Click to go to Forum Home Click to go to maXbimmer Home

Go Back   maXbimmer Forums > Misc > Off-topic
User Name
Password


Welcome to Maxbimmer.com!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 10-30-2012, 05:30 PM   #31
AlpWhitE46
is a pimp
 
AlpWhitE46's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Etobicoke
Posts: 9,099
Send a message via MSN to AlpWhitE46


Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackedout95 View Post

So what is it, you confessed to a crime you didn't commit or you were infact texting (using your phone) on the gardiner during traffic and fully deserve the ticket. Sorry but I get nervous watching peoples heads bob up and down in traffic or at a light knowing they are texting and wondering if I am about to get rear ended because of that stupid 13 year old girl shit. The cop was right on both counts, if you had a passenger they could have texted for you ( or wait a text has to literally come from your fingers or you admit to talking on the phone too? ). And secondly he was right gving you the ticket. Be a man, pay the fine and realize your shit is not worth hitting someone else and ruining their day or taking their life. And word to the wise, get your story straight if you fight it, based on your OP you need to polish the lie up.
I'm not a distracted driver. I'm always fully aware of the road and my surroundings. Never had a ticket, nor been in any type of accident. So it has been fine for so many years to text and talk, and then it becomes the law.
Thats the same thing as in germany if they put the speed limit to 100, and someone gets caught 140..

I wasn't talking on the phone nor do i ever do it either.
And no i don't want to pay this ticket for no reason, when there are 1000's of other rules that are broken that are 10x worse than this.
AlpWhitE46 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 05:33 PM   #32
AlpWhitE46
is a pimp
 
AlpWhitE46's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Etobicoke
Posts: 9,099
Send a message via MSN to AlpWhitE46
also just wondering in regard to me saying that i looked down at my phone to him, how does he have proof now that i told him that?
AlpWhitE46 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 06:54 PM   #33
Blackedout95
5th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,107
You only THINK you are not distracted, believe me, you are not focused for several seconds at a time and one day you may pay for that with a life, yours or someone elses. That is why paying this fine should be much easier to accept and be a lesson learned (deterrent).

I am not coming down on you, we are all guilty of breaking laws at times, some can cost lives and some don't. This instance should be a cheap lesson and help save your life, however from what you say I think you may very well be texting away again.

All the best to you, no text is worth a ticket, accident or a life, just keep that in mind. Unless of course you are Jack Bauer and the text stops a bomb or something lol

__________________
E46
Blackedout95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 07:52 PM   #34
ChrisTO
∞ Gear Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my car
Posts: 815
AlpWhite - sent you PM...unfortunately it was beyond the PM message limit size...broke it up into 4 messages.

good luck!
__________________
ChrisTO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2012, 07:56 PM   #35
ChrisTO
∞ Gear Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my car
Posts: 815
also don't forget that all convictions are still registered by MTO for life. it just doesn't get dropped off. the abstract for insurance purposes are 3 years...but MTO and police access is for LIFE! so an offence from 10 years ago still show up when an officer pulls you over. the officer sees it even if insurance doesn't.

why does it matter?

officer more likely to go easy if they see few tickets. if they see many - clearly you haven't learned your lesson and need to get another ticket.
__________________
ChrisTO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2012, 10:41 AM   #36
Dr. Flyview
Formerly Flav_cool
 
Dr. Flyview's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,387
Send a message via MSN to Dr. Flyview
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullet Ride View Post
Well the HTA states...



So no, even if it's mounted you can't use it.
Well that still says handheld doesn't it? I have my phone mounted on the windshield up high by the rear view mirror. When I need to use it, I can still see the road, although of course attention isn't all there.

I can count about 3 times a cop has passed right beside me as I was touching it, at night, and I wasn't pulled over. One week I didn't have a mount because I switched to a new phone and fell into the same situation OP did. Lucky for me I got off with a warning.

So to answer your question Ivan, from personal experience, mounted is OK.

Sent from my LG-P930 using Tapatalk 2
__________________

1998 BMW 328is - summer
1994 BMW 325i - sold
1992 BMW 325i - gone
1988 Mercedes Benz 190E 2.3-8V -
sold

Dr. Flyview is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2012, 04:19 PM   #37
bmdbley'sBro
wouldu like some tinfoil?
 
bmdbley'sBro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in your attic!
Posts: 4,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackedout95 View Post
You are right, being a man is so 1800's, now we feel the right to not have to answer for our actions, minor or not. I mean screw it, maybe when I see you Ill give your car a love tap and flee the scene, no need to man up or take respondsibility. Where is the line exactly when one must be a man? Thank god it isn't up to the last couple generations. Maybe just maybe if people took respondsibility they would think twice next time... sad world.
how one can equate looking at a phone in near grid lock (same difficulty level as changing a radio station) which is a statute/reg to a actual Crime 'fleeing an accident) which caused Actual property damage & possibly Injuries is beyond me. its kinda like 'reefer madness' type thinking imo.

see: one is victimless crime with a profit driven motive to suck money out of already over taxed people. the other one has actual property damage & possible injury to people. the end game of your logic is that to keep us safe we must ban driving! or have the gov watch us drive with a 100K p/year beaurocrat intently watching our every action with that in cabin cctv, ready to assume control at any moment to keep us all 'safe'

Quote:
Officer on cell phone rear ends car

A senior Vancouver police officer who rear-ended a car while using his cell phone has been issued a ticket for distracted driving.


Deputy Chief Constable Warren Lemcke, head of the Vancouver Police Department’s investigation division, was making a "work-related call" January 4 when the traffic in front of him stopped abruptly.

Constable Lemcke was looking down at his phone and by the time he realized the car ahead of him wasn't moving, it was too late to avoid a collision, reports the Globe and Mail.

No one was seriously injured, and the car Cst. Lemcke struck was able to drive away. His cruiser, however, had to be towed.

http://autos.sympatico.ca/auto-news/...racted-driving






__________________
bmdbley'sBro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2012, 05:05 PM   #38
Blackedout95
5th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmdbley'sBro View Post
see: one is victimless crime with a profit driven motive to suck money out of already over taxed people. the other one has actual property damage & possible injury to people. the end game of your logic is that to keep us safe we must ban driving! or have the gov watch us drive with a 100K p/year beaurocrat intently watching our every action with that in cabin cctv, ready to assume control at any moment to keep us all 'safe'









You lost me at one is a victimless crime...it is only a crime so it doesn't lead to a non victimless situation. It is a crime to speed too but when you get a ticket for that you dont say it is victimless (because you have yet to hurt someone) therefore the charge should be dropped. Your thinking is pre accident, it isnt about what it stopped that moment rather what it could stop in the future...like the next time you drive and wish to use your cell or speed etc.

I find it ironic you can defend the act when its a fellow citizen yet then show how a cop caused a accident while doing it, you cant play both sides of the line, you either agree it is an act that can lead to injury and therefore a law which you agree should be enforced or you don't. If you don't the cop did nothing wrong either and shit just happens.

There is no evidence proving that we are better drivers while using our cellphone, quite the opposite.
__________________
E46
Blackedout95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2012, 07:50 PM   #39
Discostar
2nd Gear Member
 
Discostar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Markham, Ontario
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmdbley'sBro View Post
how one can equate looking at a phone in near grid lock (same difficulty level as changing a radio station) which is a statute/reg to a actual Crime 'fleeing an accident) which caused Actual property damage & possibly Injuries is beyond me. its kinda like 'reefer madness' type thinking imo.

see: one is victimless crime with a profit driven motive to suck money out of already over taxed people. the other one has actual property damage & possible injury to people. the end game of your logic is that to keep us safe we must ban driving! or have the gov watch us drive with a 100K p/year beaurocrat intently watching our every action with that in cabin cctv, ready to assume control at any moment to keep us all 'safe'

I have seen many of your posts in the off topic forum, and for the most part there is validity to the points you make.

But you’re only fooling yourself if you actually believe what you just wrote there.

Maybe you should re read it to yourself a few times. Then go do your research and see if your opinion changes. There is a very good reason why this law was put in place. It wasn’t cause the government was looking for a new avenue for profit. There are many ways they could accomplish that.

I for one support it. If you get caught texting in stop and go traffic, who is to say you wouldn’t later get comfortable with the idea and start texting at speed, or possibly on the Hwy one day, or maybe rolling down a street at a 40km/h crawl, and some young kid runs out from behind a car, but your nose is too buried in a text to notice (which you could have responded to 10 to 15mins later when you reach your destination, or just pull over if its that urgent) and you end that kids life, or turn them into a quadriplegic leaving the family with a life time of dependency, or the loss of a child.
__________________
Discostar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2012, 09:15 PM   #40
bmdbley'sBro
wouldu like some tinfoil?
 
bmdbley'sBro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in your attic!
Posts: 4,674
wow, you guys are some hardcore statists, huh.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackedout95 View Post
You lost me at one is a victimless crime...it is only a crime so it doesn't lead to a non victimless situation. It is a crime to speed too but when you get a ticket for that you dont say it is victimless (because you have yet to hurt someone) therefore the charge should be dropped. Your thinking is pre accident, it isnt about what it stopped that moment rather what it could stop in the future...like the next time you drive and wish to use your cell or speed etc.

I find it ironic you can defend the act when its a fellow citizen yet then show how a cop caused a accident while doing it, you cant play both sides of the line, you either agree it is an act that can lead to injury and therefore a law which you agree should be enforced or you don't. If you don't the cop did nothing wrong either and shit just happens.

There is no evidence proving that we are better drivers while using our cellphone, quite the opposite.
holy logical fallicies & for the love of social conditioning & Pre-Crime bro
again your logic is like: people Could get hurt, so we'd better kill them all so they'll be Safe.
And I appreciate your opinion on what you think I may or may not think & what side of some line its on - but i do not agree.

Like the cop hitting someone - he was ticketed, ticketed for careless causing an actual Accident. not the percieved future possibility that he Might hit someone. its like: all men have penises does this mean they should all be charged for some possible future rape they may do? I mean they have penises right?

as for the other police pictures this was in wasted effort to show - this is what the majority of the public think from seeing it 1st hand: DO as we Say not as we Do.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Discostar View Post
I have seen many of your posts in the off topic forum, and for the most part there is validity to the points you make.

But you’re only fooling yourself if you actually believe what you just wrote there.

Maybe you should re read it to yourself a few times. Then go do your research and see if your opinion changes. There is a very good reason why this law was put in place. It wasn’t cause the government was looking for a new avenue for profit. There are many ways they could accomplish that.

I for one support it. If you get caught texting in stop and go traffic, who is to say you wouldn’t later get comfortable with the idea and start texting at speed, or possibly on the Hwy one day, or maybe rolling down a street at a 40km/h crawl, and some young kid runs out from behind a car, but your nose is too buried in a text to notice (which you could have responded to 10 to 15mins later when you reach your destination, or just pull over if its that urgent) and you end that kids life, or turn them into a quadriplegic leaving the family with a life time of dependency, or the loss of a child.
research, its been done. here's some: most red light camera intersections have shorter yellows to generate revenue. Studies showed that Our local goverment will happily jeopordize the safety & actual lives of your children or their mothers for the Money, as rear end accidents are higher at those intersections, From people trying to avoid a Ticket or monitary loss. other studies have compared roads with higher speed limits in other nations & found that it does not mean higher accidents or death. oddly it was found that hi-ways that were less policed had Less accidents & death compared to heavily policed hi-ways. wow imagine that when people aren't worried about losing all their money to mobile tax collectors they can actually pay attention the fuk'n road- Amazing.

as for 'kid runs out from behind a car' kinda red hearing, heart strings type stuff, no. what if that kids parents taught little tire stain to not run out into the road because they'll die? ya know basic good parenting stuff. all these what ifs, all this future seeing - lifes not safe people. what if you trip & fall down the stairs, better ban stairs? what if people stab each other - better ban kitchen knives - in fact everything pointy Everywhere! men could sexually assault someone - better cut off all mens pointy penises.
__________________
bmdbley'sBro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2012, 09:43 PM   #41
Blackedout95
5th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,107
You are correct, it is my logic that makes no sense. Your logic on the other hand makes perfect sense, not sure why I didn't see it before, talking or texting and driving is perfectly safe, maybe even drinking too, I mean its victimless when you get caught before an accident has occured so you shouldnt get a ticket/charge...yep your logic is brilliant!

Don't arrest that man officer he only TRIED to kill me LOL
__________________
E46
Blackedout95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2012, 09:55 PM   #42
bmdbley'sBro
wouldu like some tinfoil?
 
bmdbley'sBro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in your attic!
Posts: 4,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackedout95 View Post
You are correct, it is my logic that makes no sense. Your logic on the other hand makes perfect sense, not sure why I didn't see it before, talking or texting and driving is perfectly safe, maybe even drinking too, I mean its victimless when you get caught before an accident has occured so you shouldnt get a ticket/charge...yep your logic is brilliant!

Don't arrest that man officer he only TRIED to kill me LOL
I actually never said it was safe (& again life is unsafe), but in the Context of this event - texting while in near Gridlock at 10kph its assinine to ticket for that & site 'safety' its just a cash grab, quota to be met scenerio - imo.

Driving is inherently Un-Safe. we whip down 1 lane hi-ways at 80kph/50mph with a painted line & belief/hope that the guy going the other way in the 3000+ pounds of steel is awake, not drunk, responsible, etc. its an illusion of being in Control.
__________________
bmdbley'sBro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2012, 10:05 PM   #43
Blackedout95
5th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,107
Youre starting to come around now lol

I understand what you are saying, sitting in bumper to bumper is not likely to result in anything but a fender bump or scratchs...more things more dangerous done legally...I agree.

However my hope is it was not a cash grab and rather turns out to be a lesson to not use it period while driving, do that and you dont have to worry about getting hit with a cash grab again
__________________
E46
Blackedout95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2012, 03:58 AM   #44
Discostar
2nd Gear Member
 
Discostar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Markham, Ontario
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmdbley'sBro View Post
research, its been done. here's some: most red light camera intersections have shorter yellows to generate revenue. Studies showed that Our local goverment will happily jeopordize the safety & actual lives of your children or their mothers for the Money, as rear end accidents are higher at those intersections, From people trying to avoid a Ticket or monitary loss. other studies have compared roads with higher speed limits in other nations & found that it does not mean higher accidents or death. oddly it was found that hi-ways that were less policed had Less accidents & death compared to heavily policed hi-ways. wow imagine that when people aren't worried about losing all their money to mobile tax collectors they can actually pay attention the fuk'n road- Amazing.

as for 'kid runs out from behind a car' kinda red hearing, heart strings type stuff, no. what if that kids parents taught little tire stain to not run out into the road because they'll die? ya know basic good parenting stuff. all these what ifs, all this future seeing - lifes not safe people. what if you trip & fall down the stairs, better ban stairs? what if people stab each other - better ban kitchen knives - in fact everything pointy Everywhere! men could sexually assault someone - better cut off all mens pointy penises.

Dude, what the hell are you talking about? I was discussing texting and driving and you go off on a tangent about red light cameras and shortened yellows? Of course, as I stated, there are many areas the Gov DOES lean toward more of a cash grab mentality. The whole system of enforcement/punishment could be debated in itself. I agree, it is not perfect, but it’s not always a conspiracy either.

One thing I can say for certain is that texting and driving laws are not just there to make money. They took notice to this problem due to an overwhelming rise in automobile related deaths/injuries linked to distracted driving since the smart phone became the status quo (and this number is still very underreported because short of admitting it, or getting caught directly by a witness or police, its next to impossible to prove the cell phone was causing the distraction, so it is likley much higher then we know). Spare me ridiculous statements about un-policed roads which are the safest on the planet because drivers dont lose their money, and speeding facts about god knows where.

A) I would love for you to produce these "studies" so I can pick them apart for their design flaws.
B) For every one of those studies you produce I am willing to bet I can find 5-10 more that say the exact opposite.

Hell I could prolly find you a study that draws a correlation between ice cream sales in the summer and accident fatalities. Does that mean ice cream is to blame?

If there are no police, and also no cars on a road. I could say "Hey look! There are no police on this road, and no one ever gets into accidents! I guess we can conclude from that, No Cops = No Accidents!". Studies like this get published and taken out of context all the time. When you talk about something, make sure you understand how someone came to that conclusion before you make a statement about it. I just happened to do a long research review on this subject recently. Some of the stuff I dug up was laughable. The miss information to the general public is absolutely incredible on this subject.


And yes, in a perfect world, no child would ever run into the street. No one would ever get injured at all because we would all work, play, or do anything with robotic accuracy never making one mistake in our lives. But this is reality, and the biggest factor in automobile related deaths/injury is still human error by a long shot, be it pedestrian or driver. Like you said yourself, we TRUST that other drivers will be responsible. If that driver is not paying attention, the chance of something occurring goes up exponentially. This law is a deterrent for that.
__________________

Last edited by Discostar; 11-01-2012 at 04:20 AM.
Discostar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2012, 02:24 PM   #45
AlpWhitE46
is a pimp
 
AlpWhitE46's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Etobicoke
Posts: 9,099
Send a message via MSN to AlpWhitE46
lol you guys are too much..

thanks for your input , i have nothing to loose but to get a court date and go from there
AlpWhitE46 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Maxbimmer Copyright 2001 - 2015