http://www.edmontonjournal.com/entertainment/Alberta+unveils+distracted+driving/4987745/story.html
http://www.edmontonsun.com/2011/06/22/alberta-distracted-driver-law-sept-1
QuoteThe province announced legislation Wednesday to combat distractions behind the wheel.
The wide-ranging distracted driving law, which comes into effect September 1st, prohibits drivers from using hand-held cellphones, texting, emailing, reading, writing and personal grooming. Drivers can still use hands-free devices or voice-activated phones.
a complement to existing legislation, rather than a new way for officers to trap and ticket drivers.
?We don?t want officers out looking for people just doing this particular activity,? he said. ?If all of a sudden you open a chocolate bar and take a small bite of a chocolate bar, we don?t want an officer giving you a ticket for that. But if you have a quarter pounder in front of your face and you?re using both hands and driving with your knee, you deserve to get a ticket.?
The law carries a $172 penalty with no demerit points, however, distracted driving may also warrant other charges if the driver was speeding, swerving or changing lanes without signalling.
The new law carries a maximum fine of $172 and no demerit points. If a driver is deemed to have committed a more serious offense like running a red light or making an improper lane change, that could be considered driving without due care, which carries a $402 fine and six demerit points.
Insurance agencies can't say for sure whether the law will decrease premiums, but the hope is still there.
the general rule is drivers are allowed one touch on a device. If it takes more to operate, it?s an offence.
The activities are also barred at red lights
Quoteyoungblood
3:01 PM on June 22, 2011
one touch? i agree with distracted driver legislation, but this could make it illegal just to operate your radio.
The laws like this are to get people to stop dialing and texting while driving, taking hands AND eyes off the task of driving.
Get a bluetooth headset, and don't dial the phone while driving (nearly every phone can dial by voice and if not you can get a bluetooth headset that can do it for you)
In theory, sure.
I'm guessing that in practice what will happen is the already-bad drivers will get pulled over for things not usually pullover-worthy, like not signalling or swerving out of lanes etc. if a cop sees their hand up to their ear. But imo pretty hard for a cop to enforce a lot of the other aspects of this new provincial law, though. If you have a sandwich on the passenger seat, and stop at a red light, and take a bite, are you really more danger to your fellow drivers than someone who is arguing with his wife sitting next to him while he goes 90 down Capilano? If you are singing to the radio, does the cop have the right to pull you over because he thinks he saw a cellphone on your lap, and you touched it more than once? ::)
The problem I have with this is thus:
For this to be enforced, police will have to observe the driving habits of people on the road. Aren't they already doing this? IF SO why do we need a NEW LAW?
If it's as big a problem as we think it is why not force cell phones to go into some kind of standby mode when they are travelling at speeds greater than 20 km/h?
not to get all conspiratorial here...
but...
New Traffic Law with NO DEMERITS = Money Grab?
For this to be enforced, we need the officers we already have to be out patrolling the roads, plus we need a bunch more officers. It's a really difficult-to-enforce law, because all you have to do is hide your phone for a sec while you drive past the cop; same problem as with photo radar, people will only comply when a cop is close, and if they're caught they don't even get demerit points on their license! Demerit points are what balance traffic laws for rich and poor - if there's only a fine, rich people can afford to break the law much more.
As for phones going into standby mode when moving, that would mean no one on a bus or as a passenger in a car could use the phone.
What's needed along with this law is a comprehensive education campaign. Lawmakers seem to think that if they pass a law, everyone will know about it. The truth of the matter is that most people don't bother reading any of the law books. When's the last time you read through any part of the Criminal Code of Canada? (I'd suggest this, at the very least, is an important piece of legislation to read) My last time was when looking up rights and crimes related to rioting, last weekish.
Darren - photo radar is a cash grab because it's basically automated, high-volume. This new law isn't enforceable without pulling people over, so it's hard to automate and thus hard to turn into a cash grab.
This law is so that when an officer passes a car where the driver is driving with his knees texting his GF he can be pulled over and changed on the spot instead of waiting for them to do something stupid or trying to prove that texting is distracting in court at a later date.
I used to see this OFTEN in here in BC, and now less often. The law is simply more specific. Keep your eyes on the road and hands on the wheel.
Oh it's a cash grab all right, no doubt there.
The sad thing is they've had a law similar to this in effect in Sherwood Park for about a year now (I think its been a year) and if you drive in and around that area you still see users on the phone driving like drunk pygmies.
I suggest forcing the phones into standby modes during high speed motion IF they are hazardous to health / causing danger to the public. Yes non-drivers won't be able to use their mobiles however if that prevents death, accidents and damage to public infrastructure then why not? I mean other than banning phones altogether I don't know how they'll ever enforce this malarky. Of course this suggestion is absurd, but one only has to look at the long anti-smoking campaign and how municipal / federal government eventually dealt with that particular demon. If people can't figure out on their own that using the phone and driving is dangerous in time the government will just wade in and make the decision for you.
Mind you, victims of car accidents generally only clog up the healthcare system for a short period of time (well, specifically, the coroners' time) so maybe the Feds won't do anything long term other than issue some PSAs
Quote from: Lazybones on June 23, 2011, 11:29:44 AM
This law is so that when an officer passes a car where the driver is driving with his knees texting his GF he can be pulled over and changed on the spot instead of waiting for them to do something stupid or trying to prove that texting is distracting in court at a later date.
I used to see this OFTEN in here in BC, and now less often. The law is simply more specific. Keep your eyes on the road and hands on the wheel.
I'd love to think that but if someone is driving dangerously isn't that at the discretion of the officer already? Can't you be charged with a moving violation if you are weaving in and out of traffic?
I don't buy that argument, and it's the most common one that comes up.
I mean c'mon, correct me if I'm wrong (I don't drive!) but if you're driving dangerously you can get ticketed on the spot, right?
If not, holy @%&#!
Quote from: Thorin on June 23, 2011, 10:38:39 AM
Darren - photo radar is a cash grab because it's basically automated, high-volume. This new law isn't enforceable without pulling people over, so it's hard to automate and thus hard to turn into a cash grab.
Agreed. But I just meant (by Cash Grab) that the purpose of this law appears TO THE PUBLIC to be about safety, but it does not address the actual problem it claims to, and since the penalty is only cash out of wallet, and not demerits, it is hard for the legislators/police to claim it's just a law to promote safer roads.
Will be interesting to see how often this new law is used as an EXCUSE to pull someone over, search their vehicle, etc. I mean, I bat away a mosquito from my ear, cops seeing hand up by head and coulda swore he saw a flash of sunlight reflecting off my cell phone, turns out it's a ring on my finger that reflected the light, now cop has to find an excuse for pulling me over so he makes something up... stranger things have happened, when it comes to cop stops.
and btw disabling a phone is just a whole other can of worms you don't wanna open. For starters, makes it a lot tougher to call 911 when you witness someone do a hit-and-run and you're trying to report their (now 7-character) license plate #.
Well, in an ideal world if you see a hit and run you stop and help the hit person...
Quote from: Mr. Analog on June 23, 2011, 11:37:29 AM
I'd love to think that but if someone is driving dangerously isn't that at the discretion of the officer already? Can't you be charged with a moving violation if you are weaving in and out of traffic?
I don't buy that argument, and it's the most common one that comes up.
I mean c'mon, correct me if I'm wrong (I don't drive!) but if you're driving dangerously you can get ticketed on the spot, right?
If not, holy @%&#!
Define dangerously in law? Many people texting drive in a strait line at a constant speed (curse control), yet both hands are off the wheel and they are not looking at the road... No swerving... This law should allow an officer to take one of these jokers off the road imedialty before they start drifting into other lanes and swerving to the point of "driving dangerously" where it is more clear under the more general law.
Same goes for holding a handset vs hands free. The conversation is still a dangerous distraction but but holding the phone ALWAYS limits your ability to react and steer, shift and signal.
There's more than one level - there's driving dangerously, and driving without due care and attention. With this new law, there'll be another level, driving distracted.
Driving dangerously has much bigger penalties than driving without due care and attention, which has bigger penalties than the driving distracted law will have.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on June 23, 2011, 11:37:29 AM
Oh it's a cash grab all right, no doubt there.
I disagree. This law is hard to enforce and nets less than half of the cash that the stiffer Driving Without Due Care And Attention charge. This Distracted Driving law is easier to convict because the officer doesn't have to prove the "without due care and attention" bit, only that the driver was intentionally distracting themselves. Nevertheless, I don't consider this a cash grab just like I don't consider the seatbelt law a cash grab - tickets are handed out to the actual lawbreaker, not the owner of the vehicle the law was broken with (as compared to photo radar, where I pay a ticket if my son drives too fast). I still say they should include a demerit point, though.
I just wanna point out that having your toy poodle on your lap is just as dangerous as holding your phone up to your ear, but the wording of this law doesn't seem to cover animals on the lap. Although it probably could be stretched to do such.
Anyway, I haven't witnessed any accidents caused by people texting (hell, I haven't witnessed any accidents since texting became popular), but I have seen lots of near-misses. For instance, the moron who was driving in a straight line at a constant speed with the phone hidden down on his lap (causing him to look straight down at his crotch), who missed the big, extra-length bendy bus that changed lanes in front of him and then started slowing down for the light. The moron had to swerve at the last second, causing three other drivers to have to perform emergency maneuvers.
But as I've mentioned and as Mr. A. has pointed out now, enforcement is the sticky wicket on this law. But then, enforcement was the sticky wicket on the seatbelt law, too, and look how after a generation of educational campaigning,
most people now use seatbelts...
I stand corrected, animals on people's laps is covered.
From the FAQ:
Quote
How does this legislation balance the need for safety with the realities of multi-tasking that occur in day-to-day driving?
Sometimes people forget that when you're in your vehicle, your primary focus should be on driving. We seem to treat our vehicles like a second living room, or a couch on wheels, or even a mobile office. That has to change. It's all about traffic safety. Make no mistake: You cannot drive safely when you're distracted.
That's the message that needs to get out.
C'mon, this is totally ripe for abuse, hence the cash grab statement, if the police feel like it they could pull you over and give you a ticket regardless of what you were doing. You go to court over it and other than your cell phone being on at the time there's no proof you were doing anything but driving?
Likely it would fall into the driver's favour, but the cost of taking a couple of days off for court to prove your innocence is likely going to be more expensive than the ticket so most people won't bother.
The Police get to look like they're doing something about a serious issue (while asserting authority) meanwhile it doesn't actually prevent anything.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on June 23, 2011, 02:13:14 PM
C'mon, this is totally ripe for abuse, hence the cash grab statement, if the police feel like it they could pull you over and give you a ticket regardless of what you were doing.
They don't need this law to do that, they could just as easily claim you where swerving, or doing something else stupid.. However if you where staring at your crotch texting and it goes to court your phone records / chat log is going to show this and it will be hard to explain away.
I want these people with their blackberries face down, texting with both hands OFF THE ROAD.
Quote from: Lazybones on June 23, 2011, 03:01:27 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on June 23, 2011, 02:13:14 PM
C'mon, this is totally ripe for abuse, hence the cash grab statement, if the police feel like it they could pull you over and give you a ticket regardless of what you were doing.
They don't need this law to do that, they could just as easily claim you where swerving, or doing something else stupid.. However if you where staring at your crotch texting and it goes to court your phone records / chat log is going to show this and it will be hard to explain away.
I want these people with their blackberries face down, texting with both hands OFF THE ROAD.
Well, again, if they can already do that then why bother with a new law?
Quote from: Lazybones on June 23, 2011, 03:01:27 PM
They don't need this law to do that, they could just as easily claim you where swerving, or doing something else stupid.. However if you where staring at your crotch texting and it goes to court your phone records / chat log is going to show this and it will be hard to explain away.
Not quite true. You can claim that just before you got pulled over by the cop, you were in a parking lot and did that text/phonecall. Since times are not universally synced among services and cops, there's no way of using that at conclusive proof. In fact, it really can only come down to "his word against yours" in situations like this.
I imagine since this is open to subjective abuse, there might be a few civil lawsuits if someone feels victimized by a cop and they are innocent and the unjustified stop[/search/charges] result in them losing a client or a job or whatnot.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on June 23, 2011, 02:13:14 PM
The Police get to look like they're doing something about a serious issue (while asserting authority) meanwhile it doesn't actually prevent anything.
DING! Winner! What I was trying to say earlier ITT.
Quote from: Thorin on June 23, 2011, 01:41:10 PM
There's more than one level - there's driving dangerously, and driving without due care and attention. With this new law, there'll be another level, driving distracted.
Driving dangerously has much bigger penalties than driving without due care and attention, which has bigger penalties than the driving distracted law will have.
Very good point -- and one that is certainly not being mentioned in the media, so far anyway. btw I wonder what driving while sleep-deprived, or driving while angry at your boss/kids/spouse falls under? Cuz muttering to yourself, or talking out loud planning a big speech or rant or argument = a level of distraction that takes away from driving focus. TBH singing along with a song on the radio even reduces focus and awareness of the road and other drivers.
Greyhound Driver Caught Using iPhone While Driving http://t.co/i8ehUji
Quote from: Lazybones on June 23, 2011, 05:35:47 PM
Greyhound Driver Caught Using iPhone While Driving http://t.co/i8ehUji
lol, that's brutal, saw it yesterday
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8Tx4Ktzz2I
Its now Sept 1 in Alberta.
Let the ticketing BEGIN
After being cut off twice on my drive to work today, I gotta say I wouldn't mind a few more police cruisers mixed in with traffic. One was a brand-new-ish BMW 335, the other an Acura RL (probably a year old).
I'm at the point where I'm looking at the value of my 88 Volvo and that brand new BMW that just cut me off and thinking about just ramming them off the road. Oh, and he had a phone up to his ear and didn't shoulder-check or signal before slapping his car over from one lane to the other. His rear bumper was about three feet from my front bumper after that maneuver, and of course he was travelling slower than me.
At least the Acura was traveling the same speed as me.
It'll be interesting to see if these new laws have any effect without significant enforcement :)
As I understand it, hands free devices are not part of the new law, so your cutoff guy would have to get a ticket for failure to shoulder check or driving with undo care or attention. but you are right to say that more police looking for this stuff should help.
No, he'd get a ticket under this new law because he was holding a phone up to his ear.
I'd rather he get a driving without due care and attention, though, that'd be six demerit points.
These fines without demerits (distracted driving, photo radar) are terrible ideas. Rich people just pay the fine and they won't care, because it doesn't affect them. Seriously, when you're making $20,000 a month, what's a couple of $120 speeding tickets? Throw in demerits, though, and suddenly rich and poor alike will lose their license after a few speeding tickets or distracted driving tickets. Now it'll have some teeth.
Sorry read that wrong bud. Really should be paying attention to these sessions here in Vegas rather than reading the forums.
Quote from: Thorin on September 01, 2011, 12:25:24 PM
No, he'd get a ticket under this new law because he was holding a phone up to his ear.
I'd rather he get a driving without due care and attention, though, that'd be six demerit points.
These fines without demerits (distracted driving, photo radar) are terrible ideas. Rich people just pay the fine and they won't care, because it doesn't affect them. Seriously, when you're making $20,000 a month, what's a couple of $120 speeding tickets? Throw in demerits, though, and suddenly rich and poor alike will lose their license after a few speeding tickets or distracted driving tickets. Now it'll have some teeth.
The difference is this:
If you are going after demarits you really have to catch them and prove that they where doing something stupid at the time of the incident... IE Cop sees the guy cut you off while on the phone. Then he could charge the person with both really.
The new low allows a cop to pull the same guy over while he is driving in a strait line, yacking on his phone before or after the fact.
The new law could be preventative in some cases where the other is reactive to the result.
The amount of bitching about this law is insane, if you want to bitch about something pay attention to the lobbied DMCA type laws and crazy CRTC rulings that could turn you into a criminal for what is current fair use, and could sink all competition on the internet markets.
Quote from: Lazybones on September 01, 2011, 01:41:19 PMThe amount of bitching about this law is insane
That's because, in theory, we already have road safety laws that supposedly handle unsafe driving. To me though it's exactly the same kind of bitching that happened when safety belts were made mandatory. It will take decades for it to sink in...
Now, I don't know about Alberta but in Toronto if you get nailed driving without a seatbelt there is a fine AND 2 demerit points are taken off, in that case the cop has to notice you driving without a seatbelt (just as they would have to notice you using a phone).
:shrug:
http://www.collabcubedshop.com/ http://www.google.com/search?q=earonic
^ likely getting a lot of orders from Albertans...
As funny as those cases are, it's still easy to see you're holding your hand up to your face, and I'm sure from an angle it's pretty obvious you're holding a phone.
More likely people are buying bluetooth headsets.
There are also people who are purposefully flaunting the law, calling radio stations and announcing proudly that they're driving and talking on their handheld mobile (as opposed to using an ear piece or hands-free).
Quote from: Thorin on September 16, 2011, 02:50:17 PM
There are also people who are purposefully flaunting the law, calling radio stations and announcing proudly that they're driving and talking on their handheld mobile (as opposed to using an ear piece or hands-free).
Sure, rich people -- since they aren't exactly gonna get a smile and a nod from Officer Friendly.