So does this mean that if a cop pulls you over for something and they looked it up on their in car laptops while driving you have a case to fight it as they were breaking the law.
The law doesn't apply to cops or any other emergency vehicle.
The hilarious thing is how some of you need a government ruling to keep from making it more dangerous for other people on the road.
Whatever happened to common sense?
The fact is; if this law is enacted it will do nothing to stop people from being idiots. It will only generate money for the government and give police the ability to pull anyone over at basicially any time. (being a LEO that is not really a bad thing. Being a regular citizen also, that would be a bad thing.)
You are COMPLETELY correct. Driving with or without handsfree produces the same proportion of collisions. There is no statistical difference between collisions and either driving hands free, or driving hands on.
That kinda surprises me to be honest . . . it might be suggested that most people can't drive properly with two hands on the wheel fully focused. How can it be better if you amputate one of their arms (along with the lobotomized attention center of their brain?) That may indeed be correct though.
Oh and not sure if anybody linked yet:
But hey, you know . . . drunk driving is okay/I can totally drop the phone and grab the wheel in time in a life or death situation/illusory superiority/downing effect.
WAP is not in favor of more government. Not that strange to think that certain members will think the government should stay out of it.
The hilarious thing is how some of you need a government ruling to keep from making it more dangerous for other people on the road.
Whatever happened to common sense?
I know, and it is stupid. I've already outed myself as a guy who both eats and talks on my cell phone while driving. I'm smart enough to know that this is a bad idea, yet I still do this. (Surely I'm not alone in that!)
Funny thing is though, once this law comes into place I will likely stop both on the same day. I don't consider this the government protecting me from my own stupidity as acknowledged above though, I just think that its the government trying to protect other people from guys like me. How anyone can't see that side of the logic is really missing the point.
Despite what Global has said, there is nothing in it specifically about eating. The only part that could encompass eating is this basic blanket statement:
Quote:
Prohibited activities
115.4(1) Subject to this section and the regulations made under section 115.5, no individual shall drive or operate a vehicle on a highway while engaged in an activity that distracts the individual from the operation of the vehicle, including but not limited to
reading or viewing printed material,
writing, printing or sketching,
engaging in personal grooming or hygiene, and
any other activity that may be prescribed in the regulations.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
About the two-hands rule - does this explicitly exist? I did a lazy man's scan of the document (find, find next, etc.) for "hand" and "hands" and nothing came up about having both hands on the wheel at all times.
I ask only because my cars are manual, and it would seem important to make that distinction in the legislation.
I know, and it is stupid. I've already outed myself as a guy who both eats and talks on my cell phone while driving. I'm smart enough to know that this is a bad idea, yet I still do this. (Surely I'm not alone in that!)
Funny thing is though, once this law comes into place I will likely stop both on the same day. I don't consider this the government protecting me from my own stupidity as acknowledged above though, I just think that its the government trying to protect other people from guys like me. How anyone can't see that side of the logic is really missing the point.
Of course.
It has come to the point where the government has to step in and protect its citizens because a bunch of morons refuse to use their brain when they're driving.
I'm not really picking on you, but seriously....texting + driving = moron.
Ifwe allowed common sense to be the guiding force in society we'd be living in chaos. Thinking otherwise is what's hilarious.
Only because we've come this far.
A strong society is a society where the citizens can regulate and be responsible for their own safety and the safety of others without having to be forced by any government.
Sure, you still need laws in place, but this 'law' is ridiculous. The government is now trying to create a law that has a HUGE grey area. Exactly what happens when certain citizens of a country are too stupid to use their own common sense.
I sure as HELL hope that the only reason people don't drink and drive is because there was a law put in place banning it. I'd hope that not risking your life and the lives of those around you, or WITH you is reason enough to stop anyone from driving intoxicated. Same thing with driving and having serious distractions in your car(food, texting, etc, etc). You shouldn't do that because you don't want to pay a fine. Instead, common sense ought to tell you that distracted drivers = accident = people being hurt/killed.
That being said, because there are a bunch of morons on the road, its almost necessary for the government to enact this law. Sad, though....as it just places a huge burden onto the police. Being 'distracted'....makes for a huge grey area. Especially for the cops who now in a sense have to play God and decide whether or not you're distracted.
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Only because we've come this far.
A strong society is a society where the citizens can regulate and be responsible for their own safety and the safety of others without having to be forced by any government.
Look at it more like the current seatbelt law. That law came into effect in Manitoba (where I grew up) just before I started driving. So once I got my learner's I immediately started wearing my seatbelt. It's so automatic that I often put it on when moving the car in the driveway. Last summer my brother in law chuckled because I put it on to drive the car across the acreage.
But before and when that law came up there was outrage over such a "stupid law." I recall in the early 80's having to stop at the Saskatchewan border to dig the seatbelts out of the back seats; complaining the whole time about how stupid this whole thing was.
The only difference one can say about this is that with seatbelts you are pretty much saving the "morons" from themselves. Whereas with a cell phone ban your are preventing the morons from causing accidents with non-morons.
Just playing devils advocate here, but it seems to me that preventing cell phone use while driving is a risk reduction excercise (similar to no speeding, etc).
Along those lines, people who use cell phones while driving are making a risk assesment that says, although I have a greater chance of having an accident, I am gaining value from being able to use my driving time to be productive (booking plane tickets, arguing with wife, talking to Tifanny about her nails).
Same is true about people who speed - extra chance of fatal accident is worth getting there sooner.
Truth is - driving a car at all is a risk-reward excercise. Just getting in a car increases your chances of dieing, offset by ability to get to your destination sooner, get there in the cold, get there with a bunch of stuff.
Allowing handsfree devices allow people to drive and be productive at the same time, and honestly would be hard to enforce (if my iphone is in handsfree mode and I am talking on it it would be hard to tell versus if it is stuck to the side of my head).
Reality is, there are bad drivers and good drivers, and bad drivers with distractions is a really bad thing versus good drives with a distraction is not optimal but not nearly as dangerous as the distracted bad driver.
A long time ago I took an active driving course that taught you how to drive and reduce your risk in every circumstance. Talking on a handsfree headset is a more riskier way to drive, but driving is risky already - and who's to say that risk/reward is not worth it?
