BC aims to seize cellphones from drivers, Alberta top cop watching with interest

[GGG]

Its a bad law but cell phone use while driving is equivalent to driving at .08 impairment. So there is a real risk here. Not as bad as drunk driving as the duration is shorter and .08 is on the sober side of impaired driving.

Driving is the most dangerous thing we do without any kind of impairment so i am in favour of severe fines and demerits. But this law is very parental like losing your toys for not putting them away. Its very arbitrary and designed to punish through intimidation and fear.

Make the fine high and enforce the hell out of it.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by GGG

Its a bad law but cell phone use while driving is equivalent to driving at .08 impairment. So there is a real risk here. Not as bad as drunk driving as the duration is shorter and .08 is on the sober side of impaired driving.

Driving is the most dangerous thing we do without any kind of impairment so i am in favour of severe fines and demerits. But this law is very parental like losing your toys for not putting them away. Its very arbitrary and designed to punish through intimidation and fear.

Make the fine high and enforce the hell out of it.

BC changed theirs to .05 I think. Besides the point though. If the phone use is as bad as impaired driving, then BC should continue to do what they do when they catch an impaired driver. Impound the vehicle.

[Pierre "Monster" McGuire]

I like this law.

The arguments about cops potentially browsing through your phone is pretty weak. If you don't want the cops looking at your dick pictures or sexts with your girlfriend, don't use your cell phone while driving!

If you're worried about not having your cell phone in case of an emergency, don't use your cell phone while driving!

It's such a simple, black and white issue. To add to the 24 hours without your phone, I'd like the offender to have to pay a $100-$200 fine to get it back. That'd be the best.

[calgarywinning]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

No, they don't need a warrant in any situation. They are allowed to seize your phone or any other property on your person incident to arrest. In fact there is recent case law out of Ontario I believe that allows police to do a cursory search of your phone if you are under arrest if there is no password.

Yes, I read this too. No password means your cell phone is searchable. Password means that it is not. But if you use 1111 as a password where does that fall? Clearly smartphones are re-defining society in so many ways.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Pierre "Monster" McGuire

I like this law.

The arguments about cops potentially browsing through your phone is pretty weak. If you don't want the cops looking at your dick pictures or sexts with your girlfriend, don't use your cell phone while driving!

If you're worried about not having your cell phone in case of an emergency, don't use your cell phone while driving!

It's such a simple, black and white issue. To add to the 24 hours without your phone, I'd like the offender to have to pay a $100-$200 fine to get it back. That'd be the best.

It makes no sense. I hate the line of thinking "You don't like it! don't do it!'

If you're caught being distracted by brushing your hair, do they take your combs and make sure you can't brush your hair for 24 hours?

It makes no sense. The police just actually have to.. you know.. enforce the current law? Calgary is brutal for it. The first week, the cops were gangbusters. now? Nothing.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by SebC

Crap will really hit the fan once they confiscate someone's cellphone, and that person is in a situation where they'd need to dial 911 within the 24 hour period. Bad law is bad.

Yeah, when you add that into the mix, this really looks like a stupid idea. And please, anyone who thinks the cops wouldn't go through the contents of a phone, especially if it was some real hot chick... is frikkin naive. Anyone that knows a police officer personally, knows what kind of slimey stuff they do.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

It makes no sense. I hate the line of thinking "You don't like it! don't do it!'

If you're caught being distracted by brushing your hair, do they take your combs and make sure you can't brush your hair for 24 hours?

It makes no sense. The police just actually have to.. you know.. enforce the current law? Calgary is brutal for it. The first week, the cops were gangbusters. now? Nothing.

What doesn't make sense?

People are killed and injured in automobile accidents every day. Studies have shown that people talking on their phones or texting significantly increases the chances of an accident. Therefore, our government chose to prohibit driving while talking or texting. So far it makes complete sense, no?

So, if people chose not to follow a very logical, appropriate law, why is it wrong to remove from their possession the item they were using in violation of the law, and which is increasing the chances of someone being killed or injured?

If studies find that hair brushing significantly increases the chances of automobile accidents, and the gov't passes a law saying you can't brush your hair while driving, yet people continue to do it, then, yes ,an appropriate response if their caught is to take away their brush.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Pierre "Monster" McGuire

I like this law.

The arguments about cops potentially browsing through your phone is pretty weak. If you don't want the cops looking at your dick pictures or sexts with your girlfriend, don't use your cell phone while driving!

If you're worried about not having your cell phone in case of an emergency, don't use your cell phone while driving!

It's such a simple, black and white issue. To add to the 24 hours without your phone, I'd like the offender to have to pay a $100-$200 fine to get it back. That'd be the best.

Yes, but where does that leave the consent of your girlfriend? I am sure she wouldn't want some stranger jacking it to her pictures.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by SebC

Crap will really hit the fan once they confiscate someone's cellphone, and that person is in a situation where they'd need to dial 911 within the 24 hour period. Bad law is bad.

911 existed before cell phones.

The same scary scenarios could be concocted where the RCMP have impounded a car for 24 hrs, which they can already do (e.g. your car's impounded but you need to drive to the hospital) and there has been no uproar.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Mike F

911 existed before cell phones.

The same scary scenarios could be concocted where the RCMP have impounded a car for 24 hrs, which they can already do (e.g. your car's impounded but you need to drive to the hospital) and there has been no uproar.

The difference being that a growing number of people no longer have land lines, and would therefore rely on a cellphone in the event of an emergency at home.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Mike F

911 existed before cell phones.

Yeah, but since cell phones have become so popular, home phones and payphones are much less prevalent now.

Originally Posted by Mike F

So, if people chose not to follow a very logical, appropriate law, why is it wrong to remove from their possession the item they were using in violation of the law, and which is increasing the chances of someone being killed or injured?

Because that possession is also a safety device.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by SebC

Crap will really hit the fan once they confiscate someone's cellphone, and that person is in a situation where they'd need to dial 911 within the 24 hour period. Bad law is bad.

OMG! Those poor soles that will have to use a land line to dial 911

[Dion]

Originally Posted by flameswin

The difference being that a growing number of people no longer have land lines, and would therefore rely on a cellphone in the event of an emergency at home.

Go next door to one of your neighbours and have them call 911. Maybe the guy or gal walking down the street has a cellphone that could call for you. IMO your excuse is invalid

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Dion

OMG! Those poor soles that will have to use a land line to dial 911

No, that's not the point. A growing number people no longer have landlines, so their cell phone is their only way to contact 911 in the event of an emergency.

[Northendzone]

I have enjoyed reading some of the arguments as to why the police should not be allowed to take your phone. The one about what if your phone was confiscated and you needed to make an emergency call was the best one by far.

My thought is they should make the fine $1,000 first, but I am fine with the taking away of the phone.


If you don't want a ticket, or your phone taken away, you have the power to make sure that does not happen.


For anyone who cries police state, you can't really tell me that you are comfortable driving down deerfoot beside the driver who is texting. Better yet, how about some kids who are playing on thier quiet residential street and the get hit by a distracted driver who is updating thier twitter feed?

How many hours a day do you need to be connected for?

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by SebC

Yeah, but since cell phones have become so popular, home phones and payphones are much less prevalent now.

Because that possession is also a safety device.

Which all comes right back to: If your cell phone is an irreplaceable part of your life, don't us it in violation of the law and risk getting it confiscated.

This whole notion that we should avoid a penalty directly linked to a violation and the harm it's meant to prevent (and judging by the backlash here, would be seen as a significant penalty) because it would be really inconvenient for the violator is hilarious to me.

Edit: And or the record, I don't have a land line, only a cell phone. Having left it at work a couple of times, I'm well aware of how limited you feel without it.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by Dion

OMG! Those poor soles that will have to use a land line to dial 911

Yeah those damn shoes. The nerve of them. I think their motives are fishy.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Which all comes right back to: If your cell phone is an irreplaceable part of your life, don't us it in violation of the law and risk getting it confiscated.

This whole notion that we should avoid a penalty directly linked to a violation and the harm it's meant to prevent (and judging by the backlash here, would be seen as a significant penalty) because it would be really inconvenient for the violator is hilarious to me.

People refuse to take responsibility for thier actions. At the same time are always looking for someone else to blame for the hardships as a direct result of thier actions.

[gargamel]

Maybe this should go in the unpopular opinions thread, but I don't like blanket bans on cell phone use while driving. It's ok to have one or two drinks and then drive, but there's zero tolerance for using a cell phone? I only listen to Pandora and Internet radio while driving, so I need to glance at my phone for a second if I want to change the station. That's no more dangerous than glancing at the radio to change the station, but I could be fined (and possible have my phone seized) for doing it if a cop catches me in the act. That's just not logical. Making a quick call or sending a quick text to say you're running late if you're in standstill traffic isn't at all dangerous either, but again, you're risking a fine or worse if you do it.

Of course staring at your phone while your vehicle is in motion is reckless, but I'd much rather that people be charged for reckless driving for that rather than making a blanket ban against something that isn't inherently dangerous.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by gargamel

Maybe this should go in the unpopular opinions thread, but I don't like blanket bans on cell phone use while driving. It's ok to have one or two drinks and then drive, but there's zero tolerance for using a cell phone? I only listen to Pandora and Internet radio while driving, so I need to glance at my phone for a second if I want to change the station. That's no more dangerous than glancing at the radio to change the station, but I could be fined (and possible have my phone seized) for doing it if a cop catches me in the act. That's just not logical. Making a quick call or sending a quick text to say you're running late if you're in standstill traffic isn't at all dangerous either, but again, you're risking a fine or worse if you do it.

Of course staring at your phone while your vehicle is in motion is reckless, but I'd much rather that people be charged for reckless driving for that rather than making a blanket ban against something that isn't inherently dangerous.

Pull over to the side of the road or a parking lot to use your phone. No one is going to take away your phone for that.