Texting and driving fines to get a lot more expensive in Ontario

$1000 bucks. Plus your 3 demerit points

TORONTO -- The Ontario government vowed to crack down on distracted drivers and those who get behind the wheel while high on drugs as it prepared to reintroduce legislation Tuesday that would make the province's roads safer...

The legislation, if passed, would increase the maximum fine for distracted driving to $1,000 and impose three demerit upon a conviction.

www.ctvnews.ca...

All I say is, good! It blows my mind how many people I see in my mirror texting behind me, staggering lanes, sitting at a green light. Young people and adults (mostly women) can't get their damn face out of their phone while driving. It angers me man. Listen, if getting that text is sooooo important to you while driving, then just get a cradle to put your phone on so you can look at it when a text appears. Don't hold it in your lap thinking your clever or something. When you look at your crotch while driving, we ALL know you're texting.

What's the matter with you people? I would even like to take it a step further and allow responsible motorists to be given the authority to hand out tickets on the spot. If I ever get rear ended by someone texting, I will drag you out of your car. After I ask if you're alright.

Put it down. Eyes on the road.

Thanks.

NY has towers along the highway, they check (dunno how) & the fines are amazing! They have pull-off's now just for texting.

a reply to: FlySolo

Well it's been taking them long enough. Finally the Ontario government is going to do something useful for its citizens, woo-woo, big woo! So many deaths caused by this habit especially head-on collisions. From the time the problem was first made known, people have been calling for increased fines.

I had to call the OPP last year because an obsessed texter rear-ended a stopped school bus full of little ones near my front door. The guy pranged up his front end real good and he was so obsessed that he never once stopped what he was doing, even when the seven cop cars came, even when the tow truck was taking his car. I kind of wished they had forced him to go on to the bus to see the amount of little ones he could have seriously hurt, but meh he would not have cared. One of my children was in two such collisions and hit her teeth on the seat rail in front of her, but what do idiots like that care? I wish the penalty were higher, to be honest. This is something that really must be stopped.

ETA I would like them to also confiscate the darn phone until the fine is paid.

a reply to: FlySolo

Great, now we can lobby for makeup appliers, hamburger eaters, GPS and map users, sign readers and nose pickers to all be considered criminals! And that evil radio, my goodness, who let people have that?

Heck, if it is the distraction that is the issue let's make conversation itself a crime!

Or, maybe, we should hold people responsible for their behavior when (and only when) it rises to criminal negligence. Then our police could be used to track down violent criminals instead of further converting them into armed tax collectors.

a reply to: greencmp

Clearly, you're one of those habitual texters.

a reply to: FlySolo


I LOVE it!!!
I just saw some moron sit at a green light texting until the light turned yellow with cars behind him honking.

When you text while driving you increase the risk of killing another person on the road simply because you can't stay off your phone for a few minutes while you get to your destination.
Plus,annoying the hell out of people who see the green light while you screw with your phone is just pissing everyone else off who is behind your dumb ass.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: greencmp

Clearly, you're one of those habitual texters.

Actually, I hate seeing all of those things too.

I just don't think it is a crime unless it results in an accident.

A subtle but evidently crucial difference in our world views.

a reply to: greencmp

Crucial difference. You got that right. So with your logic getting hammered behind the wheel shouldn't be a crime either unless someone gets hurt

a reply to: FlySolo

Is the law banning it doing any good?

I suspect it isn't.

Which begs the question: what is the purpose of laws in a country where you are presumably free? "Punishment" isn't what laws in free nations are for. Because you don't punish free people. You rehabilitate them.

Is a $1000 fine going to rehabilitate them?

I didn't think so.

So what is really going on here is the government has chosen to single out a group of folks that everyone else doesn't mind seeing victimized, and will be giving them additional taxes.

I would bet that if breathing wasn't a requirement of life, you could get the people to tolerate an "air tax". Hell, given the way water is being treated, its bound to happen.

I give this story a big because of the mob mentality seen in its support.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: greencmp

Crucial difference. You got that right. So with your logic getting hammered behind the wheel shouldn't be a crime either unless someone gets hurt

Yes, exactly right.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Fine, you may not like it and you may be correct with your assumption. But the truth is, since the smart phone, people have lost their minds. Priorities have changed and we're progressively leading more and more to a me myself and I attitude.

I've been driving for nearly 30 years and I'm good at it. Exceptional even. But that's because I have great coordination and I have burnt road rules into my subconscious. Yet we have newbs behind the wheel who haven't burnt coordination into their minds yet texting when they should be driving. I don't care if those people are victims of a money grab. No sympathy from me

a reply to: FlySolo

I respect your views as well.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Fine, you may not like it and you may be correct with your assumption. But the truth is, since the smart phone, people have lost their minds. Priorities have changed and we're progressively leading more and more to a me myself and I attitude.

What i don't like is the idea of penalizing behaviors we don't like just for the sake of penalizing behaviors we don't like. The purpose of law is to deter behavior, not to act as a bully pulpit to penalize people for doing things that annoy us.

Yes, priorities have changed. But it is not the purpose of the law to maintain a static society so that people can always live in 'the good old days".

And it is the very definition of fascism to impose socioeconomic penalties on the people as a leverage.

I've been driving for nearly 30 years and I'm good at it. Exceptional even. But that's because I have great coordination and I have burnt road rules into my subconscious. Yet we have newbs behind the wheel who haven't burnt coordination into their minds yet texting when they should be driving. I don't care if those people are victims of a money grab. No sympathy from me

I've been driving just as long, and have never had any form of accident. But that is all irrelevant. While you abstain from sympathy, something to keep in mind: the words of Martin Niemoller ring just as true in this case.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Wrong is wrong, even when the party being singled out is one that I really don't have sympathy for.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

What i don't like is the idea of penalizing behaviors we don't like just for the sake of penalizing behaviors we don't like.

No, we penalize bad behaviors because those behaviors jeopardize the rest of us.

And it is the very definition of fascism to impose socioeconomic penalties on the people as a leverage.

The reason we have laws is because there is no solution. So we impose fines. It's not fascist, a bit dramatic to say so.

And I'll "rephrase" my ill mannered comment. Anyone who thinks drinking and driving is alright is foolish and doesn't deserve the privilege to drive. Anyone who thinks texting and driving is alright is even more foolish because they're sober and still making stupid decisions.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

annoys us...

I gotta admit I find it pretty annoying driving around wondering if I will be subject to a fiery crash and paralysis/death because some idiot was texting while driving 50mph. THAT is pretty annoying to me...

Sorry BFFT. I can't back you at all on that. It is exceptionally dangerous. I recall my dumber days when I was distracted until one day I WAS that idiot and had to swerve hard when my attention was brought back to the road and car I was quickly approaching and almost totaled.

By logic of greencmp, from now on, I am going to take my gun out and start firing 45 degrees in the air. If I do not hit anyone or damage any property, I don't want to hear squat from the police. All I was doing was being annoying. Nobody got hurt.

I'm gonna start driving with my feet and using a stick to accelerate and brake. If I don't hit anyone I don't want to hear about it. The good ole days have nothing to do with safety. Yeah absolutely 100% there are some laws that make me go "huh."

But drunk or distracted driving is NOT one of those laws. People can, have and will die from driving and texting. People can, have and will kill others by driving and texting.

That isn't an annoyance...it's a potential fatality

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Dead


Gonna be dead, needs a slap


Stupid teens


Needs a punch in the face


Happy ending but...


So anyone who defends texting while driving needs their head examined. Is that ill mannered or just the truth. I'm actually angry after watching these videos to prove a point which shouldn't need any explanation why.

a reply to: FlySolo

and I ask again: do your penalties have the desired effect of stopping the behavior?

Or is it just a fruitless endeavor meant to make people feel safer?

Im not arguing in favor of texting and driving. Im asking why we keep doing the exact same things that we know aren't working, and then nodding as if it is a "job well done"?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Do you really need to ask this question? Tell me if you get dinged a thousand bucks for texting, will you risk it again?

What's it going to take to get kids to stop playing with all our lives? And adults are supposed to lead by example

a reply to: KyoZero

I live in the country. Driving with your feet is something that I have seen, and it wouldn't even rate above a 3 on the "unusual scale". You'd be surprised what kind of stuff a redneck will do. We have a law, since you bring up guns, that says you aren't allowed to shoot your gun on Main St. Because at some point in our past it was apparently a problem, and the locals wanted Main St to be safe (but apparently only Main St).

You know what stopped people from shooting their guns on Main St? It wasn't the law that did it, because it became another version of riding your horse/bike into the bar. It was just a way for the rednecks to show off then. No...people stopped shooting their guns on Main St when the culture changed and it just wasn't "cool" any more. In my lifetime I don't think a gun has been fired on Main St, as the law was enacted in the late 1800's.

Point being: the law actually hurt the cause as it gave a motivation for people to do what they shouldn't be doing: getting drunk and shooting their guns to piss of the townsfolk. Incidents increased in the subsequent years as drunk cowpokes would want to show their ass. And they ceased once industrialization took over the world and the ranks of the cowpokes were diminished.