Texting while driving could lead to $1,000 fine, 3 demerits | Page 3 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Texting while driving could lead to $1,000 fine, 3 demerits

Rob MacLennan said:
Thing is that cameras work both ways. How many times has someone, here, said that police should be forced to use cameras during stops so that their actions can be justified? They not only provide solid evidence for prosecution; they provide protection from abuse of authority. If a camera is present, but not used, it also raises the question as to why that was the case.
Click to expand...

Taser has created just such a product. I believe some police forces in the states have started using it, and I can see this catching on and making it's way north in the future.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/5/4162478/tasers-axon-flex-cop-camera-takes-aim-at-privacy
 
T'was deemed too expensive. There were a couple kicking around but they were just samples.

I'd like to see a body camera mounted in such a way that it sees what I'm looking at. That way, wherever I'm looking, it's recording. I could wear it inside a large novelty hat like Homer...
 
Bike Cop said:
T'was deemed too expensive. There were a couple kicking around but they were just samples.

I'd like to see a body camera mounted in such a way that it sees what I'm looking at. That way, wherever I'm looking, it's recording. I could wear it inside a large novelty hat like Homer...
Click to expand...

Have a look at the video in the link I posted, that's exactly what it is. I think it's built into protective eyewear, sort of like Google glass.

06taser-axon-flex.jpg
 
Those type of glasses are already in use with some US police forces. There is a show on US satellite called POV. It is basically police doing foot chases and raids while wearing such glasses. Then there is also a camera crew like there was on cops so you see what cop is seeing as well as the surrounding areas.
 
I82l8 said:
Looks like they're gearing up to sneak up on distracted drivers: http://www.680news.com/2014/08/29/o...-distracted-drivers-starting-on-long-weekend/
Click to expand...

Rob MacLennan said:
Just another "blitz" by police. You don't change people's behaviour by doing targeted enforcement, every now and then. You change it by consistent enforcement and punishment.
Click to expand...

Did you even click on the link :confused:

Provincial police say 10 unmarked vehicles will be deployed to spot distracted drivers on Ontario’s roads, starting this Labour Day long weekend.
Click to expand...


It's not just another blitz ;)
 
I82l8 said:
Did you even click on the link :confused:

It's not just another blitz [/FONT][/COLOR];)
Click to expand...

Yeah, it pretty much is. They announced the blitz and tossed in the purchase of the new vehicles, as part of the story. They will be in general service; not just used to spot distracted drivers. If you wanted to catch distracted drivers, why would you then show them pictures of the vehicles that they have to look out for?
 
Folks, some of you are looking at this from the wrong angle.

I, for one, welcome the increase of the txt/drive penalty to $1,000. Why? B/c it will prove itself to be a bad idea overall. A large number of people already take to trial $50-$100 tickets b/c they don't want their insurance to go up b/c of demerit points. At $1,000/fine, you can bet that 95% or more of those fined WILL take the matter to trial.

Somebody posted that cops fined 19,000 ppl per year for texting/driving (don't know what area). Can you imagine (at least in TO) 20,000+ trial-requests per year? When you compound all other HTA infractions, where ppl chose to fight, then it will be very easy to overload/overburden the judicial system.

The result? Courts will be up to their eyeballs deep in undue delay Charter applications. Never mind full disclosure and so forth...

Ahhhh, let the good times roll!
 
micelli.i said:
Somebody posted that cops fined 19,000 ppl per year for texting/driving (don't know what area). Can you imagine (at least in TO) 20,000+ trial-requests per year? When you compound all other HTA infractions, where ppl chose to fight, then it will be very easy to overload/overburden the judicial system.
Click to expand...

That was OPP, for all of Ontario.
 
Rob have you seen any stats on the number of tickets issued vs. tickets contested in court? I heard through the grapevine that some 75% or so were paid outright, and that less than 5% made it to trial. But, I don't have a concrete source for that and it would be interesting to see the numbers.
 
Bike Cop said:
Rob have you seen any stats on the number of tickets issued vs. tickets contested in court? I heard through the grapevine that some 75% or so were paid outright, and that less than 5% made it to trial. But, I don't have a concrete source for that and it would be interesting to see the numbers.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I haven't seen anything about that. Getting that sort of stat is notoriously difficult. Remember how long it was before news agencies were able to get the stats for HTA 172, that showed a truly dismal conviction rate?
 
Bike Cop said:
Rob have you seen any stats on the number of tickets issued vs. tickets contested in court? I heard through the grapevine that some 75% or so were paid outright, and that less than 5% made it to trial. But, I don't have a concrete source for that and it would be interesting to see the numbers.
Click to expand...

Grapevines are grapevines. If 75% of fines were paid outright, then Toronto wouldn't have to open FIVE new courts just to handle the volume of contested tickets. Just saying. But then again, I also hear things through grapevines, so I could be wrong.

p.s. thank you for the helpful information Rob.
 
The last time (and first time) I texted while driving was about 10 years ago when it was legal. I was on Black Creek Dr. in Toronto; I wandered out of my lane (no traffic around) and that was the end of that activity.

For those that know better use unmarked Police vehicles to sneak up on them; let people try to fight the charges, that is their right. They can try to overload the judicial system; some of these people will make it to trial and be convicted. Those convicted may, I use the word may change their behavior. What is the alternative, do nothing. According to OPP, deaths caused by distracted driving has now surpassed DUI caused deaths.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Sorry, I haven't seen anything about that. Getting that sort of stat is notoriously difficult. Remember how long it was before news agencies were able to get the stats for HTA 172, that showed a truly dismal conviction rate?
Click to expand...
I remember people discussed how the province was not getting convictions for 172, but is this because the vast majority of people were getting plea-bargains to +49km/h and lesser charges? or were people getting 'Not-Guilty' / 'Charges Withdrawn'?
 
iFly55 said:
I remember people discussed how the province was not getting convictions for 172, but is this because the vast majority of people were getting plea-bargains to +49km/h and lesser charges? or were people getting 'Not-Guilty' / 'Charges Withdrawn'?
Click to expand...

I don't have the stats, so I won't speculate but Rob may know..... Regardless, it begs the question; if so many get pled down, why not the lesser charge at the side of the road? A big pat on the back for the officer? A spot on the local news for the department?
 
trebororr said:
The last time (and first time) I texted while driving was about 10 years ago when it was legal. I was on Black Creek Dr. in Toronto; I wandered out of my lane (no traffic around) and that was the end of that activity.

For those that know better use unmarked Police vehicles to sneak up on them; let people try to fight the charges, that is their right. They can try to overload the judicial system; some of these people will make it to trial and be convicted. Those convicted may, I use the word may change their behavior. What is the alternative, do nothing. According to OPP, deaths caused by distracted driving has now surpassed DUI caused deaths.
Click to expand...

Flavour of the times. Once the distracted driving campaign has lost its shine, we will be on to some new super threat to public safety which will require some new form of legislation. I predict an epidemic of 'Caffeine Induced Collisions' and an outright ban on coffee in cars
/sarcasm

For the record, I'm not implying DUI's and distracted driving are not dangerous activities, just being cognizant to the fact that departments have budgets and agendas to justify
 
Neil_V said:
I don't have the stats, so I won't speculate but Rob may know..... Regardless, it begs the question; if so many get pled down, why not the lesser charge at the side of the road? A big pat on the back for the officer? A spot on the local news for the department?
Click to expand...

I am unable to find original reports with respect to the conviction rates, that were reported in the first year of HTA 172, but my recollections are that less than a third of those charged were convicted, roughly a third were convicted on lesser charges dues to plea arrangements, and the remainder received no conviction what so ever.

Neil_V said:
Flavour of the times. Once the distracted driving campaign has lost its shine, we will be on to some new super threat to public safety which will require some new form of legislation. I predict an epidemic of 'Caffeine Induced Collisions' and an outright ban on coffee in cars
/sarcasm

For the record, I'm not implying DUI's and distracted driving are not dangerous activities, just being cognizant to the fact that departments have budgets and agendas to justify
Click to expand...

The cell phone thing, along with the racing and stunting law, are what I refer to as "governance by sound bite." In other words as you imply hot button topics come up and politicians crawl over each other, to try and be the sponsor of what is generally unneeded legislation.

For some reason using your cell phone or inputting an address to your GPS is 'distracted driving', but drinking a coffee while studying a type-written speech on the Gardiner Expressway isn't (Mayor Ford). Clearly any realist would say that distracted driving is distracted driving, whatever the cause, and should adequately be covered under our "operation without due care and attention" statute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom