Ontario's new distracted driving law to start in 2019

[Iphone]

New distracted driving law starts January 1, is a part of Ontario's Bill 174 cannabis legislation

Distracted driving changes made under the Ontario cannabis legislation will come into effect on January 1, 2019

A section of the Ontario cannabis legislation, which was passed in 2017, is expected to affect drivers in the province starting on January 1, 2019, according to the Ministry of Transportation (MTO).

On December 12, 2017, Ontario passed Bill 174, which regulates the sale of recreational marijuana in the province, following its legalization across Canada Canada.
According to a written email from MTO officials, the distracted driving changes made under the Cannabis, Smoke-Free Ontario and Road Safety Statute Law Amendment Act will come into effect in the new year to "strengthen the existing road safety laws."

Drivers who are caught talking on their phones, texting, dialing or emailing using a hand-held device, such as a cell phone and other entertainment devices will be fined up to $1,000 with a three-day licence suspension and three demerit points.

"Safety is our top priority," stated Jeff Yurek, Ontario's minister of transportation, stated in a email to CBC News on Thursday, explaining the legislation "allows the province to address unsafe driving behaviours, including careless driving and impaired driving with tough new rules and penalties that will help improve road safety."

Drivers with more than one distracted driving conviction will face a fine of up to $2,000, a seven-day licence suspension and six demerit points, while motorists who have been caught driving distracted more than two times will pay a fine of up to $3,000 and lose their license for 30 days.

"Ontario's roads are among the safest in North America, but we also know distracted driving continues to be a serious issue," Yurek said.

Once the new legislation, passed under the previous Liberal government, takes effect, "Ontario will have the toughest penalties for repeat distracted driving convictions."

Ontario'''s new distracted driving law to start in 2019 | CBC News


They did forget about those that eat and drive and putting on make up while driving.

 

[Guido]

Too many loopholes and second chances. Jail them for a month for any of those infractions, see how quickly others will learn.

 

[ROBERTSON]

Driving while not looking were you are going, is just as dangerous to the public as blowing over .08.

Should have the same criminal result.

Can't count the number of near misses I have seen, not discounting the number of deaths related to people not looking were they are driving.

 

[Riess]

I sometimes see drivers having peppermint tea while driving, it has to stop :biggrin2:


OK, meant coffee.

 

[JJ Mitchell]

About time.

 

[Returning]

I do hope they get caught for being so self centered.

 

[A-Legend]

Them drivers are as dangerous as the intoxicated ones.

[h=2]Woman charged to drive too slow on the 401[/h]A woman was charged for driving at 60 KM/H under speed limit on highway 401 in Eastern Ontario. The team chats and reacts to wether or not her driving was safe.

Woman charged to drive too slow on the 401 - Video | Breakfast Television TorontoBreakfast Television Toronto

 

[ROBERTSON]

Let me play devil's advocate....

If we support a law that says you are automatically a danger if you are doing some of these things while driving....because you could (but haven't yet) caused and accident or something. Aren't we punishing before someone actually does something wrong? If someone can drink their coffee or work their phone and still drive safely, shouldn't they be able to?

Couldn't the same principle that a behavior could lead to harm to another be applied to something you wouldn't want outlawed? For example...should guns be banned from all because some might be irresponsible with them and do others harm? Should prostitution be completely banned because some individuals might be irresponsible and cause harm to themselves or others?

You might say...."oh, but this is different"? But what is the principle this law is based on? Is it based on banning because some percentage of the people doing it are irresponsible and could cause other's harm? If so, what percentage determines when something should be banned?

Again....just playing devil's advocate.

,..."because you could (but haven't yet) caused and accident or something"

,...And driving while looking at a cell phone, is therefore no different than DUI.

And should be treated the same way.

There are many other laws such as this, that exist in every country in the world, that are in place for the publics safety.

Besides, cell phone are not being banned, everybody who uses the cell phone in ones hand while driving, is being irresponsible, and that is %100 of the people who do.


Because of my racing experience, I can handle a car far better than everybody else who hasn't, but it would be ridiculous to allow me to drive what ever speed I feel comfortable with.

 

[ROBERTSON]

Would you be for a breathalyzer in every vehicle? Would you be for some device that disables cell phones while vehicles are in motion? How far should things go in order to keep people safe? Similar to the other thread, how much privacy/freedom should be sacrificed for "the larger good"?

Do you agree with those that say the adult sex trade should be completely criminalized because it will prevent human trafficking? The same principle could be applied (by some) that the activity is dangerous for various reasons and that it contributes to human trafficking as long as it's allowed to go on. So, using cells while driving is dangerous and paying for sexual encounters is dangerous....get rid of both?

The subject pointed out in the OP is,... increasing the penalties for driving while looking at your cell phone.

It is already illegal here, and you don't have the freedom to do that in the US either, or the freedom to consume alcohol in every municipality, or the freedom to NOT respond to,... "So help me God", when appearing in court.

I do want my government to help insure that I have the freedom to walk across a cross walk, without being run over by some clown looking down at their cell phone.

I put my cell phone in my pocket before getting in my car, and do have the freedom to use my cell in my car, but hands free, I don't have to take my eyes off the road to answer it, or make a call for that matter.
If person's car doesn't have that capability, tough shit, leave the fricken cell in their pocket, and you won't be breaking an existing and necessary law.

 

[ROBERTSON]

I get all that...I really do. I may have missed the part about increasing existing penalties.

I just get worried when we talk about the "prevention of crime". There needs to be a balance between prevention and freedom. All too often lately, it seems as though most people side on the prevention and forget about the freedom. In general, I like a government that keeps its nose out of our business up until the point that someone affects the freedom of another.

Agreed, some governments can over do it.

But most laws are in place to protect its citizens, to allow its citizens the "freedom" to go about their life,... without a criminal limiting their "freedom" to do just that.

There is a law in both countries to prevent driving while looking down at ones cell phone, I for one would rather have the "freedom" to do that taken away, than lose the "freedom" to walk across a crosswalk safely.

Not having the "freedom" to sit in a car in front of a home not in your neighborhood at 2:00 AM, without being approached by a cop, I'm totally behind a government that views that as "crime prevention", and a priority over losing that "freedom".