Topic: RRocket's 2004 Lexus LS430 Ultra Luxury Pre-Show and Shine

[revalations]

Sadly the trend for older Lexus Ls's around here is to give them the full "VIP" treatment. Slammed, rolled fenders, huge camber, and spoilers off racing Civics.

[Jaeger]

Sadly the trend for older Lexus Ls's around here is to give them the full "VIP" treatment. Slammed, rolled fenders, huge camber, and spoilers off racing Civics.

Gross. 

[Noto]

This is bugging me, actually.

I wonder if it's because by taping the devices to the steering wheel, it's no longer a handheld device?

Meanwhile, coffees and burgers can be considered a handheld device.

You misunderstand the legislation (presumably never read, as nobody would bother searching for it).  No, coffees and burgers cannot be considered a handheld device - eating/drinking/LOOKING AT YOUR PHONE (as opposed to touching it) could garner a charge for CARELESS driving.

Careless driving
130 Every person is guilty of the offence of driving carelessly who drives a vehicle or street car on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $400 and not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition his or her licence or permit may be suspended for a period of not more than two years.

The cellphone thing is also under the Highway Traffic Act, but a different section:

Hand-held devices prohibited
Wireless communication devices
78.1 (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device or other prescribed device that is capable of receiving or transmitting telephone communications, electronic data, mail or text messages.

Entertainment devices
(2) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held electronic entertainment device or other prescribed device the primary use of which is unrelated to the safe operation of the motor vehicle.

Hands-free mode allowed
(3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), a person may drive a motor vehicle on a highway while using a device described in those subsections in hands-free mode.

Exceptions
(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to,

(a) the driver of an ambulance, fire department vehicle or police department vehicle;

(b) any other prescribed person or class of persons;

(c) a person holding or using a device prescribed for the purpose of this subsection; or

(d) a person engaged in a prescribed activity or in prescribed conditions or circumstances.  2009, c. 4, s. 2.

Same
(5) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the use of a device to contact ambulance, police or fire department emergency services.

Same
(6) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if all of the following conditions are met:

1. The motor vehicle is off the roadway or is lawfully parked on the roadway.

2. The motor vehicle is not in motion.

3. The motor vehicle is not impeding traffic.

Penalty
(6.1) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $300 and not more than $1,000.

Regulations
(7) The Minister may make regulations,

(a) prescribing devices for the purpose of subsections (1) and (2);

(b) prescribing persons, classes of persons, devices, activities, conditions and circumstances for the purpose of subsection (4).

Definition
(8 ) In this section,

“motor vehicle” includes a street car, motorized snow vehicle, farm tractor, self-propelled implement of husbandry and road-building machine.

The regulations further define the cellphone ban in ONTARIO REGULATION 366/09

The driver above was attempting to skirt the regulation by virtue of this:

Exempt devices
7. The display screens of the following devices may be visible to any driver in a motor vehicle driven on a highway:

1. A device that displays,

i. information on the conditions, use and immediate environment of the vehicle, or

ii. information on road or weather conditions.

2. An ignition interlock device.

3. A car audio control that displays only text or static images.

4. A hand-held device that displays only text or static images and is connected directly into and operates using the audio system controls of the motor vehicle
...
Exemption for pressing buttons
14. (1) A person may drive a motor vehicle on a highway while pressing a button on a hand-held wireless communication device to make, answer or end a cell phone call or to transmit or receive voice communication on a two-way radio if the device is placed securely in or mounted to the motor vehicle so that it does not move while the vehicle is in motion and the driver can see it at a quick glance and easily reach it without adjusting his or her driving position.

Pretty absurd, if you ask me, to give that much leeway to the police.  In DKaz's post, the driver was hit for a failure to produce his licence (which is funny since it's on his dashtop in the picture) - which likely means he couldn't produce ownership or registration for the vehicle and not his driver's licence.

The question is whether in this case the driver was contravening the law by having the phone "mounted":

Definitions
214.1  In this Part:
Use of electronic device;
"use", in relation to an electronic device, means one or more of the following actions:

(a) holding the device in a position in which it may be used;
(b) operating one or more of the device's functions;
(c) communicating orally by means of the device with another person or another device;
(d) taking another action that is set out in the regulations by means of, with or in relation to an electronic device.

214.4  Section 214.2 [succinctly, "don't use the phone" while operating the vehicle] does not apply to a person who uses an electronic device

(c) that is configured and equipped to allow hands-free use in a telephone function, is used in a hands-free manner and is used in accordance with the regulations, if any.

That said, it completely baffles me why he wasn't given BC's equivalent to the Careless Driving charge posted above from Ontario (section 144 of the Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC 1996, c 318).

[rrocket]

That said, it completely baffles me why he wasn't given BC's equivalent to the Careless Driving charge posted above from Ontario (section 144 of the Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC 1996, c 318).

Can you be charged for Careless when you're not moving?  Sounds like it's possible he wasn't moving when he was spotted by police?

[Noto]

Can you be charged for Careless when you're not moving?  Sounds like it's possible he wasn't moving when he was spotted by police?

Good question - now you're thinking like a criminal defence attorney

In Ontario, the wording is "operating a motor vehicle".  In BC, it specifically says "driving".  I'd think he could be ticketed in Ontario, but perhaps not in BC.

[dkaz]

This is bugging me, actually.

I wonder if it's because by taping the devices to the steering wheel, it's no longer a handheld device?

Meanwhile, coffees and burgers can be considered a handheld device.

You misunderstand the legislation (presumably never read, as nobody would bother searching for it).  No, coffees and burgers cannot be considered a handheld device - eating/drinking/LOOKING AT YOUR PHONE (as opposed to touching it) could garner a charge for CARELESS driving.

Careless driving
130 Every person is guilty of the offence of driving carelessly who drives a vehicle or street car on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $400 and not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition his or her licence or permit may be suspended for a period of not more than two years.

The cellphone thing is also under the Highway Traffic Act, but a different section:

Hand-held devices prohibited
Wireless communication devices
78.1 (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device or other prescribed device that is capable of receiving or transmitting telephone communications, electronic data, mail or text messages.

Entertainment devices
(2) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held electronic entertainment device or other prescribed device the primary use of which is unrelated to the safe operation of the motor vehicle.

Hands-free mode allowed
(3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), a person may drive a motor vehicle on a highway while using a device described in those subsections in hands-free mode.

Exceptions
(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to,

(a) the driver of an ambulance, fire department vehicle or police department vehicle;

(b) any other prescribed person or class of persons;

(c) a person holding or using a device prescribed for the purpose of this subsection; or

(d) a person engaged in a prescribed activity or in prescribed conditions or circumstances.  2009, c. 4, s. 2.

Same
(5) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the use of a device to contact ambulance, police or fire department emergency services.

Same
(6) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if all of the following conditions are met:

1. The motor vehicle is off the roadway or is lawfully parked on the roadway.

2. The motor vehicle is not in motion.

3. The motor vehicle is not impeding traffic.

Penalty
(6.1) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $300 and not more than $1,000.

Regulations
(7) The Minister may make regulations,

(a) prescribing devices for the purpose of subsections (1) and (2);

(b) prescribing persons, classes of persons, devices, activities, conditions and circumstances for the purpose of subsection (4).

Definition
(8 ) In this section,

“motor vehicle” includes a street car, motorized snow vehicle, farm tractor, self-propelled implement of husbandry and road-building machine.

The regulations further define the cellphone ban in ONTARIO REGULATION 366/09

The driver above was attempting to skirt the regulation by virtue of this:

Exempt devices
7. The display screens of the following devices may be visible to any driver in a motor vehicle driven on a highway:

1. A device that displays,

i. information on the conditions, use and immediate environment of the vehicle, or

ii. information on road or weather conditions.

2. An ignition interlock device.

3. A car audio control that displays only text or static images.

4. A hand-held device that displays only text or static images and is connected directly into and operates using the audio system controls of the motor vehicle
...
Exemption for pressing buttons
14. (1) A person may drive a motor vehicle on a highway while pressing a button on a hand-held wireless communication device to make, answer or end a cell phone call or to transmit or receive voice communication on a two-way radio if the device is placed securely in or mounted to the motor vehicle so that it does not move while the vehicle is in motion and the driver can see it at a quick glance and easily reach it without adjusting his or her driving position.

Pretty absurd, if you ask me, to give that much leeway to the police.  In DKaz's post, the driver was hit for a failure to produce his licence (which is funny since it's on his dashtop in the picture) - which likely means he couldn't produce ownership or registration for the vehicle and not his driver's licence.

The question is whether in this case the driver was contravening the law by having the phone "mounted":

Definitions
214.1  In this Part:
Use of electronic device;
"use", in relation to an electronic device, means one or more of the following actions:

(a) holding the device in a position in which it may be used;
(b) operating one or more of the device's functions;
(c) communicating orally by means of the device with another person or another device;
(d) taking another action that is set out in the regulations by means of, with or in relation to an electronic device.

214.4  Section 214.2 [succinctly, "don't use the phone" while operating the vehicle] does not apply to a person who uses an electronic device

(c) that is configured and equipped to allow hands-free use in a telephone function, is used in a hands-free manner and is used in accordance with the regulations, if any.

That said, it completely baffles me why he wasn't given BC's equivalent to the Careless Driving charge posted above from Ontario (section 144 of the Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC 1996, c 318).

BC's Motor Vehicle Act may be worded differently. It was a local story about the burgers and coffees.

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/eating-drinking-snacking-distracted-driving-bc-rcmp

[dkaz]

https://twitter.com/BCRCMPTraffic/status/907611951953563649/photo/1

[rrocket]

Can you be charged for Careless when you're not moving?  Sounds like it's possible he wasn't moving when he was spotted by police?

Good question - now you're thinking like a criminal defence attorney

In Ontario, the wording is "operating a motor vehicle".  In BC, it specifically says "driving".  I'd think he could be ticketed in Ontario, but perhaps not in BC.

The article says "pulled up beside" the officers.  Which kinda makes me think stoplight.

Need more info.  I'm thinking it might be hard to secure conviction (even in Ontario) in he wasn't moving.

Who knows though...

[johngenx]

I think stopped at a light is considered driving/moving.  You're only momentarily stopped - not parked.

[rrocket]

I think stopped at a light is considered driving/moving.  You're only momentarily stopped - not parked.

Understood.

But if at a stop light, it might be hard to PROVE that people around you were in danger.

I guess it depends how hard you want to fight it.

[dirtyjeffer]

But if at a stop light, it might be hard to PROVE that people around you were in danger.

I guess it depends how hard you want to fight it.

that doesn't matter...it's no different than if you are drunk, but you are sitting at a stop light...in fact, just being in the car with the keys is a DUI (for example, if you pulled over to sleep it off).

[rrocket]

But if at a stop light, it might be hard to PROVE that people around you were in danger.

I guess it depends how hard you want to fight it.

that doesn't matter...it's no different than if you are drunk, but you are sitting at a stop light...in fact, just being in the car with the keys is a DUI (for example, if you pulled over to sleep it off).

And I'd say it's vastly different than a drunk driver.  Unless you're a sheep and believe that.  I mean...FFS...you honestly believe in your heart if you personally swipe your phone at a stop light to change songs....you're as much as a risk as a drunk driver?  That's some mighty strong Kool-Aid you're drinking there....or whatever you're smoking you need to puff and pass it....



BTW...I worked with a guy who beat that in court.  Was drunk.  Sleeping in car.

Like I said.  Depends how hard you want to fight it.

[dirtyjeffer]

But if at a stop light, it might be hard to PROVE that people around you were in danger.

I guess it depends how hard you want to fight it.

that doesn't matter...it's no different than if you are drunk, but you are sitting at a stop light...in fact, just being in the car with the keys is a DUI (for example, if you pulled over to sleep it off).

And I'd say it's vastly different than a drunk driver.  Unless you're a sheep and believe that.  I mean...FFS...you honestly believe in your heart if you personally swipe your phone at a stop light to change songs....you're as much as a risk as a drunk driver?  That's some mighty strong Kool-Aid you're drinking there....or whatever you're smoking you need to puff and pass it....



BTW...I worked with a guy who beat that in court.  Was drunk.  Sleeping in car.

Like I said.  Depends how hard you want to fight it.

no, i'm not saying its the same thing...what i'm saying is, if you're in the car and drunk, it's a DUI...and yes, some people to get off in a technicality, but likely get a "Care and Control" charge instead (as they technically weren't driving)...the issue is they still could drive, and likely were driving but at least pulled over so they were no longer driving.

I know several people who have been charged with it as well.

[Noto]

BC's Motor Vehicle Act may be worded differently. It was a local story about the burgers and coffees.

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/eating-drinking-snacking-distracted-driving-bc-rcmp

Nope - still a careless driving offence.

The article says "pulled up beside" the officers.  Which kinda makes me think stoplight.

Need more info.  I'm thinking it might be hard to secure conviction (even in Ontario) in he wasn't moving.

Actually, to the contrary.  The problem is proving that he was USING the device, which the officers didn't see.  Then add in the fact that his "hack" was to not have the device be a "handheld", and you've got even more difficulty securing conviction.

Remember, it's careless driving to focus on the phone/tablet/food/whatever, whereas the law against using a handheld device is specific for that purpose.

My guess here is that they never saw the screen on and therefore would have difficulty proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he was "using" the devices so located.  While highly suspect to have the devices so mounted, the mere possibility that he was not USING it while driving lends to a reasonable doubt that makes it impossible for a court to reasonably secure a conviction with the said burden of proof.

[dkaz]

Next mod?

[HeliDriver]

BC's Motor Vehicle Act may be worded differently. It was a local story about the burgers and coffees.

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/eating-drinking-snacking-distracted-driving-bc-rcmp

Nope - still a careless driving offence.

You’re so sure about the BC law?

I don’t know about BC either, but here in Alberta we have new distracted driving legislation that covers cell phone use, eating, etc.

The careless driving legislation is still there, and can also be used for the same thing in more serious cases.

Okay, did my research (after posting  ). Sounds like you’re right. Apparently, Alberta is unique in that its distracted driving legislation specifically covers eating, grooming, etc., as well as all the handheld electronic device stuff.

So I guess in BC if you’re eating a hamburger at the wheel, it’s careless driving or nothing. In Alberta, I expect you’d get a distracted driving ticket, unless you actually caused an accident or something, in which case they’d probably bump it up to careless.

[dkaz]

In BC, I believe you can get a ticket, if you are stopped at a traffic light or stop sign and use the phone for texting, or looking at phone for messages.

Correct.

[johngenx]

Same in Alberta.  If you're on the road, and you look at your phone, you're breaking the law.  Touch it, look at it, whatever.  You need to be parked - and even on the side of the road is illegal if it's not an approved legal parking area.

[carcrazed]

Same in Alberta.  If you're on the road, and you look at your phone, you're breaking the law.  Touch it, look at it, whatever.  You need to be parked - and even on the side of the road is illegal if it's not an approved legal parking area.

Even looking at the phone for navigation?

[rrocket]

BC's Motor Vehicle Act may be worded differently. It was a local story about the burgers and coffees.

http://dailyhive.com/vancouver/eating-drinking-snacking-distracted-driving-bc-rcmp

Nope - still a careless driving offence.

You’re so sure about the BC law?

I don’t know about BC either, but here in Alberta we have new distracted driving legislation that covers cell phone use, eating, etc.

The careless driving legislation is still there, and can also be used for the same thing in more serious cases.

Okay, did my research (after posting  ). Sounds like you’re right. Apparently, Alberta is unique in that its distracted driving legislation specifically covers eating, grooming, etc., as well as all the handheld electronic device stuff.

So I guess in BC if you’re eating a hamburger at the wheel, it’s careless driving or nothing. In Alberta, I expect you’d get a distracted driving ticket, unless you actually caused an accident or something, in which case they’d probably bump it up to careless.

Grooming?

So technically, if you scratch your head....you're distracted driving...because grooming.    

What about changing the radio/HVAC or talking to passengers?  In research I did for a paper, changing radio/HVAC/passenger was the #1 cause for distracted driving fatalities.

And it wasn't even close.