Reply With Quote...because the courts won't convict on it...That's why the new laws have specific targets such as cell phones and other display devices. (Why has nobody mentioned GPS units yet???)Originally Posted by mat2312
|
|
Some people are able to multi-task while driving..if not we'd have carnage on the roads. We have existing legislation to tackle dangerous drivers..why aren't the police using it?
Again, HOW IS BLUETOOTH ANY BETTER THAN A CELL PRESSED TO YOUR EAR
www.durhaminline.com Inline Hockey in Durham Region
OFAH member
My civil libertarianism grows daily when confronted with the obvious injustices I witness.
...because the courts won't convict on it...That's why the new laws have specific targets such as cell phones and other display devices. (Why has nobody mentioned GPS units yet???)
Con - Brantford
On one hand, i see no real purpose of the legislation. As others say, it's simply another piece of legislation.
On the other hand, i do see a use of the legislation - it's pro-active, not reactive.
Existing charges usually would get laid, after the fact of an incident. It's cold comfort laid up on a gurney (or worse) knowing the driver that just creamed you was charged with careless for undue care and control of the vehicle while txt'ing.
Cops can only really lay existing charges if they see a driver operating the vehicle erratically and on a cell phone or I-Pod or whatever concurrently at that particular moment of time. Otherwise, if the driver is driving 'fine' at that moment of time, it doesn't preclude that driver operating erratically a half km down the road when the cop has passed by or turned off out of sight of the vehicle 30 seconds later.
The new legislation is pro-active. Others have pointed out that if common sense was exercised among the general population, there would be no need for this legislation. Problem is, common sense is no longer so common. For better or for worse, new legislation pops up to cover areas where people fail to self-regulate themselves in their behavior. It has been recognized that cell-phone usage in vehicles is a problem behavior.
Just because you think you can 'multi-task' and that the new law is unfair.. there is no recognized individual scientific testing available for you to prove that.. therefore you get to play, and pay by the rules, for the sins of those who've proven that they can't multi-task - with sometimes deadly results. This has necessitated this new legislation to protect the whole of society, whether by lobbying of the 'save the children' faction, or others...
I've had a blue-tooth for some time now - used in practice a few times - it's a whole lot more intuitive and natural - but i don't like using the cellphone in the car, period. I'd be down-right dangerous with the phone alone, so i concentrate on what i do best, and should be doing, driving.
If it cuts down or otherwise dings in the wallet those inattentive idiots who insist on assuming the shoulder-slouched frozen-vertebrae posture who cut me off or otherwise put me at risk routinely, then I'm all for it.
Last edited by Bandit Bill; 08-01-2009 at 06:58 PM.
'99 Suzuki Bandit 1200 - '88 Hannigan Comet chair
i could be masturbating while i drive and still pose the same risk as using a phone
FWIW
http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/19283
Having a cell phone makes me a lot more money than using pay phones but at the price of being on a string. People don't even call my land line anymore. They hava a question and want an immediate answer. If you don't give it they go to the next supplier.
Total cell phone ban while driving is the right thing to do but it would be like prohibition. Everyone would cheat the system. Hmmm we could redefine Speak-easy.
I see a use for new laws even if they seem to repeat old ones...and that's that it publicises the offense. You're all here talking about this right now precisely due to this very effect. That can only be a good thing. The more people know that they can, and quite likely eventually will be charged with an offense for this selfish act...the better.
So you are assuming they will be able to convict with the new legislation??
Won't any "proof" be required in court?
no, the cops will just take your vehicle for 7 days and "say" you were stunting... Who needs proof or courts these days?
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
01001001 00100111 01100100 00100000 01010010
01100001 01110100 01101000 01100101 01110010
00100000 01000010 01100101 00100000 01010010
01101001 01100100 01101001 01101110 01100111
Moderator
I suspect that this is one of those laws that won't be enforced, except after a collision anyway. That sort of law is pointless. There are others that can be effectively used in that situation.
It will be your word against the cop's. As the cop has the status of 'friend of the court', his word carries more than does yours.
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
Nah - I doubt it - - - - unless you're trying to get it up to your ear !!i could be masturbating while i drive and still pose the same risk as using a phone
Moderator
I have blue tooth built into my car and into my headset for the bike i use both extensively.
Mental health who needs it?There is a reason you never see motorcycles infront of a therapists office.
You talk on the phone while riding?
Yes, I am guessing it will be roughly the same type of evidence, ("proof") as with seatbelt convictions...Cop sees you without it on, gives details in court, JP makes a decision.
...Cop sees you texting or with a phone at your ear, gives details in court, JP makes a decision.
The new legislation makes it alot more straight forward than current laws applied to the same situation...Someone made a great point a few pages back, current laws are more reactive - for after an accident happens, new law is more proactive.
Con - Brantford
The police can ask your cell phone provider to provide records of your calls, times and GPS coordinates. These are easily retrieved. If the cop can place you on your bike or in your car, without a hands free device (easily proven as they'll have your phone), then they have proof that you were on/in your vehicle, have no hands free device and were talking.
What more proof do they need?
Okay, I'm glad you can try and personally attack my father, but anyway. My father has had a cellphone since rogers started selling them, back then he used to pay thousands a month for that brick. He's conducted his business like that for over 20 years. He has never once got in an accident, and he is VERY good at multi-tasking while driving, if you dont learn how to multi-task after 20 years of doing the same thing, than there is a problem.
I am really sorry that some people are able to do more things at once than you can.
On a side note, don't cops have that big laptop screen in their car they're constantly looking at? ban them please.
"They are spending $1.2bn on a gabfest on how to get government spending under control.
The irony seems lost on them." - About the G20
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish. – Anonymous
I apologize if you think this is a personal attack on your father. I would like you to know that it wasn't meant to single him out. It was meant to be a personal attack on everyone that thinks it is ok to text, write, read, email, do hair/makeup etc while at the controls of a few tons of metal that will kill me, or another innocent in a split second because the operator can't take a few moments to either pull over or wait until an appropriate opportunity to conduct their business.
I don't care that your Dad has been doing this for 20 years - it only takes one time of two people being in the wrong place at the wrong time for there to death or permanent disability.
It has nothing to do with how many things I, or anyone else can do at once. I don't care how good you are at multitasking. When you are doing something that can kill another person in a split second your full attention should be on that task.
Just take a look at the guy on this forum that was rear ended on the highway recently by some woman in a BMW because she was texting. I'm sure that the day before the accident she (and her kids) would have claimed it was ok because she's been doing it for years. I guess they were all wrong. Thankfully no one was seriously hurt!
And yes, I do agree that the cops shouldn't be allowed to use those laptops while driving. I was almost rear ended by a cop a while back for just that reason - he was too busy looking at his computer to notice that the light was red and I was stopped.
you think they'll go through all that for a $100 fine? You need a court order to get that info and most phones have the GPS off by default until you call 911 (at least mine does).
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
01001001 00100111 01100100 00100000 01010010
01100001 01110100 01101000 01100101 01110010
00100000 01000010 01100101 00100000 01010010
01101001 01100100 01101001 01101110 01100111
My uncle was an alcoholic until his liver couldn't handle it....he drove around hammered for years.
He was never in any accidents. Does it mean what he did was safe?
Hundred of people drive around hammered each day.....few are caught. The 'risk' is blown out of proportion, and so is the risk of people using cell phones. Having said that:
we have existing careless driving legislation for people who are distracted regardless what they are doing, this new law is singling out one type of distraction, ignoring all the others while permitting the SAME distraction to take shape in a different form (wireless). It's a stupid law brought in for political and financial reasons.
If the government is that worried about distracted drivers, perhaps they can start by enforcing the current laws and pulling over people who are a danger on the roads while leaving the people who CAN talk on the phone and drive at the same time.
www.durhaminline.com Inline Hockey in Durham Region
OFAH member
My civil libertarianism grows daily when confronted with the obvious injustices I witness.
Explain how the risk of Impaired Driving is 'blown out of proportion' to my prematurely killed grandmother a few decades ago.. flattened by someone blowing three sheets to the wind and feeling no pain. I'm sure she'd understand. Perhaps you could explain that same philosophy to my uncle, who's suffered chronic dehabilitating back pain for the past 20 years due to being hammered in a rear-ender on his motorcycle, by someone hammered behind the wheel. His response may not be strictly verbal, or all that friendly.
How few people flattened or otherwise victimized by cell phone users behind the wheel does it take to make it of 'minimal risk'? Is that comforting to you, if you are one of the few flattened by an 'uncoordinated anomaly' among cell phone users behind the wheel?
See my argument earlier in the discussion regarding proactive use of new legislation before an incident occurs, vs reactive use of old legislation after an actual incident.
You say that it's a cash-grab .. would your opinion change, if the penalty would potentially be the same for radar detector users being caught .. the option to have it smashed at the side of the road, or a fine?
Again, see my argument earlier in the thread ... Who makes that judgement as to who is and isn't capable of using a cell phone behind the wheel .. you?
There is a saying.. of the population, 50% suck .. 50% suck.. just less so. You are rarely as good as you think you are, in any given skill.
'99 Suzuki Bandit 1200 - '88 Hannigan Comet chair
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks