Damn. Friend got a dui

[68shark]

I supposed the "device" distraction can be broken into texting versus conversation. One requires eyes and at least one hand diverted, the other (if using a bluetooth enabled vehicle) is, in my opinion, not much different than having a conversation with a passenger. Then again, some people can't walk and chew gum. If all phone communication in cars were made illegal, well so be it. I hope young crying children, active pets and an angry spouse are similarly banned! Most "distracting" for me was having three young kids in the car squabbling with each other! They are all adults now, thank heaven!

In my years of commuting (401), I've seen drivers applying makeup, lighting and smoking cigarettes, texting, brushing hair, a book on the steering wheel, drinking beverages, eating sandwiches. All while at speed! I don't even drink water or coffee while driving. It's a distraction I don't need. Listening to the radio and cheering on Jerry Agar is about as distracted as I wish to be. Driving is a full time assignment.

Texting is just plain dumb and thankfully it's illegal. However, many of the other activities people conduct in their cars while driving are just mind numbing. Can't a woman wait to park the car at work to put the makeup on and brush hair? Is that few minutes saved really worth the risk of plowing into the back of a car that had to brake quickly in traffic?

[mpare]

I just checked the BC legislation. http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bcl...eside/96318_06 As it turns out, the manner in which an electronic device is defined appears to require that operator of the vehicle to actually have it in hand in order to be charged under the legislation. As for your general question, I would argue that checking the gauges from time to time does not create the same kind of distraction as using a cell phone, hand-held or hands-free, that has been mounted to your steering wheel. My guess is that the scientific studies that have looked at various levels of distraction while driving would bear that out.

It occurs to me that a case could be made for charging someone driving with electornic devices strapped to the steering wheel and using them while driving with careless driving under s. 144(1)(a) of the BC Motor Vehicle Act. That section reads as follows: "A person must not drive a motor vehicle on a highway (a) without due care and attention ..."

Given that the device(s) weren't hand-held, why would he be charged?

Serious question.

According to this article, part of the offence is in taking your eyes off the road. Given that this guy's setup put the devices more or less in the same view as his dashboard, is it illegal to check my speedometer while driving? My fuel level? Engine temp?

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...-and-what-isnt

[Coleslaw]

I supposed the "device" distraction can be broken into texting versus conversation. One requires eyes and at least one hand diverted, the other (if using a bluetooth enabled vehicle) is, in my opinion, not much different than having a conversation with a passenger. Then again, some people can't walk and chew gum. If all phone communication in cars were made illegal, well so be it. I hope young crying children, active pets and an angry spouse are similarly banned! Most "distracting" for me was having three young kids in the car squabbling with each other! They are all adults now, thank heaven!

In my years of commuting (401), I've seen drivers applying makeup, lighting and smoking cigarettes, texting, brushing hair, a book on the steering wheel, drinking beverages, eating sandwiches. All while at speed! I don't even drink water or coffee while driving. It's a distraction I don't need. Listening to the radio and cheering on Jerry Agar is about as distracted as I wish to be. Driving is a full time assignment.

Texting is just plain dumb and thankfully it's illegal. However, many of the other activities people conduct in their cars while driving are just mind numbing. Can't a woman wait to park the car at work to put the makeup on and brush hair? Is that few minutes saved really worth the risk of plowing into the back of a car that had to brake quickly in traffic?

Could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain activities like this are also illegal under the same 'distracted driving' laws.

[Jeffc]

I supposed the "device" distraction can be broken into texting versus conversation. One requires eyes and at least one hand diverted, the other (if using a bluetooth enabled vehicle) is, in my opinion, not much different than having a conversation with a passenger. Then again, some people can't walk and chew gum. If all phone communication in cars were made illegal, well so be it. I hope young crying children, active pets and an angry spouse are similarly banned! Most "distracting" for me was having three young kids in the car squabbling with each other! They are all adults now, thank heaven!

In my years of commuting (401), I've seen drivers applying makeup, lighting and smoking cigarettes, texting, brushing hair, a book on the steering wheel, drinking beverages, eating sandwiches. All while at speed! I don't even drink water or coffee while driving. It's a distraction I don't need. Listening to the radio and cheering on Jerry Agar is about as distracted as I wish to be. Driving is a full time assignment.

Texting is just plain dumb and thankfully it's illegal. However, many of the other activities people conduct in their cars while driving are just mind numbing. Can't a woman wait to park the car at work to put the makeup on and brush hair? Is that few minutes saved really worth the risk of plowing into the back of a car that had to brake quickly in traffic?

I think the thing is that the texting/checking your phone is an addiction and an epidemic. The others, while problematic, aren't as widespread and certainly not addictive. I pull up to a stoplight and guaranteed, I look around and the majority of people are looking at their phones, some who continue to do so after the light turns green.

[Fore Warned]

Check out the section entitled Risks of Distracted Driving in the attached study, Unfortunately, I couldn’t access the footnoted studies.

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.ed...ands%20free%22

This article, though, is on point.

http://people.stfx.ca/jmckenna/P100%20Student%20Docs/1st%20Term/ResearchAssign/KleinCellPhones.pdf

According to the second study you note, the key difference between a phone conversation and a conversation between a driver and passengers is that the latter have shared situational awareness, which tends not to have a detrimental effect on driver performance. Makes sense. First time I have heard of that notion.

Thanks.

[ARL67]

Rhetorical Questions:
How is looking at my Waze navigation app on my phone any different than looking at my car's display on the dash/console ? When my phone is Bluetooth-paired to my car, I can read texts on my car's display. If my phone is stuck to one of those dash-vent holders, it is essentially no different than the cars built-in display and controls of things such as radio, media, text, navigation, etc. Our cars electronics will offer us even more in the future. Laws & enforcement will be a an evolution to what is the problematic hot-topic of the day.

As automotive technology evolves and becomes standard features in our vehicles, more & more will have safety features such as automatic braking, smart cruise control, lane drifting avoidance, etc, all with the added benefit to make up for our distractions.

[mpare]

As some of the articles that I posted earlier confirm, there is a difference with respect to the level of distraction created by various activities engaged in while driving. My guess is that studies will support the notion that focusing on electronic communication devices ratchets up the distraction considerably higher that glancing at one's speedometer or fuel gauge. The latter does not preoccupy the driver to the same level, for example, as reviewing one's emails or chatting on the phone while driving.

Given that the device(s) weren't hand-held, why would he be charged?

Serious question.

According to this article, part of the offence is in taking your eyes off the road. Given that this guy's setup put the devices more or less in the same view as his dashboard, is it illegal to check my speedometer while driving? My fuel level? Engine temp?

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-...-and-what-isnt

[vermin40]

Hemants...sounds like your friend just picked the wrong Province to drive in. In the Yukon you can smash into a parked vehicle, be reeking of booze, have slurred speech and have trouble standing....but the you will get off because the police were too quick in suspecting that you might be impaired. This judge appears to be lacking in common sense.

"A Whitehorse man has been acquitted of an impaired driving charge, after a Yukon Territorial Court judge ruled his Charter rights were violated by the RCMP.

In a decision issued Nov. 17, Chief Judge Karen Ruddy ruled Brayden Douglas Alexander Pye was "arbitrarily detained" by police, breaching Section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

According to court documents, Pye was charged after a "serious" vehicle collision on Aug. 31, 2016. Pye's vehicle slammed into a parked truck, sending it about 18 metres down the street and knocking off the truck's canopy.

RCMP Cst. Brian Harding was the responding officer. He noted Pye seemed to be struggling with his balance and was slurring his words. Harding told court he could smell alcohol coming from Pye's breath.

Harding said he concluded that Pye was under the influence of alcohol and had been driving while impaired. Harding alerted the dispatch centre. The whole interaction took "less than 31 seconds," Judge Ruddy noted.

Defence counsel Joni Ellerton questioned the reliability of the quickly-drawn conclusion which led to Pye's arrest. Relying on previous case law, she argued Harding couldn't have developed an "objectively reasonable" opinion in such a short period of time.

'Perfunctory at best'

Ruddy agreed. She also noted Harding had less than three years of experience with the RCMP, and wrote: "I have serious concerns that his observations were no more than perfunctory at best."

Ruddy also noted that the smell of alcohol does not prove impairment, and that Pye's slurred speech and apparent imbalance may have been due to the collision.

"With the fact that many of [Harding's] observations could have been equally explained by the fact Mr. Pye had just been in an accident, one would expect more care taken in assessing Mr. Pye's condition, before forming a belief, rather than a suspicion, that his ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol," she wrote.

Ruddy had issues with the reliability of Harding's observations. She ruled there were not reasonable grounds for arrest. All evidence drawn from observations made after the arrest were excluded from the Crown's case.

The remaining evidence did not prove Pye was driving while impaired, and he was acquitted of the charge.

Ruddy also took care to note that even if she hadn't excluded the evidence from after the arrest, she still would have concluded the Crown did not prove its case."

[Shankapotamus86]

Hemants...sounds like your friend just picked the wrong Province to drive in. In the Yukon you can smash into a parked vehicle, be reeking of booze, have slurred speech and have trouble standing....but the you will get off because the police were too quick in suspecting that you might be impaired. This judge appears to be lacking in common sense.

"A Whitehorse man has been acquitted of an impaired driving charge, after a Yukon Territorial Court judge ruled his Charter rights were violated by the RCMP.

In a decision issued Nov. 17, Chief Judge Karen Ruddy ruled Brayden Douglas Alexander Pye was "arbitrarily detained" by police, breaching Section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

According to court documents, Pye was charged after a "serious" vehicle collision on Aug. 31, 2016. Pye's vehicle slammed into a parked truck, sending it about 18 metres down the street and knocking off the truck's canopy.

RCMP Cst. Brian Harding was the responding officer. He noted Pye seemed to be struggling with his balance and was slurring his words. Harding told court he could smell alcohol coming from Pye's breath.

Harding said he concluded that Pye was under the influence of alcohol and had been driving while impaired. Harding alerted the dispatch centre. The whole interaction took "less than 31 seconds," Judge Ruddy noted.

Defence counsel Joni Ellerton questioned the reliability of the quickly-drawn conclusion which led to Pye's arrest. Relying on previous case law, she argued Harding couldn't have developed an "objectively reasonable" opinion in such a short period of time.

'Perfunctory at best'

Ruddy agreed. She also noted Harding had less than three years of experience with the RCMP, and wrote: "I have serious concerns that his observations were no more than perfunctory at best."

Ruddy also noted that the smell of alcohol does not prove impairment, and that Pye's slurred speech and apparent imbalance may have been due to the collision.

"With the fact that many of [Harding's] observations could have been equally explained by the fact Mr. Pye had just been in an accident, one would expect more care taken in assessing Mr. Pye's condition, before forming a belief, rather than a suspicion, that his ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol," she wrote.

Ruddy had issues with the reliability of Harding's observations. She ruled there were not reasonable grounds for arrest. All evidence drawn from observations made after the arrest were excluded from the Crown's case.

The remaining evidence did not prove Pye was driving while impaired, and he was acquitted of the charge.

Ruddy also took care to note that even if she hadn't excluded the evidence from after the arrest, she still would have concluded the Crown did not prove its case."

Did I miss the part where they took a blood sample or final breathalyzer examination after the arrest? If you have no evidence of being above .05 BAC than there would be no choice but to be found not guilty.

[Ignatius Reilly]

Did I miss the part where they took a blood sample or final breathalyzer examination after the arrest? If you have no evidence of being above .05 BAC than there would be no choice but to be found not guilty.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

There were too many other options possible to conclude impairment.

So.... why weren't any tests taken? That seems a huge hole in the story that needs some explanation.

[4underthru9]

Not sure it has anything to do with where it happened; but rather the non actions of the attending officer/s.

[MrAdam]

Could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain activities like this are also illegal under the same 'distracted driving' laws.

The difference is that there are specific laws for using or holding an electronic device.....applying make up while unsafe would not fall into that category, it may however fall into the “careless driving” category.

[4underthru9]

^^^
MoT Ontario: Q1: What exactly is the distracted driving law?

In Ontario, it's against the law to:

• operate hand-held communication and electronic entertainment devices while you're driving
• view display screens unrelated to your driving

Examples of hand-held devices include:

• iPods and MP3 players
• GPS
• cell phones
• smart phones
• laptops
• DVD players

[MrAdam]

^^^
MoT Ontario: Q1: What exactly is the distracted driving law?

In Ontario, it's against the law to:

• operate hand-held communication and electronic entertainment devices while you're driving
• view display screens unrelated to your driving

Examples of hand-held devices include:

• iPods and MP3 players
• GPS
• cell phones
• smart phones
• laptops
• DVD players

Exactly, so in other circumstances when someone is eating, drinking, applying makeup, reading a book, etc that could/would fall into the category of careless driving. “Driving without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for others using the highway”

[Shankapotamus86]

Sec. 130 of the HTA covers "Careless Driving". It is a broad definition that an officer can use at their discretion. Careless Driving is a provincial offence, and is not a criminal one.

- Following too closely
- Passing where permitted, but perhaps an unsafe time/place to do so
- failure to check mirrors
- accidents involving cyclists or pedestrians

To make things more confusing, there is also a Dangerous Driving charge, which is a criminal charge.