I would have to disagree. It is nearly impossible to prove what someone is looking at. Any competent JP would know that the officer cannot prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

Operating a cellphone is easy to prove because they would see you physically in contact with it. Looking at it, not so much.

Based on the section the OP was charged under, it seems as though he is/was a "N" driver and therefore not allowed to use any sort of electrical device (cell phone, GPS, etc), no matter how securely it was mounted. It also sounds like there is more to the story than is being told though, like what the OP was doing prior to being stopped/the reason for the stop.

My understanding of what Spidey posted is that you can't have your phone out unless it is securely mounted to the vehicle. In your pocket, it would be securely mounted as it isn't flopping about the cabin, whereas if it was on your seat and you took a sharp turn or braked hard it would likely end up on the floor causing you to pick it up (which would be illegal). Furthermore, if the screen turns on from receiving a nudie pic from your girl, you WILL look at it if its on the seat/cupholder which is not in your line of sight to the road, thus making you a "distracted" driver whose eyes are not on the road.

I personally don't see why you don't just put it in your pocket, or buy one of those cheap windshield/dash mounts on AliExpress...

You can have your phone sitting anywhere. It's the use of the device that's governed, not the positioning. Positioning and mounting is only governed if the device is somehow in use. (I bet Minister Bond uses Bluetooth. I wonder if she realizes that bluetoothing her phone to the car while it's in her purse is illegal as it's not "securely mounted" to the dash...)

People don't want dash or windshield mounts because they clutter up the car and are an attractive target for theft.

My father has been a lawyer for 25+ years and he has never heard of getting a ticket for having a cellphone on your passengers seat lol.

The advice I got from him is to pay the damn ticket and just learn from it. Still thinking about disputing it in court though...

What lesson is there to be learned from this? That you can't have a cell phone within reach?

That your father, a lawyer, knows you are guilty as well. That is a lesson to be learned.

It's a relatively new law, and who the hell would hire lawyer to fight a cellphone ticket anyways?

I had people hire lawyers for Traffic Court to fight everything from seatbelt tickets, no front plate, to $138 basic speeding tickets. First thing the lawyers wanted to do was talk a deal as very few have any ideas at all about traffic law.

You'd be surprised at what people hire lawyers for. Albeit it's not as bad as the United States, but people sue/dispute for EVERYTHING.

I've been pulled over with my cellphone clearly visible on passenger seat- po made no mention of it. I've also been through countless DUI checkpoints with the phone in every imaginable spot from cupholders to passenger seat to on a mount on the dashboard- never had any issues. Me thinks there's more to the story than the phone just sitting there...

I have my phone hooked up to my bluetooth in my car to play music. I was stopped at a red light then glanced down to see what song was playing because it doesn't show up on my display when connected to bluetooth and I got a ticket. Not even a warning, considering this is my first offense involving cellphones and first ticket in the past 3-4 years... fuck that shit.

Yet if your car's radio displayed the name of the song you'd be in the clear.

Hello? Suzanne Anton? Time to review this legislation - it's catching people never intended to be punished. I bet your phone never connects via Bluetooth from your handbag, does it? Yes Minister, that's illegal.

I agree with sebbery.....did I just say that???? How about the Govt has the brass to do what should have been done in the first place and ban all cell phone conversations? The Govt knew back in 2008 that studies even then showed that the mental disengagement required for the conversation was the problem....and that statistics showed that hands-free did nothing to reduce this. I was at the Vancouver injury prevention converence in Sept 2008 when this study was mentioned...and representitives from the govt that ignored the study, were present as well.

They also knew that this disengagement has been shown to last up to 15 minutes after the conversation has ended. You cannot concentrate 100% on your driving and also concentrate on a phone call. I bet you have had calls from someone using hands-free and heard the distracted nature of their conversation. Whenever they stop making sense, is when they actualy paid attention to their driving.

I can assume the logic here is that the radio is fixed to the car so there isn't a chance of someone digging around in the car trying to find it.

The law would apply to a fixed mounted phone. Not allowed to touch it to skip a song, etc... same action as performed with a car radio, but somehow not legal.

ICYMI:

http://www.revscene.net/forums/70081...p-officer.html

And studies are showing electronic-device bans are having little influence on crash rates.

I don't disagree that hands free conversations are distracting. Heck, I even find my conversation with a passenger taking a back seat when I'm presented with a complex driving task. When I'm a passenger, I'll stop talking when the driver is readying for a left turn.

But I disagree that it's the same distraction as a hand-held call. Close, but not quite. The act of holding a phone to your head further serves to redirect your focus to the phone call and interferes with your ability to operate the car (especially if you drive a stick...)

The laws are already invasive enough without banning hands-free calls. What's next? Ban talking to yourself? Your passenger or kids?

I'll happily accept that there is marginally more risk associated with reducing regulation. It just means that I need to be more alert and focussed.

Crash rates will continue to go down. Not as a result of increased enforcement and government invasiveness, but as a result of improving education and testing standards. Drivers who know how to pass a class 5 GLP test know that they simply don't have time to fiddle with electronic devices.

Officer can fine you for whatever he feels like
Endthread

[QUOTE=sebberry;8582720]And studies are showing electronic-device bans are having little influence on crash rates.

I don't disagree that hands free conversations are distracting. Heck, I even find my conversation with a passenger taking a back seat when I'm presented with a complex driving task. When I'm a passenger, I'll stop talking when the driver is readying for a left turn.

But I disagree that it's the same distraction as a hand-held call. Close, but not quite. The act of holding a phone to your head further serves to redirect your focus to the phone call and interferes with your ability to operate the car (especially if you drive a stick...)

The laws are already invasive enough without banning hands-free calls. What's next? Ban talking to yourself? Your passenger or kids?

I'll happily accept that there is marginally more risk associated with reducing regulation. It just means that I need to be more alert and focussed.


This is one study that disputes what you suggest...there are many more to also dispute your suggestions...all based on research and actual observations. Look at page 5 where they begin contradicting your position..Keep in mind that this study was done in 2007 and the situation is much worse in 2015.

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...ortSept-07.pdf

I didn't say it wasn't distracting, but I maintain that holding the phone is more distracting and physically interferes with operating the car to a greater degree. The article made reference to multitasking actually being a form of "task prioritization", and I feel that physically holding the phone to your head interferes with one's prioritization abilities to a greater degree than simply having a hands-free conversation.

Here's one MIT study that says drivers who engage in riskier behavior are more likely to use phones while driving, and that's the reasoning for why cell phone bans don't work - you can take the phone away, but it doesn't correct the underlying problem of poor driving: Why Cell Phone Bans Don't Work | Science/AAAS | News

Bottom of page 5 deals with the actual holding. In my professional experience, the actual risky behaviour is more likely a reflection of lack of knowledge of the risks involved (ie soccer mom) or refusal to accept them, as opposed to a "screw you " attitude towards risk in general. When you get a combination of both then you get a doubly dangerous driver

Forget cellphones being distracting. How about pulling over people who wear noise cancelling headphones/ear buds while driving.

I can only assume that most of them are wearing those as handsfree so they can talk on their cell phones...lol