Ban on cell phones while driving in Quebec is dumb
July 2, 2008 · By Charles Anthony
It is now forbidden to operate hand-held phones while driving a vehicle in Quebec. You can be fined and earn demerit points if caught. I think this is a silly ban. Whether the phone is hand-held or hands-free, I believe the distraction still exists. Talking on a hands-free phone while driving is a hazard too.
Nevertheless, I think it is a silly ban because the insurance companies should be the first to deal with this issue instead of law enforcement. The insurance companies can charge higher rates to people who refuse to install cell-phone jammers in their vehicles. [They could do the same with breathalyzers too.] The jammers can be de-activated when the engine stops.
From the perspective of the insurance companies, the ban is highly convenient. It offloads some of their costs onto the taxpayer.
Interesting idea, Matthew, but first we would have to legalize cell phone jammers in Canada. That is a federal matter, so the province’s hands are tied.
Also, we would need to research the effect of having thousands of jammers on our highways and streets every day. This could have other negative consequences, like interrupting legitimate communications.
Pfffft… Driving while talking on a cellphone is dangerous to the rest of us on the road. Its not a “risk” that I, as a citizen, think can be properly delegated to insurance companies. Its not enough to merely pay a higher premium to endanger my life and that of my family. By that logic we should be able to speed, drink and drive, and run stop signs if we are willing to pay out the arse for insurance. “Im sorry that I flattened your car with my Yukon and permanently disabled your child but I really really needed to talk to my girlfriend about the latest episode of Big Brother, and my insurance will cover it” is not an answer.
Furthermore Insurance companies just can’t monitor that kind of use to ensure compliance. Installing cell phone jammers is expensive, and could be circumvented by clever users. Only law enforcement has the capacity to ensure that we are protected against morons yacking away on their phones.
I take your point on handsfree not being any safer so if there is a criticism that can be levelled at this ban it is that it is not broad enough. But I dont think we should be able to buy the right to put others in serious danger. Serious risks to public safety–particularly on the roadways–are a legitimate cause of state mandated limits on freedom even in the most libertarian of societies.
Its time we ended this talking on cell phones while driving nonsense from coast to coast.
Sorry, Charles - thought the post was from Matthew. Didn’t catch that until after I clicked submit. My bad! ;)
The problem I have with your solution of “jammers” and “breathalyzers” is that they presume guilt before innocense. Do you expect people to submit to weekly drug tests as well? And if there’s a jammer in the car, what about passengers? Why can’t my passengers use a cell phone while I’m driving?
Current law is adequate. The police just choose not to enforce it. If they see someone using a cell phone they can write them up for reckless driving, undo care and attention, etc.
I am with KC on this. Driving while using a cell phone is showing complete disregard to the safety of other motorists. I would even go as far as jail time for repeat offenders just like driving while impaired. Also if driving using a cell phone causes an accident where a death or deaths are involved, of you go to jail. I wish we had this law in N.B.
This is a stupid ban which won’t likely make roads much safer. I’m waiting for the ban on “drinking coffee while driving” to make it’s way through Provincial Legislatures any day now.
The ban was probably put in place until humans grow a third hand. At least that’s what most of the idiots I see in Alberta shopping malls would need. They wheel through the parking lots in some monster SUV, barely being able to see over the steering wheel as they chat on the cellphone with one hand while clutching a Slurpee in the other hand that is on the steering wheel. Cell phones certainly are a distraction, but most of the fault lies with the idiots who don’t now how to talk and chew gum, or drive a car, at the same time!
Another ridiculous nanny-state law. Should we ban Slurpee’s too? How about Tim Horton’s coffee in to-go cups?
Perhaps some people dont understand the meaning of “nanny-state”. The state protects us all against the incursions of others against our lives, our freedom, our property etc. Most reasonable people agree that these are justifiable state goals.
The “nanny state” protects us–or purports to protect us at least–against ourselves. Calling this a “nanny-state law” ignores the meaning of the expression. I dont give a flying f*** if you want to get into your SUV, chat on your cell phone and permanently disable yourself. But unfortunately we share the roadways and their have to be rules to protect the rest of us from the stupidity of others. There is nothing “nanny-state” about that.
Cell phones and coffee cups are not the same beast. Thats kind of like comparing listening to music to hooking up your guitar and jamming out while you’re driving. One is clearly more distracting and thus more dangerous to others.
Perhaps some people dont understand the meaning of “nanny-state”. The state protects us all against the incursions of others against our lives, our freedom, our property etc. Most reasonable people agree that these are justifiable state goals.
The “nanny state” protects us–or purports to protect us at least–against ourselves. Calling this a “nanny-state law” ignores the meaning of the expression. I dont give a flying f*** if you want to get into your SUV, chat on your cell phone and permanently disable yourself. But unfortunately we share the roadways and their have to be rules to protect the rest of us from the stupidity of others. There is nothing “nanny-state” about that.
Cell phones and coffee cups are not the same beast. Thats kind of like comparing listening to music to hooking up your guitar and jamming out while you’re driving. One is clearly more distracting and thus more dangerous to others.
Cell phones, coffee cups, Slurpees and yes, even listening to music while driving are ALL distractions. You don’t need some nitwitted study to know that listening to music can distract you enough that you find yourself speeding, unknowingly, while listening to your favourite AC/DC tune, down the highway.
Give yourself a great big shake KC. This is indeed, one more nanny-state law on an ever-increasing list of them. Babies! We’re all babies, unable to think for ourselves, huh?
I say BS to more piddly-assed laws like this one.
Saying they’re all distractions is like saying heroin and caffeine are “all drugs”. They’re not the same and fall on a spectrum. The fact that almost everytime I have a near miss in my car the dolt in the other car is yacking on their cellphone tells me something about where that risk falls on that scale.
Cell phones are quite distracting, AC/DC less so, and drinking a coffee even less.
Calling this a nanny-state initiative is just asinine. What possible nanny state objective could the state have to bring in such a law? None. This law is about the safety of all the other cars on the road.