[bicboi]

Got a ticket last night for having my cellphone on my passengers seat. I was charged under section 25(15) of the MVA, but it states that the USE of a cellphone while driving is prohibited. Is having it within arms reach considered using it now?

I was also charged with failure to produce my drivers license under 33(1). and heard that if I go to ICBC and produce my drivers license within 24hr, the charge would be waived. Is this true? TIA

[Habboy]

What if you have it arms reach in one of those holder do-hickeys?

[tiger_handheld]

We need fuken Tom Harrington and Marketplace to investigate this cell phone law. It's getting ridiculous!

[fliptuner]

WTF. Everyone keeps their phone within arms reach.

You sure there isn't more to the story? Did you ask the PO why he was issuing that violation if you weren't actually using the phone?

[punkwax]

Every pocket I have is within arms reach... :confused:

[bicboi]

It's pretty bullshit and it doesn't help that the cop was a major twat. But I just spoke to a buddy who works for ICBC and he said if the phone is in the passengers seat, it requires you to look down if you get a message. So I'm pretty much SOL. Apparently you can play with your phone if its holstered to the dash though. Doesn't make any fucking sense...

The PO told me that my phone should be in the trunk when I drive lol

[Eff-1]

The law says nothing about where in the car you can or can't keep your phone. But it does say that you can't hold the phone or even look at the screen. And just because it's in a dashboard mount doesn't mean you can play with it. This is all considered "using" it. And no, ICBC won't waive any charge if you show your DL within 24 hours.

[Eff-1]

Can anyone confirm if I have a phone attached to a windshield or dashboard mount, and I'm using it for GPS, and I've programmed it before I start driving, is that considered illegal?

[zulutango]

Got a ticket last night for having my cellphone on my passengers seat. I was charged under section 25(15) of the MVA, but it states that the USE of a cellphone while driving is prohibited. Is having it within arms reach considered using it now?

I was also charged with failure to produce my drivers license under 33(1). and heard that if I go to ICBC and produce my drivers license within 24hr, the charge would be waived. Is this true? TIA



Production of licence and liability card, duplicates
33 (1) Every person, except

(a) a person driving or operating a motor vehicle exempted under section 2 (5) or section 8 or 10, or
(b) a person driving or operating a motor vehicle of a fire department of a municipality,
must have his or her driver's licence and driver's certificate and a motor vehicle liability insurance card or financial responsibility card, issued for the motor vehicle he or she is driving or operating, in his or her possession at all times while driving or operating that motor vehicle on a highway, and must produce the licence, certificate and card for inspection on demand of a peace officer.


You didn't and that is why you are guilty of that charge. No 24 hours.


As far as the drive contrary to restrictions goes 25 (15), check this out to see if you are also guilty..

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/308_2009#section3

[Spidey]

for the 100th time.. http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/shareddocs/electronic-devices-while-driving.pdf

[Spidey]

the ticket under that section for fail to produce DL isn't saying you don't have one.. It is saying you failed to produce it when asked. So no, you cannot go to ICBC the next day... or the police station, or Autoplan, or starbucks.

[DragonChi]

for the 100th time.. http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/shareddocs/electronic-devices-while-driving.pdf

"The electronic device is securely fixed to the vehicle or worn securely on the person’s body, and is within easy reach of the driver’s seat;" - That is allowed according to this link.

I think there's more to your story bicboi

[Gucci Mane]

i always keep my phone and my wallet in my cup holder while driving. so now i could get a ticket for that?

[DragonChi]

Sorry, I should have noted that it was premitted as long as, "The electronic device is securely fixed to the vehicle or worn securely on the person’s body, and is within easy reach of the driver’s seat;"

[meme405]

i always keep my phone and my wallet in my cup holder while driving. so now i could get a ticket for that?

Yes. Apparently so.

I have read what Spidey posted a number of times since this law came into effect, and I am still learning new aspects to this.

The document can be read and construed a number of different ways, everyone seems to understand it differently.

I like how they simplify the shit out of the road side worker law, to make sure that everyone can easily understand it. They take something which was 4 lines long, and make it into two.

Yet this cell phone law is so convoluted they have to publish a separate 5 page PDF along with pictures, and somehow they believe that it is clear enough for all to understand.

[sebberry]

for the 100th time.. http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/shareddocs/electronic-devices-while-driving.pdf

We had a local cop on the radio talking about the cell phone law just before Christmas.

I emailed in with the above document and challenged the part that requires a phone playing music to be securely mounted to the dash and not sitting loose in the cup holder. He flat out denied that any cop would ticket for that after denying the "securely mounted" part was even part of the legislation.

[sebberry]

i always keep my phone and my wallet in my cup holder while driving. so now i could get a ticket for that?

Only if it's being used for something, like Bluetooth hands-free or playing back music. Apparently it's not a distraction if it's not playing back music, but the second it's playing back music it has to be lag-bolted and welded to the dash.

[sebberry]

he said if the phone is in the passengers seat, it requires you to look down if you get a message. lol

Interesting... there's nothing that *requires* me to look down when I hear a message come through to the phone.

[Mining]

I don't believe we are the only ones who have different interpretations of the law but police officers as well. Depending on the officer and their own interpretation you may or may not get a ticket.

Shit needs to be relooked it.

OP: I have a creeping suspicion that there is more to this story however.

[sebberry]

We had a local cop on the radio talking about the cell phone law just before Christmas.



Here's the portion of the interview...https://soundcloud.com/terry-moore-cfax/december-23-4pm?in=terry-moore-cfax/sets/terry-moore#t=51:36

[Eff-1]

i always keep my phone and my wallet in my cup holder while driving. so now i could get a ticket for that?

The law says nothing about where in the car you can or can't keep your phone.

But it does say that you can't hold the phone or look at the screen. By putting it in your cupholder, an officer might be able to say you were looking at the screen even if you weren't. Same thing if it's on your passenger seat.

"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.

and...

2 A person who watches the screen of an electronic device uses the device for the purposes of paragraph (d) of the definition of "use" in section 214.1 of the Act.

[CRS]

The law says nothing about where in the car you can or can't keep your phone.

But it does say that you can't hold the phone or look at the screen. By putting it in your cupholder, an officer might be able to say you were looking at the screen even if you weren't. Same thing if it's on your passenger seat.

Good luck to the officer trying to prove in court that you were looking at the screen.

[xXSupa]

Since we're not allowed to look at the screen, does that make it illegal to use our phone as a GPS?

I thought I knew what was legal and what isn't... But this thread is confusing the fuck out of me...

Anyways, here's my set up. Anyone wanna chime in on whether it's legal? Secured by magnet.
http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh220/TBSlSupa/IMG_7584.jpg

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh220/TBSlSupa/IMG_7823.jpg

[Eff-1]

^ Based on how I read the law, if it was a GPS-only unit, like a Garmin, it's fine. If it's your phone, you risk getting a ticket.

[Eff-1]

Good luck to the officer trying to prove in court that you were looking at the screen.

Yeah but similarly, good luck to the driver trying to prove you weren't.

If an officer is willing to testify you were, and your only defence is saying you weren't, so it's just a he said/she said case, the judge usually sides with the officer and you lose.

[CRS]

Yeah but similarly, good luck to the driver trying to prove you weren't.

If an officer is willing to testify you were, and your only defence is saying you weren't, so it's just a he said/she said case, the judge usually sides with the officer and you lose.

I would have to disagree. It is nearly impossible to prove what someone is looking at. Any competent JP would know that the officer cannot prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

Operating a cellphone is easy to prove because they would see you physically in contact with it. Looking at it, not so much.

[sho_bc]

Based on the section the OP was charged under, it seems as though he is/was a "N" driver and therefore not allowed to use any sort of electrical device (cell phone, GPS, etc), no matter how securely it was mounted. It also sounds like there is more to the story than is being told though, like what the OP was doing prior to being stopped/the reason for the stop.

[Tone Loc]

My understanding of what Spidey posted is that you can't have your phone out unless it is securely mounted to the vehicle. In your pocket, it would be securely mounted as it isn't flopping about the cabin, whereas if it was on your seat and you took a sharp turn or braked hard it would likely end up on the floor causing you to pick it up (which would be illegal). Furthermore, if the screen turns on from receiving a nudie pic from your girl, you WILL look at it if its on the seat/cupholder which is not in your line of sight to the road, thus making you a "distracted" driver whose eyes are not on the road.

I personally don't see why you don't just put it in your pocket, or buy one of those cheap windshield/dash mounts on AliExpress...

[sebberry]

You can have your phone sitting anywhere. It's the use of the device that's governed, not the positioning. Positioning and mounting is only governed if the device is somehow in use. (I bet Minister Bond uses Bluetooth. I wonder if she realizes that bluetoothing her phone to the car while it's in her purse is illegal as it's not "securely mounted" to the dash...)

People don't want dash or windshield mounts because they clutter up the car and are an attractive target for theft.

[bicboi]

My father has been a lawyer for 25+ years and he has never heard of getting a ticket for having a cellphone on your passengers seat lol.

The advice I got from him is to pay the damn ticket and just learn from it. Still thinking about disputing it in court though...

[sebberry]

The advice I got from him is to pay the damn ticket and just learn from it. Still thinking about disputing it in court though...

What lesson is there to be learned from this? That you can't have a cell phone within reach?

[zulutango]

That your father, a lawyer, knows you are guilty as well. That is a lesson to be learned.

[underscore]

My father has been a lawyer for 25+ years and he has never heard of getting a ticket for having a cellphone on your passengers seat lol.

It's a relatively new law, and who the hell would hire lawyer to fight a cellphone ticket anyways?

[zulutango]

I had people hire lawyers for Traffic Court to fight everything from seatbelt tickets, no front plate, to $138 basic speeding tickets. First thing the lawyers wanted to do was talk a deal as very few have any ideas at all about traffic law.

[bicboi]

It's a relatively new law, and who the hell would hire lawyer to fight a cellphone ticket anyways?

You'd be surprised at what people hire lawyers for. Albeit it's not as bad as the United States, but people sue/dispute for EVERYTHING.

[dared3vil0]

I've been pulled over with my cellphone clearly visible on passenger seat- po made no mention of it. I've also been through countless DUI checkpoints with the phone in every imaginable spot from cupholders to passenger seat to on a mount on the dashboard- never had any issues. Me thinks there's more to the story than the phone just sitting there...

[jonwon]

I have my phone hooked up to my bluetooth in my car to play music. I was stopped at a red light then glanced down to see what song was playing because it doesn't show up on my display when connected to bluetooth and I got a ticket. Not even a warning, considering this is my first offense involving cellphones and first ticket in the past 3-4 years... fuck that shit.

[sebberry]

Yet if your car's radio displayed the name of the song you'd be in the clear.

Hello? Suzanne Anton? Time to review this legislation - it's catching people never intended to be punished. I bet your phone never connects via Bluetooth from your handbag, does it? Yes Minister, that's illegal.

[zulutango]

I agree with sebbery.....did I just say that???? How about the Govt has the brass to do what should have been done in the first place and ban all cell phone conversations? The Govt knew back in 2008 that studies even then showed that the mental disengagement required for the conversation was the problem....and that statistics showed that hands-free did nothing to reduce this. I was at the Vancouver injury prevention converence in Sept 2008 when this study was mentioned...and representitives from the govt that ignored the study, were present as well.

They also knew that this disengagement has been shown to last up to 15 minutes after the conversation has ended. You cannot concentrate 100% on your driving and also concentrate on a phone call. I bet you have had calls from someone using hands-free and heard the distracted nature of their conversation. Whenever they stop making sense, is when they actualy paid attention to their driving.

[underscore]

Yet if your car's radio displayed the name of the song you'd be in the clear.

I can assume the logic here is that the radio is fixed to the car so there isn't a chance of someone digging around in the car trying to find it.

[sebberry]

I can assume the logic here is that the radio is fixed to the car so there isn't a chance of someone digging around in the car trying to find it.

The law would apply to a fixed mounted phone. Not allowed to touch it to skip a song, etc... same action as performed with a car radio, but somehow not legal.

[tiger_handheld]

As promised in http://www.revscene.net/forums/698764-b-c-government-announces-stiffer-penalties-distracted-driving-2.html#post8541292




Reporting back...

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

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

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

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

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



ICYMI:

http://www.revscene.net/forums/700811-*unofficial*cell-phone-law-langley-rcmp-officer.html

[sebberry]

I agree with sebbery.....did I just say that???? How about the Govt has the brass to do what should have been done in the first place and ban all cell phone conversations? The Govt knew back in 2008 that studies even then showed that the mental disengagement required for the conversation was the problem....and that statistics showed that hands-free did nothing to reduce this. I was at the Vancouver injury prevention converence in Sept 2008 when this study was mentioned...and representitives from the govt that ignored the study, were present as well.

They also knew that this disengagement has been shown to last up to 15 minutes after the conversation has ended. You cannot concentrate 100% on your driving and also concentrate on a phone call. I bet you have had calls from someone using hands-free and heard the distracted nature of their conversation. Whenever they stop making sense, is when they actualy paid attention to their driving.

And studies are showing electronic-device bans are having little influence on crash rates.

I don't disagree that hands free conversations are distracting. Heck, I even find my conversation with a passenger taking a back seat when I'm presented with a complex driving task. When I'm a passenger, I'll stop talking when the driver is readying for a left turn.

But I disagree that it's the same distraction as a hand-held call. Close, but not quite. The act of holding a phone to your head further serves to redirect your focus to the phone call and interferes with your ability to operate the car (especially if you drive a stick...)

The laws are already invasive enough without banning hands-free calls. What's next? Ban talking to yourself? Your passenger or kids?

I'll happily accept that there is marginally more risk associated with reducing regulation. It just means that I need to be more alert and focussed.

Crash rates will continue to go down. Not as a result of increased enforcement and government invasiveness, but as a result of improving education and testing standards. Drivers who know how to pass a class 5 GLP test know that they simply don't have time to fiddle with electronic devices.

[maksimizer]

Officer can fine you for whatever he feels like
Endthread

[zulutango]

[QUOTE=sebberry;8582720]And studies are showing electronic-device bans are having little influence on crash rates.

I don't disagree that hands free conversations are distracting. Heck, I even find my conversation with a passenger taking a back seat when I'm presented with a complex driving task. When I'm a passenger, I'll stop talking when the driver is readying for a left turn.

But I disagree that it's the same distraction as a hand-held call. Close, but not quite. The act of holding a phone to your head further serves to redirect your focus to the phone call and interferes with your ability to operate the car (especially if you drive a stick...)

The laws are already invasive enough without banning hands-free calls. What's next? Ban talking to yourself? Your passenger or kids?

I'll happily accept that there is marginally more risk associated with reducing regulation. It just means that I need to be more alert and focussed.


This is one study that disputes what you suggest...there are many more to also dispute your suggestions...all based on research and actual observations. Look at page 5 where they begin contradicting your position..Keep in mind that this study was done in 2007 and the situation is much worse in 2015.

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType48/Production/DistractedDrivingReportSept-07.pdf

[sebberry]

I didn't say it wasn't distracting, but I maintain that holding the phone is more distracting and physically interferes with operating the car to a greater degree. The article made reference to multitasking actually being a form of "task prioritization", and I feel that physically holding the phone to your head interferes with one's prioritization abilities to a greater degree than simply having a hands-free conversation.

Here's one MIT study that says drivers who engage in riskier behavior are more likely to use phones while driving, and that's the reasoning for why cell phone bans don't work - you can take the phone away, but it doesn't correct the underlying problem of poor driving: Why Cell Phone Bans Don't Work | Science/AAAS | News (http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/08/why-cell-phone-bans-dont-work)

[zulutango]

Bottom of page 5 deals with the actual holding. In my professional experience, the actual risky behaviour is more likely a reflection of lack of knowledge of the risks involved (ie soccer mom) or refusal to accept them, as opposed to a "screw you " attitude towards risk in general. When you get a combination of both then you get a doubly dangerous driver

[toyobaru]

Forget cellphones being distracting. How about pulling over people who wear noise cancelling headphones/ear buds while driving.

[meme405]

Forget cellphones being distracting. How about pulling over people who wear noise cancelling headphones/ear buds while driving.

I can only assume that most of them are wearing those as handsfree so they can talk on their cell phones...lol