Everytime i drive i see people texting and celling. I am happy for the enforcement.

“tickets for drivers either “driving” or “texting while driving” in the city” .. I was unaware driving in the city was against the law. No wonder people stay away from the downtown core.

I am happy to see them attempting to do something about the drivers with their cell phones around here. I hope they continue with this blitz.

Musta been a slow day. Only my humble opinion, but we need a lot more enforcement.

I wish that the ticket for texting or talking on a cell phone while driving included points on your license it definitely would curb some people from using their cell phone if they had to pay for points on their license.

Set up at Ospika and 15th and you can catch 19 all at once . And But , the story said Driving while using a cell phone , not just driving.

Start ticketing for driving with a ratdog on your lap or one of those baby sunscreen things on your front window

So, how come they are allowed to talk on the cell phone when they are driving!

give the drivers a break, a month off from driving would do it !

give the drivers a break, a month off from driving would do it !

because if the police get caught violating there exemption it’s a Sec 144 motor vehicle act charge – Due care or drive without resonable care – they have rules they must follow regarding the use its not just a blanket exemption. remember the Vancouver Officer who caused the accident while on his and yes he paided it :(

You get caught texting you get a fine and 3 points. Using a cell phone it’s just the fine. In my opinion it is impaired driving and should be treated as such. People won’t stop until someone impounds their car or get banned for life from using such a device.

http://bc.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=87&languageId=1&contentId=26944

There are some weird rules though….you can’t use an ipod if it is in your hand but if it’s attached to your body or the car you can.

http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/shareddocs/electronic-devices-while-driving.pdf

DO PEOPLE SHOOT FROM THE **LIP** OR THE HIP?

Discussion Paper from the BC Government, Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. Office of the Superintent of Motor Vehicles.

**Addressing the Problem of Distracted Driving and its Impacts to Road Safety.**

This is a 21 page report, and you can locate it by putting **BC distracted Driving study** in your computer.

Page 3 Paragraph 4.

**In both simulated and real driving environments, the use of electronic devices has been shown to result in crashes and near misses. Drivers fail to process approximately 50 percent of the visual information in their driving environment when they are using electronic communication devices. EVIDENCE ALSO CONCLUDES THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COGNITIVE DIVERSION ASSOCIATED WITH HANDS-FREE AND HAND-HELD CELL PHONE USE.

Now. Considering that hands free and hand held phones are equally dangerous to driving, why is it, that the same Government that published this Discussion Paper, saw fit to only make talking on a hand held device illegal??

Could it possibly have something to do with the inability of the police to prove that your blue tooth was turned on, or you were talking on the phone as opposed to talking to yourself, or someone else in the car??? I would assume that collecting fines on 50% of a problem is better than none at all. If all drivers went to a blue tooth (except class 7 drivers) then the approx 25% of crashes would continue to be happen.

We need to question the Government legislation, as much as we need to condemn those with a hand held phone, but for some strange reason, allow those with blue tooth phones, to rise above the law.

Agreed Palopu. Its called cell phone blindness and it happens to people who are walking while taking on the phone too. Ban all cell phone use in cars even hands free. All phones should be set at the factory not to work after 15km/hr. Call it car mode!

The more corrupt the Republic, the more numerous the laws. *Tacitus, Annals*

We had sufficient driving laws in the 70’s,80’s and 90’s to cover all aspects of driving.

1. Driving without due care and attention.
2. Dangerous driving
3. Impaired driving
4. Criminal Negligence causing death
5. Manslaughter

We have since passed many more laws ie;

1.Driving with a blood alcohol content exceeding .08%

2. Drivng with a BAC exceeding .05%

3. Driving without a seatbelt

4. Driving while talking or texting

5. Driving with persons under the age of twelve in a proper booster seat.

6. Driving without a proper childs seat.

7. Driving with a childs safety seat with an expired date. (expires every five years whether you use it or not)

8. Smoking with children under the age of fifteen in the car. (There is no law to restrict children under the age of 15 from smoking in a car, if they have their parents consent)

9. Driving with a cracked windshield

10.Driving with an expired driving
licence, even if your ability to drive is not impaired.

11. Driving with expired insurance, even if you honestly overlooked the due date, and you can show without a doubt, that you had bought insurance diligently for the past 50 years.

It goes on and on. Some of these laws could be construed as good, however most of them are nothing more than the Government finding ways to get money.

**The road to hell is paved with good intentions**

If we had all these laws 100 years ago we would have all starved to death.

I would just like to know exactly when at depot the RCMP are magically given the ability to drive, listen and respond to their radio AND watch and type on their onboard laptop. It drives me crazy!!They are undoubtly the worst for it. I recently followed a cruiser down Peden hill and watched him almost drive into the median blocks 4 times. I thought after he came within a foot the first time he would stop until the Cowart light. No such luck, he keep swerving while surrounded by other traffic. Must have had a high score!!

The price of freedom is more law. Law = more money for goverment.

**The greater the number of laws and enactments, the more thieves and robbers there will be.** Lao-tzu

**Laws are spider webs through which the big flies pass and the little ones get caught.** Honore de Balsac

**Men fight for freedom, then they begin to accumulate laws to take it away from themselves** Author Unknown.

What is wrong with today’s society. When you drive, it should take 100% of your attention. The drivers in PG are terrible, selfish, inconsiderate and impatient. The worst are women. I hope that many hundreds of tickets will continue to be issued to these irresponsible, incompetent drivers. Yes, points should be issued against their licence with hopes that we will get them off the road.

HonestJoe: These issues certainly aren’t unique to PG and certainly aren’t mostly caused by women. Plenty of guys rolling around out there who couldn’t give a crap about their fellow citizens….

Coots are the worst drivers by far.

Palopu

At least two of your points are incorrect.

1) in BC children are required to be in a booster until age 9 or 4’9″ not until 12.

2) car seats do not expire every 5 years. Many expire 6 years after the date of manufacture, a few expire 7 years after DOM, many Dorel seats are 8 years and Diono Radians expire 10 years after the DOM. Car seats expire for a reason. In our extreme hot extreme cold climate I wouldn’t want to be using a 20 year old seat. Plastics break down and safety standards and features improve. It’s a no brainer to replace a seat after a certain number of years and it is a very small investment when you consider the number of times it is used.

Chey,. Thanks for the info.

So we have various expiry dates depending on the manufacture. So common sense would dictate that car seats should be manufacutured to the Diono Radians standard. Then it would last 10 years or more, and would be able to be used for at least two children

There are no specific statistics that show the number of children injured because of car seats exceeding the expiry date, and I would suggest that this is an arbritrary figure. To replace a seat that does not need to be replaced is the real **no brainer** Why waste the money??

Could the expiry date have anything to do with profits for manufacturers???

We have had instances where a Mother was not allowed to continue to drive her car with her baby, because the car seat had expired. They were left on the side of the road until someone with a **so called** valid seat was able to pick up the baby.

Most of these types of laws benefit manufacturers, ie: those who produce blue tooths, childrens car seats, booster seats, etc; as much as they are a safety issue. If you would care to do some research you would be able to determine that the big money behind child safety in cars, are those who produce and sell car seats. Much like those who advertise to get us to use drugs.

I am not opposed to some safety standards, especially in cars, however they should be as much the responsibility of the car manufacturers as the owners, and should reflect the reality of the world we live in as opposed to conjecture on the part of some far away, money grabbing, manufacturer.

Palopu: “Could the expiry date have anything to do with profits for manufacturers???”

Or it could be because they don’t want to get sued when old seats fail.

Isn’t ironic!

Mom buckles baby/kid safely into their carseats, positions sunscreen shade on side window and baby onboard sign in the back window. Then she jumps in the drivers seat and pulls out her damn phone! Bravo mommy.

“Coots are the worst drivers by far.”

So, weaksauce, I take it you are referring to the elderly?? Heaven forbid you should live that long.

Man, I would LOVE to see that two hour period exteeeeeeeeended! 19 in two hours, just imagine how many people might get the message (in the form of a fine and a period of time parked) if they did, say three of these everyday?

I would also like to see more serious charges applied and points to go along with them.