dave_j

The last time I tried turning on the TV I don't remember putting anyone in danger.
The point I was attempting to make, apparently very poorly, was that if you're looking at your phone while driving then you're not looking where you are going, and the more times you're looking at the phone in order to prepare for what you actually want to do then the you're not safe out there. Now I don't mind you driving into a ditch I would object if you mowed me down doing it.
We had a similar post a while ago about a man driving with a windshield obliterated by snow claiming he was too weak to clear it. I suggest he might have been safer than the phone man since at least he'd be trying to see where he was going.
They are both anti-social and dangerous.

Pulaski

If you cause a wreck on the public highway you give up some of your rights to privacy. If you can't stop texting after causing a wreck, at least for a few minutes, then you entirely deserve all the ridiculing in the world.

caretaker

"OMG I hit a cop car" travelled like a shock wave through the English speaking world, around the globe a few times.

Alan2005

Do you? I didn't know that. Perhaps you can an example of one of those rights - i.e. one that you had before the accident that you no longer have after it.

caretaker

The right to confidentiality, no? All the youtube videos of dashcam fails are up there because someone saw them. It may be against Victoria PD policy and that may be why they deleted the identity of the driver after but if you make a spectacle of yourself you are by definition in the spotlight. The publicity gained about distracted driving because of this is no doubt pleasing to police departments all over. They couldn't buy advertising like this.

Alan2005

That's not a right you had in the first place if you are in a public space.

I don't really have an opinion on whether or not being named and shamed is a just punishment for people acting like idiots on the road. My problem with it is that the police shouldn't be taking it upon themselves to decide this - if publicly shaming people is to be used in this way then it needs to be legislated into law in the normal manner.

Pulaski

Well my post was more of an opinion than a statement of legal rights, but if you're driving and cause a wreck there's a good chance you'll be in media reports, and even more likely if you're arrested. If your mistress was in your car when your wife thought you were at a friend's house watching football, you're going to have some explaining to do!

Gozit

No you don't. The cop was violating her right to privacy and unlawful search and seizure by seizing her mobile (which was also highly illegal). That is a constitutional right in Canada and nothing to be laughed at. Cops like that are why people don't have respect for cops anymore. Just issue the ticket and move on. What the officer did was no more in the scope of the law as the person texting while driving.

Oink

But would all the NA filth do without an outlet for their self-righteous attitudes?

Alan2005

Shoot people

BristolUK

But that wasn't the point of the analogy as I'm sure you know.

I said I wasn't in favour of using a phone/texting while driving. You don't need to make using the device sound far more complicated than it actually is.

Do you really think of undertaking 7 different actions before you even begin to text or is it something you do in a couple of seconds without even thinking about it.

Oink

Using that rationale, receiving a BJ while driving on the freeway is also deemed 'irresponsible'. Political correctness gone mad, again imo.

Stinkypup

Less fun receiving a text IMO though

dave_j

I think it's true to say that a fair proportion of posts on this topic have been a little tongue in cheek and many over the top.
There's little argument in that the driver was an idiot and that he's a dangerous idiot and deserved to be fined.
There have been some other points raised. Was the PD correct in making the name public and were they legally entitled to confiscate the phone.
Had the case gone to court then I see no reason why it wouldn't have been reported, along with names. In that case is there any material difference between the two outcomes?
There is no argument that the the phone was used in the cause of the criminal act. I'm not sure whether the phone was confiscated or taken into custody, but it would have been sensible to temporarily remove it to the 'station' to a) prevent a second crime and b) protect the innocent.

caretaker

I think if they're going to charge you with distracted driving for using your phone the first thing they do is grab your phone and confirm that it was in use, maybe even take a screen-shot of the log in case you try to fight it in court.