Slashdot Mirror

I read this new law months ago, and yes, it does make it illegal to drive any car with even a built-in clock/radio/cd player. Read the law for yourself: http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=2099&detailPage=bills_detail_the_bill

"78. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway if the display screen of a television, computer or other device in the motor vehicle is visible to the driver."

Built-in clock/radio/cd player? yes, covered under "other device in the motor vehicle [...] visible to the driver."

"Exceptions
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the display screen of,
(a) a global positioning system navigation device while being used to provide navigation information;
(b) a hand-held wireless communication device or a device that is prescribed for the purpose of subsection 78.1 (1);
(c) a logistical transportation tracking system device used for commercial purposes to track vehicle location, driver status or the delivery of packages or other goods;
(d) a collision avoidance system device that has no other function than to deliver a collision avoidance system; or
(e) an instrument, gauge or system that is used to provide information to the driver regarding the status of various systems of the motor vehicle."

Any mention of anything relating to a clock/radio/cd player? nope!

Section 78 above is for all devices; hand-held wireless communication devices are covered in section 78.1 (as mentioned in 78(2)(b)).

I did a few minutes of searching and it seems that the poster is spouting FUD.

There's no mention of banning coffee in cars. For goodness sake! In fact, while I am by no means a fan of many aspects of government, the text in this bill reminds me of that character of sound reason and sanity which seems to embody Canadian thinking. --Not saying Canada doesn't have its ignorant twits and government corruption aplenty, (it does!), but when it comes to low-level management of basic systems like the highways, this law and the responsible manner in which it will probably be applied, (this based on past experience), just makes sense.

Having been nearly flattened by cell phone drones, and having been in a car which came a hair's breath from causing a major accident on a highway because the driver was trying to look up a number on her cell phone, I think this is one of those laws which is a smart idea. Canadians seem to be less fussy about following social directives we've agreed upon through law. "Using a cellphone while driving is dumb. Stop it." The only difficult aspect is that people will have trouble resisting the urge to answer the phone when it rings. That's the only bit of friction I foresee.

Also. . , to address some of the comments made below. . . Changing gears in a manual car is not a parallel in terms of the level of distraction a driver experiences with a cell phone. After you learn how to operate a standard vehicle, changing gears becomes an act of muscle memory only marginally more demanding than operating the break pedal or the steering wheel. Anybody who has also driven a standard for more than a few weeks will agree.

Anyway, for those interested, below is the bill in its entirety.

-FL

Bill 118 2009

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the use of devices with display screens and hand-held communication and entertainment devices and to amend the Public Vehicles Act with respect to car pool vehicles

Note: This Act amends or repeals more than one Act. For the legislative history of these Acts, see the Table of Consolidated Public Statutes - Detailed Legislative History on www.e-Laws.gov.on.ca.

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:

Highway Traffic Act

1. Section 78 of the Highway Traffic Act is repealed and the following substituted:

Display screen visible to driver prohibited

78. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway if the display screen of a television, computer or other device in the motor vehicle is visible to the driver.

Exceptions

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the display screen of,

(a) a global positioning system navigation device while being used to provide navigation information;

(b) a hand-held wireless communication device or a device that is prescribed for the purpose of subsection 78.1 (1);

(c) a logistical transportation tracking system device used for commercial purposes to track vehicle location, driver status or the delivery of packages or other goods;

(d) a collision avoidance system device that has no other function than to deliver a collision avoidance system; or

(e) an instrument, gauge or system that is used to provide information to the driver regarding the status of various systems of the motor vehicle.

Same

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to the driver of an ambulance, fire department vehicle or police department vehicle.

Exemption by regulation

(4) The Minister may make regulations exempting any class of persons or vehicles or any device from this section and prescribing conditions and circumstances for any such exemption.

2. Part VI of the Act is amended by adding the following section:

Hand-held devices prohibited

Wireless communication devices

78.1

The article you linked to was an overly brief summary of third-hand reports. Your summary makes some very wild speculations based on the incomplete truths in your source.

The actual law from the Legislative Assembly of Ontario web site makes it quite clear what sorts handheld devices are not permitted to be used unless you are pulled over safely (stopped at a red light is still illegal):
 
 

Bill 40 2008

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the use of phones and other equipment while a person is driving on a highway ...

(2) No person shall use a cellular phone, car phone, pager, personal data assistant, portable computer, fax machine or other equipment prescribed by the regulations while driving a motor vehicle on a highway. ,,,

The Bill amends the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the use of a cellular phone, car phone, pager, personal data assistant, portable computer, fax machine or other equipment prescribed by the regulations made under the Act while a person is driving a motor vehicle. There are exceptions for cases like emergencies, cases where a driver who is not a novice driver as defined in the regulation on drivers' licences uses the equipment entirely through a hands-free feature and other cases prescribed by the regulations made under the Act.

The Registrar is required to report cases where the use of a cellular phone, car phone, pager, personal data assistant, portable computer, fax machine or other equipment prescribed by the regulations made under the Act may have contributed to causing a motor vehicle accident.

Drivers' licence examinations are required to include a portion testing the applicant's knowledge of the amendments made by the Bill.

Does this mean that you cannot take your hand off of the wheel to use the turn signals?

No.

What about police officers that need to resond to their radios while driving, or even access their on-board computers?

The law specifically does not apply to police officers. Details here

More details here: http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&Intranet=&BillID=2099

This is a case of old regulations last updated over a decade ago being applied in an unexpected and silly, though legally consistent, manner.

There's already a bill in progress in the Ontario legislature to update this stuff, specifically, the changes to the public vehicle act about 2/3rds down the page.

There is a bill already before the Ontario Legislative Assembly to update the regulations to explicitly allow this practice. It is disappointing that the OTB didn't wait until the bill had passed before passing judgement, but at least we can hope the situation won't last long. The same bill would outlaw some common driver distractions, such as television screens and handheld cell phones.

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=2099

he fact that US providers regularly treat Canadians but not vice versa is an indictment of government sponsored health care.

The fact that Canadians had to put photo IDs on their medicare cards to prevent all the Americans who were coming up in organized bus trips to "borrow" Canadian medicare cards from relatives and get "free" Canadian health care doesn't tell you anything, does it? Like that people without health care are desparate?

http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/house_debates/35_pa rl/session3/l123.htm
Ontario:

The Ministry of Health will begin issuing new photo health cards to every eligible person in Ontario. The cards will contain several new security features.

Each card will bear a digitized photograph and signature and a holographic overlay to prevent counterfeiting. The birthdate, expiry date, name, address and sex will be printed on the face of each card. The card will have a magnetic strip and bar code. As we expand the use of swipe reader technology, hospitals and other providers will be able to verify the card every time it is used.

Everyone in Ontario will be reregistered, after which we will begin a five-year renewal cycle. A renewal cycle is essential to maintain security and confirm eligibility. Reregistering people and issuing almost 11 million new cards will take three years. To improve customer service, people will register at the Ministry of Health's 20 regional offices or the Ministry of Transportation's 360 licensing offices.

It will never be possible to determine the exact amount of fraud. Based on expert advice, we calculate that the photo card and additional security measures will prevent about $65 million in fraud and misuse annually.

We will be ready to issue the first card early in 1995, and the cost will be about $30 million a year for three years. Thereafter, the annual cost will be about $19 million a year.

The other provinces followed suit. $65 million a year may not seem like much, but that was over a decade ago, and for one province ony ... it adds up. It got so bad that one audit showed the same hospital treating the (supposedly) same person for having the same operation, not once, not twice, but THREE times.

The doctors would look at the file, they KNEW it wasn't the same patient, but what could they do? Refuse? Not allowed. "Ms. M. here for her weekly abortion ... Mr. J here for his weekly appendectomy ..."

Or at least, a bill has been tabled.

http://www.ontla.on.ca/documents/Bills/38_Parliame nt/session2/b060_e.htm

It's all in how you look at it.

Heck, here he's a politician!

Since the page with the law is down, here's a random law to cheer you up.

That's easy enough to implement, when all it involves is taking a dozen 8"x8" piece of plastic and placing them in well-defined magazine rack locations.

What people clearly don't understand is that Attempts to prevent the use of packet-switched communications networks such as the Internet to transmit information that could possibly offend are technically doomed to failure, because it's all just packets.

The best that has been done thus far is that the seriously offensive stuff sits behind barriers that require a credit card validation to open up.

Your suggestion of determining what sites fall under a "general obscenity law" doesn't work, as the general result of such laws is not simply to "filter" such things, but rather to establish that the police ought to go over and outright close the site down.

What you're looking for is some sort of "in between;" stuff that is permitted "viewing" for adults, but forbidden for children. And that is decidedly not something that is well-defined.

One of the more interesting situations I have been in was a "debate" over this; a district attorney with experience in the matter in the Ontario jurisdiction discussed censorship in the context of a church youth group.

There were a surprising variety of opinions on the matter, and what was more surprising still was that even in the context of a group that you might expect to focus on it blindly (and there were a few people like that), it was quite clear that there could be no clear legislation to agree on.

Consider some examples of situations with varying levels of permissiveness/ambiguity:

• You and I might agree that "extreme"/"hard core" publications like Hustler or Penthouse "leap over the line," and have often gotten censored and censured as a result of running afoul of obscenity laws.
• Playboy and other clearly "soft core" publications may be "clearly" inappropriate for youngsters, but considering them to be obscenity is far less clear.
• What of things that are merely "suggestive," such as swimsuit catalogues, the Victoria's Secret catalogue, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition and such?
• What of the "nearly naked Africans" that appear in National Geographic?
• What treatment should a medical anatomy text get?

  Does it differ if purchased by a doctor, or by a hormonally-challenged teenager?

  What if the teenager, despite hormonal challenges, truly is planning to study medicine?

• What about an issue of a medical journal, Deviant Psychology, specifically dealing with the treatment of individuals with addictions to dramatically obscene materials, that has to excerpt from such in order to help doctors treat patients?
• What about a documentary about pornography? There have been controversies over the documentary Not A Love Story.