News

 

Panhandling Police officers?

They aren't looking for change, they're waiting for you to break the law. Guess what? It's legit...

Admit it.

You do it.

You hear that familiar 'ping' from your cell phone while you're behind the wheel. So you reach over and grab it, holding it out of sight while you gaze down.

Do you reply?

It doesn't matter.

The guy standing at your window you thought was asking you for change, is in fact, a Toronto Police officer, and you have been busted.

Police are trying new tactics to try and crack down on the problem of distracted driving. Some of those new tactics include dressing as a panhandler, and checking on vehicles as they are stopped at a light.

It happened in the intersection of Markham Road and the 401 this week.

Constable Clint Stibbe is with Toronto Police Traffic Services, and says the way the law is written, they have to catch people in the act, actually holding their phones and either reading or typing.

So he says they have started to think outside the box when it comes at ways of enforcing the law.

"We're basically trying to get the message through to everyone, that it needs to stop."

When it comes to the officer dressed as a pan handler, he was holding a ratty cardboard sign that identified him as a Toronto Police officer and had the warning that if you were on your phone, you'd be getting a ticket.

"He had a sign, and his identification was clearly visible, so I don't think he was hiding anything" said Stibbe.

Currently the fine for distracted driving is $280, but proposed legislation would hike that to a maximum of $1000, and add three demerit points.

Leave a comment:

showing all comments · Subscribe to comments
Comment Like
  • 181
  1. JohnVoter posted on 03/25/2014 05:17 PM
    Disgusting, You wanna pull that nonsense??

    Keep messing up your relationship with the public, short term thinking gets you long term problems. 1000 for a ticket is CRIMINAL. if you want to think that way you should also outlaw the following while driving:

    seat Motors
    windows
    radio
    arm rests
    cup holders
    putting sunglasses on
    anything with a button...

    lower that fine!
    1. Rocco Bertolini posted on 03/25/2014 06:13 PM
      @JohnVoter Keep talking like that JohnVoter, until one of your kids gets run over by a 20 something updating his or her Facebook..

      Clearly you have the foresight of a single cell amoeba.
    2. Jack posted on 03/25/2014 06:17 PM
      @Rocco Bertolini As far as I can tell, there's a contagious mental illness running through Toronto where victims suffer a severe reduction in intelligence and start mouthing off like JohnVoter with no respect for the law. It's really sad.
    3. Noel_One posted on 03/25/2014 06:26 PM
      @JohnVoter It sucks, right up until someone _else_ dies because of a driver screwing with their cell or tablet. You think it's CRIMINAL?
      Okay, I'm for changing the law. Anytime there is an accident and someone dies, if a cellphone was in use in the car just before the accident, the driver should be charged with Vehicular HOMICIDE, with similar penalties as to Second degree murder. Better?
    4. JohnVoter posted on 03/25/2014 06:47 PM
      @Rocco Bertolini That pathetic weak ass argument you have just made is exactly the type of thinking that got bills like the Patriot Act in place along with warentless computer searches. "oh wont somebody think of the children!?"

      The more give up to be "safe" the less freedom you have.

      Little by little you, sad blind man.
    5. JohnVoter posted on 03/25/2014 06:50 PM
      @Noel_One its Criminal they are considering charging one thousand dollars. I'm all for fining people who use phones. I am NOT in favor of taking away a monthly mortgage payment from them.

      as far as the police in there costume. they should lay off, no wonder they have such low trust rates in Toronto.
    6. Sara posted on 03/25/2014 08:36 PM
      @Rocco Bertolini Why do you have label it as a 20 something... when in fact it is everybody with no specific age doing this. Think before you say certain things.
    7. Mark posted on 03/26/2014 07:09 AM
      @Rocco Bertolini Why must it be the 20 something year olds? What about the 30, 40, 50 + year olds who are also on their phones. . . . or the ones doing make up, eating breakfast, reading the paper on their morning rush to work . . . .

      You are wrong for think it is only the 20 year olds who are to blame for this !
    8. Reni posted on 03/26/2014 08:30 AM
      @JohnVoter I think the fine should be twice that much and your license taken away for a very long time. Better that than kill someone because you can't be away rom your stupid phone for 2minutes. I've seen some pretty scary things while people were on their phones and driving (almost got hit when an idiot went through a red light and was totally oblivious because they were chatting away) Sigh...people will just never learn until THEY are the ones getting injured...or worse.
    9. Reni posted on 03/26/2014 08:33 AM
      @JohnVoter Don't talk on your phone while driving, don't break any of the laws...you don't have to worry. Very simple when you think about it. The police are there to protect people and their job is getting harder all the time.
    10. Pete posted on 03/26/2014 09:53 AM
      @JohnVoter Words can not describe how ignorant you are JohnVoter. If you read the article and comprehend it properly, the MAX fine is $1000. So the chances of your fine being that much will be determined by the situation. It's not just a set $1000 fine. And as others have stated, if you don't break the law you have nothing to worry about. And as for your view on people trusting the police. You can't paint everyone with the same brush. They have jobs to do and I'm willing to bet that by your statements you don't have a job that puts you in harms way for the safety of others everyday. So maybe take a step back and think for a second, "what would happen if I was attacked in the street or was hit by a car while walking across the street?" Who would I call or who would respond to help me???? Oh yeah, the people you have a lack of trust in!!!!! Smarten up!!!
    11. Graham posted on 03/26/2014 10:26 AM
      @Rocco Bertolini Actually, the majority of accidents involving cellphone are 30-50 year olds. And 90% of those involve people talking on the phone, not texting.
    12. NicG posted on 03/26/2014 10:29 AM
      @Rocco Bertolini I forgot that 20 something year olds are the only ones who get in accidents...and have access to social media
    13. Dave posted on 03/26/2014 10:39 AM
      @Rocco Bertolini Yes Rocco punishing the masses for the mistakes of some has always worked so well in the past.. This is not about public safety. Any cop can drive down any road in the city I live in and catch half a dozen people. There is no need for deception. Unless it's another cash grab to compliment speeding tickets.

      As for someone getting run over, it's called natural selection.
    14. Dave posted on 03/26/2014 10:44 AM
      @Noel_One Well the private prison industry would certainly agree. So I assume you're ok with higher taxes to cover the housing costs of all the people going to prison?

      I find it laughable so many people see prison as a just punishment for a mistake. Do you think they won't be haunted by that day for the rest of their lives? Broad generic laws for things like this never help anyone, except business.

      So I assume all of you have never made a bad judgement call, certainly not one that robs you of a decade(s) of your life.

      How hard would it be to have car manufacturers restrict the ability to make a call while the car is in motion? I am certain the technology exists to detect a cell signal, if the car picks it up within the car and the phone is not connected to the Bluetooth, the car disables it. Seems fairly simple and I am sure there are a lot better solutions than that.
    15. dave posted on 03/26/2014 10:48 AM
      @Noel_One sounds like what it should be, we have been calling stupidity and incompetence "accidents" for a to long. start putting people in jail for killing people with a car, and people might start paying attention.
    16. bertbert posted on 03/26/2014 11:11 AM
      @JohnVoter a friend of mine crashed his car changing a CD. another friend of mine got into a fender bender because of a hot drink. both friends were at fault. these are things that a "20 something" can do as well as a 40 something or a 60 something.

      What about GPS on phones and following directions? what's the difference between looking at your phone and looking at a piece of paper?

      texting while driving is definitely a problem and talking on the phone, whether you're holding it or not is distracting. but let's not pretend that phones themselves are the reason people are crashing their cars. it's how you use it and a cop dressed as a bum can determine that simply by looking in your window
    17. alanlansdowne posted on 03/26/2014 11:19 AM
      @Noel_One Do you guys even have the stats by the number of lethal accidents caused by someone using a cell phone? Or at you just so brain washed by all this fear mongering that you haven't even checked it before you tried to discredit a valid point and valuable contribution John was trying to make? If you did, you would know that you are more likely to die using Toronto transit... Should we outlaw them too now? Read before you talk or you make yourself look incredibly foolish...
    18. Offended twentysomething posted on 03/26/2014 12:22 PM
      @Rocco Bertolini I've seen more of you "30 somethings" texting and driving than i've seen my friends do it.
    19. GRIFFIN posted on 03/26/2014 12:40 PM
      @JohnVoter What? You're comparing sending a text on a cell phone to putting on sunglasses? Well I suppose if you're driving while halfway in the back seat to find your sunglasses on the floor or in the bag...that would be the same thing. But to put your sunglasses on your face...hardly the same.

      And you're comparing sending a text on a cell phone to leaning your arm on your arm rest? Are you building the arm rest while driving? You're comparing apples to banana's here.

      People need to stop texting while driving...end of story. And if it is going to stop by bumping up the fines...I'm all for it.
    20. Ken posted on 03/26/2014 01:13 PM
      @Reni Screw twice the amount of $1000. How about corporal punishment? Lets give them some lashings or a tazering. How about the death penalty? (Obviously after a trial as it's your right, this is Canada...)

      Texting and driving problem solved, bet no one will text after a couple executions. We could extend this to other crimes as well that need to stop.
    21. SD posted on 03/26/2014 02:29 PM
      @Rocco Bertolini I respect your opinion, but no need to blame 20 somethings. Thats ageism. My grandmother uses facebook. I'm 26, and put my phone in my purse, on silent, on the floor of the passenger seat when I drive so my sheer conditioning to the sound of an alert can't be activited. I'm also 20 something.
    22. gg60 posted on 03/26/2014 02:35 PM
      @Rocco Bertolini @JohnVoter...
      Please not that it is not always the 20 something individuals who are on their phone, but rather I see on a daily basis 30 and 40 yr olds on them too.

      Would be interesting to see statistics re: the tickets issued (#, gender, age).
    23. amber posted on 03/26/2014 03:05 PM
      @JohnVoter I had a friend who not only updated her facebook while driving, also texted, tweeted, talked on the phone and on more than several occasions watched the vampire diaries on her phone while it was in it's cradle near the steering wheel. In the last year I have been in the car with maybe two people that dont think it's totally okay to text while driving so I don't get in the car with them anymore. That shit is retarded
    24. Jamie posted on 03/26/2014 03:23 PM
      @Rocco Bertolini Ya ok... it's only the 20 somethings that are on their phones updating their Facebook. Stop the stereotype, it is ALL ages.
    25. chuck posted on 03/26/2014 04:14 PM
      @JohnVoter I damn near lost both legs because some ditz was yapping on her cell phone and cut me off on the highway. Two years in hospital and rehab! Bad weather still put me in agony from my shattered hip and knees. Jack that fine up to two grand! One thousand bucks doesn't begin to reflect the pain I endured learning to walk again! And when your sunglasses or cup holder
      start to require your full and undivided attention while you're trying to drive, we'll provide a fine for that too!
    26. Eric posted on 03/26/2014 07:17 PM
      @Rocco Bertolini "And here we see the all to common 40+ year old, still majestic in it's golden years but finding itself increasingly threatened by the presence of younger generations imposing on its habitat. Watch as it shows its faded colours, still pretending like it knows who's who in the zoo, although one could argue it might never have."

      Face it skins. I'm sure back when you were in your twenties and everyone was ripping around in their parents brand new cutlas supreme, you bent over and played with the 8 track.

      This was an article about police catching people in the act of using their cell phones while driving, not 'lets exchange pop culture statistics about the relationship between age and traffic incidents involving distracted driving'.

      Stay in your lane...
    27. Lola posted on 03/26/2014 09:07 PM
      @JohnVoter I totally agree with no cell use while driving but I have also seen many police driving while using there cell phones rules should apply to all. Doesn't matter if u r a cop there r radios they can use instead u see a lot if cops driving around with no seatbelt and cell phone. To make a long story short police officers should set an example them selfs no cell phone
    28. Navajo Joe posted on 03/26/2014 11:18 PM
      @Reni don't break any laws and be a dull gray viscous pile of goop your whole life , stupid people will do stupid things with or with out a cell phone all the cops are doing is taking away our freedom one piece at a time,so scared little sheeple like you will feel safe and secure . i don't text or talk when i drive , i just smoke cigarettes and blast heavy metal but that can't be distracting because its legal .
    29. Marcy posted on 03/27/2014 12:38 AM
      @JohnVoter absolutely not. have you ever had a car just miss you when crossing the road because a driver wasnt paying attention? children go to school, seniors are slow to cross the road and neither can jump out of the way quickly. the distraction law was created to keep everyone safe, including the distracted driver. if you need to send a text or make a call that badly, you should pull over, if the issue is so pressing that you MUST answer the phone, you wont be concentrating on your driving anyway. my kid has gotten hit by a distracted driver.
    30. MVA Survivor posted on 03/27/2014 11:47 AM
      @JohnVoter JohnVoter,

      My guess is you've never been plowed into, broadside, on your motorcycle, by a distracted driver, racing through an intersection at 40+kph, while she was playing with her cell phone.
      I was nearly killed and was rushed to the hospital.
      She drove herself home, with nothing more than a traffic ticket.
      Her punishment... A $150.00 fine.
      Mine... Multiple surgeries (3 so far with at least 3 more to come), indescribable pain every single moment of every single day, total destruction of my irreplaceable motorcycle, innumerable doctor appointments, excruciating physio therapy, the loss of tens of thousands of dollars in lost wages, and incredibly painful, crippling injuries that I will endure for the rest of my life!
      If you had, I'm quite sure you wouldn't be putting your ignorance on display for all to see.
      "Lower the fine"?? Really?! That's your solution??!
      (Another whiney, entitled, bleeding-heart liberal, would be my guess!)

      If it were left to me, their license would be suspended on the spot, their vehicle impounded, and mandatory drivers education courses would be required, at the very least, before their LIMITED license would be reinstated!

      If one is incapable of the basic common sense required to understand that fiddling with a cell phone, or engaging in ANY other activity that redirects one's focus from the task at hand - operating a 2000 lb. lethal weapon - doesn't deserve the privilege of possessing a driver's license!

      Driving is a privilege, NOT a right!!
    31. MVA Survivor posted on 03/27/2014 12:02 PM
      @Noel_One HELL NO! Not better! Yet another blissfully ignorant statement!

      Wait until someone dies, THEN change the law? Really?!
      How bloody stupid are you?! So what? We should just abolish all penalties for all crimes until someone dies?
      Don't charge the creep with the illegal handgun until he shoots and kills your mother? Don't pull over the drunk driver, until he mows down your brother in the street? Turn a blind eye on maintenance infractions by the airlines until a commercial airliner falls out of the sky, killing all on board? Maybe let the filthy child-molester roam around freely until he viciously rapes and murders your daughter? Yeah, that's some really intelligent thinking!

      Let's all hope to God you don't have a driver's license! Nor are involved in any way, shape or form in developing the laws in this country!! It's dumb–ass comments like yours that make the rest of the world think Canadians are a bunch of backwoods imbeciles!! Statements like that, leave me feeling embarrassed for you.
    32. Fletcher posted on 03/27/2014 03:06 PM
      @JohnVoter Are you kidding me! You’re that stupid! $1000 if you're caught on the phone or reading your text, not enough. YOUR SUPPOSE TO BE DRIVING. You really don't get it.
    33. Pat Smitts posted on 03/27/2014 04:11 PM
      @JohnVoter Ok John so I guess it's safe to say that you're one of the idiots who text messages while driving. And I say idiots because that's exactly what people do this are. My nephew was hit by a car on our front street, the cause a driver with a cell phone. Mark was 7 years old, luckily he lived, but has a long recovery ahead of him. I personally don't think the penalty is big enough. 1st time offence maybe, but after that I think you should lose your licence! Then you can have to walk from place to place, maybe you will see how many times, an idiot with a cell phone has a near miss.

      It's not that hard to put your damn phone away until you get to your destination!
    34. John posted on 03/27/2014 07:35 PM
      @JohnVoter You actually CAN be charged with all of those things. A cop CAN charge you with careless driving for doing anything in your car other than paying attention to the road and two hands on the steering wheel.
    35. PB posted on 03/28/2014 01:42 AM
      @MVA Survivor @MVA Survivor

      Whiney, entitled, bleeding-heart liberal? You should be hanged for that comment. Go copulate with yourself.
    36. Bob posted on 03/28/2014 10:50 AM
      @Rocco Bertolini Brilliant Rocco. You must be about 65 years old; to think that it's only the 20 year old kids and their rock and roll and Facebooking. I guess that allows me to pin your generation on all the drunk driving deaths?
    37. jordanK posted on 03/29/2014 12:10 PM
      @Noel_One I check my phone at red lights all the time.. when im stop... its not dangerous. I dont htink im going to run over a kid while stopped at a red light.
    38. Tiago posted on 06/06/2014 04:15 PM
      @JohnVoter Last time I checked, the DUI penalty is steep & reasonable.. People catch those charges daily in the GTA. I don't have the answers, just saying.
  2. Jack posted on 03/25/2014 05:26 PM
    Good! I've lost count of how many times I've nearly been run over by someone who's more interested in checking their text messages and turning on the red light than they are in making sure they won't kill anyone.

    Besides, the sooner we get self-driving cars, the sooner distracted driving will become a thing of the past.
    1. Dixie posted on 03/25/2014 05:51 PM
      @Jack This is clearly only going to work on fully stopped drivers at red lights, not people who are moving through a right turn.
    2. Dixie posted on 03/26/2014 01:12 AM
      @Jack And futhermore to your point, I wouldn't wait for self-driving cars. That'll takes decades to come. We just need responsible drivers. That will surely be the end-all-be-all. You idiot.
    3. jason posted on 03/26/2014 10:03 AM
      @Jack This is stupid because I NEVER use my phone WHILE driving but if im stopped at a red light I will check it if someone was calling or etc. Its stupid to think you cant check your phone while your stopped at a light but checking it WHILE actually driving is the problem
    4. Jason posted on 03/27/2014 10:38 AM
      @Dixie 'Idiot'? Really? You admit we need responsible drivers. Then you call an idiot to someone who has had their safety compromised. I don't understand some people. Here's a way to solve this problem - DON'T TEXT. It's a choice, and one that is clear as day.
      I have no sympathy for people tagged this way.
  3. Ernie posted on 03/25/2014 05:35 PM
    Texting at a light is a bit extreme - if that is the intent of the enforcement of McStupids legislation then he needs to be castrated.
    1. Matt posted on 03/26/2014 09:12 AM
      @Ernie I agree. Castration is definitely the way to respond to something that's a bit extreme.
  4. Meg posted on 03/25/2014 06:08 PM
    OMG! Saw that guy with the sign today ! *thinking back* - thought he (and his sign ) looked too clean, and well-written! LOL

    Brilliant idea! I'm on the highway everyday and can't believe the number of drivers texting/talking - not watching where they're going….
    1. Sara posted on 03/25/2014 08:40 PM
      @Meg Ridiculous enough how some guy was going about 70-80mph on the highway and he kept breaking, there was no traffic this was about 10:30pm passing Port Union. So I went around to pass him and sure enough he had his phone up in his hand not even paying attention to who or what was around him.
    2. Abeg9191 posted on 03/25/2014 10:26 PM
      @Sara Uh... 70-80mph is really fast.. Can't believe you passed him going that fast... Also, don't we use km/h in Canada?
    3. Dawn posted on 03/26/2014 11:23 AM
      @Abeg9191 @Abeg9191 She said she was on the highway, speed limit on Canada's highways are 90-100km. She was able to pass because the guy was WAY under the speed limit. If you don't even know the speed limits of our highways please stay off of them!
    4. Anon posted on 03/26/2014 04:24 PM
      @Dawn @Dawn you clearly don't know how to read.
  5. Ziggy posted on 03/25/2014 06:46 PM
    defendant":
    "Yes Your Honour.
    I picked up my phone to report this creepy homeless guy harassing commuters stopped at this intersection", otherwise I would not have picked it up.
    justice':
    I agree, entrapment
    1. MVA Survivor posted on 03/27/2014 12:33 PM
      @Ziggy And for all of you twits cryin "entrapment", perhaps brush up on your Canadian Criminal Code, before making yourselves look even more foolish than you already are!
      For those of you too stupid, or too lazy...

      The Supreme Court of Canada developed the doctrine of entrapment in three major decisions: R. v. Amato, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 418, R. v. Mack, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903, and R. v. Barnes, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 449. There are two different forms of entrapment in Canadian law.

      The first type of entrapment, "random virtue testing", occurs when the police offer an individual the opportunity to commit a crime without reasonable suspicion that either that individual, or the place where that individual is located, is associated with the criminal activity under investigation. If police do have such a reasonable suspicion, they are still limited to providing only an opportunity to commit the offence.

      The second form of entrapment occurs when the police go beyond merely providing an opportunity to commit an offence, and instead actually induce the commission of the offence. Some factors a court may consider when deciding whether police have induced the offence include the type of crime being investigated, whether an average person would have been induced, the persistence and number of attempts made by the police, the type of inducement used (e.g. fraud, deceit, reward), and the existence of expressed or implied threats.

      The question of entrapment is only considered after there has been a finding of guilt. If, after finding the accused guilty, the court determines that the accused was entrapped, the court will enter a judicial stay of proceedings. In effect, this is similar to an acquittal.

      A police officer standing on a corner enabling him/her to peer into your vehicle to determine if you are breaking the law or not, is nowhere near entrapment!
    2. Garry Ward posted on 03/30/2014 08:46 PM
      @Ziggy This is just another money grab by the law (gestapo) Cops wonder why they are thought of as scum. To want to be a cop, you would most likely been bullied at school so have a severe low esteme and want to hit back even at innocent people. Sick low life pigs.
  6. Ziggy posted on 03/25/2014 06:46 PM
    defendant":
    "Yes Your Honour.
    I picked up my phone to report this creepy homeless guy harassing commuters stopped at this intersection", otherwise I would not have picked it up.
    justice':
    I agree, entrapment
    1. Reni posted on 03/26/2014 08:36 AM
      @Ziggy @Ziggy...give me a break...like you or anyone else would do that? Riiight.
      You would just ignore the guy so no judge would believe that stupid excuse!
    2. Maverick posted on 03/26/2014 02:01 PM
      @Reni @ziggy I don't think it matters whether he "would have" done that. What matters is that there is clearly ambiguity in what a driver's intentions could have been, and having a cop dress up as a homeless man just to nail some people doing something "illegal" speaks to the disgust of the actions of the police.

      We should be looking for our police to protect us from danger and to enforce the law when they see it happening incorrectly. Instead, they are clearly looking for things to be broken, entrapping people by whatever belittling, offensive means possible.
    3. the people posted on 03/26/2014 04:14 PM
      @Ziggy spare change so i can pay this ticket
    4. KD posted on 03/26/2014 05:22 PM
      @Reni Actually Reni, my niece got this ticket and the exact scenario was she was stopped at a light, when she saw a homeless man approaching her car quickly and aggressively. She had her kids in the car and would never have touched her phone, but the man made her nervous and she grabbed the phone to pre-dial 911, just in case she needed it. He banged on her window so she continued to dial the #. When she looked up to read the sign he was holding, she showed him the phone # she was dialing and he still gave her a ticket. THAT I would have to say, IS entrapment.
  7. Ziggy posted on 03/25/2014 06:47 PM
    defendant":
    "Yes Your Honour.
    I picked up my phone to report this creepy homeless guy harassing commuters stopped at this intersection", otherwise I would not have picked it up.
    justice':
    I agree, entrapment
    1. Rocco Bertolini posted on 03/25/2014 07:32 PM
      @Ziggy Justice - do you have the police log from your call or your itemized bill stating you called to report him.

      Defendant - well no, I, well no, I never called.

      Officer - i clearly observed his screen, it displayed Facebook......

      Defendant-............ Uhm

      Justice- guilty


      But ya come up with something better. I'm sure you can make up a million excuses for risking other people's lives.
    2. Ziggy posted on 03/25/2014 07:55 PM
      @Rocco Bertolini The homeless guy on the road wearing a sign is far more distracting. The law's intent is admirable; but is an ass if it takes deception to enforce. This is nothing more than a revenue scheme in the guise of road safety.
    3. Sean Parker posted on 03/26/2014 07:37 AM
      @Ziggy Oh yes, people around you, doing stuff, so distracting. It's a miracle I can get anywhere with other cars and pedestrians around me distracting me.

      You are a moron. It's not entrapment. It's a guy standing there and observing your illegal activity. Police are not required to announce their presence just so you have the chance to hide your phone.

      Entrapment would be if the UC would somehow encourage you to use your phone and then bust you for it.
  8. JIT posted on 03/25/2014 07:52 PM
    I saw this guy earlier this week (his sign made an impression from the typical request for change). I never saw the other side of his sign, nor did I see a badge. Definitely sounds like entrapment.
    1. JN posted on 03/26/2014 09:44 AM
      @JIT Entrapment only occurs when the police actually induce someone to commit a crime.
    2. illicit posted on 03/27/2014 01:07 AM
      @JIT I was at the Markham and 401 ramp earlier this week with a couple friends. This cop did walk up to my drivers side door. But guess what his PIZZA PIZZA box was held up to his chest, covering the BADGE and message. I said to my friend that was weird how he starred inside. Then I saw him pull over the guy behind me, and I thought it was a smart way to do it, but THEY NEED TO MAKE IT MORE EVIDENT THAT THEY ARE COPS AND NOT JUST SAY THEY ARE DOING THINGS.
  9. Brandon posted on 03/25/2014 09:35 PM
    I really hope these proposed changes happen. $280 isn't going to keep people off their phones any more than the $100. We NEED demerit points off our license before people stop acting like reckless idiots behind the wheel.

    I thoroughly applaud the police for finding a tactic that works. The more people they catch, the better - because at least 1 in 100 is going to learn from that and stop.

    Good on you!
    1. Redrum posted on 03/25/2014 11:22 PM
      @Brandon Dermit points aren't taken off your license. They are added.
      And you are stating 1 in 100 are going to learn from that and stop? Seriously? And this ratio seems to get you happy to applaud? Drunkn drivers will still continue to drink and drive. Careless Drivers who use their phone frequently will still continue to use it, to be on Facebook, Twitter. Instagram, texting etc. The ones who will stop (which I believe is more than your 1 in 100 ratio) are the innocent non-frequent users who answer only important calls. This 1000 dollar fine and dermis points are just a bitch to the responsible drivers who use their phone for emergency and at a safe interval. (Redlights).
    2. Dave posted on 03/26/2014 01:28 PM
      @Redrum The ONLY legal call you can make while driving is 911.. there is no other "emergency or safe interval" If you need to use your phone pull into a parking spot and make your so called "emergency" call
    3. smac posted on 03/26/2014 01:54 PM
      @Redrum if someone is smart enough to report it then they should also be wise enough to pull over put your car in park and then make the call....just sayin
    4. Maverick posted on 03/26/2014 02:02 PM
      @Redrum Completely agree @brandon
  10. Shirley posted on 03/25/2014 09:36 PM
    If it saves one life then it's worth it. Driving on the DVP I cannot believe the number of times I see people weaving in and out of traffic and when I pass them they're texting and holding up traffic?? Who does that? Somebody has to stop them.
    1. Craig posted on 03/27/2014 03:59 PM
      @Shirley So if it saves 1 person it is worth it? Realistically if something saves 1 life it isn't worth it as the time, money, resources and attention spent on this act killed, sickened more people and surely polluted the planet enough to make how many people more sick and susceptible to sickness?

      This literally asks all the people not looking at a cell phone to distract themselves by reading a sign on the side of the road. It might stop 10 people doing it and make x amount of money while doing it but it does just as much harm as good.
  11. MrsMonster posted on 03/25/2014 09:55 PM
    Don't pick up the phone, don't get a fine, don't lose demerit points, one less distraction for drivers. If you're careless enough to be on your phone, you deserve it.
    1. Big Harv posted on 03/26/2014 10:54 AM
      @MrsMonster Its not that simple and you know it. This is a cash grab, if you're parked and look at your phone for a second you're a mile away from texting while driving. There should be a sliding scale.
    2. Dan posted on 03/27/2014 03:14 PM
      @Big Harv But it IS that simple.... if you're parked, you won't get a fine for using your phone. If you're in traffic, you will get a fine for using your phone.

      Phone users are a menace, and it's worse for folks like me that get around on a motorcycle in the summer. Something more has to be done because it's clearly WORSE than is was two years ago.
  12. EH posted on 03/25/2014 10:38 PM
    To all the people writing that this is somehow "entrapment" do you even know what entrapment means? Clearly not. Entrapment as a defense in court claims that you would not have broken the law if you weren't tricked into doing it by law enforcement officials. Simply getting busted while at a stop light by a cop dressed as a bum is not entrapment. It's you being too much of a self absorbed prick to put your phone down for 5 minutes while you're driving. Serves you right!
    1. Reni posted on 03/26/2014 08:40 AM
      @EH EH...you took the words right out of my mouth!! Some people are just soooooooooooooo stupid!
    2. Maverick posted on 03/26/2014 02:05 PM
      @EH @eh, you can talk about the "stupidity" of people all you want, but the reality is that the person could have been picking up their phone to report that homeless man panhandling for money. In this context, that would clearly and legally be considered a case of entrapment.

      The fact is that our police should be working for the people of Toronto, not dressing up as the homeless trying to catch someone doing something wrong. That's not helping, that's simply issuing tickets in a disgusting and unprofessional manner.
    3. Ladybug posted on 03/26/2014 03:57 PM
      @Maverick The police officer was not panhandling, you only assume that because he has a sign in his hand! READ what it says. I think there should be some time in jail for using your phone while driving. If the call is that important, pull over!! There are more accidents caused by people using their phones than drinking and driving. It will take time but the message needs to be out there not to use your phone or any portable device (mp3, gps, etc.) while driving.
    4. Marcy posted on 03/27/2014 12:49 AM
      @Maverick HAVE i MISSED SOMETHING HERE? POLICE ARE HIRED TO CATCH CRIMINALS COMMITTING CRIMINAL ACTS. Driving and talking/texting are criminal acts. The role of the Police is to maintain public safety, enforce the rules and catch the bad guys doing bad things. HELLO!!! driving is a priviledge, not a right. It is understood that there are rules, follow them or get nailed. This is a very simple concept to me. If your call is so damned important, pull over to the side of the road. The End.
  13. Mike posted on 03/25/2014 11:09 PM
    So, if I see a cop holding a coffee while driving is that against the law too? Cops have been entrapping motorist for the longest time, hiding behind bushes with radar guns and now dressing up with a reversible sign that doesn't identify him until the infraction has occurred. What they should be doing is staying in plain sight in uniform so that motorist don't break the law in the first place.
    1. Mike posted on 03/25/2014 11:46 PM
      @Mike Just to add, tickets will be given out regardless if you held the phone for less then 5 seconds or if you are just 5 km over the speed limit. Cops have a ticket quota that they must reach every month. The best thing to do as a motorist is stay within the limits and always be aware of your surroundings, don't give them a reason for a ticket.
    2. Roger posted on 03/26/2014 12:17 AM
      @Mike If the police somehow knew your phone number and texted you to pick up your phone cause it's an emergency and you picked up and they gave you a ticket for it.... That's entrapment. Simply wearing a disquise and catching you doing what you are already doing is not entrapment.
    3. Maverick posted on 03/26/2014 02:07 PM
      @Roger @roger If a cop acts as a homeless bum and that person picks up their phone to report that panhandling incident, and it turns out to be a cop, then yes, it is entrapment.
    4. Tanya posted on 03/29/2014 09:30 AM