Reading at a red light.

[hchang]

Originally Posted by Godzira

"Well I never...."

Originally Posted by r1237h

Ah, yet another problem. In the grownup world, you actually earn money, not whine to daddy that you want some.

This thread is really going downhill, isn't it? It started with me asking clarification about things I was not aware of (which obviously does not excuse breaking the law), and as many such forums, quickly escalated to personal attacks and sarcasm.

Oh joy.

So... no on the money?

[Godzira]

Originally Posted by hchang

"Well I never...."

lol that wasn't aimed at you, I just wanted to say it.

[hchang]

Originally Posted by Godzira

lol that wasn't aimed at you, I just wanted to say it.

I know I was making fun of you

[Godzira]

Originally Posted by hchang

I know I was making fun of you

then I take it back it was 100% aimed at you.

[mk1freak]

Originally Posted by cruz-in

can they ticket you if your in the back seat , car not running but the keys in your hand?

cruz you sure it was your keys in your hand?

Spoiler!

[Spidey]

Originally Posted by r1237h

Almost as well known as the good ol "I haven't bothered to read the thread, and am therefore speaking out of my ass" deal, eh?

I did read the whole thread.. Now what?

Originally Posted by r1237h

Good thing I didn't bitch and complain, but rather asked for clarification for something I was not aware of. Probably helped that I have seen more blood and brain splatter then most officers can claim to.

Not really relevant, I agree, butI figured that if you can drag that in to try and make you point, why shouldn't I use it also?

I quoted Sebberry's comment, not yours. My only reply to YOU was the ignorance comment.

Originally Posted by sebberry

Except you kinda do. And so does the ministry of justice who is undoubtedly supported by police departments that want ever increasing powers to crack down on trivial offences. (Jamie Graham wanted to impound phones for a week as a penalty. Seems a little extreme for not even using your phone, no?)

Bringing arguments like brain splatter into the argument makes it pretty clear that you're grouping me with the same sort of people who have no control over their impulses to pick up a phone and text about dinner plans while navigating their car through traffic.

As written, the law is a knee-jerk attempt to deal with the very real problem of cell phone use while driving. It needs simplification and re-focus.

How is my brain splatter comment grouping you with the same people that have no control of their impulses? I was simply pointing out why said laws are in effect... to prevent the worst case scenario. Everything, if you have not noticed, is to prevent more or less, the worst case scenario. Like it or not, that's how it is. But the thing of it is, there is no trick or trap with these laws. YOU have total control. YOU CHOOSE to pick up your cell phone at a red light. You may not agree with the law, but it is YOU who decides to read your text, or in this case, an Ipad while in control of your vehicle. So at the end of the day you aren't "entrapped". You can disagree with the law, and rebel against it, but you have no one to blame but yourself if you get caught.

The way you bitch about the MVA makes it sound like someone locked you up in their garage and threw the keys away... Poor ol Sebberry, a prisoner of the Motor Vehicle Act...

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by Spidey

How is my brain splatter comment grouping you with the same people that have no control of their impulses?

Because everything is always all about sebberry. Laws don't exist to protect society, they exist to ruin his fun.

The way you bitch about the MVA makes it sound like someone locked you up in their garage and threw the keys away... Poor ol Sebberry, a prisoner of the Motor Vehicle Act...

Oh shit, now you've done it.

Cue extensive sebberry rant in 3... 2... 1...

[r1237h]

Originally Posted by hchang

So... no on the money?

well, finish your chores and we will discuss it....

[r1237h]

Originally Posted by Spidey

I did read the whole thread.. Now what?



I quoted Sebberry's comment, not yours. My only reply to YOU was the ignorance comment.

Then have someone explain it to you. An "ignorance excuse" comment implies that since I was ignorant of the law, that I believe that this somehow excuses my actions. I didn't claim that, nor do I believe it. I was unaware of the law, and if it applied, and that is what I questioned. And the answer is that I was wrong, whether I agree with the law or not (I happen to agree with it).

Police officers are sometimes mistaken, sometimes full of shit. That is a fact of life. You may accept what they say blindly, I have learned not to do so. So yes, if there is something unclear, I will ask, and sometimes I will discover that they were wrong, and sometimes I will discover that they were 100% correct, as in this case.

As a side comment, if the officer had taken 30 seconds to explain, as was done here in the forum, there would have been no problem. Instead he acted like an asshole, which led me to verify what he claimed.

[Presto]

Originally Posted by r1237h

As a side comment, if the officer had taken 30 seconds to explain, as was done here in the forum, there would have been no problem. Instead he acted like an asshole, which led me to verify what he claimed.

The officer was probably ticked because he thought your ignorance was bullshit. I'm pretty sure you have to be living in a cave to not know about, or have heard about, our distracted driving laws. Especially, with electronics.

[r1237h]

Originally Posted by Presto

The officer was probably ticked because he thought your ignorance was bullshit. I'm pretty sure you have to be living in a cave to not know about, or have heard about, our distracted driving laws. Especially, with electronics.

In the cave I live in, it is not known to all that standing at a red light and not moving is considered operating a vehicle. In addition, when I asked why this is a problem, he answered that a car can have an accident even with the car, and all the cars around it, not moving. When I asked how this is physically possible, he had nothing to say. His partner tried telling me about how driving while playing with electronic devices can lead to accidents. I agreed with him, but when I asked what does that have to do with the case at hand, he also had nothing to say.

The idea wasn't to "win" a debate with them, but just to understand what the issue was.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Spidey

How is my brain splatter comment grouping you with the same people that have no control of their impulses?

Because you're attempting to use the worst case scenario to justify the regulations that target drivers who aren't in the least bit distracted.

The law gives you the authority to ticket drivers who are not demonstrably distracted, just in the off chance they could become distracted.

Why not charge everyone for speeding just because they're driving a car capable of exceeding the speed limit?

[zulutango]

Why not charge everyone for speeding just because they're driving a car capable of exceeding the speed limit?[/QUOTE]



I like your way of thinkin Boy!!!!!! Y'all 'r in a heap of trubble!

[sebberry]

I just got back from picking up dinner. Distracted every inch of the way. Brain splatter all over my new floor mats.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by zulutango

I like your way of thinkin Boy!!!!!! Y'all 'r in a heap of trubble!

Makes me glad I drive a Jeep. Exceeds the speed limit in a school zone with a strong tailwind!

[Yodamaster]

Originally Posted by r1237h

In the cave I live in, it is not known to all that standing at a red light and not moving is considered operating a vehicle. In addition, when I asked why this is a problem, he answered that a car can have an accident even with the car, and all the cars around it, not moving. When I asked how this is physically possible, he had nothing to say. His partner tried telling me about how driving while playing with electronic devices can lead to accidents. I agreed with him, but when I asked what does that have to do with the case at hand, he also had nothing to say.

The idea wasn't to "win" a debate with them, but just to understand what the issue was.

If the car is running, and you are sitting in the driver's seat, you are operating a motor vehicle, this is common sense.

Using any kind of electronic device means that you aren't paying attention to what's happening around you, which is dangerous, and is also common sense.

All of these things are included in the book you were supposed to study before attempting to get your license, how that knowledge has escaped you is anyone's guess.

[Phil@rise]

Originally Posted by r1237h

Two points. First, this happened at a red light, not while driving. Second,ambulances have this thingee called a siren which manages to draw the attention of drivers in the area. At least here in the Tri-city area, and also in New York City, where I drove one for 5 years.

You seem to be missing the point. I am not arguing that what I did was ok or not. I simply asked if this is what the law actually meant. Since it obviously is, and I now know this, I will be paying the fine tomorrow and not reading any more while in the car.

First if you think stopped at a red light isnt driving you shouldn't be driving.
Second if your so immersed in what your reading writing or gabbing about to not hear multiple horns then your going to have a delayed response to sirens as well.

[zulutango]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Makes me glad I drive a Jeep. Exceeds the speed limit in a school zone with a strong tailwind!

My Mini (original classic Mr Bean sized) needs a good downhill run along with your tail wind.

[r1237h]

Originally Posted by Yodamaster

If the car is running, and you are sitting in the driver's seat, you are operating a motor vehicle, this is common sense.

Using any kind of electronic device means that you aren't paying attention to what's happening around you, which is dangerous, and is also common sense.

All of these things are included in the book you were supposed to study before attempting to get your license, how that knowledge has escaped you is anyone's guess.

Yeah, lot's of things become "obvious" in hindsight.

[r1237h]

Originally Posted by Phil@rise

First if you think stopped at a red light isnt driving you shouldn't be driving.
Second if your so immersed in what your reading writing or gabbing about to not hear multiple horns then your going to have a delayed response to sirens as well.

Sorta like if you cannot follow a thread and make up thinks, you shouldn't be posting on a forum?

Not hearing horns? Where did that come from?

[Spidey]

Originally Posted by r1237h

Sorta like if you cannot follow a thread and make up thinks, you shouldn't be posting on a forum?

Not hearing horns? Where did that come from?

His reply was to you not thinking being stopped at a red light, with your car running, and foot on your brake pedal (the only thing stopping your car from going forward) can be affected by being "distracted" or the possibility of being distracted when at a stand still.

I will give you a couple of examples which "distraction" at a red light or stand still can be "dangerous". You may question the chances of these things happen, but they COULD an they HAVE. And like I said before, laws are placed to prevent incidents that could and have happened.

-you are reading your Ipad at a red light... you obviously are not focused on anything else but the screen of your electronic device. The light turns green you take your eyes off the ipad, take your foot off the brake, and hit the gas. OOPS didn't see that pedestrian running across trying to beat the light... OR didn't see the car that just tried to beat its red light. BOOM. In those two incidents, was it your "fault". Probably not since you had the green light, but if you weren't "distracted", you would have seen the incidents unfolding before you.

It is the duty of all drivers on the road to be aware of their environment and surroundings. Everyone learned about defensive driving when they got their licences. No one ever gets behind the wheel and thinks they are going to get into an accident. No one ever texts and drives thinking THEY will get into an accident. No one ever drinks and drives and thinks THEY will get into an accident. Because they are "better" than everyone else and nothing can happen to THEM.

There is a reason why impaired driving and electronic device laws were created. Because it is an issue.

Not even going to bother replying to Sebberry. I think I have said that before? I will let the local Police on the Island put up with him.

[sekin67835]

Originally Posted by Yodamaster

If the car is running, and you are sitting in the driver's seat, you are operating a motor vehicle, this is common sense.

Using any kind of electronic device means that you aren't paying attention to what's happening around you, which is dangerous, and is also common sense.

All of these things are included in the book you were supposed to study before attempting to get your license, how that knowledge has escaped you is anyone's guess.

I think OPs question is legit. In my opinion, you can get a DUI while sleeping in the back seat of the car. So what defines driving/operating a vehicle? When you're sleeping in the back of the seat and the keys are out of reach how does that justify a DUI, yet you hear about these cases. Now I haven't read the drivers book in a while, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't tell you that you can't sleep in a car while you're intoxicated. Now the electronic ban law was implemented a few years ago, but i do feel like many drivers aren't aware that reading their phones during a stop light is illegal. Let's face it, all you guys on RS claim to be the best drivers in all of Canada. OP came in here to ask a legit question and gets berated

[Spidey]

Originally Posted by sekin67835

I think OPs question is legit. In my opinion, you can get a DUI while sleeping in the back seat of the car. So what defines driving/operating a vehicle? When you're sleeping in the back of the seat and the keys are out of reach how does that justify a DUI, yet you hear about these cases. Now I haven't read the drivers book in a while, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't tell you that you can't sleep in a car while you're intoxicated. Now the electronic ban law was implemented a few years ago, but i do feel like many drivers aren't aware that reading their phones during a stop light is illegal. Let's face it, all you guys on RS claim to be the best drivers in all of Canada. OP came in here to ask a legit question and gets berated

please provide evidence of anyone sleeping in the back seat of their car (intoxicated) getting an Impaired Driving Charge and conviction. I have never heard of these stories, ever. And unless the person who is passed out in the back seat has his or her keys in the ignition and the car running, and no one else in sight, MAYBE they can be done for care and control, but even that is a stretch. If these "stories" you are talking about are all heresay, it is probably people who have been charged and are trying to downplay what really happened.

[Yodamaster]

Originally Posted by r1237h

Yeah, lot's of things become "obvious" in hindsight.

Would you care to explain how am I reciting these points to you as someone who has never been pulled over, or been in an accident? I haven't had the opportunity to experience hindsight when it comes to driving, because I take it seriously.

I attribute that to knowing when I am operating a motor vehicle.

[sekin67835]

Originally Posted by Spidey

please provide evidence of anyone sleeping in the back seat of their car (intoxicated) getting an Impaired Driving Charge and conviction. I have never heard of these stories, ever. And unless the person who is passed out in the back seat has his or her keys in the ignition and the car running, and no one else in sight, MAYBE they can be done for care and control, but even that is a stretch. If these "stories" you are talking about are all heresay, it is probably people who have been charged and are trying to downplay what really happened.

You are right,

In what circumstances do these charges apply?

The criminal provisions apply if you were in “care and control” of a car, boat, plane, or other motor vehicle or vessel. Care or control of a vehicle means you were in the driver’s seat and had access to the ignition key, even if you were parked.
Thus if Bob decides to sleep off the booze he drank the night before in his car, he must ensure that he does not have the keys on his person or he may be charged with an offence.

BC Criminal Defence Law Firm Article: | Dykstra & Company

Now, If I hadn't done some googling, I didn't know that sitting in a driver seat with keys in your pocket can land you in jail while intoxicated. My question would be do you know how many drivers know about control and care law? Now of course ignorance doesn't justify breaking the law, but a DUI can change a person's life. Now in the learners book page 103 (icbc website) describes alcohol impairment. But no where in the book does it touch on sleeping in the driver seat. It is not a stretch to conclude that an average driver would know about this law.