[r1237h]

I was stopped at a red light, and while waiting, read a bit on my ipad. Which, since I am posting here, obviously led to a ticket. Officer explained that using an electronic device, for whatever purpose, while in the car is prohibited. When I pointed out that I was simply reading, he stated that even if this had been a paper book, it would still be illegal.

Is this accurate? Is standing at a red light operating the motor vehicle? And does an ipad that cannot communicate without wifi fall under "a prescribed class or type of electronic device"?

[pingu81]

Part 3.1 — Use of Electronic Devices while Driving
Definitions

214.1 In this Part:

"electronic device" means

(a) a hand-held cellular telephone or another hand-held electronic device that includes a telephone function,

(b) a hand-held electronic device that is capable of transmitting or receiving electronic mail or other text-based messages, or

(c) a prescribed class or type of electronic device;

"use", in relation to an electronic device, means one or more of the following actions:

(a) holding the device in a position in which it may be used;

(b) operating one or more of the device's functions;

(c) communicating orally by means of the device with another person or another device;

(d) taking another action that is set out in the regulations by means of, with or in relation to an electronic device.
Prohibition against use of electronic device while driving

214.2 (1) A person must not use an electronic device while driving or operating a motor vehicle on a highway.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), a person must not communicate by means of an electronic device with another person or another device by electronic mail or other text-based message.

You broke the law and now you need to pay the consequences.

[InvisibleSoul]

I think you could have been cited for section 144 instead, which is driving without due care. I think "driving" includes even when your vehicle is stopped.

In this case, he might have been able to choose one or the other, but if you were reading a paper book, only section 144 would apply.

[hchang]

Is your iPad powered by electricity or is a pad of paper?

[punkwax]

It is a ticketable offense these days, yes. I've wondered though, would a tourist unfamiliar with the area (and modern technology) who pulled out a map get a ticket?

I've been ticketed at a red light before too. And now every time I notice some chick doing her makeup I wonder to myself, how is that any different!? She's paying no more attention to the road than I was. Do they get tickets too?

Sorry for kinda hijacking thread..

[r1237h]

I have no problem with paying a fine when I am wrong. And if the law is written so that what I did is considered illegal, then I will obviously pay it. But let's not pretend that this is not petty nick-picking just to fill a quota, ok?

And yes, I did ask for clarification, because while I used to blindly trust police to do the right thing, those days are sadly long gone.

By the way, pingu81, I also read the law. Repeating it was not helpful. What I asked was clarification of what I read. Simply posting the law and then declaring that I broke the law and must pay the consequences clarified nothing.

InvisibleSoul, thanks for the clarification of driving. That is what I was asking for, and I guess I am off to pay my ticket.

[r1237h]

Is your iPad powered by electricity or is a pad of paper?

Electricity, last I checked, which makes it an electronic device. Which would fall under the catch all part C, right?

[Inaii]

You're driving, why the hell are you reading at a red light? You want to read? Take the fucking bus. I hate assholes like you.

[hchang]

It is a ticketable offense these days, yes. I've wondered though, would a tourist unfamiliar with the area (and modern technology) who pulled out a map get a ticket?

I've been ticketed at a red light before too. And now every time I notice some chick doing her makeup I wonder to myself, how is that any different!? She's paying no more attention to the road than I was. Do they get tickets too?

Sorry for kinda hijacking thread..

I totally agree.

I write on my clipboard at red lights, eat, change songs on my deck... All of which I don't see how it doesn't distract me just as much if not more as texting/reading

[pinn3r]

It is a ticketable offense these days, yes. I've wondered though, would a tourist unfamiliar with the area (and modern technology) who pulled out a map get a ticket?

Officers may exercise discretion and probably let them off with a warning.

[BrRsn]

Way to be discrete on the 'ol iPad

[r1237h]

You're driving, why the hell are you reading at a red light? You want to read? Take the fucking bus. I hate assholes like you.


Because I felt like reading, was not aware that whatI was doing was illegal, and didn't feel like taking the bus. And you will forgive me if having an insignificant gnat such as you hate me bothers me not at all, right?

Switch to decaf.

[r1237h]

Way to be discrete on the 'ol iPad

Not a question of being discrete. I didn't think it was illegal, since I was at a red light, and not moving. Now that I know, I will pay the fine and not do it again. No discretion necessay.

[r1237h]

Is your iPad powered by electricity or is a pad of paper?

By the way, considering that the officer said that reading a paper book is also illegal, why does the electricity matter?

[pinn3r]

Because I felt like reading, was not aware that whatI was doing was illegal, and didn't feel like taking the bus. And you will forgive me if having an insignificant gnat such as you hate me bothers me not at all, right?

Switch to decaf.

ignorantia juris non excusat

pay fine

move on with life

doneski

[r1237h]

ignorantia juris non excusat

pay fine

move on with life

doneski


Totally agree. Just wanted to know. To take part of the ignorance part, y'know?

[Godzira]

It is a ticketable offense these days, yes. I've wondered though, would a tourist unfamiliar with the area (and modern technology) who pulled out a map get a ticket?

I've been ticketed at a red light before too. And now every time I notice some chick doing her makeup I wonder to myself, how is that any different!? She's paying no more attention to the road than I was. Do they get tickets too?

Sorry for kinda hijacking thread..

We were talking about this the other on our way to a Christmas party.. the cab driver whipped out a huge map as he was rolling up to a red light, how the hell is that not a distraction!?

I just moved here from another province and have no idea where I'm going 90% of the time so I use my phones gps... but if I get caught I'd get a distracted driving ticket?

[hchang]

By the way, considering that the officer said that reading a paper book is also illegal, why does the electricity matter?

What's the ticket called

[Pooface55]

It is a ticketable offense these days, yes. I've wondered though, would a tourist unfamiliar with the area (and modern technology) who pulled out a map get a ticket?

I've been ticketed at a red light before too. And now every time I notice some chick doing her makeup I wonder to myself, how is that any different!? She's paying no more attention to the road than I was. Do they get tickets too?

Sorry for kinda hijacking thread..

I'm paranoid opening a new pack of gum at a redlight LOL.

[bigzz786786]

I got a ticket once at a red light intersection of 3 and Westminster. The cop walks up and says I'm not allowed to use any electronic device will driving. I told him I'm just changing the song on my head unit(2005 SL with aftermarket head unit). He still gave me a ticket even tho I explained to him that control talk didn't exist back then. Went to court 9 months later. Judge threw it out. I'm getting real tired of this law. It should just restrict electronic devices to hand held only. What if it is a positioned and secured device? People use there phones as a GPS and as Bluetooth. But they mount it on the vent. With this law you can't even have a electronic device visible to the eye

[wing_woo]

We were talking about this the other on our way to a Christmas party.. the cab driver whipped out a huge map as he was rolling up to a red light, how the hell is that not a distraction!?

I just moved here from another province and have no idea where I'm going 90% of the time so I use my phones gps... but if I get caught I'd get a distracted driving ticket?

If you have a GPS, or you are using your phone as a GPS, you need to satisfy the below requirements:

A person may use a Global Positioning System (GPS) for navigation purposes while driving if:
-It is programmed before the person begins to drive or operate the vehicle; It can be programmed in a voice-activated manner;
- If it is a hand-held GPS device, it must not be held in the hand; and
- It must be securely fixed to the motor vehicle in a manner that does not obstruct the person’s view of the front or sides of the motor vehicle or interfere with the safety or operating equipment of the vehicle

[wing_woo]

I've been ticketed at a red light before too. And now every time I notice some chick doing her makeup I wonder to myself, how is that any different!? She's paying no more attention to the road than I was. Do they get tickets too?

Sorry for kinda hijacking thread..

She can get driving with undue care ticket or something like that. I hope they do get those. I've seen some do makeup while actually driving.

[InvisibleSoul]

I've been ticketed at a red light before too. And now every time I notice some chick doing her makeup I wonder to myself, how is that any different!? She's paying no more attention to the road than I was. Do they get tickets too?

Sorry for kinda hijacking thread..

If a police officer sees them doing it, then yes, they can and they should get tickets by section 144, driving without due care and attention.

However, because there is so much emphasis on electronic devices nowadays, they get more than their fair share of attention.

[InvisibleSoul]

InvisibleSoul, thanks for the clarification of driving. That is what I was asking for, and I guess I am off to pay my ticket.
It's similar to how people have gotten DUI tickets, even when they were found passed out in a parked car with their engine running.

[InvisibleSoul]

By the way, considering that the officer said that reading a paper book is also illegal, why does the electricity matter?

It doesn't, except in this case, another bylaw applies.

In a way, you might have been lucky that you were reading an iPad instead of a paper book.

I think the penalty for section 144, driving without due care and attention, is stiffer than what you got.

[Godzira]

If you have a GPS, or you are using your phone as a GPS, you need to satisfy the below requirements:

A person may use a Global Positioning System (GPS) for navigation purposes while driving if:
-It is programmed before the person begins to drive or operate the vehicle; It can be programmed in a voice-activated manner;
- If it is a hand-held GPS device, it must not be held in the hand; and
- It must be securely fixed to the motor vehicle in a manner that does not obstruct the person’s view of the front or sides of the motor vehicle or interfere with the safety or operating equipment of the vehicle

thank you! Really good to know.. I just need to figure out a way to secure it to my car... it usually just sits in the middle console

[Soundy]

She can get driving without due care ticket or something like that.
Fixed - what you had was the totally opposite meaning.

[Soundy]

http://cdn5.nwgimg.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/BbMRUdqIIAAM63M-550x597.jpg

[meme405]

I'm paranoid opening a new pack of gum at a redlight LOL.

Same. All it takes to get a distracted driving ticket is a bit of fidgeting and looking down, and an officer will walk out of a bush and tap on your window.

I dropped my wallet in between the seat and center console last week, and an officer appeared out of the wild at my passenger window. I explained to him what I was trying to retrieve and he gave me a verbal warning. No harm, no foul, but just seemed ridiculous that if he had a bad day he could write me a ticket.

[r1237h]

What's the ticket called

I call it my expensive lesson.

[DavidNguyen]

Has any one disputed this ticket and what were the results?

[sho_bc]

I got a ticket once at a red light intersection of 3 and Westminster. The cop walks up and says I'm not allowed to use any electronic device will driving. I told him I'm just changing the song on my head unit(2005 SL with aftermarket head unit). He still gave me a ticket even tho I explained to him that control talk didn't exist back then. Went to court 9 months later. Judge threw it out. I'm getting real tired of this law. It should just restrict electronic devices to hand held only. What if it is a positioned and secured device? People use there phones as a GPS and as Bluetooth. But they mount it on the vent. With this law you can't even have a electronic device visible to the eye

Why was the ticket thrown out? There are many reasons that a ticket can get tossed, even if the ticket was issued for a legitimate offence.

And, see below. The same applies for all electronic devices that a driver may use (ie. TVs don't count, you still can't watch movies on your dash-mounted screen).

If you have a GPS, or you are using your phone as a GPS, you need to satisfy the below requirements:

A person may use a Global Positioning System (GPS) for navigation purposes while driving if:
-It is programmed before the person begins to drive or operate the vehicle; It can be programmed in a voice-activated manner;
- If it is a hand-held GPS device, it must not be held in the hand; and
- It must be securely fixed to the motor vehicle in a manner that does not obstruct the person’s view of the front or sides of the motor vehicle or interfere with the safety or operating equipment of the vehicle

[Phil@rise]

some asshole was at the front of the line at a left turn with an advanced green it took two cars honking at him repeatedly to get him to go when the light turned green.....
Youre on the road to drive and so am I and all the other people around you, so how about you fuckin drive...
now inconvenience aside what if it was an emergency vehicle trying to get thru? Its pretty easy to be distracted for a measurable time and if that measurable time happened a few times on the way to the hospital with a seriously injured person they could be dead from idiots not paying attention.
just a little light reading....

[DragonChi]

If you have a GPS, or you are using your phone as a GPS, you need to satisfy the below requirements:

A person may use a Global Positioning System (GPS) for navigation purposes while driving if:
-It is programmed before the person begins to drive or operate the vehicle; It can be programmed in a voice-activated manner;
- If it is a hand-held GPS device, it must not be held in the hand; and
- It must be securely fixed to the motor vehicle in a manner that does not obstruct the person’s view of the front or sides of the motor vehicle or interfere with the safety or operating equipment of the vehicle

What section is this in the MVA? Just wondering.

@Soundy, that guy still got a ticket in the end for something else.

Comedian Randy Liedtke hauled to police station after driving with an iPhone shaped cookie | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2522678/Comedian-Randy-Liedtke-hauled-police-station-driving-iPhone-shaped-cookie.html)


@OP, Was there keys in your car? Where you in drive? The answer to that is probably yes, and that means you were driving. There's also a driving without due care ticket too. You could be eating while driving and get a ticket too. I mean, carving a turkey while between red lights sounds crazy right?. Not as extreme as reading but the principle remains the same.

[hchang]

I call it my expensive lesson.

No the potential ticket you claim that the officer said that you couldn't read a book at a red light

[Soundy]

@Soundy, that guy still got a ticket in the end for something else.

Comedian Randy Liedtke hauled to police station after driving with an iPhone shaped cookie | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2522678/Comedian-Randy-Liedtke-hauled-police-station-driving-iPhone-shaped-cookie.html)
Nothing to do with his cookie prank, he was just an idiot for doing ANYTHING to attract police attention when he had an outstanding warrant.

[DragonChi]

Would you pull the same prank? I assume you have no outstanding warrant.

[Soundy]

Would you pull the same prank? I assume you have no outstanding warrant.

I might, and I don't.

[Gucci Mane]

If you have a GPS, or you are using your phone as a GPS, you need to satisfy the below requirements:

A person may use a Global Positioning System (GPS) for navigation purposes while driving if:
-It is programmed before the person begins to drive or operate the vehicle; It can be programmed in a voice-activated manner;
- If it is a hand-held GPS device, it must not be held in the hand; and
- It must be securely fixed to the motor vehicle in a manner that does not obstruct the person’s view of the front or sides of the motor vehicle or interfere with the safety or operating equipment of the vehicle

hmm :accepted:. looks like im going to invest in an ipad mini dash kit from soundman.

[r1237h]

No the potential ticket you claim that the officer said that you couldn't read a book at a red light

I have no idea what it is called. My "claim" if that is how you want to refer to it, is that I said that I was simply reading a book. He responded that even if it was a paper book, it would still be illegal.

I can see the logic in this law. I was simply unaware that it was illegal, that's all.

[r1237h]

some asshole was at the front of the line at a left turn with an advanced green it took two cars honking at him repeatedly to get him to go when the light turned green.....
Youre on the road to drive and so am I and all the other people around you, so how about you fuckin drive...
now inconvenience aside what if it was an emergency vehicle trying to get thru? Its pretty easy to be distracted for a measurable time and if that measurable time happened a few times on the way to the hospital with a seriously injured person they could be dead from idiots not paying attention.
just a little light reading....

Two points. First, this happened at a red light, not while driving. Second,ambulances have this thingee called a siren which manages to draw the attention of drivers in the area. At least here in the Tri-city area, and also in New York City, where I drove one for 5 years.

You seem to be missing the point. I am not arguing that what I did was ok or not. I simply asked if this is what the law actually meant. Since it obviously is, and I now know this, I will be paying the fine tomorrow and not reading any more while in the car.

[bigzz786786]

Show_BC sorry I should have clarified, officer didn't show up was the reason it was thrown out.

[entrax]

Two points. First, this happened at a red light, not while driving.

Being at a red light is driving. You are in control of your vehicle at that immediate moment. If you're driving an auto, it's your foot on the brakes preventing the car from moving right? If it's stick, I assume you're holding down the brakes and the clutch pedal right?

Being at a red light doesn't mean you're not driving. false presumption there.

phil's point is that if you were at a red light, and the light turns green, your eyes are on your book/ipad/whatever you're reading from, and you are now "distracted" from moving your car when it turns green and you miss it even for a fraction of a second. you might see the green light 99% of the time, but that still makes you 1% distracted.

if an ambulance was on the way, half of the time they have their lights on only. from what i've seen recently, they only turn on sirens when someone isn't getting out of the way. this would make you a hazard since you are relying on the audible noise to pay attention, so again, you are still a distracted driver.

i don't even care if there's a ticket for distracted driving, driving is an earned right, not a privilege. either drive or don't. don't drive and do other shit.

[Soundy]

Second,ambulances have this thingee called a siren which manages to draw the attention of drivers in the area.
I've seen people so engrossed in what they're doing (phone or otherwise), they're oblivious to everything around them, including sirens, car horns, truck horns, even train horns. Combine that with a modern luxury car that's as quiet as a bank vault inside...?

[r1237h]

Being at a red light is driving. You are in control of your vehicle at that immediate moment. If you're driving an auto, it's your foot on the brakes preventing the car from moving right? If it's stick, I assume you're holding down the brakes and the clutch pedal right?

Being at a red light doesn't mean you're not driving. false presumption there.

phil's point is that if you were at a red light, and the light turns green, your eyes are on your book/ipad/whatever you're reading from, and you are now "distracted" from moving your car when it turns green and you miss it even for a fraction of a second. you might see the green light 99% of the time, but that still makes you 1% distracted.

if an ambulance was on the way, half of the time they have their lights on only. from what i've seen recently, they only turn on sirens when someone isn't getting out of the way. this would make you a hazard since you are relying on the audible noise to pay attention, so again, you are still a distracted driver.

i don't even care if there's a ticket for distracted driving, driving is an earned right, not a privilege. either drive or don't. don't drive and do other shit.

Granted. And may I congratulate you on explaining this both clearly and politely? Thanks.

[r1237h]

I've seen people so engrossed in what they're doing (phone or otherwise), they're oblivious to everything around them, including sirens, car horns, truck horns, even train horns. Combine that with a modern luxury car that's as quiet as a bank vault inside...?

No arguement. Having driven one myself, I hear sirens before anyone else in the vehicle does, but many do seem to take time...

[wing_woo]

What section is this in the MVA? Just wondering.



It was part of the pdf file that is at the bottom of this page: Distractions While Driving: Cell Phones and other Devices - Road Safety Rules and Consequences of Unsafe Driving - RoadSafetyBC (http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/road-safety/distracted.htm)

It's titled "Use of Electronic Devices While Driving"

[Spidey]

ahhh the good ol ignorance excuse..... works 0% of the time.. all the time..

[Spidey]

It was part of the pdf file that is at the bottom of this page: Distractions While Driving: Cell Phones and other Devices - Road Safety Rules and Consequences of Unsafe Driving - RoadSafetyBC (http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/road-safety/distracted.htm)

It's titled "Use of Electronic Devices While Driving"

Thanks for posting that.. I thought I would have to dig that up and post it for the umpteenth time for those who fail to use the search function... of google for that matter.

[sebberry]

You can be charged for distracted driving for simply having a phone sitting loose in a cup holder playing music, no interaction with the device needed! Figure that one out. Can I pick my nose or scratch my scrotum? Am I going to get pulled over for scratching my ear?

Sometimes the laws really do go to far, and in this case we do have the police to blame for asking for increased enforcement powers. While the OP was wrong to be holding up his iPad, it calls into question the inconsistency of the laws. Can I read directions from a paper note? What about all the bus drivers I see reading the newspaper while stopped at a light?

Maybe taking a sip from my coffee mug while stopped at a light will be illegal soon too.

I've never once allowed myself to be distracted by something in my car to the point I've ended up tuning out what's going on outside, yet I'm at risk of being charged for distracted driving every time I drive. Figure that one out.

[melloman]

You guys should have a read:

Windshield mounts illegal in 28 states? - GPS Tracklog (http://gpstracklog.com/2012/06/windshield-mounts-illegal-in-28-states.html)

It would probably piss you off even more, if officers started enforcing the "No GPS on Windshield" Law we have in BC. :lawl:

[Gucci Mane]

You guys should have a read:

Windshield mounts illegal in 28 states? - GPS Tracklog (http://gpstracklog.com/2012/06/windshield-mounts-illegal-in-28-states.html)

It would probably piss you off even more, if officers started enforcing the "No GPS on Windshield" Law we have in BC. :lawl:

wow had no idea it was illegal to mount a gps to the windshield.. thats fucking retarded.

[Soundy]

wow had no idea it was illegal to mount a gps to the windshield.. thats fucking retarded.

It's not. It's illegal to have anything in the windshield blocking your view. That technically includes fuzzy dice hanging from the mirror, too.

[ancient_510]

It's not. It's illegal to have anything in the windshield blocking your view. That technically includes fuzzy dice hanging from the mirror, too.

Don't stick the TReO sticker on your windshield, it may obstruct your view.
Don't stick municipal parking decals on your windshield, it may obstruct your view.
Don't stick commercial vehicle decals on your windshield, it may obstruct your view.

I got a ticket once at a red light intersection of 3 and Westminster. The cop walks up and says I'm not allowed to use any electronic device will driving. I told him I'm just changing the song on my head unit(2005 SL with aftermarket head unit). He still gave me a ticket even tho I explained to him that control talk didn't exist back then. Went to court 9 months later. Judge threw it out.

Don't operate the turn signals. They allow communication with other drivers after you operate the device with your hand.
It is also not securely fastened because it can flip up and down while driving.
Only voice activated turn signals are allowed.

Don't operate the horn. It allows communication with other drivers after you operate the device with your hand.
It is also not securely fastened because it can turn around while driving.
Only voice activated horns are allowed.

Interpretations can get ridiculous.

[Spidey]

You can be charged for distracted driving for simply having a phone sitting loose in a cup holder playing music, no interaction with the device needed! Figure that one out. Can I pick my nose or scratch my scrotum? Am I going to get pulled over for scratching my ear?

Sometimes the laws really do go to far, and in this case we do have the police to blame for asking for increased enforcement powers. While the OP was wrong to be holding up his iPad, it calls into question the inconsistency of the laws. Can I read directions from a paper note? What about all the bus drivers I see reading the newspaper while stopped at a light?

Maybe taking a sip from my coffee mug while stopped at a light will be illegal soon too.

I've never once allowed myself to be distracted by something in my car to the point I've ended up tuning out what's going on outside, yet I'm at risk of being charged for distracted driving every time I drive. Figure that one out.

you want some cheese with that whine?

The reason the electronic device law came into effect is because it has become an issue. Just like drinking and driving, not every who commits the offence causes an accident or injury to themselves or other people, but the risk is definitely there. Like I said before, would you guys rather be dinged 368 dollars for a Driving without due care and attention fine, or 167 for using an electronic device while driving? For those complaining about the latter please PM me your licence plate so if I ever pull you over for using your cell phone, I will be sure to give you a ticket for section 144.

Sure blame the police again for these laws being in place. Maybe if you 5% of the things first responders did, your tune would be slightly different. Brain splatter from the result of a collision due to a drunk driver. A fatal T bone at an intersection because the driver was talking on his cell phone (but of course they were not distracted.. it was another uncontrolled factor that caused the accident).

[sebberry]

Like I said before, would you guys rather be dinged 368 dollars for a Driving without due care and attention fine, or 167 for using an electronic device while driving?


The former because in that case the onus is on the officer to prove that the action was actually creating a significant enough of a distraction to cause a problem.

This would avoid the bogus tickets that are handed out for moving your phone while stopped at a light or punching an address into the GPS.

I don't think for one moment that it's acceptable for drivers to be yapping on the phone, typing an email, etc... while *operating a moving vehicle*. But right on cue you bring up extreme cases like brain splatter to justify enforcement action against trivial acts such as moving a phone off a pile of coins or keys in the cup holder because it's rattling and making noise.

People getting warnings and fines because they're trying to recover their wallet before it disappears out of reach between the seat and console or changing the station on an aftermarket head unit are just a couple of perfect examples of how the police are taking the spirit of these regs too far.

Futzing around with stuff while operating a moving vehicle = dangerous.
Moving something (Christ, not even USING it, just moving it) while stopped =/= dangerous.

Oh, the next time I see something that is worthy of calling the police I'll just ignore it. After all, the police say I should leave my phone out of reach in the trunk because I'm somehow incapable of making appropriate judgement calls regarding its use.

You know how when a police officer does something highly questionable in the public's eyes and you say that we shouldn't paint all cops with the same brush, that there are many good, honest officers, etc...? Well, do us a favor.. don't paint all drivers with the same brush.

[Spidey]

The former because in that case the onus is on the officer to prove that the action was actually creating a significant enough of a distraction to cause a problem.

This would avoid the bogus tickets that are handed out for moving your phone while stopped at a light or punching an address into the GPS.

I don't think for one moment that it's acceptable for drivers to be yapping on the phone, typing an email, etc... while *operating a moving vehicle*. But right on cue you bring up extreme cases like brain splatter to justify enforcement action against trivial acts such as moving a phone off a pile of coins or keys in the cup holder because it's rattling and making noise.

People getting warnings and fines because they're trying to recover their wallet before it disappears out of reach between the seat and console or changing the station on an aftermarket head unit are just a couple of perfect examples of how the police are taking the spirit of these regs too far.

Futzing around with stuff while operating a moving vehicle = dangerous.
Moving something (Christ, not even USING it, just moving it) while stopped =/= dangerous.

Oh, the next time I see something that is worthy of calling the police I'll just ignore it. After all, the police say I should leave my phone out of reach in the trunk because I'm somehow incapable of making appropriate judgement calls regarding its use.

You know how when a police officer does something highly questionable in the public's eyes and you say that we shouldn't paint all cops with the same brush, that there are many good, honest officers, etc...? Well, do us a favor.. don't paint all drivers with the same brush.

we don't paint all drivers with the same brush.. how many people are let off with warnings in a given day? probably more people than ones that receive tickets... you just don't hear about those because you only hear about people who bitch and complain that they were "unjustly" given a ticket.

[r1237h]

ahhh the good ol ignorance excuse..... works 0% of the time.. all the time..

Almost as well known as the good ol "I haven't bothered to read the thread, and am therefore speaking out of my ass" deal, eh?

[r1237h]

You only hear about people who bitch and complain that they were "unjustly" given a ticket.

Good thing I didn't bitch and complain, but rather asked for clarification for something I was not aware of. Probably helped that I have seen more blood and brain splatter then most officers can claim to.

Not really relevant, I agree, butI figured that if you can drag that in to try and make you point, why shouldn't I use it also?

[sebberry]

we don't paint all drivers with the same brush..

Except you kinda do. And so does the ministry of justice who is undoubtedly supported by police departments that want ever increasing powers to crack down on trivial offences. (Jamie Graham wanted to impound phones for a week as a penalty. Seems a little extreme for not even using your phone, no?)

Bringing arguments like brain splatter into the argument makes it pretty clear that you're grouping me with the same sort of people who have no control over their impulses to pick up a phone and text about dinner plans while navigating their car through traffic.

As written, the law is a knee-jerk attempt to deal with the very real problem of cell phone use while driving. It needs simplification and re-focus.

[Soundy]

Dear God, this forum REALLY needs a FAIL button...

Except you kinda do. And so does the ministry of justice who is undoubtedly supported by police departments that want ever increasing powers to crack down on trivial offences. (Jamie Graham wanted to impound phones for a week as a penalty. Seems a little extreme for not even using your phone, no?)

Bringing arguments like brain splatter into the argument makes it pretty clear that you're grouping me with the same sort of people who have no control over their impulses to pick up a phone and text about dinner plans while navigating their car through traffic.
Uhhh... you and OP are the ONLY ones who've mentioned "brain splatter" in this thread.

Now who's grouping whom?

[xXSupa]

You can be charged for distracted driving for simply having a phone sitting loose in a cup holder playing music, no interaction with the device needed! Figure that one out. Can I pick my nose or scratch my scrotum? Am I going to get pulled over for scratching my ear?


Speaking of which...
(Start at 5:21)
http://youtu.be/cYQVS4IPfww?t=321s

[cruz-in]

It's similar to how people have gotten DUI tickets, even when they were found passed out in a parked car with their engine running.

can they ticket you if your in the back seat , car not running but the keys in your hand?

[hchang]

Good thing I didn't bitch and complain, but rather asked for clarification for something I was not aware of. Probably helped that I have seen more blood and brain splatter then most officers can claim to.

Not really relevant, I agree, butI figured that if you can drag that in to try and make you point, why shouldn't I use it also?

Except you kinda do. And so does the ministry of justice who is undoubtedly supported by police departments that want ever increasing powers to crack down on trivial offences. (Jamie Graham wanted to impound phones for a week as a penalty. Seems a little extreme for not even using your phone, no?)

Bringing arguments like brain splatter into the argument makes it pretty clear that you're grouping me with the same sort of people who have no control over their impulses to pick up a phone and text about dinner plans while navigating their car through traffic.

As written, the law is a knee-jerk attempt to deal with the very real problem of cell phone use while driving. It needs simplification and re-focus.

Shut up

[Vege]

I was stopped at a red light, and while waiting, read a bit on my ipad. Which, since I am posting here, obviously led to a ticket. Officer explained that using an electronic device, for whatever purpose, while in the car is prohibited. When I pointed out that I was simply reading, he stated that even if this had been a paper book, it would still be illegal.

Is this accurate? Is standing at a red light operating the motor vehicle? And does an ipad that cannot communicate without wifi fall under "a prescribed class or type of electronic device"?

You realize the police are enforcing these types of laws because most people lack common sense. Reading an iPad at a red light? Come on... what is so important that you couldn't wait until you got to your destination.

[hchang]

You realize the police are enforcing these types of laws because most people lack common sense. Reading an iPad at a red light? Come on... what is so important that you couldn't wait until you got to your destination.

Don't worry guys it's okay

He's "seen more brain splatter"

[wing_woo]

This would avoid the bogus tickets that are handed out for moving your phone while stopped at a light or punching an address into the GPS.

But you aren't allowed to punch an address into the GPS. You are only allowed if it is voice activated.


Oh, the next time I see something that is worthy of calling the police I'll just ignore it. After all, the police say I should leave my phone out of reach in the trunk because I'm somehow incapable of making appropriate judgement calls regarding its use.


You are allowed to call 911 if you are in immediate danger or you see a situation warranting calling 911 even if you are driving.

Am I going to get pulled over for scratching my ear?

Funny you should mention this. I read of someone being stopped for scratching his ear cause the cop behind couldn't tell and basically from his POV saw him putting something against his ear. Don't remember if he actually got a ticket or if the cop determined that he wasn't using his phone.

[sebberry]

Uhhh... you and OP are the ONLY ones who've mentioned "brain splatter" in this thread.


Actually it was Spidey who brought up brain splatter as justification for cracking down on people who aren't really even distracted.

[r1237h]

You realize the police are enforcing these types of laws because most people lack common sense. Reading an iPad at a red light? Come on... what is so important that you couldn't wait until you got to your destination.

After thinking about it, I agree.

As I mentioned, I see the logic in the law, and I admit I was in the wrong. Not sure how I can state this more clearly, and it seems obvious that it doesn't matter, since it won't stop some of the people here from making their silly remarks that they cannot hold in.

For those who simply answered and gave information, my thanks. For those that cannot resist and have to act like immature children, no problem, I have kids, so this is nothing new.

[sebberry]

But you aren't allowed to punch an address into the GPS. You are only allowed if it is voice activated.


No, you're not. So people changing the radio station get charged because the cop couldn't tell what function they were bringing up on the system. Those voice controlled systems are often more distracting while driving than typing in an address while stopped at a light. Again, a knee-jerk law that doesn't take enough into consideration.



You are allowed to call 911 if you are in immediate danger or you see a situation warranting calling 911 even if you are driving.


Pretty hard when the phone is locked in the trunk like the police tell us to do, because.. you know, we're all incapable of having it sitting next to us without using it.

[r1237h]

Don't worry guys it's okay

He's "seen more brain splatter"

You really should try reading (and having someone explain the parts you don't understand) both the whole thread, and the whole post. That would save you posting nonsense and sounding like an idiot.

On the other hand, if you don't mind making a fool of yourself, why should I care?

[hchang]

You really should try reading (and having someone explain the parts you don't understand) both the whole thread, and the whole post. That would save you posting nonsense and sounding like an idiot.

On the other hand, if you don't mind making a fool of yourself, why should I care?

Thanks for the fatherly advice I appreciate it

Can I have some money?

[Godzira]

You really should try reading (and having someone explain the parts you don't understand) both the whole thread, and the whole post. That would save you posting nonsense and sounding like an idiot.


http://www.badideatshirts.com/Assets/ProductImages/PS_0241W_CENTER_KIDS.jpg

[r1237h]

Thanks for the fatherly advice I appreciate it

Can I have some money?

Ah, yet another problem. In the grownup world, you actually earn money, not whine to daddy that you want some.

This thread is really going downhill, isn't it? It started with me asking clarification about things I was not aware of (which obviously does not excuse breaking the law), and as many such forums, quickly escalated to personal attacks and sarcasm.

Oh joy.

[Godzira]

Ah, yet another problem. In the grownup world, you actually earn money, not whine to daddy that you want some.

This thread is really going downhill, isn't it? It started with me asking clarification about things I was not aware of (which obviously does not excuse breaking the law), and as many such forums, quickly escalated to personal attacks and sarcasm.

Oh joy.

what did you expect :P welcome to rs.

[hchang]

http://www.badideatshirts.com/Assets/ProductImages/PS_0241W_CENTER_KIDS.jpg

"Well I never...."


Ah, yet another problem. In the grownup world, you actually earn money, not whine to daddy that you want some.

This thread is really going downhill, isn't it? It started with me asking clarification about things I was not aware of (which obviously does not excuse breaking the law), and as many such forums, quickly escalated to personal attacks and sarcasm.

Oh joy.


So... no on the money?

[Godzira]

"Well I never...."

lol that wasn't aimed at you, I just wanted to say it.

[hchang]

lol that wasn't aimed at you, I just wanted to say it.

I know I was making fun of you

[Godzira]

I know I was making fun of you

then I take it back it was 100% aimed at you.

[mk1freak]

can they ticket you if your in the back seat , car not running but the keys in your hand?
:suspicious:
cruz you sure it was your keys in your hand? :troll:

[Spidey]

Almost as well known as the good ol "I haven't bothered to read the thread, and am therefore speaking out of my ass" deal, eh?

I did read the whole thread.. Now what?

Good thing I didn't bitch and complain, but rather asked for clarification for something I was not aware of. Probably helped that I have seen more blood and brain splatter then most officers can claim to.

Not really relevant, I agree, butI figured that if you can drag that in to try and make you point, why shouldn't I use it also?

I quoted Sebberry's comment, not yours. My only reply to YOU was the ignorance comment.

Except you kinda do. And so does the ministry of justice who is undoubtedly supported by police departments that want ever increasing powers to crack down on trivial offences. (Jamie Graham wanted to impound phones for a week as a penalty. Seems a little extreme for not even using your phone, no?)

Bringing arguments like brain splatter into the argument makes it pretty clear that you're grouping me with the same sort of people who have no control over their impulses to pick up a phone and text about dinner plans while navigating their car through traffic.

As written, the law is a knee-jerk attempt to deal with the very real problem of cell phone use while driving. It needs simplification and re-focus.

How is my brain splatter comment grouping you with the same people that have no control of their impulses? I was simply pointing out why said laws are in effect... to prevent the worst case scenario. Everything, if you have not noticed, is to prevent more or less, the worst case scenario. Like it or not, that's how it is. But the thing of it is, there is no trick or trap with these laws. YOU have total control. YOU CHOOSE to pick up your cell phone at a red light. You may not agree with the law, but it is YOU who decides to read your text, or in this case, an Ipad while in control of your vehicle. So at the end of the day you aren't "entrapped". You can disagree with the law, and rebel against it, but you have no one to blame but yourself if you get caught.

The way you bitch about the MVA makes it sound like someone locked you up in their garage and threw the keys away... Poor ol Sebberry, a prisoner of the Motor Vehicle Act...

[Soundy]

How is my brain splatter comment grouping you with the same people that have no control of their impulses?
Because everything is always all about sebberry. Laws don't exist to protect society, they exist to ruin his fun.

The way you bitch about the MVA makes it sound like someone locked you up in their garage and threw the keys away... Poor ol Sebberry, a prisoner of the Motor Vehicle Act...
Oh shit, now you've done it.

Cue extensive sebberry rant in 3... 2... 1...

[r1237h]

So... no on the money?

well, finish your chores and we will discuss it....

[r1237h]

I did read the whole thread.. Now what?



I quoted Sebberry's comment, not yours. My only reply to YOU was the ignorance comment.




Then have someone explain it to you. An "ignorance excuse" comment implies that since I was ignorant of the law, that I believe that this somehow excuses my actions. I didn't claim that, nor do I believe it. I was unaware of the law, and if it applied, and that is what I questioned. And the answer is that I was wrong, whether I agree with the law or not (I happen to agree with it).

Police officers are sometimes mistaken, sometimes full of shit. That is a fact of life. You may accept what they say blindly, I have learned not to do so. So yes, if there is something unclear, I will ask, and sometimes I will discover that they were wrong, and sometimes I will discover that they were 100% correct, as in this case.

As a side comment, if the officer had taken 30 seconds to explain, as was done here in the forum, there would have been no problem. Instead he acted like an asshole, which led me to verify what he claimed.

[Presto]

As a side comment, if the officer had taken 30 seconds to explain, as was done here in the forum, there would have been no problem. Instead he acted like an asshole, which led me to verify what he claimed.

The officer was probably ticked because he thought your ignorance was bullshit. I'm pretty sure you have to be living in a cave to not know about, or have heard about, our distracted driving laws. Especially, with electronics.

[r1237h]

The officer was probably ticked because he thought your ignorance was bullshit. I'm pretty sure you have to be living in a cave to not know about, or have heard about, our distracted driving laws. Especially, with electronics.

In the cave I live in, it is not known to all that standing at a red light and not moving is considered operating a vehicle. In addition, when I asked why this is a problem, he answered that a car can have an accident even with the car, and all the cars around it, not moving. When I asked how this is physically possible, he had nothing to say. His partner tried telling me about how driving while playing with electronic devices can lead to accidents. I agreed with him, but when I asked what does that have to do with the case at hand, he also had nothing to say.

The idea wasn't to "win" a debate with them, but just to understand what the issue was.

[sebberry]

How is my brain splatter comment grouping you with the same people that have no control of their impulses?


Because you're attempting to use the worst case scenario to justify the regulations that target drivers who aren't in the least bit distracted.

The law gives you the authority to ticket drivers who are not demonstrably distracted, just in the off chance they could become distracted.

Why not charge everyone for speeding just because they're driving a car capable of exceeding the speed limit?

[zulutango]

Why not charge everyone for speeding just because they're driving a car capable of exceeding the speed limit?[/QUOTE]



I like your way of thinkin Boy!!!!!! Y'all 'r in a heap of trubble!:accepted:

[sebberry]

I just got back from picking up dinner. Distracted every inch of the way. Brain splatter all over my new floor mats.

[Soundy]

Why not charge everyone for speeding just because they're driving a car capable of exceeding the speed limit?



I like your way of thinkin Boy!!!!!! Y'all 'r in a heap of trubble!:accepted:

Makes me glad I drive a Jeep. Exceeds the speed limit in a school zone with a strong tailwind!

[Yodamaster]

In the cave I live in, it is not known to all that standing at a red light and not moving is considered operating a vehicle. In addition, when I asked why this is a problem, he answered that a car can have an accident even with the car, and all the cars around it, not moving. When I asked how this is physically possible, he had nothing to say. His partner tried telling me about how driving while playing with electronic devices can lead to accidents. I agreed with him, but when I asked what does that have to do with the case at hand, he also had nothing to say.

The idea wasn't to "win" a debate with them, but just to understand what the issue was.

If the car is running, and you are sitting in the driver's seat, you are operating a motor vehicle, this is common sense.

Using any kind of electronic device means that you aren't paying attention to what's happening around you, which is dangerous, and is also common sense.

All of these things are included in the book you were supposed to study before attempting to get your license, how that knowledge has escaped you is anyone's guess.

[Phil@rise]

Two points. First, this happened at a red light, not while driving. Second,ambulances have this thingee called a siren which manages to draw the attention of drivers in the area. At least here in the Tri-city area, and also in New York City, where I drove one for 5 years.

You seem to be missing the point. I am not arguing that what I did was ok or not. I simply asked if this is what the law actually meant. Since it obviously is, and I now know this, I will be paying the fine tomorrow and not reading any more while in the car.

First if you think stopped at a red light isnt driving you shouldn't be driving.
Second if your so immersed in what your reading writing or gabbing about to not hear multiple horns then your going to have a delayed response to sirens as well.

[zulutango]

Makes me glad I drive a Jeep. Exceeds the speed limit in a school zone with a strong tailwind!


My Mini (original classic Mr Bean sized) needs a good downhill run along with your tail wind. :)

[r1237h]

If the car is running, and you are sitting in the driver's seat, you are operating a motor vehicle, this is common sense.

Using any kind of electronic device means that you aren't paying attention to what's happening around you, which is dangerous, and is also common sense.

All of these things are included in the book you were supposed to study before attempting to get your license, how that knowledge has escaped you is anyone's guess.

Yeah, lot's of things become "obvious" in hindsight.

[r1237h]

First if you think stopped at a red light isnt driving you shouldn't be driving.
Second if your so immersed in what your reading writing or gabbing about to not hear multiple horns then your going to have a delayed response to sirens as well.

Sorta like if you cannot follow a thread and make up thinks, you shouldn't be posting on a forum?

Not hearing horns? Where did that come from?

[Spidey]

Sorta like if you cannot follow a thread and make up thinks, you shouldn't be posting on a forum?

Not hearing horns? Where did that come from?

His reply was to you not thinking being stopped at a red light, with your car running, and foot on your brake pedal (the only thing stopping your car from going forward) can be affected by being "distracted" or the possibility of being distracted when at a stand still.

I will give you a couple of examples which "distraction" at a red light or stand still can be "dangerous". You may question the chances of these things happen, but they COULD an they HAVE. And like I said before, laws are placed to prevent incidents that could and have happened.

-you are reading your Ipad at a red light... you obviously are not focused on anything else but the screen of your electronic device. The light turns green you take your eyes off the ipad, take your foot off the brake, and hit the gas. OOPS didn't see that pedestrian running across trying to beat the light... OR didn't see the car that just tried to beat its red light. BOOM. In those two incidents, was it your "fault". Probably not since you had the green light, but if you weren't "distracted", you would have seen the incidents unfolding before you.

It is the duty of all drivers on the road to be aware of their environment and surroundings. Everyone learned about defensive driving when they got their licences. No one ever gets behind the wheel and thinks they are going to get into an accident. No one ever texts and drives thinking THEY will get into an accident. No one ever drinks and drives and thinks THEY will get into an accident. Because they are "better" than everyone else and nothing can happen to THEM.

There is a reason why impaired driving and electronic device laws were created. Because it is an issue.

Not even going to bother replying to Sebberry. I think I have said that before?:suspicious: I will let the local Police on the Island put up with him.

[sekin67835]

If the car is running, and you are sitting in the driver's seat, you are operating a motor vehicle, this is common sense.

Using any kind of electronic device means that you aren't paying attention to what's happening around you, which is dangerous, and is also common sense.

All of these things are included in the book you were supposed to study before attempting to get your license, how that knowledge has escaped you is anyone's guess.

I think OPs question is legit. In my opinion, you can get a DUI while sleeping in the back seat of the car. So what defines driving/operating a vehicle? When you're sleeping in the back of the seat and the keys are out of reach how does that justify a DUI, yet you hear about these cases. Now I haven't read the drivers book in a while, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't tell you that you can't sleep in a car while you're intoxicated. Now the electronic ban law was implemented a few years ago, but i do feel like many drivers aren't aware that reading their phones during a stop light is illegal. Let's face it, all you guys on RS claim to be the best drivers in all of Canada. OP came in here to ask a legit question and gets berated

[Spidey]

I think OPs question is legit. In my opinion, you can get a DUI while sleeping in the back seat of the car. So what defines driving/operating a vehicle? When you're sleeping in the back of the seat and the keys are out of reach how does that justify a DUI, yet you hear about these cases. Now I haven't read the drivers book in a while, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't tell you that you can't sleep in a car while you're intoxicated. Now the electronic ban law was implemented a few years ago, but i do feel like many drivers aren't aware that reading their phones during a stop light is illegal. Let's face it, all you guys on RS claim to be the best drivers in all of Canada. OP came in here to ask a legit question and gets berated

please provide evidence of anyone sleeping in the back seat of their car (intoxicated) getting an Impaired Driving Charge and conviction. I have never heard of these stories, ever. And unless the person who is passed out in the back seat has his or her keys in the ignition and the car running, and no one else in sight, MAYBE they can be done for care and control, but even that is a stretch. If these "stories" you are talking about are all heresay, it is probably people who have been charged and are trying to downplay what really happened.

[Yodamaster]

Yeah, lot's of things become "obvious" in hindsight.

Would you care to explain how am I reciting these points to you as someone who has never been pulled over, or been in an accident? I haven't had the opportunity to experience hindsight when it comes to driving, because I take it seriously.

I attribute that to knowing when I am operating a motor vehicle.

[sekin67835]

please provide evidence of anyone sleeping in the back seat of their car (intoxicated) getting an Impaired Driving Charge and conviction. I have never heard of these stories, ever. And unless the person who is passed out in the back seat has his or her keys in the ignition and the car running, and no one else in sight, MAYBE they can be done for care and control, but even that is a stretch. If these "stories" you are talking about are all heresay, it is probably people who have been charged and are trying to downplay what really happened.


You are right,

In what circumstances do these charges apply?

The criminal provisions apply if you were in “care and control” of a car, boat, plane, or other motor vehicle or vessel. Care or control of a vehicle means you were in the driver’s seat and had access to the ignition key, even if you were parked.
Thus if Bob decides to sleep off the booze he drank the night before in his car, he must ensure that he does not have the keys on his person or he may be charged with an offence.

BC Criminal Defence Law Firm Article: | Dykstra & Company (http://www.dykstralaw.com/library/bc-criminal-defence-law-firm-article.cfm)

Now, If I hadn't done some googling, I didn't know that sitting in a driver seat with keys in your pocket can land you in jail while intoxicated. My question would be do you know how many drivers know about control and care law? Now of course ignorance doesn't justify breaking the law, but a DUI can change a person's life. Now in the learners book page 103 (icbc website) describes alcohol impairment. But no where in the book does it touch on sleeping in the driver seat. It is not a stretch to conclude that an average driver would know about this law.

[ancient_510]

In what circumstances do these charges apply?

The criminal provisions apply if you were in “care and control” of a car, boat, plane, or other motor vehicle or vessel. Care or control of a vehicle means you were in the driver’s seat and had access to the ignition key, even if you were parked.
Thus if Bob decides to sleep off the booze he drank the night before in his car, he must ensure that he does not have the keys on his person or he may be charged with an offence.

May or may not be exactly correct.

R. c. Ngo Tran, 2014 QCCQ 11706

[50]A person occupying the driver's seat of a motor vehicle is presumed to have care or control of that vehicle unless that person establishes that he or she does not occupy that seat for the purpose of setting the vehicle in motion. To rebut this presumption requires the accused to prove lack of that intention on the balance of probabilities.

[51] A person who satisfies the court that he or she had no intention to set the vehicle in motion will not necessarily escape conviction: an inebriated individual who is found behind the wheel and has a present ability to set the vehicle in motion, without intending at that moment to do so , may nevertheless present a realistic risk of danger to persons or property. The risk of danger must be realistic and not just theoretically possible. But nor need the risk be probable, or even serious or substantial.

It is reasonable to conclude that if you can effectively demonstrate to the court that your only intent was to operate the heater or the radio or the door, you had no intent to set the vehicle in motion. Therefore "care or control", within the meaning of section 253(1) of the Criminal Code, would not apply.

[sekin67835]

May or may not be exactly correct.

R. c. Ngo Tran, 2014 QCCQ 11706

[50]A person occupying the driver's seat of a motor vehicle is presumed to have care or control of that vehicle unless that person establishes that he or she does not occupy that seat for the purpose of setting the vehicle in motion. To rebut this presumption requires the accused to prove lack of that intention on the balance of probabilities.

[51] A person who satisfies the court that he or she had no intention to set the vehicle in motion will not necessarily escape conviction: an inebriated individual who is found behind the wheel and has a present ability to set the vehicle in motion, without intending at that moment to do so , may nevertheless present a realistic risk of danger to persons or property. The risk of danger must be realistic and not just theoretically possible. But nor need the risk be probable, or even serious or substantial.

It is reasonable to conclude that if you can effectively demonstrate to the court that your only intent was to operate the heater or the radio or the door, you had no intent to set the vehicle in motion. Therefore "care or control", within the meaning of section 253(1) of the Criminal Code, would not apply.

Isn't that the prosecutors job to show evidence that you are using the car other than to operate the heater or the radio?

[ancient_510]

Isn't that the prosecutors job to show evidence that you are using the car other than to operate the heater or the radio?

To rebut this presumption requires the accused to prove lack of that intention on the balance of probabilities.

Short answer, no.

[sebberry]

you are reading your Ipad at a red light... you obviously are not focused on anything else but the screen of your electronic device. The light turns green you take your eyes off the ipad, take your foot off the brake, and hit the gas. OOPS didn't see that pedestrian running across trying to beat the light... OR didn't see the car that just tried to beat its red light. BOOM. In those two incidents, was it your "fault". Probably not since you had the green light, but if you weren't "distracted", you would have seen the incidents unfolding before you.



How does the "device" come into play here?
If you're the sort of person to hit the gas for a light that's just turned green without checking the crosswalks and intersection, then you shouldn't be driving.

It doesn't matter if you're reading a message on a phone, taking a sip of coffee of reading directions from a paper note, you do your checks to ensure it's safe to proceed before you move.

[Spidey]

You are right,

In what circumstances do these charges apply?

The criminal provisions apply if you were in “care and control” of a car, boat, plane, or other motor vehicle or vessel. Care or control of a vehicle means you were in the driver’s seat and had access to the ignition key, even if you were parked.
Thus if Bob decides to sleep off the booze he drank the night before in his car, he must ensure that he does not have the keys on his person or he may be charged with an offence.

BC Criminal Defence Law Firm Article: | Dykstra & Company (http://www.dykstralaw.com/library/bc-criminal-defence-law-firm-article.cfm)

Now, If I hadn't done some googling, I didn't know that sitting in a driver seat with keys in your pocket can land you in jail while intoxicated. My question would be do you know how many drivers know about control and care law? Now of course ignorance doesn't justify breaking the law, but a DUI can change a person's life. Now in the learners book page 103 (icbc website) describes alcohol impairment. But no where in the book does it touch on sleeping in the driver seat. It is not a stretch to conclude that an average driver would know about this law.

If the keys are in the ignition, it's pretty slam dunk. If the keys are in his pocket, it would be up to the Police officer to to try to prove that the elements of Care and Control are met. Before I was a police officer, I never knew what "care and control was", and the few times I slept in my car, I did it in the passenger seat, and back seat. I guess common sense isn't all that common...

[Spidey]

His reply was to you not thinking being stopped at a red light, with your car running, and foot on your brake pedal (the only thing stopping your car from going forward) can be affected by being "distracted" or the possibility of being distracted when at a stand still.

I will give you a couple of examples which "distraction" at a red light or stand still can be "dangerous". You may question the chances of these things happen, but they COULD an they HAVE. And like I said before, laws are placed to prevent incidents that could and have happened.

-you are reading your Ipad at a red light... you obviously are not focused on anything else but the screen of your electronic device. The light turns green you take your eyes off the ipad, take your foot off the brake, and hit the gas. OOPS didn't see that pedestrian running across trying to beat the light... OR didn't see the car that just tried to beat its red light. BOOM. In those two incidents, was it your "fault". Probably not since you had the green light, but if you weren't "distracted", you would have seen the incidents unfolding before you.

It is the duty of all drivers on the road to be aware of their environment and surroundings. Everyone learned about defensive driving when they got their licences. No one ever gets behind the wheel and thinks they are going to get into an accident. No one ever texts and drives thinking THEY will get into an accident. No one ever drinks and drives and thinks THEY will get into an accident. Because they are "better" than everyone else and nothing can happen to THEM.

There is a reason why impaired driving and electronic device laws were created. Because it is an issue.

Not even going to bother replying to Sebberry. I think I have said that before?:suspicious: I will let the local Police on the Island put up with him.

How does the "device" come into play here?
If you're the sort of person to hit the gas for a light that's just turned green without checking the crosswalks and intersection, then you shouldn't be driving.

It doesn't matter if you're reading a message on a phone, taking a sip of coffee of reading directions from a paper note, you do your checks to ensure it's safe to proceed before you move.

[sebberry]

I'm not sure by what you mean about having the police on the island "put up with me".

The only interaction I've ever had with a police officer (aside being allowed to proceed through roadblocks) was when I had someone try to use a fake credit card in my store.

Care to answer my question?

Or how about this... a media player playing music through the car's speakers must be securely mounted to the dash. How does not having it secured to the dash constitute distracted driving?

[Spidey]

I'm not sure by what you mean about having the police on the island "put up with me".

The only interaction I've ever had with a police officer (aside being allowed to proceed through roadblocks) was when I had someone try to use a fake credit card in my store.

Care to answer my question?

Or how about this... a media player playing music through the car's speakers must be securely mounted to the dash. How does not having it secured to the dash constitute distracted driving?

Not even going to bother replying to Sebberry. I think I have said that before?

[sebberry]

Translation: I don't have a good explanation for why the regs are the way they are.

[Spidey]

Translation: I don't have a good explanation for why the regs are the way they are.

Why are you asking police officers why laws implemented by the government are the way they are? How am I supposed to read the minds of the government and answer your questions for them. I can have an idea and why I PERSONALLY think through COMMON sense why some laws are in place, but there's no way I can say that WHY the way it is.

[ancient_510]

If the keys are in the ignition, it's pretty slam dunk.
Except in the case I cited: R. c. Ngo Tran, 2014 QCCQ 11706 (https://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qccq/doc/2014/2014qccq11706/2014qccq11706.html)
Ngo Tran was found in the drivers seat, dead asleep... with the engine running and the keys in the ignition.
He was ultimatley found not guilty after being charged with having the care or control of a motor vehicle while his ability to drive was impaired by alcohol or a drug.

[sebberry]

Why are you asking police officers why laws implemented by the government are the way they are? How am I supposed to read the minds of the government and answer your questions for them. I can have an idea and why I PERSONALLY think through COMMON sense why some laws are in place, but there's no way I can say that WHY the way it is.

While you're not directly involved in drafting the legislation, it is your discretion whether to charge a driver depending on the circumstance. So based on that I'd say your opinion and justifications certainly do matter.

[Spidey]

While you're not directly involved in drafting the legislation, it is your discretion whether to charge a driver depending on the circumstance. So based on that I'd say your opinion and justifications certainly do matter.

Yes you are right it is our discretion. But you crying about how police officers don't use discretion. On any given HOUR I could serve 20 VT's, easily. Every month, on average, I serve maybe 2-5 VT's and anywhere from 5-15 written warnings/verbal warnings, and probably over 100 infractions I just "let go". I know officers that do more and some who do far less. So don't say cops don't use discretion.

[sebberry]

You're not an IRSU member, are you? I somehow don't think they let 95% of the infractions go free.

[Tone Loc]

You're not an IRSU member, are you? I somehow don't think they let 95% of the infractions go free.

I think what Spidey means is that plenty of things are "let go" by cops that *technically* are illegal. Such as anybody ever who has done 51 km/h in a 50 zone. Or people who do rolling stops for red light right turns, stop signs, etc. I am not a perfect driver, I will readily admit that if cops were to ticket everyone all the time for every single broken law, regardless of extent or discretion I would probably not have a license.

Neither would anybody else, really...

[Spidey]

You're not an IRSU member, are you? I somehow don't think they let 95% of the infractions go free.

IRSU. Integrated road safety unit....... How dare these police officers (working in a specialized unit/ section specifically focussed on traffic infractions) have the nerve to do their job! Shouldn't they be doing solving murders or something???

[maksimizer]

Why is this thread still alive.
Dont look at your crotch at a red light you fuck.

[sebberry]

IRSU. Integrated road safety unit....... How dare these police officers (working in a specialized unit/ section specifically focussed on traffic infractions) have the nerve to do their job! Shouldn't they be doing solving murders or something???

Sounds like IHIT could use the help...

290 unsolved murders on the Lower Mainland over 12 years (http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2014/05/09/290-unsolved-murders-on-the-lower-mainland-over-12-years/)

As for IRSU doing their job - they appear a lot less likely to use discretion than you. Zoom in on the offence and ignore the bigger picture. OMG, that car was doing a 0.7kph rolling stop into the intersection nobody else was at - ticket him now!

[nma]

Sounds like IHIT could use the help...

290 unsolved murders on the Lower Mainland over 12 years (http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2014/05/09/290-unsolved-murders-on-the-lower-mainland-over-12-years/)

As for IRSU doing their job - they appear a lot less likely to use discretion than you. Zoom in on the offence and ignore the bigger picture. OMG, that car was doing a 0.7kph rolling stop into the intersection nobody else was at - ticket him now!

The Police force didn't make the laws. Their job is to enforce it. If they don't enforce it, they are doing a shitty job. If you do a shitty job, you get fired.

Laws are put in place for a reason. Regardless if you think you're too good to stop at a stop sign, or like reading your tablet/book at a stop light, you're going to get punished for breaking the law. These laws were made to protect the GENERAL public. It's impossible to make separate laws for shitty drivers who are just ignorant and those that are aware and can harmlessly roll through a stop sign safely (if that's even possible). If officers were replaced by robots there would be thousands of tickets handed out on a daily basis.

What spidey says totally makes sense. Officers DO use discretion. If they didn't, you'd be getting a ticket in the mail nearly every day. If they feel like you deserve a ticket, you probably deserve a ticket. You may have different opinions on the situation, but the fact is that you broke the law, and it's his job to give you a fine. People focus way too much on the times that they get caught, instead of the hundreds of times the officer let them get away (without them even realizing it)

Also kind of unfair for you to judge the police department... Have you ever been a cop? Do you have any suggestions for the IHIT to be more efficient in solving cases?

[sebberry]

If officers were replaced by robots there would be thousands of tickets handed out on a daily basis.


And therein lies the problem. If the laws are set up such that the reasonable and safe actions of the majority of motorists are punishable offences, then the laws go too far.

Yet robots are pretty much how units like IRSU operates. Set up for maximum enforcement regardless of the actual risk.

[nma]

And therein lies the problem. If the laws are set up such that the reasonable and safe actions of the majority of motorists are punishable offences, then the laws go too far.

Yet robots are pretty much how units like IRSU operates. Set up for maximum enforcement regardless of the actual risk.

That's where I don't agree. I believe that safety regulations and laws are put in place to protect even the biggest idiot.

I'm not sure if you know about other work safety regulations, but there are some RIDICULOUS safety procedures that are put in place that are there to make sure that even the biggest idiot can navigate safely in the working environment.

Sure, you might be absolutely fine travelling 70 km/h on most of our road ways. However, 10% of the population isn't. Therefore, the speed is set at 50 km/h. I believe rightfully so...

Actions that you think are safe and reasonable may not be safe and reasonable for some portion of drivers. Which actually creates quite a big hazard for our roadways....

[Brad Fuel]

Except in the case I cited: R. c. Ngo Tran, 2014 QCCQ 11706 (https://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qccq/doc/2014/2014qccq11706/2014qccq11706.html)
Ngo Tran was found in the drivers seat, dead asleep... with the engine running and the keys in the ignition.
He was ultimatley found not guilty after being charged with having the care or control of a motor vehicle while his ability to drive was impaired by alcohol or a drug.


Interesting case. Read the entire case. The circumstances are kind of ridiculous how Ngo Tran got to where he was in the car. The defence was unconventional requiring him to take the stand and bringing in a witness. There's enough reasonable doubt to get off on a charge sure but most people would call bullshit on him.


As a side note since this isn't regarding the impaired charge;
Ngo Tran was convicted on count 2 which it doesn't explicitly say (counts weren't listed) but I think it was for the possession of the methamphetamine pill. Not sure if there was an error in the judges remarks but paragraph 34 states Tran was aware of the marihuana smoking in the car by his "friend". Paragraph 78 states he was unaware of it...

[zulutango]

Sounds like IHIT could use the help...

290 unsolved murders on the Lower Mainland over 12 years (http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2014/05/09/290-unsolved-murders-on-the-lower-mainland-over-12-years/)

As for IRSU doing their job - they appear a lot less likely to use discretion than you. Zoom in on the offence and ignore the bigger picture. OMG, that car was doing a 0.7kph rolling stop into the intersection nobody else was at - ticket him now!

A total of 76 homicides were reported in 2013, 5 more than the 71 recorded the previous year BTW, homicides include deaths that are not natural. Although the term homicide is sometimes used synonymously with murder, homicide is broader in scope than murder.

Meanwhile, the same year, 2013, 95 killed by impaired drivers, 115 killed by speeding, 91 by distracted drivers...and these were solved "murders" .


Yep, lest take guys away from investigating and attempting to prevent 303 "murders" in 2013 alone and focus on 290 over a 12 year period. If you taked a rough estimate, there are 10 killed in crashes for every 1 murder. Just a thought?

[underscore]

OP has no clue just how damn lucky he is that there's no failing in this section.

But let's not pretend that this is not petty nick-picking just to fill a quota, ok?

We won't, because it isn't.

Two points. First, this happened at a red light, not while driving.

Why the hell would you think being stopped at a light means you're no longer driving?

Second,ambulances have this thingee called a siren which manages to draw the attention of drivers in the area. At least here in the Tri-city area, and also in New York City, where I drove one for 5 years.

I call BS on this, or you would've noticed at least a few inattentive twats that didn't move out of your way when en route to an emergency.

Almost as well known as the good ol "I haven't bothered to read the thread, and am therefore speaking out of my ass" deal, eh?

Says the guy who didn't even read the post he replies to...

In the cave I live in, it is not known to all that standing at a red light and not moving is considered operating a vehicle.

What, pray tell, do you consider it to be then? You are the only thing keeping that vehicle from moving and also the only thing capable of moving that vehicle in an emergency.

In addition, when I asked why this is a problem, he answered that a car can have an accident even with the car, and all the cars around it, not moving. When I asked how this is physically possible, he had nothing to say. His partner tried telling me about how driving while playing with electronic devices can lead to accidents. I agreed with him, but when I asked what does that have to do with the case at hand, he also had nothing to say.

The idea wasn't to "win" a debate with them, but just to understand what the issue was.

The issue was you weren't paying attention to the situation around you, a responsibility that doesn't stop just because your car has stopped.

Now the electronic ban law was implemented a few years ago, but i do feel like many drivers aren't aware that reading their phones during a stop light is illegal.

Anyone that stupid really shouldn't have a license, so IMO them getting a ticket is them being lucky.

How does the "device" come into play here?
If you're the sort of person to hit the gas for a light that's just turned green without checking the crosswalks and intersection, then you shouldn't be driving.

It doesn't matter if you're reading a message on a phone, taking a sip of coffee of reading directions from a paper note, you do your checks to ensure it's safe to proceed before you move.

So you wait until AFTER the light has already turned green to bother looking around? You should be making those checks before the other light has turned red, or are you one of those pricks that wastes half of the green light before moving because you weren't paying attention?

[nabs]

I know I'm late to the party...

BUT WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU READING AT A RED LIGHT? WHETHER IT BE AN IPAD, A NEWSPAPER, A BOOK, A FUCKING RECEIPT?

[Soundy]

I'm not sure by what you mean about having the police on the island "put up with me".

The only interaction I've ever had with a police officer (aside being allowed to proceed through roadblocks) was when I had someone try to use a fake credit card in my store. ?

You're not an IRSU member, are you? I somehow don't think they let 95% of the infractions go free.
And on what, exactly, are you basing this number, considering you've never had any interaction with any police officers other than being waved through roadblocks and dealing with a single credit card fraud call?

Translation: sebberry is 95% full of shit (and fittingly, that's a number I just pulled out of my ass... it's probably closer to 100%).

Really, if you're going to contradict yourself so blatantly, at least try to make sure it's on two separate pages...

[Soundy]

Officers DO use discretion. If they didn't, you'd be getting a ticket in the mail nearly every day.
Sebberry wouldn't, because he's the perfect driver, you see...

[sebberry]

A total of 76 homicides were reported in 2013, 5 more than the 71 recorded the previous year BTW, homicides include deaths that are not natural. Although the term homicide is sometimes used synonymously with murder, homicide is broader in scope than murder.

Meanwhile, the same year, 2013, 95 killed by impaired drivers, 115 killed by speeding, 91 by distracted drivers...and these were solved "murders" .


Yep, lest take guys away from investigating and attempting to prevent 303 "murders" in 2013 alone and focus on 290 over a 12 year period. If you taked a rough estimate, there are 10 killed in crashes for every 1 murder. Just a thought?

You list some pretty serious infractions as justification for putting 5 IRSU cops on intersection duty looking for drivers doing a rolling stop at a stop sign with nearly no traffic around. Or for peering into cars to make sure the cell phone playing music is "securely mounted to the dash of the vehicle"

[wing_woo]

How I wish I can fail you. I see so many people not stop at stop signs. I see some that think that the 4-way stop doesn't apply if they are turning right.

Sure, it looks like a cash grab but stopping them for doing a rolling stop with nearly no traffic around will also give a chance for the officer to 'educate' them cause who knows if that's how they drive at all stop signs regardless of whether it's a busy intersection or not.

Also, I have no issue with the cell phone crackdown. I have my phone in my pocket just so there is no temptation to use it. I've heard of many more serious infractions caught by doing simple things as peering in to do the cellphone check or seatbelt checks.

You might think it's useless doing these but I think this is a good thing. However, if the cell phone is not 'securely mounted', I would be more in favour of the person just getting a warning, but then again, not being stopped for not 'securely mounting your phone that's playing music to your dash', I wouldn't know if the officer didn't just gave the person a warning for doing that if they did get stopped for that.

Have you seen the news when they are following officers doing the cell phone check? You see people blatantly lying and saying they weren't on the phone when you can clearly see them on the phone just before that from news footage caught by the camera crew. I can see why cops tend not to want to believe people.

[sebberry]

No, I didn't see that video but I wouldn't be surprised that people make up all sorts of excuses. Prior to these laws I hated using my phone in the car. Before my smartphone I never talked much on the phone so it wasn't much of an issue anyway, but I think I can recall using it about 5 times in total while driving and that was to say "hold on, I'm pulling over". Never dialed a number. Hated the distraction.

So it pretty much goes without saying that while I have music playing form my phone about 40% of the time I drive, I couldn't care less about what the law says because I never pick it up. While I can't speak for the Snapchat addicts, having a phone sitting loosely in a cup holder playing music is in no way a danger and shouldn't be the subject of enforcement action.

As for the rolling stop lesson, maybe someone should have a chat with this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNi65yVOLWg

Oh, and his two consecutive failures to signal his two prior turns...

[underscore]

The level of stupid sebberry has boggles the mind.

[Spidey]

Sounds like IHIT could use the help...

290 unsolved murders on the Lower Mainland over 12 years (http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2014/05/09/290-unsolved-murders-on-the-lower-mainland-over-12-years/)

As for IRSU doing their job - they appear a lot less likely to use discretion than you. Zoom in on the offence and ignore the bigger picture. OMG, that car was doing a 0.7kph rolling stop into the intersection nobody else was at - ticket him now!

I can't speak on behalf of IRSU because I don't know much about them or know anyone in that unit.

So if no one is around, you can do whatever you want right? You can go 150km/km in a school zone at 4am because no kids will be around the area right? Cool. Let's say the average driver commits 5 traffic infractions per day (a ridiculously low estimate). Whether it is from speeding or traffic sign/signal infractions... Even if you assume every driver has received ONE VT a year, sounds like a pretty good deal..... Over 1000 infractions a year, yet they receive one ticket, let's say 167 bucks.... 13 cents an infraction... GOOD DEAL MAN!

So easy to armchair quarter back everything the police do from the comfort of your own home eh?

[AzNightmare]

From my understanding, no electronic devices allowed while driving.
It's not just a matter of talking on the cell while driving. It's all about paying attention when to go when the light changes.

[ancient_510]

Sure, it looks like a cash grab but stopping them for doing a rolling stop with nearly no traffic around will also give a chance for the officer to 'educate' them cause who knows if that's how they drive at all stop signs regardless of whether it's a busy intersection or not.

Let's take a page from Saskatchewan's book and install yield signs at quiet intersections to legalize the rolling stop at low-risk intersections. https://goo.gl/maps/yza5j

[kross9]

The only useful stuff I gained from this was the care and control which I had no idea about before. Thanks!

[sebberry]

Let's take a page from Saskatchewan's book and install yield signs at quiet intersections to legalize the rolling stop at low-risk intersections. https://goo.gl/maps/yza5j

Exactly. Many stop signs could safely be replaced with yield signs, especially where the sight lines are good. Half the time you have to stop where the sight lines aren't great, move forward again to where they're good, stop to look again then safely proceed.

You end up getting more caught in in the formalities of ensuring you've stopped, which IMO is more of a distraction from the task at hand.

[Soundy]

Every time I do something in traffic, I think, "What would sebberry do?" And then I get into an argument with myself, and the next thing I know, six cars behind are honking at me.

Now THAT is distracted driving!

[SoNaRWaVe]

seriously what is wrong with most of the people that is arguing against the law? the law is in place for a reason. follow it and be on your merry way and there would be no problems. yet here you are arguing.

you are driving for a reason, to get from point A to point B. why not reach point B and then read? whats the big rush to read whatever it is you are reading.

as for seb, god damn it, reading your posts enrage me. the amount of idiocy crying out is immeasurable. if you were focused on driving, you can assess and see everything that is happening. all it takes is a split second and boom, accident. that split second could have easily been taking your eyes off the ipad and looking at the green light and go vs scanning your surrounding constantly instead and seeing the guy speeding trying to beat the red. yea you might not have been at fault, but do you really want to get into an accident and deal with it? i rather be proactive and avoid it even though it wouldn't have been your fault.

[sho_bc]

Sebberry does make some valid points about what drivers should/shouldn't be doing while driving (mostly common-sense stuff), however because a large number of drivers aren't/are doing these things amd don't seem to be able to exercise common-sense, laws need to be enacted to try and drill the point home to those people. The laws aren't made for the well behaved in life. Those people dont need to be told that its not right to smash someone over the head with a hammer, or rape someone, or steal someone else's things. Something must be done in an attempt to curb the people that don't know/care about whats right or wrong and dissuade and/or punish the behaviour.

[sebberry]

I don't think that people should be playing Angry Birds on their iPad in the middle of downtown traffic, but if someone texts me directions to an address I fail to see the difference between reading it off the phone and reading a screenshot printed on paper.

It's my opinion that the regulations should apply to drivers operating a moving vehicle as that's where the primary dangers are.

The irresponsible people these laws are targeting will continue to break them.

[Vege]

Even if your car isn't moving you are still operating the vehicle and there are still risks. What if your foot slips off the brake pedal while using your phone? What if there are emergency vehicles coming up from behind and you don't notice to move your car?

There are no perfect laws as there are always exceptions. Laws are created to provide at least some consequences to certain behaviours. Unfortunately we do not live in a world where everything is fair and rules and laws can be customized for every individual.

At the end of the day you may disagree with the law but it is your choice to break them and there are consequences. I personally don't agree with ticketing people at red lights using an electronic device but it is the rules and I plan to follow them.

[sebberry]

Exactly the same thing could be said about reading directions from a paper note.

If you have to do something in the car while stopped, survey what's going on around you first - what are the lights doing? Do I have time to get my gloves out or read the directions before the other lights go red? Do I hear any emergency vehicles? Is my car out of gear so I don't somehow mysteriously slip off the brake and clutch at the same time?

Where do we stop? Let's have laws that make anything that takes your hand off the wheel, stopped or moving, illegal. Sneeze with eyes open. Don't take a sip of coffee either.

[SoNaRWaVe]

but its that moment after you survey you decide its safe to do whatever it is you plan to do. what if something happens then? all it takes is a few secs for everything to turn upside down.

[sho_bc]

The driving behaviour of someone lost and looking down at a map book/paper for directions (or trying to re-program a GPS, etc etc etc) often (not always, but often) mimics the driving behaviour of someone impaired. I have pulled over many people suspecting that they might be impaired but instead just lost and trying to figure out where to go. The consequences can be equally devastating as being impaired by drugs or alcohol, as is shown in recent fatal collision numbers.

The logical person would pull over, stop and stop driving around in circles, then figure out where they needed to go and how to get there.

When the method of distraction is not an electronic device, I select an appropriate alternate ticket to issue to these people causing issues on the road.

[wing_woo]

The driving behaviour of someone lost and looking down at a map book/paper for directions (or trying to re-program a GPS, etc etc etc) often (not always, but often) mimics the driving behaviour of someone impaired. I have pulled over many people suspecting that they might be impaired but instead just lost and trying to figure out where to go. The consequences can be equally devastating as being impaired by drugs or alcohol, as is shown in recent fatal collision numbers.

The logical person would pull over, stop and stop driving around in circles, then figure out where they needed to go and how to get there.

When the method of distraction is not an electronic device, I select an appropriate alternate ticket to issue to these people causing issues on the road.

I agree here. If you are lost pull over and re-orient yourself and then figure it out. You shouldn't try to be stealing a glance at your directions, regardless paper or electronic just cause you're at the light. I"ve seen so many people driving slowly cause they are lost and trying to figure things out and it's quite irritating following them.

I also see people who are not paying attention (ie. looking down at something) and see the car in the left turn lane with an advanced left turn light move forward from their peripheral vision and then they just gun it and run the red light without even looking. They think it's green due to them not paying attention and seeing the car beside them go on their advanced left turn light. Luckily, everyone I've seen so far, the person realizes in time and slams on the break before hitting the left turn cars on the other direction.

[hchang]

Not sure where to post this... But here's a clip of me getting pulled over tonight on highway 17 for shits and giggles.

I totally deserved the ticket... But oh hey wait the officer didn't make me sign the ticket so does that mean I have a good chance at disputing?

http://youtu.be/5LqG53mixDs

[ancient_510]

Not sure where to post this... But here's a clip of me getting pulled over tonight on highway 17 for shits and giggles.

I totally deserved the ticket... But oh hey wait the officer didn't make me sign the ticket so does that mean I have a good chance at disputing?


Just because you didn't sign? Hahahahaha no

However I am going to point back to this topic (http://www.revscene.net/forums/695862-do-police-need-wear-high-vis-clothing-when-attending-traffic-incidents.html) thanks to your video.

[zulutango]

Not sure where to post this... But here's a clip of me getting pulled over tonight on highway 17 for shits and giggles.

I totally deserved the ticket... But oh hey wait the officer didn't make me sign the ticket so does that mean I have a good chance at disputing?

January 3, 2015 - YouTube (http://youtu.be/5LqG53mixDs)


The officer fills out a certificate of service on the back of the VT and it is 100% legal. In some jurisdictions the driver is required to sign but not in BC.

[hchang]

I was being sarcastic.

I deserved the ticket so like an adult, I'm going to admit to my mistakes and pay the ticket.

[Klondike]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfGhfI_NwcA

:whistle:

[sebberry]

me getting pulled over tonight on highway 17 for shits and giggles.


You got stopped for shits and giggles? I'm not familiar with that section of the act...

[hchang]

You got stopped for shits and giggles? I'm not familiar with that section of the act...

Oh yeah it's new basically you cup your hands around your ass and start shitting, then proceed to throw it out the window while laughing.

Lemme know if we got charged with the same MVA

[sebberry]

Sounds like that would make the car a bit stinky.

[zulutango]

Oh yeah it's new basically you cup your hands around your ass and start shitting, then proceed to throw it out the window while laughing.

Lemme know if we got charged with the same MVA



That which hath been read...cannot be un-read... :(

[hchang]

So I'm gonna derail this thread further since I didn't think this deserved it's own thread but have any officers here on this board had to deal with any Freemans on the land? I think it's a pretty dumb ideology to think that you can get away with no insurance no plate no DL because all laws are "optional" and only applies should you choose to be governed

Here's a local video of a lady who was pulled over by Delta Police in Tsawessen for no plates. It's kinda painful to watch and you can tell the officer was about to lose it at one point trying to find out who the registered owner of the vehicle is.

Also... Pretty slick move on the officers part in "thinking" the VIN was on the passenger side door so he could investigate further

The female officer seen in the video (Act. Sgt. Swallow) from what I understand now does media relations for Delta Police

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MeXNntuqwNI



Also unrelated but a cool video from Abbotsford Police



https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7cic6Jwx3WI

[underscore]

freemen or whatever have got to be scraping the bottom of the barrel for stupidity. There are a lot of dumb people out there but few make it their entire lives like those morons.

[zulutango]

I have had dealings with them and know others who also have. They have adopted the stance that laws do not apply to them and refuse to obey what they decide are unacceptable to them. They are often obstructive, confrontational and violent. They will file rediculous civil lawsuits against Police and others who won't agree with them and demand huge sums of money, sometimes into the millions of dollars. It can cost those served a lot of money to try to overturn the charges and demands. They use the very system they say is illegitimate and illegal.

[hchang]

^ how do you resist the urge to not punch them in the face?

I wanted to punch my screen watching that video. And lady thought she was making a legitimate contract in telling the officer it was gonna cost them 3 billion dollars

Takes a pretty big man to hold that kinda emotion down

Outta curiousity do any of these civil suits ever get followed through with payment or even make it to court?

[Habboy]

You're driving, why the hell are you reading at a red light? You want to read? Take the fucking bus. I hate assholes like you.

http://s.quickmeme.com/img/d0/d063270416216766c3073fd69f607d97b9934789bd4667b15b 217a38a5594d29.jpg

[quasi]

freemen or whatever have got to be scraping the bottom of the barrel for stupidity. There are a lot of dumb people out there but few make it their entire lives like those morons.

Totally, not that different from how Wesley Snipes tried to avoid paying taxes and it worked out real well for him.

[zulutango]

Totally, not that different from how Wesley Snipes tried to avoid paying taxes and it worked out real well for him.

Yes...and race-baiter Al Sharpton owes about 4 1/2 mill to the US tax man..and all his businesses and "charities" have been shut down.

[Soundy]

They have adopted the stance that laws do not apply to them and refuse to obey what they decide are unacceptable to them.

^ how do you resist the urge to not punch them in the face?
Well that's the ticket right there - if they don't accept the laws, then it's not illegal to punch them in the face.