Difference between revisions of "Provincial Driving Offences (13:VI)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
* Televisions. | * Televisions. | ||
Exceptions for hands-free use of electronic devices are permitted under s 7 of ''EDWDR''. Further exceptions for persons carrying out special powers, duties, or functions are allowed under s 5. | Exceptions for hands-free use of electronic devices are permitted under s 7 of the ''EDWDR''. Further exceptions for persons carrying out special powers, duties, or functions are allowed under s 5. | ||
Fines for the use of an electronic device while driving have increased significantly as of June 1st, 2016, and now stand at $368 per offence. As well, 4 penalty points are issued for a violation of this section. | Fines for the use of an electronic device while driving have increased significantly as of June 1st, 2016, and now stand at $368 per offence. As well, 4 penalty points are issued for a violation of this section. | ||
| Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2019/2019bcsc360/2019bcsc360.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20partridge%202019%20BCS&autocompletePos=1 ''R v. Partridge'', 2019 BCSC 360], the accused was observed by a police officer looking downwards whilst driving and when stopped, a cell phone was found wedged between the folds of the passenger seat such that the screen was facing the driver. Accused was convicted. However, the accused was acquitted on appeal because the mere presence of a cell phone within sight of a driver is not enough to secure a conviction, leaving aside a situation where, for example, the screen is illuminated and so the driver may then be utilizing the cell phone in some fashion. | In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2019/2019bcsc360/2019bcsc360.html?autocompleteStr=r%20v%20partridge%202019%20BCS&autocompletePos=1 ''R v. Partridge'', 2019 BCSC 360], the accused was observed by a police officer looking downwards whilst driving and when stopped, a cell phone was found wedged between the folds of the passenger seat such that the screen was facing the driver. Accused was convicted. However, the accused was acquitted on appeal because the mere presence of a cell phone within sight of a driver is not enough to secure a conviction, leaving aside a situation where, for example, the screen is illuminated and so the driver may then be utilizing the cell phone in some fashion. | ||
In [https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/00/2021BCSC0013.htm ''R v. Bleau'', 2021 BCSC 13], the accused received a ticket while listening to a podcast through his vehicle’s sound system. Bleau’s phone was connected by Bluetooth and loosely placed in the cup holder of the centre compartment. The phone was not securely affixed to the vehicle, but Bleau did not touch or otherwise interact with the device. In this decision, the Court acquitted Bleau of his conviction. It was decided that passively listening to a podcast on an unmounted device, did not constitute “use” per section 214.1. | In [https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/00/2021BCSC0013.htm ''R v. Bleau'', 2021 BCSC 13], the accused received a ticket while listening to a podcast through his vehicle’s sound system. Bleau’s phone was connected by Bluetooth and loosely placed in the cup holder of the centre compartment. The phone was not securely affixed to the vehicle, but Bleau did not touch or otherwise interact with the device. In this decision, the Court acquitted Bleau of his conviction. It was decided that passively listening to a podcast on an unmounted device, did not constitute “use” per section 214.1. | ||
== B. Penalty Points == | == B. Penalty Points == | ||