A motorist from Surrey has been convicted of distracted driving after police spotted him wearing earbuds in his car. That can lead to a fine of $368.
Fair enough, you might say. After all, distracted driving is a leading cause of mayhem on the roads.
Except in this case, the iPhone his earphones were plugged into was dead. The battery had run out. So how, exactly, is this distracted driving?
Here is Judge Brent Adair’s explanation: “Since the earbuds were part of the electronic device and since the earbuds were in the defendant’s ears, it necessarily follows that the defendant was holding the device (or part of the device) in a position in which it could be used, i.e. his ears.”
Nothing of the sort “necessarily follows.” The driver was not holding the earbuds in a position where they could be used, because the iPhone was dead.
As the judge himself admits in his ruling: “The [iPhone] screen was not illuminated, no music, no conversation or anything else was coming through the earbuds.” So where is the distraction?
Adair justified his ruling by referring to Section 214.1 of the Motor Vehicle Act, which makes it illegal to hold such a device “in a position in which it may be used.” Same problem. How can a dead iPhone be used?
What’s really going on here is fairytale-telling, justified by good intentions. Our law-enforcement agencies (properly) want to discourage distracted driving, and if legal fictions are required, so be it.
Hunters know this story. It’s against the law to carry a loaded gun in your car while driving, as it should be. The concern is that someone could be hurt, or alternatively, maybe you’re planning to drive up to your prey and shoot out of the window, which is likewise illegal.
But what counts as loaded? According to our courts, a gun is loaded if it contains a clip or magazine with ammunition in it, even if there is no bullet in the chamber and the clip is dangling below the rifle on its hinge.
However, a gun in that state cannot be fired, deliberately or accidentally. So how is this “loaded”?
Same answer as before. The justice system is sufficiently concerned about genuinely illegal behaviour that it bends facts to reach the desired outcome.
The perplexities don’t end here. Adair ruled in one case that driving while your cellphone is charging constitutes distraction. In another such trial, he ruled it doesn’t.
One can understand his confusion. Summarizing the law in question, he had this to say: “In my view, the definition of ‘use’ under the legislation is capable of multiple reasonable interpretations.” No kidding.
Then again, consider those hearing aids that can interact with an iPhone via Bluetooth. If you’re driving while wearing these aids, even if the phone is turned off, are you by law distracted? It’s hard to see why not. (I’m indebted to a friendly lawyer for drawing my attention to this point.)
Ironically, it could be argued that the use of social-media devices (with the exception of texting) is less distracting than old technologies such as car radios. To find the right station with one of those, you had to take your eyes off the road and fiddle with the tuning knob.
Some of this might seem like small potatoes. And no doubt there are weightier matters to concern us.
But one of the founding principles in any fair-minded legal system is that its laws, and their interpretation, should be an open book.
It seems clear we have departed from that premise in the matter of distracted driving. Drawing on Adair’s summation, no one knows what the legislation means.
Yet there is a simple solution. Amend the Motor Vehicle Act to make clear that having a dead social-media device in the car cannot be considered a source of distraction.
