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 12-13-2014, 09:37 PM   #101
Captain Happy Bubble is my Homeboy
 
ancient_510's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: YVR
Posts: 345
Thanked 206 Times in 109 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sekin67835 View Post
In what circumstances do these charges apply?

The criminal provisions apply if you were in “care and control” of a car, boat, plane, or other motor vehicle or vessel. Care or control of a vehicle means you were in the driver’s seat and had access to the ignition key, even if you were parked.
Thus if Bob decides to sleep off the booze he drank the night before in his car, he must ensure that he does not have the keys on his person or he may be charged with an offence.
May or may not be exactly correct.

R. c. Ngo Tran, 2014 QCCQ 11706

[50]A person occupying the driver's seat of a motor vehicle is presumed to have care or control of that vehicle unless that person establishes that he or she does not occupy that seat for the purpose of setting the vehicle in motion. To rebut this presumption requires the accused to prove lack of that intention on the balance of probabilities.

[51] A person who satisfies the court that he or she had no intention to set the vehicle in motion will not necessarily escape conviction: an inebriated individual who is found behind the wheel and has a present ability to set the vehicle in motion, without intending at that moment to do so , may nevertheless present a realistic risk of danger to persons or property. The risk of danger must be realistic and not just theoretically possible. But nor need the risk be probable, or even serious or substantial.


It is reasonable to conclude that if you can effectively demonstrate to the court that your only intent was to operate the heater or the radio or the door, you had no intent to set the vehicle in motion. Therefore "care or control", within the meaning of section 253(1) of the Criminal Code, would not apply.
Advertisement
ancient_510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2014, 09:48 PM   #102
I Will not Admit my Addiction to RS
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: vancouver
Posts: 501
Thanked 441 Times in 127 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient_510 View Post
May or may not be exactly correct.

R. c. Ngo Tran, 2014 QCCQ 11706

[50]A person occupying the driver's seat of a motor vehicle is presumed to have care or control of that vehicle unless that person establishes that he or she does not occupy that seat for the purpose of setting the vehicle in motion. To rebut this presumption requires the accused to prove lack of that intention on the balance of probabilities.

[51] A person who satisfies the court that he or she had no intention to set the vehicle in motion will not necessarily escape conviction: an inebriated individual who is found behind the wheel and has a present ability to set the vehicle in motion, without intending at that moment to do so , may nevertheless present a realistic risk of danger to persons or property. The risk of danger must be realistic and not just theoretically possible. But nor need the risk be probable, or even serious or substantial.


It is reasonable to conclude that if you can effectively demonstrate to the court that your only intent was to operate the heater or the radio or the door, you had no intent to set the vehicle in motion. Therefore "care or control", within the meaning of section 253(1) of the Criminal Code, would not apply.
Isn't that the prosecutors job to show evidence that you are using the car other than to operate the heater or the radio?
sekin67835 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2014, 09:53 PM   #103
Captain Happy Bubble is my Homeboy
 
ancient_510's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: YVR
Posts: 345
Thanked 206 Times in 109 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sekin67835 View Post
Isn't that the prosecutors job to show evidence that you are using the car other than to operate the heater or the radio?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient_510 View Post
To rebut this presumption requires the accused to prove lack of that intention on the balance of probabilities.
Short answer, no.
ancient_510 is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 12-14-2014, 12:12 PM   #104
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spidey View Post
you are reading your Ipad at a red light... you obviously are not focused on anything else but the screen of your electronic device. The light turns green you take your eyes off the ipad, take your foot off the brake, and hit the gas. OOPS didn't see that pedestrian running across trying to beat the light... OR didn't see the car that just tried to beat its red light. BOOM. In those two incidents, was it your "fault". Probably not since you had the green light, but if you weren't "distracted", you would have seen the incidents unfolding before you.

How does the "device" come into play here?
If you're the sort of person to hit the gas for a light that's just turned green without checking the crosswalks and intersection, then you shouldn't be driving.

It doesn't matter if you're reading a message on a phone, taking a sip of coffee of reading directions from a paper note, you do your checks to ensure it's safe to proceed before you move.
__________________
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 12-14-2014, 12:28 PM   #105
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 sekin67835 View Post
You are right,

In what circumstances do these charges apply?

The criminal provisions apply if you were in “care and control” of a car, boat, plane, or other motor vehicle or vessel. Care or control of a vehicle means you were in the driver’s seat and had access to the ignition key, even if you were parked.
Thus if Bob decides to sleep off the booze he drank the night before in his car, he must ensure that he does not have the keys on his person or he may be charged with an offence.

BC Criminal Defence Law Firm Article: | Dykstra & Company

Now, If I hadn't done some googling, I didn't know that sitting in a driver seat with keys in your pocket can land you in jail while intoxicated. My question would be do you know how many drivers know about control and care law? Now of course ignorance doesn't justify breaking the law, but a DUI can change a person's life. Now in the learners book page 103 (icbc website) describes alcohol impairment. But no where in the book does it touch on sleeping in the driver seat. It is not a stretch to conclude that an average driver would know about this law.
If the keys are in the ignition, it's pretty slam dunk. If the keys are in his pocket, it would be up to the Police officer to to try to prove that the elements of Care and Control are met. Before I was a police officer, I never knew what "care and control was", and the few times I slept in my car, I did it in the passenger seat, and back seat. I guess common sense isn't all that common...
Spidey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2014, 12:32 PM   #106
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 Spidey View Post
His reply was to you not thinking being stopped at a red light, with your car running, and foot on your brake pedal (the only thing stopping your car from going forward) can be affected by being "distracted" or the possibility of being distracted when at a stand still.

I will give you a couple of examples which "distraction" at a red light or stand still can be "dangerous". You may question the chances of these things happen, but they COULD an they HAVE. And like I said before, laws are placed to prevent incidents that could and have happened.

-you are reading your Ipad at a red light... you obviously are not focused on anything else but the screen of your electronic device. The light turns green you take your eyes off the ipad, take your foot off the brake, and hit the gas. OOPS didn't see that pedestrian running across trying to beat the light... OR didn't see the car that just tried to beat its red light. BOOM. In those two incidents, was it your "fault". Probably not since you had the green light, but if you weren't "distracted", you would have seen the incidents unfolding before you.

It is the duty of all drivers on the road to be aware of their environment and surroundings. Everyone learned about defensive driving when they got their licences. No one ever gets behind the wheel and thinks they are going to get into an accident. No one ever texts and drives thinking THEY will get into an accident. No one ever drinks and drives and thinks THEY will get into an accident. Because they are "better" than everyone else and nothing can happen to THEM.

There is a reason why impaired driving and electronic device laws were created. Because it is an issue.

Not even going to bother replying to Sebberry. I think I have said that before? I will let the local Police on the Island put up with him.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry View Post
How does the "device" come into play here?
If you're the sort of person to hit the gas for a light that's just turned green without checking the crosswalks and intersection, then you shouldn't be driving.

It doesn't matter if you're reading a message on a phone, taking a sip of coffee of reading directions from a paper note, you do your checks to ensure it's safe to proceed before you move.
Spidey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2014, 12:50 PM   #107
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
I'm not sure by what you mean about having the police on the island "put up with me".

The only interaction I've ever had with a police officer (aside being allowed to proceed through roadblocks) was when I had someone try to use a fake credit card in my store.

Care to answer my question?

Or how about this... a media player playing music through the car's speakers must be securely mounted to the dash. How does not having it secured to the dash constitute distracted driving?
__________________
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 12-14-2014, 01:03 PM   #108
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 sebberry View Post
I'm not sure by what you mean about having the police on the island "put up with me".

The only interaction I've ever had with a police officer (aside being allowed to proceed through roadblocks) was when I had someone try to use a fake credit card in my store.

Care to answer my question?

Or how about this... a media player playing music through the car's speakers must be securely mounted to the dash. How does not having it secured to the dash constitute distracted driving?
Not even going to bother replying to Sebberry. I think I have said that before?
Spidey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2014, 01:06 PM   #109
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Translation: I don't have a good explanation for why the regs are the way they are.
__________________
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 12-14-2014, 01:13 PM   #110
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 sebberry View Post
Translation: I don't have a good explanation for why the regs are the way they are.
Why are you asking police officers why laws implemented by the government are the way they are? How am I supposed to read the minds of the government and answer your questions for them. I can have an idea and why I PERSONALLY think through COMMON sense why some laws are in place, but there's no way I can say that WHY the way it is.
Spidey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2014, 02:10 PM   #111
Captain Happy Bubble is my Homeboy
 
ancient_510's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: YVR
Posts: 345
Thanked 206 Times in 109 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spidey View Post
If the keys are in the ignition, it's pretty slam dunk.
Except in the case I cited: R. c. Ngo Tran, 2014 QCCQ 11706
Ngo Tran was found in the drivers seat, dead asleep... with the engine running and the keys in the ignition.
He was ultimatley found not guilty after being charged with having the care or control of a motor vehicle while his ability to drive was impaired by alcohol or a drug.
ancient_510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2014, 02:15 PM   #112
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spidey View Post
Why are you asking police officers why laws implemented by the government are the way they are? How am I supposed to read the minds of the government and answer your questions for them. I can have an idea and why I PERSONALLY think through COMMON sense why some laws are in place, but there's no way I can say that WHY the way it is.
While you're not directly involved in drafting the legislation, it is your discretion whether to charge a driver depending on the circumstance. So based on that I'd say your opinion and justifications certainly do matter.
__________________
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 12-14-2014, 03:25 PM   #113
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 sebberry View Post
While you're not directly involved in drafting the legislation, it is your discretion whether to charge a driver depending on the circumstance. So based on that I'd say your opinion and justifications certainly do matter.
Yes you are right it is our discretion. But you crying about how police officers don't use discretion. On any given HOUR I could serve 20 VT's, easily. Every month, on average, I serve maybe 2-5 VT's and anywhere from 5-15 written warnings/verbal warnings, and probably over 100 infractions I just "let go". I know officers that do more and some who do far less. So don't say cops don't use discretion.
Spidey is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 12-14-2014, 04:40 PM   #114
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
You're not an IRSU member, are you? I somehow don't think they let 95% of the infractions go free.
__________________
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 12-14-2014, 05:09 PM   #115
Where's my RS Christmas Lobster?!
 
Tone Loc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 872
Thanked 1,418 Times in 403 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry View Post
You're not an IRSU member, are you? I somehow don't think they let 95% of the infractions go free.
I think what Spidey means is that plenty of things are "let go" by cops that *technically* are illegal. Such as anybody ever who has done 51 km/h in a 50 zone. Or people who do rolling stops for red light right turns, stop signs, etc. I am not a perfect driver, I will readily admit that if cops were to ticket everyone all the time for every single broken law, regardless of extent or discretion I would probably not have a license.

Neither would anybody else, really...
Tone Loc is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 12-15-2014, 05:17 AM   #116
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 sebberry View Post
You're not an IRSU member, are you? I somehow don't think they let 95% of the infractions go free.
IRSU. Integrated road safety unit....... How dare these police officers (working in a specialized unit/ section specifically focussed on traffic infractions) have the nerve to do their job! Shouldn't they be doing solving murders or something???
Spidey is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 12-15-2014, 08:05 AM   #117
Banned (ABWS)
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 344
Thanked 353 Times in 89 Posts
Why is this thread still alive.
Dont look at your crotch at a red light you fuck.
maksimizer is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 12-15-2014, 08:52 AM   #118
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spidey View Post
IRSU. Integrated road safety unit....... How dare these police officers (working in a specialized unit/ section specifically focussed on traffic infractions) have the nerve to do their job! Shouldn't they be doing solving murders or something???
Sounds like IHIT could use the help...

290 unsolved murders on the Lower Mainland over 12 years

As for IRSU doing their job - they appear a lot less likely to use discretion than you. Zoom in on the offence and ignore the bigger picture. OMG, that car was doing a 0.7kph rolling stop into the intersection nobody else was at - ticket him now!
__________________
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 12-15-2014, 09:54 AM   #119
nma
#RVG
 
nma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Richmond
Posts: 557
Thanked 624 Times in 201 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry View Post
Sounds like IHIT could use the help...

290 unsolved murders on the Lower Mainland over 12 years

As for IRSU doing their job - they appear a lot less likely to use discretion than you. Zoom in on the offence and ignore the bigger picture. OMG, that car was doing a 0.7kph rolling stop into the intersection nobody else was at - ticket him now!
The Police force didn't make the laws. Their job is to enforce it. If they don't enforce it, they are doing a shitty job. If you do a shitty job, you get fired.

Laws are put in place for a reason. Regardless if you think you're too good to stop at a stop sign, or like reading your tablet/book at a stop light, you're going to get punished for breaking the law. These laws were made to protect the GENERAL public. It's impossible to make separate laws for shitty drivers who are just ignorant and those that are aware and can harmlessly roll through a stop sign safely (if that's even possible). If officers were replaced by robots there would be thousands of tickets handed out on a daily basis.

What spidey says totally makes sense. Officers DO use discretion. If they didn't, you'd be getting a ticket in the mail nearly every day. If they feel like you deserve a ticket, you probably deserve a ticket. You may have different opinions on the situation, but the fact is that you broke the law, and it's his job to give you a fine. People focus way too much on the times that they get caught, instead of the hundreds of times the officer let them get away (without them even realizing it)

Also kind of unfair for you to judge the police department... Have you ever been a cop? Do you have any suggestions for the IHIT to be more efficient in solving cases?

Last edited by nma; 12-15-2014 at 10:02 AM.
nma is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 12-15-2014, 10:13 AM   #120
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by nma View Post
If officers were replaced by robots there would be thousands of tickets handed out on a daily basis.
And therein lies the problem. If the laws are set up such that the reasonable and safe actions of the majority of motorists are punishable offences, then the laws go too far.

Yet robots are pretty much how units like IRSU operates. Set up for maximum enforcement regardless of the actual risk.
__________________
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 12-15-2014, 11:46 AM   #121
nma
#RVG
 
nma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Richmond
Posts: 557
Thanked 624 Times in 201 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry View Post
And therein lies the problem. If the laws are set up such that the reasonable and safe actions of the majority of motorists are punishable offences, then the laws go too far.

Yet robots are pretty much how units like IRSU operates. Set up for maximum enforcement regardless of the actual risk.
That's where I don't agree. I believe that safety regulations and laws are put in place to protect even the biggest idiot.

I'm not sure if you know about other work safety regulations, but there are some RIDICULOUS safety procedures that are put in place that are there to make sure that even the biggest idiot can navigate safely in the working environment.

Sure, you might be absolutely fine travelling 70 km/h on most of our road ways. However, 10% of the population isn't. Therefore, the speed is set at 50 km/h. I believe rightfully so...

Actions that you think are safe and reasonable may not be safe and reasonable for some portion of drivers. Which actually creates quite a big hazard for our roadways....

Last edited by nma; 12-15-2014 at 11:51 AM.
nma is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 12-15-2014, 04:32 PM   #122
Where's my RS Christmas Lobster?!
 
Brad Fuel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 811
Thanked 37 Times in 19 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient_510 View Post
Except in the case I cited: R. c. Ngo Tran, 2014 QCCQ 11706
Ngo Tran was found in the drivers seat, dead asleep... with the engine running and the keys in the ignition.
He was ultimatley found not guilty after being charged with having the care or control of a motor vehicle while his ability to drive was impaired by alcohol or a drug.

Interesting case. Read the entire case. The circumstances are kind of ridiculous how Ngo Tran got to where he was in the car. The defence was unconventional requiring him to take the stand and bringing in a witness. There's enough reasonable doubt to get off on a charge sure but most people would call bullshit on him.


As a side note since this isn't regarding the impaired charge;
Ngo Tran was convicted on count 2 which it doesn't explicitly say (counts weren't listed) but I think it was for the possession of the methamphetamine pill. Not sure if there was an error in the judges remarks but paragraph 34 states Tran was aware of the marihuana smoking in the car by his "friend". Paragraph 78 states he was unaware of it...
Brad Fuel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2014, 08:36 PM   #123
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
Sounds like IHIT could use the help...

290 unsolved murders on the Lower Mainland over 12 years

As for IRSU doing their job - they appear a lot less likely to use discretion than you. Zoom in on the offence and ignore the bigger picture. OMG, that car was doing a 0.7kph rolling stop into the intersection nobody else was at - ticket him now!
A total of 76 homicides were reported in 2013, 5 more than the 71 recorded the previous year BTW, homicides include deaths that are not natural. Although the term homicide is sometimes used synonymously with murder, homicide is broader in scope than murder.

Meanwhile, the same year, 2013, 95 killed by impaired drivers, 115 killed by speeding, 91 by distracted drivers...and these were solved "murders" .


Yep, lest take guys away from investigating and attempting to prevent 303 "murders" in 2013 alone and focus on 290 over a 12 year period. If you taked a rough estimate, there are 10 killed in crashes for every 1 murder. Just a thought?

Last edited by zulutango; 12-15-2014 at 08:54 PM.
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 12-15-2014, 09:59 PM   #124
Willing to sell body for a few minutes on RS
 
underscore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Kel-pwn-a
Posts: 11,983
Thanked 4,970 Times in 2,174 Posts
OP has no clue just how damn lucky he is that there's no failing in this section.

Quote:
Originally Posted by r1237h View Post
But let's not pretend that this is not petty nick-picking just to fill a quota, ok?
We won't, because it isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by r1237h View Post
Two points. First, this happened at a red light, not while driving.
Why the hell would you think being stopped at a light means you're no longer driving?

Quote:
Originally Posted by r1237h View Post
Second,ambulances have this thingee called a siren which manages to draw the attention of drivers in the area. At least here in the Tri-city area, and also in New York City, where I drove one for 5 years.
I call BS on this, or you would've noticed at least a few inattentive twats that didn't move out of your way when en route to an emergency.

Quote:
Originally Posted by r1237h View Post
Almost as well known as the good ol "I haven't bothered to read the thread, and am therefore speaking out of my ass" deal, eh?
Says the guy who didn't even read the post he replies to...

Quote:
Originally Posted by r1237h View Post
In the cave I live in, it is not known to all that standing at a red light and not moving is considered operating a vehicle.
What, pray tell, do you consider it to be then? You are the only thing keeping that vehicle from moving and also the only thing capable of moving that vehicle in an emergency.

Quote:
Originally Posted by r1237h View Post
In addition, when I asked why this is a problem, he answered that a car can have an accident even with the car, and all the cars around it, not moving. When I asked how this is physically possible, he had nothing to say. His partner tried telling me about how driving while playing with electronic devices can lead to accidents. I agreed with him, but when I asked what does that have to do with the case at hand, he also had nothing to say.

The idea wasn't to "win" a debate with them, but just to understand what the issue was.
The issue was you weren't paying attention to the situation around you, a responsibility that doesn't stop just because your car has stopped.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sekin67835 View Post
Now the electronic ban law was implemented a few years ago, but i do feel like many drivers aren't aware that reading their phones during a stop light is illegal.
Anyone that stupid really shouldn't have a license, so IMO them getting a ticket is them being lucky.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry View Post
How does the "device" come into play here?
If you're the sort of person to hit the gas for a light that's just turned green without checking the crosswalks and intersection, then you shouldn't be driving.

It doesn't matter if you're reading a message on a phone, taking a sip of coffee of reading directions from a paper note, you do your checks to ensure it's safe to proceed before you move.
So you wait until AFTER the light has already turned green to bother looking around? You should be making those checks before the other light has turned red, or are you one of those pricks that wastes half of the green light before moving because you weren't paying attention?
__________________
1992 Toyota Celica GT-S // 1991 Toyota Celica GTFour RC FOR SALE // 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee CRD

Quote:
Originally Posted by maksimizer View Post
half those dudes are hotter than ,my GF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RevYouUp View Post
reading this thread is like waiting for goku to charge up a spirit bomb in dragon ball z
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good_KarMa View Post
OH thank god. I thought u had sex with my wife. :cry:
underscore is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2014, 11:20 PM   #125
MOD MOD MOD MOD MOD
 
nabs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: vancouver
Posts: 5,526
Thanked 3,333 Times in 1,061 Posts
I know I'm late to the party...

BUT WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU READING AT A RED LIGHT? WHETHER IT BE AN IPAD, A NEWSPAPER, A BOOK, A FUCKING RECEIPT?
__________________
.

Looking for something to do tonight? ====> OFFICIAL MUSIC EVENTS CALENDAR

Spoiler!
nabs 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 01:22 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