Slashdot Mirror
Woman Looking At Apple Watch Found Guilty of Distracted Driving (nationalpost.com)
Ontario law defines distracted driving as "holding or using a handheld wireless communication device" -- and a judge just fined Victoria Ambrose $400 for checking her Apple Watch while waiting at a stoplight. Long-time Slashdot reader innocent_white_lamb quotes the National Post:
Even with its miniaturization and trendy technology, an Apple Watch is no safer "than a cellphone taped to someone's wrist," said a justice of the peace, while convicting a Guelph woman this month of holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device while driving... "The key to determining this matter is distraction. It is abundantly clear from the evidence that Ms. Ambrose was distracted..."
When the light turned green Ambrose had remained parked at an intersection, according to the officer who ticketed her, though two cars ahead of her had moved forward. Ambrose testified that she was only checking the time, but the officer told the court he'd seen Ambrose check her watch four different times.
When the light turned green Ambrose had remained parked at an intersection, according to the officer who ticketed her, though two cars ahead of her had moved forward. Ambrose testified that she was only checking the time, but the officer told the court he'd seen Ambrose check her watch four different times.
As she was pulled over in Ontario, your reply is utterly pointless.
The reasoning behind zero tolerance for any interaction with an electronic device while behind the wheel of a motor vehicle that isn't parked is that people, being the dummies they usually are, would often NOT finish their texting when the light turns green and would begin driving again while still dinking around on their device for a few more seconds. Through an intersection.
Even when stopped at a red light, you are still operating your vehicle, and thus are to remain alert to what is going on around you in the real world.
The lever is handheld and it communicates my intentions wirelessly to other road users. If I ever get pulled over for not using it, I will have a good argument to defend myself.
I hear judges are very sympathetic to people representing themselves who try to get clever. Please let us know how it goes!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Then again, isn't she actually guilty of distracted stopping?
.
She was driving and was momentarily stopped, which does not mean she was no longer driving. She was AT THE CONTROLS of the car and the car was operating, therefore she WAS DRIVING.
Your semantic bullshit proves you're one of those special boys who have a grossly overestimated notion of their own intelligence and the value of their opinion. I bet your co-workers have a special nickname for you which indicates their derision for you and your propensity to spew idiotic bullshit.
But that's the point, the light was no longer "red", it had turned green, forcing two cars who had been waiting to go around her, thus she was blocking the flow of traffic for no good reason.
In New York, the problem would have been immediately resolved after 100 milliseconds by the other drivers yelling loudly obscenities at her and continuously honking on their horns. In Canada, the other drivers were probably just too polite to honk or say anything, or if they did say something, they probably just mumbled an apology under their breath, that she probably couldn't hear in the first place.
This depends on exactly how the law is written, doesn't it?
For example, in NYS, the law is written such that checking your phone while the vehicle is stopped (but still running) is OK if you're a non-commercial driver, but a violation if you're a commercial driver. In other words, it's legal for a non-commercial driver to check their phone at a stop light, but a commercial driver would have to not just be parked, but have the vehicle off in order to not be a violation. (I could be somewhat misremembering some detail, but I'm pretty sure that's all correct.)
I agree, however, that in the abstract case where we're not dealing with a specific legal definition (or the definition is vague), I would tend to consider being temporarily stopped at a stop light to still be "driving".
i'd take these kind of bullshit rules more seriously if they outlawed OEM touch screen center console systems. how is that 'okay' but touching a cell phone is haram?
I have a ford fusion with the 'my touch' system. doing things like turning on the heated seats, or turning down the temperature require touching a finicky touch-screen panel. which invariably requires you to take your eyes off the road.
Two words: "Situational Awareness". Stop at a red light, fiddle with your phone. You have now just lost awareness of what's going on in the intersection. Light turns green, you miss it, person behind you taps their horn. Quick: did the person turning left make it out of the intersection, is the elderly lady still in the crosswalk? Unless you're far more disciplined than 99% of the population you're not likely going to take the time to see what's going on, you're just going to react to the person honking at you.
That's why you don't fuck with your phone at a stop light.
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...