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

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

Does anyone here support texting and driving? Does anyone here do it? If you answered no to both of these questions, I don't know why you're against this proposed action. It hopefully will make the road safer by reducing the number of people who are texting and driving, as they would have the fear of having their phone taken away. They are 100% in control of whether they text and drive or not. There is zero excuse for it.

If you bothered to read the thread you would see why people who don't support texting while driving or do it themselves disagree with the proposed action. But then I suppose we are all wrong anyway so why bother listening to someone elses opinions.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

This boils down to the classic argument of personal liberty vs. public safety. In this case, experiencing near fatal collisions with distracted drivers, I could care less about the rights of a driver that could have 100% avoided the situation.

But then where does the invasion of personal liberty stop?

Speeding is 100% avoidable and causes near fatal accidents and is much more common than distracted driving, why do we not have harsher penalties for it?

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

The many cops I know are motivated by the desire to catch criminals and to uphold our laws and they don't have the time or the desire to be looking at your photos and phone history.

My photos and phone history? You're probably right. The photos of an attractive college girl? Unless you know different cops than I know, they'd definitely be checking for revealing pics.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Oh, and for those who think the cops would go through your phones, I know many officers and have done quite a few ride-alongs and I seriously doubt they care what you have on your phone. The exception may be suspected drug dealers, but would they not be prohibited from looking at those phones without a search warrant? They can't stop a car for now reason, isn't that right?

The many cops I know are motivated by the desire to catch criminals and to uphold our laws and they don't have the time or the desire to be looking at your photos and phone history.

Originally Posted by pylon

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.

I have no problem with people going through my phone.

I also don't have a problem with this approach. If you really need to text/talk on the phone, then take the risk.

I will say, and someone else mentioned it, enforcement of the talking and driving "hands free" law seems to have relaxed.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Frankster

Police aren't supposed to sit at lights and run the plates of everyone they can see, but they do...

Not saying it never happens because there are no absolutes, but I've spent many, many hours in a cruiser on ride alongs and I don't see that happening, except maybe with rogue or incompetent cops. The cops I've been with are totally motivated by the number of drunks they get off the road, the number of speeders they get to slow down, the criminals they arrest - generally how much safer they makes our streets, highways and communities. Sorry, maybe it a because I associate with a high calibre of cops, but they're well intentioned and very good at what they do.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

Does anyone here support texting and driving? Does anyone here do it?

It depends what you mean by "driving," but I have no problem with someone sending a quick text while they're sitting several cars back at a red light.

The combination of the overly broad laws with the lack of due process that is provided when the cops decide to seize someone's phone is very problematic to me.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by gargamel

The combination of the overly broad laws with the lack of due process that is provided when the cops decide to seize someone's phone is very problematic to me.

But it won't be if you don't text.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by gargamel

My photos and phone history? You're probably right. The photos of an attractive college girl? Unless you know different cops than I know, they'd definitely be checking for revealing pics.

Honestly, anyone who continues making the personal privacy argument immediately goes on my Idiots List.

You have two extremely easy options for protecting your privacy that are 100% in your control: (1) Don't drive and text/call; and/or (2) put a password lock on your smartphone.

This argument that "I'm really worried about my privacy, but am probably going to chose to not take some easy steps to protect myself, so the laws should conform themselves for me" is the height of (as Dion pointed out earlier) a complete lack of personal accountability.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Honestly, anyone who continues making the personal privacy argument immediately goes on my Idiots List.

You have two extremely easy options for protecting your privacy that are 100% in your control: (1) Don't drive and text/call; and/or (2) put a password lock on your smartphone.

This argument that "I'm really worried about my privacy, but am probably going to chose to not take some easy steps to protect myself, so the laws should conform themselves for me" is the height of (as Dion pointed out earlier) a complete lack of personal accountability.

quoted because it's correct.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

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.

Gun probably wasn't the best analogy as there is a fair amount of power given and available to seize under public safety concerns and without warrant. But change gun to knife and you're analogy is valid...just an FYI.

Obviously numerous variables/factors into it, but a gun can be seized without warrant or without an offense being committed.

[Fire]

If the law allowed cops to take your vehicle if you are speeding would be ok with it? Just because it's the law doesn't make it right. People are allowed to stand up for their rights.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Honestly, anyone who continues making the personal privacy argument immediately goes on my Idiots List.

You have two extremely easy options for protecting your privacy that are 100% in your control: (1) Don't drive and text/call; and/or (2) put a password lock on your smartphone.

This argument that "I'm really worried about my privacy, but am probably going to chose to not take some easy steps to protect myself, so the laws should conform themselves for me" is the height of (as Dion pointed out earlier) a complete lack of personal accountability.

Coincidentally, I've got a list for people who only care about things that directly affect themselves.

My phone is locked, so I'm not worried about my privacy. That doesn't mean that I have no concern for the rights others.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by gargamel

Coincidentally, I've got a list for people who only care about things that directly affect themselves.

My phone is locked, so I'm not worried about my privacy. That doesn't mean that I have no concern for the rights others.

So hold a clinic on the utilization of the password feature on the most common cell phones.

[GrrlGoalie33]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Not saying it never happens because there are no absolutes, but I've spent many, many hours in a cruiser on ride alongs and I don't see that happening, except maybe with rogue or incompetent cops. The cops I've been with are totally motivated by the number of drunks they get off the road, the number of speeders they get to slow down, the criminals they arrest - generally how much safer they makes our streets, highways and communities. Sorry, maybe it a because I associate with a high calibre of cops, but they're well intentioned and very good at what they do.

I have some respect for our police officers, and I wish they were all as upstanding as your friends. When you have witnessed many idiotic events like I have, it's hard to have full faith in them doing the right thing.

PM if you'd like and I'll share my stories. I don't want this to devolve into a full-on cop bashing thread.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

Does anyone here support texting and driving? Does anyone here do it? If you answered no to both of these questions, I don't know why you're against this proposed action. It hopefully will make the road safer by reducing the number of people who are texting and driving, as they would have the fear of having their phone taken away. They are 100% in control of whether they text and drive or not. There is zero excuse for it.

Why can't a person be against the methods of punishment but still be against the crime.

I don't support the death penalty for murderers but that doesn't mean I support murder.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

This boils down to the classic argument of personal liberty vs. public safety. In this case, experiencing near fatal collisions with distracted drivers, I could care less about the rights of a driver that could have 100% avoided the situation.

It is not 100% avoidable because your right to due process is circumvented.

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Not saying it never happens because there are no absolutes, but I've spent many, many hours in a cruiser on ride alongs and I don't see that happening, except maybe with rogue or incompetent cops.

It's worth considering then with you in the car is probably when they'd be at their absolute best.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

If you bothered to read the thread you would see why people who don't support texting while driving or do it themselves disagree with the proposed action. But then I suppose we are all wrong anyway so why bother listening to someone elses opinions.

I've been reading and following the thread since it was posted. I've commented a few times in the thread, but thanks for your concern. I've read the posts that support and oppose my position. I haven't said anyone was wrong, but gave my side of the debate. I disagree that the possibility that the police could search through a person's phone is worth letting them text and drive. I think driving is hard enough, and that laws to help prevent accidents, injuries and fatalities should be explored. I don't see it as taking away someone's personal liberties.

I just don't see why you'd get riled up over something that everyone agrees as dangerous. Maybe it's over the top, but the current way isn't curbing the appetite for texting and driving. If the police wanted to seize your phone for speeding, I'd agree that seems dumb. Your phone had no part in breaking the law. If you take away someone's phone, they can't text and drive. If you want to keep your phone, don't text and drive. It's easier for all parties to take the phone, rather than the car. People don't need their phones. People existed, and thrived, without phones. Yes, I like my phone; it makes my life easier and I want to keep it. I won't text while driving in order for this to happen.

If a person was found driving with an open case of beer in the car, the police would take away the beer. Does this infringe on the personal liberties? I don't find either of these situation much different from each other.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by gargamel

My phone is locked, so I'm not worried about my privacy. That doesn't mean that I have no concern for the rights others.

See you don't get it. Driving isn't a god given right. It's a priviledge. You want freedom then walk but if you decide to drive it's your responsibility to obey the laws regarding driving a motor vehicle.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

I've been reading and following the thread since it was posted. I've commented a few times in the thread, but thanks for your concern. I've read the posts that support and oppose my position. I haven't said anyone was wrong, but gave my side of the debate. I disagree that the possibility that the police could search through a person's phone is worth letting them text and drive. I think driving is hard enough, and that laws to help prevent accidents, injuries and fatalities should be explored. I don't see it as taking away someone's personal liberties.

I just don't see why you'd get riled up over something that everyone agrees as dangerous. Maybe it's over the top, but the current way isn't curbing the appetite for texting and driving. If the police wanted to seize your phone for speeding, I'd agree that seems dumb. Your phone had no part in breaking the law. If you take away someone's phone, they can't text and drive. If you want to keep your phone, don't text and drive. It's easier for all parties to take the phone, rather than the car. People don't need their phones. People existed, and thrived, without phones. Yes, I like my phone; it makes my life easier and I want to keep it. I won't text while driving in order for this to happen.

If a person was found driving with an open case of beer in the car, the police would take away the beer. Does this infringe on the personal liberties? I don't find either of these situation much different from each other.

Exactly. If you get pulled over with a bottle of unopened whiskey on your passenger seat the police will confiscate it. I would say that people should just be happy they get their phone back after 24 hours because you don't get your booze back.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

If a person was found driving with an open case of beer in the car, the police would take away the beer. Does this infringe on the personal liberties? I don't find either of these situation much different from each other.

I wouldn't either if the beer was how you reach emergency services and holds personal information.