• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Put down those cellphones:

nonothing

Well-known member
By Romina Maurino, The Canadian Press



TORONTO - Get your hands off those cellphones, Ontario drivers - a new law that bans using hand-held devices to talk, email, or send text messages while behind the wheel was passed Wednesday.


The new rules, which won't come into effect until at least the fall, include a fine of up to $500 as the province joins other jurisdictions in cracking down on drivers using the devices.


"What we're trying to do is to avoid distractions while people are driving - those distractions being caused, in this case, by electronic devices that are hand-held," said Transportation Minister Jim Bradley, adding he has no plans to ban eating or drinking coffee in cars.


The law doesn't affect the use of hands-free devices such as Bluetooths or using cellphones for 911 calls, but it does ban portable video games, MP3 players and DVD players.


Global positioning systems will be allowed, as long as they're properly secured to the dashboard.


There are no demerit points attached to the bill, but drivers who place others at risk by using one of the banned devices can also be charged under existing careless driving laws.


The law exempts firefighters, police and paramedics, but several other groups have also asked for a pass.


The Transportation Ministry is considering additional exemptions for devices used to dispatch, track and monitor commercial drivers, but said more changes are unlikely.


"There are organizations that have come forward to say (they) believe they should have an exemption," Bradley said. "We'll have to evaluate that very carefully.


"We will be extremely reluctant as a government to grant any exemptions unless a very compelling case could be made for that."


Bradley wouldn't give a specific date for the ban to take effect, noting it still needs to go through certain legislative processes and an education period so the public learns the rules.


But he said drivers can expect the change to come "later this year, possibly in the fall."


NDP Leader Andrea Horwath said she supported the bill, noting if people must communicate while driving, there are hands-free gadgets that allow them to do so.


"Technology exists that can prevent people from having to use a hand-held device, and I think that's where the biggest concern is in terms of distraction," she said.


Ontario is the fourth province to enact such a ban, following Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec and Nova Scotia.


In Newfoundland and Labrador, which in 2003 became the first province to ban the use of hand-held cellphones, the penalties range from $11 to $400 plus four demerit points.


Quebec motorists face fines of $115 plus the loss of three demerit points, while Nova Scotia's fines start at $164.50 for a first offence and grow to $337 for subsequent offences.

In the first year after Nova Scotia made it illegal for drivers to use hand-held cellphones, close to 2,000 tickets were handed out by police.

In Quebec, the latest statistics show at least 12,000 tickets have been handed out by Montreal and provincial police since last July. Hand-held devices were banned on April 1, 2008, but Quebec drivers were given a three-month grace period.

Manitoba introduced legislation in November that proposed fines of at least $190 for using hand-held cellphones or for smoking while there are children in a vehicle, while Prince Edward Island is also considering a ban.
 

Mike

Well-known member
The line should have been drawn in the sand when the states started enacting seatbelt and motorcycle helmet laws.

The state has no right to fine someone for something that involves no one else.

What right do they have telling me I have to wear a seatbelt when it harms no one else when I do not?

Or wearing a helmet either, for that matter. :roll:

Cellphones are a little different because one could cause an accident that involves someone else.......but the personal decision should still come into play and they could be sued if proven doing it.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Mike said:
The line should have been drawn in the sand when the states started enacting seatbelt and motorcycle helmet laws.

The state has no right to fine someone for something that involves no one else.

What right do they have telling me I have to wear a seatbelt when it harms no one else when I do not?

Or wearing a helmet either, for that matter. :roll:

Cellphones are a little different because one could cause an accident that involves someone else.......but the personal decision should still come into play and they could be sued if proven doing it.


I agree on the helmet and seatbelt law.it should be a choice.It seems to more an insurance company law then anything eles......I guess you could argue that cell phones distract,but you can go hands free.....The smoking with kids in the car ,i like that law though..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Mike, buy a cell that looks like a Big Mac or a curling iron, they're not illegal yet!

But don't get into an accident, they'll charge you under the laws on the books already. (care and control, dangerous driving etc)
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
You should wear a seatbelt as I don't want my tax money having to take care of your stupid azz after you scramble your brains and then go broke cause you can't work and have to go on Medicade!!!

ALL TALKING ON PHONES WHILE A VEHICLE IS IN MOTION SHOULD BE OUTLAWED!!!! HANDS FREE OR NOT...IT'S A MAJOR DISTRACTION
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Following that reasoning, there should be a law that Bill can't dip his wick in Frank because I don't want any of my tax money taking care of some AIDS patients who contracted an avoidable disease.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Following that reasoning, there should be a law that Bill can't dip his wick in Frank because I don't want any of my tax money taking care of some AIDS patients who contracted an avoidable disease.

What about Bill dippin his wick into Esther, Louise, Betty, "Sugar", Angela, Ruth, Becky and Tina and getting AIDS that way?????


You willing to pay for that if he got it that way????
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Sandhusker said:
Following that reasoning, there should be a law that Bill can't dip his wick in Frank because I don't want any of my tax money taking care of some AIDS patients who contracted an avoidable disease.

What about Bill dippin his wick into Esther, Louise, Betty, "Sugar", Angela, Ruth, Becky and Tina and getting AIDS that way?????


You willing to pay for that if he got it that way????

You tell me. You're the one that is applying the greater good of society over personal liberties. I'm just searching for some consistency in your "beliefs".
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
kolanuraven said:
Sandhusker said:
Following that reasoning, there should be a law that Bill can't dip his wick in Frank because I don't want any of my tax money taking care of some AIDS patients who contracted an avoidable disease.

What about Bill dippin his wick into Esther, Louise, Betty, "Sugar", Angela, Ruth, Becky and Tina and getting AIDS that way?????


You willing to pay for that if he got it that way????

You tell me. You're the one that is applying the greater good of society over personal liberties. I'm just searching for some consistency in your "beliefs".


Quit running...and answer the question?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I'm not willing to pay for anybody's stupid actions, whatever they are. However, I reserve anybody the right to be stupid.

Now, you answer the question.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
. I'm just searching for some consistency in your "beliefs".


This is part of my charm and I know it just DRIVE YOU APESHT....which is even more entertaining!!!


I have no consistency.... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Sandhusker said:
. I'm just searching for some consistency in your "beliefs".


This is part of my charm and I know it just DRIVE YOU APESHT....which is even more entertaining!!!


I have no consistency.... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Don't feel too bad, I've noticed that is a trait that liberals in general share. Unfortunately, consistency is necessary to functioning government and society.
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Following that reasoning, there should be a law that Bill can't dip his wick in Frank because I don't want any of my tax money taking care of some AIDS patients who contracted an avoidable disease.

If you are worried about AIDS you better outlaw blood transfusions and any sex without condoms while you are at it.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
CattleArmy said:
Sandhusker said:
Following that reasoning, there should be a law that Bill can't dip his wick in Frank because I don't want any of my tax money taking care of some AIDS patients who contracted an avoidable disease.

If you are worried about AIDS you better outlaw blood transfusions and any sex without condoms while you are at it.

Well, if you're going to veto personal liberties based upon the "greater good" of society, that's where the path you've chosen is going to lead.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
You should wear a seatbelt as I don't want my tax money having to take care of your stupid azz after you scramble your brains and then go broke cause you can't work and have to go on Medicade!!!

ALL TALKING ON PHONES WHILE A VEHICLE IS IN MOTION SHOULD BE OUTLAWED!!!! HANDS FREE OR NOT...IT'S A MAJOR DISTRACTION

That line of reasoning would open up a can of worms of regulating and banning so many things!

Motorcycles, Bicycles, Skateboards, Diving boards, Trampolines, Small Cars, Airplanes, High fat foods, Cigarettes, Alcohol....etc...........

The collateral damage of people not wearing their seat belts is very minimal and does not merit special laws, some things just can not be or should be controlled.

Should we outlaw Beer because some people abuse it and then put a drain on you because they can not work and go on Medicaid?

Either put everyone in a bubble or leave us alone!
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
I don't see where talking on a cellphone while driving is any less distracting than driving while listening to your PMS enraged wife bitch at you from the shotgun seat.....and I don't think it's illegal (yet) to communicate with passengers in your vehicle.......
 
Top