250 News - Your News, Your Views, Now

October 27, 2017 8:29 pm

Distracted Walking “Damn Dangerous” Acknowledges Morris

Wednesday, November 2, 2016 @ 5:55 AM

Prince George, B.C. – B.C.’s top cop has weighed in on a recent poll showing most Canadians would support a distracted walking ban in Canada.

The Insights West poll found 66% of Canadians would support their municipality enacting distracted walking legislation and Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General Mike Morris sympathizes with that sentiment (see previous story here).

Prince George-Mackenzie MLA Mike Morris

Prince George-Mackenzie MLA Mike Morris

“That falls a lot within the jurisdiction of municipal governments and I think there is a problem out there and I would encourage them to have a look at that,” he told 250News.

“We may have to look at it ourselves but I think the public needs a wake-up call – it’s damn dangerous to walk down the road with your ear phones plugged into your phone and you’re texting or you’re reading something as you’re walking across an intersection. It’s a recipe for disaster.”

Morris says he’ll wait a while longer to decide whether he’ll enact harsher penalties for distracted drivers.

The province’s touch new distracted driving rules went into effect June 1, 2016 increasing the fine for each distracted driving offense from $167 to $368.

The stiff new fine has also been combined with increased driver penalty premiums and possible driver prohibitions. It means a first offence now costs you a minimum $543.

“I’m waiting to see the results of what we’ve implemented already,” he says. “It only started in June and so I want to see at least a year’s worth of data. But at the end of the day if this isn’t working and the number of fatal accidents and serious injuries associated with distracted driving, I’m going to look at more serious sanctions.”

Like impounding vehicles?

“Well that example has been presented by other media outlets so everything is open,” says Morris, noting extensive public consultations last year showed support for the idea. “So we’ll look at that if need be.”

According to the provincial government, distracted driving and inattention was a contributing factor in killing 66 people and seriously injuring 630 more on provincial roads in 2014.


Holy Hanna. Now they want to ban “Distracted walking”????? This nanny state idea is going a bit far isn’t it? Might as well sit at home covered in bubble wrap…..

    I guess you do not read the warnings on plastic covers on the dry cleaning people pick up.

    Don’t do it. It it’ll kill you!!

Will talking to the person next to you while walking constitute distracted walking? May as well remove “Glorious and free” from the National anthem as well. Cops just love laws like that so they can hammer people for everything, its all about control folks.

A number of things wrong with implementing these sort of laws.

Firstly. Since when do we implement legislation based on information that we get from some polling company like Insights West. The obvious question is, who did they poll, and what are the qualifications of those polled to make sensible decisions that impact on the freedom of individuals.

I agree that not paying attention when you are walking on the streets is very dangerous, however it has always been so. People need to be cognizant of their surroundings at all times.

We now know that day dreaming is responsible for a large percentage of accidents, (much more than distracted driving) so what do we do about that.?? Make day dreaming illegal.??

This whole distracted driving/walking thing is getting out of control.

We have laws on the books that cover Dangerous Driving, Driving without due care and attention, Impaired driving, Careless driving, etc; etc;.

As I said many times before, we need to use the existing laws to ensure people comply with the law, and if necessary have them go to court to defend themselves, and if convicted, the judge can determine the fine to be assessed or give them some jail time.

That’s how the system should work, and we are avoiding it for no other reason that it is expensive and costs the Province money. Fines on the other hand generate money for the Government, and keeps costs down.

The other big issue is we need more education in schools, about distracted driving, texting, daydreaming, and inattention when walking, are a very dangerous practice, and could cost you your life.

You want to stop people from walking with headphones on now? Go away, let us be.

    back to the old ghetto blaster on the shoulder pushed to you ear …

Did you ask him about riding in the back seat of a vehicle without a seatbelt like photo-op Christy did for her back seat Karaoke? Is that dangerous too? Oh wait, we already have laws for that. Did Mike make sure she was fined?

If one figures their own driving is always on the up and up, having a dash cam these days maybe a good idea.

As for distracted driving there is a lot more stuff to fiddle with on dash boards these days. With touch screens, multi menus to select, navigation systems, those are more distracting than the days of reaching for just a simple knob.

At some point it would be nice to ensure everyone on the roadway is paying attention, but I strongly believe we need to put a lot more work into eliminating distracted driving before worrying about pedestrians. If you’re driving a vehicle easily capable of causing harm, you need to be held accountable for it.

Using a manual stick shift with clutch is enough cause for distracted driving.

Hands and feet doing double time.

The Nanny State exists because we demanded it. We want “free” healthcare so we can live, eat, behave anyway we want, and when bad stuff happens, Nanny will be there to look after us.

We want Nanny to look after our children when we fail to do so – i.e., child poverty is more a function of crappy parenting than failure by government – who never had the child in the first place, but is expected to solve the problem.

We demand Nanny (government) intercede in all cases where bad things happen – so guess what, that gives them the right to intercede in all our behaviors that shift cost and responsibility to them. You want to walk with earbuds on, and expect Nanny to pay the medical bills, then Nanny get’s to scold you for being stupid.

You want to drive and text and talk on your cell phone, then push up everyone’s insurance rates and burden the health care system when there’s an accident, then Nanny get’s to punish you for doing it.

If we behaved responsibly, we wouldn’t need a Nanny to look after us.

    Your argument might have some validity if any of the laws put into effect had the desired effect, however that is not necessarily backed up by any statistics. As an example distracted driving is up so the initial fines did not have the desired effects. Higher fines probably wont either.

    Fining people just allows them to break the law and pay their way out of the situation.

    I agree that child poverty is more the problem of the parents than the Government. Its a question as to how money is spent. If one has to buy, cigarettes, beer, cell phones, cars and car insurance, there is not much left for food. Perhaps food and clothing should be the first priority not the last.

      I agree. It’s laughable that most PG bylaws go ignored anyway. What’s the point without enforcement. Riding a bicycle on a city sidewalk is dangerous, and I’ve seen it done right in front of the police station. My point is only that you can’t complain about a Nanny State trying to control your behavior, if you require it to bail you out because of your behavior.

      And fines are regressive. A street person given a fine laughs at it as much as a rich person does – because one will never pay, and the other will never miss it. Taking away the object of offense is way more effective – i.e., confiscate the street person’s bike if he rides it on the sidewalk – confiscate the rich person’s F350 if he texts and drives.

      But fines are revenue, and governments need revenue to fund the Nanny State we’ve demanded.

      I have to agree with most of this thread . However the fine tactic is a real money maker and luckily for the governments revenue few obey the rules . I have a better way to fight and win this battle against this carnage . Simplicity would be the disavow insurance payouts to those causing the damage . Make it open season for suing to cover cost of their victims . If talkers want to take everything away from their victims . Society should take everything away from the perpetrators.

It’s a little more than cheesy to pat ones back about laws passed for distracted driving when the topic is distracted walking . There must be an election coming .

Even the word **distracted** sucks. The correct terminology for these infractions are.

1. Dangerous Driving
2. Driving without care and attention
3. Careless Driving.
4. Impaired Driving.

If we assessed charges based on one to four, we would have no need for the BS distracted driving legislation and fines.

Ah , the essence of simplicity . Texting/talking/reading while driving is dangerous . Hence the dangerous driving law .

Autonomous cars can’t come fast enough .

    Thought your Tesla was autonomous? Just don’t let it take you into the side of a semi!

    So the distracted types can stumble into a more sophisticated vehicle?

Cities have various by-laws which regulate open burning, lawn sprinkling and noise making that disturbs neighbours, fireworks and walking dogs with a leash, etc. It takes manpower to make sure people do not cheat. They regularly do as they please and get away with it.

A ban on distracted walking would be generally ignored as there would be little to no enforcement, ipso ergo the whole thing is nothing more than a feel good exercise!

Even now some people ignore seat belt laws, speed limits and many other requirements for safe driving. The helmet law for bicycle riding was ignored by so many that now it is a rarity to see a rider wearing a helmet. Ever seen a cop giving a ticket for failure to obey that law?

Comments for this article are closed.