Cash grab blah blah blah. Even if it's a cash grab, would you rather they just lobby some tax bill and give all of us the dick if they need revenue that bad? Then you can go on and on about ... "my tax dollar"?

I'd rather some idiots pay for my government bill thank you very much. If they stop texting while at it too, that would be great.

Wow, I swear I saw a PDF from a few years ago saying that if it's secured to your car, you can use it. Apparently not. Not even on ICBC's site does it say that. :(

Motor Vehicle Act

I bet when they introduced seat belt laws, that was a cash grab too right?

good thing I didn't install this yet

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GVaVoUvAuH...00/ap_pr01.jpg

This is probably the thread you're referring to http://www.revscene.net/forums/62910...3-players.html
The link in post #2 doesn't work anymore, but this link might be the same thing. http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/dri...le-driving.pdf

I won't lie. I didn't touch my phone today.

I think you're lucky, although I don't know how you drive.

When I was working at the place where daily highway commute was required, I got a few tickets a year, not aggressive driving or anything like that.

Cops like to hide at the end of open road or long stretch, where people will subconsciously speed due to straight line.

Then I quit that job, still kept driving daily, no tickets whatsoever.

That will never happen.

Even if they make violation ticket revenue 100 times more than last year, they won't waive/reduce your portion of tax.

Do you think that roads formen/labors just randomly decide where/what sign goes on their own free will? The civil engineers at city hall do that, you know, the ones who DO have an extensive knowledge of road engineering. If you think you can do better, BCIT offers civil engineering, sign up and show them up. They've only got 10-20+ years experience, but I'm sure you'd be able to point out their flaws.

If you don't like it, go complain at city hall. But please, while there...don't ask for me because I'm far to busy trying to google how to do my own government job

Let me clarify what I posted...88 innocent people were killed by distracted drivers...54? (don't have the exact number....so "mid 50's") were killed by impaireds. As someone wha has personally investigated about 30 fatal crashes over the years...and thousands of less-than-fatal crashes. The first thing you MUST do is find out the causal factors for ther crash. The ICBC MV 6020 form you fill out as a crash identifies them, let alone the year-long fatals. The investigations positively identified the distracted drivers as causing the crashes. Doesn't get much better than that.

I teach drivers and riders how to safely operate motor vehicles for a living now and we spend a LOT of time talking about DD and the dangers. IMHO the fines are not big enough...after all, they are worse than impaired drivers. Seize the phone, fines of at least what impaireds get..$1000 plus, and a minimum one year driving prohibition. Use the roadside suspension process to handle this. But then, maybe I am considered prejudiced because I saw first hand what they do....and spend many hours a day observing first hand how people selfishly continue to ignore the danger of DD. BTW...yesterday alone my students and I had 2 close calls from distracted drivers. It just gets worse.

I think the vast majority of time they will automatically put 50km/h on the road that is not highway without even taking civil engineering into consideration.

If they actually have engineering background checked the 85th percentile speed, the speed limit should 80km/h on Marine Drive, not 50km/h. It's clear to me and I'm not even an engineer. This is nothing but a cash grab.
Also those engineers might be under political pressure to put 50km/h everywhere because of "speed kills" theme in North America.

Same as many 80km/h highways, the speedlimit should be 115km/h or something. Any major highways, the limit needs to be 130km/h or so.

Yeah distracted drivers are so dangerous. But everyone loves to blame on speed for everything.
It's the behaviour and other stupidity factor.

Also ICBC does not take driver licensing seriously at all.

I know Japanese people/parents think ICBC is a joke.
I bet same as people form Germany and other countries as well.

When you want to get a license at other countries, you will be spending $3000-$4000. You must attend in-class lessons, they have designated closed track to drive before you can even go out on the road.
Also the entire instruction must be done by government authorized instructors.

It freaks parents from other counties out when ICBC tell kids "You can just ask your buddy(or his brother) to teach you, as long as he's 25 or older. And yes you guys can go practice on the road right away" which is a stupidest thing ever to their eyes.
Now ICBC complains about all the stupid drivers on the road and do all sorts of "campaign" and shit.

i think our licensing system is too easy for sure, but i also think that paying 3-4k to get your license is a little crazy. you become a better driver through experience, not just courses and maneuvering on a closed track.

i think a better solution is having drivers take 3 tests, similar to our N and class 5 system, but with a third test. if you fail the first level obviously you have to take it again, but if you fail the second level you get dropped down to taking the first level again, and if you fail the third level you get dropped to the second level again. Also it would have to be done within the space of a year. no more of these N drivers holding onto their N for 5-10 years.

As much as driving should be a privilege, ultimately, driving is a right.
Reason I say this is because people will revolt if it's too hard to obtain a license. And 75% of the people on the road today will fail those types of designated closed track tests. Once majority's not able to drive, they will complain and complain and eventually ICBC will get overthrown until driving becomes a right.

The system is broken and it's pretty tough to grandfather a new system in.

It's like trying to take guns away from Americans.

Who's going to revolt? The teenagers trying to get a license? Foreigners who don't have one? The people who have them now are already grandfathered in and no one cares what a whiny 16 year old is going to say. I don't think anyone who already has a license cares about making it harder to get one.

not sure if this was brought up in this thread before the arguing started or not, but this is the part of the law that scares me.

From the RCMP website:

Definition

Distracted driving is a form of impaired driving as a driver's judgment is compromised when they are not fully focused on the road. Distracted driving qualifies as talking on a cell phone, texting, reading (e.g. books, maps, and newspapers), using a GPS, watching videos or movies, eating/drinking, smoking, personal grooming, adjusting the radio/CD and playing extremely loud music. Even talking to passengers and driving while fatigued (mentally and/or physically) can be forms of distracted driving.



So black and white, if a cop sees you on your phone, automatic ticket. What if a cop hears loud music? Sees you talking to a passenger? They can give you the exact same distracted driving ticket based on their opinion on you being distracted (or them having a bad day).

Giving traffic cops the power to make judgement calls with punishments the same as black and white offenses, I don't agree with that.

I feel like if people aren't regularly ticketed already for offenses such as talking to your passenger (maybe when they look over at them for 30 seconds while driving like on TV), or loud music, then why would they start now?

because of this whole new 'cracking down on distracted driving' campaign

people like to make the comparison between impaired and distracted driving. i feel that is pretty unfair.

- it is much easier to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a driver was impaired, versus whether they were "distracted" ie using the phone at the actual time of an accident.

- the enforcement aspect is much different, if you stop a driver at at a roadblock or pull them over they were drunk the entire time they were driving and would have been drunk the rest of the way. whereas a distracted driver at a redlight is only distracted at that one moment in time when it is exceedingly unlikely they would cause an accident.

i would be much in favor of a law that made a bit more sense and didnt punish someone who changed the song at a redlight like someone who was texting while overtaking a semi. much like the difference between a .05 and a .08

Just like Germany, Japan has a pretty strict standard when it comes to driving.
People are willing to pay $3,000-$4,000 for a driver's license.

Average training fee in Japan:
Manual: 303,903 yen ($3,589)
Automatic: 287124 yen ($3,391)

Price does not include school admission fee, licensing fee, etc.
If you fail/need additional training, the price will go up accordingly.

Approximate instruction hours
in-class instructions: 26 hours + exam
practical lesson: 34 hours + exam
*manual transmission typically takes extra 3 hours
^ This is a very rough idea and if you go to the school, they will give you more detailed breakdowns.

http://www.kds-net.jp/uploader/data/p1.jpg
http://miyagoas.com/images/mainImgBlock_img1.jpg
http://up.gc-img.net/post_img_web/20...R2s_12285.jpeg

This is exactly why we have more fatal accidents than Germany despite them having more high performance vehicles and Autobahn.

Distracted driving is illegal.

So using GPS and talking to a passenger is illegal? :suspicious:

The argument started when I called it a fucking cash grab followed by dimwits who thought the increased fine on distracted driving is justified and somehow will make life better. The dumbfucks seemed to have taken one of the following positions:

1. I don't use cellphone anyway so it won't affect me.
2. This new increased fines will rid of my problems dealing with distracted drivers.
3. It's a law so you better obey it or pay the price.

None of them have considered what the fuck it really means to be "distracted" and they think it just revolves around electronic devices. Once the numbskulls agree with and support any policy that prevents "distracted" driving, govt will have much easier time expanding their definitions.

God forbid any of you press any fucking buttons in your car while driving. Don't even bother talking to passengers, let alone even facing them. Keep your fking eyes straight and don't enjoy any scenery. Music? Audiobooks? Fuck no. Wanna complain? Don't because our study shows any form of distraction could potentially lead to higher rate of accidents. You can't find the study? No need to because general public doesn't give a shit and who wouldn't support a law that saves lives?

Some fucks support this increased penalty and talk like some saint who's never done anything that constitutes as a form distraction. Start crying once govt decides to reach into your pocket for fiddling with your car's infotainment system at a stop light, with underqualifed cops making the judgment.

The distracted driving law is geared toward electronic devices. Sure there's a bunch of stuff lumped in with it, but let's be serious here, you're not likely going to get a ticket for turning the dial up on your radio just like you're unlikely to get a ticket for going 1km/h over the speed limit.

We're all going to hear fables of someone getting the biggest screw job ever "my buddies buddy got a ticket for just talking to his passenger" but in reality what cop is going to do that unless you did something stupid along with it.

Meh..honestly it had to happen I don't care if it's a cash grab or not, the only way to hit idiots is in the wallet.

Literally -everyone- is on their fucking phones these days, I know I occasionally check it at lights etc but I've gone out of my way not to touch it while driving now. It is scary though how many people I see just cruising along with their face down in their phone. Somthing obviously had to be done