Electronic Device Legislation

Bill 118 2009 - Royal Assent 23APR09

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

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 Section 78 of the Highway Traffic Act is repealed and the following substituted: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 (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device or other prescribed device that is capable of receiving or transmitting telephone communications, electronic data, mail or text messages.

Entertainment devices

(2) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held electronic entertainment device or other prescribed device the primary use of which is unrelated to the safe operation of the motor vehicle.

Hands-free mode allowed

(3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), a person may drive a motor vehicle on a highway while using a device described in those subsections in hands-free mode.

Exceptions

(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to,

(a) the driver of an ambulance, fire department vehicle or police department vehicle;

(b) any other prescribed person or class of persons;

(c) a person holding or using a device prescribed for the purpose of this subsection; or

(d) a person engaged in a prescribed activity or in prescribed conditions or circumstances.

Same

(5) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the use of a device to contact ambulance, police or fire department emergency services.

Same

(6) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if all of the following conditions are met:

1. The motor vehicle is off the roadway or is lawfully parked on the roadway.

2. The motor vehicle is not in motion.

3. The motor vehicle is not impeding traffic.

The law "prescribes" so much I think a doctor wrote it.

'Bear, if I have an Ipod and my car has a AUX line-in but I have to press the thumb wheel on the Ipod to change songs, does this count as a "hand-held entertainment" device?

Hey Bear, would you pull me over?

http://s177.photobucket.com/albums/w236 ... _09241.jpg

Just a reminder, the law isn't in effect yet. Likely not until the fall.

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/622979

Squishy wrote:

Hey Bear, would you pull me over?

http://s177.photobucket.com/albums/w236 ... _09241.jpg

Sorry, you have more problems than I can deal with...your driving a "FORD"

And who makes your Crown Vic, eh?

Squishy wrote:

And who makes your Crown Vic, eh?

I believe it was the same company that made the "Hit me and we both go up in flames" Pinto

I have a computer mount in my van but I always remove the laptop before I start the car and place it behind my seat. I don't want to take the risk of having an accident and then be charged with distracted driving just because an officer noticed the laptop and decided to make an assumption that I was at fault since I was probably messing about with it.

I really wonder how this is going to be enforced.

Maybe in those small rural towns with low population where the police aren't.

This will be like the usual ill just do 20 over on the highway thing.

I really doubt this will change anything. Especially on the highway so many drivers in heavy traffic......

Besides what does this law even do???

If your having a conversation with a head set or the phone what is the difference?

One more hand on the wheel, you still have to look down to dial the number....

Messing around with a GPS is just as distracting.

Why not ban eating and driving while your at it to?

And also make it illegal to drive without shoes.

You could also ban Car stereos because they require you to take a hand off the wheel.

In fact i got a solution to this problem. All cars should have built in sensor's on the steering wheel that require two hands and if you take one of they could stop your car and then lock you into until an officer comes to unlock the car and write you a ticket?

That could save maybe 2 lives a year!

Someone tell McGunity fast!!!!:lol:

Again i think this fails at its intention.

The goal should not be to stop people from using phones, directly.

But more importantly to get people to focus on the task of driving and pay attention.

Even if i choose to talk on my phone ill just put it on my lap with the speaker phone on?

How will the officer not know i am simply singing along to my favorite song?

The cure for me to pay more attention is higher speed roads. The higher the speed the more i am paying attention to driving and less towards other things. Usually on major express ways i do not like to have conversations with passengers as things happen so much quicker. So many lane changes, cars, fast speeds, exits, need to adjust distance, etc. This all requires alot of attention. I think it was just Norway or Denmark that had a similar result. They concluded higher limits on highways resulted in less accidents and deaths because people were paying attention more and it also helped to reduce the speed between what cars were driving.

Is it going to be against the law to be stupid now? Honestly i have seen some drivers weaving through lanes trying to pass texting on their phone? I mean if your that stupid maybee crashing your car into a ditch and breaking a few bones will teach you alot more then this law.

The other thing i dislike about this law is i have no choice to do so. In the past i would only talk on a phone depending on the situation. If i felt it was safe to do so i would but let's say it was a big snow storm and i couldn't see well in front of me i would not even consider picking it up....

I think Squishy said something like this before. If you get into an accident drunk or because of a cell phone they're should be some kind of added fine amount or added penalty for doing it.

Anyways this one will be interesting to see how it plays out!

tdrive2 wrote:

And also make it illegal to drive without shoes.

Hey, why? When I teach new drivers, I start them out shoeless. You get better control over the pedals and all you have to do is make sure the shoes are out of the way and to move the seat forward one notch. I have adapted to driving with steel-toed boots, but some people either don't wear thick-soled shoes enough or simply will never adapt to driving with them. Those occasional boot wearers and high-heel wearers should be driving barefoot, in my opinion.

I hope I don't get ticketed by an overzealous cop once the law goes into effect and the blitz begins...I might have to tone down my cockpit for a while.

tdrive2 wrote:

Besides what does this law even do???

It might make some of those boneheads hang up and drive. Common sense cannot be legislated, but because enough people out there lack common sense, the law needed to be passed.

tdrive2 wrote:

Why not ban eating and driving while your at it to?

Eating and driving has not been shown to be as dangerous as driving drunk. Talking on a cellphone while driving has been shown to be as dangerous as driving drunk. But seriously, why would anyone eat while driving? I mean, sipping a coffee or munching flax seeds while stopped a a traffic light, okay, that's fine. In the past week I've seen five incidents where people nearly caused collisions while talking on their cellphones. I can't recall a single time in my entire life I've seen someone eating and posing a danger on the road.

tdrive2 wrote:

If your having a conversation with a head set or the phone what is the difference?

In terms of mental cognition: None. It should've been no use of cellular phones while driving except for emergencies. Really, it's one thing to keep your eyes on the road, it's another to keep your mind on the road.

tdrive2 wrote:

The cure for me to pay more attention is higher speed roads.

Anyone who needs higher speeds to keep their mind on the road should not drive a motor vehicle. Expressways and freeways have a lot less information and decision-making that a driver has to do, this is why they have higher speed limits. Surface streets have pedestrians, intersections, people turning, stopping, traffic lights, signs, and all kinds of things. The chances of collision are much higher. If the elevated risk of getting in a collision on a surface street isn't enough to force someone to pay attention, they should take public transit.

So whats dangerous about checking a text message quick waiting at one of those long lengthy stop lights in a busy suburb intersection while it takes a long boring 4 mins to get moving again?

In that context: Zilch. The problem is that if the legislation was worded "unless stopped" people would, upon receiving a text message or cellphone call, simply stop in the middle of the road to answer it or reply to it. If they worded it "unless stopped at a red light," then it would get even more complicated, because people would just continue using it after the light turned green and hold up traffic.

When I'm driving, I don't answer the cellphone or check text messages unless I'm parked. It isn't hard. I don't need to be connected to everyone all the time. If it's important, they'll leave a message and I'll get back to them. I'd rather be scanning the intersection and my rearview mirror for any possible threats that may be coming toward me.

The REAL problem will be realized over the next 5 years, or so. All the "tweens" who, "OMG, would just DIE", if they're off their precious phone for more that 52 seconds, are about to get their licenses and enter an environment they have no clue how to manage. If you want to believe they are all going to "abide by some dumb rule that old people think they need to live by", you got another thing comin'! I know kids today. They won't turn off their phone. They just won't.

Personally, I think the cell phone is going to spell the end of decent insurance rates as we know them (even for good drivers, LIKE ME!). I know I'm at my lowest level of attention when on the phone. I'll only use it out on open roads, clear of traffic. I know that's bad, but as much as folks despise the practice, they still do it themselves. I know because I call, and they answer!

Personally, I like to use the bluetooth earpiece when I drive. The trick is to test it out thoroughly before a real call comes in. Make sure it's on and the volume is set LOUD (so you're not fumbling with it when a quiet-talker calls. As soon as I get a call, I tell the caller that I'm driving, and that I'm "handsfree", so if it appears I lose focus during the call, it's because I've directed my attention to my driving and will return to the call when able. If I never return to the call, it's because I've crashed!

As one of the last guys on earth to actually GET a cell phone, it's now obvious to me that they will forever play an important role in peoples minute-to-minute activities during the day. We all lead complicated lives and the cell phone is needed to keep pace.

As much as I hate being behind someone driving while on the phone, I don't see an easy fix. People WILL defy this law. They WILL find ways to hide the fact that they're on the phone (tinted windows, speaker-phone, etc.). I'm just glad that the bulk of my driving is behind me. I don't think the roads are going to get safer as time goes on. Cell phones have sealed your fate.

The only distraction we had as kids was the CB! Didn't seem to cause much of a fuss back then.

"Hey, ya, it's the XM45-eighteen-364. YA IT'S the Tigercat sit'n on the side of the dime... WE GOWN!"

CB??? I thought we went straight to CD. I didn't know we had version CA, CB, CC then CD.......

Side note: My father-inlaw was rear ended the other day by a 21yr old nursing student. It was her second accident, she's got her G2. Her parents showed up at the scene and both said, your not driving my car....... Maybe they will have to learn the hard way......

hwybear wrote:

78.1 (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device or other prescribed device that is capable of receiving or transmitting telephone communications, electronic data, mail or text messages.

Entertainment devices

(2) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held electronic entertainment device or other prescribed device the primary use of which is unrelated to the safe operation of the motor vehicle.

Ok, hypothetical scenarios of what might go wrong under (1).

1. I'm driving down the road and my wife (I'm not married, but this all hypothetical) asks me to give her my phone to call her mother. As I reach for the phone and hand it over to her, the cop sees me and writes me a ticket.

2. Phone rings, I look at the screen and see it is my mother-in-law. As I hand over the phone to the wife, the cop nabs me.

3. I'm driving down the road on a motorcycle at night and the light burns out. My cameraphone has a good light on it from camera flash, so I pull it out and fire up the light to see where I'm going....

Under (2), GPS is not exactly needed to safely operate a vehicle...

Ahh this brings up some good technical questions.

First of all isnt a GPS an wireless communication device capable of sending data. A blackberry does that to? Whats the difference. Both are distracting.

Oh wait but what if i decide to use a GPS program on my blackberry.

The built in one is safe but the phone one is not?

I thought all this was dangerous. But it also excludes tracking systems?

Can someone explain to me what training or qualifications UPS drivers or truckers have that would allow them to use such a device while operating a vehicle?

This would qualify.

Technically i could touch a 407 transponder as well while entering the highway to and be charged as this device that transmits data.

What if i dont have an in car GPS and need to use google maps to find my way?

Maybe ill pull over and twitter Dalton McGuinty to find my way.

Wait a screen visible to the driver.

So what if you had a son in the car who was playing a game boy, PSP, or watching a video.

Would this now be illegal as this would be visible to you.

Maybe tinted windows will be a good option for some people.

Besides if you got pulled over on the 401, what is stopping you from saying you were about to dial *OPP to report a dangerous driver or something you saw on the highway?

Man this legislation is confusing.

Bookm, ya i agree about insurance rates. I don't buy it either.

I wish insurance was not the law. Or people had more choice in selecting coverage without others ruling and mandating minimum this X minimum that Z, etc. I honestly wonder how much insurance rates would be in a truely "free market system" in which drivers had more control over what they wanted, and where insurance was not the law or forced to have. Maybee those drivers that have such a bad record that pay high premiums would not be able to afford insurance, therefore drive alot more careful as they don't want to be in an accident without it?

I think insurance gives people a false sense of security.

Anyways back to this i think people will do what they can get away with as always. For example you could just put the phone on speaker and rest it in your lap. Or at night you could turn off the screen, and back light on the keyboard, or just get tinted windows.

Hands free, or hands on. What is the difference.

Why don't we also make a law requiring two hands on the wheel at the same time. By allowing hands free this doesn't address the fact people are not paying attention.

tdrive2 wrote:

Why don't we also make a law requiring two hands on the wheel at the same time. By allowing hands free this doesn't address the fact people are not paying attention.

Yer are ignoring all those poor blokes with standard transmission. Hard to drive in 1-st gear all the time.

Sure we could make legislation for that now to racer.

We could call it the Two hands on wheel Legislation.

And make it illegal to use your hands for anything else but controlling or operating a motor vehicle.

Then we could have a long legislation with all the exceptions listed.

Like tip tronic, or manual transmissions

Paddle Shift

Using controls for cleaning windows

Signaling

Humm even if i use hands free how do i dial the number?

How will the cop know i wasn't texting someone.

Next well have some sort of save the earth legislation to, which has laws to stop accelerating to fast to reduce gas consumption and green house gases.

Sorry this brings up an important question. I think it was squishy said the laws would be exempt for an emergency.

Driving and need to call hospital or 911. So how is the officer going to know you were dialing for an emergency.

Is he going to ask for your phone to prove it. And i am sure that leads to another whole legal debate over rights, and whether or not the officer would actual have permission at the road side to look through your phones history to actually see if was 911 you dialed.

Seems kind of stupid for the province to bring this in now.

I mean for how many years has this been going on now. Most young people have cell phones.

The time for a law like this was years ago when many didnt have these phones or "devices" and make it unacceptable.

How do you tell people ya the last 8 years you have been using a phone while driving is fine, but now its going to be illegal? I am sure for many this is a habbit now.

receiving or transmitting telephone communications, electronic data, mail or text messages

.

This should have, "That need to be interpreted by a human", added to it.

racer wrote:

Yer are ignoring all those poor blokes with standard transmission. Hard to drive in 1-st gear all the time.

I would be one of those shifting blokes.

It should be no calls while driving, period. Too many studies indicate that it is the conversation, not the holding of the phone, that is the distraction.

tdrive2 wrote:

what is stopping you from saying you were about to dial *OPP to report a dangerous driver or something you saw on the highway?

It would be HILARIOUS if someone got a ticket for using their phone to report a dangerous driver! LOL

We could automate the dangerous reporting:

Looks like hwybear at a road side stop for someone who didnt move over when he had his lights on cause they were talking on a cell phone.

You know with this law, i dont know how common it will be enforced.

Can you give multiple charges?

Such as careless driving, and then add this aswell.

Let's say that did happen, some guy is checking his email on the blackberry and crashes into the back of a cop car not paying attention.

How would the fines add up would he lose points and receive both fines added together, one for careless and the other for using a phone while driving?

tdrive2 wrote:

Oh wait but what if i decide to use a GPS program on my blackberry.

It should have been no phone conversations or text-messaging while the vehicle is in motion except making a call to emergency services, I agree. However, one way or another, the car phonies had to be hammered to get them to focus on the road while driving. Will all of them hang up and drive? No, but some of them will, and then they might actually keep up with the flow of traffic, go when the light is green or stop when it is red, watch things like their blind spot and rearview mirrors before changing lanes, or when a vehicle stops in front of them, they might stop also. I was rear-ended by a phone whale on the Don Valley Parkway, now granted the damage wasn't enough to call the police, but still, I had been stopped for three seconds before I was hit.

They could've used existing legislation to go after them, but should we really hit someone with careless driving (6 points, possible licence suspension, and insurance company terminates coverage) for talking on the cellphone? Probably not. A fine should be enough.

Reflections wrote:

Side note: My father-inlaw was rear ended the other day by a 21yr old nursing student. It was her second accident, she's got her G2. Her parents showed up at the scene and both said, your not driving my car....... Maybe they will have to learn the hard way......

While the number of irresponsible parents is growing, the majority of parents will do the right thing. If little Timmy or Tammy gets ticketed for driving with the cellphone, the majority of parents (granted not all of them, but most of them) would either take the phone or the car. I can't see a lot of parents continuing to allow their kids to endanger themselves or others, even with some rather blatant examples of the opposite in the past year.

I do not understand any parent that gives any child/teen a cellphone. I grew up without it with no problems, hell we still had rotary phones. It was also hard to find an overweight child/teen then either....why....we had to bike, walk to the others home to talk to them, plus we played sports etc...instead of texting and gaming!

anyway....everyone seems to have missed the one part of the legislation...

Use of non-wireless cellphone

Same

(5) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of the use of a device to contact ambulance, police or fire department emergency services

I got my first cell phone in grade 9...and ten years later I'm still using it

Does it look like this:

Somehow, I think even Orillia is further ahead then that!

Not THAT old.

Looks like this:

These must be the phones they install in the cruisers.

Handsfree?