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

[Kabeyun]

Question for you: where you live, do the officers have computers in their vehicle? Where I live they're freakin mounted where the officer can always see the screen, and indeed they receive alerts while the vehicle is moving. The local jurisdictions have determined that this is both a 'safe' scenario and that the benefits outweigh the potential risks.

I’d be careful trying to generalize what’s allowed by trained LEOs to what’s allowed, let alone what should be allowed, for the general public pic. In the United States, where I live, we’re also not allowed to drive 130 mph, go through red lights, or do u-turns on the highway. Don’t like the discrepancy? Change the law, and glwt.

 

[JRobinsonJr]

I’d be careful trying to generalize what’s allowed by trained LEOs to what’s allowed, let alone what should be allowed, for the general public pic. In the United States, where I live, we’re also not allowed to drive 130 mph, go through red lights, or do u-turns on the highway. Don’t like the discrepancy? Change the law, and glwt.

Sorry... I choose my words very carefully but find that people tend to attempt to 'read between the lines' when nothing is there.

I made no such generalizations, and agree that *some* people are / should be / must be authorized to do things that others are not. That said, I live in Texas and cannot count the number of times I've seen officers checking their computers while at a stoplight. Of course they need to sometimes bend the laws in order to do their job and I in no way begrudge them that need. (Well ... just once I would love to find out how fast my car will go... ) That said, it's also bit disingenuous to suggest that "people" - the big, giant collective 'we' - cause problems when combining technology and driving.

The reality is that technology is 'checked' millions of times every day by drivers, and the number of related incidents is small. Tragic? Yes. Preventable? Probably. Is it worth it to try to prevent them? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that every person who has access to technology in a vehicle should be vilified either.

 

[dk001]

Wow. Is everyone out to get you? How about focusing on real facts and stop assuming the people you're chatting with are the problem. I could just as easily call you names, but won't because it's childish.

Fact: People interacting with technology while driving a vehicle has a very real potential to cause problems
Fact: Vehicles not moving do not cause traffic accidents (but may be involved in one)
Fact: If a vehicle is blocking traffic... it's an annoyance (of varying degrees)
Fact: If *I* am blocking traffic for any controllable reason it makes ME a ass.
Fact: If *you* are enraged when being inconvenienced for a few seconds.. it's makes YOU an ass

If your life really is so driven by "seconds matter" you should probably take a helicopter. People are inherently fallible... and every single one of us will, at one point, get distracted sitting at a red light.

Now... go take your anxiety meds and chill. Leave policy debate to people who will at least make an effort to evaluate the facts.
[doublepost=1528146800][/doublepost]

No... stopped at a light is STOPPED.

If we allow policy (and thus laws) to be made based on your logic, taken to it's conclusion you could get a speeding ticket parked in your driveway... because the vehicle has the POTENTIAL to speed.

Laws must be written to encourage or discourage actual behavior of an individual.. not of potential behavior.
[doublepost=1528147045][/doublepost]

OK... then I have a question. At what point does a person/vehicle go from "potential" to "driving"?
[doublepost=1528147235][/doublepost]

Question for you: where you live, do the officers have computers in their vehicle? Where I live they're freakin mounted where the officer can always see the screen, and indeed they receive alerts while the vehicle is moving. The local jurisdictions have determined that this is both a 'safe' scenario and that the benefits outweigh the potential risks.

Sorry it isn't. If you are in the drivers seat of a vehicle in operation, you are the driver. In motion or stopped, if the engine is running, your it. Yes, even if the transmission is in Park.

 

[Cankoda]

So... you've seen a stopped vehicle cause an accident? Did you get a video? I ask because the laws of physics would suggest that the stopped vehicle was most likely hit by a moving vehicle rather than the other way around.

which like I said can be easily avoided if some of these people would look at an intersection instead of looking at their phones, like they’re supposed to....good job on missing the point of the comment though

 

[JRobinsonJr]

which like I said can be easily avoided if some of these people would look at an intersection instead of looking at their phones, like they’re supposed to....good job on missing the point of the comment though

In reality (outside of an interesting debate) we're not all that far off.

That said, if DriverA hits DriverB, with very few exceptions it doesn't matter what DriverB is doing. It is almost always DriverA's fault. Now... if DriverA is paying attention to a phone/watch/whatever, it's still DriverA's fault. If DriverB is paying attention to a phone, it's still DriverA's fault. If DriverB is drunk / sleeping / eating / etc. ... still DriverA's fault.
[doublepost=1528155347][/doublepost]

Sorry it isn't. If you are in the drivers seat of a vehicle in operation, you are the driver. In motion or stopped, if the engine is running, your it. Yes, even if the transmission is in Park.

OK. Should you get a ticket for looking at your phone while still in your driveway? Under your definition, yes. You said "In Park". We're not disagreeing on the definition of "driver". We're not even arguing on whether the underlying cause - preventing accidents - is reasonable. It is. We're debating the specific conditions under which a rule should be applied. Many people (not necessarily you) seem to be implying that the "No Technology" rule should be applied to all drivers in all situations. I'm simply pointing out the fallacy of that argument.

 

[kingtj]

We may have to just agree to disagree. But I absolutely disagree with your assertions here.

1. I'm familiar with random DUI checkpoints and I'm against them on principle. They presume people are guilty until proven innocent and it just opens up the unlucky ones selected to be stopped to additional searches and opportunities to be harassed or cited with unrelated violations. I've been stopped at those with friends of mine, when neither of us were drinking or doing anything wrong. And just because of such things as the cop not liking the guy's out of state plates, or curious what was in bags behind our seats (groceries!), we got subjected to whole vehicle searches and a big waste of our time before we were free to go. Everyone wants to use the, "But what about the drivers who kill people?!" line as though it justifies things. It simply doesn't! At least in the USA, the police force was NEVER supposed to try to hunt down "pre crime", trampling on people's individual freedoms in the process. As I always remind people in this sort of debate: Would you be ok with cops randomly showing up and kicking in your front door at night, to search your place? It would certainly reduce crime. I bet they'd catch drug dealers in the act and maybe a child molester or two .... who knows what else?

2. As I said before, the RIGHT way to handle any of this stuff is to pull someone over when erratic driving behavior is observed. The type of device being fiddled with is IRRELEVANT. It doesn't matter if it's a cellphone or adjusting the temperature in the car, or trying to reset the trip odometer! MOST people can obviously handle adjusting the radio volume or station without being distracted enough to make any significant difference in their driving. The ones who stupidly look away from the windshield while the car is moving forward at an intersection, messing with the stereo, tend to wind up in a wreck. Problem there is the driver ... not the fact that cars come with stereos. In fact, most cars are giving you steering wheel controls for the stereo these days, so you don't have to look elsewhere to make basic adjustments. Kind of like hands-free Bluetooth coming out for your cellphone.

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.

 

[shigzeo]

OK ... challenge on.

Name three car models (not just manufacturers) of cars that where produced and made available for public sale, mass produced and from the factory or show room made street legal ... in the last 90yrs that came without a clock (Analog or digital) that the driver can see (dashboard, tachometer or similar front steering wheel view) ?!

PS: In other words the McLaren F1 didn't come with a clock and at 1 Million was not made street legal at the factory it had to be made that way upon order for the country you lived in (outside of UK, USA, Canada, and France).

Suzuki Every, Suzuki Alto, and about every delivery-style vehicle that is on the market. I drive a delivery van that Japan Post use. Every single manual version of this car and its sort from Suzuki, Toyota, Honda, and more are the same. This goes for low-end company cars from each of those makers.

 

[truthertech]

Better to be mouted, in your lap can imply to a cop you’re using it while driving and you’ll probably get a ticket

[doublepost=1528142335][/doublepost]

Stoped at a light it still driving...

You don't understand how this works. That's considered driving. That's why when you are in a drunken stupor, but stopped in the roadway, at a light, etc., you don't get off by telling the judge, "it's ok, I was nearly passed out and had stopped driving your honor."

 

[Cankoda]

In reality (outside of an interesting debate) we're not all that far off.

That said, if DriverA hits DriverB, with very few exceptions it doesn't matter what DriverB is doing. It is almost always DriverA's fault. Now... if DriverA is paying attention to a phone/watch/whatever, it's still DriverA's fault. If DriverB is paying attention to a phone, it's still DriverA's fault. If DriverB is drunk / sleeping / eating / etc. ... still DriverA's fault.

The thing is let’s say driver b was on their phone, if they were paying attention like the should then they may have been able to avoid the accident, which I’ve done to avoid some fender benders, if you’re parked in a lot or at home that’s fine, but on a road with others, unless you’re talking to 911 they’re should be no contact with a mobile device, if its that important there are parking lots and sides streets almost everywhere you can replay to that message

 

[Sefstah]

Better to be mouted, in your lap can imply to a cop you’re using it while driving and you’ll probably get a ticket

[doublepost=1528142335][/doublepost]

Stoped at a light it still driving...

Driving at a light is still stopped?

 

[bopajuice]

Except that she wasn’t driving while distracted. She was sitting at a red light and there is zero mention that she rolled the car without having her eyes on the road. She was literally ticketed for not rolling the moment the light changed because she was looking down for a moment. That’s what the officer reported, that was when she was ‘distracted’.

I read a follow up story. She was found guilty and fined. Cop said she continued to sit a light after it changed green. She didnt move until the cop shined his light on her vehicle. Sounds like more than just a moment.

 

[JRobinsonJr]

Driving at a light is still stopped?

<sarcasm>

Yes! Because apparently non-moving vehicle have some type of psychic power to cause accidents.

</sarcasm>

 

[duervo]

The fundamental flaw in all these arguments about wether she was driving or not is that not a single one appears to display an understanding of the “legal” definition of “driver”.

In most cases, and especially in the jurisdiction affected, a driver is somebody who is in control of the vehicle, and in a position to make it move.

She was clearly a distracted driver. There is no wiggle room here.

 

[dk001]

In reality (outside of an interesting debate) we're not all that far off.

That said, if DriverA hits DriverB, with very few exceptions it doesn't matter what DriverB is doing. It is almost always DriverA's fault. Now... if DriverA is paying attention to a phone/watch/whatever, it's still DriverA's fault. If DriverB is paying attention to a phone, it's still DriverA's fault. If DriverB is drunk / sleeping / eating / etc. ... still DriverA's fault.
[doublepost=1528155347][/doublepost]

OK. Should you get a ticket for looking at your phone while still in your driveway? Under your definition, yes. You said "In Park". We're not disagreeing on the definition of "driver". We're not even arguing on whether the underlying cause - preventing accidents - is reasonable. It is. We're debating the specific conditions under which a rule should be applied. Many people (not necessarily you) seem to be implying that the "No Technology" rule should be applied to all drivers in all situations. I'm simply pointing out the fallacy of that argument.

Stop being so obtuse.
A public roadway vs. private property. Try being realistic.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Oh wait ... Watch and iPhone have alarms to wake you up get your things in order to leave early for that important meeting.

The ONLY thing and officers will agree mostly, is if someone is on Amber Alert, sudden Death alert or you've just broken your water and about to deliver your baby! none of which occurred here.

"who doesn’t sometimes look at their phone at a red light" This is actually part of the issue. You really shouldn't you should be looking out for other cars, pedestrians crossing - even if they're cutting the light changing. Everyone has a right to walk, driving is a priviledge granted if you continually follow the rules and laws of the roads, signs, etc. Do you really want to risk hitting someone, or getting hit by another careless driver just cause you can't deal with remaining alert at the intersection.

My car is stopped - how the heck am I going to hit someone? I could be involved in a collision. Someone could hit me from behind - maybe I should be prepared to respond to their unsafe approach in some way... but the options are to illegally roll into the intersection (which may not stop the person from rear-ending me), or maybe flash my lights or honk. Brace for impact, I suppose.

From any other directions, I have no options.

Also, why the heck would I be paying attention to am Amber Alert as opposed to anything else? Distracted is distracted. The odds of an Amber Alert being something I should act on is somewhere around 1 in 1M. The alert goes out to millions and a small handful of people should actually act on it.

 

[JRobinsonJr]

Stop being so obtuse.
A public roadway vs. private property. Try being realistic.

Yeah... if only life was that easy. The details matter. OK... what if you're parked on a public street? In park. Lot's of people seem to be suggesting that this is an all encompassing, applicable in all situations law. Maybe it is, but if that's the case then the majority of scenarios are just a way to generate revenue because they don't actually do anything to make the public safer. It's not obtuse to try an find out where that line should exist.

 

[dk001]

Yeah... if only life was that easy. The details matter. OK... what if you're parked on a public street? In park. Lot's of people seem to be suggesting that this is an all encompassing, applicable in all situations law. Maybe it is, but if that's the case then the majority of scenarios are just a way to generate revenue because they don't actually do anything to make the public safer. It's not obtuse to try an find out where that line should exist.

Let's make this a bit clearer for you. Please note I am speaking from a USA legal perspective however I am fairly sure Canada is similar.
If you are in the operators seat of a motor vehicle with the engine running, you are considered the operator of said vehicle. If you are on public property you can be cited as the vehicle operator. Operator of a vehicle on non-public lands is applicable when it comes to insurance claims, police reports, and court cases.
Had a member of the Arizona Sheriff's Office (and later my lawyer) make that very clear.
This has been expanded to include human powered vehicles (cycles) however that varies by State.

It has been a few years since I have driven in either Toronto or Montreal but at that time these same rules applied.

As for ticket quotas or similar events, I have no direct knowledge of this. I suspect the "line" exists where the LEO, Judge, and your lawyer conclude they reside.

 

[Mac 128]

My car is stopped - how the heck am I going to hit someone? I could be involved in a collision. Someone could hit me from behind - maybe I should be prepared to respond to their unsafe approach in some way... but the options are to illegally roll into the intersection (which may not stop the person from rear-ending me), or maybe flash my lights or honk. Brace for impact, I suppose.

From any other directions, I have no options.

Also, why the heck would I be paying attention to am Amber Alert as opposed to anything else? Distracted is distracted. The odds of an Amber Alert being something I should act on is somewhere around 1 in 1M. The alert goes out to millions and a small handful of people should actually act on it.

This is a straw man argument. It’s not about whether you can cause an accident by being stopped — which you can whether it’s considered your fault or not — but whether it’s a) illegal for you to be voluntarily stopped in some situations because you’re distracted, and b) whether being distracted while you’re stopped leads to an accident when you start moving again.

Ever gotten a ticket for driving too slowly on a freeway, or being stopped? There’s a minimum speed there as well, and it has to do with safety of other drivers who are typically traveling at high speeds. Being stopped in a lane of moving traffic contributes to accidents, whether the driver is directly responsible or not. It’s one thing when the driver can’t do anything about it, it’s another when they can but don’t because they are distracted, and it’s the latter which is most problematic because the driver who was stopped because they were distracted isn’t fully aware of the traffic situation around them when they suddenly start moving again.

 

[JRobinsonJr]

Let's make this a bit clearer for you. Please note I am speaking from a USA legal perspective however I am fairly sure Canada is similar.
If you are in the operators seat of a motor vehicle with the engine running, you are considered the operator of said vehicle. If you are on public property you can be cited as the vehicle operator. Operator of a vehicle on non-public lands is applicable when it comes to insurance claims, police reports, and court cases.
Had a member of the Arizona Sheriff's Office (and later my lawyer) make that very clear.
This has been expanded to include human powered vehicles (cycles) however that varies by State.

It has been a few years since I have driven in either Toronto or Montreal but at that time these same rules applied.

As for ticket quotas or similar events, I have no direct knowledge of this. I suspect the "line" exists where the LEO, Judge, and your lawyer conclude they reside.

Yeah... while other readers will appreciate your comments - because they are spot on - I'm not sure who's not being clear. I don't disagree with you. In any way.

The challenge is that laws regulating driving were, are and should be intended to create a common framework of behavior with the goal of protecting the public. That means protecting you from my actions... and me from yours. Those laws should never penalize me for your actions, nor you for mine. Even in 'no fault' states, that term usually applies only to how insurance is adjusted. A driver can still be cited for failing to follow the law.

We good?

OK... now let's delve in those pesky details I keep pointing out. Rules that are written with vague, indeterminate language provide wiggle room for interpretation, and our LEO's at all levels have a long history of taking full advantage of that. I'm not in any way disparaging a single individual. Rather, I am pointing at the systemic use of those Rules to control behavior that does not and cannot create an unsafe scenario. Regardless of why, the net impact is that LEO's - particularly those that generate any revenue through a systems of fines - end up with a handful of common things they can use to increase revenue. Intentionally or not. Those things that generate the most revenue are also likely to be the easiest to identify and the easiest to prove in court... regardless of underlying factors.

Let's change scenarios and take a fresh look:

Someone is drunk and realizes that driving is not safe. So... they go sit in their vehicle to sleep it off. Parked on private property. At least in Texas (and several other states where I have direct knowledge) if you so much as have the keys in the vehicle you can be charged with DUI. The vehicle doesn't even have to be running.

Now, no one is suggesting that driving while under the influence of alcohol is even remotely smart.. and driving while under the influence of >x amount of alcohol is illegal... and dumb. If you do this, you deserve whatever you get.

Those laws were put in place to protect the public from an individuals actions... particularly actions known to have a high probability of causing harm. No one is disputing this.

With all that said, how is the drunk guy sitting in his car... sleeping off the effects... actually harming anyone? The answer is they are not. Trespassing? Possibly. Drunk in public? Maybe. But... Driving Under the Influence? Not if they are not driving! However, the fines for trespassing or drunk in public are usually not nearly as high as DUI, and the public (in general) likes statistics that show our LEO's a 'protecting us from all those drunks!"

See... when we start writing laws and don't keep in mind what behavior's we are trying to discourage or encourage we end up enforcing a set of rules far beyond what was intended or is even reasonable.

THAT is why I debate so strongly for the details, even when (or particularly when) I support the underlying issue. It's not enough to have a rule. You have to understand the real-world implications of that rule as well as how it can be misused.

 

[dk001]

Yeah... while other readers will appreciate your comments - because they are spot on - I'm not sure who's not being clear. I don't disagree with you. In any way.

The challenge is that laws regulating driving were, are and should be intended to create a common framework of behavior with the goal of protecting the public. That means protecting you from my actions... and me from yours. Those laws should never penalize me for your actions, nor you for mine. Even in 'no fault' states, that term usually applies only to how insurance is adjusted. A driver can still be cited for failing to follow the law.

We good?

OK... now let's delve in those pesky details I keep pointing out. Rules that are written with vague, indeterminate language provide wiggle room for interpretation, and our LEO's at all levels have a long history of taking full advantage of that. I'm not in any way disparaging a single individual. Rather, I am pointing at the systemic use of those Rules to control behavior that does not and cannot create an unsafe scenario. Regardless of why, the net impact is that LEO's - particularly those that generate any revenue through a systems of fines - end up with a handful of common things they can use to increase revenue. Intentionally or not. Those things that generate the most revenue are also likely to be the easiest to identify and the easiest to prove in court... regardless of underlying factors.

Let's change scenarios and take a fresh look:

Someone is drunk and realizes that driving is not safe. So... they go sit in their vehicle to sleep it off. Parked on private property. At least in Texas (and several other states where I have direct knowledge) if you so much as have the keys in the vehicle you can be charged with DUI. The vehicle doesn't even have to be running.

Now, no one is suggesting that driving while under the influence of alcohol is even remotely smart.. and driving while under the influence of >x amount of alcohol is illegal... and dumb. If you do this, you deserve whatever you get.

Those laws were put in place to protect the public from an individuals actions... particularly actions known to have a high probability of causing harm. No one is disputing this.

With all that said, how is the drunk guy sitting in his car... sleeping off the effects... actually harming anyone? The answer is they are not. Trespassing? Possibly. Drunk in public? Maybe. But... Driving Under the Influence? Not if they are not driving! However, the fines for trespassing or drunk in public are usually not nearly as high as DUI, and the public (in general) likes statistics that show our LEO's a 'protecting us from all those drunks!"

See... when we start writing laws and don't keep in mind what behavior's we are trying to discourage or encourage we end up enforcing a set of rules far beyond what was intended or is even reasonable.

THAT is why I debate so strongly for the details, even when (or particularly when) I support the underlying issue. It's not enough to have a rule. You have to understand the real-world implications of that rule as well as how it can be misused.

Agree.
The just having the keys in possession and other thing like it I left off due to that exact issue. Law traps instead of speed traps.

 

[Sefstah]

<sarcasm>

Yes! Because apparently non-moving vehicle have some type of psychic power to cause accidents.

</sarcasm>

Exactly! Well played my friend

 

[DeepIn2U]

My car is stopped - how the heck am I going to hit someone? I could be involved in a collision. Someone could hit me from behind - maybe I should be prepared to respond to their unsafe approach in some way... but the options are to illegally roll into the intersection (which may not stop the person from rear-ending me), or maybe flash my lights or honk. Brace for impact, I suppose.

From any other directions, I have no options.

Also, why the heck would I be paying attention to am Amber Alert as opposed to anything else? Distracted is distracted. The odds of an Amber Alert being something I should act on is somewhere around 1 in 1M. The alert goes out to millions and a small handful of people should actually act on it.

You need to READ. I stated nwhen not paying attention tot he road around her and then suddenly driving off ~ a while after light changed due to being distracted she could be hit by another car during the intersection crossing.

Let off the break and it’s quite possible you could hit someone. I never said anything if her car is stopped that it’s a danger. Please read in context not just isolation. Thanks.

 

[dk001]

When I think about the scenario, a green light, a car sitting stopped at the green light, and a police vehicle sitting alongside the stopped vehicle. Like that isn't a distraction / obstacle for moving motorists.

That would make a decent "Mayhem" commercial for Allstate.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Let off the break and it’s quite possible you could hit someone.

Having the car roll by default is a really stupid design choice that I never understood. It's like one car (Ford?) did it and then every manufacturer just copied it. Tesla doesn't. Press the brake in when you're going 0 MPH and the car switches to Hold mode. Tap the brakes or accelerator to take it out of hold.

So yeah. I'll put it in Hold and look at my phone if I'm familiar with the light pattern and know I've got a few minutes until I have a green light. Nobody is going to be hit because I looked at my phone while in Hold at a red light.

 

[Mac 128]

Having the car roll by default is a really stupid design choice that I never understood. It's like one car (Ford?) did it and then every manufacturer just copied it. Tesla doesn't. Press the brake in when you're going 0 MPH and the car switches to Hold mode. Tap the brakes or accelerator to take it out of hold.

So yeah. I'll put it in Hold and look at my phone if I'm familiar with the light pattern and know I've got a few minutes until I have a green light. Nobody is going to be hit because I looked at my phone while in Hold at a red light.

You aren't responsible for the drivers around you, so you can't say that. You may not directly hit somebody, but the drivers around you may, as a result of your failure to respond to traffic situations around you.

You hit the nail on the head with this statement: "if I'm familiar with the light pattern" -- While this may suit you fine, there are many times the drivers around you are not, and you cannot predict how they will behave. Your lack of awareness to their actions may negatively impact your ability to respond to them.