Distracted driving becoming a criminal offence | GTAMotorcycle.com

Distracted driving becoming a criminal offence

kwtoxman

kwtoxman

Well-known member
Global National has been discussing this the last couple of days (and today). A new push with some people and provinces (now federally as well) to get distracted driving such as phone use including texting and driving to become a criminal offence in Canada. Search here http://globalnews.ca/national/program/global-national

Fn YAY. Do it, do it fast. Since DUI is a criminal offence so should distracted driving. Hammer it just as hard. Distracted driving deaths are now set to DOUBLE those from impaired driving http://mobilesyrup.com/2016/08/30/o...e-poised-to-double-those-of-impaired-driving/ It makes no sense to have drinking and driving a criminal offence and not distracted driving.

It's even more ridiculous to have AMPs for .05 BAC which are very harsh, yet distracted driving has a minor fine.
 
Last edited:
As much as I abhor cell use while driving the criminal offence bothers me.

I know and very much like someone who has been convicted of a criminal offense and due to the nature of his job will probably lose it. He was suspended while awaiting trial and his family is suffering along side him. He is looking at sentencing some time this month with the potential of serious jail time. It is heartbreaking to see the stress on his family.

How would you feel if someone you cared about, in a forgetful moment, picked up the phone and ended up in the same situation?

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.

DUI is different because it is proven through a breathalyzer and not by what someone thought they saw.

The frustrating part is that with all the evidence and statistics showing the danger the madness continues. Why is the lack of common sense forcing us to consider sledgehammer punishments?
 
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.
 
nobbie48 said:
As much as I abhor cell use while driving the criminal offence bothers me.

I know and very much like someone who has been convicted of a criminal offense and due to the nature of his job will probably lose it. He was suspended while awaiting trial and his family is suffering along side him. He is looking at sentencing some time this month with the potential of serious jail time. It is heartbreaking to see the stress on his family.

How would you feel if someone you cared about, in a forgetful moment, picked up the phone and ended up in the same situation?

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.

DUI is different because it is proven through a breathalyzer and not by what someone thought they saw.

The frustrating part is that with all the evidence and statistics showing the danger the madness continues. Why is the lack of common sense forcing us to consider sledgehammer punishments?
Click to expand...
This
 
wont happen
cars are now a wifi hub and moving phone
cars are designed and built around these 2 elements...therefore...good luck with that.

these problems are easily solved
no more auto transmissions...back to manual:D
 
-D- said:
wont happen
cars are now a wifi hub and moving phone
cars are designed and built around these 2 elements...therefore...good luck with that.

these problems are easily solved
no more auto transmissions...back to manual:D
Click to expand...

Auto-driving cars that can communicate with each other would solve our problems for the most part if those who don't care to drive can be driven.

Hurry up car industry. Please...? Have mercy and have a low price point so it people can afford it.
 
Pretty hypocritical from a basic logic point of view defending distracted driving and cell phone use.

nobbie48 said:
As much as I abhor cell use while driving the criminal offence bothers me.

I know and very much like someone who has been convicted of a criminal offense and due to the nature of his job will probably lose it. He was suspended while awaiting trial and his family is suffering along side him. He is looking at sentencing some time this month with the potential of serious jail time. It is heartbreaking to see the stress on his family.

How would you feel if someone you cared about, in a forgetful moment, picked up the phone and ended up in the same situation?

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.

DUI is different because it is proven through a breathalyzer and not by what someone thought they saw.

The frustrating part is that with all the evidence and statistics showing the danger the madness continues. Why is the lack of common sense forcing us to consider sledgehammer punishments?
Click to expand...
kellen said:
This
Click to expand...
As said before impaired driving is impaired driving, regardless of method. One can even argue DUI is less of an offence because alcohol/drugs impair judgement so some people think they are ok but aren't as measured by the .08 limit. Cell phone distracted driving is not impaired judgement, it is literally a sober choice to impair one's driving and roll the dice. The whole DUI extreme laws came from the crowd that said it's a huge cultural problem and needs to be hard core enforced. Even to the point that with lower DUI rates today they still went ahead with hard core .05 AMP penalties. Well, with distracted driving (much associated with cell phone use) killing 2X as many people, it is now a much bigger cultural problem than DUI. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

As well, if one thinks that a criminal offence for distracted driving is too extreme, then that should be the case for DUI as well. The apologist attitude for cell phone use above can easily be used the exact same way with a 'few drinks' DUI. I know many people who have suffered extreme consequences from a basic DUI charge. And sorry Nobbie, but using "evidence to convict" differences is a separate and irrelevant argument. Both would require a reasonable level of evidence and in court cases, as has been forever, and some will win and some will lose. But always based on case law and evidence whether DUI or distracted driving. Again, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It is entirely reasonable to expect both would end up with reasonable evidence requirements.

Roadghost said:
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.
Click to expand...

Roadghost's point could also be easily used in DUI. Why not only make it a criminal offence with an accident? And to your point of it being covered under current negligence, the news journalists were smart enough to note and ask (as so should you) then why does DUI have it's own hard core impaired driving laws, especially since now DUI is not as big a cultural issue as distracted driving. Again, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Such basic inconsistencies make a joke of our laws.

-D- said:
wont happen
cars are now a wifi hub and moving phone
cars are designed and built around these 2 elements...therefore...good luck with that.
these problems are easily solved
no more auto transmissions...back to manual:D
Click to expand...

PLau said:
Auto-driving cars that can communicate with each other would solve our problems for the most part if those who don't care to drive can be driven.

Hurry up car industry. Please...? Have mercy and have a low price point so it people can afford it.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. Sad, but people are hypocrites and they don't like extreme laws when they start to apply more so to themselves. I think self driving cars will come first, which will make such laws irrelevant and crazy insurance rates will be a major deterrent for those who choose to not use self driving cars.
 
Last edited:
Criminal offence - the burden of proof becomes a lot higher. The cop can't just say they saw something when really you were just scratching your ear. They'll need video, or cell phone logs, etc. It becomes not so easy to enforce ...

I think Roadghost's position makes sense. That doesn't stop penalties for the current Provincial Offences Act violation being made higher.

I'd gladly trade the 'stunt driving' penalties between that, and distracted driving (which is a far greater real world problem).
 
kwtoxman said:
Pretty hypocritical from a basic logic point of view defending distracted driving and cell phone use.



As said before impaired driving is impaired driving, regardless of method. One can even argue DUI is less of an offence because alcohol/drugs impair judgement so some people think they are ok but aren't as measured by the .08 limit. Cell phone distracted driving is not impaired judgement, it is literally a sober choice to impair one's driving and roll the dice. The whole DUI extreme laws came from the crowd that said it's a huge cultural problem and needs to be hard core enforced. Even to the point that with lower DUI rates today they still went ahead with hard core .05 AMP penalties. Well, with distracted driving (much associated with cell phone use) killing 2X as many people, it is now a much bigger cultural problem than DUI. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

As well, if one thinks that a criminal offence for distracted driving is too extreme, then that should be the case for DUI as well. The apologist attitude for cell phone use above can easily be used the exact same way with a 'few drinks' DUI. I know many people who have suffered extreme consequences from a basic DUI charge. And sorry Nobbie, but using "evidence to convict" differences is a separate and irrelevant argument. Both would require a reasonable level of evidence and in court cases, as has been forever, and some will win and some will lose. But always based on case law and evidence whether DUI or distracted driving. Again, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It is entirely reasonable to expect both would end up with reasonable evidence requirements.



Roadghost's point could also be easily used in DUI. Why not only make it a criminal offence with an accident? And to your point of it being covered under current negligence, the news journalists were smart enough to note and ask (as so should you) then why does DUI have it's own hard core impaired driving laws, especially since now DUI is not as big a cultural issue as distracted driving. Again, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Such basic inconsistencies make a joke of our laws.





I tend to agree. Sad, but people are hypocrites and they don't like extreme laws when they start to apply more so to themselves. I think self driving cars will come first, which will make such laws irrelevant and crazy insurance rates will be a major deterrent for those who choose to not use self driving cars.
Click to expand...

I spent yesterday morning helping a friend who, while on a bicycle ride, was run off the road by a texter. No broken bones but he's been off work with soft tissue damage for a couple of weeks. I don't want people who assault or kill others get off with a thousand dollar fine and a few demerit points.

On the other hand I don't want to go down the 'murican way of treating every problem with brutality.

A cell phone can be as deadly as a hand gun but anyone can get a cell phone and without any competency checks.

Can a person with a G-1 or G-2 drive while using a blue tooth phone? I think so.

The answer is reality education but we seem to be a general failure in that field. Wynne got re-elected.
 
Brian P said:
Criminal offence - the burden of proof becomes a lot higher. The cop can't just say they saw something when really you were just scratching your ear. They'll need video, or cell phone logs, etc. It becomes not so easy to enforce ...

I think Roadghost's position makes sense. That doesn't stop penalties for the current Provincial Offences Act violation being made higher.

I'd gladly trade the 'stunt driving' penalties between that, and distracted driving (which is a far greater real world problem).
Click to expand...

I think texting is the greater problem and made worse by the hands free law. You used to be able to hold the phone up and at least use peripheral vision. Now the phone is in your lap.

If you haven't sent the text it won't show on your account and it can be quickly deleted from the phone.

Education is the answer but it doesn't work well with a self important society. It won't happen to me etc.
 
Yes and no.

Bigger penalty, yes.

Making it impossible for you to get certain jobs or cross certain borders, no.

But i've got to say, i see SOOOOOOOOOOO MANYYYY texters on the road its ridiculous. I like to try to make a quick split second eye contact with cagers, i find that this way it pings their mind that "oh there's a rider here, lets not roll him over" ... but lately i try to make eye contact and these people are just STUCK IN THEIR PHONE. It's like i'm not even there. And the swerving is real.
 
[video=youtube;5hvc7I5EZyw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hvc7I5EZyw[/video]

Distracted driving at its finest
 
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.

Sent from my DROID Turbo using Tapatalk
 
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.
 
conundrum said:
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.
Click to expand...

I didn't think careless was criminal.

What if the penalty was a licence downgrade? Your G becomes a G2 or G2 to G1. G1 to Metropass.

It's a reality check but without the criminal element.
 
Lol cell phone use being criminal..that's insane. Anyone comparing it to drunk driving must be friggin drunk right now.

Texting is a momentary distraction. Intoxication isnt something you just pick up for 10 seconds...it's FAR more dangerous. The stats are skewed because EVERYONE has a cell phone. Not everyone drives drunk. DUI must be 100x more dangerous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom