# Ontario banning driving while using cell phones?



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

It's about time, when are they going to do this in BC?

globeandmail.com: Ontario bill would ban cellphone use by drivers

While this is a good first step they're not going far enough, hands free units should also be covered.



> Although the hand-held cell has taken most of the blame, critics suggest bans that push for hands-free devices miss the point: They say drivers' minds are distracted by the conversation, not by whether one or both hands are on the wheel.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It's about time, when are they going to do this in BC?
> 
> globeandmail.com: Ontario bill would ban cellphone use by drivers
> 
> While this is a good first step they're not going far enough, hands free units should also be covered.


I think after this, there's nothing left to ban...oh wait...there's eating cheeseburgers while driving, applying makeup while driving, changing the baby's diapers while driving, engaging in sexual activity while driving...

There are already laws governing this type of inattention, this is much ado about nothing as you're still allowed "hands-free" sets.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

These are not laws. Call it what it really is: SOCIAL ENGINEERING.

Every province already has laws on the books covering this type of behaviour.

It's normally called driving without due care and attention.

No need to pass stupid new specific laws. Just enforce the one they have that covers all this idiotic behaviour by drivers.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

SINC said:


> These are not laws. Call it what it really is: SOCIAL ENGINEERING.
> 
> Every province already has laws on the books covering this type of behaviour.
> 
> ...


Sometimes you have to single out specific "banned" behaviours to get people's attention (thus the existing cell phone use bans), but on the whole SINC is completely correct on this one. There are already laws to cover this problem, we just need to "up the pain" until the public decides on its own that it's not worth it.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> These are not laws. Call it what it really is: SOCIAL ENGINEERING.
> 
> Every province already has laws on the books covering this type of behaviour.
> 
> ...


Driving without due care and attention isn't a preventive law generally, since it's hard for police to know what's going on inside a vehicle. It's usually a charge that's applied after the accident has occurred. We know that using a cell phone while driving contributes to driver distraction but I doubt if any officer would or could pull someone over who was seen using one at present.

Note that stats show that in Newfoundland an 8% reduction in collisions occurred after their cell ban. I support a rule that will reduce the incidence of distracted drivers hurtling around in their cars anywhere in my vicinity.

I would hope that any such law will give the police to power to check cell phone records in the event of an accident, so it can be determined if the driver was violating the ban.


----------



## chef-ryan (Oct 11, 2008)

agreed but with the hands free and i think someone sugested that it be included in the ban... the purpose of the ban would be to keep your eyes on the road... they said they may also be considering banning ipods (they were specified because some crs come with ipod specific inputs) and gps units


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Yet another "ban" that will have no actual results. Sure, people are distracted by cell phones and drive erratically, but so do people eat meals, play with their PSP, read books, operate laptops, etc.

The ban will only work if it is backed up by hard core punishments - like if caught with a cell phone while driving, permanent removal of the driver's license and the car being turned over for public auction with the money used for victims of car collisions.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Driving without due care and attention isn't a preventive law generally, since it's hard for police to know what's going on inside a vehicle. It's usually a charge that's applied after the accident has occurred. We know that using a cell phone while driving contributes to driver distraction but I doubt if any officer would or could pull someone over who was seen using one at present.


Just because a law isn't being applied properly doesn't mean we have to rush out and pass another one. If a police office sees a car stray from its lane, fail to signal or narrowly miss another vehicle, stop the driver and charge them with driving without due care and attention. He doesn't have to "see" the driver on the phone (and he can't with hands free although studies have proven it to be as dangerous as hand held). He just has to view the results of phone use and then use current law to prosecute the driver. (That's _after_ the offense and _before_ the accident, a much better scenario.)

And for the record, driving without due care and attention carries a much stiffer penalty than any "slap on the wrist" mamby, pamby cell phone fine. It would alter phone use in a heartbeat if the law was properly applied as it now exists.

Like I stated earlier, anything else is pure social engineering.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

The law is something police can use that isn't as harsh as a careless driving charge, which more than likely would be thrown out of court if contested. It will be enforced just like our seat belt laws are enforced, spot checks at on and off ramps. But I guess we should get rid of seat belt laws too, we wouldn't want to save lives with "social engineering."


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

A couple of times I have had drivers on cells run red-lights. Not lights that had just changed but lights that had been red for several seconds. 

In one instance I would have been flattened had I not been in the habit of looking both ways before stepping into the crosswalk. That light had been red long enough that the advance green on the other street had completed its cycle and the main green had come on.

So yes any one driving and talking at the same time should get a ticket. Whether it is via current laws or newer laws it needs to be done.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Seat belt laws are common sense. You could remove the law from the books tomorrow and usage would not decline. It is ingrained in our brains by now.

And in case you hadn't noticed, when you read about fatal accidents, most times the person killed was not wearing their seat belt. Happens all the time. So just how did having that particular bit of social engineering law on the books save those poor folks lives? Quick answer is it didn't.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

SINC said:


> Seat belt laws are common sense. You could remove the law from the books tomorrow and usage would not decline. It is ingrained in our brains by now.
> 
> And in case you hadn't noticed, when you read about fatal accidents, most times the person killed was not wearing their seat belt. Happens all the time. So just how did having that particular bit of social engineering law on the books save those poor folks lives? Quick answer is it didn't.


True, there will always be darwinism involved, but not wearing a seat belt doesn't affect the lives of others if they get into an accident, where handheld device use while driving could. So why have a law for one and not the other?

Hopefully a law like this will eventually be ingrained into our brains through education and law enforcement. I'm sure there was a time where seat belts weren't accepted as they are today, but that eventually changed, as can this.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Seat belt laws *do* affect the lives of others. Do you think parents have a right to send their children through the windshields of their cars? It's bad enough that you see children unbuckled and playing around now; imagine if there was no law in force requiring seatbelts.

And it's also bad enough that most people don't know how to use and secure a child safety seat.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Only in Canada, must you MAKE another law to override a law that has been in use for years. That's kind of pathetic as the law for driving dangerously while being distracted already exists. Oh but wait this is Canada, we need to waste precious time and money creating something that is already there.

Getting a bunch of key people together to figure out if we need this law and passing a bill is a waste of time and I would rather see my politicians wasting time on something else . 

So let me see if I understand most of you here, a ban on cell phones while driving is more important then:

1. Mother turned around and trying to fix their kid in the child seat while driving

2. Male driver shaving with mirror down driving in a school residential zone

3. Female putting on make up

4. People reading the newspaper folded out over the steering wheel and eyes off the road

5. People eating and drinking with no hands on the wheel

6. People typing away on their laptops and completely are looking down and not on the road

7. People leaned over in their seats looking for something they dropped

8. Two people having a conversation and the driver totally forgets they're driving a vehicle

9. People who drive without cleaning their windows in the winter time of snow, this includes that HUGE ASS window you need to look out of for driving in front of you.

10. People who don't have their lights on when it is dark

11. People who fail to realize that the light is RED 

12. People who fail to realize they just ran a 4 WAY STOP and didn't even realize it.

13. People who are busy looking for a lighter to light their smoke

14. People who read their books while driving

15. Business people who go over their notes for a meeting

16. Ladies who have to do their hair before they get to work

17. People who are too into their GPS to remember they're driving

18. People who constantly look down to change the radio station

19. People who are changing CD's while driving

Last but not least:

People who have those damn BLUETOOTH headsets who forget to put the call on hold while ordering at a drive thru and hold everyone up in line. :lmao: 

Maybe the Ontario government should take these 20 driving infractions AND MAKE them also individual LAWS eh? Or...


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

HowEver said:


> Seat belt laws *do* affect the lives of others. Do you think parents have a right to send their children through the windshields of their cars? It's bad enough that you see children unbuckled and playing around now; imagine if there was no law in force requiring seatbelts.
> 
> And it's also bad enough that most people don't know how to use and secure a child safety seat.


I also see the ones that do restrain their children properly doing the 20 things that MacGyver has mention plus anything else you can imagine while their kids are in the car. Sure they are restrained properly but are they still endangering their children by being idiots on the road? If they can ban smoking in the cars with children, hand held devices are a natural next step.

I always get a kick at the people who speed passed me with a "baby on board" sign in their back window. Parents will endanger their kids regardless of laws, which makes a case for another form of social engineering, but we wont get into that here.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

The more I read about this proposed law, the more defective it seems. The ban would include GPS devices and cellphones, but would exclude GPS devices mounted on the windshield and cellphones that are being operated with a headphone. How either of these exceptions are considered less of a distraction to a drive is beyond me. 

While I think most people would agree that it's never a wise idea to distract a driver while operating a vehicle, cellphones and GPS devices are just two in a long, long list of dumb things people do while at the wheel. Here are some of things I've seen over the years:

a mom breaking up a fight between her kids in the back seat with one hand, while the other remained at the wheel;  
a guy reading the newspaper while doing 140kph on the Queensway;  
another who inexplicably was shaving with an electric razor while his passenger was grooming his ears (I know...ewwwwwwww). XX) 

As I understand it, none of these activities are specifically outlawed. And the reason why ought to be obvious to these well-meaning lawmakers. You can't legislate common sense.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

You can blather all the negatives to this law that you wish.

I'm with GA, for two, happy to see it come to pass.

The Hammer Mafia will have to get his next car some other way though. That's just too severe.

And take those farkin' Road Ontario phone number signs down from the highway shoulders. WTH are they thinking with that little bit of insight??


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacGYVER made my point. We don't need laws for every damn situation. Just need to use the laws we already have properly. Cops don't stop people for doing half of what's in that list and they won't for cell phone use either. They have bigger fish to fry.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

SINC said:


> MacGYVER made my point. We don't need laws for every damn situation. Just need to use the laws we already have properly. Cops don't stop people for doing half of what's in that list and they won't for cell phone use either. They have bigger fish to fry.


Not if they are doing spot checks, add hand held distractions to the list of things they are looking for while you are entering a highway. What Ontario law exactly would they use right now to enforce this?


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

SINC said:


> We don't need laws for every damn situation. Just need to use the laws we already have properly. Cops don't stop people for doing half of what's in that list and they won't for cell phone use either. They have bigger fish to fry.


Amen, brother :clap:


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Next, they'll want to bring back Photo Radar, which was both expensive and entirely useless. If they wanted to do something positive, they could just abolish cell phones. We have a bunch of people in school with them, and they are going off all the time, which is quite irritating.

Plus, it's not the phones that are the problem, it is the clueless drivers, like the retard yesterday that got angry at me because I wouldn't allow him to back into my car. Of course, it showed me one notable problem with the Matrix - the cheap horn that is a joke. Christmas is coming up, so I am going to get a nice set of air horns, so that the morons can hear me coming.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> MacGYVER made my point. We don't need laws for every damn situation. Just need to use the laws we already have properly. Cops don't stop people for doing half of what's in that list and they won't for cell phone use either. They have bigger fish to fry.


It has long been my opinion that traffic laws are not enforced to the degree that they should be. As a pedestrian when in Vancouver, I can walk down the street watching traffic and go "Ticket", "Ticket", "Ticket", every few seconds. I think it is unlikely that this situation will ever change much, because police see traffic enforcement as the low rung on the ladder. In my mind, being in traffic is the riskiest activity that most of us ever participate in and should be a large priority for the police.

But if governments strictly enforced traffic laws, most people would rebel and make sure they vote out whatever politician is responsible for implementing what will be seen in letters to the editor and radio call-in shows as a "tax grab".

I don't have a problem with extra regulations around driving. There is no issue of rights involved. As they say driving is a privilege not a right. Your freedom ends at my nose. If you are driving a potentially lethal weapon around without regard for your fellow street users, then we should use everything in the arsenal to make sure you do so safely. Adding a cell phone while driving ban gives the police another tool to use and is a very clear way of doing it.

The problem with the "driving without due care and attention" law is that using a cell phone is not currently considered a violation of that law. A driver with a cell phone glued to their ear may not do something careless while a police officer is watching them. Later down the street that same driver might blow through a red light. With a cell phone law the officer could have stopped the potential dangerous driver before he/she does something stupid. Statistics say it's only a matter of time.

I imagine the opposition to this idea comes from two places. Those who are philosophically opposed to "red tape" or regulation of any kind and think this is some issue around freedom. It's not. Driving must be heavily regulated for all of our safety.

The other place is those who think that while studies have clearly shown that most people's driving is affected by using a cell phone, they believe that their skills are somehow better and don't want a law to prevent them from yakking while driving. Those people are willing to risk potential harm to others for the sake of their own convenience.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

iJohnHenry said:


> You can blather all the negatives to this law that you wish. I'm with GA, for two, happy to see it come to pass.


We should all join hands and celebrate- the Government has tabled yet another law that will not be enforced and will not carry any kind of punishment that would at least cover the costs of all of the paperwork! beejacon



> The Hammer Mafia will have to get his next car some other way though. That's just too severe.


Then how about something that may be more sensible, but still hard core. A fine of $10 per kilometer per hour, with a multiplier of 5 for every 10 kilometers per hour over the posted speed limit, as well as a 2 times multiplier for using the phones in dangerous areas, like merge lanes on the highways. So someone using a cell phone while speeding on the QEW would be fined $5000 for doing 110km/h, and $10,000 for doing 120km/h. These are entirely reasonable fines, considering inflation and such, and the fines would actually cover the cost of administration of the fines: the time spent by police on paperwork and the cost of fuel for the patrol car, the cost of notices when people don't bother paying their fines, the costs of the courts, and the costs of the clerks that have to keypunch the data into the computers in order to force the driver/criminal to pay up before they can get plates, and the cost of sending out crews and emergency folk out to clean up the carnage on the highways.

But I can't see this law being of any use - judging by the number of people that drive around without plates without ever being stopped. And that is a law that has gone unenforced for many, many years.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'm pleased with the legislation - I've used handsfree for years and detest seeing people wheel around a corner onehanded 

That said - I doubt very much we will see any particular impact as cell phone use has gone up by 1000s of percentage and accident rates are down. 

Sensible drivers will still be sensible drivers and it matters not whether it's a burger, lipstick or fiddling with the radio or yelling at the kids - there are lots of distractions.....one reason I don't have a GPS in the car.

Lots of bluetooth headsets about to be sold.

I'm still very pleased with my Plantronics 590.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

According to studies, hands-free makes no difference. Apparently it's the conversation that is the distraction...and don't bother to relate this to passengers as passengers are actively involved in your driving and will adjust the conversation to the conditions.

In my truck, I have a CB radio, a company cellphone, my personal cellphone and a "Star Trek" like wireless text communicator to dispatch, I sip coffee, smoke cigs
and shift through 10 gears. No moving violations, no on road accidents in 3 million miles...thank you. 

Oh, and with respect to the studies, which I haven't read personally as I really don't give a rat's a$$, I enclose a link for those of you who want to do some reading:

[Research] - Coalition for Cellphone-Free Driving


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> “People tend to be overconfident with hands-free and drive faster. They’re thinking, ‘I’m OK because I’ve got on the headgear,” she explains. “Whereas if they were driving with a hand-held phone, they tend to drive slower.”


wow solid research...

people tend........

There was NO SPIKE of increased accidents despite an enormous increase in cell use.

Driving is very much a subconscious activity like walking - young drivers get in trouble because they HAVE to think about things.

Much of driving is learned reflexive action - your conscious mind is well behind your body reactions,



> It is generally accepted that emergency procedures in airplanes require that* a pilot has instilled in him certain automatic reactions.* Learning these reactions can take a considerable time, especially when what is required to be learned is different from or conflicts with a previously learned reaction or response to a particular situation


I had an emergency on my first solo - I don't recall thinking about pulling the release - it was automatic.

You don't consciously THINK about braking, avoiding - you DO it just as you walk up a stair.

That's the flaw in all these studies.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Case in point....you cannot legislate common sense...



> Police say teen driver hit 107 mph in a construction zone ..while talking on her cellphone
> 
> Story Published: Oct 27, 2008 at 10:16 AM PDT
> By KVAL Web Staff
> ...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Case in point....you cannot legislate common sense...


Case in point:

The police used the existing law to pin this dummy. 

We too have existing laws that could be used if cops cared enough. More stupid laws clutter the legal landscape. 

It's NOT new laws we need. What we DO NEED is cops who care enough to put a stop to cell phone use, be it hands free or hand held. Both are equally dangerous.


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

MacDoc said:


> Case in point....you cannot legislate common sense...


Perhaps not ... but you can get those people without it off the roads, and away from the rest of us.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good luck- hasn't happened yet. Cars have gotten safer - drivers not much.

The one thing that has worked and I fully support is RIDE.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> There was NO SPIKE of increased accidents despite an enormous increase in cell use.


Even if your assertion that there is NO SPIKE is accurate (which I haven't researched and would like to see some data on) it doesn't necessarily follow that collisions caused by cell distraction haven't increased. There could be many reasons for the lack of an overall spike even if accidents caused by cell phone distraction have increased. Things like improvements in vehicle safety features or road design, signage design or a number of other things that vehicle designers and traffic engineers have worked on could have mitigated the extra accidents caused by driver distraction.

The data from NL shows an 8% decrease in collision since their cell ban and many studies throughout the US show an increase in collisions where cell phone distraction is thought to have been at least in part to blame.



MacDoc said:


> You don't consciously THINK about braking, avoiding - you DO it just as you walk up a stair.
> 
> That's the flaw in all these studies.


Many of the studies may well have flaws, but several that I have read about have focused specifically on how the human brain processes information. I somehow doubt they have missed out on the fact that certain driving actions become automatic. The truth is that many other activities that require the driver's attention are hindered by cell phone distraction, such as watching other drivers on the road or seeing the state of traffic lights, so you may not have to slam on those brakes. Common sense tells anyone who has ever driven recently that cell phone drivers do many things based on inattention that they otherwise wouldn't. 

I know that I likely wouldn't be sitting here typing if I hadn't quickly noticed a cell phone wielding idiot blowing through a several-seconds-old red light at full speed right in front of the nose of my car as I started to roll into an intersection a couple of years ago. If I had been on a cell myself, I probably would have had the front bumper of his SUV merged with my head in a t-bone collision.

It has also been noticed in many studies that using a phone of any kind, (hands free or not) causes a loss of visual perception. Some have theorized that this is because the person is searching for visual cues that normally occur in a face-to-face conversation but which aren't present in a disembodied conversation and that part of the visual processing in the brain goes inward into the imagination to compensate.



MacDoc said:


> Case in point....you cannot legislate common sense...
> 
> 
> 
> > Police say teen driver hit 107 mph in a construction zone ..while talking on her cellphone.


Actually this is not a good point because you are using an extreme example to illustrate it. It's like saying we shouldn't have any laws at all because there will always be crazy people who will violate them.

This teenager in your story may be willing to risk other's lives and his own vehicle and license, but other teenagers, if there is a ban on cell phone use, will obey that law, thereby making their driving safer than it currently might be when they are legally yakking while driving.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> We too have existing laws that could be used if cops cared enough. More stupid laws clutter the legal landscape.
> 
> It's NOT new laws we need. What we DO NEED is cops who care enough to put a stop to cell phone use, be it hands free or hand held. Both are equally dangerous.


I'm not sure what you're arguing here, because cops can't currently pull anyone over for simply using a cell phone, unless they witness them doing something else stupid or illegal while using one.

That cell phone distracted driver might kill himself or someone else a mile later down the road, but under current law the cop couldn't have done anything about it.


----------



## Reveeen (Aug 26, 2008)

Ah, it's tax time in Ontario.............. this "issue" has absolutely nothing to do with road safety, otherwise this law would have appeared years ago. SUV driving moms, with cell phones firmly planted to their ears, have been causing accidents for years. Ontario has just decided to start collecting tax from them.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

How many people would admit to causing an accident through cell phone use? None, I'd wager. And how does one get caught? It's easy to hide after the fact, and I doubt many utilize dash cams in their car.

Quebec instituted the no cellphone while driving law recently, and there's still people yammering away regardless. There really needs to be a zero-tolerance "no distraction" measure. I've seen bus drivers reading while driving in rush-hour traffic.

It's getting silly, really.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I'm not sure what you're arguing here, because cops can't currently pull anyone over for simply using a cell phone, unless they witness them doing something else stupid or illegal while using one.
> 
> That cell phone distracted driver might kill himself or someone else a mile later down the road, but under current law the cop couldn't have done anything about it.


That is where you are dead wrong, and missing my point GA.

Cops CAN and should pull people over for cell phone use. I see it every time I am out driving so why can't they?

People so absorbed in using their cell phone that they don't signal a lane change or a turn for that matter. People straying over lane markers, people "one handing it" over a curb while entering a gas station or mall, people speeding when not paying attention because they're on the phone.

All of the infractions above are due to cell phone use and in every damn case there is an existing law on the books for a cop to stop them and give them a ticket for driving without due care and attention.

Like I've said all along, the laws are already there if police would only use their eyes, and then the law to curb cell phone use. If these idiots who use cells while driving were faced with a serious sentence and/or fine, they would smarten up. Passing a no use law for cell phones which carries only a fine is no better than photo radar. Its a cash grab and nothing more.


----------



## DrewNL (May 23, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The data from NL shows an 8% decrease in collision since their cell ban...


GA, You have said this twice now, but there is no evidence that the numbers are at all related. You can also say that there is a 12% decrease in moose-vehicle accidents since NL elected a premier named Danny. But that doesn't mean I didn't hit a moose yesterday BECAUSE of the premier's first name. The fact that collision frequency decreased likely has nothing - or little - to do with mobile phone usage.


----------



## DrewNL (May 23, 2005)

In addition, why are there two threads on this issue?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

DrewNL said:


> In addition, why are there two threads on this issue?


Because the originator of the thread was chatting on the cell phone...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> That is where you are dead wrong, and missing my point GA.
> 
> Cops CAN and should pull people over for cell phone use. I see it every time I am out driving so why can't they?
> 
> ...


SINC, unless there's a law specifically making cell phone use illegal while driving police cannot pull someone over for using one. As you yourself explained the police will pull people over for breaking traffic laws that are on the books. If they see someone using a cell phone and they're not otherwise breaking the law they can't pull him/her over.

You are the one who is missing the point my friend, although I wouldn't use the phrase "dead wrong". 

It seems like we both agree that cell phone use while driving causes an unsafe level of driver distraction. If a driving while yakking law was in place the police wouldn't have to hope they are there to pull someone over after they do something unsafe. There would be a reduction in unsafe behaviour since many people, but of course not all people, would follow the law.

You don't wait until drunk drivers break a traffic law to get them off the road. Studies have shown that the distraction caused by cell phone use decreases reaction time to that of someone over the legal alcohol impairment limit. We should have the same zero tolerance approach that we have to drunk drivers and attempt to stop them before they endanger others, not after.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

DrewNL said:


> GA, You have said this twice now, but there is no evidence that the numbers are at all related. You can also say that there is a 12% decrease in moose-vehicle accidents since NL elected a premier named Danny. But that doesn't mean I didn't hit a moose yesterday BECAUSE of the premier's first name. The fact that collision frequency decreased likely has nothing - or little - to do with mobile phone usage.


I just quoted it straight from the Globe and Mail article posted at the top of this thread.

You're right in that it isn't proof that cell phones bans reduce accidents, although it might be a sensible reason to think they do. If the law isn't the reason, then what else changed in the 3 years that might have caused that reduction? You would have to dig further into the data, if it exists to see what kind of accidents were reduced and see if that relates to cell phone use.

I was quoting it simply to counter MacDoc's unreferenced assertion that there has been no spike in accident rates. We can all make assumptions based on what we think a particular piece of data means to our contention. You do that yourself when you, without reference, state your assumption that this fact has nothing or little to do with cell phone use.

That's quite an assumption to make when numerous studies have shown that reaction time increases to be similar to that of a drunk driver and therefore subsequent crash risk increases when drivers use cell phones.



> 1. Does conversation on cell phones, both hand-held and hands-free, influence driving performance and crash risk?
> 
> Yes. The research to date indicates that using a cell phone while driving results in deterioration of driving performance. Both responses to critical events and the ability to maintain vehicular control are hampered. Even under the most conservative analyses, small to moderate effects exist. The negative impact of cell phone usage is larger for responses to critical events than for vehicular control. Driving variables, including lane position and headway variability, showed smaller effects.
> 
> ...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Reveeen said:


> Ah, it's tax time in Ontario.............. this "issue" has absolutely nothing to do with road safety, otherwise this law would have appeared years ago. SUV driving moms, with cell phones firmly planted to their ears, have been causing accidents for years. Ontario has just decided to start collecting tax from them.


In essence, what is actually wrong with that, so long as increased fines result in lower taxes for those who actually observe the laws?

In fact, they should put the police on commission, then they will be motivated to go out and track down offenders. Cops would make more money - off of the backs of the criminals, while saving the rate payer some cash.

Just like criminals in jail - they should have to do some work (like they used to in the old days) as repayment to society, instead of just having them slum around, smoking, doing drugs, having "prison culture" and whatever.

Why do we keep fining the law abiding citizen for being law abiding through exorbitant taxes - when we can just let the criminal scam and filth pay the way?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MannyP Design said:


> How many people would admit to causing an accident through cell phone use? None, I'd wager. And how does one get caught? It's easy to hide after the fact, and I doubt many utilize dash cams in their car.
> 
> Quebec instituted the no cellphone while driving law recently, and there's still people yammering away regardless. There really needs to be a zero-tolerance "no distraction" measure. I've seen bus drivers reading while driving in rush-hour traffic.
> 
> It's getting silly, really.


I read something to the effect that the New York State ban showed some initial compliance and then there was a drop off as people figured their chances of getting caught were slim.

The general issue I have with all manner of traffic enforcement is that people know they can break laws and their chances of getting caught are slim. But we can also see how some focused enforcement can make a great difference. Most people who are not alcoholics take the issue of drinking and driving quite seriously in recent years, because they know that the the police do actively enforce it.

So I would say that simply passing a law is not enough. It has to be backed up so that people don't get the idea that they won't get caught. One thing I would like to see is that if someone is involved in a crash, the police are required to check cell-phone records to determine if the driver was on the phone at the time. Or in the case of non-police crashes, insurers are allowed to ask the police to investigate this and that cell companies must comply. This might encourage some people that it would be in their own self-interest to not impair their own reaction time by yakking while driving.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Hey GA - for a guy that lives on a small island you sure gotta a lot of opinion about big city driving


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MacDoc said:


> I there are lots of distractions.....one reason I don't have a GPS in the car.


Take it with a grain of salt considering the source, but TomTom sites studies that a GPS in the car makes you safer. 

I actually believe it, and if I'm going somewhere where I need directions, I can't do without my TomTom 930. I just feel soo much more relaxed and can focus more on the road when someone is just telling me where to turn, as opposed to looking for signs, or trying to glimpse at directions. 

The 930 also has a great speakerphone built in which communicates nicely with my iPhone 3G.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That's a point - might reconsider that for staff - they have been using their iPhones.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Hey GA - for a guy that lives on a small island you sure gotta a lot of opinion about big city driving


I used to have to drive a lot in Vancouver and area, which were where my opinions got formed. I don't drive a lot now, but when I do I'm stunned at the utter recklessness of it, that so many just take as normal. A very close call with a cell-phone driver blowing a red and a few other instances as a pedestrian and cyclist in the big city also formed my opinions. A few friends killed and maimed in traffic brings home to me the absolute seriousness of issues around driving as well.

But the small island sure is nice, the club goes in the trunk and I don't even have to lock the car. Every so often it's funny to see some city dwellers setting their car alarms here. Hey - we're on an island with only a few boats a day off of it. What's with the alarm?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> SINC, unless there's a law specifically making cell phone use illegal while driving police cannot pull someone over for using one. As you yourself explained the police will pull people over for breaking traffic laws that are on the books. If they see someone using a cell phone and they're not otherwise breaking the law they can't pull him/her over.
> 
> You are the one who is missing the point my friend, although I wouldn't use the phrase "dead wrong".
> 
> ...


Sorry GA, for some reason you just don't get it, but this time I won't call it dead wrong. 

Any police officer when observing a vehicle straying over lane markers, taking a turn wide or narrow, speeding, going too slow or failing to signal now routinely stops that vehicle and checks for an impaired driver.

The same applies to a person making the same mistakes while driving when on a cell phone. At that point, the officer has the option to charge them with driving with undue care and attention.

A cell phone law is NOT required for an officer to lay such a charge even though the phone is the cause of the driving errors.

Got it now?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Sorry GA, but for some reason you just don't get it, but this time I won't call it dead wrong.
> 
> Any police officer when observing a vehicle straying over lane markers, taking a turn wide or narrow, speeding, going too slow or failing to signal now routinely stops that vehicle and checks for an impaired driver.
> 
> ...


I think I clearly understand the point you're making but you aren't understanding mine. I apologize if that's due to my lack of skill in writing clearly to illustrate my point. I'll try again. (Maybe Sonal can help me out, she's a pro writer.  )

I've already noted that the police can charge someone for all of those things and that making those charges doesn't require a yakking while driving law. And I wish they'd do a whole lot more of that short of us having a cell phone and driving ban.

A cell phone law would allow the police to stop someone BEFORE they make the dangerous errors you mention caused by reduced reaction time due to being cognitively distracted by the phone.

For instance, if an officer sees someone speeding, failing to signal, weaving out of their lane, they can currently pull that driver over as you've stated. If those errors were caused by using a cell phone that would currently be irrelevant. 

If the same officer saw the same driver the next day, but at the time they saw that driver he or she wasn't making any driving errors, but was still yakking on the phone, the officer couldn't pull that driver over. Even though it is likely the cell phone is resulting in reaction time impairment and will in all likelihood result in some future driving errors that officer has to let that driver carry on. Do you see the distinction I'm making?

Indulge me and imagine we had no laws around drunk driving. If an officer saw someone who was speeding, failing to signal or weaving out of their lane, who also happened to be drunk they could pull that person over for the driving errors. If an officer saw someone who was clearly drunk, but made no driving errors at the time the officer saw the person, then the officer couldn't pull the person over. Some alcoholics are pretty good at driving drunk most of the time, because they've had a lot of practice, but also when they blow it, they really blow it.

Now this hypothetical officer may realize that the drunk driver is a danger to himself and everyone else and has a good chance of making a tragic error, so the officer may decide to follow the drunk driver. With a drunk driving law in place the officer doesn't have to do that. They can stop that potentially dangerous impaired driver on the spot. And that is the point I'm making about a cell phone law. 

This is especially important given that studies are showing that driving while yakking on a cell is similar in terms of reaction time impairment to driving drunk. We need to give police the power to stop these dangerous drivers before they hurt someone.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I think I clearly understand the point you're making but you aren't understanding mine. I apologize if that's due to my lack of skill in writing clearly to illustrate my point. I'll try again. (Maybe Sonal can help me out, she's a pro writer.  )
> 
> 
> A cell phone law would allow the police to stop someone BEFORE they make the dangerous errors you mention caused by reduced reaction time due to being cognitively distracted by the phone.
> ...


No it would not be irrelevant. It would be driving without due care and attention. Trouble is that cops don't use the current laws on the books to stop the habit of cell phone use.

Sorry, but I don't buy the need for another stupid law, rather police should enforce the law and use the tools they now have at their disposal.

If a driver is good enough at multi-tasking and makes no mistakes while using a cell phone in traffic, they are not a hazard to others. Some people might have that ability and would be unfairly punished.

A straight cell phone use fine, which is all it really is BTW, as in no points on your license or no appearance in traffic court is still called a cash grab.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> If a driver is good enough at multi-tasking and makes no mistakes while using a cell phone in traffic, they are not a hazard to others. Some people might have that ability and would be unfairly punished.


Well studies have shown that multi-tasking is really a myth, but some people are more practised at managing multiple distractions than others and a few people simply have brains that can deal with these things better. Maybe there are a few freaks who could juggle flaming torches while driving also. 

There are also drunks who drive for years and years without incident, until one day they go a bit too far and take someone out. A friend's dad was a Southern Ontario long haul bus driver years ago who managed his alcohol intake in his thermos with coffee and luckily never killed anyone. Apparently it was something that many of his co-workers did too, but attitudes towards drinking and driving were very different then.

I don't think this is an argument for allowing drunks to drive, even though a few might be relatively good at it. They are still more impaired than they would otherwise be. And I think the same reasoning applies to impaired driving caused by cell phone use.



SINC said:


> A straight cell phone use fine, which is all it really is BTW, as in no points on your license or no appearance in traffic court is still called a cash grab.


There should be points and real consequences. It also should be enforced, so that people don't go back to using their phones thinking they'll not be caught.

There may have to be a short phase-in with warnings only, so people get used to the idea. I hope BC is next to bring in a law.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I hope BC is next to bring in a law.


Yep, that and an increase in the carbon tax too, likely.


----------



## AnonyMouse (Nov 7, 2008)

*Feel Good Law*

C'mon folks, this is not a serious law. Its unenforceable. Its not like you're getting pulled over and madly scrambling to hook up your seatbelt. You put your cell phone down or remove your finger from your gps and innocently explain that you were scratching your ear or swatting a bug on the windshield. Short of a witness testifying to the contrary or maybe a video record, in almost all cases a ticket wouldn't be upheld. And as for tracking a cell-phone record, do you really think anyone is going to go through the time and trouble to do that? For a routine ticket? Get real! And even then, you'd have to prove that it was actually the person driving that was using that particular cell phone. Of course, in more serious situations (accident causing injury) the effort might be worth it. But in those cases, there's no way a charge would be laid under this bill - definitely the "undue care" law which has far stiffer penalties. Of course, it could have its intended effect because, after all, how do you get a Canadian to obey a law? You make one. heh heh


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

> You put your cell phone down or remove your finger from your gps and innocently explain that you were scratching your ear or swatting a bug on the windshield.


That right? Well have at it man.  

Of course you do realize in the examples you've used here you're explanation means nothing, right? If a cop sees you say for instance throw a pop can onto the road while driving he doesn't need to provide video evidence or otherwise in court, witnessing you commit the offense is enough. You're examples are the same. Put your cell phone down? You can eat it if you want, you're still getting a ticket and paying the fine.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well all I can relate is I've not seen the one handed cell phone planted on side of head crowd swinging around corners lately.

For that alone it's useful.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

It is estimated that over 40,000 vehicles commute from Waterloo Region to the GTAA and surrounding area each day 5 days a week to work and back. I'm one of them. That number above came from a recent study which was posted here in a monthly news letter and they were discussing about the environment etc. This doesn't include the amount of vehicles coming from London, Cambridge or Guelph who commute each day as well to work. 

On my route from Waterloo Region to Toronto it is grid lock 3 lanes all the way down to Toronto in morning rush hour and also in the evening which is even worse. Usually I see 1:2 or 1:3 vehicles with a driver on their cellphone while commuting to work. If we take 30,000 drivers just from Waterloo Region alone who are on their cellphones talking while commuting to Toronto and area, does that mean the Ontario Provincial Police will hire another 30,000 officers and provide upwards of over 100,000 brand new police vehicles to chase after the 30,000 plus drivers just on the 401 between Waterloo Region and Toronto? You have to remember in order to get caught a police vehicle needs to be behind you in that kind of traffic in the morning rush and afternoon rush hours. It is still dark during rush hour and now as well when going home in the evening.

Here would be a typical conversation to the *OPP from my cellphone :lmao: 

Hi I would like to report a cellphone user driving (insert vehicle) oh wait, there is another, crap and another, hold on 5 more drivers are yacking on their cellphones, oh there is another one, oh and another one etc.... I don't think the poor OPP dispatcher would be able to keep up with my complaints on my commute to Toronto for work, let alone have the RESOURCES to NAIL and fine every driver I would see with a cellphone in hand. 

I'm being realistic here. Majority of the time, I can count on two fingers how many OPP cruisers are on my way to work on the 401 between Waterloo Region and Toronto. Maybe 1 or 2 or usually 0. They do have times where they do blitzes, but we're not talking daily or even weekly for that stretch of the 401. Even then, it's not like they're pulling over 10,000 motorists for speeding down the 401. 

Ask yourself, will the city of Toronto be hiring 100,000+ new officers just to hand out fines daily for EACH and EVERY motorist who commutes daily through its city for talking on a cellphone? Nope, not going to happen.

If Ontario is serious in putting a law into effect, they need to do 4 things:

1. Apply law to BOTH hands and hands free cellphone use period (Meaning NO cellphone use period except for 911 calls)
2. Loss of points
3. Huge high fine in dollar value ( Pay on spot )
4. Cellular phone taken away for more serious incidents

We already no number 1 will only apply to half of it. Number 2 won't happen. Number 3 will be a joke when we see the dollar amount for the fine. Number 4 will never happen.

When I see and read numbers like 8% effective out east in Canada, that too me is a joke, why? They don't have the amount of traffic or population driving like we do. Remember the above figures I mentioned is only from one region alone, that barely makes up the traffic going to Toronto on the 401. We're talking millions and millions of vehicles with millions of people talking on their cellphones here people. That 8% out east, won't even amount to .1% here in Ontario. 

I already can tell that this law will pass, but it will be just like any other petty law in this Province, it won't be enforced by big numbers or dollars. Sure we might see something happen or a few people caught, but not like everyone here intends for it to be.


----------



## AnonyMouse (Nov 7, 2008)

absolutetotalgeek said:


> That right? Well have at it man.
> 
> Of course you do realize in the examples you've used here you're explanation means nothing, right? If a cop sees you say for instance throw a pop can onto the road while driving he doesn't need to provide video evidence or otherwise in court, witnessing you commit the offense is enough. You're examples are the same. Put your cell phone down? You can eat it if you want, you're still getting a ticket and paying the fine.


The last time I checked, when charged with a crime, the charge has to be determined beyond a reasonable doubt. In your example, the copy testifies that he saw a can being ejected from a car. The defense claims ... what? That the can didn't come from his car? The judge determines if what the cop saw was accurate and assesses whether there was reasonable doubt. I suspect most judges would find the defendant guilty given such testimony.

In the cell phone example, the cop testifies that he saw the driver with his hand to his ear or his hand pointed at the windshield. He further testifies that there was a gps or a cell phone in the car. Unless he is superman, he cannot testify that instructions were actually being input into the gps or that the cell phone was even turned on. What the cop could have witnessed, is the defendant swatting a bug or scratching his ear. That's reasonable doubt.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

AnonyMouse said:


> That's reasonable doubt.


Your argument regarding reasonable doubt might hold up in a case concerning a crime, ie: criminal offense.

This is NOT a crime. It is simply a fine for the use of prohibited equipment while operating a motor vehicle. ie: summary offense in Canada.

Same thing as a parking ticket or failing to stop at a stop sign. 

No reasonable doubt is required. 

If the cop says you did it, you would have to prove you didn't. It would cost you more to fight it in court than the fine would cost.


----------



## AnonyMouse (Nov 7, 2008)

*No reasonable doubt is required?*

Really? Check out the following url (relevant quote below). The page is titled, "How to Defend a Traffic Ticket"

HOW TO DEFEND A TRAFFIC TICKET

A. The Burden of Proof

(a) Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

The prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the offence set out on your ticket. You need prove nothing. It is not up to you to prove you did not commit the offence;


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Anyone looking for an effective and easy to use unit - this is just marvelous










Newegg.ca - BlueAnt SuperTooth 3 Bluetooth Car Handsfree speakerphone w/ DSP Noise Cancel - Bluetooth Cell Phone Accessories

and not badly priced 
My buddy showed me his.

Actually speaks the name of the person calling.
Also works with your voice dial features of your phone package.

The British voice enunciation is very clear and there are a few other neat features. Very long lasting, no installation - well thought out.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Just got ours in today and this is what Bluetooth SHOULD be like.

Flawless execution. So easy to synch up and intuitive to use.

We put one in the van and then when any of three staff get in the van it links with their phone.

So up to 5 users can use the same device in the vehicle. Handsfree dialing work fine and very clear enunciation.

Must have for those on the go.


----------

