ROTHENBURGER: Definition of ‘using’ a cellphone while driving needs to be clarified

Doesn’t matter, said the judge — you swerved into the next lane, causing the officer to “take evasive action.” To no avail, the driver disputed having wandered into the other lane.

But here’s the interesting part. The Crown argued that, even if the driver was telling the truth, he was still guilty of distracted driving under the Motor Vehicle Act. The judge agreed. Now that seems a bit harsh.

It reminds me of the case a couple of years ago in which a senior was handed one of those $368 tickets for having her cell phone in her cup holder. She wasn’t holding the phone or even looking at it at the time.

After an ensuing public debate over B.C.’s confusing distracted-driving laws, Vancouver police squelched the ticket.

In another case, the situation was similar and that fine, too, was voided. So at least we now know a cell phone isn’t a distraction just because it’s visible.

If you happen to touch it, though, it’s a different story, even if you’re not talking or texting. The meaning of “using” a phone seems simple enough, except in B.C. law. It badly needs to be clarified.

There’s good reason for cracking down on anything approaching a distraction — several hundred Canadians are killed each year due to distracted driving but is enforcement overdone?

The lesson for now is, don’t even look at your phone. And maybe hide it just in case.

I’m Mel Rothenburger, the Armchair Mayor.

Mel Rothenburger is a former mayor of Kamloops and a retired newspaper editor. He is a regular contributor to CFJC Today, publishes the ArmchairMayor.ca opinion website, and is a director on the Thompson-Nicola Regional District board. He can be reached at mrothenburger@armchairmayor.ca.

——

Editor’s Note: This opinion piece reflects the views of its author, and does not necessarily represent the views of CFJC Today or Pattison Media.

by Mel Rothenburger

ROTHENBURGER: Definition of ‘using’ a cellphone while driving needs to be clarified

Our Community