Distracted driving ticket court case - did i win or lose?

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

^ there was a member here (or some other local group) that mentioned they were handing out more DD tickets now than speeding tix. And it wasnt reaching either - these people were texting with their phones visible on the steering wheel or calling with it in their ear.

Doesn't surprise me. It's what, $267? Easy money.

If people are swerving down the road texting, absolutely they deserve a ticket. Talking on a phone though is probably the least distracting thing I can think of among all the things mentioned. It's more the fact you can't even glance at your phone at a 5-minute-long red light, but you can have a soccer mom driving a van full of misbehaving kids around with a 0.04 BAL, a dog in the back, cigarette in one hand, while trying to enter a navigation address with the other, and that is 100% fine lol.

[gwill]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This. The info. screen in the new Ram is bigger than my fucking laptop. But a phone is illegal if you so much as touch it.

I learned that if you look at your phone if it's on that's illegal. There was one guy at the court house who wanted to go to trial. He had his phone in a phone holder being used as a GPS and because it was on and facing him the prosecutor said that is distracted driving.

That guy ended up pleading guilty out of fear he would have his fine tripled.

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I learned that if you look at your phone if it's on that's illegal. There was one guy at the court house who wanted to go to trial. He had his phone in a phone holder being used as a GPS and because it was on and facing him the prosecutor said that is distracted driving.

That guy ended up pleading guilty out of fear he would have his fine tripled.

That is how you know the law has nothing to do with safety whatsoever.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you can still use a traditional standalone GPS without issue, which is equally ridiculous if true given that it takes 10X longer to put in an address haha.

[firebane]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That is how you know the law has nothing to do with safety whatsoever.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you can still use a traditional standalone GPS without issue, which is equally ridiculous if true given that it takes 10X longer to put in an address haha.

I saw a guy driving 10 under while looking at a mounted phone using navigation AND entering the coordinates.. I was like wtf.

[Rocket1k78]

Well done!

[RX_EVOLV]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I saw a guy driving 10 under while looking at a mounted phone using navigation AND entering the coordinates.. I was like wtf.

Is it considered DD if you have your phone mounted on the vents and using it to say use navigation or change music? or it has to be in your hand.

is it also considered DD if you are holding a coffee and drinking it with one hand while driving?

curious.. would hate to get pull over for drinking a coffee...

[Mitsu3000gt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is it considered DD if you have your phone mounted on the vents and using it to say use navigation or change music? or it has to be in your hand.

is it also considered DD if you are holding a coffee and drinking it with one hand while driving?

curious.. would hate to get pull over for drinking a coffee...

That is illegal apparently, just because it's a phone:

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I learned that if you look at your phone if it's on that's illegal. There was one guy at the court house who wanted to go to trial. He had his phone in a phone holder being used as a GPS and because it was on and facing him the prosecutor said that is distracted driving.

That guy ended up pleading guilty out of fear he would have his fine tripled.

Drinking your hot coffee is fine though, that isn't distracted driving even though it's way worse haha. See my earlier posts - you can smoke, drink, eat, play with your infotainment, pet your dog, etc. all of that is fine to my knowledge.

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It shouldn’t take much effort, because if there is enough evidence of deceit and perjury, they’ll pursue it relentlessly, especially after our own internal inquiry revealed the failings of our service to adequately address these sorts of matters. Deceit in this line of work is a flat out, no questions asked, you’re done, transgression. You have no credibility anymore and you aren’t useful, both in terms of trust and in the courts. It’s taken seriously.

Also, this shouldn’t cost the OP a dime. Complaining about actions of the state shouldn't cost the person making that complaint, unless it’s vexatious and frivolous. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it investigated by an external agency to ensure the integrity of the investigation, given the current state of affairs in policing and questions of accountability, ethics, etc.

It doesn’t change if people don’t ask for change. I am an advocate of people complaining about the people who do wrong in this profession, either to correct mistakes or all the way to ultimately dismissing them as they are unfit for duty. Properly demanding accountability makes us all better.

Thanks Phil - based on your knowledge - has anyone been punished for Perjury in TRAFFIC COURT?

There are plenty of public examples with regards to CRIMINAL cases. One RCMP member spent almost 2 years in jail for this (YVR taser debacle).

[JRSC00LUDE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That is how you know the law has nothing to do with safety whatsoever.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you can still use a traditional standalone GPS without issue, which is equally ridiculous if true given that it takes 10X longer to put in an address haha.

The only people who believe it's ever been about safety also eat with corks on their forks.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I learned that if you look at your phone if it's on that's illegal. There was one guy at the court house who wanted to go to trial. He had his phone in a phone holder being used as a GPS and because it was on and facing him the prosecutor said that is distracted driving.

That guy ended up pleading guilty out of fear he would have his fine tripled.

Pretty much, based on how the law is written:

Cellular telephones, electronic devices, etc.

115.1(1) Subject to this section and the regulations made under section 115.5, no individual shall drive or operate a vehicle on a highway while at the same time

(a) holding, viewing or manipulating a cellular telephone, radio communication device or other communication device that is capable of receiving or transmitting telephone communication, electronic data, electronic mail or text messages, or

(b) holding, viewing or manipulating a hand‑held electronic device or a wireless electronic device.

(2) An individual may drive or operate a vehicle on a highway while using a cellular telephone or radio communication device in hands‑free mode.

Emphasis in bold. Viewing a telephone screen while driving for any reason is technically illegal. The only exception is for calling 911 in an emergency. If you use your phone as a music source or for GPS, if you even glance at it you are breaking the law. Dedicated GPS units follow different rules.

The next section makes a distinction for looking at a telephone in "hands-free mode", good luck proving that one in court.

Display screen visible to driver prohibited

115.2(1) Subject to this section and the regulations made under section 115.5, no individual shall drive or operate a vehicle on a highway if the display screen of a television, computer or other device in the vehicle is activated and is visible to the individual.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the display screen of

(a) a global positioning system navigation device while it is being used to obtain navigation information in accordance with section 115.3,

(b) a cellular telephone or radio communication device being used in hands‑free mode,

(c) a logistical transportation tracking system device that is used to track vehicle location, driver status or the delivery of packages or other goods for commercial purposes,

(d) a dispatch system used for the transportation of passengers,

(e) a collision avoidance system device while it is being used to provide collision avoidance information, or

(f) an instrument, gauge, device or system that is used to provide information to the individual regarding the status of various systems or the location of the vehicle.

The law was written to give officers and prosecutors huge leeway to charge you for pretty much having a visible telephone screen in your car at any time.

[revelations]

I recall the initial debate around the DD law - it was supposed to be used in cases where it was OBVIOUSLY affecting someone (weaving, etc.) behind the wheel - but the LEOs in the province wanted to have another tool to throw around.

[holden]

Would you be allowed to wear a GoPro on your head to document the bullying?

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I recall the initial debate around the DD law - it was supposed to be used in cases where it was OBVIOUSLY affecting someone (weaving, etc.) behind the wheel - but the LEOs in the province wanted to have another tool to throw around.

Yup. That's the problem with these sweeping laws like this. They actually do have good intentions, and that's the argument these Liberal Helen Lovejoy's take when they vouch for this shit. The right wing says the same thing every time, "If you make a law to allow the government to infringe on your rights, it will get abused. Period" Sure enough, every single damn time the right wing is right about that.

It's really sad that revenue generation is the main driver for traffic enforcement. There actually IS a legitimate major problem with DD in regards to safety. It accounts for around 65% of accidents. But when law enforcement does not enforce these things within the spirit of the law, behaviors never change because the actual distracted drivers tend to get away with it 99.9% of the time.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

^ there was a member here (or some other local group) that mentioned they were handing out more DD tickets now than speeding tix. And it wasnt reaching either - these people were texting with their phones visible on the steering wheel or calling with it in their ear.

I call 100% bullshit on this. There might be one small jurisdiction where they have actually decided to enforce traffic safety in their traffic division. But as a whole it is not even remotely close on tickets. I drive by the same god damn 5 mass speed traps every single day here, and outside of that it is very rare to see someone so much as pulled over. Yet I am almost taken out twice a day by some dipshit looking down at his phone in his lap more than the road.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yup. That's the problem with these sweeping laws like this. They actually do have good intentions, and that's the argument these Liberal Helen Lovejoy's take when they vouch for this shit. The right wing says the same thing every time, "If you make a law to allow the government to infringe on your rights, it will get abused. Period" Sure enough, every single damn time the right wing is right about that.

More power to law enforcement (traditionally right wing organizations), Helen Lovejoy (religious moral zealot)...you have your left and rights all messed up.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

More power to law enforcement (traditionally right wing organizations), Helen Lovejoy (religious moral zealot)...you have your left and rights all messed up.

You might have reality all messed up.................still.

[msommers]

No he's got you there. That's the problem with sweeping statements like this.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You might have reality all messed up.................still.

So paint the reality for me:

The right wing introduced the law, the right wing continuously pushes the importance of law enforcement so is unlikely to take away a lucrative money stream away from them. How disappointed in the right wing will you be when they don't get rid of this law now that they're back in power?

Also, Helen Lovejoy is a caricature of the Christian right moral authority of the 90s. What gave you the impression she's in any way liberal? She's constantly at odds with the liberal archetypes in the show (Lisa and Marge, particularly).

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So paint the reality for me:

The right wing introduced the law, the right wing continuously pushes the importance of law enforcement so is unlikely to take away a lucrative money stream away from them. How disappointed in the right wing will you be when they don't get rid of this law now that they're back in power?

Also, Helen Lovejoy is a caricature of the Christian right moral authority of the 90s. What gave you the impression she's in any way liberal? She's constantly at odds with the liberal archetypes in the show (Lisa and Marge, particularly).

Good for you, you tried to form a conjecture based argument that didn't exist in the first place. Back to your regular scheduled program.

[kertejud2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Good for you, you tried to form a conjecture based argument that didn't exist in the first place. Back to your regular scheduled program.

Where's the conjecture? The right wing made the law. So when they say it will get abused and they're right about it, it just means they made a law knowing they would abuse it. Not sure what's so great about being right about that.