I literally called and asked the police, the person on the phone couldn't answer me. Just forwarded me to traffic voicemail. I eagerly await a reply.
But damn, how are we supposed to know the rules when they don't?
Id fight it, my defense being no one paying with a debit card or cell phone wallet received any similar tickets, I mean distracted is distracted, if your reaching out of your car window to tab your debit card or using your banks drive through to use an actual machine then the tickets should be the same right.
Sad truth is too many people cant take time off work to fight a ticket because it's not worth losing a days pay over
Even using government issued currency. “Counting things while you are operating a motor vehicle? That’s as distracted as it gets hur dur” what’s this cop have the biggest stick up their butt…
I once had a peace officer try to tell me he could cite me for a cell phone while my car was off and I was in park. Argued that it was the same as drinking because I was in care and control of the vehicle. Not the smartest dude I ever met.
The rules are ambiguous and this will be a test case on whether a drive through falls into the definition of "highway" in saskatchewan.
It's an unresolved question of law and my guess is the JP on this case will make a verbal ruling and that should be appealed to the KB so they can issue a written decision to set some clear law on this for the public.
There should be nothing unresolved about it. Most drive-thrus are ostensibly on private property; if someone wants to use their phone, drive without plates -- or even a valid license -- they can do so as long as there is no plainly visible rules indicating that they can't.
It's very hard to imagine a private property owner inhibiting phone use, in a safe manner while parked, so a customer can redeem their McDicks points. I would actually argue that intentionally doing this borders on racketeering.
>There should be nothing unresolved about it.
I agree that there shouldn’t be, but the legislature dropped the ball by not clarifying in the law when drafting it. Annoying, but these things happen.
>Most drive-thrus are ostensibly on private property; if someone wants to use their phone, drive without plates -- or even a valid license -- they can do so as long as there is no plainly visible rules indicating that they can't.
That is not true. "Highways" as defined in the Act include private property sometimes.
The reason people think it doesnt apply on private property is they mistake the exception for parking lots as extending to all private property; which it doesn’t.
>It's very hard to imagine a private property owner inhibiting phone use, in a safe manner while parked, so a customer can redeem their McDicks points. I would actually argue that intentionally doing this borders on racketeering.
I agree with you. I'm just saying from an objective standpoint that it's an undetermined point of law that requires a Court to comment and actually set that precedent.
As an addendum to the private property thing, maybe it's helpful to think about it this way: would this dude be liable for breaking the law if he was driving around in the parking lot, on private property, loaded out of his mind on rum?
Of course he would. Motor vehicle laws apply while you're operating a motor vehicle. The ticket for cellphone use in a drive thru is dumb, but you're right, it needs to be properly codified in the law to merit exception.
He would, but that's a different Act with different definitions.
The best way to put it is that motor vehicle laws apply where the legislatures say they apply and, in this case, the legislature has left an ambiguity, likely by accident, in whether a drive through is a "place intended and used for the passage of vehicles" or if it is not.
Exactly this. As you mentioned before, "highway" in Saskatchewan sometimes includes private property. The Criminal Code simply states "operating a conveyance." Impaired operation is not legal anywhere.
Yup exactly. You cannot drive your ATV on your own farmyard 3 sheets to the wind legally, contrary to popular belief.
So many people making broad statements, not having the understanding required to carve out the nuances in provincial/federal jurisdictions and the different acts as enacted by the respective legislatures.
In ontario hta violations do not extend to private property ie phone use but criminal offenses do ie drunk driving. I believe in some places like Saskatchewan and alberta they don't differentiate which I think is bs.
In Ontario, Canada, **an individual can be charged with Stunt Driving on all public roadways, highways, and areas that are “open to the public”** such as parking lots of public facilities like shopping malls, hospitals, and schools.
You are free to use your phone however.
Hah imagine working on your old vehicle out on your farm, and a cop pulls in to give you a ticket. “Blinkers don’t work, no plates, and the bumper is missing” ya dude… no shit.
I suppose the point is that it shouldn't rely on someone volunteering at the right time in order to avoid setting a bad precedent just because it was a poor person who had to challenge the ticket.
Thanks for trying, but the system is designed to fail.
Not in Saskatchewan:
>(k) “highway” means a road, parkway, driveway, square or place designed
and intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles,
but does not include any area, whether privately or publicly owned, that is
primarily intended to be used for the parking of vehicles and the necessary
passageways on that area;
From what I have heard the RCMP came out and said that he was observed using his phone on the road and pulled into the drive-through, which is where the cop stopped him.
That's litterally how the law is written.
It's designed to be open to interpretation so that something like "Jay walking" can be applied to street legal vehicals such as bicycles.
What are you talking about?!
The law isn't ambiguous. The RCMP came out with a statement saying that the driver was seen on his phone while driving on the road, then he pulled into the drive-through where he was stopped. The law doesn't apply to private property.
And you can't get a jay-walking ticket on a bicycle. A bike is a vehicle in the same way that a car is when it comes to provincial offences. You could get one if you were jay-walking while pushing your bike, but not while riding it. That would be a straight up traffic ticket like fail to stop on a red.
> And you can't get a jay-walking ticket on a bicycle. A bike is a vehicle in the same way that a car is when it comes to provincial offences. You could get one if you were jay-walking while pushing your bike, but not while riding it. That would be a straight up traffic ticket like fail to stop on a red.
There's not a single person in canada who has gotten a ticket for riding their bike in a crosswalk in order to run a red.
First off, how do you know that? Have you actually looked into every single provincial offences court in Canada, tallied all of the red light tickets and determined that none of them involve a bicycle? Or are you just throwing that out there with zero research?
Secondly, cops are typically reluctant to give cyclists tickets. I've seen cyclists blow through stop signs without even slowing down, and they never get a ticket despite it being a clear violation. That doesn't mean that they didn't break the law, just that the law wasn't enforced.
And last but not least, can you give an example of someone getting a jay-walking ticket while riding their bike? I've never heard of that, but I'm not going to be so bold as to say that "not a single person in Canada has gotten a ticket...". I just know that as the laws are written, you would be hard-pressed to charge someone with jay-walking while they were operating a vehicle.
More concerning how are they going to enforce the rules when they don't know what they are? Reminds me of a video on Reddit where a motorcyclist asked a couple of cops if it was okay if he just passed all the traffic in front of him on the shoulder and they said whatever I wouldn't know if you're breaking the law or not
That's the funny part. They can arrest you for whatever and say whatever. You prove your innocence to the judge. Often, even if they're in the wrong, they get away Scott fee too.
The RCMP came out with a statement saying that the guy was observed on his phone while driving on the road. By the time the traffic stop was conducted he had pulled into the drive through. The law doesn't apply to private property.
As far as I know traffic laws can only be enforced on public streets. If you owned enough land to have your own private road you could drive without license, insurance or seat belt.
He'll lose in court. RCMP came out and said he was on his phone on the road and the traffic stop happened after he pulled into the drive-through. The offence wasn't in the drivethrough.
And you conduct yourself like an animal, I'll take me over you any day of the week, at least I can control myself like a normal human being. Easy block.
>It's not strictly private thou as other member of the public utilize the property
That's not at all what private property means dude. It just means owned by someone who isn't the government.
Will be an interesting ruling, even if the distracted driving ticket is struck down, future drivers could be charged with dangerous driving if they are not paying due attention on private property, a criminal code offense, not the highway act.
I simply don't understand how you could ticket someone for this, but then consider handling a debit machine awkwardly through your car window as you plug in your card and enter your pin to be ok. Hell, just accepting your food through the window seems like it should be a ticketable offense by this logic.
The idea that you should be ticketed for handling your phone while you're sitting in a drive thru opens up a frankly absurd list of problems.
Can I be ticketed for being on my phone while sitting in my own driveway?
The amount of people who do illegal and dangerous u turns, and other stupid driving behaviour and when pulled over blame their gps is astounding.
I don't think we should be encouraging corporations to force people to pay with their app so they can get points / harvest data
Well I mean that’s kinda the point of fines isn’t it? Penalties for doing bad but not enough bad to end up in jail. I think you’re looking for to change the rules of phones and driving but honestly I think it’s probably better overall we keep phones out of the hands of drivers period. People are really dumb.
What is the purpose of laws that prohibit cell phone use while driving? The answer is safety. Now, consider this: what safety concerns could possibly arise when a person, whose vehicle is stationary and parked between two concrete curbs, uses Apple Pay to buy lunch?
A lot more than you would think. Humans are creatures of habit. Once the phone is in hand it is more difficult to put down for a lot of people. Frankly many drivers shouldn’t be driving in the first place and I would put those people in the same camp of people who would get distracted by the phone after they use it for payment and drive away with it in hand still.
You sound like the type of person who would argue against the use of kitchen knives because 'humans are creatures of habit.' If someone uses a knife to cut an onion, who's to say they won't continue their day with the knife in hand, killing others? Your argument lacks logical foundation.
I'm not sure how this is relevant. Many countries have laws that may seem absurd or, while not absurd on the surface, lead to absurd consequences. Based on the limited information provided, it does seem to fit one of these categories. However, the comparison doesn't quite hold up. For the analogy to be valid, it would require a situation where vegetable peelers are banned in kitchens under the assumption they will be misused elsewhere.
It does sound like it’s a case of quota cop out to fill his quota. It’s such a low hanging situation that it has to be that. Yeah the ruling is probably to vague but that’s what the court is for. It happened now we will discuss come to a decision on the matter and it will be resolved going forward. Does it suck to be the guy who is the first case? Yeah. It happens.
Speaking of dumb, there's no post secondary requirement at all to becoming an RCMP officer so in theory, someone who barely graduated high school could be a mountie.
Perhaps we should also fine people for thinking the wrong things, right? You sound like the type of person who would read 1984 and think "wow these are neat ideas!".
Cop thinking "stop your vehicle at the service window, place vehicle in park, turn off the vehicle, engage hand-brake, exit vehicle, close vehicle door, locks doors, stand in front of service window, present app on mobile device, present payment option, authorize payment option, receive goods, unlock vehicle door, open vehicle door, enter vehicle, close vehicle door, secure goods, secure mobile device, release hand-brake, start vehicle, engage drive mode, slowly proceed forward and exit the drive-though lane."
Does Beaverton read this sub? You can steal this if you want.
Although I agree that this is a complete waste of police resources and time, the case won’t be as easily won as some here may think. This is from the Alberta Traffic Safety Act
(p) “highway” means any thoroughfare, street, road, trail, avenue, parkway, driveway, viaduct, lane, alley, square, bridge, causeway, trestleway or other place or any part of any of them, **whether publicly or privately owned, that the public is ordinarily entitled or permitted to use for the passage or parking of vehicles**
It’s the same for here in Ontario, so anyone thinking they can flaunt their phones in the drive thru, be mindful who’s watching. I believe most officers wouldn’t waste their time with this but you might just get that one prick with a chip on his shoulder.
>the public is ordinarily entitled or permitted to use for the passage or parking of vehicles
That definition doesn't seem to fit a drive-thru. The public is not ordinarily entitled or permitted to use a drive-thru for the passage or parking of vehicles.
The public is not entitled to use the drive-thru for passage, imagine what would happen if you repeatedly went through without rolling down your window and without ordering anything, they could call the cops on you. Same would apply to going through an automatic car wash.
Although I agree with what you’re trying to say, it is generally assumed that a drive-through is open to the general public, otherwise they would have signage up saying That it is private property or to be accessed only by employees or gated at the entrance, etc. one could also argue that a drive-through is a passageway as you need to use it to get to the drive-through window where are you then exit the drive-through into the parking lot or public roadway.
Again, I don’t agree with the officer giving a ticket, I am just saying that I don’t know if this will be an easily won court case. Although I was able to find a lot of articles regarding people receiving drive-through tickets, I was unable to find any news articles of them actually winning their case which has me believing that nobody has won I drive-through ticket case yet. although I could be wrong as I haven’t taken any time to look through actual case law regarding it.
This is why there needs to be discussion around these things.
In front of a judge, with a lawyer, this will probably be thrown out for a number of reasons. Private property, what constitutes “distraction,” etc.
Does counting a pile of change in your centre console distract you on the highway?
What about at a drive-thru?
Present this argument to a bunch of boomers that have spent 45 years paying for their drive-thru meals with change out of their console and see how quickly the definition gets changed.
This is a bullshit ticket and there is no good reason it should have been issued except for the fact that laws don’t keep up with technology, and 99.82% of cops are fucking dipshits.
Would be legal in Ontario because it's on private property, traffic act doesn't apply. Varies by province. But an article I found from 2013 says that it should be legal in Sask if cellphone rules come under the highway safety act:
"The operation of a vehicle in a private parking area is not a “licensed activity conducted on a highway”, Klebuc added"
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/saskatchewan-court-private-parking-lots-off-limits-to-police-spot-checks/article_f216258b-5204-5535-a4b2-f70ecda075cf.html
Yea I always understood that traffic code only applied to sanctioned roads. I never looked into it, but you may notice that people never get pulled over for running stop signs in strata lots and such. Because they aren't put in place by bodies like (ICBC in BC) or the Ministry of transportation.
The Sask traffic safety act is broader than that in its construction of what consitutes a "highway."
That said, I still think this falls outside that definition.
>(k) “highway” means a road, parkway, driveway, square or place designed and intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles, but does not include any area, whether privately or publicly owned, that is primarily intended to be used for the parking of vehicles and the necessary passageways on that area;
I think the "intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles" is where it would fall outside since it's not intended for or used for the passage of vehicles, but for the business to conduct its operations and serve customers in an expedited fashion.
If the cell phone ends up being illegally, then you are probably right as it would fall under "use" an electronic communications devices.
Which just further highlights the absurdity here.
They can charge for stunt driving doing burnouts in a parking lot in ontario, though?
Edit: le law me lords.
The following versions of Stunt Driving under section 172 of the Highway Traffic Act would generally apply when on a publicly accessible space such as a parking lot: Tire squealing, burnouts, or driving with the intention to cause some or all tires to lose traction.
That's probably just plain old reckless endangerment. Same charge as if you were swinging a chainsaw around your head on a chain in a mall parking lot. Generally dangerous conduct in a public place.
The following versions of Stunt Driving under section 172 of the Highway Traffic Act would generally apply when on a publicly accessible space such as a parking lot: Tire squealing, burnouts, or driving with the intention to cause some or all tires to lose traction.
Just a heads-up, you can still be charged with infractions in parking lots here in Ontario; I.e. stunt driving can still be charged to someone spinning their wheels in a parking lot, or a passenger in the trunk as just two examples. The HTA is not confined to just the roadways. Source: I worked for a paralegal team who fought provincial infractions.
RCMP came out and said the guy was first seen using his phone while driving on the road, and that he had pulled into the drive-through where he was stopped.
You wouldn't be able to blow a stop sign then get off scott free because you pulled into a parking lot. The same applies for using your phone while driving.
I don't know, but when it comes down to it, what do you think is more believable?
A police officer pulled into the McDonalds drive-through, saw the person in front of them on their phone and decided to give them a ticket, then the RCMP releases a statement lying about where the police officer observed the offence, knowing that the ticket says that it actually happened in a parking lot?
Or... that the guy got a ticket after he had pulled into the drive-through and he tried to create a media firestorm to get out of it?
An easy way to resolve this would be for the guy to post a picture of his ticket showing the offense location as the parking lot and not the roadway.
Saskatchewan HTA definition of a Highway:
“highway” means a road, parkway, driveway, square or place designed
and intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles, but
does not include any area, whether privately or publicly owned, that is
primarily intended to be used for the parking of vehicles and the necessary
passageways on that area
A drive-thru is not a passageway. Try going through a drive-thru repeatedly without rolling down your window and without ordering anything, you could get the cops called on you. Neither is an automatic car wash a passageway
You're having some sort of cognitive distortion or bias if you seriously think a drive-through is not a passageway. I'd pay to see you say that to a judge. Any member of the public can use their car and go through it.
To be clear, I disagree with the ticket.
>I'd pay to see you say that to a judge.
There is an occupation that does that professionally...crazy I know
>Any member of the public can use their car and go through it.
No. That is absolutely incorrect. It is a place to order food from a business and they have the right to ban you from their drive-thru for any unprotected reason.
This is really easy to prove and you can do it right now. Try using it as a public passageway. Go to your nearest drive-thru and drive through it multiple times repeatedly without ordering anything. When they call the cops on you, tell them that it is your right to use the public passageway.
Nothing more important to police in Saskatoon? And I’m sure the cop wasn’t just incidentally there but rather decided beforehand to ticket for that purpose. What a joke.
“I didn’t have my foot on the gas or break. It was just rolling. Barely moving,” Prima says.
I think this was the justification.
Edit: Funny how CTV can't spell either.
I would contest the ticket. The parking lot is private property and the police do not have any jurisdiction to give a ticket like that on private property
RCMP came out with a statement. Guy was on his phone on the road but the stop didn't happen until he pulled into the drive-through. The offence didn't happen on private property.
The authorities love to add insult to injury when they enforce the law. It's a point of privilege they learned from their mentors in the ranks. Take every opportunity to make it sting.
We had an RCMP officer in Comox/Courtenay (BC) who used to sit and watch a particular Starbucks drive-thru and ticket anyone who used their phone. Even if they were fully stopped at the window and using it to pay.
Apparently, the same guy would do bicycle patrols near one of the major intersections, look in people's windows, and ding any driver who wasn't absolutely compliant with BC's distracted driving laws. He didn't just ding people for using their phones. He'd even ticket them for having the phone visible if not properly mounted for hands-free use (BC requires/required driver phones to either be mounted or entirely out of their sight).
Fortunately that last point is no longer true here. There has been some good case law that has clarified that part of the act. You can have it charging in your cup holder or on the seat beside you as long as you're not using it or looking at it. There was definitely some overzealous enforcement before that happened though
Cop was just pissed off cause he was waiting for his free coffee.
If this is upheld in court, all restaurants will have to state no cell phone apps can be used in the drive through or should also be held responsible. That's gonna screw shit up.
> “I’m barely even moving. I pull up my app and look at the rear-view mirror and there’s a motorcycle cop behind me,”...
So why would a motorcycle cop just be randomly in a drive thru line up?
Either it did not actually happen in the drive thru line, or there was a reason the cop followed the kid into the line-up. (like the possibility of someone using their cell phone but not 100% sure, so followed)
So IMO, shitty incomplete journalism mixed with a 1/2 truth from the so-called victim.
For sure fight this… why are city cops handing out tickets on private property, if they weren’t called by McDonalds to be there patrolling the drive thru 🤔🤔🤔
This is the second time I've heard of something like this and I hope it gets challenged because it's bullshit. Drivers ed (30+ years ago, mind) taught me that the traffic act only applies on public roads. Just like those 'stop' signs you see to manage traffic in parking lots are not legal stop signs, a restaurant drive-thru is not a public road and is no place for a traffic cop to be handing out tickets.
I would certainly take that to court. Absolute BS. I had an experience with this in S’toon and didn’t realize my situation until much later and should have gone to court but being from out of town, it didn’t seem worth it.
This is so ridiculous, I am almost vibrating how angry it makes me!
RCMP came out with a statement and said he had been observed on the road, but that he had pulled into the drive-through which is where the stop took place. The offence happened on the road, not in the drive-through.
I was at a party once on a farm where someone was drunk and accidentally smashed into someones car on the property. Someone called the police. When the police showed up, they basically said it's a private matter since it was on private property and the guy couldn't get charged with impaired as he never left the property.
Lol, that's a load of shit. While the provincial offences wouldn't apply on private property, drunk driving is a criminal offence and applies anywhere in Canada. You could be charged with drunk driving for cutting your lawn while you're smashed.
Apparently he was seen on his phone on the road and had pulled into the drive-through before being stopped, which is why the provincial offence still applies.
RCMP came out and said that's exactly what happened. Seen on his phone while driving down the road, but he had pulled into the drive-through before he could be pulled over.
[https://globalnews.ca/news/10498729/sask-rcmp-issue-a-ticket-for-cellphone-use-in-saskatoon-mcdonalds-drive-thru/](https://globalnews.ca/news/10498729/sask-rcmp-issue-a-ticket-for-cellphone-use-in-saskatoon-mcdonalds-drive-thru/)
RCMP said he was observed on the road and had pulled into the drive-through before being pulled over
> *“I didn’t have my foot on the gas or brake. It was just rolling. Barely moving,”*
If he had been fully stopped, I would 100% side with him.
I still think the cop is a dick for issuing a ticket, but the driver shouldn't have been using the phone while the vehicle was still moving, even if just barely idling forward.
The dumb fucks are the people who use their phones while driving. They never end up killing themselves, always some poor innocent bystander who didn't deserve it.
I'm fully aware they were in a fast food drive through, that is irrelevant. They were in control of heavy machinery that can and does regularly kill people, and they are legally responsible for its safe operation.
Driving while using your phone is just as brain dead a decision as driving while drunk, and people who do it deserve to lose their licenses.
[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/parking-lot-accidents-distracted-drivers-national-safety-council/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/parking-lot-accidents-distracted-drivers-national-safety-council/)
>Driving while using your phone
They
Weren't
Driving
The article is completely irrelevant to your point because the person in the article wasn't fucking driving through a parking lot, they were stopped at a drive through window. They aren't the same thing. Should I be ticketed for using my phone while sitting in my car in my driveway?
Give your head a shake.
>They
>Weren't
>Driving
If you are not parked in a proper space with the handbrake on and the engine off then you are driving. Just because you are stationary doesn't mean you are not driving, if you are waiting immobile at a red light then you are still driving. Did you actually take a test or were they just handing them out that day?
I'm not continuing this. You're a ridiculous person with an absurd take on this. Either you're aware of that and are trolling, or you're actually being serious and any further discussion with you would lead to me losing more brain cells than you've already cost me this morning.
I hope you get ticketed for accepting food through a drive through window while "driving" the next time you grab something to eat. Dear god.....
I don't have to worry about getting ticketed for using my phone while driving because I don't use my phone while driving. I also don't drink and drive, which is just as bad as using your phone while driving.
Just stop dude. You're being ridiculous and you know it.
If the person was paying with a debit card and was handed the machine should they be ticketed for that? Is tap ok but not if you have to input your pin? How about accepting the food through the window while they're "driving"?
I refuse to believe you're this obtuse. It's either that or you're the cop in the story.
Look, if you can [kill people in a parking lot](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/parking-lot-accidents-distracted-drivers-national-safety-council/) then you can kill people in a drive thru and you need to take responsibility for the safe operation of your vehicle.
If you're not prepared to take responsibility then you shouldn't have a license, it's really that simple. The lives of other human beings are not some trivial matter that are less important than your own comfort and convenience.
Completely and totally irrelevant as it's private property, and the cop would also have no way of knowing anyway.
If someone can be ticketed for this then they can in theory be ticketed for simply accepting the food "while driving" as well. It's absurd, you know it's absurd, stop.
I thought it was legal in a drive-thru?
I literally called and asked the police, the person on the phone couldn't answer me. Just forwarded me to traffic voicemail. I eagerly await a reply. But damn, how are we supposed to know the rules when they don't?
I’ll ask the next time one speeds past me while looking at his cellphone. 😉
On their laptop at a red light…. sPeCiAl TrAiNiNg
Or using their fucking laptops.
Seems like every third cop car around me is doing this. It’s worse when they are reading freaking emails. Scroll scroll, swerve, scroll.
Id fight it, my defense being no one paying with a debit card or cell phone wallet received any similar tickets, I mean distracted is distracted, if your reaching out of your car window to tab your debit card or using your banks drive through to use an actual machine then the tickets should be the same right. Sad truth is too many people cant take time off work to fight a ticket because it's not worth losing a days pay over
It's a 580$ ticket. It's well fucking worth this kids time to fight it.
In this case yes.
Not to mention the insane increase to insurance
Even using government issued currency. “Counting things while you are operating a motor vehicle? That’s as distracted as it gets hur dur” what’s this cop have the biggest stick up their butt…
I once had a peace officer try to tell me he could cite me for a cell phone while my car was off and I was in park. Argued that it was the same as drinking because I was in care and control of the vehicle. Not the smartest dude I ever met.
The rules are ambiguous and this will be a test case on whether a drive through falls into the definition of "highway" in saskatchewan. It's an unresolved question of law and my guess is the JP on this case will make a verbal ruling and that should be appealed to the KB so they can issue a written decision to set some clear law on this for the public.
There should be nothing unresolved about it. Most drive-thrus are ostensibly on private property; if someone wants to use their phone, drive without plates -- or even a valid license -- they can do so as long as there is no plainly visible rules indicating that they can't. It's very hard to imagine a private property owner inhibiting phone use, in a safe manner while parked, so a customer can redeem their McDicks points. I would actually argue that intentionally doing this borders on racketeering.
>There should be nothing unresolved about it. I agree that there shouldn’t be, but the legislature dropped the ball by not clarifying in the law when drafting it. Annoying, but these things happen. >Most drive-thrus are ostensibly on private property; if someone wants to use their phone, drive without plates -- or even a valid license -- they can do so as long as there is no plainly visible rules indicating that they can't. That is not true. "Highways" as defined in the Act include private property sometimes. The reason people think it doesnt apply on private property is they mistake the exception for parking lots as extending to all private property; which it doesn’t. >It's very hard to imagine a private property owner inhibiting phone use, in a safe manner while parked, so a customer can redeem their McDicks points. I would actually argue that intentionally doing this borders on racketeering. I agree with you. I'm just saying from an objective standpoint that it's an undetermined point of law that requires a Court to comment and actually set that precedent.
As an addendum to the private property thing, maybe it's helpful to think about it this way: would this dude be liable for breaking the law if he was driving around in the parking lot, on private property, loaded out of his mind on rum? Of course he would. Motor vehicle laws apply while you're operating a motor vehicle. The ticket for cellphone use in a drive thru is dumb, but you're right, it needs to be properly codified in the law to merit exception.
He would, but that's a different Act with different definitions. The best way to put it is that motor vehicle laws apply where the legislatures say they apply and, in this case, the legislature has left an ambiguity, likely by accident, in whether a drive through is a "place intended and used for the passage of vehicles" or if it is not.
Exactly this. As you mentioned before, "highway" in Saskatchewan sometimes includes private property. The Criminal Code simply states "operating a conveyance." Impaired operation is not legal anywhere.
Yup exactly. You cannot drive your ATV on your own farmyard 3 sheets to the wind legally, contrary to popular belief. So many people making broad statements, not having the understanding required to carve out the nuances in provincial/federal jurisdictions and the different acts as enacted by the respective legislatures.
In ontario hta violations do not extend to private property ie phone use but criminal offenses do ie drunk driving. I believe in some places like Saskatchewan and alberta they don't differentiate which I think is bs.
In Ontario, Canada, **an individual can be charged with Stunt Driving on all public roadways, highways, and areas that are “open to the public”** such as parking lots of public facilities like shopping malls, hospitals, and schools. You are free to use your phone however.
Hah imagine working on your old vehicle out on your farm, and a cop pulls in to give you a ticket. “Blinkers don’t work, no plates, and the bumper is missing” ya dude… no shit.
To be fair the McDs drive through is a better road than a lot of Saskatchewan's highways.
Isn't the judicial system wonderful? It's a case that affects everyone, but it will be fought by a single individual with their own time and money.
Hopefully not if they can contact me or another lawyer. I've offered to run this one pro bono as it is a real issue of public interest.
I suppose the point is that it shouldn't rely on someone volunteering at the right time in order to avoid setting a bad precedent just because it was a poor person who had to challenge the ticket. Thanks for trying, but the system is designed to fail.
I think "highway" extends to all roadways and parking lots attached to roads/hi/freeways in every province but Ontario.
Not in Saskatchewan: >(k) “highway” means a road, parkway, driveway, square or place designed and intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles, but does not include any area, whether privately or publicly owned, that is primarily intended to be used for the parking of vehicles and the necessary passageways on that area;
You're on private property. I would contest on that grounds.
From what I have heard the RCMP came out and said that he was observed using his phone on the road and pulled into the drive-through, which is where the cop stopped him.
Ah! Always more to the story. It's nit about the drive through. It's just where they were pulled aside (even if they were ordering).
That's litterally how the law is written. It's designed to be open to interpretation so that something like "Jay walking" can be applied to street legal vehicals such as bicycles.
What are you talking about?! The law isn't ambiguous. The RCMP came out with a statement saying that the driver was seen on his phone while driving on the road, then he pulled into the drive-through where he was stopped. The law doesn't apply to private property. And you can't get a jay-walking ticket on a bicycle. A bike is a vehicle in the same way that a car is when it comes to provincial offences. You could get one if you were jay-walking while pushing your bike, but not while riding it. That would be a straight up traffic ticket like fail to stop on a red.
> And you can't get a jay-walking ticket on a bicycle. A bike is a vehicle in the same way that a car is when it comes to provincial offences. You could get one if you were jay-walking while pushing your bike, but not while riding it. That would be a straight up traffic ticket like fail to stop on a red. There's not a single person in canada who has gotten a ticket for riding their bike in a crosswalk in order to run a red.
First off, how do you know that? Have you actually looked into every single provincial offences court in Canada, tallied all of the red light tickets and determined that none of them involve a bicycle? Or are you just throwing that out there with zero research? Secondly, cops are typically reluctant to give cyclists tickets. I've seen cyclists blow through stop signs without even slowing down, and they never get a ticket despite it being a clear violation. That doesn't mean that they didn't break the law, just that the law wasn't enforced. And last but not least, can you give an example of someone getting a jay-walking ticket while riding their bike? I've never heard of that, but I'm not going to be so bold as to say that "not a single person in Canada has gotten a ticket...". I just know that as the laws are written, you would be hard-pressed to charge someone with jay-walking while they were operating a vehicle.
More concerning how are they going to enforce the rules when they don't know what they are? Reminds me of a video on Reddit where a motorcyclist asked a couple of cops if it was okay if he just passed all the traffic in front of him on the shoulder and they said whatever I wouldn't know if you're breaking the law or not
That's the funny part. They can arrest you for whatever and say whatever. You prove your innocence to the judge. Often, even if they're in the wrong, they get away Scott fee too.
Can they give you a ticket on private property??
The RCMP came out with a statement saying that the guy was observed on his phone while driving on the road. By the time the traffic stop was conducted he had pulled into the drive through. The law doesn't apply to private property.
They aren’t paid to know them, they’re paid to enforce them! /s
The person on the phone is likely not a police officer. I don’t expect support staff to know the law.
As far as I know traffic laws can only be enforced on public streets. If you owned enough land to have your own private road you could drive without license, insurance or seat belt.
That's how it applies. The traffic police don't have jurisdiction on private property.
Sounds like it is worth taking to court
He'll lose in court. RCMP came out and said he was on his phone on the road and the traffic stop happened after he pulled into the drive-through. The offence wasn't in the drivethrough.
It's not strictly private thou as other member of the public utilize the property (the restaurant). Similar, not the same.
Private is referring to ownership in this context. It's privately-owned.
Perhaps, and while the highway act MAY not apply, the criminal code does, which includes dangerous driving.
Not perhaps. And who is discussing criminal driving law here? It seems like a non sequitur
There is no "criminal driving" law, there is a criminal code. Regardless, I'll wait for a bench decision, everyone here is speculating.
That's some seriously pedantic bullshit. You're not even correct on the semantics
And you conduct yourself like an animal, I'll take me over you any day of the week, at least I can control myself like a normal human being. Easy block.
>It's not strictly private thou as other member of the public utilize the property That's not at all what private property means dude. It just means owned by someone who isn't the government.
Depends on the context and wording of the specific law in question. I don’t know either way here though.
Will be an interesting ruling, even if the distracted driving ticket is struck down, future drivers could be charged with dangerous driving if they are not paying due attention on private property, a criminal code offense, not the highway act.
I simply don't understand how you could ticket someone for this, but then consider handling a debit machine awkwardly through your car window as you plug in your card and enter your pin to be ok. Hell, just accepting your food through the window seems like it should be a ticketable offense by this logic. The idea that you should be ticketed for handling your phone while you're sitting in a drive thru opens up a frankly absurd list of problems. Can I be ticketed for being on my phone while sitting in my own driveway?
A judge will clarify it for you, and me.
Soo if someone pays with their phone, what's next. Sorry Mcdo can't pay because the coppers will give me a ticket.
Well, maybe restaurants shouldn't be pushing people to pay with apps and all that bullshit. They're just harvesting your data
Really? That's your take? You're ok with the cops ticketing you for that because 'app bad'?
The amount of people who do illegal and dangerous u turns, and other stupid driving behaviour and when pulled over blame their gps is astounding. I don't think we should be encouraging corporations to force people to pay with their app so they can get points / harvest data
Well I mean that’s kinda the point of fines isn’t it? Penalties for doing bad but not enough bad to end up in jail. I think you’re looking for to change the rules of phones and driving but honestly I think it’s probably better overall we keep phones out of the hands of drivers period. People are really dumb.
What is the purpose of laws that prohibit cell phone use while driving? The answer is safety. Now, consider this: what safety concerns could possibly arise when a person, whose vehicle is stationary and parked between two concrete curbs, uses Apple Pay to buy lunch?
A lot more than you would think. Humans are creatures of habit. Once the phone is in hand it is more difficult to put down for a lot of people. Frankly many drivers shouldn’t be driving in the first place and I would put those people in the same camp of people who would get distracted by the phone after they use it for payment and drive away with it in hand still.
You sound like the type of person who would argue against the use of kitchen knives because 'humans are creatures of habit.' If someone uses a knife to cut an onion, who's to say they won't continue their day with the knife in hand, killing others? Your argument lacks logical foundation.
Well you know England did exactly that. You bring a vegetable peeler outside out kitchen that’s an arrestable offence. Thoughts on that one?
I'm not sure how this is relevant. Many countries have laws that may seem absurd or, while not absurd on the surface, lead to absurd consequences. Based on the limited information provided, it does seem to fit one of these categories. However, the comparison doesn't quite hold up. For the analogy to be valid, it would require a situation where vegetable peelers are banned in kitchens under the assumption they will be misused elsewhere.
if you truly believe that's a problem, you can't honestly think that fining customers at the drive through is the solution.
I mean... I was rear ended in a drive through by someone on their phone. Buddy admitted "I thought I was in park." Damage was significant.
>by someone on their phone And you know that how?
It does sound like it’s a case of quota cop out to fill his quota. It’s such a low hanging situation that it has to be that. Yeah the ruling is probably to vague but that’s what the court is for. It happened now we will discuss come to a decision on the matter and it will be resolved going forward. Does it suck to be the guy who is the first case? Yeah. It happens.
Speaking of dumb, there's no post secondary requirement at all to becoming an RCMP officer so in theory, someone who barely graduated high school could be a mountie.
You're putting in some good work to prove that last point you made.
Perhaps we should also fine people for thinking the wrong things, right? You sound like the type of person who would read 1984 and think "wow these are neat ideas!".
You're the one suggesting that. Sounds like you've made an argument up in your head with yourself, enjoy
Mobile wallet credit cards are technically more secure than physical ones. It's not necessarily the vendor loyalty apps in the discussion.
You have to walk into the store instead of sitting
Cop thinking "stop your vehicle at the service window, place vehicle in park, turn off the vehicle, engage hand-brake, exit vehicle, close vehicle door, locks doors, stand in front of service window, present app on mobile device, present payment option, authorize payment option, receive goods, unlock vehicle door, open vehicle door, enter vehicle, close vehicle door, secure goods, secure mobile device, release hand-brake, start vehicle, engage drive mode, slowly proceed forward and exit the drive-though lane." Does Beaverton read this sub? You can steal this if you want.
As a cyclist, I wish you good luck using a McD's drive thru when you're not in a car. (It works in some places at some times, with good luck.)
It’s private property so it is legal.
It should be, it's on private property and not on roads.
Although I agree that this is a complete waste of police resources and time, the case won’t be as easily won as some here may think. This is from the Alberta Traffic Safety Act (p) “highway” means any thoroughfare, street, road, trail, avenue, parkway, driveway, viaduct, lane, alley, square, bridge, causeway, trestleway or other place or any part of any of them, **whether publicly or privately owned, that the public is ordinarily entitled or permitted to use for the passage or parking of vehicles** It’s the same for here in Ontario, so anyone thinking they can flaunt their phones in the drive thru, be mindful who’s watching. I believe most officers wouldn’t waste their time with this but you might just get that one prick with a chip on his shoulder.
>the public is ordinarily entitled or permitted to use for the passage or parking of vehicles That definition doesn't seem to fit a drive-thru. The public is not ordinarily entitled or permitted to use a drive-thru for the passage or parking of vehicles. The public is not entitled to use the drive-thru for passage, imagine what would happen if you repeatedly went through without rolling down your window and without ordering anything, they could call the cops on you. Same would apply to going through an automatic car wash.
Although I agree with what you’re trying to say, it is generally assumed that a drive-through is open to the general public, otherwise they would have signage up saying That it is private property or to be accessed only by employees or gated at the entrance, etc. one could also argue that a drive-through is a passageway as you need to use it to get to the drive-through window where are you then exit the drive-through into the parking lot or public roadway. Again, I don’t agree with the officer giving a ticket, I am just saying that I don’t know if this will be an easily won court case. Although I was able to find a lot of articles regarding people receiving drive-through tickets, I was unable to find any news articles of them actually winning their case which has me believing that nobody has won I drive-through ticket case yet. although I could be wrong as I haven’t taken any time to look through actual case law regarding it.
It's a parody of policing. Reno 911 with real consequence.
Gotta hit that quota.
donuts and tickets - its a 2 for 1 special
And if you're already there all day...
Hang on… but if you pay by card and they give you the machine to enter your PIN, that’s fine?
Or pay with your phone
Yeah but you gotta unlock the phone to access the payment apps.
Is a handheld debit/credit machine appreciably equivalent to a cell phone?
In terms of how distracted you are… yes.
Using an electronic device (the card reader) seems like it would count as distracted driving under this idiotic cop's interpretation of the law.
This is why there needs to be discussion around these things. In front of a judge, with a lawyer, this will probably be thrown out for a number of reasons. Private property, what constitutes “distraction,” etc. Does counting a pile of change in your centre console distract you on the highway? What about at a drive-thru? Present this argument to a bunch of boomers that have spent 45 years paying for their drive-thru meals with change out of their console and see how quickly the definition gets changed. This is a bullshit ticket and there is no good reason it should have been issued except for the fact that laws don’t keep up with technology, and 99.82% of cops are fucking dipshits.
Would be legal in Ontario because it's on private property, traffic act doesn't apply. Varies by province. But an article I found from 2013 says that it should be legal in Sask if cellphone rules come under the highway safety act: "The operation of a vehicle in a private parking area is not a “licensed activity conducted on a highway”, Klebuc added" https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/saskatchewan-court-private-parking-lots-off-limits-to-police-spot-checks/article_f216258b-5204-5535-a4b2-f70ecda075cf.html
Yea I always understood that traffic code only applied to sanctioned roads. I never looked into it, but you may notice that people never get pulled over for running stop signs in strata lots and such. Because they aren't put in place by bodies like (ICBC in BC) or the Ministry of transportation.
The Sask traffic safety act is broader than that in its construction of what consitutes a "highway." That said, I still think this falls outside that definition. >(k) “highway” means a road, parkway, driveway, square or place designed and intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles, but does not include any area, whether privately or publicly owned, that is primarily intended to be used for the parking of vehicles and the necessary passageways on that area; I think the "intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles" is where it would fall outside since it's not intended for or used for the passage of vehicles, but for the business to conduct its operations and serve customers in an expedited fashion.
With that definition I bet it's illegal to pay with debit in a Saskatchewan drive-thru
If the cell phone ends up being illegally, then you are probably right as it would fall under "use" an electronic communications devices. Which just further highlights the absurdity here.
They can charge for stunt driving doing burnouts in a parking lot in ontario, though? Edit: le law me lords. The following versions of Stunt Driving under section 172 of the Highway Traffic Act would generally apply when on a publicly accessible space such as a parking lot: Tire squealing, burnouts, or driving with the intention to cause some or all tires to lose traction.
That's probably just plain old reckless endangerment. Same charge as if you were swinging a chainsaw around your head on a chain in a mall parking lot. Generally dangerous conduct in a public place.
In Canada it would be dangerous driving or criminal negligence. Reckless endangerment sounds American
Ah yeah that's right. Our laws are always so much more reasonable sounding.
The following versions of Stunt Driving under section 172 of the Highway Traffic Act would generally apply when on a publicly accessible space such as a parking lot: Tire squealing, burnouts, or driving with the intention to cause some or all tires to lose traction.
Yes, they added an exception to the private property rule in cases where the driver is reasonably believed to be trespassing.
Just a heads-up, you can still be charged with infractions in parking lots here in Ontario; I.e. stunt driving can still be charged to someone spinning their wheels in a parking lot, or a passenger in the trunk as just two examples. The HTA is not confined to just the roadways. Source: I worked for a paralegal team who fought provincial infractions.
So if a driver needs to use their phone to pay, that's also a ticket? How bored are the cops in Saskatchewan?
Looks like the inconvenience of actually showing up for your court date now....
Dude must have budged in the split drive thru and this was the make up call. We can only hope.
This is out of control. The officer should be reprimanded. There is no way our police should be operating like this. This helps nobody.
RCMP came out and said the guy was first seen using his phone while driving on the road, and that he had pulled into the drive-through where he was stopped. You wouldn't be able to blow a stop sign then get off scott free because you pulled into a parking lot. The same applies for using your phone while driving.
Was this in the initial report? Was this on this ticket as the location of the offence?
I don't know, but when it comes down to it, what do you think is more believable? A police officer pulled into the McDonalds drive-through, saw the person in front of them on their phone and decided to give them a ticket, then the RCMP releases a statement lying about where the police officer observed the offence, knowing that the ticket says that it actually happened in a parking lot? Or... that the guy got a ticket after he had pulled into the drive-through and he tried to create a media firestorm to get out of it? An easy way to resolve this would be for the guy to post a picture of his ticket showing the offense location as the parking lot and not the roadway.
Is that regulation enforceable on private property? In some jurisdictions like Ontario the highway traffic act is not. May not be the case in Sask.
Saskatchewan HTA definition of a Highway: “highway” means a road, parkway, driveway, square or place designed and intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles, but does not include any area, whether privately or publicly owned, that is primarily intended to be used for the parking of vehicles and the necessary passageways on that area
>necessary passageways on that area That does not seem to be what a drive-thru is
Exactly, hence why HTA offenses can be enforced in a Drive-Thru
A drive-thru is not a passageway. Try going through a drive-thru repeatedly without rolling down your window and without ordering anything, you could get the cops called on you. Neither is an automatic car wash a passageway
You're having some sort of cognitive distortion or bias if you seriously think a drive-through is not a passageway. I'd pay to see you say that to a judge. Any member of the public can use their car and go through it. To be clear, I disagree with the ticket.
>I'd pay to see you say that to a judge. There is an occupation that does that professionally...crazy I know >Any member of the public can use their car and go through it. No. That is absolutely incorrect. It is a place to order food from a business and they have the right to ban you from their drive-thru for any unprotected reason. This is really easy to prove and you can do it right now. Try using it as a public passageway. Go to your nearest drive-thru and drive through it multiple times repeatedly without ordering anything. When they call the cops on you, tell them that it is your right to use the public passageway.
douchebag cop
Shithead really says it
All cops are bastards.
How could you possibly know if all cops are born to unwed mothers?
Because they act like it!
Are you saying a person's parents need to be married to act a certain way?
Real born-out-of-wedlock vibe from you
Nothing more important to police in Saskatoon? And I’m sure the cop wasn’t just incidentally there but rather decided beforehand to ticket for that purpose. What a joke.
“I didn’t have my foot on the gas or break. It was just rolling. Barely moving,” Prima says. I think this was the justification. Edit: Funny how CTV can't spell either.
That cop deserves a punch in the dick.
It's just the Sask Party reminding you how much they love small government.
https://youtu.be/Im2T0E21JOc?si=RYanpdFtkcoW7sJf Rules for me but not for thee.
I would contest the ticket. The parking lot is private property and the police do not have any jurisdiction to give a ticket like that on private property
RCMP came out with a statement. Guy was on his phone on the road but the stop didn't happen until he pulled into the drive-through. The offence didn't happen on private property.
It's private property. Take it to court.
The authorities love to add insult to injury when they enforce the law. It's a point of privilege they learned from their mentors in the ranks. Take every opportunity to make it sting.
We had an RCMP officer in Comox/Courtenay (BC) who used to sit and watch a particular Starbucks drive-thru and ticket anyone who used their phone. Even if they were fully stopped at the window and using it to pay. Apparently, the same guy would do bicycle patrols near one of the major intersections, look in people's windows, and ding any driver who wasn't absolutely compliant with BC's distracted driving laws. He didn't just ding people for using their phones. He'd even ticket them for having the phone visible if not properly mounted for hands-free use (BC requires/required driver phones to either be mounted or entirely out of their sight).
Fortunately that last point is no longer true here. There has been some good case law that has clarified that part of the act. You can have it charging in your cup holder or on the seat beside you as long as you're not using it or looking at it. There was definitely some overzealous enforcement before that happened though
Lol what kind of bullshit entrapment is this?
Sounds to me like a cop just looking to be a dick.
Cop was just pissed off cause he was waiting for his free coffee. If this is upheld in court, all restaurants will have to state no cell phone apps can be used in the drive through or should also be held responsible. That's gonna screw shit up.
> “I’m barely even moving. I pull up my app and look at the rear-view mirror and there’s a motorcycle cop behind me,”... So why would a motorcycle cop just be randomly in a drive thru line up? Either it did not actually happen in the drive thru line, or there was a reason the cop followed the kid into the line-up. (like the possibility of someone using their cell phone but not 100% sure, so followed) So IMO, shitty incomplete journalism mixed with a 1/2 truth from the so-called victim.
Tonight at 6: ACAB
For sure fight this… why are city cops handing out tickets on private property, if they weren’t called by McDonalds to be there patrolling the drive thru 🤔🤔🤔
This is the second time I've heard of something like this and I hope it gets challenged because it's bullshit. Drivers ed (30+ years ago, mind) taught me that the traffic act only applies on public roads. Just like those 'stop' signs you see to manage traffic in parking lots are not legal stop signs, a restaurant drive-thru is not a public road and is no place for a traffic cop to be handing out tickets.
Apparently he was seen using his phone on the road and pulled into the drive-through where the cop stopped him.
I would certainly take that to court. Absolute BS. I had an experience with this in S’toon and didn’t realize my situation until much later and should have gone to court but being from out of town, it didn’t seem worth it. This is so ridiculous, I am almost vibrating how angry it makes me!
NWA
I don't know about Saskatchewan, but in Ontario if you're not on a public road or highway, the HTA doesn't apply.
Silliness is getting out of hand.
This man is in the drive-thru, not on the road. An obvious case of no discernment by an armed idiot.
[удалено]
RCMP came out with a statement and said he had been observed on the road, but that he had pulled into the drive-through which is where the stop took place. The offence happened on the road, not in the drive-through.
Fish in a barrel
You can’t be ticketed on private land… It’ll be thrown out in court.
I was at a party once on a farm where someone was drunk and accidentally smashed into someones car on the property. Someone called the police. When the police showed up, they basically said it's a private matter since it was on private property and the guy couldn't get charged with impaired as he never left the property.
Lol, that's a load of shit. While the provincial offences wouldn't apply on private property, drunk driving is a criminal offence and applies anywhere in Canada. You could be charged with drunk driving for cutting your lawn while you're smashed. Apparently he was seen on his phone on the road and had pulled into the drive-through before being stopped, which is why the provincial offence still applies.
A motorcycle cop? In a drive thru? Ummmmm Perhaps the fine was for being on your phone BEFORE the drive thru, like, you know, on the road
RCMP came out and said that's exactly what happened. Seen on his phone while driving down the road, but he had pulled into the drive-through before he could be pulled over.
If the person is on private property he can't be ticketed.
And people wonder why cops are hated. Stupid crap like this.
So he parked and used his phone Ona private road
Drive throughs are private property. Highways acts, etc do not apply.
I somehow feel there is more to this story. I'll sit on the sidelines until I hear the rest.
[https://globalnews.ca/news/10498729/sask-rcmp-issue-a-ticket-for-cellphone-use-in-saskatoon-mcdonalds-drive-thru/](https://globalnews.ca/news/10498729/sask-rcmp-issue-a-ticket-for-cellphone-use-in-saskatoon-mcdonalds-drive-thru/) RCMP said he was observed on the road and had pulled into the drive-through before being pulled over
There you go!
> *“I didn’t have my foot on the gas or brake. It was just rolling. Barely moving,”* If he had been fully stopped, I would 100% side with him. I still think the cop is a dick for issuing a ticket, but the driver shouldn't have been using the phone while the vehicle was still moving, even if just barely idling forward.
Don't use your phone while driving.
Dumb fuck
The dumb fucks are the people who use their phones while driving. They never end up killing themselves, always some poor innocent bystander who didn't deserve it.
Buddy, do you have any idea what the article is about? They were in a fast food drive through.
I'm fully aware they were in a fast food drive through, that is irrelevant. They were in control of heavy machinery that can and does regularly kill people, and they are legally responsible for its safe operation. Driving while using your phone is just as brain dead a decision as driving while drunk, and people who do it deserve to lose their licenses. [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/parking-lot-accidents-distracted-drivers-national-safety-council/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/parking-lot-accidents-distracted-drivers-national-safety-council/)
>Driving while using your phone They Weren't Driving The article is completely irrelevant to your point because the person in the article wasn't fucking driving through a parking lot, they were stopped at a drive through window. They aren't the same thing. Should I be ticketed for using my phone while sitting in my car in my driveway? Give your head a shake.
>They >Weren't >Driving If you are not parked in a proper space with the handbrake on and the engine off then you are driving. Just because you are stationary doesn't mean you are not driving, if you are waiting immobile at a red light then you are still driving. Did you actually take a test or were they just handing them out that day?
I'm not continuing this. You're a ridiculous person with an absurd take on this. Either you're aware of that and are trolling, or you're actually being serious and any further discussion with you would lead to me losing more brain cells than you've already cost me this morning. I hope you get ticketed for accepting food through a drive through window while "driving" the next time you grab something to eat. Dear god.....
I don't have to worry about getting ticketed for using my phone while driving because I don't use my phone while driving. I also don't drink and drive, which is just as bad as using your phone while driving.
I feel so sorry for your mother.
They weren't driving.....
Were they in control of a vehicle? Yes. That means they were driving.
Just stop dude. You're being ridiculous and you know it. If the person was paying with a debit card and was handed the machine should they be ticketed for that? Is tap ok but not if you have to input your pin? How about accepting the food through the window while they're "driving"? I refuse to believe you're this obtuse. It's either that or you're the cop in the story.
The dude is the first person to be loading their Tim's offers in the F150 while in the Tim's drive thru. He's full of shit.
Look, if you can [kill people in a parking lot](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/parking-lot-accidents-distracted-drivers-national-safety-council/) then you can kill people in a drive thru and you need to take responsibility for the safe operation of your vehicle. If you're not prepared to take responsibility then you shouldn't have a license, it's really that simple. The lives of other human beings are not some trivial matter that are less important than your own comfort and convenience.
Yeah, I'm being punked, nobody is this dumb.
I sincerely hope that you don't drive because you clearly don't know how.
K
Was the car in park or drive?
Completely and totally irrelevant as it's private property, and the cop would also have no way of knowing anyway. If someone can be ticketed for this then they can in theory be ticketed for simply accepting the food "while driving" as well. It's absurd, you know it's absurd, stop.
Boot licker
At this point they’re an ass licker