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

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by SebC

- "If you don't want your phone confiscated, don't break the law" doesn't work. You can have your phone confiscated whether you've broken the law or not, because the police are acting as the judges as well as the police.

Just as they do if they pull you over and impound your car for what they have determined as dangerous driving. You are free to fight the charges in court at a later date but your car is still impounded for 24 hours. What's your point here? That an officer issuing a ticked for seeing a person using their cell phone in their car is less cut and dry than them spotting someone stunting in their car?

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

You are misinformed. While police need a specific reason for the search even incident to arrest, there are other reasons to conduct a search.
So, if you commit an offence, and the law permits the seizure, it's completely reasonable and lawful. No different that having a motor vehicle seized for a traffic or criminal offense.

I'm not misinformed. I know this stuff pretty well. The search must be related to the arrest reason and limited to the scope of either officer safety, the preservation of evidence or the discovery of new evidence. Specifically, a person may only be searched for purposes of ensuring the safety of the police and public, protection of evidence from destruction at the hands of the arrestee or others, or discovery of evidence which can be used at the arrestee’s trial. The search must be for a valid objective in pursuit of the end of criminal justice; i.e. the discovery of an object that may be a threat to safety, facilitate escape, or act as evidence against the arrestee.

How the policy underlying this type of search relates to taking someone's cell phone for talking while driving, I do not understand.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Can you link to a study that shows the physical act of holding a phone to your ear is more dangerous than using hands free. I am sure there is a test somewhere where they had people drive around with a block of wood held up to their ear and they got into far more accidents than the control group who left their block in their pocket.

I'll do my best, there are sooo many various studies being done and its hard to pick one or two and call it gospel. The meta analysis will be the key here and so far its clear that talking on the phone is distracting with similar risks to drinking and driving, and hands free has its risks as well, albeit not as much.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

I am really tired of that cliche. By that logic, if i shoot my buddy, the police can't take my gun because they are acting as the "judges"... ridiculous argument.

Your argument supposes that police are corrupt.

I am not assuming the police are corrupt, I am assuming that they are fallable. As any society should.

I realize there are situations where the police need to be able to confiscate property on the spot, I just don't think this is one of them. There needs to be a good reason for it (and when you're confiscating a safety device, even more so). It is also not my whole argument, merely a contributory factor to why I dislike this law.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by SebC

- Your Vic Teows logic doesn't work either, I very rarely drive at all and I'm not on my phone when I do. I will admit, however, that when I do drive I sometimes hit the "next track" button on my iPod while driving, which is technically distracted driving (despite not requiring me to take my eyes of the road at all).

I speed sometimes and if I get caught speeding I get mad but at the end of the day I fully know the law and accept that I pay the fine. You taking your eye off the road to select a different song on your ipod is distracted driving. Again what's your point here? Is speeding okay sometimes? No but people do it just like you may touch your ipod while driving. You are still putting yourself at rist of penalty.

[peter12]

Unreal.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

I am really tired of that cliche. By that logic, if i shoot my buddy, the police can't take my gun because they are acting as the "judges"... ridiculous argument.

Your argument supposes that police are corrupt.

The police can't take your gun either unless I am wrong.

They can seize it as evidence of a crime or take it from your person as part of an arrest, but if they suspect you of shooting your buddy they can't just find you and take your gun. They would need an warrant for that unless I am mistaken.
In either case, if you have something legal seized you are supposed to have access to the courts so that a judge can make the determination if it was lawful. If a judge finds that it was unlawful then the police will have to change their policy to stop doing something.
In the cell phone case there is no trial and no judge so the merits are not reviewed.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Thor

I'll do my best, there are sooo many various studies being done and its hard to pick one or two and call it gospel. The meta analysis will be the key here and so far its clear that talking on the phone is distracting with similar risks to drinking and driving, and hands free has its risks as well, albeit not as much.

It is my understanding that the conversation with a passenger who isn't present is where the distraction comes from, not hand placement. I have also received a letter from Alberta Transportation confirming that while they acknowledge that both are equally dangerous, hands free is simply too hard to enforce so they didn't ban it.

For those who argue that talking to your wife in the passenger seat is no different, try driving in a snow storm. The conversation is always adjusted to the road conditions and outside stimuli while on the phone the other person can't see what is happening so they don't react, or worse, you have to take the time to explain to them why you are suddenly paying more attention to driving then them.

If you are interested, there is a website that has you pay attention to driving and listen to your wife at the same time. You have to hit space bar every time you are asked a question to prove that you are paying attention to the listener. At the same time you have to count the number of pedestrians wearing blue, yellow and red shirts. It is surprisingly difficult to do both at the same time.

[Fire]

When someone dies because they don't have access to a phone line then watch out for a multi-million dollar lawsuit.

[transplant99]

The most telling part of this story IMO is that its the police requesting this legislation.

When did they become a law making lobby group?

Anyone who agrees that this law is OK needs to give their freaking head a shake. This is invasion of privacy beyond any sensible guideline.

Scenario....cop suspects a car of having someone impaired driving it. Pulls said car over and realizes that in fact the driver is not impaired and driver and/or passenger start to give the gears to the cop about his judgement. Cop gets his panties in a knot and decides to take away cell phone from driver because he "saw" the guy using it. No proof of anything, yet the cop is both judge and jury.

Some may hate the lippery slope argument, but it is a very very valid one. Look no further than the .05 "law"...which will be challenged and overturned thank god, but until that happens peoples rights are infringed everyday. This is the exact same nonsense and i hope the people of BC (and should it make its way into AB) rise up and demand that such invasive laws and punishments best be left in the hands of a court, not in the hands of a police officer who just may be having a bad day.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I speed sometimes and if I get caught speeding I get mad but at the end of the day I fully know the law and accept that I pay the fine. You taking your eye off the road to select a different song on your ipod is distracted driving. Again what's your point here? Is speeding okay sometimes? No but people do it just like you may touch your ipod while driving. You are still putting yourself at rist of penalty.

And if they seized your car for speeding you would be okay with that?

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

So I shouldn't have a phone while sitting on a bus because you say boo-hoo? If I go or a jog my cell phone would stop working?

No I say boo-hoo because people are dieing at an alarming rate because of texting,fooling around with games/apps etc. Doing these things while driving is no better than drinking an driving and studies show it is even worst!

Rigging a car with a red light to alert drivers when to brake, the magazine tested how long it takes to hit the brake when sober, when legally drunk at .08, when reading and e-mail, and when sending a text. The results are scary. Driving 70 miles per hour on a deserted air strip Car and Driver editor Eddie Alterman was slower and slower reacting and braking when e-mailing and texting
The results

• Unimpaired: .54 seconds to brake
• Legally drunk: add 4 feet
• Reading e-mail: add 36 feet
• Sending a text: add 70 feet

http://www.cnbc.com/id/31545004/Text...ng_and_Driving

And if you bothered reading my post I said the phone itself would still work just texting and apps shut down after 10km h...you must be the fastest jogger in history if this bothers you.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Just as they do if they pull you over and impound your car for what they have determined as dangerous driving. You are free to fight the charges in court at a later date but your car is still impounded for 24 hours. What's your point here? That an officer issuing a ticked for seeing a person using their cell phone in their car is less cut and dry than them spotting someone stunting in their car?

The point is that both these laws are flawed for the same reason. If the person is unable to safely operate a vehicle then be all means confiscate it. If you are drunk, you cannot continue to drive. But if you were distracted, you can be given a fine, keep your phone, and revert to being a safe driver. These situations, therefore, should not be treated the same even if the level of impairment from distraction and from alcohol are the same.

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I speed sometimes and if I get caught speeding I get mad but at the end of the day I fully know the law and accept that I pay the fine. You taking your eye off the road to select a different song on your ipod is distracted driving. Again what's your point here? Is speeding okay sometimes? No but people do it just like you may touch your ipod while driving. You are still putting yourself at rist of penalty.

It was explicitly stated that that's not why I do. I don't look at the screen at all, I just push a button. To me, there's nothing wrong with that (it's no different to adjusting the volume on the radio).

My actual point was that I don't text and drive, I don't talk and drive, heck I barely even drive at all. Your statement that only someone who does those things could be against this law is false. The iPod doesn't fall under the proposed confiscation law (as stated, it would only apply to phones).

If we are excessively punishing a certain crime, arguing for a reduced penalty doesn't mean I intend to commit that crime. To say otherwise is slander. You have slandered me.

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The fact so many oppose this just goes to show how deep the problem is here as the only people that would have issues with this are the people that can't stop themselves from breaking this law.

That is a lie, and it is a lie about my character.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by T@T

No I say boo-hoo because people are dieing at an alarming rate because of texting,fooling around with games/apps etc. Doing these things while driving is no better than drinking an driving and studies show it is even worst!


http://www.cnbc.com/id/31545004/Text...ng_and_Driving

And if you bothered reading my post I said the phone itself would still work just texting and apps shut down after 10km h...you must be the fastest jogger in history if this bothers you.

I couldn't find out how far it took to stop sober, but four feet more seems pretty minor. It makes me think that drunk driving should be a minor fine and texting should be criminal.

As for your idea about blocking apps, there are a lot of apps out there for running to either monitor or coach and it certainly isn't the fastest jogger in history that runs above 10 kmph. 15 kmph works out to a 40 minute 10 k which is a pretty decent amateur time. For the pros, Bolt hit 28 mph at top speed, although I doubt he uses any apps while running.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I couldn't find out how far it took to stop sober, but four feet more seems pretty minor. It makes me think that drunk driving should be a minor fine and texting should be criminal.

From 70 mph, stopping distance would be about 315 feet on dry pavement. Of course, there's more to driving than just stopping when a red light tells you to.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

When was the last time you used your phone for an actual emergency? I can't remember the last time I've done it, if ever.

Not everyone who has a phone uses it to make an emergency call. But everyone who makes an emergency call uses a phone.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by T@T

No I say boo-hoo because people are dieing at an alarming rate because of texting,fooling around with games/apps etc. Doing these things while driving is no better than drinking an driving and studies show it is even worst!

People die because their cars go fast as well. Should we limit the speeds of cars to 110 km/hr, so that they can't go over the speed limit. I don't think I have seen people text very often while driving - I have seen people talking on a phone with one hand, but I really question how distracted that makes someone, if it is any different than having a conversation with someone sitting in the passenger seat, your eyes are still on the road and I doubt that anyone is amazed at the miracles of modern technology regarding the advent of the cell phone that they are distracted by the fact that they are talking to someone who isn't right there.

I agree on texting, it is stupid to text and drive because the eyes are off the road, with talking on the cell phone I don't see it the same way.

And if you bothered reading my post I said the phone itself would still work just texting and apps shut down after 10km h...you must be the fastest jogger in history if this bothers you.

I am not the fittest or fastest guy in the world and I can run 10 km in roughly 50 minutes, but thanks I think.

[St. Pats]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

So when you speed we should take your car as well.

I think it's stupid that we feel the need to jump from a fine all the way up to confiscating personal property.

These problems are all solved by just obeying the law. I know it's a tough one to understand but you don't need to speed or to text while driving or to break any other laws. Yep people do it and will do it in the future but that adds zero to the argument.

It's dangerous plain and simple. You could end up killing someone just because of making a call to some bimbo. Now a hue and cry just because your precious cellphone is being taken away. Or your car on your example.

Don't break the law and there are no consequences other than the safety of everybody on the road going up.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by St. Pats

These problems are all solved by just obeying the law.

Once again, that's not 100% true because you can get penalized merely for being alleged to have broken the law.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

No it won't. When you get an impared your car is impounded immediately for 24 hours even though you usually wait months to go through the legal process and found guilty. Without your car for that 24 hours you wouldn't be able to make it to the hospital or respond to a life/death situation in a quick manner. That law is not over nor will it ever be. Cell phones like cars are material objects and not essential devices. The courts are always going to point back at you for breaking the law in the first place. Again the simple solution is to not use your cell phone while driving. Anthing bad that comes out of it is on you and it's no different than driving under the influence of alcohol. You know the law and you know the punishment. You still break the law then you have nobody to blame but yourself.

The fact so many oppose this just goes to show how deep the problem is here as the only people that would have issues with this are the people that can't stop themselves from breaking this law.

Actually that isn't true, I oppose this idea and I don't text or use my cell phone while I drive.