710 replies to this topic

[HB]

The fines now are not set in stone. Early in 2012 I got a ticket for using handheld device . i went to court and instead of paying the $167 I asked the judge if he could lower the fine.

 

We agreed on $50 I walked to cashier paid it and that was it.

 

 

 If the fines were set at $2800 I think it would end it but it would also but a lot of cops out of work and the revenue generated for BC and its municipalities would not be there.

[bluefox]

They can't be everywhere all the time. 

 

Except, apparently, when it comes to sitting in the bushes during a traffic jam

[Mike K.]

Cops have jaywalker stings as well. And they will ticket you any time, anywhere if they see you putting yourself or others at risk.

 

Toronto's mayor can attest to that.

[HB]

Jay Walking is not illegal everywhere in the City of Victoria only in certain areas within certain blocks according bylaw.

 

One example is Fisgard Between Douglas and Government. Not illegal because there was an exemption in place that has never been changed from the days when VICPD headquarters was on Fisgard.

It was to prevent cops from breaking jay walking bylaw when walking to and from the station when parked across street or whatever.

[bluefox]

Cops have jaywalker stings as well. And they will ticket you any time, anywhere if they see you putting yourself or others at risk.

 

Toronto's mayor can attest to that.

 

Should be doing it every weekday at that intersection, at least during rush hour. I never see cops there.

 

The only time I see them doing stings is at select intersections where jaywalking is frequent (Downtown Eastside, for example). But, in that case, they're handing out tickets to people who can't afford to pay them...

Edited by bluefox, 22 February 2014 - 02:30 PM.

[LJ]

I agree. When it comes to traffic, that's not where I want to see police spending their time. Completely nonsensical.

 

On the other hand, it would be nice, if they're going to do this, that they did the same thing and just picked off jaywalkers. They'd make as much of a fortune off these tickets if they actually put their priorities in order. I think the number of pedestrians making stupid, risky or illegal decisions still (and always will) outnumbers the number of people still driving distractedly.

 

For example, I almost hit an idiotic young girl at Commercial and Broadway today. Our light westbound on Broadway had just turned green, and I was about the third or fourth car back from the intersection.

 

Lo and behold, this little demon weaves through the cars, Safeway bags and a backpack slung over her shoulder -- just comes out of nowhere, right in front of me. I had already started accelerating at this point and I'm pretty sure she brushed up against my car, but had she darted across a second later, she'd be in the hospital.

 

When I tapped the horn to admonish her (considering I was in the middle lane and the 99 bus was just about to come up on my right), I got a nice little middle finger and a couple of expletives thrown back my way.

 

She could have safely crossed the road at the intersection on a green, or used the pedestrian overpass that connects the two SkyTrain lines and come down the stairs onto the sidewalk. But she chose not to.

 

Again, I ask, where are the cops on situations like that one?

Well the obvious difference between jaywalking and distracted driving is that it is the jaywalker who is going to get hurt in any encounter which should be enough of a deterrent already.

 

I guess she can consider herself lucky that you weren't texting or she would have been a hood ornament.

[bluefox]

Well the obvious difference between jaywalking and distracted driving is that it is the jaywalker who is going to get hurt in any encounter which should be enough of a deterrent already.

 

I guess she can consider herself lucky that you weren't texting or she would have been a hood ornament.

 

True, but like I said, she should still consider herself lucky that she didn't cross a second later, otherwise she would have been a goner anyway.

[North Shore]

Are you suggesting that engaging in a phone conversation in no way takes thought and concentration away from driving? 

Yes, but, why then is it that hands-free cel conversations are allowed, while hands-on are streng verboten?  And if that's a problem, why then are we allowed to talk to our passengers while driving?

And further to all of this brouhaha, it's interesting to walk around car lots nowadays.  There's a bunch of hand-wringing by the authorities about 'distracted driving', yet the very same authorities have approved as 'safe' the modern crop of cars - most of which are equipped with touch-screen climate/radio controls - all of which require (IMHO) a significant increase in 'heads down' time, as one fumbles for the correct screen, and the correct button on it...if that's not distraction, I don't know what is...

[LJ]

Yes, but, why then is it that hands-free cel conversations are allowed, while hands-on are streng verboten?  And if that's a problem, why then are we allowed to talk to our passengers while driving?

 

I would be happy to see hands free conversations banned also. As far as talking to the passengers it is a much different scenario. The passenger is having the same spatial relationship that you are having and is probably helping spotting problems as well as knowing when something out of the ordinary is happening and stopping the conversation.

 

As for the infotainment multi touch screens - I agree, they look pretty but are much too complicated. Most people will never get beyond the first layer of icons/info.

[Mike K.]

Ten years ago this wasn't even an issue. Then all of a sudden people start crashing while using their phones. So the government steps in and bans the use of handheld devices. Not much has changed in the grand scheme of things but we can eradicate a known source of accidents in the process.

[sebberry]

http://www.latimes.c...y#axzz2uWnySpdw

 

Using cellphone as GPS not subject to Calif. driving law, court rules Appellate court rules Californians may use a cellphone to look at map applications while driving, even if apps are not hands-free.

Talk or text you may not, but looking at maps on your cellphone while driving is legal, a California appellate court ruled Thursday.

 

The 5th District Court of Appeal sided with a Fresno man who received a $165 ticket when he consulted a map application on his phone, looking for an alternate route around a traffic jam.

 

Steven Spriggs unsuccessfully challenged the ticket in traffic court and later in Superior Court, arguing the law prohibited only talking on the phone, not looking at a map.

 

[...]

 

 

If Kalifornia can do it, so can we...

 

There needs to be a better balance in our handheld device ban.  Looking at a paper map while stuck in a traffic jam remains legal in BC, but looking up a road or poking at your GPS map isn't. 

 

 

[jonny]

I agree, the law goes overboard Seb. I don't think I should feel like I need to look around while stopped at a traffic light to make sure there are no cops around before I change the song on my phone. That behavior has zero risk.

[HB]

Thats the exact thing I got pinched for in 2012 .

I was stopped at the light in front of Dennys and I held my GPS and looked at the map on it.

A big shot cop standing at the bus stop radioed ahead so that when I went on the green the big heros pulled me over for my ticket and I had to listen to a lecture on how dangerous it is to look at a GPS in my hand./

 

I asked if I would have gotten a ticket if I spread out a map over my steering when stopped at the light and was told there is no law against that.

[Mike K.]

I dropped off my car with a mechanic earlier today and had to walk across the Bay Street Bridge. During that crossing I counted four drivers heading towards me that were clearly staring into handheld devices as they drove by.

 

I suppose people get a false sense of security on a bridge as there are no cross-streets that require their attention. And now I know why police target both ends of that bridge so often.

[sebberry]

I was behind someone today at a red light who was entering an address into his windshield mounted GPS. 

 

He clearly completed the entry as it switched back to map view just before the light went green.  No hesitation on the green light.

 

Up ahead a taxi made a quick lane change to get around one car stopped for a red light.  This quick lane change required the "distracted GPS operator" to brake quickly to avoid hitting the taxi.  He did so without any problem.

 

Not everyone entering an address at a stop light is a dangerous road maniac. 

[lanforod]

^ I don't think many argue that, certainly not many on VV, except for the police (though I doubt many truly believe the rhetoric they spout when writing a ticket for such an 'offence').

[James Bay walker]

Not everyone entering an address at a stop light is a dangerous road maniac. 

 

Certainly not all the time.

 

jbw

[concorde]

The fines now are not set in stone. Early in 2012 I got a ticket for using handheld device . i went to court and instead of paying the $167 I asked the judge if he could lower the fine.

 

We agreed on $50 I walked to cashier paid it and that was it.

 

 

 If the fines were set at $2800 I think it would end it but it would also but a lot of cops out of work and the revenue generated for BC and its municipalities would not be there.

Thats why I fight ever ticket.  If the cop doesn't show up, you win.  I even told one cop outside the courtroom there is nothing to talk about and he found me 5 minutes later and said they were dropping the ticket

 

If they have you by the you know what, you can always request a reduction in fine and its usually cut in half.  For those who own corporations and it happened during work, its fully tax deductible thanks to the Supreme Court

 

http://www.latimes.c...y#axzz2uWnySpdw

 

 

 

If Kalifornia can do it, so can we...

 

There needs to be a better balance in our handheld device ban.  Looking at a paper map while stuck in a traffic jam remains legal in BC, but looking up a road or poking at your GPS map isn't. 

I learned that the hard way, its illegal to even hold a cell phone in your hand even if its not in use

 

"use", in relation to an electronic device, means one or more of the following actions:

(a) holding the device in a position in which it may be used;

(b) operating one or more of the device's functions;

© communicating orally by means of the device with another person or another device;

(d) taking another action that is set out in the regulations by means of, with or in relation to an electronic device.

 

214.2  (1) A person must not use an electronic device while driving or operating a motor vehicle on a highway.

[James Bay walker]

Concorde:

I learned that the hard way, its illegal to even hold a cell phone in your hand even if its not in use

 

"use", in relation to an electronic device, means one or more of the following actions:

(a) holding the device in a position in which it may be used;

 

 

 

In Reply:  well sure, I think it's reasonable to conclude that if you're holding the cellphone in your hand while your engine's running, that your attention is not 100% on your vehicle's operation (due to a listening attitude, one hand's occupied, whatever). 

 

jbw

Edited by James Bay walker, 01 March 2014 - 10:59 AM.

[sebberry]

So let's ban kids, pets, passengers and every other conceivable distraction from cars.