Alberta passes distracted driving law

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by troutman

Isn't that what you are doing?

Troutman, can you ever debate anything or do you just throw one liners in with no explanation?

Tell me how your statement makes any sense?

[Reggie Dunlop]

Taxi drivers are notorious for talking on their cels and not watching where they're going.

If I'm a customer, I should be able to tell 'em to hang up and drive.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I would think that a cop would use reasonable discretion when enforcing a law like this. Someone sipping a slurpee is not really hazardous. There are some things that I believe people are capable of doing while driving. Something as repetitive as taking a sip from a cup does not require actual attention (unless the slurpee is starting to get low, and it's kind of icing up, so you start driving with your knees so that you can hold the cup and stir it with the straw). Texting requires actual attention, as well as direct vision. You have to be looking at the phone to see what you're writing. If you're looking at the phone, you're not looking at the road.

I don't know what your problem is, Jolinar. This isn't some arbitrary law. It's the same (IMO) as drunk driving, or reckless driving. It's dangerous. Just now on Crowchild some ######ed bitch veered into my lane and then jerked her car back into hers. My curiosity got the best of me (as usual), so I sped up to see if she was fiddling with a phone, and sure as sh1t, there it was. Even in slippery conditions, this ho bag finds posting her stupid facebook status more important than arriving alive. And let's not mistake this post as me giving a crap about her. I care about me. Veering into my lane and taking my little comfort zone that I had between myself and the car in front of me was enough to make me slow down. You've seen those models where one car slows down and it eventually causes a traffic jam. Or worse, she could have been directly beside me and actually brushed my car and caused an accident. Holy f'n moly, I can only imagine my fury at being stranded on the side of the road in minus 15 because some stupid ass bitch crashed into me because she was texting.

Look, I am against these ######s being on the road as much as the next guy, but this will do nothing, absolutely nothing. You are mad at some idiot that weaved in and out of a lane, well, how frustrated do you think I am when I have my lights and sirens going trying to get to a location to provide backup and little miss fata head is eating a frackin donut and texting at the same time and notices nothing in her little world for 3 minutes as I try to pass her and then when she does notice she freaks out and almost kills 20 people on the road cause she has no idea what to do?

This law will NOT stop these frackin morons, there is not even close to enough officers on the road to enforce this. There is no demerits which is the real deterent.

It simply wont work. It hasn't in other jurisdictions and it wont here. I applauded the government when they made the law to slow to 60 kph when passing emergency vehicles, but it hasn't stop these same ######s.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Look, I am against these ######s being on the road as much as the next guy, but this will do nothing, absolutely nothing. You are mad as some idiot that weaved in and out of a lane, well, how frustrated do you think I am when I have my lights and sirens going trying to get to a location to provide backup and little miss fata head is eating a frackin donut and texting at the same time and notices nothing in her little world for 3 minutes as I try to pass her and then when she does notice she freaks out and almost kills 20 people on the road cause she has no idea what to do?

This law will NOT stop these frackin morons, there is not even close to enough officers on the road to enforce this, there is no demerits which is the real deterent.

It simply wont work. It hasn't in other jurisdictions and it wont here. I applauded the government when they made the law to slow to 60 kph when passing emergency vehicles, but it hasn't stop these same ######s.

I dunno. The seatbelt law has no demerits. It is more or less followed. I remember when it was instituted, my mom's arguments were similar to yours. The government telling us how to live. Not gonna change anything. Well, 20 years later, 99 out of 100 cars I see are all wearing their seatbelts.
A few years of giving tickets to people does a lot. I don't even care if this is called a cash cow. Make the fine $1,000 for all I care. Like the cigarette butt fine.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Lets make sure we tell everyone exactly how to live their life.

That's practically the definition of social conservatism.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by calculoso

For every action, there is an equal an opposite reaction...

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/tex...ry?id=11744804

Worth noting that that's three states out of four.

Honestly, without seeing this I would've guessed collision rates would be reduced. Good info.

[Mad Mel]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Look, I am against these ######s being on the road as much as the next guy, but this will do nothing, absolutely nothing.

Incorrectamundo. I live in a place where this has been the law for years, and it is very noticeable in rush hour traffic how many fewer issues there are. Not just the close calls and various moronic traffic maneuvers, but also the simple efficiency of rush hour traffic actually moving much better instead of being held up by people taking their time because they'd rather talk or crackberry than drive.

I was bad for yakking on the phone and reading email while driving when I lived in Calgary, seeing the difference in person has made me a convert.

Originally Posted by 4X4

I seriously wish that there was a seperate department of CPS that would drive around in unmarked cars and nail these people. They could go after all of them, from the texters to the left laners to the weaving trucks.

Or, I would approve of cops that want to work overtime, driving around in their own cars and wearing street clothes, radioing in the plates of people they see driving like f-tards, and the nearest marked cruiser can pull them over, and the off duty cop could be the witness.

What they do here is set up a little processing station on a sidestreet where traffic gets backed up on a main drag, and then watch for phones and wave people into it. Unfortunately they also nab lane-splitters like me that way.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I dunno. The seatbelt law has no demerits. It is more or less followed. I remember when it was instituted, my mom's arguments were similar to yours. The government telling us how to live. Not gonna change anything. Well, 20 years later, 99 out of 100 cars I see are all wearing their seatbelts.
A few years of giving tickets to people does a lot. I don't even care if this is called a cash cow. Make the fine $1,000 for all I care. Like the cigarette butt fine.

I think there is a big difference with seatbelt laws and this distracted driver law.

This law is so broad and includes so many different actions it really can't be compared to the seat belt law. Also, I don't think you can give complete credit to the seatbelt law itself. Society has done a good job in changing peoples attitudes. Car manufacturers have also done a good job in annyoing people into putting a seat belt on.

On one hand it is ok to fiddle around with your heat, light switches, car radio but on the other hand you can't hit one button on your iphone to change the music? I don't even listen to music off my iphone in my car but this just pisses me off.

If they just said texting was illegal I would be all for it, but IMO they made this law way to broad.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Mad Mel

Incorrectamundo. I live in a place where this has been the law for years, and it is very noticeable in rush hour traffic how many fewer issues there are. Not just the close calls and various moronic traffic maneuvers, but also the simple efficiency of rush hour traffic actually moving much better instead of being held up by people taking their time because they'd rather talk or crackberry than drive.

I see you have a time machine and have already looked into the future and know what will happen, my apologies.

The fact is there have been several studies out now (like a previous poster already said) that shows these laws have not reduced distraction and in fact some places it has increased it.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Look, I am against these ######s being on the road as much as the next guy, but this will do nothing, absolutely nothing.

I also disagree. We have an entire generation of kids who are now 20-30 years old and grew up with cell phones. They used mom's cell when they were 12 and mom was driving them to hockey practice, and they continued to use the cell after they got their license. To them- talking on the cell is like listening to the radio; except they don't realize the danger they are behind the wheel.

Now the law has more visibility; and has specifics. So instead of "undue care and attention" it is black and white- no handheld electronics. As well, this will be a law taught during drivers ed.

I also disagree that the police already have too much to do. Don't get me wrong; there's a lot of good hard working men and women on the force. But if their job is public safety; this helps them do their job. And let's keep in mind that as many Albertans die in car crashes as they do in murders; so to me this is just as important.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by SebC

That's practically the definition of social conservatism.

That's why they are suppose to be progressive conservatives. They clearly are not. I think they need to drop the progressive and add social.

[Mad Mel]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I see you have a time machine and have already looked into the future and know what will happen, my apologies.

The fact is there have been several studies out now (like a previous poster already said) that shows these laws have not reduced distraction and in fact some places it has increased it.

I have a well-educated guess at what will happen because I've actually lived and driven in both environments. And I'm sure that if I did five minutes of internet research I could find studies that show the exact opposite.

The last part is just inane. How does removing distractions cause more distraction? People are still doing it, just hiding it, and causing more accidents. The penalty (or lack thereof) is the issue, not the law.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I also disagree. We have an entire generation of kids who are now 20-30 years old and grew up with cell phones. They used mom's cell when they were 12 and mom was driving them to hockey practice, and they continued to use the cell after they got their license. To them- talking on the cell is like listening to the radio; except they don't realize the danger they are behind the wheel.

Now the law has more visibility; and has specifics. So instead of "undue care and attention" it is black and white- no handheld electronics. As well, this will be a law taught during drivers ed.

I also disagree that the police already have too much to do. Don't get me wrong; there's a lot of good hard working men and women on the force. But if their job is public safety; this helps them do their job. And let's keep in mind that as many Albertans die in car crashes as they do in murders; so to me this is just as important.

Again, please see my previous post about texting. If this law was more specific in nature and targets texting in general along with a longer term public campaign that would be something else in my eyes. And don't fool your self about who is driving like a moron. It runs in all ages groups and both genders.

I have many friends and colleges that work specifically traffic and most of them would say that people still fly by them at 110 kph when passing them on the road when they have someone pulled over. Yes, it is less than it was but many of them believe it is because there has been a big public awareness campaign not tickets. Very few of them have actually given a ticket for this offence because generally you need 2 or more police vehicles working together to catch these people.

I can most certainly tell you that there are not enough police on the road to enforce the current highway traffic laws. More so in rural areas.


At the end of the day, only time will tell if this actually makes a difference. I for one agree with the premise but disagree with the law.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Mad Mel

I have a well-educated guess at what will happen because I've actually lived and driven in both environments. And I'm sure that if I did five minutes of internet research I could find studies that show the exact opposite.

The last part is just inane. How does removing distractions cause more distraction? People are still doing it, just hiding it, and causing more accidents. The penalty (or lack thereof) is the issue, not the law.

So why didn't you? And I guess you spend so much time on the road that you can see all the factual data, collision increase/decreases, death reductions and all that jazz. My bad.

The penalty may be some what of the issue but you are always going to have people break the law no matter what the penalty is.

And most people have lived in both environments. I understand that technology has made bad drivers even worse, and like I have said before in this thread I agree with the spirit of this. I just don't agree with the law. I REALLY want these idiots off the road, I do....we all have to deal with them every day. I am not supporting any kind of driving while texting, driving while dog on lap, driving while watching dvd, but I just don't like the broadness of this law.

Like I said before, we had laws that could have dealt with this in the past. Yes, it was harder to ticket someone for it because there usually had to be several violations happening over a span of time but we have all followed these people before and the always end up breaking more than one traffic offence.

[Mad Mel]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

So why didn't you? And I guess you spend so much time on the road that you can see all the factual data, collision increase/decreases, death reductions and all that jazz. My bad.

The penalty may be some what of the issue but you are always going to have people break the law no matter what the penalty is.

LMAO, seriously? So why have any traffic laws at all?

Here's some facts for you:

• First large-scale instrumented-vehicle study undertaken with the primary purpose of collecting pre-crash and near-crash naturalistic driving data.
• Nearly 80 percent of all crashes and 65 percent of all near-crashes involved driver inattention (due to distraction, fatigue, or just looking away) just prior to (i.e., within 3 seconds) the onset of the conflict.
• Visual inattention was a contributing factor for 93 percent of rear-end striking crashes.
• (Hand-Held Wireless Devices) Associated with the highest frequency of distraction-related events for both incidents and near-crashes.

http://www.vtti.vt.edu/PDF/100-Car_Fact-Sheet.pdf



But nah, there's no reason to try to do anything about distracted driving.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Mad Mel

LMAO, seriously? So why have any traffic laws at all?

Right, because that is what I was getting at. Drinking and driving offences carry fairly big consequences and it is still a huge issue.

Here's some facts for you:

• First large-scale instrumented-vehicle study undertaken with the primary purpose of collecting pre-crash and near-crash naturalistic driving data.
• Nearly 80 percent of all crashes and 65 percent of all near-crashes involved driver inattention (due to distraction, fatigue, or just looking away) just prior to (i.e., within 3 seconds) the onset of the conflict.
• Visual inattention was a contributing factor for 93 percent of rear-end striking crashes.
• (Hand-Held Wireless Devices) Associated with the highest frequency of distraction-related events for both incidents and near-crashes.

http://www.vtti.vt.edu/PDF/100-Car_Fact-Sheet.pdf



But nah, there's no reason to try to do anything about distracted driving.

Haha, nice try my friend but not once did I say that accidents were not caused by inattention.

Can you try again and get me a study showing that these types of laws have made a good reduction in accidents/deaths.

[Mad Mel]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Can you try again and get me a study showing that these types of laws have made a good reduction in accidents/deaths.

No, because anyone with a brain can deduce that reducing driving distraction will reduce accidents.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Mad Mel

No, because anyone with a brain can deduce that reducing driving distraction will reduce accidents.

Will a law like this actually reduce distracted driving?

I don't like this law to be honest.

[Mad Mel]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Will a law like this actually reduce distracted driving?

I don't like this law to be honest.

If the enforcement and penalties are there, yes. Of course a cultural mindset shift has to take place, and that takes time. This is what happened with drinking and driving, when I was a young driver, it was illegal, but still socially acceptable. Everyone did it. Now, only jackasses do it.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Mad Mel

No, because anyone with a brain can deduce that reducing driving distraction will reduce accidents.

Mel, can you debate without getting like this? The studies that have been posted already show that trying to remove distractions in this manner does not remove them. It forces people to be even more stupid. It really is no different than any other stupid behaviour. Drugs, tobacco, taxes, ect. It just forces people into a underground type of behaviour.

I agree that something needs to be done but I don't agree that this is the law that will do it.