Man Caught Wearing Earbuds With a Dead Phone Found Guilty of Distracted Driving (www.cbc.ca) 310
Freshly Exhumed writes: RCMP officers spotted a man driving with earbuds plugged into his iPhone. The phone was not in his hands nor on his lap, was not playing music or video, and the driver was not using it to talk to someone or navigate. The battery was, in fact, completely dead. Nonetheless, a judge has ruled that "by plugging the earbud wire into the iPhone, the defendant had enlarged the device, such that it included not only the iPhone (proper) but also attached speaker or earbuds," he wrote. "Since the earbuds were part of the electronic device and since the earbuds were in the defendant's ears, it necessarily follows that the defendant was holding the device (or part of the device) in a position in which it could be used, i.e. his ears." On the question of the battery, the judge said he relied on a 2015 precedent set in a Canadian provincial court, which says that holding an electronic device in a position where it could be used constitutes an offense, even if it is temporarily not working.
Rick And Morty on A=A (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you go to where there's a bunch of ice cream and then you don't come back, you haven't actually gotten ice cream, you've just gone where ice cream is.."
I guess watching TV that isn't turned on is still watching TV, then.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. In Virginia, wearing earphones while driving (except for a hearing aid) is unlawful for exactly this reason. No need for shenanigans about whether they're in use or not.
Re: Rick And Morty on A=A (Score:5, Insightful)
If the idiot judge wanted to convict someone of driving while impaired, he could have done that. "Distracted" is patent nonsense.
Re: Rick And Morty on A=A (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
My cochlear implant has a 3.5mm port [...] It'll work with a phone, too
Sounds like you haven't heard of new, courageful innovations in phone design.
Re: (Score:2)
"Distracted" is patent nonsense.
Not at all. The distraction isn't as a result of listening to music, it's the result of interacting with an electronic device.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Many state outlaw driving with an earplug in both ears,
You cannot have "many state". You cannot put an earplug in both ears. You can put earplugS in both ears, however. Doing so is not considered "distracted" and not punished under distracted driving laws like this Canadian judge did.
It's also silly, since being able to hear is not a requirement to drive. Why would not being able to hear be a crime, if you can legally drive without being able to hear?
Re: (Score:2)
Just last week, I had an ambulance, sirens and lights going, coming up behind me. I pulled over and watched the idiot behind me, possibly this same person, not slow down, pass me close enough that I was bracing for getting rearended by a vehicle going at least 80 km/h and keep going.
This is why driving with earbuds blocking your ears should be punished as distracted driving. Scared the shit out of me with how close the idiot passed me. Judging by how hard the ambulance driver hit his horn, they weren't impr
Re: (Score:3)
The driver wasn't an idiot for being unable to hear, likely the driver was an idiot by assuming the law didn't apply to him. I often see drivers not pulling over when an emergency vehicle with sirens blaring is behind them.
Idiocy is everywhere and it seems to be on the rise. I saw a cyclist yesterday attempting a left turn against oncoming traffic after the light had turned red for him. Rather than just stop and wait he just kept going slowly weaving his way through the cars. Last week I saw a guy going al
Re: (Score:3)
That's why I love the fact that Las Vegas made it legal to wax pedestrians that are J walking or crossing without a proper signal. People kept having to fight manslaughter cases because people would just step out into the street to cross without looking for cars. You see a lot less of it now.
Re: (Score:3)
P.S. if my loud exhaust makes you aware I'm there, it did it's job.
Its job is to tell us there's a selfish stupid cunt on the road?
If you can't ride safely without a penis extension exhaust then sell your fucking bike.
Re: (Score:2)
He was a distracted driver because earbuds block sound.
Perhaps he gets distracted by sound and blocking some of it helps him focus.
When I'm videoing dance competitions I wear ear defenders. I like the music but it damages me mentally. When I'm driving I don't want loud obnoxious noises for much the same reason.
hearing emergency vehicles
If you hear emergency vehicles before you know they're there through visual cues then stop fucking driving.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are sitting in a normal car like mine, you can usually hear emergency vehicle sirens LONG before you can see them through the minivans and pickup trucks. That is, if you are paying attention to driving like you should be (especially on the highway when you're moving fast enough to die on impact).
Re: (Score:2)
I would believe that having your hearing impaired by the earbuds would be included in this.
Were you guilty of driving with your windows closed on your commute this morning?
Re: (Score:3)
Having one's hearing impaired is not considered an impediment by the licensing authorities. Hearing impaired people are allowed to drive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because banning that would impact on music sales.
Re: Rick And Morty on A=A (Score:3, Interesting)
In those jurisdictions, is it then illegal for the hearing impaired to drive?
Definitely guilty (Score:2)
His hearing was partially impaired by the earbuds.
Lock him up and throw away the digital key.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, but turn the radio all the way up and it's legal?
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, but turn the radio all the way up and it's legal?
More important, be deaf and it is legal. How can not being able to hear be a crime if not being able to hear is optional to get a driver's license?
Re: (Score:2)
No matter what condition your body is in, you should do your best to pay attention to the road and keep other people safe (what you do to yourself doesn't matter that much).
A deaf person and a hearing person should both use all of their available senses.
Re: (Score:2)
A deaf person and a hearing person should both use all of their available senses.
Ok. But not using one of your senses is not "distracted", it's "impaired". Nobody is convicted of distracted driving when they drive drunk, for example.
Convicting someone of distracted driving when they are actually guilty of impaired driving is not how the law is supposed to work. Otherwise, why do we have so many different laws? Why not just convict people of "breaking some law", instead of being required to specify what law is being broken? The judge could have changed the charges and been spot on, bu
Re: (Score:3)
Simple, a deaf person driving a car knows of their disability and accounts for it by being extra vigilant in checking mirrors, looking around while driving. A hearing person, rocking out to some righteous tunes, doesn't realize they can't hear what's going on around them and change their driving behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I believe the way the law is written, being deaf would not be a defence against having earbuds in both ears.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, my radio only goes up to 11
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this. While one could argue this might interfere with your ability to hear external sound, but so do many other things so it just creates a stupid special case.
Worse is the prohibition for cyclist who can't even listen to music legally, or just with one ear (no way).
Let people be responsible for themselves and ensure they can fully drive their car --- they will be accountable for any accident or dangerous driving in any case.
I'd like to be able to use both my earphones at a low level, which lets
Re: (Score:3)
That's how the law is written. Perhaps the Legislature needs to revisit the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Deaf renewal applicants are easy to spot - they don't respond when you talk to them.
They do have vision tests in many states for drivers past a certain age - see this link for a report of all 50 states from 2012:
https://www.claimsjournal.com/... [claimsjournal.com]
Headsets while driving may be illegal (Score:5, Informative)
In many jurisdictions, wearing headsets while driving is illegal (and has been for many years, even before cell phones).
The RCMP Reminds Canadians That You Can Be Fined For Wearing Earphones While Driving [narcity.com]
AAA Driving Laws: Headsets [aaa.com]
What about earmuffs? Hats? (Score:4, Interesting)
What is the difference between having headphones in which nothing is playing, and earmuffs, or a hat that covers your ears?
In most modern cars you aren't hearing the outside really well unless the windows are opened, absurd that headphones with nothing playing are considered a problem.
Earmuffs and Hats can't be driven into your brain (Score:2)
Earmuffs and hats aren't placed in the ear canals like ear buds (like the driver was using).
Even with side-impact air bags, I'm sure there could be a lot of damaged caused by them in an accident.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure there would be a lot of damage caused by wearing large earrings when a side impact airbag deploys.
Same goes for glasses too.
What's your point exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
More or less of a distraction than, say, having the car radio turned up to "11"? Which, so far as I know, has never been reason enough to give someone a ticket (or at least, I have never heard of anyone getting a ticket for having their radio turned up really loud)....
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.qld.gov.au/law/cri... [qld.gov.au]
Hooning
Hooning is the common word we use for any anti-social behaviour conducted in a motor vehicle—a car, van or motorbike—such as speeding, street racing, burnouts and playing loud music from a car stereo.
Hooning includes any number of traffic offences, such as dangerous driving, careless driving, driving without reasonable consideration for other people, driving in a way that makes unnecessary noise or smoke, and racing or conducting speed trials on a public road.
Penalties for hooning
Penalties vary for different hooning offences. For example, driving in a way that makes unnecessary noise or smoke carries a maximum fine of 20 penalty units ($2611) while the most serious offences, such as careless driving—also known as driving without due care and attention—or street racing, carry a maximum fine of 40 penalty units ($5222) or 6 months in jail.
In addition, for specific offences classed as hooning—anti-social behaviour in a motor vehicle—police now have the power to impound, immobilise and confiscate the vehicle you were driving when you committed the offence.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with the judge on this one. The idea of not wearing earbuds is stupid as people who are deaf aren't barred from driving and neither are people who have loud cars, drive around in 2nd gear at 4k rpm, etc.
However the defense of "it wasn't on I sware" is a shitty one so the legal hoops that were jumped through seemed to make perfect sense. The distraction in this case isn't from listening to music, it's from ... *oooh I like this song, unlock phone with fingerprint, click spotify, click the bar at the bott
Re: (Score:2)
stop pilots from having headsets
Because they can't hear horns or emergency vehicles?
Re: (Score:2)
Pilots wear headsets so they CAN HEAR important instructions over cockpit noise, rarely does a pilot need to pull over for a first responder in mid-flight.
Is he lying? (Score:4, Informative)
His iPhone was in the centre cubby hole on his dashboard, with the earbuds plugged in. The battery was dead.
I wonder if the judge thinks this defense is bullshit. i.e. Why are 2 earbuds in his ears, while driving in the first place? If the phone was dead when he got into the car, why did he put the phone in the centre cubby, but keep both earphones in his ears?
Maybe the judge was thinking, "Do we let distracted drivers use the dead battery defense? Or do we counter bullshit defense with bullshit legal reasoning?" Slippery slopes both ways.
The TFA perhaps states the best compromise for the moment:
B.C. RCMP say 1 earbud is fine, but wearing 2 can land you a $368 fine.
This isn't bad, especially since wearing 2 earbuds can lower the volume of what you can hear outside of the car, even without audio playing.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the judge was thinking, "Do we let distracted drivers use the dead battery defense?
Well, if the battery is dead, why not? And more important, if the device is NOT BEING HELD AT ALL, then that's the only "defense" necessary.
At least in Oregon. The law here is that hand-free operation is permitted. This was a case of hands-free operation, whether the battery was dead or not.
Re: (Score:3)
Illogical ruling (Score:2)
If I pair the phone and blast music to max, I am OK. If I use headphones because my car is too old to pair reliably - I am breaking the law. Doesn't make any sense.
Sure, throw a book at someone texting, but what they are doing is criminalizing normal behavior, in effect n
"Used" (Score:2)
Does "use" extend to passively listening?
I don't think I've ever seen the word "use" cover this before.
Re: (Score:2)
How could that logic work? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the law is quite specific. It applies only to electronic devices that have a telephone or e-mail function, and they have to be "held in a position in which they could be used". So you're probably okay having your phone in the car if it's out of reach or you can't see it. That smartwatch on your wrist is illegal though.
It's a poorly written law. Judges are supposed to exercise common sense when they encounter such things.
Earbuds block sound (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet another fossil... (Score:2)
Formulating an activist ruling based on something they have exactly ZERO grasp of.
bullshit (Score:2)
The guy should have been convicted, but the logic used is defective.
The phone didn't distract him.
However, what he SHOULD have gotten nailed for was for having his hearing partially obstructed by means of a foreign object inserted into his ear that blocked some of the sound from getting in. Things like car horns, sirens, and that sort of thing from outside the car.
Re: (Score:2)
Deaf people can't drive?
As far as I know, there is no hearing requirement to driving in any country that I know of. My driving licence specifically says that I can only drive with vision correction. There isn't an equivalent category for hearing at all.
Believe me, I'm the first person to say don't use a phone in any context while driving, or even have things on your lap / dangling / in the line of your vision / etc. I get ribbed for it all the time, but I stand by such things religiously.
But if you need
distracted driving? (Score:2)
driving with earphones on, while nothing is playing is more distracting then...
listening to the car's stereo?
Makes no sense (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, but if you shot at someone and hit a cell phone in that person's backpack, you would be guilty of murder. By placing the backpack on that person, someone has extended that person to include the backpack and its contents. So by killing the cell phone, you have killed the person.
Also, by extension, had he held the cell phone in his hand, it would have become an extension of himself, and thus would no longer be a cell phone, and he would have been found not guilty.
Q.E.D.
Re: (Score:2)
If I shot a person and hit air , would I be guilty of murder?
No. Don't be stupid. Putting aside the idea of "hitting air" what you seem to want to be describing is attempted murder - to be guilty of murder, someone has to - you know - actually die.
Re:This judge needs to be barred! (Score:5, Informative)
Pretty sure in many jurisdiction, simply wearing ear plugs is against the law while operating a motor vehicle on the public roads, and by logical extension, shoving ear buds in your ears reduces your ability to hear what is going on around you.
That the ear buds had a wire, that the wire was plugged into a phone and that the phone had no charge are nothing more than interesting facts. For example, ear plugs in both ears while driving a motor vehicle or riding a bicycle is against the law. [shouselaw.com]
Re: This judge needs to be barred! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act prohibits the use of earphones, except when integrated with a communications system on a motorcycle.
Re: This judge needs to be barred! (Score:5, Interesting)
How do motorcyclists in North America prevent hearing damage if they are not allowed to wear earplugs? Wind noise at highway speeds can reach 110+ dB (A) on a bike without wind screen.
https://m.hear-it.org/motorcyc... [hear-it.org]
(Although the a-holes that modify the tailpipes to make them louder deserve to end up deaf.)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's start with outlawing all SUVs.
Re: (Score:3)
The deaf are very obviously not being distracted by anything they hear.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither is a man wearing earphones connected to a phone with a dead battery
Which may well have died 2 minutes before.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, ear plugs in both ears while driving a motor vehicle or riding a bicycle is against the law. [shouselaw.com]
Thanks, I didn't know this was an offense. I use the ear buds to stop the wind deafening me when I drive with the windows open. I know it's an indulgent pleasure however I like fresh air and being able to hear.
Looks like we are all be held to the capabilities of those most easily distracted.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And the judge could easily have convicted him on those grounds if it was illegal to do so there. Ear buds mostly make for poor ear plugs, but it's hard to argue they make for nonexistent ones.
If it *wasn't* illegal however, (and your link appears relevant to California, not Canada) then it doesn't really matter how reasonable such a law might be.
As it is, this convoluted interpretation of law seems destined to be on a collision course with smart watches, prescription AR glasses, and any other wear
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. This judge's overly pedantic decision has set up a future headache for a lot of people. A digital watch is an "electronic device" and if it's on your wrist it is "held in a position in which it may be used." RIP.
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody up the page claims that the BC Motor Vehicle Act prohibits the use of earphones, except when integrated with a communications system on a motorcycle.
Looking at the MVA, I can't find any reference to that or even to electronic devices, perhaps an incomplete or old copy.
According to CTV, https://bc.ctvnews.ca/can-you-... [ctvnews.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
If you click on the link in the summary you get to the judge's decision. It's short, and simple.
The defendant was not convicted of wearing earbuds. He was convicted of using a handheld electronic device while driving. The facts you dismiss are not interesting, they're critical, as the judge's reasoning was that the earbuds, because they were plugged into a phone constituted an extension of that phone, and the phone was thus "held in a position in which it may be used."
Perhaps the fact that the defendant wa
Re: (Score:2)
The battery may well have also died shortly before getting pulled over.
Re: (Score:2)
The phone was not however correctly classified. It was not a handheld device. It was a pocket held device, or possibly an earheld device.
The judge is a fuckwit.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't believe the number of people who have completely missed that and are rabbiting on about the defendant being found guilty of impairing his hearing or some crap like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
shoving ear buds in your ears reduces your ability to hear what is going on around you
So then people are also fined for being deaf and for revving their engines beyond 4k rpm then right?
Re:This judge needs to be barred! (Score:4, Interesting)
Which is baloney. Some luxury cars are so well insulated you can't hear a damn thing outside -- not even road noise from your own tires. Car stereos with subwoofers are perfectly legal, even when they are loud enough to blow out windows. Hell, the windows on some cars are so small you can't see over the dash, let alone out the read quarter panel.
I used to drive forklifts for a living, and I wore earplugs to work every day. My boss threatened to suspend me if I didn't take them off, since he claimed it was a safety hazard. The irony is that he was talking to me the whole time on a noisy work floor while I was wearing my earplugs, and I clearly heard every word he said, and I told him I could hear machines honking their horns on the other side of the warehouse. In the end I won out and was allowed to do my damn job, but I still couldn't convince him that ear plugs only take the edge off, and they don't silence noise completely. Hurrah for liability paranoia.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't count how many times a car has pulled up to me at a red light and their music is blaring so loudly that my car is vibrating. If I can clearly hear their music through their car, the gap between our cars, and through my car, then it must be extremely loud inside their
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Judge might have done him, and taxpayers, a favor by not looking into phone records to determine if the dude was lying.
Why would convicting someone of something without bothering to look into the facts be doing him a favor?
TFS makes a statement of fact, not a guess. The battery was dead. Not "he claimed the battery was dead."
That's why the law is written as it is.
The law is written the way it is to deal with the distraction of operation a cell phone while driving. He wasn't operating a cell phone while driving, therefore he cannot be guilty of the crime he was convicted of. The judge is a goofball for trying to claim that having earbuds in your ears is someho
Re: (Score:2)
Why would convicting someone of something without bothering to look into the facts be doing him a favor?
The law is written that way precisely to stop dickheads from pulling this shit then weaseling out of it. When you get behind the wheelof a car you are a danger to others. Take some responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Genius - read the very first line of the fine summary - it's a Canadian court ruling based on Canadian laws and Canadian precedents.
Re: (Score:2)
The original poster wrote:
You americans just love sending each other to jail
"americans" isn't short for "North Americans"
Re: prison nation (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I once stayed at a B&B in Ireland. The proprietress said something to the effect of "oh, you're Americans" to which I politely replied "Canadians, actually." She then said "it's really the same thing" to which I replied "quite, just like you're English."
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is with statements like "Canadians are ". A Canadian might be nice, but I can assure you, in a group of 100 random Canadians, you're g
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously Canada. And it's a fine of $386 Canadian or ~ $290 US. No jail.
Authorities everywhere really love to stick it to people whenever they can remotely justify it. We should all get together and start voting against those sorts of authorities.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
We should all get together and start voting against those sorts of authorities.
Yes, let's start voting out politicians that justify any intrusion into everyone's personal liberties to protect the smallest/weakest among us, we'll only vote for people that promise to repeal intrusive and unconstitutional laws and regulations, you know - like Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Who do you vote for? All 3 parties are in favour of distracted driving laws, along with the public.
Re: (Score:2)
in a place with one of the worst reputations for crime and violence and drug overdoses in an entire country
Canada?
Re: (Score:2)
in a place with one of the worst reputations for crime and violence and drug overdoses in an entire country
Canada?
Yeah. Surrey BC, Canada.
There is literally a drug war going on there right now, and has been since 2007. The really odd thing is that since it is mostly drug dealers killing other drug dealers, most people really don't care very much. Fortunately there have been remarkably few innocent bystanders killed. (2 if memory serves. 1 in the original "Surrey six" murders, and a young woman who was killed in a case of mistaken identity.)
I live outside Surrey, On the day of the "Surrey six" murders my car was behi
Re: (Score:2)
It's relative, a few murders makes Surrey the murder capital. Surrey is also the biggest (or soon will be) city in BC though it is part of the Greater Vancouver Area.
Re: (Score:3)
That this clearly delusional ruling didn't come from an American judge, it came from one in Canada.
In America, less legal gymnastics would be required to convict the driver - for example, in California it is illegal to have ear buds in both ears while driving. [shouselaw.com] Period. No need to dig up obscure precedents, infer anything, the law is crystal clear.
Apparently in Canada it is legal to wear earbuds in both ears while driving, good to know.
Re:The only thing that surprises me about this (Score:5, Informative)
No, section 7 of the British Columbia Motorvehicle Act prohibits the use of wearing both headphones. They can only be worn in one ear, and only used for hands-free communications.
I'm not sure why the judge went through the legal gymnastics either.
Re: (Score:2)
No, section 7 of the British Columbia Motorvehicle Act prohibits the use of wearing both headphones. They can only be worn in one ear, and only used for hands-free communications.
I'm not sure why the judge went through the legal gymnastics either.
I'm guessing he wanted to add extra justification for the conviction. Just because the legislature writes the law doesn't mean the law is constitutional. If the judge or an appeals court finds it unconstitutional the defendant will get off.
I can see a couple good reasons why the deadness of the battery shouldn't matter.
a) It could have died earlier in the drive, heck the battery could have been completely toast and the phone only worked while the power cable was in (a cable he yanked when he got stopped) or
Re: (Score:2)
potentially means your phone is going to fall down and yank your head a bit.
wut?
check ur neck.
Re: (Score:2)
The cop would have been the one to choose the charge. The judge just rules on it. I suspect the cop went for the bigger offence.
When you think about it, those laws are in conflict. Probably the distracted driving one is newer. How can you use a single earbud for hands-free communications if operating a cell phone (which includes having an earbud in) is distracted driving?
I imagine the intent of the law is that you shouldn't have your phone in your hand. A single earbud connected to a phone you're not touc
Re: (Score:3)
Using a phone hands free is legal in BC. You do have to put the earbud in before driving to be legal and the earbud can't be used for music.
Re: (Score:2)
The cop would have been the one to choose the charge. The judge just rules on it. I suspect the cop went for the bigger offence.
That's wrong. In Canada the cop can lay the initial charge, the crown however can lay additional charges or modify the existing charge if the wrong one was laid.
How can you use a single earbud for hands-free communications if operating a cell phone (which includes having an earbud in) is distracted driving?
I don't know about you, but my car an cellphone both can be operated without even touching it. Pretty much any vehicle with any type of console system has had that support for the last 4-5 years.
I imagine the intent of the law is that you shouldn't have your phone in your hand. A single earbud connected to a phone you're not touching is fine. But the judge went and screwed that up....
Nope. BC provincial regs and laws state you can only have one ear in use leaving the other free to hear the environment around you. If the judge really
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That particular judge has their own interpretation of "holding". That's what judges do: interpret the law. That doesn't mean their interpretation is common or typical. Some rulings will deviate from how an average person or judge would interpret it. I would hope the ruling would be vetted by at least one other judge such that a really odd opinion would get a second chance.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the fine summary,
And yes, I'm guilty of breaking the tradition and actually read the summary as well as hearing this on the news.
Re: (Score:2)
So if the phone is plugged in to the car, the car becomes part of the phone and touching the steering wheel becomes illegal...
Re: (Score:2)
What possible exonerating reason could he have for wearing the earbuds?
To keep his ear canals warm?
Good question! How about earplugs or sonic protection (to protect against loud noises), rolled up gauze if you have an ear infection, or (and yes this is Canada) ear muffs that actually are to keep your ears warm?
The judge probably did not want to have to think too hard about any other implications. Leave it for another case. Keeps cops and judges employed.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are on the shoulder, sitting in the drivers seat, and the key is in the ignition, I believe that is a fair bust in many/most US states.
If you take the keys out of the ignition, sit in the passenger or back seat, your blood alcohol level isn't important. A person sleeping in the driver seat is considered in control of the vehicle, and if on the shoulder, that is part of the road.