Back on the topic, I thought this "undercover bum" approach was hilarious and I wholeheartedly support it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Cop's new "cell-phone use" sting
- Thread starter iJohnHenry
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm actually curious if you can get busted for changing the music in your car via iPhone. It looks the same as texting.
Just holding the phone, not using it can get you busted.
My issue is they don't go after people smoking a cigarette while driving, harder to put that down than a phone.
I suppose I'm the only one without a clue as to how cops holding cardboard signs is supposed to be a sting operation. 
Its a shame they don't put the same effort in solving crimes with actual victims - you know, theft, rape, murder, assault. I guess enforcement of those crimes cost money instead of making money from cell phone users. Plus, real criminals are dangerous, while hassling drivers is safe and easy.
Democratically elected politicians make the laws. Cops only enforce them. Or do think cops should just be able to decide to ignore laws that they don't agree?
At least in Canada we kinda like having the politicians make the laws.
----
I actually liked this approach. I would have loved to have been behind a car getting busted and seeing the look on their face. I suspect the cops really liked the newspaper coverage, since the deterrence level would have been pretty high. Makes it easier for them to go and catch more serious criminals.
With literally tens of thousands of laws on the books, the cops have a lot of discretion on which laws they spend their limited resources to solve. My priorities for law enforcement would place solving burglary cases over hassling motorists.
I suppose I'm the only one without a clue as to how cops holding cardboard signs is supposed to be a sting operation.
Well, they stand at stop-lights, ramp exits, etc, and approach the car as if to ask for a 'donation'.
That way they can get a look-see inside, and perhaps nab you.
It also helps that their uniform is hidden/absent.
Since there are studies that show that people on cell-phones are easily distracted, and their driving skills are impaired at about the level of 1 to 2 drinks, I think sending a couple of cops out to nap people who are potentially going to cause a crash that can injure or kill someone is a good use of resources. Especially since they have made the news... the deterrence means those two officers are continuing to encourage drivers to follow the law... even if they are back on the beat. I'd say a really good use of resources. I'll bet the cops tipped the news media themselves.
Besides.. those two were Canadian cops. It's not like they're dealing with any real crimes. Mostly just hockey riots and burglaries from Timmy's, eh?
This is about putting others at risk and putting a strain on the community if you are seriously injured in an accident because you weren't paying full attention. It's about being a little less selfish and about less instant gratification that we all probably know too much about.
And talking to passengers in the car or worse, children, how impaired does that make a person? Or changing the radio, inserting a CD, scrolling through 2,000 songs on your iPod? Perhaps we should ban passengers and radios in cars - they distract as much as holding a cell phone.
You know, we've been having car wrecks for a long time before there were cell phones, yet somehow the anti-cell-phone peeps think the root of all driving problems are cell phones. If we want fewer wrecks, we need better drivers and roads. Banning cell phones won't get us that. I think we'd be better off requiring more training. Maybe force drivers with problem records to ride a motorcycle or scooter. You get focused on better skills really quickly when you're the smallest vehicle on the road. And its really hard to text and ride at the same time.
Also, I've been told that Canada does have a growing crime problem. Like us in the USA, they blame their neighbors to the south.
People in the car take their conversational cues from the attitude and body language of the driver, plus usually an awareness of what is happening in traffic. They know when it's time shut up and let the driver concentrate. People on a phone don't have those cues so they keep talking and asking questions. As well, and as someone else pointed out earlier, a driver on a phone (hands-free or not) is also trying to 'visualize' the unseen facial expressions of the person on the other end of the conversation. That takes quite a few grey-matter CPU cycles. Not an issue really when the road is empty. But in urban settings - where most phone conversations happen, a driver should be concentrating on driving.
They don't distract as much as a having a conversation, though. During a conversation our brains really light up. Most of those other activities don't' really take a lot of brain-power. Though I agree... nobody should be scrolling through 2000 songs on an iPod while driving.
People have been dying of lots of things for a long time. Society tends to try to minimize the harm that comes to innocent victims. And distracted drivers tend to harm others, not themselves. They're cocooned in a ton of metal with airbags and seat belts to protect them.
Cell phone conversations impair a driver's ability by about the same as 1 or 2 drinks according to numerous studies. So... are you also for loosening up the drink/driving laws?
Better drivers! Absolutely! Ironically, and counter-intuivitely, better roads don't necessarily mean fewer wrecks. There is a new school of thought where you make a road narrower (or at least visually make appear narrower), take away the signs, put chicanes in to make it a bit less straight. And you let pedestrians cross anywhere they want (obviously you have to clear the blind spots) And you know what happens? Accident rates plummet. Cars slow down, and drivers pay attention - 'cause it feels so freaking dangerous. There is a town in the Netherlands where they took all the traffic signs down. Everything. Accidents plummeted. Victoria and Sidney BC are narrowing their roads, adding mid-block pedestrian crossings with curb bulges, etc etc. And their accident rates are dropping. Drivers really pay attention.
You've been told wrong, I'm afraid. In 2011 the crime rate was down about 5% from the year before. We're at the lowest levels of crime in over 40 years. Lowest homicide rates since 1966 as well. It's the crime rates in the North that are our problem, though the supply of illegal guns is predominantly from the US. Link
It's our current federal government that is trying to convince us that it needs to get tough on crime. But their views don't match with the reality.
Changing playlists while idling at a red light is entirely different than doing so while driving 65 mph down the highway. This "sting" is full of fail.
Ah, I see now. For some reason it didn't click in my head that they'd be standing at busy intersections, and not simply on the side of some road in a ditch.Well, they stand at stop-lights, ramp exits, etc, and approach the car as if to ask for a 'donation'.
That way they can get a look-see inside, and perhaps nab you.
It also helps that their uniform is hidden/absent.
(To be fair though, that's where the homeless hang out around where I live, they tend to avoid intersections for some reason.)
Hang on, the cops doing this sting are looking for people talking or texting on cell phones, not changing playlists.
Remind me, next time I am texting, to tell the officer that I was simply browsing my playlists, then.
Same same.
That would be a tough sell, coming as it does via the Criminal Code, not the Highway Traffic Act.
But Careless Driving could be used, and most here would agree that this would be severely militant.
Or, pick your poison level.
There is an incredible potential for abuse with this. "Careless Driving" would always be your word vs the cop.
This is insane, considering how ridiculous DUI laws are.
I understand people get really passionate about this issue but seriously we are going way over board in criminalizing bad behavior. The laws are very inconsistent across state, county and city boundaries (hands free ok here but not here). Using GPS is ok but not cell phone. Talking on the phone is fine but not texting or reading e-mail. Reading a book or magazine stopped at a light is fine but reading an e-mail or text stopped at a light is not. Disciplining backseat children or talking to spouse or colleague in a car is fine but talking on the speakerphone may not be.
People need to behave in a responsible manner. Police need to stop people weaving all over road because they're distracted but giving someone a ticket because they are simply on the phone and driving properly makes no sense whatsoever.
I understand the knee jerk reaction every time someone is injured or killed because someone was on the phone or texting. Just proving the person was using a phone doesn't mean it was the actual cause of the accident. Could just as easily have been the raisin he / she dropped in his lap and looked down to retrieve or how close he / she was driving to the other nearby vehicles. There are plenty of distractions in life and on the road. Making cell phone use the cause of the moment won't likely change anything.
Having police pull over motorists who are actually driving poorly would make a lot more sense than wasting time creating all manner of inconsistent legislation and slapping penalties on people who are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.
Cheers,
People need to behave in a responsible manner. Police need to stop people weaving all over road because they're distracted but giving someone a ticket because they are simply on the phone and driving properly makes no sense whatsoever.
I understand the knee jerk reaction every time someone is injured or killed because someone was on the phone or texting. Just proving the person was using a phone doesn't mean it was the actual cause of the accident. Could just as easily have been the raisin he / she dropped in his lap and looked down to retrieve or how close he / she was driving to the other nearby vehicles. There are plenty of distractions in life and on the road. Making cell phone use the cause of the moment won't likely change anything.
Having police pull over motorists who are actually driving poorly would make a lot more sense than wasting time creating all manner of inconsistent legislation and slapping penalties on people who are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.
Cheers,
It usually is, without outside witnesses.
But remember to be careful what you say to the officer, because it will come back to haunt you.
Oh, they could also check the clock, for the time stopped and the cell phone log.
MADD might disagree with you on this point, and just how are they ridiculous?
And you come across as a person with 'entitlements'.
Luckily I live in Canada where these rules are set on a Province by Province basis. Really, only Lloydminster and Ottawa residents are potentially affected.
The 'pull 'em over only if they are driving poorly' logic should also then mean that you don't pull over drivers who have been drinking until they start to weave.
It's been stated over again that holding a phone conversation impairs a driver's ability by about 1 to 2 drinks. Though, of course, a cell-phone talking motorist can choose to end their impairment - if the situation develops slowly enough.
There's a big difference. Laws should attempt to be as clear as possible.
The speed limit is 50. The cop pulls you over for going 60. You claim you weren't. Your word against the cop- but it is a fact that is in dispute (how fast you were actually going).
But if a cop pulls you over for "Careless Driving", there is not actually a clear definition of what it is. What if the cop didn't like that you didn't let him pass, or didn't speed up, or didn't let someone merge? There's grey areas everywhere because this is a law with no clear definition. The cop can pull over anyone he wants and cite him for Careless Driving and there is no defense because the crime is undefined.
As panzer said, we're going way overboard criminalizing bad behavior. Making things illegal should be very conservative.
MADD might disagree with you on this point, and just how are they ridiculous?
And you come across as a person with 'entitlements'.
Poor wording; I don't think they're overly harsh considering what drunk driving entails, but to apply the same thing to cell phones seems insane to me.
Here in Washington state, you have at least 24 hours jail time (which means a criminal record, which badly hurts on criminal background checks for jobs) and the possibility of losing your license, and it stays on your record for seven years and you get massive insurance rate hikes.
On second offense, you get at least 30 days in jail.
Get a DUI, and you go to jail and can find yourself having a harder time getting jobs, a harder time renting a home, and paying super high insurance rates (many won't even insure you) to own a car for seven years, on top of the big fine. Get a second, you're probably losing your job and maybe home if you don't have an emergency fund (30-60 days in jail). These are extremely serious, life-altered penalties.
The thought of applying these kinds of penalties to someone for talking on a cell phone seems completely insane to me.
(Also, how do I come across as entitled?)
Last edited: