Does this mean a careless driving charge can be pled down to texting while driving? Brilliant! 
Ontario: Its illegal to even hold a cell phone now
- Thread starter Paul1000RR
- Start date
FriendlyFoe
Well-known member
The mobile law is heavily enforced, i've gotten nailed with it and know a number of people who have. Maybe not in barrie, but anywhere in the GTA if a cop sees you on your phone you're getting pulled over.
We live in a nanny state and it's not because of the government, its because of the people! Every worried mother freaks out when traffic accidents go up 5% even if the population has doubled. The cell phone law is no different than speeding tickets. When i got my license a decade ago if you were doing 120 on the 407 you were the slowest car on the highway, and traffic moved at 130-140. As the population grows they need to make stricter laws or it's endless accidents, hence the street racing laws. Now if you're doing more than 20 over there is a good chance you will be pulled over, and the highways are more heavily enforced than ever.
N
Nyx13
Guest
If you wanted to stop it, it's real easy.
$1000 and 3 points for first offense (first time will be at officers discretion for fine and or points depending on the stupidity of the person and danger they posed at the time...gives the person a little slack/chance
$5000 and loss of license for 1 year on third offense
Problem solved!
THIS. Or at least something close to it. There's no deterrent the way it is now.
Or we could just execute them and call it a day. Would help with traffic congestion as well..
Craneopbru
Well-known member
An australian study found that children are up to 12 times more distracting to a driver than talking on a cell phone. Should we be fining anybody with children in vehicles or should we just ban children from vehicles altogether ?
Every study ever done on the subject has found that having a phone conversation while driving is equally distracting whether you hold the phone or you a hands-free device. There is NO MEASURABLE DIFFERENCE in risk by using a hands free device.
My father in-law just bought a 2011 Mercedes C300. I borrowed it the other day and driving along the 407 I could manually enter in an address into the GPS, I could browse music on the connected iPhone; I could do pretty much anything - it only stopped me from entering in a new phone contact. But hey, that's not against the law so it must be safe to look at the screen and enter in 1 letter at a time with a scroll wheel while doing 130 down the highway.
At least I can rest easy knowing that all our emergency vehicles are being driven people with superhuman abilities. Because even though I'm a menace to public safety by holding a turned off cell-phone in my hands, every firefighter, paramedic and police officer in the province are not bound by the silly laws of human biology; they were all born with the ability to safely use a laptop, cell phone, two way radio or any other handheld electronic device while driving. Thank god every person with these super human abilities has decided to go in to a career as an emergency responder.
How about this; You cause an accident because you were screwing around with your phone/ putting on make-up/ eating your breakfeast or staring at that hot chick on the sidewalk you get charged with Distracted driving, maybe a careless driving or even a Dangerous driving causing bodily harm.
Isn't that a novel idea ? Enforceable laws and a justice system that holds you responsible for your actions instead of trying to babysit you.
Never-mind, that's just crazy talk.
ccasion5:
Thank you. It's amazing how easily people hop on board a senseless new law because they've been irritated by distracted drivers in the past. I get ****** off by distracted drivers too but give it a goddamn rest already! It's the same old "won't-somebody-please-think-of-the-children!" cry. Absolute stupidity.
daught
Well-known member
Highways here are just waaay too mind numbing. They are straight, wide and SLOW.
There are roads I drove on, where I would not dare to take my eyes off the road to change the radio station.
It's easy to get loopy and distracted.
I dont expect Ontario to start building sweepers on it's highways, but raising the speed limit would allow people to drive at their comfort level where they focus on the road.
There are roads I drove on, where I would not dare to take my eyes off the road to change the radio station.
It's easy to get loopy and distracted.
I dont expect Ontario to start building sweepers on it's highways, but raising the speed limit would allow people to drive at their comfort level where they focus on the road.
Red_Liner740
Well-known member
-D-
Banned
The sentiments are correct however let's be real.
The Cops will not enforce it as much unless there is a strong financial motive e.g. downhill speed traps
The goal is to make the roads safer. The people know not to use them and it's illegal.
So what now? Exactly, slap them with a nice $1000 fine and 4 points and watch the problem decrease significantly.
I imagine the time during the implementation/enforcement of seatbelt laws were interesting.
Not everyone wears a seatbelt today. The goal is to get 90+% compliance.
If you think he problem is bad now, wait until this generation of kids start driving.
Remember they were born with a cellphone and are addicted to the connectivity of such things as FaKebook.
The Cops will not enforce it as much unless there is a strong financial motive e.g. downhill speed traps
The goal is to make the roads safer. The people know not to use them and it's illegal.
So what now? Exactly, slap them with a nice $1000 fine and 4 points and watch the problem decrease significantly.
I imagine the time during the implementation/enforcement of seatbelt laws were interesting.
Not everyone wears a seatbelt today. The goal is to get 90+% compliance.
If you think he problem is bad now, wait until this generation of kids start driving.
Remember they were born with a cellphone and are addicted to the connectivity of such things as FaKebook.
Right, you read it while riding your motorbike, right? :lmao:
stevex
Well-known member
The smartest thing car manufacturers did in regards to seatbelt compliance was that incredibly annoying beeping every few seconds you don't have your belt in
yes, there are ways to circumvent that, but most people don't know/bother. They just wear their seatbelt. The amount of times I would have to remind passengers in my cars, previous to my current car which has a seatbelt chime, was staggering. Now? Damn near never.
Your current car chimes for passenger seatbelts undone? All seats or just the front passenger? I knew they started putting in occupancy sensors for the front passenger seat, but I didn't know anyone had expanded their use to seatbelt chimes.
stevex
Well-known member
Just the front seat and passenger, but I drive a 2 door and I damn near never have any one in the backseat these days. Also a passenger side occupancy sensor for deploying an air bag in a crash. The car is 7 years old too, so it's not like this is anything new. I was under the assumption that the seatbelt chime is standard in all cars nowadays (at least for the front seats)
Can an amputee with one arm still get a drivers licence?
Craneopbru
Well-known member
Ok, this is going to be a long one.
IT IS NOT ABOUT THE CELL PHONES. It never was, it is not and it never will be about cell phones. It is about DISTRACTIONS. You're so pre-occupied with looking at the trees that you don't see the forest around you. Any conversation, be it with a passenger or over the phone; holding the handset or using a handsfree is a distraction. Drinking a coffee is a distraction, eating your bagel is a distraction; kids in the car are a huge distraction. All those fancy electronics and big screens in the centre of the dash are distractions. Those 50 foot electronic signs/televisions they are being put up all along the side of the gardiner are blinding distractions that are AIMED AT DRIVERS. I think you get the point. There are a million things that distract drivers.
So where does that leave us ? Well let's look at this idea that this law was created to improved road safety.
It wasn't
It was created to pacify lobbyists and the "Won't somebody please think of the children" groups. If you are going to spend millions to introduce and enforce a new law; you'd think that you'd go and find out the scope of the issue that you're trying to combat. So what exactly are the numbers. How many drivers were using cell phones while driving before this law came in ? Did the government have any idea exactly how widespread of a problem this was ?
How about after ? Has this law done ANYTHING at all ? How many fewer people are using cell phones while driving now ? Well, if you don't know how big of an issue it was, how do you know that it's any better ? Even if there is a reduction in people holding their phones, how do you know it was because of this law ? Pretty much any car you buy now, even at the lowest trim levels already include bluetooth built in. That in itself would increase the number of people using handsfree devices, no stupid law required.
Increased fines ? Well, that's worked well for speeding, HTA 172, DUI or any other moving violation hasn't it ?
The police are not looking for compliance, there is no money in compliance. The police want enforcement, there's A LOT of money to be made in enforcement. If you don't believe me, I have two words for you; Speed Trap. When cops set up speed traps, they hide; they set up in an area that they can't be seen and will pick out people violating the speed limit and enforce it with fines. So in a given day, they might get 30 people to comply with the law through enforcement - while conveniently generating four or five thousand dollars in revenue. But what if they didn't hide ? Let's say that they parked a cruiser in a plainly visible spot with a tripod set up next to it. It's doesn't take a genius to figure out that there would be near 100% ; compliance with the speed limit. So why not do that ? They keep shoving it down our throats that speeding kills, so why not do everything in their power to ensure as close as possible to 100% ; compliance with the speed limits ?
Now let's get into the real problem here. Governments that pass laws that try to regulate and dictate what we are capable of; law enforcement giving out tickets for what we MIGHT do. Why are you happy to let people who can't think for themselves tell you what you're going to do ?
Here's some food for thought; and this is the point where I loose most people, but bear with me here for a minute:
Drunk driving laws should be abolished, there should be no maximum level for alcohol in the blood while driving.
Why ? Well look at it this way, when the law says that at 0.08 you are incapable of driving, it also says that at 0.079 you ARE capable of driving. We all have that one friend that can't stand up straight after one beer, but the law says that because he might only blow a 0.04, he's perfectly fine to drive.
I have a better idea. If a driver causes an accident and is found to have ANY alcohol in his blood, minimum 5 year license suspension. Cause an accident where another person is hurt ? Impaired driving causing bodily harm; up to 5 years in jail and a minimum 10 year driving ban. Punishment for something that you did, not something you might do.
Jerry Agar from newstalk 1010 always mentions this quote and I forget who said it: "Government is always right when it protects us from each other and ALWAYS WRONG when it protects us from ourselves"
HTA 172
I don't need to say much more than that do I ? Doing 150 at 4:00 am on the 407 with no cars in sight in either direction is just as dangerous as splitting 25 km/h traffic while doing a wheelie at 120 km/h which is also just as dangerous as filtering two cars at a red light. Riiiiiiiiight......
This is what the Cops are worried about:
In 2010, in Ontario 755,148 convictions out of a total of 1,297,137 ticket convictions were for speeding; 58% of all convictions for speeding.
In 2010, in Ontario there were a total of 385,753 reported collisions. Speed too fast was the apparent driver action in 2,245 of those accidents.
0.6%
Let me type that again for you, I'll even bold it for you:
0.6%
In just over one half of one percent the apparent driver action was Speed too fast. Our fine law enforcement officials have concentrated at least nearly 60% of their enforcement efforts on an action responsible for less than one percent of accidents.
What are some other causes of accidents ?
Improper passing - 0.8%
Disobey Traffic Control - 2.3%
Improper Lane Change - 3.1%
Improper Turn - 3.9%
You get where this is going ? Why don't you tell me again the goal is to make the roads safer.
They lump together all offences (2-4 points) - 9.8% of all convictions
Major offences (5-7 points) - 0.9% of all convictions
Non-pointable convictions - 9.7% of all convictions
Administrative - 15.7% of all convictions
Cops keeping the roads safe by convicting more drivers for license plate and sticker violations than from all other pointable convictions combined.
Oh, and by the way distracted driving/cell phone use never made in onto the road safety report AT ALL on it's own there's a brief mention somewhere of it being lumped in with "others"
Damn, I got way off topic there
Last edited:
homme de fer
Well-known member
I'm a firm proponent of the distracted driver law as I've seen first hand drivers blowing red lights while texting. However, the post above is most interesting.
