just do away with both laws and just apply "dangerous driving" to both circumstances, 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 09-06-2012, 08:50 PM   #42
...on a mission....
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: n
Posts: 281
Thanked 60 Times in 30 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundy View Post
How about, "Driver not charged with 'driving without due care' but rather 'dangerous driving' - proof that you don't need a 'drive without due care' in order to charge someone for using a handheld device'".

\
Technically, almost EVERY accident, aside from a medical scenario, could have a "driving without due care" charge applied to it. Right?
Simnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2012, 11:16 PM   #43
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Why can I take my eyes off the road while stopped to look at a map, slip of paper, etc.. but I cannot press the "next" button on the side of my phone to skip a song, an action that can be done without taking my eyes off the road.

I can't seem to get a straight answer about that...
__________________
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 09-07-2012, 10:28 AM   #44
I contribute to threads in the offtopic forum
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 2,834
Thanked 4,664 Times in 1,010 Posts
That's because there is no straight answer, and you knew that there wasn't before you even asked the question.

You stated yourself that people here have formed an opinion of you...ever wonder why?

You're allowed to read a map while driving. Hell, you're "allowed" to read a novel if you want to. Bus drivers do crossword puzzles at red lights all the time.

Please stop picking at technicalities and coming up with specific situations where the law/rules may not be applicable or make much sense, and just use your common sense.

If you really want to find out, then go carry out those situations while driving, and report back. THEN we'll have a discussion...but for now all it seems like you're doing (in many of these threads) is "but what if..." "but what if..." and why why why.
inv4zn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2012, 10:38 AM   #45
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
I know exactly what I'm saying. That's why I'm saying it, to point out all the stupid parts of the handheld device ban that only apply to handheld electronic devices and not other, equally distracting activities.

If the police simply enforced the driving without due care laws we could use common sense like you suggest. But no, drivers are no longer allowed to make simple common sense decisions as it relates to their driving related activities. It's a wonder why people are allowed to drive at all!


One more example, and I'm being serious here. A lot of new cars have a cable in the glove box to plug in an iThing so you can control it from the head unit. Is it legal to operate the device's functions through the controls of the head unit?
__________________
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 09-07-2012, 10:51 AM   #46
I contribute to threads in the offtopic forum
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 2,834
Thanked 4,664 Times in 1,010 Posts
^With this post, I agree.

"If the police simply enforced the driving without due care laws we could use common sense like you suggest." But then we look at the economics of ticketing, as well as the fact that common sense isn't so common anymore...and yeah.

As for your last point, I guess the argument can be made that it came stock from the factory, and is otherwise integrated into your vehicle. So yes, it's legal. And yes, I know that using a factory navigation vs your iphone navigation are probably equal in terms of distraction, but one is allowed while the other isn't.

But I must go back to my original perspective on this (and these laws) that debating about them is moot. Just like any other law, there are loopholes and exemptions and what not...and nitpicking, such as asking why cops are exempt, really don't matter.

If you truly believe against it, then break said laws, and hire a good lawyer and fight it in court, set a precedent, and get the entire law repealed.
inv4zn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2012, 11:04 AM   #47
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by inv4zn View Post
If you truly believe against it, then break said laws, and hire a good lawyer and fight it in court, set a precedent, and get the entire law repealed.
Because I want to risk tarnishing my driving record to prove a point...
__________________
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 09-07-2012, 11:21 AM   #48
I contribute to threads in the offtopic forum
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 2,834
Thanked 4,664 Times in 1,010 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry View Post
Because I want to risk tarnishing my driving record to prove a point...
You won't tarnish if it you win
inv4zn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2012, 12:23 PM   #49
...on a mission....
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: n
Posts: 281
Thanked 60 Times in 30 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by inv4zn View Post
and exemptions and what not...and nitpicking, such as asking why cops are exempt, really don't matter.
Not really nit picking.....as the subject was brought to mind by an officer trying to turn his vehicle WITH his elbow....10' from MY vehicle......
Simnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2012, 02:01 PM   #50
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simnut View Post
Not really nit picking.....as the subject was brought to mind by an officer trying to turn his vehicle WITH his elbow....10' from MY vehicle......
Yeh, that's a lot safer than someone pressing one button while stopped.

This law is full of and considering how many drivers I still see holding/texting/yapping on their phones it's clear that it isn't doing much good either.
__________________
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 10:31 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