Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Use Your Handheld Cellphone While Driving in BC - Cell and Vehicle Seized


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
84 replies to this topic

#61 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,407 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 09 March 2013 - 08:52 AM

But in comparison to what other distractions? Would crying babies cause more accidents? What about drinking a hot cup of coffee? Would driving with 1 hand be considered as a "distraction"? Would me driving with 1 hand, drinking hot coffee with the other and having a crying toddler at the back be safer than me talking on a cell?
With stats, it can always be used and abuse in any way you want. Maybe all the people who got into accidents are the same type of people who we will all label as "bad drivers" anyways.

I believe that there are good drivers and bad drivers and whether or not cellphones are permitted won't change anything. So unless there's some in-depth experiment where they're comparing all different variables of driving and figured out that cellphone is #1 deniable cause for accidents (compared to other possible distractions of the road), then the law is just targeting certain segments of the population (non-morons) unfairly.

They could conduct a "distraction" test but that might "unfairly" target segments of the population the PC crowd doesn't want to cut out from driving.

All in all, it's easier to just say cell phone drivers/texters are dangerous and just ignore the rest of the myriads of distractions, or the people prone to distractions/accidents, or plain stupid ass people on the roads who shouldn't have a car/license who do.

Otherwise, there'd be little justification for such high insurance expenses, or the populace letting government turn into mommy and daddy.

Edited by Aleksandr Pistoletov, 09 March 2013 - 08:54 AM.

4JGASNR.png


#62 :D

:D

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,176 posts
  • Joined: 14-August 03

Posted 09 March 2013 - 08:54 AM

What if I am wearing my Virtual Boy while driving? Will I still get a ticket?

#63 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,407 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 09 March 2013 - 09:05 AM

What if I am wearing my Virtual Boy while driving? Will I still get a ticket?

You'll probably be sent where all the kids wearing their robe and wizard hat go.

4JGASNR.png


#64 The Brahma Bull

The Brahma Bull

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,224 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 08

Posted 09 March 2013 - 10:05 AM

Pretty ridiculous. Texting while driving is dangerous, but this isn't the way to solve it.

What I really don't like is that you know some of these scummy cops will start creeping through your phone if there is no password on it.

Edited by The Brahma Bull, 09 March 2013 - 10:06 AM.



#65 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 09 March 2013 - 11:11 AM

Cellphone/electronic devices law for B.C. drivers:

  • As of January 1, 2010 the use of cellphones or any handheld portable electronic devices by drivers is restricted in B.C. The fine is $167 and 3 penalty points. While operating a motor vehicle drivers:
  • Can not make or receive calls, send or read text messages or e-mails
  • Can not hold or operate any electronic device (i.e. cellphone, MP3 player, GPS Navigation System)
  • Can use hands-free cell phones and devices if they can be used by voice activation or pressing a single button once only
  • In the Graduated Licensing Program can not operate hand-held or hands-free cellphones or other electronic devices
http://www.pssg.gov..../distracted.htm



Its BS that we can not operate a GPS device. Pretty damn stupid if you ask me since everyone probably has a GPS device in their car.

Posted Image


#66 The Ghost of Tom Joad

The Ghost of Tom Joad

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 756 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 04

Posted 09 March 2013 - 03:06 PM

This is actually ridiculous. Where are they going to put all these cars that they seize? Law enforcement need worry about other things, instead of impounding cellphones and cars of average people.

Hey, how about breaking some ground on the recent spike of gun violence in the Lower Mainland?

#67 hsedin33

hsedin33

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,306 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 10

Posted 09 March 2013 - 03:18 PM

But in comparison to what other distractions? Would crying babies cause more accidents? What about drinking a hot cup of coffee? Would driving with 1 hand be considered as a "distraction"? Would me driving with 1 hand, drinking hot coffee with the other and having a crying toddler at the back be safer than me talking on a cell?
With stats, it can always be used and abuse in any way you want. Maybe all the people who got into accidents are the same type of people who we will all label as "bad drivers" anyways.

I believe that there are good drivers and bad drivers and whether or not cellphones are permitted won't change anything. So unless there's some in-depth experiment where they're comparing all different variables of driving and figured out that cellphone is #1 deniable cause for accidents (compared to other possible distractions of the road), then the law is just targeting certain segments of the population (non-morons) unfairly.


You are supposed to have two hands on the wheel and your eyes on the road at all times, so yes, it is a distraction. Thats why with the 'N' you can only have one passenger, because any more and they become a distraction. As a driver you are expected to be in control of the vehicles interior enviroment. If you feel distracted, you should pull over and make changes. You can't regulate a crying baby, just like you can't really regulate drinking a coffee, so its allowed. But you can regulate cell phones, just like you can regulate wearing a seatbelt. And really, it's all in the name of safety, getting from point A to point B without dying. Why would you want to complain about that?

#68 hsedin33

hsedin33

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,306 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 10

Posted 09 March 2013 - 03:21 PM

This is actually ridiculous. Where are they going to put all these cars that they seize? Law enforcement need worry about other things, instead of impounding cellphones and cars of average people.

Hey, how about breaking some ground on the recent spike of gun violence in the Lower Mainland?


I think distracted driving kills waay more people then gangs do in the lower mainland. Also the people dying from distracted driving are innocent civilians that didn't chose a life of crime, they were everyday people too ignorant to pay attention to the events happening around them on the road. The fact that people are dying because some jacka** absolutly had to answer their phone is outrageous to me, more outrageous then a gangster being shot at by another gangster. Not to mention, that you are still allowed to talk on the phone, you just need a blue tooth, which isnt that hard to get, I still think a blue tooth is distracting.

Edited by hsedin33, 09 March 2013 - 03:27 PM.


#69 Lancaster

Lancaster

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,084 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 12

Posted 09 March 2013 - 03:47 PM

You are supposed to have two hands on the wheel and your eyes on the road at all times, so yes, it is a distraction. Thats why with the 'N' you can only have one passenger, because any more and they become a distraction. As a driver you are expected to be in control of the vehicles interior enviroment. If you feel distracted, you should pull over and make changes. You can't regulate a crying baby, just like you can't really regulate drinking a coffee, so its allowed. But you can regulate cell phones, just like you can regulate wearing a seatbelt. And really, it's all in the name of safety, getting from point A to point B without dying. Why would you want to complain about that?


I guess we should have an automatic ticketing system install in your car where anytime you even drive at 51km, you automatically get a speeding ticket, right? What about installing sound sensors that if anyone makes any noise, you'll get fined? How about some heat sensor on your steering wheel where you must constantly have both hands on the steering wheel? Remove the radio since it's a distraction? A breathalyzer in every vehicle regardless if the driver has any priors?

"And really, it's all in the name of safety, getting from point A to point B without dying. Why would you want to complain about that?" :rolleyes:

#70 Armada

Armada

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,477 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 08

Posted 09 March 2013 - 04:22 PM

I'll say it again.

Stupid, inconsistent law with no actual evidence. Texting sure, make it illegal but holding a phone while talking... Are you drunk BC? What's the difference between talking into a bluetooth and talking into something while holding it? There's no difference compared to me talking to my passenger while driving with 1 hand.

Make passengers illegal.

Edit: Had to repeat myself cause I get mad.

Edited by Armada, 09 March 2013 - 04:26 PM.

1314_IProvo_1680x1050.jpg
______________


#71 Twilight Sparkle

Twilight Sparkle

    Lizardshifting Shape

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,367 posts
  • Joined: 13-October 11

Posted 09 March 2013 - 04:25 PM

You'll probably be sent where all the kids wearing their robe and wizard hat go.

always wanted to go down to the basement of the creepy old man next door

mx0fg0.jpg

Praise Smooze!


#72 Dion Phaneuf

Dion Phaneuf

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,140 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 12

Posted 09 March 2013 - 04:28 PM

Its BS that we can not operate a GPS device. Pretty damn stupid if you ask me since everyone probably has a GPS device in their car.


We can use our GPS and Navigation but cannot fiddle around with it while driving (basically if you need to type in an address you're required to pull over).

gallery_47851_23_84084.png

medium.png - CDCGML medium.png - RGMG medium.png - STHS medium.png - CDCFL


#73 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,407 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 09 March 2013 - 04:41 PM

We can use our GPS and Navigation but cannot fiddle around with it while driving (basically if you need to type in an address you're required to pull over).

If one is smart they'll program their destination on their GPS (or in my case, my device since I have preloaded maps on my Samsung Note) so they don't need to sit there screwing with it. It also helps when traveling with someone for them to screw with it as well. Less of a distraction from finding some hot chick driving next to you.

Edited by Aleksandr Pistoletov, 09 March 2013 - 04:41 PM.

4JGASNR.png


#74 bobopan

bobopan

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,532 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 05

Posted 09 March 2013 - 04:57 PM

This is actually ridiculous. Where are they going to put all these cars that they seize? Law enforcement need worry about other things, instead of impounding cellphones and cars of average people.

Hey, how about breaking some ground on the recent spike of gun violence in the Lower Mainland?


Thats actually a very good question. I assume this so called proposal would mean the car would only be seized if you were a repeat offender? It doesn't actually say or not but that would only make sense cause otherwise i agree where would these vehicles be stored...

There were 5600 distracted driving tickets handed out last month, 4000 in febuary of 2012.

#75 LostViking

LostViking

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,407 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 09

Posted 09 March 2013 - 05:25 PM

Oddly enough our safety manager at work pulled over a couple months ago to take a phone call (in his position he wouldn't dare use his cell phone while driving a company car), he ended up getting hit from behind. Apparently the other driver saw taillights in front of him, thought he had strayed out of his lane, and adjusted himself accordingly. WorkSafe said this type of accident is fairly common, and after their investigation they determined the cause of the accident to be that "sitting pulled over on the side of a busy road is incredibly dangerous" and required us to take preventative action to avoid having a similar accident occur again. What was the action that they recommended? Everyone should get bluetooth and should not pull over to make or take phone calls.

I just found this ironic given the number of people I hear saying the safe option is to pull over before using a cell phone. It is safer for the other drivers on the road, but it is NOT safer for you. Essentially these people are saying you should put yourself in danger, so that they can be safe, rather than having everyone on the road share the risk. This is of course disturbing given how many people out there would lose their jobs if they can't make a phone call (pulled over or otherwise), making phones (sadly) essential to every day life.

I don't really oppose the driving laws pertaining to electronic devices, but I do wish that things could be consistent across all forms of distractions. My girlfriend hates that she can't whip out her cell while driving, to me I could care less, the only thing I want to do while driving is smoke. So she gets the short end while I am unscathed, great for me, but hardly fair and equal. I don't really care whether they go all out safety or all out freedom, but I would love to see things be more consistent.
Posted Image

#76 Guest_Gumballthechewy_*

Guest_Gumballthechewy_*
  • Guests
  • Joined: --

Posted 09 March 2013 - 05:32 PM

Stupid law.

What's the difference between eating, changing the radio, having one arm, driving standard, talking to a passenger, talking on a bluetooth, smoking a cigarette and so on..

Might as well ban passengers and all those because you're being as equally distracted while you're talking to them as if you were talking on the phone while holding it.

The only thing I agree with is the banning of texting while driving.


I agree with this 100% and I've been saying it since day one. Talking on the phone while driving is no worse that talking to somebody sitting next to you while driving.

With texting you have to look away from the road for extended periods of time. People who text while driving are morons, plain and simple.

#77 fourminute

fourminute

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 74 posts
  • Joined: 11-February 13

Posted 09 March 2013 - 05:51 PM

thats just too much... take away car for somethin that doesnt cause too much accident gosh for wat reason...
Posted Image

#78 hsedin33

hsedin33

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,306 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 10

Posted 09 March 2013 - 06:21 PM

I guess we should have an automatic ticketing system install in your car where anytime you even drive at 51km, you automatically get a speeding ticket, right? What about installing sound sensors that if anyone makes any noise, you'll get fined? How about some heat sensor on your steering wheel where you must constantly have both hands on the steering wheel? Remove the radio since it's a distraction? A breathalyzer in every vehicle regardless if the driver has any priors?

"And really, it's all in the name of safety, getting from point A to point B without dying. Why would you want to complain about that?" :rolleyes:


Thats the point. The onus is on the driver to control the interior environment so they aren't distrcted. Looking down to adjust the radio is a distraction, your eyes are off the road, talking to a person in the car is a distraction, your mental focus is split. My (now former) neighbors, they were a husband and wife, were driving to Alberta with their son's wife and her newborn daughter in their truck, the husband who was driving the truck reached back to tickle the baby and drove off a steep cliff, killing his sons wife, baby and severely injuring himself and his own wife. They were good people. He wasn't talking on a cell phone, he wasn't changing the radio, wasn't doing anything illegal, he simply took his eyes off the road for a split second. Just to add in, my family and I went to visit them in the hospital, I'll never forget seeing his broken body on the hospital bed, his wife couldn't talk to him, his son disowned him, that was a man who had to live with a 'dumb' mistake that was easily avoidable. Any and all distractions have the ability to kill you, so please don't roll your eyes and think it won't happen to you. You control the enviroment or it will control you.

Edited by hsedin33, 09 March 2013 - 06:42 PM.


#79 hsedin33

hsedin33

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,306 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 10

Posted 09 March 2013 - 06:52 PM

http://techcrunch.co...ries-quadruple/

This is funny, a guy in the video nearly walks into a bear while texting and walking.

#80 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 09 March 2013 - 07:09 PM

This is a bit ridiculous as many people actually need their phones & cars for work


$$$ > people's safety and lives?

#81 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 09 March 2013 - 07:23 PM

I've been driving with 1 hand ever since I got my license many years back. I don't see how holding a cellphone to talk affects me in any way, since it's no difference driving with 1 hand and chatting with another passenger anyways.

IIRC, there's already an erratic driving law or something before, so the cops should just use that on a case by base scenario. Someone driving perfectly fine, signaling, etc while chatting a phone, no problem. Someone else swerving around, don't signal, driving dangerously while chatting a phone, target those drivers.

Not all drivers are created equal, so there's no reason why good drivers should be punished just because there are morons on the road.


"I'm a good driver therefore I can race at 200 km/h without posing a danger to anyone." Isn't that what every young naive and cocky street racer thinks before he gets into a wreck?

The obvious fact is, you have much less control over the wheel with one hand on it than with two. You don't mean to tell me that you will instinctively and instantaneously drop your phone in the middle of a conversation when the need arises to do a quick and sudden turn, and never ever have any concentration nor judgement lapses, do you?

#82 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 09 March 2013 - 07:34 PM

“Using the speakerphone is allowed.”

Not always. Under the law, drivers outside of the GLP are allowed to use hands-free cellphones and devices but there are restrictions on how. In addition to a Bluetooth or wired headset, you can use the speakerphone but the phone has to be securely attached to either you (such as with a belt clip or in your pocket) or to the car; you can’t have it in your lap, loose on the seat beside you, in the cupholder, and so on. Holding your phone in one hand and steering with the other isn’t safe. And it’s illegal. The best way to stay safe is to not use your phone at all, but if you must take a call, use a hands-free electronic device and keep the conversation brief.


Uh what? Fidgeting around with a phone in your pocket is supposed to be safer than doing it out in the open where you can see what you're doing?

#83 Lancaster

Lancaster

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,084 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 12

Posted 09 March 2013 - 07:38 PM

"I'm a good driver therefore I can race at 200 km/h without posing a danger to anyone." Isn't that what every young naive and cocky street racer thinks before he gets into a wreck?

The obvious fact is, you have much less control over the wheel with one hand on it than with two. You don't mean to tell me that you will instinctively and instantaneously drop your phone in the middle of a conversation when the need arises to do a quick and sudden turn, and never ever have any concentration nor judgement lapses, do you?


I'm not stupid enough to believe I can go 200km+ while talking on a phone (or even without it).
As for situation where you have to make a decision within a split second... having 1 hand or two, with a phone or no phone won't really be that much of a difference. Besides, what kind of situations would that be anyways? Tailgating, running through a red, swerving back to the median? People who does those are morons, regardless of distractions.

When I used to drive while on a cell, I still signal, should check, glace at the mirrors/surroundings, drive at the same flow as traffic.... exactly the same as I do without using a phone. Yet, the government believes I am more "dangerous" than someone who probably drives 30km+ the speed limit, never signals, doesn't follow stop signs, and drives completely erratic... but don't use a cell phone?

cellphones + driving =/= bad drivers

#84 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 09 March 2013 - 07:46 PM

I'm not stupid enough to believe I can go 200km+ while talking on a phone (or even without it).
As for situation where you have to make a decision within a split second... having 1 hand or two, with a phone or no phone won't really be that much of a difference. Besides, what kind of situations would that be anyways? Tailgating, running through a red, swerving back to the median? People who does those are morons, regardless of distractions.


How about another car suddenly and unexpectedly swerving in front of you, running a red, slamming the brakes or an accident taking place in front of you, or you lose control due to road conditions? There are plenty of possible situations when you need that extra hand on the wheel.

#85 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,205 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 09 March 2013 - 08:58 PM

Sure. They can take my cell...

FROM MY COLD, DEAD HAND!

9jRgxTJ.gif





Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.