Really? You have no problem with distracted drivers? I can usually spot a driver using a device from 100m away because of how badly they drive. Even pedestrians should have a little common sense when crossing/not crossing while on the phone.
She was stopped, as in not moving. How would you spot this one?
Really? You have no problem with distracted drivers? I can usually spot a driver using a device from 100m away because of how badly they drive. Even pedestrians should have a little common sense when crossing/not crossing while on the phone.
I believe you have inferred more from my post then meant.
I have a major irritation with distracted drivers and I do agree with you that may times you pass someone who is driving poorly you will see them on the phone.
I also think there are many other distractions that a driver needs to contend with and that a bad driver is a bad driver.
I fully agree with you regarding pedestrians. I have seen too many people walk into the street and nearly be hit because they were assuming cars say them and would stop. At a busy crosswalk I will walk into traffic but always be ready to move quickly if a car doesn't seem to be stopping.
I also can agree with all these points and still believe that a $400 fine for looking at your watch while waiting at a light is a overly aggressive penalty.
It's difficult to infer much from your original eight word post. It could be the need for a cash infusion, could be an angry cop who has seen one too many distracted drivers, it could be that the cop has a genuine concern about distracted drivers. It could be one of a million things. If she'd got off with a warning or got a $400 fine, either is fine by me. But erring on the side of punishment seems preferable to me considering distracted driving seems to get worse and worse every year.
2) she looked at somethIng. Regardless of what it was. She looked over at something. Doesnt say she interacted with it. She LOOKED at it? What if it was a regular watch that she LOOKED at. She’s not allowed to check the time? What if it was a paper brochure in her car that she looked at? The clock on her dash? A picture of her family?
3) you have to mash the gas “IMMEDIATELY” when the light turns green in order to not be guilty of distracted driving?
if this is how that law is defined, then all drivers everyday are under threat of getting cited.
Ridiculous. Not sure how the court system is there, but she should fight it if she can.
Really? You have no problem with distracted drivers? I can usually spot a driver using a device from 100m away because of how badly they drive. Even pedestrians should have a little common sense when crossing/not crossing while on the phone.
It's difficult to infer much from your original eight word post. It could be the need for a cash infusion, could be an angry cop who has seen one too many distracted drivers, it could be that the cop has a genuine concern about distracted drivers. It could be one of a million things. If she'd got off with a warning or got a $400 fine, either is fine by me. But erring on the side of punishment seems preferable to me considering distracted driving seems to get worse and worse every year.
So why did you do it? Yours was not a logical leap, but one to just stir the pot and give your your sense of moral superiority where none existed.
And your glib response of "stopped at a green light" - the light changed, she didn't move immediately. You know why else one wouldn't move immediately at a green light? A sneeze. Waiting to see what traffic around you does. You know - to be SAFE. You could not have known from 100m away why she didn't move immediately, so don't pretend you do.
Really? You have no problem with distracted drivers? I can usually spot a driver using a device from 100m away because of how badly they drive. Even pedestrians should have a little common sense when crossing/not crossing while on the phone.
It's difficult to infer much from your original eight word post. It could be the need for a cash infusion, could be an angry cop who has seen one too many distracted drivers, it could be that the cop has a genuine concern about distracted drivers. It could be one of a million things. If she'd got off with a warning or got a $400 fine, either is fine by me. But erring on the side of punishment seems preferable to me considering distracted driving seems to get worse and worse every year.
So why did you do it? Yours was not a logical leap, but one to just stir the pot and give your your sense of moral superiority where none existed.
And your glib response of "stopped at a green light" - the light changed, she didn't move immediately. You know why else one wouldn't move immediately at a green light? A sneeze. Waiting to see what traffic around you does. You know - to be SAFE. You could not have known from 100m away why she didn't move immediately, so don't pretend you do.
The use of "immediately" is helping this discussion, but it's in the article so we have to use it. You should never move immediately. You should make sure that traffic from the other lights have stopped or are stopping so you can proceed safely; but I'm guessing that it wasn't that she moved within a reasonable amount of time combined with him seeing her interacting with her Watch.
Maybe he made all that up, but regardless of this particular case I think there's an easy argument to make that not paying reasonable attention to the road is grounds for getting a ticket.
Really? You have no problem with distracted drivers? I can usually spot a driver using a device from 100m away because of how badly they drive. Even pedestrians should have a little common sense when crossing/not crossing while on the phone.
It's difficult to infer much from your original eight word post. It could be the need for a cash infusion, could be an angry cop who has seen one too many distracted drivers, it could be that the cop has a genuine concern about distracted drivers. It could be one of a million things. If she'd got off with a warning or got a $400 fine, either is fine by me. But erring on the side of punishment seems preferable to me considering distracted driving seems to get worse and worse every year.
So why did you do it? Yours was not a logical leap, but one to just stir the pot and give your your sense of moral superiority where none existed.
And your glib response of "stopped at a green light" - the light changed, she didn't move immediately. You know why else one wouldn't move immediately at a green light? A sneeze. Waiting to see what traffic around you does. You know - to be SAFE. You could not have known from 100m away why she didn't move immediately, so don't pretend you do.
What does looking at a device have to do with morality?
You're making a lot of assumptions yourself that seem to be in conflict with the evidence presented. She didn't sneeze, she wasn't waiting for traffic - she was looking at her watch, four times, and missed the light changing and two cars in front of her driving off.
Really? You have no problem with distracted drivers? I can usually spot a driver using a device from 100m away because of how badly they drive. Even pedestrians should have a little common sense when crossing/not crossing while on the phone.
It's difficult to infer much from your original eight word post. It could be the need for a cash infusion, could be an angry cop who has seen one too many distracted drivers, it could be that the cop has a genuine concern about distracted drivers. It could be one of a million things. If she'd got off with a warning or got a $400 fine, either is fine by me. But erring on the side of punishment seems preferable to me considering distracted driving seems to get worse and worse every year.
So why did you do it? Yours was not a logical leap, but one to just stir the pot and give your your sense of moral superiority where none existed.
And your glib response of "stopped at a green light" - the light changed, she didn't move immediately. You know why else one wouldn't move immediately at a green light? A sneeze. Waiting to see what traffic around you does. You know - to be SAFE. You could not have known from 100m away why she didn't move immediately, so don't pretend you do.
What does looking at a device have to do with morality?
Choosing whether or not engage in behavior that could lead to property damage, injury, and death is squarely a moral principle.
The difference usually is that when people look of at a device (not a watch), then kind of zone out from the situation they are in (check out).
It's related to the attention/focus mechanism in the brain when something requires more than a minimal mental load.
Seeing the time, or that you got a notification from the corner of your eyes, or feeling you got a notification with a buzz, doesn't require any shift in focus/attention, but most others things do. I don't even like fiddling with knobs when driving in heavy quick traffic, I wait till I'm stopped or forgo it entirely except if I need it for safety (say the car is fogging up).
And yes, if the light changes and you are still staring are your POS device, I'm going to be mad when it takes you 5 seconds for you to get your head out of your ass.
These days, this happens 20 times a day at least. It is very obvious that this is the case. If someone is merely glancing at their watch, this doesn't happen.
Attention and mental load is what distinguish various distractions. A person in the car for example most often adjusts their conversation with the traffic (at least in my car), but if I get a person calling in, that doesn't happen. Most often I just don't answer or ask them to call later If I feel it's too distracting to take the call or continue the call.
For visual things, in very heavy quick traffic, I'm not comfortable with any distractions at all (even small ones). People are crazy enough and distracted enough that I need all my wit and focus just not to get side swiped.
I wish for a day of fully automated cars I can trust cause I don't enjoy driving around fully distracted idiots.
Let's take the Watch out of the equation. Is it an offense not to 'move immediately' a light turns green in Canada?
Should be everywhere.
You take you life at risk taking off as soon as the light turns green, because you may have traffic going the cross direction that in trying to make the light, end up running the red light and doing it by going faster to try and make it, making any accident even worse.
Looking at your watch which is attached to your wrist that is attached to your HAND on the steering wheel while stopped at as red light, I don't think is a bad thing. Glancing to see what the time is. Maybe again to see what the temp is. $400 dollar ticket is a little crazy.
How about $400 larger tickets for all the distracted drivers with Kids in the car. See a Mini-Van, look out, good target for a ticket.
2) she looked at somethIng. Regardless of what it was. She looked over at something. Doesnt say she interacted with it. She LOOKED at it? What if it was a regular watch that she LOOKED at. She’s not allowed to check the time? What if it was a paper brochure in her car that she looked at? The clock on her dash? A picture of her family?
3) you have to mash the gas “IMMEDIATELY” when the light turns green in order to not be guilty of distracted driving?
if this is how that law is defined, then all drivers everyday are under threat of getting cited.
Ridiculous. Not sure how the court system is there, but she should fight it if she can.
I wonder what prompted her to "look at the time"... at least4 times in just a couple of minutes and still "looking at the time" when the light changed. Yeah I'm sure that was it. In any event for that woman "looking at the time" appears to be a distraction so she should avoid it while driving.
Let's take the Watch out of the equation. Is it an offense not to 'move immediately' a light turns green in Canada?
Should be everywhere.
You take you life at risk taking off as soon as the light turns green, because you may have traffic going the cross direction that in trying to make the light, end up running the red light and doing it by going faster to try and make it, making any accident even worse.
BTW Ever notice that once a driver realizes they've sat thru several seconds of a traffic light change they tend to bolt out rather than carefully checking for potential oncoming dangers?
Let's take the Watch out of the equation. Is it an offense not to 'move immediately' a light turns green in Canada?
Nice misdirection attempt.
I think the law's intention is pretty clear: Discourage drivers from becoming distracted from the task of safely and responsibly operating thousand pound+ vehicles by instead trying to monitor/use handheld electronic devices that at minimum results in reduced traffic flow and at worst failure to notice pedestrians, bikers, safety hazards, braking vehicles and traffic control devices like pedestrian crossings, red lights and stop signs.
Why should looking at a notification on a watch while operating a motor vehicle be considered any different than looking at a cellphone while doing the same? You're correct, it isn't. Just like with cellphone use on the highway, it can wait.
When the driver didn't begin moving when the light changed she gave the officer evidence of being distracted from her primary task by a hand-held electronic device
Is this like an authoritarian fetish or something? You can’t be serious. Looking at your watch is not dangerous while driving, particularly when not even moving.
Let's take the Watch out of the equation. Is it an offense not to 'move immediately' a light turns green in Canada?
Nice misdirection attempt.
I think the law's intention is pretty clear: Discourage drivers from becoming distracted from the task of safely and responsibly operating thousand pound+ vehicles by instead trying to monitor/use handheld electronic devices that at minimum results in reduced traffic flow and at worst failure to notice pedestrians, bikers, safety hazards, braking vehicles and traffic control devices like pedestrian crossings, red lights and stop signs.
Why should looking at a notification on a watch while operating a motor vehicle be considered any different than looking at a cellphone while doing the same? You're correct, it isn't. Just like with cellphone use on the highway, it can wait.
When the driver didn't begin moving when the light changed she gave the officer evidence of being distracted from her primary task by a hand-held electronic device
Is this like an authoritarian fetish or something? You can’t be serious. Looking at your watch is not dangerous while driving, particularly when not even moving.
You obviously didn't read the article before commenting. You should.
If I have a mechanical watch and I glance at it four times at a light, I should get a ticket? According to the judge(?) the law doesn't apply since it is not a hand-held device, but guilty anyway for the $400 because we need the money. Always follow the money.
If I have a mechanical watch and I glance at it four times at a light, I should get a ticket? According to the judge(?) the law doesn't apply since it is not a hand-held device, but guilty anyway for the $400 because we need the money. Always follow the money.
Read the original article. She was literally sat there at the light after two cars left, with a cop behind her, looking at her watch. The cop shone a light in her car before she finally moved. It's not comparable to a mechanical watch
She was stopped at the light. How was this any different from looking at an old-school time-telling watch?
If you wait at a green light for more than 0.1 second in NYC, or 0.5 second in Boston, horns start to sound behind you. What is the spec for Ontario? This sounds like a University rentacop wasting time and money on nada.
Let's take the Watch out of the equation. Is it an offense not to 'move immediately' a light turns green in Canada?
To your point, it should not matter for the reason for being distracted, it is just another idiot law. They should just pass a law that says your need to pay attention to your driving at all times. Poor driving should be the reason for the ticket not what caused the poor driving. In the pass it was car radio, still today it's the big gulp drink, the kids in the back seat and the cell phone, in the future, it will still be your kids and some other device. BTW, kids are still the #3 reason people are distracted while driving, kids should be outlawed in the car too.
What I find interesting about this case is the officer used the fact that he saw watch turn on and light up the person. So the mere fact he saw it turn on was enough to say the driver was interacting with the watch.
I can tell you, my watch turns on all time while driving, this is compliant I have with the Apple watch, the simple movement of moving your arm up and down the steering wheel will turn it on. This happens so much that when I drive a lot the watch battery does not last all day. The other problem is at night when it turns on you see the light in the side widow, which can be distracting.
I also notice when a notice comes in on the phone and it turns on and lights up the car at night. Even though your not interacting with that phone, an officer seeing the light can assuming you're using the devices and give you a ticket.
Comments
1) she was STOPPED. Not driving.
2) she looked at somethIng. Regardless of what it was. She looked over at something. Doesnt say she interacted with it. She LOOKED at it? What if it was a regular watch that she LOOKED at. She’s not allowed to check the time? What if it was a paper brochure in her car that she looked at? The clock on her dash? A picture of her family?
3) you have to mash the gas “IMMEDIATELY” when the light turns green in order to not be guilty of distracted driving?
if this is how that law is defined, then all drivers everyday are under threat of getting cited.
Ridiculous. Not sure how the court system is there, but she should fight it if she can.
And your glib response of "stopped at a green light" - the light changed, she didn't move immediately. You know why else one wouldn't move immediately at a green light? A sneeze. Waiting to see what traffic around you does. You know - to be SAFE. You could not have known from 100m away why she didn't move immediately, so don't pretend you do.
Maybe he made all that up, but regardless of this particular case I think there's an easy argument to make that not paying reasonable attention to the road is grounds for getting a ticket.
You're making a lot of assumptions yourself that seem to be in conflict with the evidence presented. She didn't sneeze, she wasn't waiting for traffic - she was looking at her watch, four times, and missed the light changing and two cars in front of her driving off.
Looking at your watch which is attached to your wrist that is attached to your HAND on the steering wheel while stopped at as red light, I don't think is a bad thing. Glancing to see what the time is. Maybe again to see what the temp is. $400 dollar ticket is a little crazy.
How about $400 larger tickets for all the distracted drivers with Kids in the car. See a Mini-Van, look out, good target for a ticket.
Yeah I'm sure that was it. In any event for that woman "looking at the time" appears to be a distraction so she should avoid it while driving.
https://www.fox25boston.com/news/dozens-of-distracted-drivers-ticketed-during-police-sting-1/737823556
BTW Ever notice that once a driver realizes they've sat thru several seconds of a traffic light change they tend to bolt out rather than carefully checking for potential oncoming dangers?
Via CarPlay I can do stuff like check on my HomeKit stuff while driving and never take my hands off of the wheel or the road.
What I find interesting about this case is the officer used the fact that he saw watch turn on and light up the person. So the mere fact he saw it turn on was enough to say the driver was interacting with the watch.
I can tell you, my watch turns on all time while driving, this is compliant I have with the Apple watch, the simple movement of moving your arm up and down the steering wheel will turn it on. This happens so much that when I drive a lot the watch battery does not last all day. The other problem is at night when it turns on you see the light in the side widow, which can be distracting.
I also notice when a notice comes in on the phone and it turns on and lights up the car at night. Even though your not interacting with that phone, an officer seeing the light can assuming you're using the devices and give you a ticket.