# Cellphone ban while driving in Ontario: includes iPods



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

TheStar.com | Ontario | Cellphone ban hits iPods



The Star said:


> Drivers face $500 fines under province's proposed law on using hand-held devices
> 
> Oct 29, 2008 04:30 AM
> Comments on this story (73)
> ...


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

Good. Too bad it doesn't include bicycles as well.


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

Cops should confiscate the device as well, THAT would be cool. 

Actually they should confiscate it and smash it on the ground and make the offender pick up the pieces. :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## zarquon (May 24, 2005)

John Clay said:


> Good. Too bad it doesn't include bicycles as well.


It should, bicycles are subject to most other HTA offences. The fact that it also make sense should mean that it doesn't. 

Z.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

This is all crap. Even if you are in traffic at a complete stop you would be breaking the law. I like to see any person agreeing with this law, and see if they ever, ever use the cell phone while in the car.

I agree people drive slow and bad while using the cell phone. Tickets shoudl be given to people seen driving too slow or eratic should be given a ticket not everyone else.

If there was a smiley with a finger I put oen here. tptptptp


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Joker Eh said:


> This is all crap. Even if you are in traffic at a complete stop you would be breaking the law.


I think you misunderstand the law.

You can use cell phones all you want -- you just have to use them hands-free.

As for iPods, most cars these days have controls for iPod built-in, and a lot of vehicles can have this technology retrofitted.

I personally just pick a playlist before I get started, thus I don't need to fool with it once I get going.


----------



## miniphone (Jul 24, 2008)

about time!!!!


----------



## JustAMacUser (Oct 21, 2007)

I'm with Chas... I think this is a good law. Really the only people who are going to get upset are the ones who are currently doing (or plan to do) what the law says not to.

Afterall, how is a driver focusing more on driving at all a bad thing??


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

Having been driving for 2.5 years for work, I can say 9 times out of 10 when someone was doing something STUPID (not signalling, driving really slow or eradic) it was because they had a cell phone in their hand.

It'd be great if those people were caught and fined.. but lets be realistic.. cops are rarely there at those times when you wish they were.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

kloan said:


> Having been driving for 2.5 years for work, I can say 9 times out of 10 when someone was doing something STUPID (not signalling, driving really slow or eradic) it was because they had a cell phone in their hand.
> 
> It'd be great if those people were caught and fined.. but lets be realistic.. cops are rarely there at those times when you wish they were.


That's it? 2.5 years? I have been doing it for much longer then that, and let me tell you, I have seen the same thing happen with idiots on their Bluetooth Headsets as well.

This is what I don't get from most of you and this stupid Cell Phone Ban Bill put forth.

I have witnessed just as many drivers using Bluetooth headsets who act the same way as a driver who holds a cell phone in their hand and drives a motor vehicle. So what is the difference here?

I can give you examples of drivers who use a Bluetooth headset that are also dangerous drivers:

1. Now they can truly be multitasking by talking, and doing things with their hands while driving as it frees up one hand

2. Drivers who don't see the person who has the right away while crossing an intersection at the lights due to too involved into the cellphone conversation over Bluetooth headset. In fact, most of these idiots don't even look right or left when turning right or left at an intersection when on the bluetooth headsets.

3. Not signaling while driving on road or 400 series highways

4. Drivers on bluetooth headsets who have lost all sense of where they are as they flair and wave their arms all around while driving taking their hands OFF the steering wheel all together and drive too slow on the highway causing traffic jams.

5. Drivers who use bluetooth headsets and don't hear an emergency vehicle behind them with sirens on or notice the emergency lights on. That's freaking annoying as hell I tell you.

All other distractions mentioned in my other post with the list plus more.

If we are going to ban cellphone use while driving, then it should be for ALL ways and uses period! 

Anyone who argues that bluetooth headsets and all other hands free methods is SAFER while driving has not seen or experienced the level of driving I have over the years and witnessed it all, from inside a vehicle and while walking. 

It's like saying to a driver that it is ok to drink before you drive, but just don't drink inside your vehicle while driving. Obviously they were smart with that law when they passed it and banned drinking all together prior to operating a motor vehicle.


----------



## phuviano (Sep 14, 2005)

kloan said:


> Having been driving for 2.5 years for work, I can say 9 times out of 10 when someone was doing something STUPID (not signalling, driving really slow or eradic) it was because they had a cell phone in their hand.
> 
> It'd be great if those people were caught and fined.. but lets be realistic.. cops are rarely there at those times when you wish they were.


I agree with you, 100%. A lot of people these days, are not even paying attention to driving even when they are not on their cell phones. Being on their cell phones, just makes it worse.


----------



## garf1108 (May 30, 2006)

About time too. Was in NL when they passed the law - the majority of people complied.


----------



## DrewNL (May 23, 2005)

garf1108 said:


> About time too. Was in NL when they passed the law - the majority of people complied.


I've lived in NL for the majority of the time since this law passed and I've also witness this law in action in NJ. I cannot speak too much of NJ aside from having witnessed someone getting a ticket. I can, however, speak of NL. The majority of people in NL do not use cell phones while driving. This is not due to diligence and compliance but due to the fact that they never did in the beginning. 

The people who were affected were mostly upset here. Dealers jacked the prices of headsets that were now required. They benefited greatly, selling a $4 wholesale piece of equipment for $40+tx (I've worked for dealers and seen the margins). People have come into my former place of work and told me that they feel they are being forced to shell out more cash for no good reason. They are being discriminated against and are the victims of a cash grab....that their actions are no different than anyone else. That brings us to the matter of whether this law actually makes the roads safer. It doesn't. Plain and simple. Hypothetical Mr. Smith can be juggling a cigarette, a cup of coffee and a Big Mac while trying to find the right station on their Sirius radio and thats cool. But a man like me - a very aware driver for more than a decade, with a clean record - cannot answer a call from my wife while she's out of country. Which driver would you think is safer? Why not penalize Mr. Smith? How is using a cell phone any more dangerous than anything else one is allowed to do in a car? Eating, smoking, drinking, applying make up, fiddling with the radio, arguing with a passenger even reading a book...none of those are written into law. Specifically highlighting mobile phone usage is outright discriminatory.

Finally there is enforceability....of which there appears to be none in this province. I have not at all altered my driving habits. I continue to have a clean record, and have never received a citation for this. I personally know people who have contested such charges and won. Law enforcement members have ZERO proof in these cases. Unless they want to go the route of requesting phone records from wireless carriers....which they don't. Our premier has come on television and flat out admitted "I was driving today on the parkway in St. John's while talking on the phone. If you want to ticket me, do it". He did not receive a ticket.

I was all for this law when it was announced. Now I've changed my mind. Its total BS. Not 5% of offenders will be caught, or more accurately, held accountable. My opinion on this law becomes more entrenched every day as I drive to work and see dozens of people on cell phones and dozens of police ignoring them. I think that makes me the angriest.

ON will pass this law, and absolutely nothing will change. maybe 10% of offenders in ON will catch the short end of the stick. But that doesn't make your highways safer.


----------



## alamarco (Aug 31, 2008)

Dumb drivers aren't just because of cellphones or other devices. A lot of you are ignoring qualifications and just assuming that every bad driver must be using a device of somesort.

With this ban, GPS units are banned. So instead of having voiced directions some people will end up fooling around with maps on their laps. The safer alternative would be to pull to the side of the road to look at the map. However we all know that some people will end up looking up and down reading the map on their lap while driving.

While driving I see lots of terrible drivers. When I look at the driver I don't see them using any device, they're just bad drivers.

One thing I'd like to note as well. People say that there should be a ban on cellphones specifically because they distract the driver. If that's the case so should talking to the passengers while driving. You're doing the same thing, having a conversation while driving and everybody has done this at least once if not everytime there are passengers.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

GPS devices aren't banned; handheld GPS devices are.

Duct tape whatever electronics you've got to your dashboard, and you're set.

As for banning conversations because they are the 'same thing' as speaking on a cell phone--don't give them any ideas.



alamarco said:


> Dumb drivers aren't just because of cellphones or other devices. A lot of you are ignoring qualifications and just assuming that every bad driver must be using a device of somesort.
> 
> With this ban, GPS units are banned. So instead of having voiced directions some people will end up fooling around with maps on their laps. The safer alternative would be to pull to the side of the road to look at the map. However we all know that some people will end up looking up and down reading the map on their lap while driving.
> 
> ...


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

*Motorist caught on camera driving with Chihuahua on lap*


*Motorist caught on camera driving with Chihuahua on lap*











> This is the shocking picture that landed Alan Lowther in the dock - driving with Perry the Chihauhua perched on his lap.
> 
> The tiny dog was caught on camera peering over the wheel as the Jeep travelled along a busy road.
> 
> At a court hearing today - minus the chihauha - Lowther pleaded guilty to driving without proper control and was ordered to pay £300 in fines and court costs, but spared any points on his licence.





> There were 3,003 accidents caused last year in the UK because of distractions inside vehicles - 75 of them were fatal.


----------



## crazy (Feb 27, 2008)

As someone who was in quite a big accident caused by an idiot on a cell phone (and yet I was deemed at fault) and was almost run over by another person on their phone just a week ago, I'm glad they're finally addressing, I only which the penalties were harsher.


----------



## kungfookiller (Jun 11, 2008)

is this effective immediately?


----------



## Crewser (Jun 12, 2007)

kungfookiller said:


> is this effective immediately?


It's at first reading stage. If memory serves me correct there's a 2nd reading then Royal Ascent or perhaps a 3rd reading then Royal Ascent. Perhaps Royal Ascent is only for federal laws?

Sometime in 2009 is the earliest I have heard either way.


----------



## kubes (May 6, 2008)

I don't see how people fooling around with radios (especially the people I know with satellite radio) are any different, but hey - it needed to happen eventually.

And where would we be without the government telling us what to do? 

But like someone commented on CBC...when will we see bans on people (usually women haha) putting makeup on while driving? I've seen it several times, and I don't drive a whole lot.


----------



## Andrew Pratt (Feb 16, 2007)

I agree in principle with the idea but it does beg the question if changing the radio is any different then changing songs on my iPod mounted to the FM transmitter? ...or is that ok b/c its not hand held? Manitoba's apparently looking at bringing in the same laws as well.

Interestingly my boss was given a warning earlier this week for talking on his cell while driving from the airport in Quebec City so it is being enforced there.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

I would like to see them make a ban on wearing headphones when you drive. That is more dangerous then talking on the phone...you can't hear, sirens, horns.

I suspect it's because their stereo is broken; they are cheap to replace and it you like to music on them then burn a cd or get an FM transmitter...I got mine for $15.

Having said that a case can be made about cell phones in the ear to; granted they only cover 1 ear and aren't on all the time. I am 50/50 on this but feel you would need to ban any in-ear device (except a hearing aid) while driving.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

The point of this legislation is that hands-free devices *won't* be banned; the government is essentially insisting that you use that bluetooth or wired headset instead of putting your phone to your ear.

But I couldn't agree more about earbuds, earphones or headsets that go in/cover both ears. That should be qualify people for a lifetime ban from driving.

I don't think people wear iPod (or any other) headphones in both ears because their stereos died. It's either because they are too stupid to live, and/or have a death wish.



RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> I would like to see them make a ban on wearing headphones when you drive. That is more dangerous then talking on the phone...you can't hear, sirens, horns.
> 
> I suspect it's because their stereo is broken; they are cheap to replace and it you like to music on them then burn a cd or get an FM transmitter...I got mine for $15.
> 
> Having said that a case can be made about cell phones in the ear to; granted they only cover 1 ear and aren't on all the time. I am 50/50 on this but feel you would need to ban any in-ear device (except a hearing aid) while driving.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Crewser said:


> It's at first reading stage. If memory serves me correct there's a 2nd reading then Royal Ascent or perhaps a 3rd reading then Royal Ascent. Perhaps Royal Ascent is only for federal laws?
> 
> Sometime in 2009 is the earliest I have heard either way.


There are three readings in the Legislature - the first to table it, the second followed by debate and submission to committee, then the third which is voted on. It is then submitted to the Lieutenent-Governor for Royal Assent, when it becomes law.

In Parliament, any bill that makes it past second reading gets booted over to the Senate, where it is read three times (between rounds of beer), then it is returned and voted on by the Commons, unless the Senate has some adverse reaction and either kills it by procedure or it is returned for second reading once again and debated. (The Senate can not do this to "money bills", like the Budget.) It is then sent to the GG for Assent...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I do not think that anyone is really opposed to the legislation - just that many people think it is useless to pass legislation that will never be enforced. We have enough legislation and enough bans now that are entirely unenforced - why add another one?

Legislation is nothing without enforcement, and enforcement is nothing without punishment. A $500 fine? What a joke - horse and buggy thinking. People may pay some attention if it was a substantial fine, $5000 for the first offense, $15000 for the second offense, and a year in prison for subsequent offenses. But of course, it doesn't matter what fines are attached because no one will enforce the laws. Considering the number of people that are on the QEW right now practicing for next February's Daytona 500 - they certainly are not doling out the fines for speeding...


----------



## kubes (May 6, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> A $500 fine? What a joke - horse and buggy thinking.


I might not have numbers to back me up, but with all the people getting pulled over in Barrie for going 1 or 2 km/h over the speed limit in community safety zones, I can see this being heavily enforced here. On top of that, add the fact that some police groups have been shown to have ticket quotas, and we get something that I can see as becoming a fairly popular ticket for a while.

The highways might be a different story; I don't know.

But you're right about the fine being laughable in some ways. On one long weekend in the summer, didn't the OPP pull over 100 or more people doing 150km/h+? There are signs all over saying that you car gets impounded and the fine can be up to $10,000...people just don't seem to get it (I'm sure they started to understand once the tow truck pulled up). They should at least add some points to this for repeat offenders.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

kubes said:


> I might not have numbers to back me up, but with all the people getting pulled over in Barrie for going 1 or 2 km/h over the speed limit in community safety zones, I can see this being heavily enforced here.


It's unenforced around here. The street that my girlfriend lives on is nothing more than a practice track for the 24 Hours Of LeMans. So you are lucky if they are enforcing anything in Barrie. Heck, our cops are too stupid to arrest the dude across the street that keeps firing off his shotgun and flare gun every weekend.



> But you're right about the fine being laughable in some ways. On one long weekend in the summer, didn't the OPP pull over 100 or more people doing 150km/h+? There are signs all over saying that you car gets impounded and the fine can be up to $10,000...people just don't seem to get it (I'm sure they started to understand once the tow truck pulled up). They should at least add some points to this for repeat offenders.


It's time for them to become hardcore. It's not like 50km/h over is caused by the speed creeping up inadvertently. Those cars should be impounded then sold at auction with the proceeds going to those who have been severely injured by motorized assaults, the drivers should lose their license permanently, and they should serve time for endangering the lives of others. In some places, drivers are realizing the costs of speeding, like in California, where they are now crushing the cars.

The demerit point system here is a joke, and any retard can go in and get off by out-thinking our dumb judges.


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> I would like to see them make a ban on wearing headphones when you drive. That is more dangerous then talking on the phone...you can't hear, sirens, horns.


In Ontario it is already illegal to wear headphones while driving. Has been for at least 15 years.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

But how about the people typing on their laptops at 140km/h swerving over the road etc.

I am not going to pick a part your rant, but I will just bring up some random points.



MacGYVER said:


> That's it? 2.5 years? I have been doing it for much longer then that, and let me tell you, I have seen the same thing happen with idiots on their Bluetooth Headsets as well.
> 
> This is what I don't get from most of you and this stupid Cell Phone Ban Bill put forth.


Ok, we could ban nothing. Infact banning nothing cost nothing.... hmmm.. lets do nothing and save some time and money. But really, at least its an effort to curb bad behaviour, a better idea would be to only charge motorists in accident cases, or driving wrecklessly, because then there is a direct cause and effect relationship

Ya, and how about the drivers who are listening to the radio, or the ones not listening to the radio, or talking on a phone, who are just jerks, who cant seem to see flashing lights, and sirens? 

I have personally witnessed and seen cops pull a few of the many people who do this.



> Anyone who argues that bluetooth headsets and all other hands free methods is SAFER while driving has not seen or experienced the level of driving I have over the years and witnessed it all, from inside a vehicle and while walking.
> 
> It's like saying to a driver that it is ok to drink before you drive, but just don't drink inside your vehicle while driving. Obviously they were smart with that law when they passed it and banned drinking all together prior to operating a motor vehicle.


In ontario its actually legal to drink in drive... until the legal limit if you have a class G licence.

While yes people can be distracted while on bluetooth calls, At least they have 2 hands available for emergencies, and are not creating blindspots while holding the phone next to their heads. Also, some of the other tendencies you mentioned have nothing to do with bluetooth etc.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

G-Mo said:


> In Ontario it is already illegal to wear headphones while driving. Has been for at least 15 years.


Exactly... and has anyone EVER seen someone get pulled over for that? Sure, cell phones are a lot more common... but it's a similar situation, where cops are rarely there to see people doing the stupid things they do.

Also, I VERY MUCH disagree with the argument that bluetooth headsets aren't safer. They absolutely ARE if the driver isn't a complete idiot (which unfortunately there are a lot of). 

Personally, I noticed a significant increase in focus, awareness and presence on the road when I started using a bluetooth headset. I never dialed, only received calls, and it made a huge difference in my attention to the road. But that's just my personal experience... YMMV.


----------



## kubes (May 6, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> It's unenforced around here. The street that my girlfriend lives on is nothing more than a practice track for the 24 Hours Of LeMans. So you are lucky if they are enforcing anything in Barrie. Heck, our cops are too stupid to arrest the dude across the street that keeps firing off his shotgun and flare gun every weekend.


I wouldn't doubt that, I just finished a degree at Mac and can't tell you how many times I almost got run over trying to cross Main St...even once by a cop! I know that's not a community safety zone, but some of the drivers there really don't seem to care.

So if headphones are already banned, how does this law allow wired handsfree sets? If the headphone legislation became a token law so quickly, what will stop that from happening to this one? Ah well, maybe it'll deter a few people.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

Because headphones fit in both ears and block outside noise. Headsets leave one ear free to hear sirens, or people screaming "hey a-hole, watch where the f you're driving" etc....


----------



## kubes (May 6, 2008)

kloan said:


> Because headphones fit in both ears and block outside noise. Headsets leave one ear free to hear sirens, or people screeming "hey a-hole, watch where the f you're driving" etc....


My headset is actually two in-ear headphones (the w810i) which blocks out almost all outside noise. I wouldn't use it that way in a car, but I find it silly that this would be allowed under the new law - unless they plan on specifying which type of handsfree devices are allowed. Hey, maybe they'll even buy me a new one


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

Technically, those are considered headphones/earphones, and would be illegal to drive with.

Hands-free headsets are one ear only.


----------



## Mycatisbigfoot (Nov 2, 2008)

*Question*

Could I say be a passengewr and us my iphone or ipod and play music via an fm dongle.. btw my music colletion is like 32 gb
btw i live in Montreal


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

kloan said:


> Technically, those are considered headphones/earphones, and would be illegal to drive with.
> 
> Hands-free headsets are one ear only.


Sorry, you are totally wrong! 2 ear units are still considered handsfree headsets and as long as long as they are only being used for communication are totally legal!


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

G-Mo said:


> Sorry, you are totally wrong! 2 ear units are still considered handsfree headsets and as long as long as they are only being used for communication are totally legal!


BS.

They're bluetooth headphones and are sold as such.


----------



## AquaAngel (Feb 16, 2007)

WOW, to bad it ain't applicable here in BC, and i have to agree to all of you that are in favor. 
Maybe with some exception for delivery drivers just like me and truckers, but i have seen a lot of [email protected]&&^&$$* in' drivers cutting me off, driving to slow, or speed like if the devil was chasing them and i say that you should not use any hand held or electronic device while you are driving. 
Just do it while you are at the red light or pull over if you have to be on the phone

Mind you that i see a lot of young drivers doing it, and those stupid idiots shouldn't use any device at all while driving. they are easily distracted and they are the first one hitting the ditch or rear end somebody.

i am not trying to say that i should be exempt from this law "i wish" but i do multy task and i have been working as a delivery driver for over 10 years and i am not on the phone "as i hate phone" while driving, but i use my GPS, ipod, radio "for work" and pager" and my record is clean.:clap: 

I say, for those that are in the business of communication like truckers and delivery, they should be exempt if a sign on the vehicle is shown. like "DELIVERY GUY" but for the average Joe. Pull over if you have to use any hand held device or else i'll nail you if you hit my new van.


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

kloan said:


> BS.
> 
> They're bluetooth headphones and are sold as such.


Bluetooth headphones and wired headphones (like the iPhone headphones) that carry voice count 100% as handsfree devices as long as you are not playing music through them while driving...


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

i think this is a great law to implement.

i understand how cell phones can speed up lives and business, but when one is driving a 2 tonne chunk of steel and other materials, people can get hurt. most of the numbnuts i see on the road are using cells.

but f*ck, i wish they could charge the numbnuts driving on highways. i was driving back from northern ontario on highway 17 and it just amazes me how many idiots drive 85-90, but don't slow down through small towns, then they speed up to 120 in the passing zones, then slow down again. and then you get the morons who badly need cruise control b/c they ride up on your tail, then slow down...then ride up the tail again...then slow down. or, they pass you and then slow down. wtf. 

(sigh). sorry...i know that isn't the direction of this thread, but man, i'm a wee bit ticked off.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

G-Mo said:


> Bluetooth headphones and wired headphones (like the iPhone headphones) that carry voice count 100% as handsfree devices as long as you are not playing music through them while driving...


Show me where it says that. I think you're full of it.


----------



## G-Mo (Sep 26, 2007)

kloan said:


> Show me where it says that. I think you're full of it.


Well, I'll go with the twice I have been pulled over (once on Lakeshore Blvd and once on the DVP) while wearing my iPhone headphones and it's not been a problem because I was using them as a handsfree option ("Smart" said the DVP officer)... and I had it confirmed while discussing the issue with an officer friend at the Leafs game Saturday night.

Call your local PD if you want to be a Doubting Thomas... ask them!


----------



## psxp (May 23, 2006)

keebler27 said:


> but f*ck, i wish they could charge the numbnuts driving on highways. i was driving back from northern ontario on highway 17 and it just amazes me how many idiots drive 85-90, but don't slow down through small towns, then they speed up to 120 in the passing zones, then slow down again. and then you get the morons who badly need cruise control b/c they ride up on your tail, then slow down...then ride up the tail again...then slow down. or, they pass you and then slow down. wtf.


ha! I agree..what is with Ontario drivers??? There are so many pr1cks like this.. it amazes me.. I used to love to boot past them in my Protege 5. My old car could take most Minivan and SUVs as it was far lighter and tighter in the corners, and I drive Manual.

When is this law in effect? Should be interesting to see more people getting ticked off with drivers with phones now..


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

crazy said:


> As someone who was in quite a big accident caused by an idiot on a cell phone (and yet I was deemed at fault) and was almost run over by another person on their phone just a week ago, I'm glad they're finally addressing, I only which the penalties were harsher.


So, what happened? Why were you considered at fault? If there's no law against cellphones, then you can't site that as the reason for fault.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

kloan said:


> Also, I VERY MUCH disagree with the argument that bluetooth headsets aren't safer. They absolutely ARE if the driver isn't a complete idiot (which unfortunately there are a lot of).


You'd be wrong, in general. The problem with cell phones is not holding them, it's the loss in concentration when trying to hear and participate in the conversation. I know you're thinking, "but what about talking to a passenger." The audio quality and volume in a head set it much poorer and requires more brain activity to hear and recognize the speech, than a person in the vehicle. This is what the studies I've read about concluded, anyway.

The only difference is when you finally realize you're about to crash, your hands are already on the wheel instead of holding your phone, which could be considered safer, but hands-free doesn't make you more attentive during the conversation, even if it seems that you are.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

hayesk said:


> You'd be wrong, in general. The problem with cell phones is not holding them, it's the loss in concentration when trying to hear and participate in the conversation. I know you're thinking, "but what about talking to a passenger." The audio quality and volume in a head set it much poorer and requires more brain activity to hear and recognize the speech, than a person in the vehicle. This is what the studies I've read about concluded, anyway.
> 
> The only difference is when you finally realize you're about to crash, your hands are already on the wheel instead of holding your phone, which could be considered safer, but hands-free doesn't make you more attentive during the conversation, even if it seems that you are.


Studies be damned! :lmao: 

I was speaking from personal experience. I also followed with a 'YMMV'....


----------



## FlaminWiz (Feb 18, 2008)

JustAMacUser said:


> I'm with Chas... I think this is a good law. Really the only people who are going to get upset are the ones who are currently doing (or plan to do) what the law says not to.
> 
> Afterall, how is a driver focusing more on driving at all a bad thing??


I would agree as well.

I hope this decreases traffic jams due to "accidents" but I guess that's the purpose of the law. I hate when I leave late for something and then there's a traffic jam.

Are you allowed to change the song from your iPod when it's a red light though? I don't think so ...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
The proposed Ontario law does exempt "hands-free" operation of cell phones, and this includes BlueTooth.

As Tacitus said: "you can tell how much a society has degenerated by looking at the abundance of laws they have"...


----------



## JustAMacUser (Oct 21, 2007)

FlaminWiz said:


> Are you allowed to change the song from your iPod when it's a red light though? I don't think so ...


I usually setup a playlist with podcasts, music, etc. before I leave the house. Then I never have to touch my iPhone. In the event I don't do that, I have a few smart playlists that work fine for the length of time I have to be behind the wheel. But I get what you're saying.


----------

