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

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The only difference between drunk driving and distracted driving seems to be the public's view that one is somewhat okay and the other is a horrible act when they are both in fact horrible acts that can affect the lives of innocent people.

That's just not true. If you're drunk on the roadway, your ability to operate your vehicle will be impaired until you leave the roadway or for an extended period of time until you sober up. If you send a 10 second text while sitting at a traffic light that you know stays red for 1 minute, but put your phone down before stepping on the gas, you're not a danger to anyone.

Studies like the one that photon posted demonstrate that texting while your vehicle is in motion is just as dangerous as driving drunk, and I'd love to see the punishment for that be just as severe. The study does not, however, say that all use of a cell phone while behind the wheel is dangerous. Changing the internet radio station on your phone is no more distracting than changing the FM radio by turning the knob. Entering an address into the GPS app on your phone is no more risky than entering an address into the Garmin that's stuck to your windshield (though that shouldn't be done while the vehicle is moving in either case).

If you want to do away with due process, at the very least, you need to only do it when the law is narrowly tailored to deal with the problem. That's not the case with cell phone driving laws, which are almost always overly broad. This might stand a slightly better chance of holding up in court if cell phone driving laws required (for example) that a police officer witness a driver holding a cell phone for at least 3 consecutive seconds while the vehicle is in motion, but that's still a slippery slope in eroding the right to due process.

Originally Posted by AR_Six

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.

All that is correct. But your original post only said officer safety. I was merely pointing out that there are other reasons where a search incident to arrest is lawful.

Originally Posted by jammies

That's the problem, we're setting the bar pretty low for "circumstances" if taking away someone's phone for a day like a mom with a disobedient teenager is the rule. Again, if texting while driving is such a pressing issue, get cops out on the streets looking for people and make the penalties severe. Heck, make it so you lose your phone for a year after your 3rd offence, and as long as that's something a judge determines after you've had your day in court, I'll have no problem with it.

It's the idea that we're going to circumvent due process for minor traffic violations that is wrong, not the idea that we will punish texters. The number of people who don't get this, while proclaiming those of us who don't want this to go forward are the ones who "don't get it" would amaze me if it wasn't all too common with issues of this type. It's an old adage that two wrongs don't make a right, so you better be sure the wrong you are advocating isn't worse than the wrong you're decrying.

Then you'll complain that there's "real" crime going on and why are the cops wasting their time with traffic issues.

[GP_Matt]

Instead of confiscating cell phones, I would like to see a mandatory course for people convicted of distracted driving (and other infractions).
Maybe after three convictions they need to retake their drivers test.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

Then you'll complain that there's "real" crime going on and why are the cops wasting their time with traffic issues.

Yes, because I'm always so unreasonable and emotional about issues. Or, possibly, I understand that the police have more than one job to do.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Instead of confiscating cell phones, I would like to see a mandatory course for people convicted of distracted driving (and other infractions).
Maybe after three convictions they need to retake their drivers test.

If, IF, distracted driving is as dangerous as drunk driving, that is too many chances.

[Jude]

On a semi-related note. Why do people use the speaker setting on their phone and hold it about 7 inches from their face while driving???

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Jude

On a semi-related note. Why do people use the speaker setting on their phone and hold it about 7 inches from their face while driving???

people believe it is "hands free"

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

If, IF, distracted driving is as dangerous as drunk driving, that is too many chances.

I can agree with all of that as long as the punishment is handed down after the person is found guilty and not before.

On a side note, I found an article that lists distracted driving as the leading cause of accidents and rubber-necking as the second worst cause of distractions. Maybe the law could target rubber-neckers, those guys are terribly annoying.
http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/0...le-crashes.htm

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by gargamel

If you send a 10 second text while sitting at a traffic light that you know stays red for 1 minute, but put your phone down before stepping on the gas, you're not a danger to anyone.

Pretty much completely wrong. You are texting while still in control of a car. The goal is clearly to keep people alert while operating motor vehicles. While you text the roadway/hazards/environment is changing in front of you, yet you missed it. The light turns green and you are still looking down until that brief moment of panic as you try to catch up. This moment is obvious to everyone that is behind you.

You want to drive? Put the phone away and stay alert.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Instead of confiscating cell phones, I would like to see a mandatory course for people convicted of distracted driving (and other infractions).
Maybe after three convictions they need to retake their drivers test.

I would like to see this type of punishment for assorted tickets, including failure to signal and other annoying bad Calgary driving habits.

Perhaps the second such ticket requires the driver to complete this course:

http://www.ama.ab.ca/driver-educatio...driving-course

[Minnie]

And meanwhile, everyone else around you is eating a burger, brushing their hair, applying lipstick, fiddling with the radio/CD player, yelling at their kids, picking their nose, staring off into space, picking their underwear out of their ass because it rode up, making 'how you doin'' motions at the cute girl in the car next to them, leaning over to pick up the change off the floor that they just dropped, fiddling with the heating/cooling controls, telling the dog to get back in the rear seat, singing along to the radio at the top of their lungs, snogging with the boyfriend/girlfriend.......

Hardly anyone is 'alert' at a stop light anymore.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Minnie

Hardly anyone is 'alert' at a stop light anymore.

My question to you- how often do you see somebody distracted by those things you mention compared to cell phone use? I see people distracted on their phones several times per day; however the other distractions are more of a "once per week" thing.

And besides, just because you can't catch everybody doesn't mean you should not try to catch anybody.

[Minnie]

See it all the time. We aren't any more alert than the rest of them because we're people watching at the stoplight. Interesting crap goes on in the vehicles around you. We watched a domestic happening once (phoned the cops).

[AR_Six]

Some people are so unbelievably dense it's a shame they influence society through their votes (I can only hope these are the same people who don't show up to the polling station). How is it hard to understand that constitutional rights need to be respected in general even if you're against the crime in question or the perpetrator? There are larger issues at stake. Drives me absolutely nuts when people justify charter violations as "well you just shouldn't commit crimes and you won't have anything to worry about". Screw you.

If a law is enacted in contravention of the constitution it isn't a law.

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Some people are so unbelievably dense it's a shame they influence society through their votes (I can only hope these are the same people who don't show up to the polling station). How is it hard to understand that constitutional rights need to be respected in general even if you're against the crime in question or the perpetrator? There are larger issues at stake. Drives me absolutely nuts when people justify charter violations as "well you just shouldn't commit crimes and you won't have anything to worry about". Screw you.

If a law is enacted in contravention of the constitution it isn't a law.

I am guessing you are a defence lawyer.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Some people are so unbelievably dense it's a shame they influence society through their votes (I can only hope these are the same people who don't show up to the polling station). How is it hard to understand that constitutional rights need to be respected in general even if you're against the crime in question or the perpetrator? There are larger issues at stake. Drives me absolutely nuts when people justify charter violations as "well you just shouldn't commit crimes and you won't have anything to worry about". Screw you.

If a law is enacted in contravention of the constitution it isn't a law.

The only way it's found in contravention of the charter is if its CHALLENGED and deemed unconstitutional by the judiciary. What drives me absolutely nuts is people like you who automatically assume something that goes against their personal beliefs is illegal or unconstitutional. The law is being proposed as a deterrent to people committing a crime (yes it is a crime) that endangers people's lives! Screw you indeed.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

quoted because it's correct.

Are you aware that there are at least 2 commonly known 'codes' that will unlock iphones without knowing the password?

Does that change your opinion?

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Are you aware that there are at least 2 commonly known 'codes' that will unlock iphones without knowing the password?

Does that change your opinion?

Really? What are they, I want to try.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Pretty much completely wrong. You are texting while still in control of a car. The goal is clearly to keep people alert while operating motor vehicles. While you text the roadway/hazards/environment is changing in front of you, yet you missed it. The light turns green and you are still looking down until that brief moment of panic as you try to catch up. This moment is obvious to everyone that is behind you.

You want to drive? Put the phone away and stay alert.

oh please, what hazards/environment change is going on while you are sitting at a red light? pushing way too hard on that one. anyone with half a brain can operate their phone and see if a light changes, or the car in front is going. only thing that makes it a distraction now is that you cant hold the phone up in front of your face so you can also watch the light, now people are staring down trying to hide the fact, it was much better driving on the roads before this distracted driving law came into effect.

I disagree with the whole distracted driving law, due to the simple fact that police had the power to ticket bad drivers before for dangerous driving. 2 years ago you see some idiot swerving on the road he could get a ticket same as today, only difference with this law in place is that someone driving straight down the road with clear sight can get a ticket because they push a button on their nav. or happen to send a text while sitting at a red light. just a cash grab, makes it easy to ticket whoever doesn't matter if you are driving normal or swerving around like a drunk.