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

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

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.

Due process, however, is a right. I'd say it's you who doesn't get it.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by transplant99

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.

Your scenario isn't relevant to the topic at hand as you are using a 'bad cop' as a reference. You will never, ever be completely protected from a bad cop but that's an entirely different argument.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by SebC

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

Yes, I've considered that, but I think I'm a good judge of character and I've spent enough time in the cruiser that I think I know what they're really like.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by SebC

Due process, however, is a right. I'd say it's you who doesn't get it.

You get your opportunity in court. That is not taken away.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

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.

Fair point. If the punishment was murder for driving and texting, I'd be against that, even though I don't text and drive. In this case, I feel taking away the weapon (probably not the right word, but having trouble coming up with a synonym) would curb the behaviour. If they wanted to give large fines and demerits, I'd be okay with that too, but I'm not opposed to seizing the phones. I think it would work.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

You get your opportunity in court. That is not taken away.

After the phone has been taken away for 24 hours. Due process needs to come before the punishment.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

You get your opportunity in court. That is not taken away.

Going to court after a sentance is called an appeal.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by gargamel

After the phone has been taken away for 24 hours. Due process needs to come before the punishment.

Your phone is taken away but you get it back. It's not like they are going to take your phone away for fun. It was taken away because you broke the law. At the end of the day it's just a phone and the idea of clamping down is to keep the roads safer.

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. I have no sympathy for you if you choose to text and drive. None. If it was my choice if found guilty I would push for a one month license suspension.

[photon]

Sorry, haven't read the thread so not sure if this has already been raised.

Car and Driver did a test and found that texting did impact reaction times, sometimes by a CRAZY amount.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features...angerous-is-it

The sample size is way too small to say anything other than it is suggestive. They should do this with a larger sample size.

But if that is valid I like the comparison with driving under the influence and I think it's somewhat valid. Not sure if more testing has been done, but I assume that there are some stats available on after-the-fact accident causes that quantify texting?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Your phone is taken away but you get it back. It's not like they are going to take your phone away for fun. It was taken away because you were accused of breaking the law by a cop that based his accusation on a brief glimpse of you holding something as you drove by. At the end of the day it's just a phone and the idea of clamping down is to keep the roads safer.

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. I have no sympathy for you if you choose to text and drive. None. If it was my choice if found guilty I would push for a one month license suspension.

fyp

[photon]

As for rights of due process, rights are sometimes limited/violated if the circumstances merit it, if this merits it, I don't have enough information. If no one had ever been injured due to texting and driving, then no. If texting is the #1 cause of accidents then yes. In between is gray.

For the privacy part, could they make it SOP to give the phone owner an opportunity to setup a lock on their phone (and change their voicemail greeting too)?

[Burninator]

I don't understand why they are considering making it a harsher penalty when the current law doesn't seem to be enforced at all. I see so many people texting at lights and some while they are driving. Same with talking with a phone in their hand. I'm sure it's a very hard law to enforce and most people stop doing it when they see a police cruiser. Can't exactly put up a traditional speed trap or anything. Heck you could make the punishment 24 hours in jail and it probably wouldn't change most peoples habits if you don't enforce it.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

fyp

So holding your phone while driving is what exactly other than distracted driving?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

So holding your phone while driving is what exactly other than distracted driving?

It's holding your phone, like holding a coffee or holding a pizza pocket, using your phone is a different matter.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I don't understand why they are considering making it a harsher penalty when the current law doesn't seem to be enforced at all. I see so many people texting at lights and some while they are driving. Same with talking with a phone in their hand. I'm sure it's a very hard law to enforce and most people stop doing it when they see a police cruiser. Can't exactly put up a traditional speed trap or anything. Heck you could make the punishment 24 hours in jail and it probably wouldn't change most peoples habits if you don't enforce it.

I think the lack of enforcement is why people have gone back to using their phones like they did pre-distracted driving laws. I expect they can setup little traps like they used to in the old days when seatbelts became mandatory and it took a while for people to conform. In those days officers would hide behind trees at intersections with a radio and radio their partner down the street which cars to pull over. It is a difficult one to enforce though which is why the penalties may become harsher if they can't enforce it as easily as say speeding.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

It's holding your phone, like holding a coffee or holding a pizza pocket, using your phone is a different matter.

You can get a ticket for holding a pizza pocket if an officer decides you aren't driving without due care and attention so they will get you one way or another especially if your car is driving in irregular patterns like they do when people are texting and driving.

[Red]

If someone hands a baby a pacifier while driving, should they take away the baby?

How about a dog or a cat that needs to be moved by hand? Take them away too?

There are tons of examples of distracted driving causes that are just as dangerous as texting or talking on the phone.

Why stop at phones?

I think this law has no leg to stand on. Thankfully.

If it's such a concern then raise the fine to 1K and enforce it.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by photon

As for rights of due process, rights are sometimes limited/violated if the circumstances merit it

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.

[afc wimbledon]

I have to be honest I hate the constitution, growing up in the UK and all, but it you have a constitution the cops and goverment shouldn't be allowed to do an end run around it just because they can't be arsed to go to court, now allow it as an option, either give up your phone or get a ticket and I am fine with it.

[photon]

Originally Posted by jammies

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.

I get that and I agree in general, the question should be is texting a minor traffic violation, or is it more than that?

If police could take away a drunk driver's alcohol (i.e. remove it from their bloodstream rendering them sober, removing the source of their impairment) and return it to them 24 hours later, that'd be great, because the harm of drunk driving is real. EDIT: Plus you get to drink it twice!

Originally Posted by jammies

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.

Some wrongs are more abstract and harder to quantify, but I agree.