Ontario Judge Finds Woman Guilty of Distracted Driving for Looking at Apple Watch

[eoblaed]

Ontario: Home of the Derp Patrol.

If she had been adjusting things in the seat next to her and was likewise delayed in going at the green, would she have been ticketed? Unlikely. This is a stupid thing to get a ticket for.

 

[lec0rsaire]

I think I'd want the whole story. If she was just glancing at the time, that's ridiculous to write a ticket for. However if it was being used to for a more lengthy reason, I get it.

Though the reason why I think it might be more than time is that most cars come equipped with the time somewhere in the dash.

I don’t know why she would’ve been using the watch in the first place. Siri on the phone is good enough for dictating texts and having them read to you. There’s really no reason to be looking at anything but the road when you’re driving.

 

[kingtj]

And if this argument was *really* taken seriously, every single new vehicle sold would get rid of the big touch-screen display in the front of it for the GPS system and stereo.

If you want to handle these situations fairly, just ticket people for the actual traffic violations they commit -- and quit making it about the device they were supposedly looking at.

This article makes it clear that the women failed to drive away when the light turned green. That's a traffic violation, regardless of whether the driver had an Apple Watch, a phone or anything else on their person.

Cops should NOT be playing games, trying to second-guess who is distracted and who isn't. In the U.S., we recently had a situation where the cops would dress up as homeless people on the side of the road, at intersections, just so they could hand out tickets for texting and driving while people were already stopped at red lights. This behavior does not automatically mean the driver is being unsafe! If they can multitask and just peek at their phone when safely stopped at a signal, to see what a text was that came in while they were actually driving? They're probably handling things far more safely than others who try to view the text while the vehicle is in motion!

Right there in the first paragraph.
[doublepost=1528026270][/doublepost]
Distracted driving is more dangerous than drunk driving. Driving while eletronically distracted is the same as having four drinks and getting behind the wheel. Distracted driving is increasing while drunk driving is decreasing, and anti-distraction laws are already hard enough to enforce. Cops should ticket it whenever they see it. I’m sure you’d say the same if a member of your family was run over by a texting driver. Rather than attack the officer who did his job, I’ll say that the problem is that distracted driving laws aren’t enforced enough.

 

[- rob -]

I agree, if the driver wasn’t prepared to drive at a green light, it was a traffic violation. Regardless of the type of distraction.

It is a particularly sad time in this late stage of manually operated driving. The tickets exist because it is all too easy to kill people with cars. And almost anyone can get behind the wheel of these sometimes multi-ton steel reinforced machines.

I’m very hopeful for Waymo and Apple in whatever they can do to bring a conclusion to mass individually owned cars. It is minor anecdotes like this story that remind me most people just shouldn’t drive.

 

[truthertech]

A similar happened to me in the US. I was touching my iPhone at a traffic light, as I was trying to figure out my route. The cop was right next to my car, which I didn’t realize. He pulled me over, and I pleaded that I wasn’t texting but rather trying to figure out how to get to my destination.

He gave me a warning and said that the use of any communication device in a car by the driver is illegal, and even if my iPhone were mounted, it would still be illegal. After the incident, I googled this and found out that some cops meet and exceed their ticket quotas by giving tickets to anyone who touched their phones while driving even though only “texting” while driving is explicitly prohibited in my state.

If Ontario bans the use of any hand held communication device while driving, is every car rented out by car rental companies equipped with updates GPS units? I will be in Ontario in 2 weeks, and I need to be able to navigate off my iPhone while driving there.

You "googled" it to find out some cops are giving people tickets for things that aren't against the law??? Please don't rely on everything you read on the Internet. Having a close friend who is a traffic officer, I can assure you that every ticket has to cite the specific law you are violating and the officer would be guilty of a crime for certifying that you violated a non-existent law. Moreover, all of us can look around and see countless people using their cell phones while they are driving. It's an epidemic, why would an officer have to make something up to write a ticket for improper cell phone use??

Finally, every statute makes it illegal to manipulate your phone, because how else would they enforce the law as they don't have your screen capture to show the text you were typing? LOL. Finally, you admitted you were using your phone to check your location. That's what the law is trying to prevent!

 

[goonie4life9]

A person could remain stopped when a light turns green for a variety of reasons. That said, they cannot hit something or someone else if they are stopped. In your example, the only person at fault is the person who initiated the contact. By your logic, a car that is pulled-over on the side of the road is "dangerous for everyone" because someone who is actually driving could hit them.

Regardless, the main point of this is that in this situation, the person was given a ticket because of the current zeitgeist (using an electronic device) rather than the more serious, process-level issue of distracted driving. All of the empirical data indicate it is the distraction per se, not the specific form of distraction, that is the issue. However, our laws don't reflect that and some people find that problematic.

I think this is absurd. I understand that many feel the cops should have better things to do, and that looking down at a watch is no big deal, but when the light turns green and you are still sitting at the light you pose a danger.

Another time I was at an intersection and the light turned green. The car next to me did not continue. They sat there for a few seconds as I drove off. I don't think they were distracted on a phone. I think the driver was looking off into space thinking and not paying attention. (I guess that would be considered another form of distraction), unfortunately a car coming up from behind saw a green light, did not realize there was a driver still sitting at the light, and hit him from behind.

Now before you go off on a tangent claiming it was the drivers fault that him him from behind, I agree. The driver approaching the light should have been more careful. My point is waiting at a green light after it turns green is dangerous for everyone. Hence the ticket. Get it?

 

[neuropsychguy]

There’s no need to use a smart watch or phone while driving.

So how do we change music playlists or start an audiobook after listening to something else? In the 'old' days we looked down, pulled a tape or CD or if the container, and put it in. That's just as distracting.

If we don't need to use a smart phone, how do we look ahead at a navigation route and consider a change if there's unexpected heavy traffic or we need to add a stop somewhere? Why even have a smartphone if we can't do some of what makes it useful. It's sometimes much less safe to stop than have short interactions with a smartphone.

I'm not encouraging phone use while driving but we need to recognize there are a number of appropriate and safe uses of it even while driving.

 

[goonie4life9]

There actually are "hard and fast rule" that specify using a non-mounted electronic device while on the road is illegal. You will not find these same laws for non-electronic item use.

As for the "stopped" point, unfortunately, you are wrong. The law defines remaining stationary as "stopping," otherwise we'd all be in violation of the law every time we "paused" (your wording) at a stop sign, stop light, etc. Regardless, someone being stopped is not justification for hitting them. Think about it this way - if her car died at the stop light and someone hit her car, you wouldn't be making the same argument that she was at fault. This means your argument is not based on the process-level issue of distracted driving but rather the current zeitgeist, usage of electronic devices. That is what people have a problem with - making laws the target a zeitgeist (that often changes) rather than the process-level problem.

100% agree. That's why my comment focuses on distracted driving instead of the watch.


This is not true at all. That cop could have pulled her over for impeding traffic. The fact that he saw the cause of the delay (her interacting with the watch) simply sealed her fate. The cop could have seen her spill coffee or food, have the same delay, and given her a ticket. Tickets are discretionary, so there's no hard and fast rule that says e-device gets a ticket and something else doesn't.
[doublepost=1528040884][/doublepost]
Vehemently disagree here. She was't actually stopped. She was paused by holding her foot on the brake. A car in Park is stopped. Pedantic I know. She could have easily caused an accident by panic starting. She could have been the victim in an accident by someone paying attention to the light and not her not moving. There's no justification that works.

 

[macfacts]

She was stopped. Please provide specific examples of how checking a watch while stopped at a red light puts others at risk.

The law in most of Canada is no interaction with handheld electronic devices while the car is in drive mode, even when stopped. It is ok if the device is secured to the car dashboard or whatever (aka hands free).

And since you asked for an example of the risk, I'll give you one. Example: Someone is texting at a red light. When the light turns green and they move forward, and they are most likely still texting. Most people don't have the will power to instantly stop texting when the light turns green. If they did have the willpower, they would have waited till after the car trip.

 

[goonie4life9]

That's a different situation, though. In your example, the person started moving. The question was to give an example of risk while a person is stopped. In that case, there is no difference between using an electronic device, looking at a physical map, turning to talk to someone, looking in the glovebox, etc.

The law in most of Canada is no interaction with handheld electronic devices while the car is in drive mode, even when stopped. It is ok if the device is secured to the car dashboard or whatever (aka hands free).

And since you asked for an example of the risk, I'll give you one. Example: Someone is texting at a red light. When the light turns green and they move forward, and they are most likely still texting. Most people don't have the will power to instantly stop texting when the light turns green. If they did have the willpower, they would have waited till after the car trip.

 

[Markoth]

Right there in the first paragraph.
[doublepost=1528026270][/doublepost]
Distracted driving is more dangerous than drunk driving. Driving while eletronically distracted is the same as having four drinks and getting behind the wheel. Distracted driving is increasing while drunk driving is decreasing, and anti-distraction laws are already hard enough to enforce. Cops should ticket it whenever they see it. I’m sure you’d say the same if a member of your family was run over by a texting driver. Rather than attack the officer who did his job, I’ll say that the problem is that distracted driving laws aren’t enforced enough.

I remember seeing someone driving down the highway, while juggling a couple pieces of paper, and talking on the phone. At least he wasn't driving drunk, so I guess it's okay, right? Some people absolutely baffle me. It's one of those "everyone does it so I guess it's okay" kinds of lunacy, and it tends to be fairly ubiquitous.

 

[Somian]

So how do we change music playlists or start an audiobook after listening to something else? In the 'old' days we looked down, pulled a tape or CD or if the container, and put it in. That's just as distracting.

If we don't need to use a smart phone, how do we look ahead at a navigation route and consider a change if there's unexpected heavy traffic or we need to add a stop somewhere? Why even have a smartphone if we can't do some of what makes it useful. It's sometimes much less safe to stop than have short interactions with a smartphone.

I'm not encouraging phone use while driving but we need to recognize there are a number of appropriate and safe uses of it even while driving.

You use the infotainment system that your car manufacturer created for operation while driving and deemed to be safe.

That’s why cars have this stuff. Using a phone or watch or whatever as a workaround means you use a device that isn’t made for this use-case and might be more distracting.

The workaround of dash mounting a smartphone doesn’t change the fact that you’re operating a smartphone. Navigation apps, texting and media player apps and all this stuff is basically illegal.

Apple knows that and the iPhone has a feature that essentially prevents you from using it when you’re driving (except Siri). If you intentionally press „I’m not driving“ because you want to use an app it means you’ll take responsibility and are aware that what you do is distracted driving.

 

[CosmoCopus]

$400 fine for looking at your watch while sitting still at a red light ... this is ridiculous. I guess Ontario needs the cash.

 

[69650]

Every car has a clock on the dashboard. I don’t believe she was just checking the time on her Apple Watch.

 

[Kabeyun]

Cops should NOT be playing games, trying to second-guess who is distracted and who isn't. In the U.S., we recently had a situation where the cops would dress up as homeless people on the side of the road, at intersections, just so they could hand out tickets for texting and driving while people were already stopped at red lights. This behavior does not automatically mean the driver is being unsafe! If they can multitask and just peek at their phone when safely stopped at a signal, to see what a text was that came in while they were actually driving? They're probably handling things far more safely than others who try to view the text while the vehicle is in motion!

Cops trying to figure out who’s distracted is not a game but exactly part of their job. And giving a ticket for illegally distracting behavior before a driver kills someone is also, thankfully, part of their job. You think they’re supposed to wait until after the fatal accident? Have you ever heard of a random checkpoint? Where and when the police think DUI is more likely, you can get checked even if you aren’t weaving all over the road. No different that checking if you’re using a prohibited device at a red light, which, news flash to you, is illegal in many states. Can’t open a bottle of bourbon at a red light either, even if you never take a drink and close it again when the light turns green. And if you get busted with that open bottle, you’ve earned yourself a ticket. That’s the law.

There have been car radios since the 1920s. And yes, there was debate about distracted driving then too. And even though car driving is different now (far faster, many more people do it and for longer amounts of time, and both much insulated and more automated so we’re lulled into complacency) the car radio has been grandfathered into our legal car lifestyles. Yes, it can be a distraction too. Yes, you should be careful when screwing with the radio. Doesn’t mean that we should say the hell with it and have no interest in controlling new forms of dangerous driving? A car is a dangerous machine and it’s commonality doesn’t change that. People are always trying to justify their own behavior just so they aren’t inconvenienced.

 

[CosmoCopus]

I don’t know why she would’ve been using the watch in the first place. Siri on the phone is good enough for dictating texts and having them read to you. There’s really no reason to be looking at anything but the road when you’re driving.

So you never look to see how fast your driving or what time it is or how much fuel you have?

 

[pdaholic]

Nothing like when a person in front of me misses the green light because they are staring at their phone. I honk my horn and suddenly I’m the dick. If you’re gonna stare at your phone for that long, even at a stoplight, just pull over and let others drive.

 

[Vasilioskn]

So if I touch my radio volume buttons or the screen will I get a ticket ? Get the F outta here. Pigs with too much free time.

 

[MartiNZ]

All the more reason for the robots to start driving

They've already taken over enough! Giving us an excuse to pay even less attention suddenly seems questionable as a way forward.

 

[Ca$hflow]

$400 is not enough. Make it $4000 and maybe people will get a clue. And yes, it makes sense to me that a smart watch is potentially more distracting considering how small the screen is for Reading. The key point is that she was distracted and didn’t react to the light.

LOL $400 not enough!? That’s enough to put 90% of citizens into a great financial burden. Not everyone is a big baller like you.

 

[goonie4life9]

You’d definitely be in the right for honking at someone. In fact, several folks have said this is how the situation should have been handled.

The issue is that the law is written to address ONLY the cirrent zeitgiest while ignoring the actual underlying issue, distracted driving, which has many forms that don’t involve electronic devices.

Nothing like when a person in front of me misses the green light because they are staring at their phone. I honk my horn and suddenly I’m the dick. If you’re gonna stare at your phone for that long, even at a stoplight, just pull over and let others drive.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Could she have just been checking the time? How many ppl get a ticket because of being distracted by their fast food drive through pickup or a loud song on the radio? I bet hardly any.

I’m against cell phone being used in cars by drivers but this seems a bit much. What about phones clipped to the dashboard for navigation? Are those banned too?

Sorry ... I live in Toronto ON and I can tell you in the back seat of an Uber on Bay/King/Yonge and many other streets just how often people do this on their Apple Watch.

4x in 20 seconds to look at the time? THAT is a bit much. shouldn't take more than 7 seconds with a digital watch ... and if god's honest truth it took her that time to determine the time ... then a) Her parents should've received the ticket for not properly teaching her how to tell time ... or b) SHE still gets a ticket for not setting her watch to quickly glance at the time.

Oh wait ... it only takes a 20 degree twist of the wrist if your hand is on the steering wheel to light up the watch to show you it's watch face which by default shows you the time.

oh wait C) because she did NOT enable DO NOT DISTURB on her iPhone or watch whilst driving. If she disabled it ... then again she's NOT looking at the time.

With those common sense thoughts and the full evidence presented sorry she get's $400 fine as she KNEW better and should've owning a watch and driving a car. I'm sure her car has a CLOCK in it too!

https://gryphons.ca/roster.aspx?rp_id=10435
[doublepost=1528055429][/doublepost]

LOL $400 not enough!? That’s enough to put 90% of citizens into a great financial burden. Not everyone is a big baller like you.

She's driving a car and has insurance. Sorry but $400 is NOT going to put her out of financial burden as she's sponsored by ADIDAS!
https://gryphons.ca/roster.aspx?rp_id=10435

She can take public transit of the $400 can't be paid if it affects her insurance or car payments. I do, so I'm not crying any tears for her.

 

[Ca$hflow]

No. The correct answer is for it to be a weekend in jail. That way there's no profit motive for the police department.

If you don't believe traffic enforcement is driven by revenue, then you must be unaware of the many, many municipalities caught cheating on yellow light duration when red light cameras were installed.

That’s insane. This is crazy talk. Jail time at the county jail for a traffic offence!? Violence and sexual offences occurred frequently in jail.
[doublepost=1528056326][/doublepost]

Sorry ... I live in Toronto ON and I can tell you in the back seat of an Uber on Bay/King/Yonge and many other streets just how often people do this on their Apple Watch.

4x in 20 seconds to look at the time? THAT is a bit much. shouldn't take more than 7 seconds with a digital watch ... and if god's honest truth it took her that time to determine the time ... then a) Her parents should've received the ticket for not properly teaching her how to tell time ... or b) SHE still gets a ticket for not setting her watch to quickly glance at the time.

Oh wait ... it only takes a 20 degree twist of the wrist if your hand is on the steering wheel to light up the watch to show you it's watch face which by default shows you the time.

oh wait C) because she did NOT enable DO NOT DISTURB on her iPhone or watch whilst driving. If she disabled it ... then again she's NOT looking at the time.

With those common sense thoughts and the full evidence presented sorry she get's $400 fine as she KNEW better and should've owning a watch and driving a car. I'm sure her car has a CLOCK in it too!

https://gryphons.ca/roster.aspx?rp_id=10435
[doublepost=1528055429][/doublepost]

She's driving a car and has insurance. Sorry but $400 is NOT going to put her out of financial burden as she's sponsored by ADIDAS!
https://gryphons.ca/roster.aspx?rp_id=10435

She can take public transit of the $400 can't be paid if it affects her insurance or car payments. I do, so I'm not crying any tears for her.

The purpose of a traffic offence fine is to create an ouchie moment, not to destroy someone. That’s all I’m saying.

To suggest $5000 or even anything more excessive is more then an ouchie moment for 90% of Canadians unless it gets changed to a criminal offence.

 

[Onext1]

That's why we can't have nice things.

 

[weelttleman]

Whoa - "whenever" they see it. ANYTHING can cause a distraction. Makeup. Radio. Billboards. Other drivers. Passengers.

I say stay the crap out of my car. If I'm swirving - ticket me. If I'm speeding - ticket me. If I'm looking at my watch at a RED light and I don't go immediately - that's NO WHERE CLOSE to a ticket. No how, no way.

I get distracted driving, I do. But this was WAY over the line.

[doublepost=1528026270][/doublepost]
Distracted driving is more dangerous than drunk driving. Driving while eletronically distracted is the same as having four drinks and getting behind the wheel. Distracted driving is increasing while drunk driving is decreasing, and anti-distraction laws are already hard enough to enforce. Cops should ticket it whenever they see it. I’m sure you’d say the same if a member of your family was run over by a texting driver. Rather than attack the officer who did his job, I’ll say that the problem is that distracted driving laws aren’t enforced enough.[/QUOTE]