Hey Everyone,
In Ontario the government is tossing around a bill right now that will look to ban the use of not only cell phones but also some electronic devices in vehicles for the driver. The proposed law will ban the use of cell phones with the exception of hands free devices. GPS's will also be up for ban, unless they are in-dash.

I do agree with the cell phone ban, ppl are getting really bad over here with it. Just this morning on the radio a guy was talking about how he watched a bus driver texting while driving the city bus!!!

however i personally believe that GPS devices can help people drive as they are not as worried about where to turn or looking for street signs. Not to mention it's a hell of alot better than trying to get the driver to read a map!

The law does not cover Putting on make-up, eating/drinking, or folding laundry (yes i have personally witnessed this!)

any thoughts?

There have been several incidents here in the UK of drivers attempting to reprogram their route on their Sta-Nav(GPS) so I am not convinced they are entirely beneficial. Especially when they direct vehicles down unsuitable narrow roads as happens from time to time. Recently I saw a lane with a sign on sayng there was a Sat Nav error and the ferry at the end was pedestrian only.

Personally I would prefer no ban but harsher penalties for inappropriate use of equipment and stupid behaviour of the type you refer to.

I have never used an electronic device in a car with the exception of saying "Hello" and "Hang on a second while I pull over".

GPS, OnStar and other SatNav devices are fine, but pull over while you program them. After that, you shouldn't need to touch them.

We have a program on one of our Canadian Satellite stations called "Canada's Worst Driver". At the start of each season they have 8 driver who have been nominated by friends/family. Most years, the ones deemed the worst are young females who even after many lessons and much training still do their morning makeup in the car while driving to work. They can't seem to grasp the concept that this is not the reason there is a mirror on the windshield.

I can't tell you how many times I've been cut off by some clown yapping away on his/her cell phone. That said, I'm not a fan of government dictating things, so like Rabbie I lean towards harsh penalties if you cause an accident or something while on the phone.

The law does not cover Putting on make-up, eating/drinking, or folding laundry (yes i have personally witnessed this!)

Ban Tim Horton's alone from moving vehicles and you'd surely cut down on a lot of the GTA accidents? I'd also introduce a series of public information films along the lines of 'Hey, Toronto, that white stuff is snow. You get it every year so you should know by now that it's slippery'.

Personally I would prefer no ban but harsher penalties for inappropriate use of equipment and stupid behaviour of the type you refer to.
The problem there is that everyone's definition of "inappropriate use of equipment and stupid behaviour" differs. Having had my car written off by a driver who wasn't paying attention, I'm in favour of the ban.
I'm not a fan of government dictating things, so like Rabbie I lean towards harsh penalties if you cause an accident or something while on the phone.
One of the problems in Ontario is the ridiculous 'no blame' policy they have for traffic accidents. It's designed to make insurance claims get processed faster but seemingly results in people knowing that they don't need to worry about causing accidents.

The provincial government of Ontario has no choice but to ban handheld cell phone use due to the fact that the head liar in the legislature Dalton McGuinty Promised there would be No Ban on Cell Phone Use for Drivers (http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_16779.aspx) in 2007. There is also the shame of being over 5 years behine Newfoundland, which had huge problems convincing the population that the April 1 2003 law was not a joke... and also Quebec followed suit by banning cell phones on 1 April 2008, but Quebec has a huge grace period which I think is 25 years or so based on the lax enforcement of drunk driving laws.

Hey Everyone,
In Ontario the government is tossing around a bill right now that will look to ban the use of not only cell phones but also some electronic devices in vehicles for the driver. The proposed law will ban the use of cell phones with the exception of hands free devices. GPS's will also be up for ban, unless they are in-dash.

I do agree with the cell phone ban, ppl are getting really bad over here with it. Just this morning on the radio a guy was talking about how he watched a bus driver texting while driving the city bus!!!

however i personally believe that GPS devices can help people drive as they are not as worried about where to turn or looking for street signs. Not to mention it's a hell of alot better than trying to get the driver to read a map!

The law does not cover Putting on make-up, eating/drinking, or folding laundry (yes i have personally witnessed this!)

any thoughts?

I can't tell you how many times I've been cut off by some clown yapping away on his/her cell phone. That said, I'm not a fan of government dictating things, so like Rabbie I lean towards harsh penalties if you cause an accident or something while on the phone.

Yeah that's right, let's kill somebody then punish the driver for being stupid, it's by far the best way.

Brian

I would have expected a more cordial response from you Brian. That's more like a certain other poster's style. You're usually not snide like that.

I said I leaned that way, not that I absolutely advocated it. My boss was involved in a fatal accident where the other driver was talking to his passenger and didn't see her next to him. He merged into her lane, forcing her off the road, and at the last minute noticed and swerved back but lost control, flipped his car, and died. Thus, talking to passengers can cause fatal accidents. Should we legislate against that as well?

Do we legislate against anything that could conceivably cause harm, or do we rely on self-responsibility and deal with the exceptions when they happen? Do we try to find a line where the behavior is more likely to cause harm (like drunk driving), and legislate those things, but not those that are below the line? I suppose I fall into that camp. Is driving with a cell phone above or below the line? I don't pretend to know, but given the number of people that do it relative to the number of accidents caused by it, I would guess it's on the "less likely" side. I don't actually know how many accidents are caused by it, so I could be wrong.

How about they simply put signal blockers in all new cars cars?

Ok , I'll admit that it wasn't the best of responses and apologise for that, I also don't know how many accidents are caused by using the cell while driving , or fiddling with other equipment, or even talking!, but we have so much stupid driving that I'm not sure that we can leave too much to peoples' self discipline.

BTW did you see my post on another thread where I told about my daughter being fined for using her mobile whilst driving, she had been stuck in a traffic jam for 40 minutes and was going nowhere, but her engine was running, so she was booked, so yes the law and its enforcers can be an ass.

Brian

I did not see that. My strong believe is that "spirit of the law" should take precedence over "letter of the law". Giving that ticket to someone stopped in traffic is just stupid. Did she fight it?

If she was going no where then how did the cops catch up to her to see her talking on a handheld phone? :confused:
...that is not a shot - me just confused...
BTW did you see my post on another thread where I told about my daughter being fined for using her mobile whilst driving, she had been stuck in a traffic jam for 40 minutes and was going nowhere, but her engine was running, so she was booked, so yes the law and its enforcers can be an ass.

Brian

Ban Tim Horton's alone from moving vehicles and you'd surely cut down on a lot of the GTA accidents? I'd also introduce a series of public information films along the lines of 'Hey, Toronto, that white stuff is snow. You get it every year so you should know by now that it's slippery'.



My father, who taught me to drive, made a very interesting point during his instructions. Driving in snow and ice is a skill all Canadian must learn. However, this skill does not carry over between winters. Every year, the first time it snows everyone has to learn how to do it all over again.
Strange but true.

DUH - its a different winter :rolleyes:
My father, who taught me to drive, made a very interesting point during his instructions. Driving in snow and ice is a skill all Canadian must learn. However, this skill does not carry over between winters. Every year, the first time it snows everyone has to learn how to do it all over again.
Strange but true.

My father, who taught me to drive, made a very interesting point during his instructions. Driving in snow and ice is a skill all Canadian must learn. However, this skill does not carry over between winters. Every year, the first time it snows everyone has to learn how to do it all over again.
Strange but true.
I'd agree that you need to refresh the skills, but learning from scratch every year? I saw much less snow and ice before coming to Canada, but I did know enough to slow down when the stuff was present.

The accident my wife and I were involved in was solely down to the idiot coming the other way having no idea how to slow down when the road was slippery, and so losing control of her vehicle and hitting us head on. I'm not saying she should have been fully back up to speed the very first time she drove in snow that year, but shouldn't common sense play a part?

I did not see that. My strong believe is that "spirit of the law" should take precedence over "letter of the law". Giving that ticket to someone stopped in traffic is just stupid. Did she fight it?

No, the law actually states that if the engine is running you are driving, I think it is to stop people using their 'phones whilst stopped at junctions or traffic signals. I have no doubt that a good but expensive lawyer would have maybe got her off as the ticket said phone whereas she was using her blackberry, but if he failed the costs rocket so she took the hit.

Brian

If she was going no where then how did the cops catch up to her to see her talking on a handheld phone? :confused:
...that is not a shot - me just confused...

He was on the other carriageway, he nearly got run over running across, pity really , just proves there is no god. :D

Brian

DUH - its a different winter :rolleyes:

But it's the same skill DUH

The law does not cover Putting on make-up, eating/drinking, or folding laundry (yes i have personally witnessed this!)


And I've been in the vehicle when the driver:
Did a crossword in the newspaper & read the comics.
Played a game of chess on a regular wooden board.

Personally I can see both sides of the equation. Sometimes it is very distracting when your sat nav is misbehaving or you need to reprogramme a route while driving. I have a HTC TYTNii with TomTom sat nav, and find it a godsend. I have it hands free on a sucker mount on the windscreen, however, and do not touch it when I am driving - the only time I would consider this is if I was stuck in a line of traffic ... this is still illegal technically, however they would have a job proving you are driving dangerously if the car is stationary.

HOWEVER, sensible drivers (myself included) would realise the risk of faffing with any kind of electrical device while driving, and pull the car over where safe before doing so. I've had to do this several times, for example if I receive a call and the hands free doesn't pick up properly.

My job often involves driving from one place to another ad infinitum during the day, hence being able to plan a route using my SatNav is not only incredibly useful in terms of knowing where I am going, but also saves quite a few trees where I would be printing out directions (which in my experience is much more dangerous than glancing at a screen which is already at eye level when trying to figure out where the heck that tiny little road you're looking for is, or what street you've ended up in having missed the turning!)

Plus doing a long drive (which I'm about to do this afternoon) often means regular stops to update my mind on where I am going and which roads I am looking for, whereas I don't have to worry about this with a SatNav. I do, however, browse the route before setting off so I don't get caught on the whole going down non existant roads problems!

Banning SatNav which isn't integrated into the dash would mean anyone with a car that is older than, say, 5 years, could not use SatNav unless they spent a very significant amount modifying their car......personally I think that would be daft.

My biggest bugbear to be honest is people who smoke at the wheel - this isn't banned, but the number of people I've seen driving with one hand on the wheel and a cigarette hanging out the window, faffing about with cigarette lighters, etc ... it's scary!

Personally I can see both sides of the equation. Sometimes it is very distracting when your sat nav is misbehaving or you need to reprogramme a route while driving.


I still use the street directory or the map for long distance.

I will admit to having the street directory on the steering wheel while at the red light and while smoking a cigaretter:)

Tss naughty you!!!!

however, and do not touch it when I am driving - the only time I would consider this is if I was stuck in a line of traffic ... this is still illegal technically, however they would have a job proving you are driving dangerously if the car is stationary.

If it is illegal to do this when driving they would not have to prove that you were driving dangerously, see post #10

Brian

I don't profess to be any kind of expert in law, but I believe the backing behind it being illegal to use anything which distracts you from driving is that it causes you to drive without due cause and attention, and therefore driving dangerously.

I merely suggest that if a case came to court and the car was stationary in traffic, it would be interesting to hear the prosecution and defence; given that the vehicle would be stationary (and hence, I suspect, not likely to be a risk to others).

Mind you, it's possible to be arrested for intention to drive while under the influence if you walk towards your parked car after a few beers with your keys in your hand, even if you were just going to get a coat out of the boot.

*shrug* ;)

Mind you, it's possible to be arrested for intention to drive while under the influence if you walk towards your parked car after a few beers with your keys in your hand, even if you were just going to get a coat out of the boot.

*shrug* ;)

That would depend on where the car was parked and also the time etc. as that would determine whether the intention was to drive the car as opposed to going to the car to collect something from the car.

How about they simply put signal blockers in all new cars cars?

A car is a pretty good Faraday Cage that causes the mobile to transmit at a much higher, or even maximum, power level. All this high power microwave radiation, being reflected all around the inside of your car, isn't too healthy for the brain cells.

If you used a jammer, again you would require high power microwave radiation.

In my opinion, cars and mobiles are an absolute no, for health reasons as well as road safety.

I.

I merely suggest that if a case came to court and the car was stationary in traffic, it would be interesting to hear the prosecution and defence; given that the vehicle would be stationary (and hence, I suspect, not likely to be a risk to others).



In the case of mobiles the law is 100% clear , if the engine is running you are driving, I cannot speak for other cases but I know that people have been successfully prosecuted for drinking ( non alcoholic) whilst waiting at traffic lights so suspect that the same rule applies.

I know the policeman in the station where my daughter took her particulars to said the guy could and maybe should have just given her a warning in the circumstances, but legally she was committing an offence.

Brian

In the USA, my home state of Louisiana has take up the ban on cell phones but instituted a couple of exceptions.

1. Hands-free devices allowed.

2. Special exception: To report an emergency even if no hands-free device available.

Considering that it was only a couple of years ago that we passed a "no open container" law in our state, I consider this a pretty advanced act by our legistators.

I can honestly say I've never seen an accident caused by someone talking on a cell phone, though I've read about them in the newspaper here. More often, we have accidents caused by having a ditzoid in the driver's seat. And I've seen my share of THOSE accidents. In fact, my wife's accident from a couple of years ago was caused by a ditzoid driver with (as we say here...) a big picking-up truck and slick-soled sandals.

- Richard

Ok, riddle me this batman!
when listening to the news, it was stated that a study was conducted and found that using a handheld phone while driving impared vision and reflex to the same level as a person driving with the maximum legal amount of alcohol in their system.

that being said, how does that law make sense... (it's ok to drive a little impared, but if your at the same level of impared due to use of an electronic device that's no good) The fact is it's the same level of distraction, why can one be considered ok and the other not!?

As a second note, I have listened to the radio many times, here in London (ontatio, not the big London), we have a station called FM96, the guys in the morning can be really funny and i have been driving to work while crying from laughter, Do we ban radio? how about a ban on laughing while driving, i'm sure laughing until you cry is just as bad as driving with a cell

Re Brian's daughters situation.

This very clearly shows that in this country unfortunately we have become obsessed with meeting targets. These are targets purely for say number of motoring convictions.

So using a mobile whilst stationary but with engine running is an easy hit and one nearer the target.

Now also I have heard where police will not attend a burglary if there are no obvious signs of who committed the act. I suppose they expect a visitors card. You see that crime becomes difficult to solve. Therefore do not attend, do not record and thus the crime clear up rate is not adversly affected.

We are unfortunately ruled at the moment by a bunch of idiots. Not only the Government but also people in powerful administrative positions.

Never use common sense seems to be the byword today.

Re the phones thing.

It would be nice to have a crime entitled "Behaving like a Pratt"

For this crime the Judge may impose a suitable punishment. In a real society this crime would replace all others and one would only ever be convicted of a single offense. One for which you could be charged more than once.

The problem is that it would require people not to acts as prats for most of the time. This is where it all falls down I think.

Not my idea but from James May's column in the Telegraph.

L

Great Idea Len. reminds me of the catch-all in my old school rules

"Anything anti-social is clearly against the rules"

BTW did you see my post on another thread where I told about my daughter being fined for using her mobile whilst driving, she had been stuck in a traffic jam for 40 minutes and was going nowhere, but her engine was running, so she was booked, so yes the law and its enforcers can be an ass.

Brian


And she still couldn't be bothered to pull over to make the call legally? Where was the copper who did her?

And she still couldn't be bothered to pull over to make the call legally? Where was the copper who did her?

As I said on another thread you don't read the posts, just so that you can see it

SHE WAS STUCK IN A TRAFFIC JAM, HADN'T MOVED FOR 40 MINUTES

grow up Paul

Brian

As I said on another thread you don't read the posts, just so that you can see it

SHE WAS STUCK IN A TRAFFIC JAM, HADN'T MOVED FOR 40 MINUTES

grow up Paul

Brian


What was to stop her parking up at the side of the road before making/taking the call?

Where was the copper again?

This will be the last time I reply to you.
How can you pull over to the side of the road , double yellows on the East Lancs by the way, when stuck in a traffic jam.

Copper?, as I said you have difficulty reading or taking on info, try post 17 again.

Bye

Brian

Your right Brian - I didn't read that. I apologise. Maybe its cos when I understand you prefectly you still say I haven't read it , that it seemed pointless to bother.

In that case she was seriously unlucky.

Though the line has to be drawn firmly somewhere, or all kinds of people would try to blur it.

Yes they should have had something better to do, in this instance.

Apology accepted Paul, I know I said I was not going to reply but it now seemed churlish not to.
We should draw a line under the bickering and accept that we perhaps didn't communicate well on the language thread.

Brian

This will be the last time I reply to you.
How can you pull over to the side of the road , double yellows on the East Lancs by the way, when stuck in a traffic jam.

Copper?, as I said you have difficulty reading or taking on info, try post 17 again.

Bye

Brian

Now Brian... Anyone that can't figure out how to turn their green light on can't be the sharpest tool in the shed to begin with - :p

Apology accepted Paul, I know I said I was not going to reply but it now seemed churlish not to.
We should draw a line under the bickering and accept that we perhaps didn't communicate well on the language thread.

Brian

Yep -cheers, I can go with that. A badly communicated differance of opinion over car tax and the usefulness of languages shouldn't be a real problem, for either of us.

As I said on another thread you don't read the posts, just so that you can see it

SHE WAS STUCK IN A TRAFFIC JAM, HADN'T MOVED FOR 40 MINUTES

grow up Paul

Brian
Just how else is this Nazi police state going to raise extra taxes?:rolleyes: