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 01-04-2015, 05:55 PM   #26
CRS
ninja edits your posts without your knowledge
 
CRS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 14,364
Thanked 5,489 Times in 1,480 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eff-1 View Post
Yeah but similarly, good luck to the driver trying to prove you weren't.

If an officer is willing to testify you were, and your only defence is saying you weren't, so it's just a he said/she said case, the judge usually sides with the officer and you lose.
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.
Advertisement
CRS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2015, 06:21 AM   #27
I bringith the lowerballerith
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: PR
Posts: 1,131
Thanked 250 Times in 128 Posts
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.
__________________
"Never give a match up halfway through. Never say that you do not feel up to it, that your condition is bad, and throw in the towel. Fight to the very end, always looking for your chance to break through." - Kazuzo Kudo
sho_bc is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 01-05-2015, 11:19 AM   #28
Where's my RS Christmas Lobster?!
 
Tone Loc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 872
Thanked 1,417 Times in 403 Posts
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...
Tone Loc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2015, 11:35 AM   #29
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
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.
__________________
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 01-05-2015, 03:12 PM   #30
Everyone wants a piece of R S...
 
bicboi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Above&Beyond
Posts: 357
Thanked 1,127 Times in 134 Posts
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...
bicboi is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 01-05-2015, 03:28 PM   #31
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicboi View Post
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?
__________________
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 01-06-2015, 05:40 AM   #32
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
That your father, a lawyer, knows you are guilty as well. That is a lesson to be learned.
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2015, 07:15 AM   #33
Willing to sell body for a few minutes on RS
 
underscore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Kel-pwn-a
Posts: 11,973
Thanked 4,960 Times in 2,169 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicboi View Post
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.
It's a relatively new law, and who the hell would hire lawyer to fight a cellphone ticket anyways?
__________________
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2015, 09:14 PM   #34
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
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.
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by:
Old 01-07-2015, 12:45 PM   #35
Everyone wants a piece of R S...
 
bicboi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Above&Beyond
Posts: 357
Thanked 1,127 Times in 134 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by underscore View Post
It's a relatively new law, and who the hell would hire lawyer to fight a cellphone ticket anyways?
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.
bicboi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2015, 11:05 PM   #36
RS has made me the bitter person i am today!
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Burnaby
Posts: 4,921
Thanked 4,252 Times in 1,499 Posts
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...
__________________
2017 F150 FX4 1/30/17

2007 Mustang GT 11/01/17

2016 Subaru WRX 6MT 04/25/16 - 02/25/17 (SOLD)

2014 Ford Mustang 06/26/13 - 04/25/16 (SOLD)

With Function, form will follow
dared3vil0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2015, 10:51 PM   #37
das not it mane
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: wonderland
Posts: 1,879
Thanked 1,840 Times in 506 Posts
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.
__________________
RIP in peace
jonwon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2015, 11:18 PM   #38
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
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.
__________________
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 01-17-2015, 05:22 AM   #39
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
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.
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2015, 07:53 PM   #40
Willing to sell body for a few minutes on RS
 
underscore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Kel-pwn-a
Posts: 11,973
Thanked 4,960 Times in 2,169 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebberry View Post
Yet if your car's radio displayed the name of the song you'd be in the clear.
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.
__________________
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2015, 10:27 AM   #41
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by underscore View Post
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.
__________________
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 01-18-2015, 10:38 AM   #42
MiX iT Up!
 
tiger_handheld's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: vancouver
Posts: 7,692
Thanked 1,908 Times in 771 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiger_handheld View Post
As promised in http://www.revscene.net/forums/69876...ml#post8541292




Reporting back...

A cellphone can be kept within reach (passenger seat, center console, cupholder etc). Cellphone cannot be held in your hand at any moment.

The driver can press 1 button to perform a function such as answer a call via bluetooth, check the time, listen to incoming message via voice recognition. You cannot physically pick up the phone to press the button. The phone must remain still.

Using the cellphone as a GPS is permitted; however, programming while driving is considered an offense. Program the route before departing. If your GPS does not re-route, you need to pull over an re-program.

"what we look for is motorists looking down for more than a second or two and dialing numbers or constantly pressing buttons - that is what will get you a fine" - Langley RCMP officer

Disclaimer: above is from a Langley RCMP officer. I take no responsibility for this information - I'm just the messenger.

ICYMI:

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

Sometimes we tend to be in despair when the person we love leaves us, but the truth is, it's not our loss, but theirs, for they left the only person who couldn't give up on them.


Make the effort and take the risk..

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't." - Eleanor Roosevelt
tiger_handheld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2015, 01:46 PM   #43
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by zulutango View Post
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.
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.
__________________
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 01-18-2015, 05:16 PM   #44
Banned (ABWS)
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Coquitlam
Posts: 344
Thanked 353 Times in 89 Posts
Officer can fine you for whatever he feels like
Endthread
maksimizer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2015, 06:34 PM   #45
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;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
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2015, 07:57 PM   #46
I subscribe to Revscene
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Victoria
Posts: 1,977
Thanked 185 Times in 129 Posts
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
__________________
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 01-18-2015, 08:16 PM   #47
RS Peace Officer
 
zulutango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver Islan
Posts: 3,850
Thanked 1,623 Times in 678 Posts
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
zulutango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2015, 11:35 AM   #48
RS.net, where our google ads make absolutely no sense!
 
toyobaru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: BC
Posts: 965
Thanked 239 Times in 76 Posts
Forget cellphones being distracting. How about pulling over people who wear noise cancelling headphones/ear buds while driving.
__________________
2014 Lexus IS250 AWD F Sport----Current
2013 Scion FR-S ---------------------SOLD
2006 Honda Civic Si Coupe------------SOLD
1998 Honda Civic Si Coupe------------SOLD
1994 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme------SOLD
toyobaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2015, 04:19 PM   #49
RS has made me the bitter person i am today!
 
meme405's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 4,625
Thanked 7,179 Times in 2,177 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by toyobaru View Post
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
__________________

Barney Fucking Purple FX35
Brianna - 2008 FX35 - Build Thread
meme405 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 07:13 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