Slashdot Mirror
Man Caught Wearing Earbuds With a Dead Phone Found Guilty of Distracted Driving (www.cbc.ca)
Freshly Exhumed writes: RCMP officers spotted a man driving with earbuds plugged into his iPhone. The phone was not in his hands nor on his lap, was not playing music or video, and the driver was not using it to talk to someone or navigate. The battery was, in fact, completely dead. Nonetheless, a judge has ruled that "by plugging the earbud wire into the iPhone, the defendant had enlarged the device, such that it included not only the iPhone (proper) but also attached speaker or earbuds," he wrote. "Since the earbuds were part of the electronic device and since the earbuds were in the defendant's ears, it necessarily follows that the defendant was holding the device (or part of the device) in a position in which it could be used, i.e. his ears." On the question of the battery, the judge said he relied on a 2015 precedent set in a Canadian provincial court, which says that holding an electronic device in a position where it could be used constitutes an offense, even if it is temporarily not working.
"If you go to where there's a bunch of ice cream and then you don't come back, you haven't actually gotten ice cream, you've just gone where ice cream is.."
I guess watching TV that isn't turned on is still watching TV, then.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
As this is clearly nonsense.
If I shot a person and hit air, would I be guilty of murder?
One would think.... in a place with one of the worst reputations for crime and violence and drug overdoses in an entire country, that law enforcement and courts would have something better to do. I guess this is easier that dealing with fentanyl and money laundering problems.
The judge is technically correct - The best kind of correct
That this clearly delusional ruling didn't come from an American judge, it came from one in Canada.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
We evenn send Canadians to prison in Canada. Or you did not read the summary.
Wow that is one retarded judge. He should not be a judge, he should be removed and go back to being a ditch digger.
Story is from Canada
His hearing was partially impaired by the earbuds.
Lock him up and throw away the digital key.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
What possible exonerating reason could he have for wearing the earbuds?
To keep his ear canals warm? They don't need to be plugged into the phone for that.
It seems pretty obvious that this guy was planning to listen to something on his phone and just didn't realize the battery had died until he was already driving down the freeway.
But let's hear your explanation.
If anything, a dead phone would be functioning as a minor hearing protection, in case a loud siren went off nearby.
Whatever happened to minimizing assignment of guilt when there's a question? Seems like a case of a judge playing along because a law enforcement officer was slightly annoyed, more than for any practical reason.
I remember the concept that it's better for 100 guilty men to go free than a single innocent man to be unjustly punished.
But lately, it seems that only the innocent without means are aggressively punished, while the openly guilty but well-to-do are almost completely above the law.
This seems very much like deeply unethical jurisprudence.
Genius - read the very first line of the fine summary - it's a Canadian court ruling based on Canadian laws and Canadian precedents.
Ken
In many jurisdictions, wearing headsets while driving is illegal (and has been for many years, even before cell phones).
The RCMP Reminds Canadians That You Can Be Fined For Wearing Earphones While Driving
AAA Driving Laws: Headsets
*honk* *honk*
Your statement makes no sense to me whatsoever. Is it just me, or is it poorly written? I've found a way to parse/interpret it 3 different ways, and none of those 3 make any real-world sense.
My best guess is that it's saying that if enough whacky celebrities moved to Canada, then Canadian judges would stop making bad decisions, but not enough have. Would flooding Canada with whacky celebrities result in enough of them becoming judges (changing careers) and thus create a saner judge pool? But I thought they were whacky people? If so, they'd create whacky judges also, no?
Table-ized A.I.
I have never heard of anyone, other than a United States citizen/resident, define themselves as an American. Canadians are proud to be Canadian - from Canada. Mexicans likewise, from Mexico. In fact, only ONE nation on the face of the Earth uses the word America in its name - and that is the United States of America. Thus, if someone says "American", it means, in fact, from the USA. You're probably from the EU though, and jealous of the fact you're still a bunch of 2nd rate countries who needed the US to bail you out multiple times in the last 100 years, and save your asses from yourselves...
....the story I red once of Australian police finding a man sleeping in his parked car, woke him up, breath tested him and arrested him for drink driving.....
His iPhone was in the centre cubby hole on his dashboard, with the earbuds plugged in. The battery was dead.
I wonder if the judge thinks this defense is bullshit. i.e. Why are 2 earbuds in his ears, while driving in the first place? If the phone was dead when he got into the car, why did he put the phone in the centre cubby, but keep both earphones in his ears?
Maybe the judge was thinking, "Do we let distracted drivers use the dead battery defense? Or do we counter bullshit defense with bullshit legal reasoning?" Slippery slopes both ways.
The TFA perhaps states the best compromise for the moment:
B.C. RCMP say 1 earbud is fine, but wearing 2 can land you a $368 fine.
This isn't bad, especially since wearing 2 earbuds can lower the volume of what you can hear outside of the car, even without audio playing.
Listening to music while driving is fine and has been for years. You can't just quietly stare at the road on long highway drives, you will zone out. So you listen to music, watch the scenery or speed to keep your attention from drifting.
If I pair the phone and blast music to max, I am OK. If I use headphones because my car is too old to pair reliably - I am breaking the law. Doesn't make any sense.
Sure, throw a book at someone texting, but what they are doing is criminalizing normal behavior, in effect normalizing undesirable behavior. That is, if listening to music with headphone is distracted driving, then it isn't a big deal.
Whenever I converse with Canadians I make it a point to work in calling them Americans just to hear them indignantly tell me they aren't Americans.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
What is the difference between having headphones in which nothing is playing, and earmuffs, or a hat that covers your ears?
In most modern cars you aren't hearing the outside really well unless the windows are opened, absurd that headphones with nothing playing are considered a problem.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Earmuffs and hats aren't placed in the ear canals like ear buds (like the driver was using).
Even with side-impact air bags, I'm sure there could be a lot of damaged caused by them in an accident.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
and save us all from a retarded tyrant with too much power
Does "use" extend to passively listening?
I don't think I've ever seen the word "use" cover this before.
So no handsfrees then?
Earmuffs and hats aren't placed in the ear canals like ear buds (like the driver was using).
Oh so over the air headphones are OK, even though they block sound far more than in-ear earbuds which block very little sound, being actually better than a hat in terms of what you can hear (try it).
Even with side-impact air bags, I'm sure there could be a lot of damaged caused by them
Why are you sure abut that? In fact they would protect your ear drums far more than any damage they could cause.. if they are being pushed inwards in an accident, guess what so is your skull and you have way worse problems.
I can totally understand an issue with earbuds being in if audio is playing at all, that could indeed be a distraction. I am just saying that claiming they are a distraction when off is utterly stupid, like insanely stupid to the point where anyone claiming it is so should be locked away where they cannot harm others.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You haven't met many Mexicans, then. Or Central Americans, for that matter.
The reason he got nailed is that if you plugged in headphones to the iphone, it's clear that you were using it, in a manner where you put it in your hand.
for a Tesla to have a touchscreen interface? IMHO that is the single most distracting feature of any car I know of. It's basically an ipad interface for your car.
If having earbud in, even if the phone is dead, constitutes distracted driving, then by having the phone in the car to begin with, you'd be guilty. In fact if this logic follows then by having any item in the car, that's not solely for the purpose of driving that car, you're breaking the law.
More or less of a distraction than, say, having the car radio turned up to "11"? Which, so far as I know, has never been reason enough to give someone a ticket (or at least, I have never heard of anyone getting a ticket for having their radio turned up really loud)....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Who is your daddy? Enlightened Social Justice Warrior types love to make fun of Evangelical Christian types because they are so willing to give up their freedom to serve an all knowing all caring imaginary deity in the sky. However the enlightened types are so willing to give up their freedom to an all knowing, all caring state that they believe is looking after them.l
No you can not wear headphones. No you can not smoke. No you can not choose to not wear a seat belt. No you can not not accept vaccinations. No you can not own a gun. No you can not raise your children in a non state approved manner. No you can not defend yourself. No you can not own a gun. No you can not just build a house on empty land without a state permit. Yes you are free to worship the STATE and her appointed ministers. No you are not allowed to worship any deity that is not the state. Yes you are free.
Wherever you go people are soo willing to trade their freedom for security. When everybody carries around state issued government identification documents and tracking devices freedom is a grim joke.
The state is an institution that profits off of cigarette sales, gambling, and drugs. Why do you choose to worship her and do her bidding?
Working or not earbuds block sound thus limiting the driver's ability to perceive his environment which makes it dangerous driving.
anyone wearing those stupid looking iearpods should be arrested.
I'm sure there would be a lot of damage caused by wearing large earrings when a side impact airbag deploys.
Same goes for glasses too.
What's your point exactly?
or a hat that covers your ears?
Canadian law has an exception for toques. These are only permitted in the USA when you are stoned. So, no driving.
I once stayed at a B&B in Ireland. The proprietress said something to the effect of "oh, you're Americans" to which I politely replied "Canadians, actually." She then said "it's really the same thing" to which I replied "quite, just like you're English."
Obviously Canada. And it's a fine of $386 Canadian or ~ $290 US. No jail.
Authorities everywhere really love to stick it to people whenever they can remotely justify it. We should all get together and start voting against those sorts of authorities.
Extending the judge's logic could lead to similar rulings as follows.
"By activating the speaker of the Phone and allowing said speaker to induce sound waves into the surrounding air, the defendant had enlarged the device, such that it included not only the iPhone (proper) but also the surrounding air," he wrote. "Since the surrounding air was part of the electronic device and since the air was in the defendant's ears, it necessarily follows that the defendant was holding the device (or part of the device) in a position in which it could be used, i.e. his ears."
In a country where free speech applies only if it doesn't offend anyone, is anyone surprised that unpowered devices could be considered distracting?
After all, if a driver were holding a block of wood painted to look like a phone, speaking to such a device would not run the risk of violating the National Campus Speech Code, would it now?
In most modern cars you aren't hearing the outside really well unless the windows are opened,
Not everyone drives a Rolls Royce, pal.
https://www.qld.gov.au/law/cri...
Hooning
Hooning is the common word we use for any anti-social behaviour conducted in a motor vehicle—a car, van or motorbike—such as speeding, street racing, burnouts and playing loud music from a car stereo.
Hooning includes any number of traffic offences, such as dangerous driving, careless driving, driving without reasonable consideration for other people, driving in a way that makes unnecessary noise or smoke, and racing or conducting speed trials on a public road.
Penalties for hooning
Penalties vary for different hooning offences. For example, driving in a way that makes unnecessary noise or smoke carries a maximum fine of 20 penalty units ($2611) while the most serious offences, such as careless driving—also known as driving without due care and attention—or street racing, carry a maximum fine of 40 penalty units ($5222) or 6 months in jail.
In addition, for specific offences classed as hooning—anti-social behaviour in a motor vehicle—police now have the power to impound, immobilise and confiscate the vehicle you were driving when you committed the offence.
The original poster wrote:
You americans just love sending each other to jail
"americans" isn't short for "North Americans"
Ken
We should all get together and start voting against those sorts of authorities.
Yes, let's start voting out politicians that justify any intrusion into everyone's personal liberties to protect the smallest/weakest among us, we'll only vote for people that promise to repeal intrusive and unconstitutional laws and regulations, you know - like Trump.
Ken
Who do you vote for? All 3 parties are in favour of distracted driving laws, along with the public.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I'd love to sit in on the history lessons you were brought up with. Have you always been at war with Eurasia?
You could perhaps claim that in North Ireland, but not Ireland.
Ireland is an island near England, but not attached to it.
North Ireland is a country/province/region of the United Kingdom. Ireland is its own nation.
No beer, no TV make Lifthrasir something something
Formulating an activist ruling based on something they have exactly ZERO grasp of.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
No, it is a British Columbia lowest court possible ruling following a related lowest possible court in British Columbia ruling based on British Columbia Law and British Columbia precedents. British Columbia happens to be located within Canada, but there were no Canadian courts (they were Provincial Courts), no Canadian Laws (other than the Section 92 of the British North America Act (or the Constitution for y'all southies)), and no Canadian precedents.
Depending on the Patents held by the Judge in the case and the Patents held by the Judge in the cited precedent, the precedent may have been binding. The matter could always be appealed as a matter of law. In some provinces, the appeal route would be direct to the Provincial Court of Appeal (the highest court in the province) on an issue of law alone.
The guy should have been convicted, but the logic used is defective.
The phone didn't distract him.
However, what he SHOULD have gotten nailed for was for having his hearing partially obstructed by means of a foreign object inserted into his ear that blocked some of the sound from getting in. Things like car horns, sirens, and that sort of thing from outside the car.
Lifthrasir, I think you did not get the humour in ceoyoyo's comment. He was deliberately poking fun at/with the Irish woman, so your didactic reply was a bit of a waste.
I mean, look, he had to "hold iphone" so that earbuds are in his ears (for some reason).
Now, had they been of the wireless, sometimes exploding, type? No such problem!
Thank you, Tim Cook, for this amazing innovation! Wireless earbuds invention of Apple is second only to the Apple's invention of the internet!
Your comment does nothing but confuse the point further; England is not a landmass nor is Canada a subject of/in a union with the United States, as much as that is joked about.
While one could _technically_ call a Canadian (or any citizen of dozens of countries of the American landmass) an American, one does not, as that is the only demonym for a US citizen, so the listener would invariably think that was meant leading to things like this whole thread. Say New Worlder instead. It's also pointlessly vague to refer to specific people as members of a landmass. Why not call them the demonym of the country they're from? You wouldn't only refer to a German as a Eurasian.
The proprietress certainly was dismissively stating that the USA and Canada are the same, and the GP snapped back by saying Ireland and England are the same.
I'm with the judge on this one. The idea of not wearing earbuds is stupid as people who are deaf aren't barred from driving and neither are people who have loud cars, drive around in 2nd gear at 4k rpm, etc.
However the defense of "it wasn't on I sware" is a shitty one so the legal hoops that were jumped through seemed to make perfect sense. The distraction in this case isn't from listening to music, it's from ... *oooh I like this song, unlock phone with fingerprint, click spotify, click the bar at the bottom, push that big heart button. *
I wear noise cancelling earmuffs when driving in germany because I can't even hear my radio over the sound of my engine when driving down the autobahn at 170 (which is close to where my car redlines).
driving with earphones on, while nothing is playing is more distracting then...
listening to the car's stereo?
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
Canadian here. Well, British born but lived in Canada for the past ~20 years. I can attest that the difference between Americans and Canadians is paper thin. Despite popular opinion, Canadians aren't "nicer" than Americans, I've met plenty of Americans who are polite, gracious, and well educated. And I've met plenty of Canadians who are not any of those.
The problem is with statements like "Canadians are ". A Canadian might be nice, but I can assure you, in a group of 100 random Canadians, you're gonna find a high percentage of people who are most definitely not nice. Now replace 'Canadian' with some other nationality and the same'll be held true.
Canadians love to look down on Americans and portray them all to be racists or uneducated, or gun-toting maniacs but we have our fair share up here
This is why you should fear the law: It is entirely arbitrary, impossible to predict, and up to the individual judge at the moment.
E Proelio Veritas.
The RCMP have their own website, you know.
Are you really this fucking retarded? When was the last time you heard a Canadian call himself an American? Ever?
The reason often given is that it's impossible for a cop to tell if the headphones are playing anything, so there is no way to enforce such a law except banning the use of anything that can play sound entirely.
It's a stupid reason. Don't shoot the messenger.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If plugging in earbuds "enlarges the device", would bluetooth cause the device to become the size of the entire car?
This case sets a dangerous precedent that basically equates to "don't listen to music on your cellphone while driving, no matter how it actually gets to your ears"
I agree that using a phone while driving is dangerous, and even if its off you shouldn't be messing with it... its just the "enlarges the device" I take exception to. Slippery slope and all that.
We only had "Walkmen" back then but it was made clear to us that it was illegal to have earphones in (I think we only had 'headphones' back then).
The judge really twisted the language with this ruling, which would have been crystal clear had he listened to my driver's ed instructor!
There is no law limiting people from driving in Canada, or anywhere in the US.
All these people talking about earbuds limiting your ability to hear things around you being the reason have no idea what they are talking about legally speaking.
Check the laws for Canada, or any of the 50 states, and you will see no limitations for a normal license.
Kids, passengers, radio, etc....
Here around (Switzerland), the FM-RDS's "RT" and "RT+" (Radio Text and Plus) functionality was only implemented by the national radios much later than the rest of Europe, because they were literary afraid that the text would provide too much extra distraction to the driver and take their attention away from driving.
Seriously.
(Or at least that's what they were telling us).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Bullshit as in 'So the device had a dead battery, but you had both earphones in anyway, for no reason? Bullshit.'
Officer, I can't possibly have been the person to fire an entire magazine of bullets into that man in front of me; as you can plainly see, my handgun is empty!
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
First off, what kind of idiot is driving around with earbuds in his ears and the phone is dead? Wouldn't he have realized that and removed the buds instead of driving around with them stuck in his ears, impairing his hearing?
He was trying to get out of a ticket by claiming the phone was dead and he wasn't 'using' it. The court saw thru his BS. End of story...
Fuck you I got mine. This is America. Don't tread on me.
For me the world has ended. This kind of nonsense makes you want to put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger.
Instead of killing for someones shoes these kind of judges and police deserve every bullet they catch.
Deaf people drive there was no distraction.
I got a dirty look from Canadian border patrol when he asked my citizenship & I said "American".
My Canadian friend explained there's North, South, and Central America, and the US does NOT own the name "American". The US isn't just in North America (Hawaii...); at best part of our country shares 'North America' with at least one other country. The correct term for me and those like me is "US citizen."
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Why was he wearing the ear buds?
Did he carry a dead dummy phone in case he was pulled over? Was he listening to something else?
As for the dead phone, you can commit plenty of crimes with an unloaded gun.
Cops in Canada don't consider it their job to make the judgement call on whether you broke the law due to certain conditions. If they see you, you broke the law. Feel free to wait in line for 7 hours for a chance to state your case. I had a friend that had her purse tip when she stopped at a stop light and she picked up her phone from the floor because the floor was wet and dirty, etc. Well a bike cop was driving by on the curb side and gave her a ticket (still stopped). Didn't matter that the phone wasn't on.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Wouldn't have happened with wireless headphones.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Well, the difference is that one thing has been written up by our politicians as illegal, and the other has not. I think writing absurd laws are a matter of pride for many people in government.
Snark aside, typically there are catch-all laws that forbid unusual distractions or impairments to driving. So don't worry, ear-muff hats are probably illegal too. If you can't hear a siren going off nearby while inside your car, I'm sure there's some regulation that is being broken as well. Certainly, common sense says that you need to be able to hear sirens.
The original poster wrote:
You americans just love sending each other to jail
"americans" isn't short for "North Americans"
South America, Central America, North America. All Americans.
Though in this context, I'm sure that is not what was meant.
Canadians pine to be part of Europe instead of North America. The grass is greener, after all.
You're a liberal? That's unfortunate. How does it feel to be constantly offended about silly things and walk around acting like your crap doesn't smell?
Why should we be the ones to leave North America?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Well, one can ignore the actual ruling (which seems to be on the technicality of the wording of the laws) and invent plausible-sounding reasons that ignore the ability of deaf people to drive, the standard inclusion of loud radios in cars, and the existence of vehicle soundproofing, but in the end isn't that just apologetics for bad laws? Or thinly veiled and perhaps instinctive toadying to authority?
The cars of the richest are soundproofed. I have ridden in old, cheap cars with road and wind noise too loud to allow normal conversation at highway speed. Almost literally everyone has a car radio loud enough to drown out environmental noise.
And where did that precedent come from? Following a "precedent" just because is god damn cancerous.
How about following the LAW instead of what some other judge that might not have been or has no idea what it is has been before you?
Or using some god damn common sense? There seems to be a lot of that missing now a days.
In my country a hands-free set and a mount is mandatory to use a phone while driving - it's also allowed to use earphones.
The difference? Earmuffs and hats do not produce noise that may make outside sounds even fainter than if you were wearing earplugs.
Americans continue laughing at the not-so slow decline of Canada and the rest of the socialist eurosphere.
Canadians love to look down on Americans and portray them all to be racists or uneducated, or gun-toting maniacs but we have our fair share up here
Canadians have good reason to be gun-toting maniacs. Between the bears and the moose and the penguins, you take your life in your hands every time you step outside.
I once stayed at a B&B in Ireland. The proprietress said something to the effect of "oh, you're Americans" to which I politely replied "Canadians, actually." She then said "it's really the same thing" to which I replied "quite, just like you're English."
To be fair you are an inhabitant of the North American continent, so it is not a stretch to call you 'american'.
I disagree. The cultural stereotypes you mentioned are, just like any stereotypes, inconsistent. There are rude Canadians and polite Canadians, and rude Americans and polite Americans. The concentration of each type usually varies a lot by location within country as well.
There are real differences between Canada and the US. When the American colonies rebelled, Canada not only remained loyal, but a decent chunk of the royalist population in the US ended up moving to Canada. That difference, and subsequent history, has tended to colour each country in a different way. For example, Americans tend more towards individualism and distrust of collective action, including government and other public institutions.
Sure. Tell an Irishman in a Belfast pub that he's British (an inhabitant of the British Isles) and see how well it goes.
And around here I see jackasses driving around with full sized cans on their ears pretty often. Be nice for something to happen to them.
But it does own it as certainly as Canada owns Canadian and Mexico owns Mexican. It dervives from the United States of America - not the continent of North America.
All three are North American, only one is American.
USian is just f-ing weird and anything else is too f-long (missing the point of these abreviations).
Mexico is officially the United Mexican States.
Not the United Mexican States of America.
Not the United Mexican States of North America.
Canada is just Canada.
What he was saying breaks down like this:
You frequently hear leftists claiming that they'll move to Canada when something shifts to the right in the US; Trump getting elected was a big one.
All these leftists are obviously implying that Canada is a great place, that would never do something so "stupid" as elect someone like Trump.
This article shows, however, that Canada does some stupid things that make no sense, so it's not as great of a place as the leftists seem to think.
It's pretty obvious what he was meaning. But, as a Canadian, I'm sorry, eh?
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Canada's law system is clearly "guilty until proven innocent, and the system WILL prove you guilty at all cost".
Mere suspicion of a crime is being committed it not the same thing as probable cause. A good lawyer could have helped in this case.
What is the difference between having headphones in which nothing is playing, and earmuffs, or a hat that covers your ears?
What is the difference? Nothing according to the law. Exactly that happened to me.
Winter in Southern California is not a serious matter but I got into the habit of wearing my on-ear headphones (1) in the early cold morning when bicycling 7 miles to high school *without* my radio. (2) Wearing headphones also made it *easier* to hear because they blocked the wind noise. One month after California passed a law making it illegal to right a bicycle with headphones, I got an incontestable ticket.
That and other events demonstrating the police state established a deep respect for the legislature, law enforcement, and the courts. Fuck them all.
(1) Pickering OA-4 headphones - does anybody make anything as good anymore?
(2) I bicycled 14 miles every school day for years. In retrospect, I was lucky never to have been killed or seriously injured in city traffic.