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 09-07-2012, 05:46 PM   #51
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
[QUOTE=sebberry;8022021]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.[/QUOTE]

No, proof that almost killing 4 kids deserves more that just a traffic ticket. Not noticing that the light has turned green gets a ticket, nearly killing 4 kids get you an appropriate criminal code charge...unless you think they are the same thing? Tell us you don't.
Advertisement
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2012, 08:05 PM   #52
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
No, they're not the same thing - and not noticing the light has turned green could easily fall under "inattentive driving". Clearly the cell phone ban isn't helping anyway.

Let those who are responsible enough to make the right decision use it, and those who let it interfere with their driving get a ticket. Pretty clear to me.
__________________
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, 09:11 PM   #53
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
According to police, witnesses reported that the driver of a 2007 Pontiac G5 was speeding and allegedly speaking on his cell phone when he passed several vehicles that were stopped to let the four children use the crosswalk at 84 Avenue.

Now, police are commending Krushelnicki’s actions.

“These children potentially could have sustained serious injuries and or death,” said police spokesperson Scott Pattison, noting Krushelnicki will be recommended for a citizen’s award.


And ya still wanna give him a ticket? He obviously though that he was responsible enough to speed, pass a bunch of stopped vehicles, ingore the lighted X walk so he chose to drive that way while on his phone. Let the punishment fit the crimr is what I'm saying. Studies have shown that the mental distraction is the problem. If we take your position to the extreme we should let impaired drivers loose on the streets as long as the impairment doesn't interfere with their driving. What part of impairment do we not understand here?
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2012, 09:14 PM   #54
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Where did I say that I didn't approve of the dangerous driving charge?
__________________
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, 10:36 PM   #55
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
I must have missed where you said you did? My bad? I keep seeing posts saying that we don't need new laws.....and that certain amounts of distracted driving are Ok as long as you don't crash....in so many words. It's not a case of "letting it interfere"....it does interfere...to varying degrees.

Last edited by zulutango; 09-07-2012 at 10:42 PM.
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2012, 11:18 PM   #56
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
We don't need new laws - existing laws dealing with distracted and inattentive driving can and should be applied to drivers operating a mobile phone when driving.

The scope of the handheld device ban is quite specific and it fails to expressly ban distractions caused by items that do not fall under the "handheld electronic device" legislation. A driver is forbidden from sending a text message while stopped at a light, but a driver is not prohibited from jotting down a note with pen and paper. Both tasks are equally distracting and can result in the driver failing to go on a green light or notice some other hazard.

The law also fails to recognize the significant difference in the severity of consequences stemming from the various uses of the device. In practice, driving the car at 80kph on a busy highway while flipping through album covers to choose a song is NOT the same as pressing the "next" button while your car is stationary facing a red light, but the law considers it to be one and the same.

In fact, the law says you can press a single button to answer a phone call in hands-free mode in order to engage in a distracting telephone conversation, but it forbids an almost identical one-touch action to skip over a song. Tell me how that's logical, please.
__________________
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 09-08-2012, 02:04 AM   #57
The Lone Wanderator
 
Graeme S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 12,089
Thanked 4,367 Times in 1,137 Posts
Lots of laws are full of fail. Everyone acknowledges this.

Until something better is put in place, however, all that bitching gets absolutely nothing done other than annoying virtually everyone.

If you have a better suggestion, I think pretty much everyone in this entire frakking forum would delight in it.


Mayhaps your time would be better used overhauling the MVA into a form that you believe would be better rather than criticizing laws that none of us have any method of changing.
Graeme S is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 09-08-2012, 10:29 AM   #58
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 Graeme S View Post
Mayhaps your time would be better used overhauling the MVA into a form that you believe would be better rather than criticizing laws that none of us have any method of changing.
Never happen - that just smacks of effort. Being an RS Keyboard Warrior is much easier.

Am I crazy for envisioning that sebberry has never actually driven a vehicle in his life, he just nit-picks the laws based on what he THINKS it's actually like out on the roads, and playing driving sims in his basement all day?

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.c...h-park-580.jpg
__________________
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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2012, 09:12 PM   #59
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Hang up cell bans | FP Comment | Financial Post

Quote:
In recent years, cellphone use has increased tremendously. Between 2005 and 2009, the number of Alberta households with a cellphone increased by 31%, according Statistics Canada. That followed a 170% increase from 1997 to 2005. Yet, between 2005 and 2009, the number of casualties caused by traffic collisions in the province decreased by 22%. The correlation between cellphone use and traffic accidents simply doesn’t exist.
Quote:
A 2010 study, which was actually sponsored by the insurance industry in the United States, examined insurance claims before and after distracted driving laws were passed in California, Connecticut, New York and Washington, D.C. It found no decrease in claims after the laws were enacted. More recently, the Governors Highway Safety Association conducted a review of 350 scientific papers on the subject and found “no evidence that cellphone or texting bans have reduced crashes.”
__________________
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 09-10-2012, 09:14 AM   #60
I *Fwap* *Fwap* *Fwap* to RS
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,506
Thanked 102 Times in 61 Posts
I see someone on the cellphone almost everytime I drive and more often than not, they do something stupid right in front of me.
wing_woo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2012, 04:19 PM   #61
Where's my RS Christmas Lobster?!
 
Brad Fuel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 811
Thanked 37 Times in 19 Posts
Sebberry I don't think you seem to understand that talking on the phone or texting has been deemed a distraction that affects your driving ability and that none of it is acceptable at any point during driving. This is what the law is saying which is reflective of society's views.

What you are suggesting is there are already laws in place for distracted driving that cover that. Yes drive without due care and consideration do cover it but not in the same enforcable way. A drive without due care requires some sort of driving evidence such as swerving in the lane. Where as the cell phone law doesn't. I (and I believe a lot of members here) will agree this is appropriate. If I was a cop, I shouldn't need to wait for cell phone users to screw up before ticketing them.

Obviously there are a million things you can do that are equally or more distracting than cell phone use. But until eating noodles while driving becomes so prominant in society, a specific law won't be made for it.

If you have better wording on how to modify/write the law then post it. I would love to read your suggestion of the law and the think of a million situations on how practical it would be to enforce. Since you're so adamant on being able to change your music from your phone compared to texting, do a quick write up that allows for the difference yet still can have enforceable means (basically no loop holes). For now all you do is complain without any real suggestion.
Brad Fuel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2012, 05:23 PM   #62
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Fuel View Post
Sebberry I don't think you seem to understand that talking on the phone or texting has been deemed a distraction that affects your driving ability and that none of it is acceptable at any point during driving.
Christ, why do I even bother posting. Clearly nobody actually reads my posts. Where have I EVER said that I think someone should be able to talk or text while driving?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Fuel View Post
This is what the law is saying which is reflective of society's views.
Don't you think society wants laws that are effective? So far, the handheld device law isn't proving particularly effective. And with the number of people who use their phone while driving still quite high, I'd also question if the law is truly reflective of society's views.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Fuel View Post
If you have better wording on how to modify/write the law then post it. I would love to read your suggestion of the law and the think of a million situations on how practical it would be to enforce. Since you're so adamant on being able to change your music from your phone compared to texting, do a quick write up that allows for the difference yet still can have enforceable means (basically no loop holes). For now all you do is complain without any real suggestion.
I'm not about to sit here and write legislation - if it's legal to press the next button on the radio, then it should be legal to perform the same operation on a portable device in as many button presses (typically one).

As for complaining without suggestions, if you actually read what I post (which according to your statement above you don't) then you'd clearly understand my suggestion.

While we're at it, since texting and driving has been shown to be as much of a detriment to driving ability as driving drunk, then we should be applying the same impound penalties to those caught texting.
__________________
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 09-10-2012, 05:33 PM   #63
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Fuel View Post
Yes drive without due care and consideration do cover it but not in the same enforcable way. A drive without due care requires some sort of driving evidence such as swerving in the lane. Where as the cell phone law doesn't.
The cell phone law exists because there is proof that chatting and texting while driving causes enough of a distraction to be dangerous, and other research shows it to be as bad as driving drunk. So I think it's pretty easy to conclude that driving while texting is worthy of a drive without due care ticket.
__________________
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 09-10-2012, 06:46 PM   #64
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
I'm not about to sit here and write legislation
Of course not, that would actually require effort and rational thought. Simply lashing out at "The Man" takes neither and is much easier.
__________________
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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2012, 07:40 PM   #65
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
You don't offer much to the conversation, do you Soundy? Much easier to throw insults around.

I've pointed out the flaws in the law, it shouldn't be too hard for you to read between the lines and figure out what I'm suggesting needs to be corrected.
__________________
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 09-10-2012, 08:08 PM   #66
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
When you have some conversation to offer besides the usual "f***-the-man, down with the system" whinging and blather, I'd be glad to participate.
__________________
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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2012, 06:47 AM   #67
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
"More recently, the Governors Highway Safety Association conducted a review of 350 scientific papers on the subject and found “no evidence that cellphone or texting bans have reduced crashes.”

Bans only work if people observe them and/or enforcement is heavy enough and expensive enough so that paranoia forces compliance. There is not enough enforcement and I think we will all agree, even Sebberry, that we see increasing numbers of people doing it...usually noticing them because of their bad driving. The ban is there but drivers just don't care to follow it, pretending that it is not dangerous. BTW, I very much doubt if you would actually get a VT for pushing 1 button on your cell. It would very likely get laughed out of court. Lots of people doing more than that. It's like speeding..yes you could be issued a VT for 1 km over the limit but nobody does. The ones I'm aware of were issued after symptoms of distracted driving were witnessed. Sounds much better in court to describe bad driving than a simple push of 1 button.
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2012, 09:08 AM   #68
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Then the wording of the act needs to be changed. It includes "holding the device in a way it may be used" and "operating one or more of the devices functions" so it seems pretty clear that even moving the phone and pressing one button is indeed in violation of the act.

If the government is so paranoid that someone might move the phone from the cupholder to the storage bin, then perhaps the wording should remain, but if they're that paranoid they wouldn't let anyone drive to begin with. The whole thing contradicts itself "We the government will not let drivers make any decision on their own other than the ones we will let them make".

Insert an exemption for "relocating while not operating the device" so people don't get a ticket for simply moving the phone off the pile of change it's vibrating in the cupholder every time a text is received. That doesn't happen you say? We've had plenty of people here complain about getting a ticket for moving their phone.
__________________
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 09-11-2012, 09:18 PM   #69
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
If the Govt had the b***s to legislate this the way science and common sense demands they should have banned any use of any electronic device that requires divided attention to operate...ie....ALL of them. As I have said before concerning this subject and photo radar...the decisions on how to write and enforce the laws were made based on politics and not science or common sense. . Hands-free and hand held devices should not be permitted while a driver has care and control of a vehicle. Period.

I run a driving school and get messages all day long from students and potential clients. I NEVER pick up the phone until after the student is finished the lesson and out of the car. Same goes when teaching motorycle courses. I tell all my clients & students that I have voicemail and that I will NOT answer the phone. The student deserves and requires all my attention...and I'm not even driving. So far I have been able to survive 2 years without loosing any messages, upsetting any students and being able to spot & solve problems around me 360 degrees. Life goes on if you let the damn phone ring! Really.

As far as the VT for relocating goes....were you there to witness what really happened? What constituted "relocation"? I was not operating the device, just relocating it and I happened to glance at the text message by merely by accident. Only the ticketed driver and Police witness can say. Plenty of people may complain...plenty also complain about getting other perfectly valid VTs. An impartial traffic court JP or Judge had to be convinced that they broke the law to convict. Unless you were in court to hear the evidence you cannot comment on the validity of the charge.

Last edited by zulutango; 09-11-2012 at 09:25 PM.
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
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 08:49 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