REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum

68style · 03-13-2018, 02:37 PM

I like how all you lovely people get fixated on one small part of a post and can only link any ideas to that and not consider things as a whole — the money part of things was clearly in reference to having an integrated video/audio screen and I made it clear the cup holder bit was a personal preference.

Perhaps you should be thinking that the point is that the rule of it not being okay in a cupholder or anywhere else you want to damn well put it is stupid. That’s what you should be questioning — why is the government allowed to tell you where you are allowed to place your phone inside your own car? Where does this ridiculous notion extend to beyond this in future years with future such rules? What is it a slippery slope to? Just a thought.

I know some of you are just scouring social media all day looking for opportunities to tell someone how dumb they are to feel better about your own life. Obviously I know where my glovebox is or the side-pocket is, but I don't want to put it there and I don't think the government should be able to tell me I have to. THAT is the big picture. If you don't agree with that, well, that's fine too I suppose............ "That's the rule, if you don't like it move somewhere else!
Or stop driving!!!" This type of thinking leaves you being a sheep against a fence with a never-ending prevailing wind, so don't complain when the grass runs out and you starve to death. Change only happens when you question the rules placed upon you.

68style · 03-13-2018, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twitchyzero

^ what's wrong with a windshield mount?
if you really want bluetooth I'm sure you can find solutions under $50
who says you need a cubby? i'm leaving mine in plainsight because I have a wireless charging pad in the center console but you could just use your pocket or a bag

You're going to get a ticket leaving it out in the open under the current application of the law.

That's why it's important.

Hakkaboy · 03-13-2018, 03:06 PM

why not keep it in your pocket? The only reason why you even want to leave it in a cupholder is so that you can keep glancing at it or pick it up either while you're driving or at the stop light, which is EXACTLY what they want you to stop doing

68style · 03-13-2018, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hakkaboy

why not keep it in your pocket? The only reason why you even want to leave it in a cupholder is so that you can keep glancing at it or pick it up either while you're driving or at the stop light, which is EXACTLY what they want you to stop doing

But it's legal to mount it to your dash... where you can just as (if not more) easily glance at/look at/use it ALL the time let alone at stop-lights? lol

westopher · 03-13-2018, 03:39 PM

I don't think a dash mount should be legal either. Thats just asking to fiddle on your phone. My bluetooth headunit was $120.
If you can afford a phone, and a car, thats not a stretch. It also works with my phone in my glovebox. I can type in a destination, set a playlist, then drive wherever I want without touching my phone while listening to my favourite songs, getting directions, and pick up phone call if someone desperately needs to get a hold of me.
Again, I really don't see it being an issue. Laws often overshoot what people are capable of because they need to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Unfortunately we need to accept that more often than not. In this case its really not hard to adapt.

68style · 03-13-2018, 03:51 PM

I'm not one to predict the future, I'd be buying stocks not posting on RS if I could do that... but I've personally seen and been involved in the application of property/asset laws which started off fairly innocuous like this with silly little details such as the "must be mounted" portion and what often ends up happening is that something seemingly pointless or derivative like that is put in there on purpose to allow for expansion on it in the future.

Purely hypothetical, but this portion of the law can, and most likely will, lead to further restrictions on what can and cannot be in your car which are put forth under the cloak of safety guidelines, but the actual intent who knows how many years from now is to show that, despite their best efforts, none of it has had any effect on claims costs or accident statistics in future studies (because it won't). What it does do, politically, is open the door to tabling a facts and statistics-charged argument against people-operated cars and people operating cars since they removed all the distractions and there are still 'too many' accidents and deaths from accidents with the ONLY variable remaining at some point being the human driver/human error. "We tried everything else and it hasn't work, legislation is now being written to put restrictions on where non-automated cars are allowed to drive." etc. etc. etc.

Yes there's a portion of society that would love automated cars to become the only legal vehicle on the road, but I don't think anyone on RS feels that way.

twitchyzero · 03-13-2018, 03:52 PM

and the lowest common denom will need to pay another few hundred to install that deck
but moot because phone mounts are legal

MarkyMark · 03-13-2018, 03:59 PM

Automated cars are the future whether we like it or not, but the RS base will all be wearing diapers again by the time an automated car is mandatory.

68style · 03-13-2018, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twitchyzero

and the lowest common denom will need to pay another few hundred to install that deck
but moot because phone mounts are legal

This isn't the point though. The point is why is the government restricting things based on assumptions? The spirit of law isn't supposed to operate in this manner.

The law is satisfactory in the interest of public safety written as "A person may not operate their personal mobile device while concurrently operating a motor vehicle."

So why do they also need to tell you where you put your mobile device? Why is that discretionary element added? Because without discretionary elements, there's no other way for them to remove any mechanism for you to prove your innocence in court. The police officer just needs to say "I saw him do it / in my 'expert opinion' I thought he was going to use it" and you have no leg to stand on. Your guilt is precluded. It's a form of control that's becoming very popular in modern "democratic" societies.

Speeding tickets are basically indefensible as well, but for good reason -- there's an impartial mechanical device that registered your speed. That device can't see something that wasn't there or make assumptions of its own or lie about it. I'm not okay with a law that allows for another human being to have the ability to fine me hundreds or thousands of dollars potentially just because they don't like me and all mechanisms for me proving I didn't contravene a law or deserve said fine are removed because it's a "he said/she said" argument against an agent of the state that's fining me.

MarkyMark · 03-13-2018, 04:10 PM

Has anyone actually been in the car when a cop had ticketed someone for their phone being untouched in the cupholder? I want to believe second hand stories but from my experience when it's "my buddy said" generally buddy lied because he's pissed he got a ticket.

68style · 03-13-2018, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkyMark

Has anyone actually been in the car when a cop had ticketed someone for their phone being untouched in the cupholder? I want to believe second hand stories but from my experience when it's "my buddy said" generally buddy lied because he's pissed he got a ticket.

Who knows? But the law clearly allows for that to happen.

MarkyMark · 03-13-2018, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 68style

Who knows? But the law clearly allows for that to happen.

The law also allows them to ticket you for going 1km/h over the speed limit, and lord knows we all have heard some second hand story of some poor sap who got nailed for that while ten other cars ripped past him going 40km/h over the limit, at least that's what he swears by.

GS8 · 03-13-2018, 04:59 PM

To be fair, you can get a VI for whatever reason. There are definitely limitations to our 'freedoms'. Being in a car still means you're in a public space and there are laws & rules that apply to being in that space.

I think what takes precedence are safety concerns. With distracted driving at insane rates, it's led to the government taking an aggressive stance on trying to quell it. Obviously a cop can't prove a a visibly placed phone is a used phone which is probably why the law is presented in black and white.

Don't you guys watch those Preventable commercials?

UnknownJinX · 03-13-2018, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by underscore

How many vehicles made in the last however many decades don't even have a glovebox for the insurance papers?

S2000 and Miata.

Their "glovebox" is between the 2 seats.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hakkaboy

why not keep it in your pocket?

My phone is too big and uncomfortable to have in the pocket. I just put it in the door pocket.

Mr.C · 03-13-2018, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by westopher

I don't think a dash mount should be legal either. Thats just asking to fiddle on your phone. My bluetooth headunit was $120.
If you can afford a phone, and a car, thats not a stretch. It also works with my phone in my glovebox. I can type in a destination, set a playlist, then drive wherever I want without touching my phone while listening to my favourite songs, getting directions, and pick up phone call if someone desperately needs to get a hold of me.
Again, I really don't see it being an issue. Laws often overshoot what people are capable of because they need to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Unfortunately we need to accept that more often than not. In this case its really not hard to adapt.

Yeah you wouldn't be saying that if your old BMW had DSP lol

welfare · 03-13-2018, 07:10 PM

Personally, I'm not all that worried about the mobile device rules. They're at least relatively clear.
What worries me is the talk about beverage, smoking, communicating with passengers, fixing yourself in the mirror (for women I guess), etc..
Those seem to be discretionary to the officer. I know they're just clauses, allowing them to be used in extreme cases, but still. It's left to the officer to decide if it's warranted.
Don't like that at all..

westopher · 03-13-2018, 07:11 PM

What is DSP?

68style · 03-13-2018, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GS8

To be fair, you can get a VI for whatever reason. There are definitely limitations to our 'freedoms'. Being in a car still means you're in a public space and there are laws & rules that apply to being in that space.

I think what takes precedence are safety concerns. With distracted driving at insane rates, it's led to the government taking an aggressive stance on trying to quell it. Obviously a cop can't prove a a visibly placed phone is a used phone which is probably why the law is presented in black and white.

Don't you guys watch those Preventable commercials?

See this is part of the problem though, the media has you convinced nothing is more deadly than distracted driving. This simply isn’t the case, 2015 study by the NSC in USA showed 10.6% of fatal accidents were the result of cell phone use. Yes there’s under-reporting, but it’s far from the scourge you’d think given the attention to it now. Even drunk driving distances it to this day... but of course the number 1 is speed. But we are all allowed to speed in a very discretionary manner... cell phones are still thought to be a luxury item by many of the boomers so it’s easy to pick on “kids and suits using their phones” than nail everyone for speeding...

The penalties and attention are totally disproportionate to the actual safety issue. But the media has done a great job of convincing everyone otherwise.

Need we get into all the numerous studies that show talking on hands free devices is no different than holding the phone in your hand or talking to your passenger distraction wise? Those always get conveniently ignored by law makers and ICBC telling you to go hands free to “save lives” haha

68style · 03-13-2018, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by welfare

Personally, I'm not all that worried about the mobile device rules. They're at least relatively clear.
What worries me is the talk about beverage, smoking, communicating with passengers, fixing yourself in the mirror (for women I guess), etc..
Those seem to be discretionary to the officer. I know they're just clauses, allowing them to be used in extreme cases, but still. It's left to the officer to decide if it's warranted.
Don't like that at all..

And what warmed the seat for those discretionary add-ons? Phones that aren’t mounted. Pointy tip of the spear as I was saying

welfare · 03-13-2018, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 68style

See this is part of the problem though, the media has you convinced nothing is more deadly than distracted driving. This simply isn’t the case, 2015 study by the NSC in USA showed 10.6% of fatal accidents were the result of cell phone use. Yes there’s under-reporting, but it’s far from the scourge you’d think given the attention to it now. Even drunk driving distances it to this day... but of course the number 1 is speed. But we are all allowed to speed in a very discretionary manner... cell phones are still thought to be a luxury item by many of the boomers so it’s easy to pick on “kids and suits using their phones” than nail everyone for speeding...

The penalties and attention are totally disproportionate to the actual safety issue. But the media has done a great job of convincing everyone otherwise.

Yeah I don't think it's as much of a safety issue as it is a cost issue.
I can't see the majority of people texting/on the phone while driving at speeds that cause fatalities. Or maneuvering turns into traffic while texting.

It's likely the slower speed straightaway driving. When people are confident they can manage it.
What I'd figure anyways.

68style · 03-13-2018, 11:36 PM

I agree completely it's damage cost related more than anything (plus it's a damn easy target), sadly they aren't marketing it that way and if you browse Facebook or other media on it all you see is misinformed SJW's going "You say that until someone texting kills someone in your family!!" as if it commonly happens. Ludicrous exaggerations.

If you're texting in a moving vehicle you deserve the book thrown at you... but even touching your phone at a stoplight is getting pretty chintzy and making very generous use of the boundaries of what's supposed to be a "safety" campaign. I'm going to guess 99% of tickets are given to stationary vehicles which account for 0% of fatal accidents.

The number of people who are moronic enough to use their phone in situations that no one would deem safe (ie: driving on the highway in traffic) is extremely small. I don't think giving those people at ticket at a light is going to top them either... same as speeding limits don't stop those extraneous morons who can't seem to use any judgement for when it's acceptable to speed.

underscore · 03-14-2018, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 68style

But it's legal to mount it to your dash... where you can just as (if not more) easily glance at/look at/use it ALL the time let alone at stop-lights? lol

I'm guessing because of GPS navigation (either using a phone or a dedicated GPS) and because in most vehicles you'd have to move more than just your arm to reach it. Cupholders are typically within reach and lower down than you should be looking while driving (for GPS).

Quote:

Originally Posted by 68style

I agree completely it's damage cost related more than anything (plus it's a damn easy target), sadly they aren't marketing it that way and if you browse Facebook or other media on it all you see is misinformed SJW's going "You say that until someone texting kills someone in your family!!" as if it commonly happens. Ludicrous exaggerations.

Multiple friends of friends have been killed by distracted drivers in the last few years. Maybe you don't know anyone, but the people that are generating the statistics have to know somebody.

Here's the stats for Ontario in 2016. 96 impaired driving fatalities, 91 distracted driving fatalities. Which is 18.8% of all fatalities.

source: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/pub...statistics.pdf

Quote:

Originally Posted by 68style

If you're texting in a moving vehicle you deserve the book thrown at you... but even touching your phone at a stoplight is getting pretty chintzy and making very generous use of the boundaries of what's supposed to be a "safety" campaign. I'm going to guess 99% of tickets are given to stationary vehicles which account for 0% of fatal accidents.

The number of people who are moronic enough to use their phone in situations that no one would deem safe (ie: driving on the highway in traffic) is extremely small. I don't think giving those people at ticket at a light is going to top them either... same as speeding limits don't stop those extraneous morons who can't seem to use any judgement for when it's acceptable to speed.

Apparently it's not that small, again Ontario stats but in 2017 4,700 crashes were due to speeding, and 1,158 were due to inebriated drivers. Distracted drivers caused 6,390. I don't know about you but I don't want to be in any accidents, fatal or not. Stopped at a light you're still in control of a multi-thousand pound hunk of metal.

source: https://globalnews.ca/news/3705488/d...-speeding-opp/

BIC_BAWS · 03-14-2018, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DragonChi

Unless my music crashes and I need to launch the app again, then I pray to Jesus that I don't get ticketed. LOL.

If you have an Android, you can say "ok Google, shuffle music on Spotify (or whatever music app you use)"

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

BIC_BAWS · 03-14-2018, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by westopher

What is DSP?

I believe DSP is digital sound processing. I don't get why it's relevant to a $120 Bluetooth head unit. But maybe shitty quality, if you have DSP? Your e46 wagon *might* have it (Harmon Kardon). But BMW DSP sucks anyway, I would know, and it sucks to integrate other things with it.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

welfare · 03-14-2018, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by underscore

Here's the stats for Ontario in 2016. 96 impaired driving fatalities, 91 distracted driving fatalities. Which is 18.8% of all fatalities.

source: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/pub...statistics.pdf

Apparently it's not that small, again Ontario stats but in 2017 4,700 crashes were due to speeding, and 1,158 were due to inebriated drivers. Distracted drivers caused 6,390. I don't know about you but I don't want to be in any accidents, fatal or not. Stopped at a light you're still in control of a multi-thousand pound hunk of metal.

source: https://globalnews.ca/news/3705488/d...-speeding-opp/

thing about those stats is that they don't appear to explain what they constituted as distracted driving.
was it mobile device use? conversation with passengers? adjusting the climate control? lighting a cigarette?
'distracted driving' can be a pretty big umbrella.