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

[DeepIn2U]

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.

The design choice in practice does seem bad yet it’s becaue of transmission with gears not taking engine load - when driving in a manual when you ‘gear down’ your using engine load or RPMs to help slow you down along with applying brakes. This is barel
y used by your average driver now a days.

Electric engines have only 1 gear - which seems efficient until higher speeds are used since more energy is used to acquire momentum. We may see changes

Yet there is a fallacy in your thinking and probably how you practice. You’re still assuming ALL lights have the very same timing from red to green when they don’t not even in the same city or block. You’ll still get a ticket for distracted driving becaue you’re. It ready when the light changes

 

[JRobinsonJr]

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.

Minor correction: "You aren't responsible for the drivers around you." <-- there... that's all there is to it.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

You’re still assuming ALL lights have the very same timing from red to green when they don’t not even in the same city or block.

I'm not sure how I gave you that impression... that is definitely not what I meant. There's a particular intersection where I'm very familiar with the pattern. Once it turns red, in a certain direction, it's not turning green again for 4 minutes (and then when it does turn green, it's only for ~15 seconds, so you have to move.)

 

[dk001]

I'm not sure how I gave you that impression... that is definitely not what I meant. There's a particular intersection where I'm very familiar with the pattern. Once it turns red, in a certain direction, it's not turning green again for 4 minutes (and then when it does turn green, it's only for ~15 seconds, so you have to move.)

Sometimes you have to wonder if the traffic engineers sometimes do it just to screw with us

 

[DeepIn2U]

I'm not sure how I gave you that impression... that is definitely not what I meant. There's a particular intersection where I'm very familiar with the pattern. Once it turns red, in a certain direction, it's not turning green again for 4 minutes (and then when it does turn green, it's only for ~15 seconds, so you have to move.)

And when the city determines needs for a bypass or traffic picks up and the timing of those lights change ... you'll be caught.

You're previous post and now this one does give anyone that impression that you're not paying attention at the lights when you really should be.

Walking,
peddling a bike,
maintain a running cadence ... these are forces learned and practiced and executed by habit. Driving a car or paying attention, even at traffic lights for the safety of you, other drivers, and pedestrians should NOT be. Remember you've been granted a license to drive a car, not a right to drive a car.

 

[Mac 128]

Minor correction: "You aren't responsible for the drivers around you." <-- there... that's all there is to it.

Sounds like the same logic my ex-girlfriend used when a guy was tailgating me: “let them hit you, it’ll be their fault”, she said!

 

[ravenstar]

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.

....

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.

The reason the laws were modified to include intoxication while sitting in a car was to provide a means to stop drunks from driving before they could cause any harm. If I recall correctly, the change was prompted by several incidents involving drunk drivers who had been observed by police in parking lots and who claimed to be sleeping off the alcohol and were later involved in accidents. Rather than have police be babysitters for drunks in their cars, lawmakers decided to toughen the drunk driving laws to give police another tool to try to prevent this kind of incident.

The same reasoning has been applied to distracted driving laws. My phone isn't worth your life.

 

[JRobinsonJr]

The reason the laws were modified to include intoxication while sitting in a car was to provide a means to stop drunks from driving before they could cause any harm. If I recall correctly, the change was prompted by several incidents involving drunk drivers who had been observed by police in parking lots and who claimed to be sleeping off the alcohol and were later involved in accidents. Rather than have police be babysitters for drunks in their cars, lawmakers decided to toughen the drunk driving laws to give police another tool to try to prevent this kind of incident.

The same reasoning has been applied to distracted driving laws. My phone isn't worth your life.

You are correct. The problem I have with this is we've set a precedent that allows you to be charged without actually doing something wrong. Sitting in a parked car should NEVER be illegal, regardless of your inebriation state. I am not an attorney (nor do I play one on TV) but from my reading it has essentially created a class of crime where you can be convicted of simply having the capacity to commit a crime, regardless of intent or action.

Laws are supposed to (1) establish normative behavior that prevents bad things from inadvertently happening, and (2) pushing people who do bad things. When those laws are used to prevent potentially bad things from happening, my freedoms are artificially curtailed... and so are yours.

I'm a huge believer in personal responsibility and see this as a slippery slope. Taking this to a comical extreme, could I be charged with murder just because I happen to own guns? Could I be charge with theft just because I push a stroller into a store? Could I be charged with reckless endangerment just because I own a Tesla?

Where does it stop?