Distracted driving becoming a criminal offence

[PrivatePilot]

Forum Sponsor

What about an error on the part of a cop?

You scratched your ear and he thinks you had your phone in your hand. He's a friend of the court and you become a criminal.

So much this.

My wife got pulled over a few months ago, the cop had glimpsed something bright and colourful in her hand and watched her quickly put it back into the centre console. He assumed was her phone and he pulled her over.

It was a pack of gum. It was still in her centre console and she showed it to him right where he had observed her putting it.

He let her go...but had he not? And then nobbie's situation (where the courts automatically side with the officer on this sort of stuff, or he's convinced HE was right and vehemently testifies such)...and next thing my wife is a criminal?

Being in a firmly white collar job where she's subject to police checks and such, she WOULD lose her job.

She would have problems getting another in her field.

One that requires travel, forget about it ever again.

We would loose a huge part of our livelihood.

Our daughters university education would be history.

Wanting to help our son buy a house some day, forget about it.

Our retirement would be in peril.

It would be financially devastating.

Over a pack of gum.

 

[griff2]

Considering Careless is already a criminal offense, all the officer would have to do is charge under that vs Distracted. I don't see the need to push this one into the criminal section....stiffer fines sure, but not criminal.

Like others have said, actually moving it could cause more issues/have more cases thrown out due to lack of evidence. Better to give officers the choice and if they think a careless charge is warranted and will stick, then charge away.

Careless driving is not a criminal offence. It is HTA.

Aside from CCC impaired driving charges, the bottom rung of criminal driving offences is Dangerous Operation of a Motor Vehicle. If a person's driving is otherwise reasonably normal, I doubt that driving while texting would meet the necessary threshold of wanton disregard to support a dangerous driving conviction.

 

[Riceburner]

Isn't there a higher degree of proof needed for a criminal charge as well?

 

[Neil_V]

Looking at the phone while at a red light and putting it down while driving is not the same as drinking and driving. You can't put intoxication down while merging on the highway.

and how many honestly are completely responsible?

Would people be less likely to check their phone while on the move if they knew they could do it legally at a stop light? I think so. Why risk the fine when the light is just a min away. That would be reasonable and rational, and maybe even effective... As it stands it's the same penalty regardless, and with cops hanging out at bus stops in plain clothes you're actually less likely to be caught on the move. As usual, *** backwards.

 

[Dougy]

It shouldn't be a criminal offence. "Distracted" driving is too much of a euphemism to be made into something that can put you in jail. On the other hand, if you were texting and you get into an accident THAT should be a charge under the criminal code. The feds have already said all of this is covered under the negligence sections of the Code and I agree. There's negligence, gross negligence and criminal negligence, all of which can land you in jail.

+1.

 

[mimico_polak]

As others stated I don't think making it a criminal offence would do much good because frankly the courts would get tied up, and the burden of proof would be much higher. Once it's a criminal charge the proof would have to be more substantial (I believe this) than more than "Well I saw him/her your honour, tinted windows and all". I think the only way to get rid off this problem is literally massive campaigns, similar to seatbelt use, alcohol, and the like. There's nothing that will change it unless it's an actual cultural shift and people moving away from the "Well I'm a great driver and multi-tasker, plus it'll never happen to me." attitude. I shake my head every day as to how many people check their phones while driving, stopped, walking, etc.

I put the phone away when I get in the car, and I pick it back up when I get to my destination. Yes once or twice a week I'd just pick it up to check (stupid blinking BB light) at a light, but then remind myself the fines and put it back right away. Until people see that they're the problem, and the damage they can cause...it'll keep getting worse. All the campaigns, enforcement, advertisements and you still have a large amount of people getting the wheel while drunk...no simple fix.

 

[nobbie48]

Would people be less likely to check their phone while on the move if they knew they could do it legally at a stop light? I think so. Why risk the fine when the light is just a min away. That would be reasonable and rational, and maybe even effective... As it stands it's the same penalty regardless, and with cops hanging out at bus stops in plain clothes you're actually less likely to be caught on the move. As usual, *** backwards.

Interesting point. Also in the USA there seem to be a lot more highway rest areas to pull into compared to the 401. All are factors but we want a one pill fix.

 

[Riceburner]

The problem with looking at a red is ppl will still keep looking longer. Fess up, tell me you actually would stop and not stretch it out a bit. You're looking at it at a red, light goes green, but you don't notice for a second, realize traffic is moving and you go, but your eyes are half way between the phone and the road. worst place to not be paying attention ...at an intersection. If ppl actually only looked at a full stop and then stopped before checking and moving it would be great. But ppl aren't gonna do that.


OPP Sgt Kerry Schmidt even stated that they weren't going to be able to ticket this problem away. It had to be a cultural shift just like DUI. Does making it a criminal charge help that shift? Did it help with making DUI a no-no? No idea.

 

[inreb]

If you can't chew gum and drive at the same time it'll be curtains for all of us. No wait, if it wasn't for venetian blinds it would be curtains for all of us. Ya, that's the ticket.

 

[Riceburner]

I can't chew and ride. Helmet too tight.

 

[Neil_V]

Sure, we shouldn't be trusted to look at anything whist stopped. I demand the mandatory removal of all nav and entertainment systems, and even instrument clusters.. failure to comply carries mandatory life-time driving ban.. eyes up at all times everyone. Yeah, this is all as ridiculous as it sounds

 

[inreb]

Road side advertising should also be banned and somewhat paradoxically all buildings should have large, if not neon, address numbers in full view.

 

[-D-]

easy fix really
1st offense $500 and 3 points
2nd offense $1000 and 5 points
3rd $2500 and loss of drivers license for 30 days

or 1st offense $1000 and 5 points
2nd $3000 and loss of drivers license for 30 days

win/win

police gets an influx of cash and people learn the hard way that stings

 

[inreb]

OPP Sgt Kerry Schmidt even stated that they weren't going to be able to ticket this problem away.

easy fix really
1st offense $500 and 3 points
2nd offense $1000 and 5 points
3rd $2500 and loss of drivers license for 30 days

or 1st offense $1000 and 5 points
2nd $3000 and loss of drivers license for 30 days

win/win

police gets an influx of cash and people learn the hard way that stings

Obviously you've never met the Schmidtster. Maybe graph out easy fix trifecta #1 and fax it to the Schmidtster. I'd like to see him eat crow.

 

[Brian P]

Just add it to the "stunt driving" list.

 

[Blackfin]

Sure, we shouldn't be trusted to look at anything whist stopped. I demand the mandatory removal of all nav and entertainment systems, and even instrument clusters.. failure to comply carries mandatory life-time driving ban.. eyes up at all times everyone. Yeah, this is all as ridiculous as it sounds

While there are indeed "other" potential distractions it doesn't follow that we therefore allow all others; we've gone a decade or more now with widespread access to cell phones (etc) and the stats are unequivocable: distractions due to "device" usage is resulting in more carnage than drunk driving.

 

[griff2]

easy fix really
1st offense $500 and 3 points
2nd offense $1000 and 5 points
3rd $2500 and loss of drivers license for 30 days

or 1st offense $1000 and 5 points
2nd $3000 and loss of drivers license for 30 days

win/win

police gets an influx of cash and people learn the hard way that stings

BC's escalating penalty structure.

 

[conundrum]

In all honesty the only time I'll touch the phone physically when driving is if I forgot to flip on Bluetooth (typically leave it off when it isn't needed to save battery), and I'll only do that if stopped at at a red light. Even then, I'll only do it if I am going to be on the road for a while and might need to make/answer a call...otherwise I'll leave it off. I think I can count the number of times I've done this in the last 10 years on a single hand.

Granted I know I'm also not 'most people'...the few times I do answer over hands-free people typically tell me afterwards I seemed ****** off/rushed/not paying attention to what they say, simply because I'm driving/riding so that's priority 1 (and the call is secondary). Also I want them to get the point, and if it is a longer conversation I'll call them back when I'm stopped. Really, my main use of my phone is streaming music and alerts, as well as potentially using Siri to send a quick text to say I'm going to be early or late, or to give an ETA when I might be back when on the bike.

 

[conundrum]

BC's escalating penalty structure.

10 is still too much imo. Change 5th to 3rd, and 10th to 5th and I'd say it works. By the 10th time they are caught, they've likely used the phone 1,000 times, and potentially made someone their new hood ornament.

 

[griff2]

10 is still too much imo. Change 5th to 3rd, and 10th to 5th and I'd say it works. By the 10th time they are caught, they've likely used the phone 1,000 times, and potentially made someone their new hood ornament.

Well, that is also in play now.

However, that driver may not reach a third offence, as starting June 1, the use of an electronic device will become a high-risk offence. That means, two or more tickets in a 12 month period will mean an automatic review of the person’s driving record and a possible driving prohibition.

New drivers will face possible prohibition after the first offence.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2688684/harsher-penalties-for-distracted-driving-in-bc-set-to-be-announced/

Forum Sponsor