New distracted driver law question

[AzNightmare]

As much as it was "BS" for the cop to give your friend a ticket, I also find it a good lesson to not be pissed drunk in the first place.

lol, while I don't exactly agree with how strict and "black and white" the handheld laws are, I find it interesting how much of a problem people in general have without being able to use their phone at every traffic break during their commute. Maybe some of you guys are on the road for very long durations at a time or your job requires you to constantly be communicating with clients?

I think for the most part, people are just addicted to the phone and a 30 min commute is just simply way too long to stay away from the phone... or maybe people's GF's are going to throw a fit if the BF's don't reply msgs within 3 mins. I don't know...

[Traum]

Originally Posted by AzNightmare

or maybe people's GF's are going to throw a fit if the BF's don't reply msgs within 3 mins. I don't know...

Within 3 minutes? Obviously you have no idea what kind of response times many gfs require...

[Jmac]

Originally Posted by SolidPenguin

I find this very very hard to believe. Either your friend is leaving out some key information, or him or his lawyer were absolutely terrible. There is case law against this and almost impossible that he lost if he fought it.
Thats why that leads me to believe theres missing information here.

Drunk in the Backseat of a Car? You Could Get a D.U.I.

The accused in Smits was found on the side of a rural road in the rear seat of a motor vehicle sleeping after a neighbour called the police out of concern the occupant of the vehicle may be dead. When police investigated they saw the accused near-comatose in the backseat and in an intoxicated condition when he finally woke, the keys in the ignition and open alcohol in the car.

While Smits may have felt he was in the clear, the trial judge (eventually supported by the Court of Appeal) disagreed. The court clarified the test that for that risk of danger to be made out, the conduct of the occupant in relation to the motor vehicle must create a risk that the accused while impaired would put the car into motion and create a danger. Relevant conduct by the court included that the accused had not arrived home but intended to go there, that the keys were in the ignition, and that the accused was in a volatile mood by virtue of his significant impairment. As a result, that accused was found guilty of having the care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol.

And, it's a different jurisdiction, but on Alaska State Troopers, I've seen them hand out DUIs for drinking within the vicinity of a vehicle, sleeping in the backseat of a vehicle, etc.

But laws like this just make me shake my head.

The whole point of drinking and driving, texting and driving, etc. laws is to punish people for actions that pose SIGNIFICANT risk to the public, thus improving public safety.

In the quoted case above, there's no significant risk to the public there.

In the case of what this thread is about (securing your mobile device), it poses no significant risk to the public to have your phone in the cupholder of your car listening to turn-by-turn directions from the GPS.

These overreaching laws are money grabs and not about public safety. They should stop at the point where the action poses significant risk to the public.

[white rocket]

That was the story as I heard it. Obviously without being there it's hard to assess the tone and mood of each party involved. Any encounter with a police officer can turn bad with even the slightest attitude, especially in the downtown drinking district, so that is a factor for sure. He has no reason to lie though and isn't known to be belligerent but alcohol does tend to make you feel bigger than you are.

[heisenberg]

i was in my friends car when we got pulled over in a speed trap.

we were curious about the whole cell phone / electronics thing when it comes to "distracted driving"

so we asked the officer and she said something along the lines "as long as i cant see it youre fine"

her main concern was if it was in the cup holder / on the passenger seat / center console and you were to either do a quick turn or a quick stop and your phone went flying, it is now a hazard. she made the assumption you'd go and find it and that could lead to issues.

we also asked about "N" drivers. one restrictions to having your class 7N is that you cant use any electronic devices. the officer however also said you couldnt use the radio / aux / bluetooth in newer cars because they're pretty much tablets. she said new drivings shouldnt even touch the console features lol

[twitchyzero]

has anyone been pulled over for eating/dogs on lap under the new laws yet?

[Indy]

Originally Posted by twitchyzero

has anyone been pulled over for eating/dogs on lap under the new laws yet?

...not gonna lie. at first I read "eating dogs on lap"

[underscore]

Originally Posted by noclue

I agree with banning phones but don't agree with using it when stopped. Modern car infotainment systems are a lot more distracting these days.

FYI using your phone while waiting for gas or at the drive-thru will get you a ticket as well.

If you're in park and out of the way, sure. But the people holding up the line because they aren't paying attention are assholes, and people doing while not in park are a danger.

[SolidPenguin]

Originally Posted by Jmac

Drunk in the Backseat of a Car? You Could Get a D.U.I.



And, it's a different jurisdiction, but on Alaska State Troopers, I've seen them hand out DUIs for drinking within the vicinity of a vehicle, sleeping in the backseat of a vehicle, etc.

I think the key thing (har har) in that link above, is that the keys were IN the ignition. Not away from.

And I cannot speak for laws in Alaska, as I only have experience in Canada.

[nns]

The B.C. government’s latest crackdown on distracted driving should be good news for Kyla Lee, a Vancouver defence lawyer who specializes in fighting traffic tickets in court.

That’s because every time the government’s hammer comes down, the calls to her law office go up. It’s happened every time the people in charge have ramped up penalties against drivers using their mobile phones behind the wheel.

This time — with the fines and penalties scheduled to soar to $2,000 for a second offence — she’s expecting her own phone to ring off the hook.

“Not a lot of people have $2,000 kicking around to just pay a huge penalty,” Lee told me Wednesday. “More people will decide it’s worth the time and expense to fight back.”

But while the crackdown could be good for business, Lee wonders if the government is doing the right thing — and not just because of the added strain on the justice system.

“Hitting people in the pocketbook doesn’t seem to be working,” she said. “Every time they increase the penalties, the police just keep writing more tickets and nothing seems to change.

“It’s starting to look more and more like a way for the government to line its own pockets.”

Derek Lewers, a researcher with the drivers’ advocacy group SENSE B.C., also sees a cash grab in the works.

“The government is already counting on collecting an additional $5 million a year from increased penalties — that was right in their press release,” he said. “Instead of trying to stop the behaviour, they’re already banking the cash.”

That doesn’t mean Lewers thinks people should be allowed to type emails or text-message on their phones while driving.

“But that’s not what most distracted-driving tickets are issued for,” he said. “Most tickets are for a driver simply touching a cellphone while stopped at a traffic light.”

Under the current law, it’s illegal to handle a cellphone behind the wheel, even if the vehicle isn’t moving.

Lewers pointed to records released under B.C. Freedom of Information laws to back up his point. Of 52,000 distracted-driving tickets issued in 2013, only 1,000 were for “texting or emailing,” the records show.

“The rest were mainly for drivers physically touching a phone, usually while stopped at an intersection,” Lewers said. “You are allowed to fiddle with the buttons on a radio or move a briefcase into your back seat or drink a cup of coffee, but you cannot touch a cellphone.”

Lee, the defence lawyer, thinks the government sees a chance to make a lot of money in a hurry.

“Rather than spending money to correct a problem — like deploying specially trained distracted-driving enforcement officers, for example — they’re planning to collect money from citizens because of the problem.”

Don’t expect the government to reverse course. The opinion polls support a distracted-driving crackdown. And the B.C. government is desperate for cash to stop the financial bleeding at ICBC.

The best advice for drivers: Don’t even look at your phone, even when your car is parked, or it could cost you a tonne.

Mike Smyth: Is B.C. gov?t crackdown a distracted-driving cash grab? | The Province

I can see people will be all for it until the same people end up getting a $2000 ticket for something completely innocuous like being caught stopped at a red light and changing the music on their phone.

[Traum]

Originally Posted by nns

Mike Smyth: Is B.C. gov?t crackdown a distracted-driving cash grab? | The Province
“You are allowed to fiddle with the buttons on a radio or move a briefcase into your back seat or drink a cup of coffee, but you cannot touch a cellphone.”

What? You're allowed to drink coffee again? I thought that was not OK and enough cause for a distracted driving ticket.

[Cr33pUh]

This law has too many grey areas tbh. They define distracted driving as "attention being diverted from driving tasks."
-https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/t...s/distractions

Everything we do (drinking water/changing radio channels/talking to in-vehicle people/ looking for street names/etc) is considered distracted driving. I see cops driving slowly forward while looking out their side windows to catch people on their phones. Isn't that distracted driving? Shouldn't they be ticketed? Whatever happened to "no one is above the law". Doesn't even matter if the phone is attached to a phone holder, if you're using it as GPS, you're technically distracted from the road by looking at where you need to go.

They seriously need to make this law more clearer. Just my 2cents.