B.C. traffic cops disguised as bogus beggars [Archive] - Beyond.ca - Car Forums

gretz

03-21-2012, 08:24 AM

"In five months, Calgary cops managed to nab 1,456 drivers — or rather, 1,456 people texting, dining, changing songs and chattering on their cellphones."

lasimmon, when you are stopped at the lights and grab a chip, a sip of your drink, or change a song... and get a ticket for it, you are fine with that?

How is being stopped at a red light and doing what has been legal up until last year the same as catching speeders?

"You are getting pulled over because our undercover bum caught you changing songs while stopped at the light AND you took a sip of your drink... you could have killed someone / you put other motorists in danger..."

Pretty gay

max_boost

03-21-2012, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
fuck that is so ghey

:werd:

D'z Nutz

03-21-2012, 08:50 AM

Haha that's awesome. I hope they start doing that here too.

Tik-Tok

03-21-2012, 08:59 AM

I'm surprised this is even holding up in BC, didn't they get rid of photo-radar because it was too sneaky or some such bs?

Also, I thought police members got in supreme shit for not wearing safety vests while in traffic? So I'd always been told anyways. I guess if they're just walking across the crosswalk it'd be fine, but it sounds like they're going between cars etc.

speedog

03-21-2012, 09:00 AM

Don't have a problem with this tactic - might have taught the young lady in the car next to me on WB 16th Ave WB at Deerfoot a lesson if she'd been caught yesterday afternoon. Apparently, texting was more important than driving to her as she left the lights and quickly drifted two feet into my lane - the good thing is once she realized she was close to straddling the white lane divider line, she quickly put her cell phone away in her dash.

civic_stylez

03-21-2012, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by speedog
Don't have a problem with this tactic - might have taught the young lady in the car next to me on WB 16th Ave WB at Deerfoot a lesson if she'd been caught yesterday afternoon. Apparently, texting was more important than driving to her as she left the lights and quickly drifted two feet into my lane - the good thing is once she realized she was close to straddling the white lane divider line, she quickly put her cell phone away in her dash.

I have to agree with you... its really simple.. dont text and drive and you wont get a ticket. All these people bitching about it.. you shouldnt be texting while you drive anyways!!! Ticket or no ticket, its not safe to do. Im sure those converstations that you need to have are much more important than other people lives out there. Dont text, no ticket.. seems really straight forward to me.

Modelexis

03-21-2012, 09:55 AM

It is a simple thing to not talk on the phone while driving, but making a law to stop it is not so simpo.

I'm all for looking at ways of encouraging people to pay attention while they drive, but I'm smart enough to know that a law isn't the solution. When has a law EVER been the solution?
Have laws stopped drunk driving?
Have laws stopped speeding?
Have laws prevented theft?
Have laws put an end to crimes involving weapons?
Have laws stopped underage smoking?
Have laws stopped drug use?

Laws haven't even been successful in preventing people from tinting their car windows, how the fuck do they expect a law to prevent talking on the phone?

People will use their phones when they're in the car no matter what law you invent. These laws will not stop everyone from using their phones while driving, most people don't act in response to threats unless they were abused as children.
Most people respond to incentive and when you try to just force your law on people they will simply find ways around it, most of which create an even more dangerous situation, people used to text with the phone up near the top of the steering wheel and those people now hold their phone at their crotch in order to not get caught.
If people are going to text no matter what, would you rather them hold the phone up with their peripheral vision on the road or at their crotch with no view of the road ahead?

It's easy to wish a law into action to support your one track mind, but if you don't stop and think about the unwanted effects of the law and look at both sides including the inevitable reactions to the law you end up with things like alcohol and drug prohibition and the catastrophic negative effects these programs have had on society.

lasimmon

03-21-2012, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by gretz
"In five months, Calgary cops managed to nab 1,456 drivers — or rather, 1,456 people texting, dining, changing songs and chattering on their cellphones."

lasimmon, when you are stopped at the lights and grab a chip, a sip of your drink, or change a song... and get a ticket for it, you are fine with that?

How is being stopped at a red light and doing what has been legal up until last year the same as catching speeders?

"You are getting pulled over because our undercover bum caught you changing songs while stopped at the light AND you took a sip of your drink... you could have killed someone / you put other motorists in danger..."

Pretty gay

None of the things you mentioned doing while stopped at a light will get you a ticket. Once again, what's the problem?

Oh no I broke the law and got a ticket. There is an easy solution.

Hallowed_point

03-21-2012, 10:09 AM

I personally think that it is hilarious and a great idea. Then again, I never had an issue before the law came into effect with eating while driving/texting etc. I don't need to worry about 'closin dealz' while I'm driving lol :dunno:

Modelexis

03-21-2012, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by lasimmon
None of the things you mentioned doing while stopped at a light will get you a ticket. Once again, what's the problem?

Oh no I broke the law and got a ticket. There is an easy solution.

I have my phone plugged into my stereo in the car when I'm driving and when I change songs I do so via my phone's music selection interface.

So yes, those things will get you a ticket while driving.

Also, if you take a sip of a drink and a small penis cop gives you a ticket, it's up to you to waste your time and money fighting it in court. There is no law that states cops must only write valid tickets.

We should make a law that states no one can have aftermarket wheels on their car and ticket everyone. When they complain we can explain to them how simpo it is to just leave their vehicle stock.

Masked Bandit

03-21-2012, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Modelexis
It is a simple thing to not talk on the phone while driving, but making a law to stop it is not so simpo.

I'm all for looking at ways of encouraging people to pay attention while they drive, but I'm smart enough to know that a law isn't the solution. When has a law EVER been the solution?
Have laws stopped drunk driving?
Have laws stopped speeding?
Have laws prevented theft?
Have laws put an end to crimes involving weapons?
Have laws stopped underage smoking?
Have laws stopped drug use?

Laws haven't even been successful in preventing people from tinting their car windows, how the fuck do they expect a law to prevent talking on the phone?

People will use their phones when they're in the car no matter what law you invent. These laws will not stop everyone from using their phones while driving, most people don't act in response to threats unless they were abused as children.
Most people respond to incentive and when you try to just force your law on people they will simply find ways around it, most of which create an even more dangerous situation, people used to text with the phone up near the top of the steering wheel and those people now hold their phone at their crotch in order to not get caught.
If people are going to text no matter what, would you rather them hold the phone up with their peripheral vision on the road or at their crotch with no view of the road ahead?

It's easy to wish a law into action to support your one track mind, but if you don't stop and think about the unwanted effects of the law and look at both sides including the inevitable reactions to the law you end up with things like alcohol and drug prohibition and the catastrophic negative effects these programs have had on society.

So if a law doesn't have a 100% success rate it has no value? I'm pretty sure that the laws in place have GREATLY REDUCED drunk driving, speeding and all the other things you listed. Just because it hasn't completely eliminated those behaviours in 100% of the population doesn't mean they aren't working for the majority of the time. Assuming that the human animal as a whole is smart enough to act safely and responsibly by themselves is pretty damn naive.

lasimmon

03-21-2012, 10:43 AM

Would argue, but I'd rather bang my head against the wall then argue with modelexis.

Modelexis

03-21-2012, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Masked Bandit
So if a law doesn't have a 100% success rate it has no value? I'm pretty sure that the laws in place have GREATLY REDUCED drunk driving, speeding and all the other things you listed. Just because it hasn't completely eliminated those behaviours in 100% of the population doesn't mean they aren't working for the majority of the time. Assuming that the human animal as a whole is smart enough to act safely and responsibly by themselves is pretty damn naive.

So your argument is that we should not judge the laws on their success or failure or the unseen negative effects? We should be ok with laws even if they reduce a bad action by 1%?

How else can you judge a law other than the success of it's stated objective?

If I get treated for cancer and the doctor removes a small portion of the cancer and I end up with diabetes as a result of his intervention should we really focus on how much he cut back on the growing cancer without even looking at the diabetes?

FraserB

03-21-2012, 11:18 AM

Then give the law more teeth, give it an actual consequence besides a $172 fine. Add demerits to the tickets, 2 sounds about right. So lets say $172 for the first offense, $350 and 2 demerits for your second, for every subsequent offense the fine goes up by 50% and carries 2 demerits.

There is no situation where a text needs to be answer right then and very, very few when you need to take a call or make one. If you really need to, pull into a parking lot and do it there.

If the law had real repersussions, I'm sure people whould find some way to make the 15 minute commute without texting or updating the Facebook.

The distracted driving law has no negative side effects, except that people are doing the same thing but being more dangerous about it.

max_boost

03-21-2012, 11:20 AM

Imagine they did this at a busy intersection. Oh the traffic jams! Just a glance at your phone to read a 2sec text will screw you because you just might take your foot off the gas and roll into the sidewalk and plow down all the pedestrians, right? right? haha

Modelexis

03-21-2012, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by FraserB
Then give the law more teeth, give it an actual consequence besides a $172 fine. Add demerits to the tickets, 2 sounds about right. So lets say $172 for the first offense, $350 and 2 demerits for your second, for every subsequent offense the fine goes up by 50% and carries 2 demerits.

There is no situation where a text needs to be answer right then and very, very few when you need to take a call or make one. If you really need to, pull into a parking lot and do it there.

If the law had real repersussions, I'm sure people whould find some way to make the 15 minute commute without texting or updating the Facebook.

The distracted driving law has no negative side effects, except that people are doing the same thing but being more dangerous about it.

You didn't read the article:

Like Alberta, hands-free phones are allowed in B.C., where the fine for using an electronic device while driving is $167, plus three demerits.

FraserB

03-21-2012, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Modelexis

You didn't read the article:

Distracted driving in ALBERTA carries no demerits, only a $172 fine.

Sugarphreak

03-21-2012, 11:29 AM

...

max_boost

03-21-2012, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
However at intersections when I am waiting for a few minutes at a complete stop I usually glance at it to see if it is something urgent. I'd hate to get a ticket for that.
But that IS the law others would argue. :zzz:

I call :bullshit:

$$$

Masked Bandit

03-21-2012, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by Modelexis

So your argument is that we should not judge the laws on their success or failure or the unseen negative effects? We should be ok with laws even if they reduce a bad action by 1%?

How else can you judge a law other than the success of it's stated objective?

If I get treated for cancer and the doctor removes a small portion of the cancer and I end up with diabetes as a result of his intervention should we really focus on how much he cut back on the growing cancer without even looking at the diabetes?

You've got to be one of the dumbest "smart" people I've come across in quite some time. Either that or you just like arguing for the sake of arguing whether or not your statements hold any real world merit.

FraserB

03-21-2012, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Isn't it illegal for cops to be wandering between traffic without proper PPE such as visibility vests, identification and warnings signs? This is a safety accident waiting to happen, what is WCB's stance on this?

This an interesting point, only for the hi vis vests though. A police officer's identification does not have to be in plain view at all times and they don't need warning signs that they are there (speed traps behind a tree/ unmarked car etc..).

I bet somone will challenge this based on the law that prohibits people from walking on the highway. And then it will be tossed becuase emergency responders are allowed to contavene sections of the act if they are executing their duties.

Feruk

03-21-2012, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by FraserB
Then give the law more teeth, give it an actual consequence besides a $172 fine. Add demerits to the tickets, 2 sounds about right. So lets say $172 for the first offense, $350 and 2 demerits for your second, for every subsequent offense the fine goes up by 50% and carries 2 demerits.

I would agree, but ONLY under the circumstance where it is clear that the phone distracted your actual driving. You should not be getting slapped with a ticket for checking your texts when you're stopped at a red light. I'd have no issues with a higher ticket IF the cops saw you swerving from lane to lane while talking on your phone (actually distracted), but that's not what they're looking for.

Originally posted by FraserB
Distracted driving in ALBERTA carries no demerits, only a $172 fine.
I think you missed the point. It does in BC and there were 3X more people ticketted ignoring the law there. Outright disproves your statement that heavier consequences would make less people do it.

FraserB

03-21-2012, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by Feruk

I would agree, but ONLY under the circumstance where it is clear that the phone distracted your actual driving. You should not be getting slapped with a ticket for checking your texts when you're stopped at a red light. I'd have no issues with a higher ticket IF the cops saw you swerving from lane to lane while talking on your phone (actually distracted), but that's not what they're looking for.

I would be fine with letting people do it while stopped at a light or for a train. But anytime the car is in motion, its fair game.

They also need to ticket the morons who park on the shoulder to make a call, what happens is everyone slows down and rubbernecks to see it its an accident.

It would be interesting if they released stats on repeat offenders. I would say that after getting caught once and having demerits and insurance increase, you are less likely to do it agian.

Feruk

03-21-2012, 11:54 AM

They do ticket people who stop on the shoulder to make a call. Several threads in here about that actually.

As for repeat offenders, I don't think a higher ticket will have any impact. Look at speeding. Once you get a ticket, do you then slow down? Maybe for the rest of that day. Most people just get smarter about how they break speeding laws.

speedog

03-21-2012, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Masked Bandit
Either that or you just like arguing for the sake of arguing whether or not your statements hold any real world merit. More like it's like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a while you begin to realize that the pig likes it.

Modelexis

03-21-2012, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Masked Bandit
You've got to be one of the dumbest "smart" people I've come across in quite some time. Either that or you just like arguing for the sake of arguing whether or not your statements hold any real world merit.

Making conclusions about my argument does not make your position the correct one. If you want to judge people on the validity of their argument you should have formed your original one with a little more care. You accused me of having a position that requires a 100% success rate in a law, you accused me of having the position that the alternative to pointing guns at people is to let everyone have a free for all and forget about the problem and let it continue. Not to mention your claims that most programs work for the most part without any statistics to back that claim up.

Then you attack and label me because you weren't pleased with my argument. Why don't you lead by example, show me what a well expressed and coherent argument looks like?

lellowrx7

03-21-2012, 12:14 PM

Ok ok maybe I don't know the law fully but even at a light I can't change a song or pick up a text and read it?

max_boost

03-21-2012, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by lellowrx7
Ok ok maybe I don't know the law fully but even at a light I can't change a song or pick up a text and read it? Don't even look left/right/down at all. Eyes straight ahead or else it's too suspicious! LOL

Masked Bandit

03-21-2012, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by Modelexis

Making conclusions about my argument does not make your position the correct one. If you want to judge people on the validity of their argument you should have formed your original one with a little more care. You accused me of having a position that requires a 100% success rate in a law, you accused me of having the position that the alternative to pointing guns at people is to let everyone have a free for all and forget about the problem and let it continue. Not to mention your claims that most programs work for the most part without any statistics to back that claim up.

Then you attack and label me because you weren't pleased with my argument. Why don't you lead by example, show me what a well expressed and coherent argument looks like?

Thanks, point proven.

Without a single ounce of sarcasm Modelexis, have a great day!

nismodrifter

03-21-2012, 12:31 PM

As per a member on Eurodrivers, one of his friends just got busted in a similar fashion in Forest Lawn.

Please, stay safe.

JordanEG6

03-21-2012, 12:49 PM

I think this would be hilarious to see someone get busted by a hobo by surprise.

Question tho, in terms of things I do in the car that might be an offense: Am I allowed to read texts/text/check my phone at red lights?

heavyD

03-21-2012, 12:51 PM

I don't care for the underhanded approach but something needs to be done about the cell phone addiciton issue many drivers have in this city. The new law IMO hasn't changed a thing as I still see people (mostly women) constantly looking in their laps while driving reading texts and businessmen talking on their cell phones while driving like the law never existed. Texters in particulare are usually very easy to spot from behind as the car will usually be weaving in it's lane. It's not safe and I feel people aren't going to seriously kick the habit until they are stuck with a fine or two.

Jetta-2.0

03-21-2012, 01:04 PM

one of these cops is going to get ran over and they will blame it on the driver talking on the phone and ruine his/her life cuz they need to get $172 out of them.

Id rather hit be distracted and hit a car then be distracted and run over a dumb ass trying to catch me talking on the phone.

im not saying i talk on the phone or text while i drive, but even like some of you said when the lights turn green thhem pan handlers are always running back to the sidewalk to get out of the way.

clem24

03-21-2012, 01:08 PM

They obviously stole this idea from Seinfeld...

1barA4

03-21-2012, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by nismodrifter
Forest Lawn

That's cheating! I mean, there are only hobos and apparently a continual reenactment of the Young & Dangerous movie series in Forest Lawn, after all...

Sugarphreak

03-21-2012, 01:59 PM

...

chkolny541

03-21-2012, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Haha, I was just thinking today that normally whenever I see panhandlers like this I always stop 20 or 30 feet from the next car so they have to walk farther... then drive ahead as soon as they get to me.

I am sure this would enrage these guys :rofl:

holy crap. why have i never thought of this????!

I'll give it a try in the summer when the homeless emerge

Sugarphreak

03-21-2012, 02:44 PM

...

ZMan2k2

03-21-2012, 02:58 PM

403_Calgary

03-21-2012, 05:02 PM

Does anyone remember when the province was trying to push this law into effect and the CPS chimed in with "We're only going to be targeting people driving erratically this is not some sort of cash grab.".........and now we're going to have undercover hobos.

revelations

03-21-2012, 05:33 PM

The Traffic guys continue to give the rest of the CPS a bad rap with stunts like this.

The SPIRIT of the law was to discourage people from being distracted while MOVING, once youre stopped it should be a non issue.

I mean, yea, youre ONLY job is dealing with the Traffic Act - that doesent mean you should let it go to your head. There are far more important things the traffic guys COULD be doing like like catching the doofuses on DF - or SUV soccer moms who speed through school zones.

max_boost

03-21-2012, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Haha, I was just thinking today that normally whenever I see panhandlers like this I always stop 20 or 30 feet from the next car so they have to walk farther... then drive ahead as soon as they get to me.

I am sure this would enrage these guys :rofl:

Is it possible for them to ticket you? Some how some way? LOL :nut:

Toma

03-21-2012, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by max_boost

Is it possible for them to ticket you? Some how some way? LOL :nut:

I got a ticket once for obstructing traffic.

It was completely bogus, cop didn't even bother showing up at court....

But they CAN do it, in fact, we have ZERO protection from receiving any abusive or unsubstantiated ticket.....and it's on our time and dime to fight it.

mark4091

03-21-2012, 06:52 PM

I'll bet those officers were happy they got to wear their Sunday clothes to work.

rx7boi

03-21-2012, 07:03 PM

Modelexis = beyond's biggest articulate whiner.

Likes to talk, knows how to talk, but ultimately goes nowhere with his talk.

Toma

03-21-2012, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by rx7boi
Modelexis = beyond's biggest articulate whiner.

Likes to talk, knows how to talk, but ultimately goes nowhere with his talk.

Shut up Newbie.

M.alex

03-21-2012, 07:38 PM

Awesome idea. Anybody who's opposed to this should STFU and obey the law

chkolny541

03-21-2012, 08:15 PM

can anyone who actually got one of these tickets chime in. Everyone here keeps yapping about "changing the song/drink soda. BOOM Ticket!" but im willing to bet that this is hardly ever the case. More than likely its ppl texting or yapping on their phones, which is just dumb to do.

Maxt

03-21-2012, 08:31 PM

chkolny541

03-21-2012, 08:32 PM

I can predict an officer getting hit, real quick.

M.alex

03-21-2012, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by Maxt

I'll take that bet...
There was a letter in the paper the other day how 2 CPS did a big drama 2 unit pull over on some girl for applying lip balm while on Crowchild..
Lip balm, serious business...

Yea, no big deal that she was probably taking both her eyes off road to apply her lip balm with the visor dropped down so she could study herself in its mirror. You people can't really be this stupid, can you :facepalm:

Maxt

03-21-2012, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by M.alex

Yea, no big deal that she was probably taking both her eyes off road to apply her lip balm with the visor dropped down so she could study herself in its mirror. You people can't really be this stupid, can you :facepalm:
How stupid do you have to be to need a mirror to apply lip balm..:nut:

J-hop

03-21-2012, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by Maxt

I'll take that bet...
There was a letter in the paper the other day how 2 CPS did a big drama 2 unit pull over on some girl for applying lip balm while on Crowchild..
Lip balm, serious business...

I like these examples, people make it sound so innocent.

Offending driver: "zomg you are giving me a ticket for texting like two words to my friend?"

Police officer: "no, you misunderstand, I am giving you a ticket because you took your hands off the wheel and weren't paying attention to the road so much so that you didn't see my distictively painted white and blue cruiser with a light bar on the roof that the average person who was even paying the slightest bit of attention could have picked out a mile away, cruising up to you. THAT is why I'm giving you this ticket"

Offending driver: "zomg you are like so freaking unreasonable"

Offending drivers Facebook status later that night: "zomg like CPS are such like money grabbers, what a bunch of like crooks"-- followed by about 10 ignorant supporting comments.....

It's the same BS every time, people leave out important details to make themselves look like victims, understandable though, no one wants to look like the idiot.

Mibz

03-21-2012, 09:14 PM

J-hop is on the money. Remember that article about the old woman who was left out in the cold for 3 days without food and water?

Journalistic sensationalism.

Comic is relevant for nearly all reporting.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20090830.gif

kertejud2

03-21-2012, 09:32 PM

This one is also good:
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd051809s.gif

And I remember that Vancouver cops used to act as 'Squeegee Kids' to catch people not wearing their seatbelt. They're sneaky out there on the coast.

Toma

03-21-2012, 09:39 PM

The sensationalism is presenting talking on your phone and driving as if it was a death defying act.

I know SOME of you have trouble with chewing bubble gum and walking, but they have institutions for you.

Maxt

03-21-2012, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by J-hop

I like these examples, people make it sound so innocent.

Offending driver: "zomg you are giving me a ticket for texting like two words to my friend?"

Police officer: "no, you misunderstand, I am giving you a ticket because you took your hands off the wheel and weren't paying attention to the road so much so that you didn't see my distictively painted white and blue cruiser with a light bar on the roof that the average person who was even paying the slightest bit of attention could have picked out a mile away, cruising up to you. THAT is why I'm giving you this ticket"

Offending driver: "zomg you are like so freaking unreasonable"

Offending drivers Facebook status later that night: "zomg like CPS are such like money grabbers, what a bunch of like crooks"-- followed by about 10 ignorant supporting comments.....

It's the same BS every time, people leave out important details to make themselves look like victims, understandable though, no one wants to look like the idiot.
Its assumable either way, if you think every police act is reasonable, well thats up to you, you are free to opinion.. A letter to the editor is a little different than hyped media spun story, but what ever.
I don't really have the time to go into a whole rant so I won't retype what Modelexis already contributed.

FraserB

03-21-2012, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by Maxt

How stupid do you have to be to need a mirror to apply lip balm..:nut:

About this dumb.

OdYTj5CChaA

01RedDX

03-21-2012, 09:50 PM

Maxt

03-21-2012, 10:00 PM

Not for someone that is use to doing it.. Texting has been around a long time in other countries, my mother in law can text at a rate that would shock most people, with one hand while driving, and not even looking at the phone.. A skill most likely learned because the distracted driving law in her country..
Many of my customers text me service calls, and over time we developed a one letter code for various responses that didn't really cause any distraction from driving..
People will adapt and keep doing it anyway..

J-hop

03-21-2012, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by Maxt

Its assumable either way, if you think every police act is reasonable, well thats up to you, you are free to opinion.. A letter to the editor is a little different than hyped media spun story, but what ever.
I don't really have the time to go into a whole rant so I won't retype what Modelexis already contributed.

I completely agree you can assume either way, but I think you can agree that for every unreasonable traffic stop or police indiscretion there are hundreds if not thousands of legitimate/reasonable ones, couple that with media sensationalization and/or people's inability to accept the fact that they were in the wrong means chances are you shouldn't be giving the benifit of the doubt to the "victim" in the story

01RedDX

03-21-2012, 10:16 PM

Toma

03-21-2012, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by 01RedDX

Yes but when it comes to texting, even you must agree that texting while driving is worse than drunk driving. Not just while driving, ever miss a green light while stopped at an intersection? I'm guilty of doing this once or twice, so it's only hands free from now on.
A gf of mine got a ticket for texting stopped at a red light

Get fucked.

And I don't give a fuck... I still text while I drive, and talk too. True, they are not the same, texting is a bit harder NOW casue you have to hide your phone instead of holding it up by the steering wheel....

But I still manage to stay in my lane....most the time :poosie:

The sensationalism is on their part. The way they present it, had they not passed this law, people would have continued to die by the thousands. :rolleyes:

01RedDX

03-21-2012, 11:14 PM

maxomilll

03-22-2012, 12:03 AM

This is just going to encourage people to text while actually driving and harder to see...

M.alex

03-22-2012, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by 01RedDX

In this city, traffic law enforcement is treated like a revenue stream.

I've been driving for 14yrs and have 0 tickets.

How about you just learn how to drive properly?

C_Dave45

03-22-2012, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by Toma

A gf of mine got a ticket for texting stopped at a red light

Get fucked.

And I don't give a fuck... I still text while I drive, and talk too. True, they are not the same, texting is a bit harder NOW casue you have to hide your phone instead of holding it up by the steering wheel....

But I still manage to stay in my lane....most the time :poosie:

The sensationalism is on their part. The way they present it, had they not passed this law, people would have continued to die by the thousands. :rolleyes:
I can't believe I'm doing this, but I'm going to agree with Toma 100 % on this.

I've been driving for 32 years. Most of those include driving over 50,000 km's per year. Before cel phones there were other distractions. There was always your high-end stereo, eq (with NO remote), heater controls, sometimes CB radios, fast food. Hell when I was a courier, driving 600 kms a day, I'd read the Vancouver Sun newspaper (not a tabloid paper) while driving 110 kmh out to the Valley, while steering with my knee. And if it wasn't that, then it was a MacDonald "Big Breakfast; pancakes, sausages, eggs and hashbrowns, across my knees while eating with two hands (knife and fork).

I had no problem staying accident free for those first 15-20 years and I still don't during this post-cel-phone-era. The fine means nothing to me. If I happen to get one...meh :dunno: I'll pay the fine and continue to drive exactly how I have these past 32 years.

I'm wondering what how the tabloids would have headlined me in one former scenario: Driving home one winter in Vancouver. Coming over the Port Mann. Gridlock. I've been on the bridge for over an hour. Almost three hours since I left the bar after work. Had a couple "pops" but forgot to hit the head when I left. So NOW...three hours later and stuck on the bridge...well it was time to look for "large mouth" pop bottle...didnt have the EXTRA HUMUNGOUS bottle, but I managed ;)
So driving was picking up a bit, but already had the coveralls down and carefully aiming with one unit, while watching the road and steering with the other hand...all the while I'm strethed out full, feet pussing against the firewall so I can be as straight as possible. After about a Loooong 60 seconds.......it was like Homer Simpson in the high rise after downing 35 cans of crab juice.......

JRSC00LUDE

03-22-2012, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by M.alex

I've been driving for 14yrs and have 0 tickets.

How about you just learn how to drive properly?

You truly are a king among men.

Agent_Oorange

03-22-2012, 03:17 AM

Originally posted by chkolny541
can anyone who actually got one of these tickets chime in. Everyone here keeps yapping about "changing the song/drink soda. BOOM Ticket!" but im willing to bet that this is hardly ever the case. More than likely its ppl texting or yapping on their phones, which is just dumb to do.

When this law first came into effect in BC, I was stopped at a red light and picked up my phone for what had to be no more than 3 seconds to check the nav screen I had going and put it back in my center console well before the light went green again.

There was a ghost car (well van) in the lane next to me at the light, I didn't think anything of it. Pulled forward and the lights lit up. I thought I was getting pulled over for speeding but the cop informed me that I was getting a distracted driving ticket. I mentioned that I was completely stopped, he said unless my car was in park I was still 'driving' and getting the ticket. I thought it was pretty ridiculous, but the ticket got thrown out since the offence date was 6 months in the future.

codetrap

03-22-2012, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by C_Dave45
~snip~ I've been driving for 32 years. ~snip all the other irrelevant anecdotal stories~

So, you're a good driver. Great! I've been driving for 20+ years too without incident. None of which means jack squat. The laws aren't aimed at you or me. They're aimed at all those people out there that can't get it through their thick skulls that they have to pay attention to the road, not their phones, or laptops, or ipads, or anything else that takes their eyes off the road.

So really, everyone here that is capable of doing it, woohoo. Awesome for you! You're great, you're wonderful, you're too amazing for words. Why not quit bitching and be happy that the cops are finally going after those people that can't keep their shit together on the road, making it safer for you and your families?

C_Dave45

03-22-2012, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by codetrap

So, you're a good driver. Great! I've been driving for 20+ years too without incident. None of which means jack squat. The laws aren't aimed at you or me. They're aimed at all those people out there that can't get it through their thick skulls that they have to pay attention to the road, not their phones, or laptops, or ipads, or anything else that takes their eyes off the road.

So really, everyone here that is capable of doing it, woohoo. Awesome for you! You're great, you're wonderful, you're too amazing for words. Why not quit bitching and be happy that the cops are finally going after those people that can't keep their shit together on the road, making it safer for you and your families?

Where was I bitching? In fact I said I'm quite satisfied to pay any tickets And was agreeing with Toma's stance on the subject. My driving history was to show that the new law won't alter the way I drive and probably most others. Lighten up there Nancy. You can get down off your soapbox now. *slow clap*

CapnCrunch

03-22-2012, 08:42 AM

Why are these threads always so full of trolls?

:drama:

codetrap

03-22-2012, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by C_Dave45

Where was I bitching? In fact I said I'm quite satisfied to pay any tickets And was agreeing with Toma's stance on the subject. My driving history was to show that the new law won't alter the way I drive and probably most others. Lighten up there Nancy. You can get down off your soapbox now. *slow clap*

*bows* Thanks. That short rant wasn't directed at just you there champ. It was aimed at everyone who's been bitching and moaning at the distracted driving laws, the motivations behind them and the general implementation. (like Toma bitching about his hooker getting a ticket)..

<further ranting>
In the final analysis the cops are going after people who practice shitty driving habits, regardless of whether they're stopped at a red light or not. We've all seen people who were fucking around and missed half a green light, or let off the brake a bit and drifted forward into someone else, or any of 100s of other myriad stupid shit. We've all complained about it at some time. So now the cops are trying to do something about it and what do we see? A bunch of bitching and moaning about something that shouldn't really affect them since everyone on beyond is a fucking ace driver and never does stupid shit on the road.

Personally, I think it's great! Make the fine $500 + 2 demerits. If you're stupid enough to not pay attention to what's going on around you because you're staring at your phone or jerking off your boyfriend while you're behind the wheel at a red light while an ambulance is coming up behind you, then you shouldn't be on the road in the first place. One less fucktard to put me and my family at risk on the road. </rant>

CapnCrunch

03-22-2012, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by codetrap

(like Toma bitching about his hooker getting a ticket)..

:rofl:

Eleanor

03-22-2012, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by Maxt
How stupid do you have to be to need a mirror to apply lip balm..:nut: I think you overestimate the general populace's intelligence.

Also, I'm 100% for this law, there's definitely a lot of wiggle room for the cops to be dicks (also known as officer's discretion) but realistically though, what are the chances you're going to get a ticket for texting at a red light or putting on lip balm? Pretty slim I'm thinking.

gretz

03-22-2012, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Eleanor
I think you overestimate the general populace's intelligence.

what are the chances you're going to get a ticket for texting at a red light or putting on lip balm? Pretty slim I'm thinking.

"Stop-light begging is a big city issue, but it’s provided the urban camouflage that’s allowed RCMP officers to walk right up to cars at lights, to see what the driver is doing.

Texting, talking, and so forth are noted — and then the details are radioed to the uniformed officers waiting just up the road, ready to pull the distracted driver over, and issue a ticket."

It's right in the article... Text at a red and let us know how it goes

Toma

03-22-2012, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Eleanor
I think you overestimate the general populace's intelligence.

Also, I'm 100% for this law, there's definitely a lot of wiggle room for the cops to be dicks (also known as officer's discretion) but realistically though, what are the chances you're going to get a ticket for texting at a red light or putting on lip balm? Pretty slim I'm thinking.

You are thinking wrong.

It has happened, and is happening.

The law SHOULD NOT EXIST.

We already have a drive with undue care and attention law or something like that, should have been enough.

Car is swerving, driving erratically, presto, ticket. IE, actual signs of distraction or inattention.

No a blanket "well, talking on the cell is distracting, so lets ticket that", instead of looking for resultant signs of actual distraction.

People like you are the problem.

"The general public is too stupid to chew bubble gum and drive, but you are not, but you are ok with the law if it protects YOU, the perfect human, from THEM, the lesser humans. "

You are free to give up your own rights, but you have no moral right or privilege to give anyone elses rights away.

This law, and many other traffic laws are an insult to adult humans. Not to mention a violation of our rights.

codetrap

03-22-2012, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by gretz

"Stop-light begging is a big city issue, but it’s provided the urban camouflage that’s allowed RCMP officers to walk right up to cars at lights, to see what the driver is doing.

Texting, talking, and so forth are noted — and then the details are radioed to the uniformed officers waiting just up the road, ready to pull the distracted driver over, and issue a ticket."

It's right in the article... Text at a red and let us know how it goes

Honestly, I hope you get a ticket for it. If you're behind the wheel on road, you should be driving. Not screwing with your phone, not getting a blowjob from Toma's *g/f*, not putting on makeup. Nothing but paying attention to what's going on around your car. There's no reason in the world you NEED to respond to that txt until you're off the road.

Originally posted by Toma
You are thinking wrong.
~ blah blah ~
You are free to give up your own rights, but you have no moral right or privilege to give anyone elses rights away.

This law, and many other traffic laws are an insult to adult humans. Not to mention a violation of our rights.
No, you are wrong Toma. Nobody HERE is taking away or violating your perceived rights. You're totally free to be as insulted as you want, but lots of people agree with the laws, so I guess you just have to turn around, bend over and relax while the long shaft of the law has it's way with your defiant ass. Or, and here's a novel thought.. why don't you post a copy of your letter to your MLA stating your unhappiness with this law?

max_boost

03-22-2012, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by codetrap

One less fucktard to put me and my family at risk on the road. </rant> All these tickets do is clog up the system and increase revenues. That's what the government wants, more dumb drivers on the roads. The drivers testing is such a joke!:rofl:

Is there a stat to compare the number of traffic tickets written? Per city/province/country etc. haha Just curious where Calgary/Alberta/Canada ranks.

CapnCrunch

03-22-2012, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by codetrap

Honestly, I hope you get a ticket for it. If you're behind the wheel on road, you should be driving. Not screwing with your phone, not getting a blowjob from Toma's *g/f*, not putting on makeup. Nothing but paying attention to what's going on around your car. There's no reason in the world you NEED to respond to that txt until you're off the road.

No, you are wrong Toma. Nobody HERE is taking away or violating your perceived rights. You're totally free to be as insulted as you want, but lots of people agree with the laws, so I guess you just have to turn around, bend over and relax while the long shaft of the law has it's way with your defiant ass. Or, and here's a novel thought.. why don't you post a copy of your letter to your MLA stating your unhappiness with this law?

I WANT MY RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER I WANT AND RECKLESSLY ENDANGER ANYONE ON THE ROAD SO MY WHORE CAN TEXT ME HER YEAST INFECTION PRESCRIPTION WHILE I'M DRIVING THROUGH A SCHOOL ZONE!!!

(JEWS, WESTERN MEDIA, FREEDOM TO RAPE WOMEN, ETC, MY BELIEFS ARE BETTER THAN YOUR BELIEFS, ETC, ETC...)

speedog

03-22-2012, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Toma
This law, and many other traffic laws are an insult to adult humans. Not to mention a violation of our rights. A violation of our rights. Please, please do explain what right of yours has been violated?

max_boost

03-22-2012, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by Toma

The law SHOULD NOT EXIST.

We already have a drive with undue care and attention law or something like that, should have been enough.

Car is swerving, driving erratically, presto, ticket. IE, actual signs of distraction or inattention.

I agree with this. We don't need a law for everything do we? :nut:

gretz

03-22-2012, 11:48 AM

heavyD

03-22-2012, 12:06 PM

codetrap

03-22-2012, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by gretz

You un-ignored me :love:
lol...

I wasn't condoning it, I was letting Ms. Eleanor know what "wiggle room" there was, as he/she seems to think texting at a red has a slim chance of resulting in a ticket...

What can I say, I missed you. :love: hehe. Eleanor will be in for a surprise if she tries txting at a red light where a "hobo" is wandering around. I honestly can't see what the big deal is.. is it SOOO important that everyone read and respond to every single txt seconds after it was sent?

colinxx235

03-22-2012, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by codetrap

What can I say, I missed you. :love: hehe. Eleanor will be in for a surprise if she tries txting at a red light where a "hobo" is wandering around. I honestly can't see what the big deal is.. is it SOOO important that everyone read and respond to every single txt seconds after it was sent?

She :rofl:

Sugarphreak

03-22-2012, 12:37 PM

...

heavyD

03-22-2012, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Sugarphreak

It can be... consider the two senarios:

Senario 1:
Beep Beep
"Hmmmm, wonder what that is"
"I am a good driver, so I will ignore it for now"
"Oh good, a long red light so I can quickly see what it is"
PICK UP SOME MILK ON THE WAY HOME -WIFE
"Good to know!"

Senario 2:
Beep Beep
"Hmmmm, wonder what that is"
"I am a good driver, so I will ignore it for now"
"Oh good a stop, Ahhh dammit, is that hobo is probably a cop... fuck, wait he is coming over.... no get away from my car, I don't want you to wash the window.... get the fuck away... no I don't care you washed it, I have no change... get out of the way of the car!"
Gets home:
Wife: "Where is the milk?"
"What milk"
Wife: "WTF, you can't spend 2 seconds to pick up milk?"
"Um, what milk"
Wife: "The milk I texted you about an hour ago"
"I didn't check my phone, I am a good driver" *smiles*
Wife: "*&^$#@*&^@#*&^@*&#@"

That night:
"Damn this couch is uncomfortable..."

Moral of the story is that the wife needs to get off her fat ass and get the milk herself.

SOAB

03-22-2012, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by heavyD

Moral of the story is that the wife needs to get off her fat ass and get the milk herself.

you must be single. :D

we don't need any more useless laws. what we need is better driver education and to stop pandering to the lowest common denominator of society. this law does neither.

Eleanor

03-22-2012, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by gretz
It's right in the article... Text at a red and let us know how it goes I've done it many times, no tickets :dunno:
Again, sure what they're doing in BC is sneaky, no doubt, however the likelihood that you specifically will get a ticket while texting at a red light is slim.

Originally posted by colinxx235
She :rofl: :love:

Originally posted by SOAB
what we need is better driver education and to stop pandering to the lowest common denominator of society. this law does neither. Agree with the better driver education 100%, that's the "root cause" of a lot of the issues on our roads, however laws like this do help to bring enforcement & awareness for sure. I bet if we threw a poll together asking people if they've changed their habits since the law came into place, I'd be willing to put money on a lot of people saying it has.

Modelexis

03-22-2012, 03:34 PM

Anyone else see the new South Park episode a few days ago with the TSA. That day is almost here, in 5yrs we will be wearing seat belts to take shits.
:D

arian_ma

03-22-2012, 03:42 PM

heavyD

03-22-2012, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by SOAB

you must be single. :D

we don't need any more useless laws. what we need is better driver education and to stop pandering to the lowest common denominator of society. this law does neither.

It's not a useless law. Driving is a privilege not a right and you need to accept responsibility when you drive. I don't give a fuck what people do in their homes or on their property but driving on on public streets you better be looking at the road and not your phone as it's your lone responsibility when operating an automobile on public roads. The fact that there are people that think the law is BS just goes to show how widespread the problem is and how deep it's ingrained in some drivers heads that texting and driving is safe. It's common sense and IMO people that text and drive are no better than people drinking and driving.