Court hangs up on RCMP’s bid to mete out ticket to driver
A territorial court judge has dismissed a ticket given to a Marsh Lake man who was driving with his cell phone wedged between his shoulder and ear.
A territorial court judge has dismissed a ticket given to a Marsh Lake man who was driving with his cell phone wedged between his shoulder and ear.
Ian Pumphrey, 48, argued in court he was using his phone “hands-free,” as the territory’s legislation dictates.
In a decision handed down Tuesday, Judge Donald Luther agreed.
Pumphrey was driving in downtown Whitehorse last August when his phone rang. He pulled over to answer it and put the call on speakerphone so he could hear better.
Then he lodged it between his shoulder and ear and continued driving.
Then RCMP pulled him over and gave him a ticket.
The officer told him he should be using Bluetooth technology – an earpiece or device that can be affixed to the steering wheel or dashboard to allow for hands-free talking.
“I said, ‘Really?’ I’m a 48-year-old man and hands-free means speakerphone, to me,” Pumphrey told the Star in an interview today.
Then he checked out the legislation, which states that if an electronic device is “configured and equipped to allow hands-free use in a telephone function,” use of that device while driving is permitted.
What that means is open to interpretation, Pumphrey said.
He wasn’t trying to find a loophole or “beat the law,” he insisted, but genuinely believed his behaviour that summer day was legal and responsible.
“I’m a law-abiding citizen and that’s the way I read the law, and the judge agreed with me,” he said. “I read it correctly.”
Pumphrey said he hopes this brings attention to a problem he sees with the Yukon’s Motor Vehicles Act, and a lack of clarity in the law around using a cell phone while driving.
“Hopefully, this opens up a debate,” Pumphrey said.
“I would prefer that all these devices (cell phones, GPS, TVs) be banned in a vehicle, personally. At least define it so we can follow the law.”
When asked this morning whether the Department of Justice would appeal the ruling, spokeswoman Caitlin Kerwin said: “Justice is currently reviewing the ruling and will be making a determination on how to respond to this judgment of the court in due course.”
Cpl. Shawn Pollard of the Yukon RCMP’s Traffic Services would not say this morning whether he thinks the law is open to interpretation.
His understanding, he said, is that hands-free driving requires use of a Bluetooth device, as is the case in other jurisdictions.
Pollard said officers will continue to ticket drivers who are using cell phones while driving – even if the device is wedged between a person’s ear and shoulder.
Doing that isn’t very safe, he said. It doesn’t allow a driver to shoulder-check when changing lanes or turning. And if the phone falls down, that creates another distraction.
“We will continue enforcing this law, as it is a very dangerous practice to drive distracted by the use of a cell phone,” Pollard said.
Comments (16)
Up 5 Down 5
RCMP Need More Resources Wilf Carter on Jan 20, 2015 at 9:43 am
The RCMP need more resources in man power, equipment, in-tell, special teams, so they can protect themselves and us better. Killing of police officers is becoming to common now and has to be stopped. They need to change the court system so offenders are controlled for themselves and the general public.
Up 8 Down 0
App on Jan 19, 2015 at 9:38 pm
How about the cell phone companies create an App. If your vehicle is moving, one cannot use their phone, except for emergencies?!
Up 7 Down 1
Wayne on Jan 17, 2015 at 1:02 pm
A new law for distracted driving is redundant. Many other applicable laws previously included in the MVA, and the criminal code provide penalties.
Up 13 Down 3
Groucho d'North on Jan 17, 2015 at 10:40 am
I am wondering if the judge would have the same opinion if a collision had resulted from Mr. Pumphrey's use of his cell phone while operating a motor vehicle? But seeing as nobody was injured, he gave it a pass.
Principles seem to be used less and less in our court system these days.
Time to elect our judges I say.
Up 13 Down 1
Anonymous on Jan 16, 2015 at 8:06 pm
Salar you are a scary person. I can count several times when my young children and I have almost been hit in parking lots by people who feel they are competent speaking on a cell phone while they are trying to maneuver into a parking spot. People's minds are occupied by their conversations rather than the safety of every other person.
Up 35 Down 2
and! on Jan 16, 2015 at 8:48 am
...And, I can text. Because that's not talking either.
This is all just stupid. Distracted driving is distracted driving. I thought that's what the law was--not just "hands free phoning".
Up 28 Down 3
moose101 on Jan 16, 2015 at 5:56 am
Appeal - do you think he would have got away with it in Vancouver or Edmonton?
Up 39 Down 2
Charles on Jan 16, 2015 at 2:34 am
This cell phone nonsense drives me crazy. How did we live before that scene? I have one for emergency calls only and only 5 people have that number. I went to a bank and someone was yacking on cell phone, later someone was standing in middle of Main St doing same thing. Get a life you cell phone junkies and take note of people around you. Rarely is a contact on your cell more important than people around you. Is a call when you are driving so important that it can't wait 30 minutes for a call back?
Up 33 Down 5
so... on Jan 15, 2015 at 3:25 pm
So I guess I can change the songs (on my mp3 player, aka my phone) by hand because this law only pertains to actually talking on the phone. Good to know.
Up 39 Down 35
salar on Jan 15, 2015 at 2:05 pm
Now now....if folks can drive and adjust the temp or A/C or turn up or down the radio or 'gasp' change the channel on the radio (turn on wipers, lights, use cigarette lighter, open a window, eat a big mac, organize schedules with the wife and kids {discipline the kids} on the way to school.......then they can certainly talk on a phone while driving with the same attention to driving....it's the nanny state, gotta ban everything bs that reigns these days....save us from ourselves...oh please
Up 26 Down 19
stephen on Jan 15, 2015 at 12:28 pm
If he could not hear it on speaker phone then that means he needs his hearing checked or a new phone. He broke the law and did not want to accept responsibility for his actions it is pure and simple. Remember this law was written by lawyers who should know better because most of them then turn around and challenge it in court. That's how they make waayyyyy to much money.
Up 42 Down 19
charles on Jan 14, 2015 at 7:37 pm
Are you kidding me? What a Joke really is this Ruling. Why has this guy got the phone to his ear anyway when he is on speakers. And by the way, something has to be done with all these REDLIGHT RUNNERS that think it is so urgent to make that turn by red. Some even still on the phone totally not aware with what's going on around them or think it's his or her right to do so. I urge the RCMP to do some checks on various Intersections every now and then.
Good Karma to everybody that drives defensively because we must. By the way, I drive for a Living
Up 22 Down 13
crimelord on Jan 14, 2015 at 6:02 pm
Great story demonstrating how poor some legislators are at their job. Good "call" by the judge and excellent writing from Rhiannon who covered the story from all angles unlike our national broadcaster.
Up 44 Down 46
June jackson on Jan 14, 2015 at 4:33 pm
Mr. Pumphrey set out to beat the intent of the law and he did. The entire intent of this legislation was public safety. In order to hold the phone between my ear and shoulder, my head had to be turned in a way that impaired my ability to see and scan all of the road, being unable to use my left peripheral vision.
For me, anything..and I mean anything that impairs your ability to navigate in a manner that puts another person or animal, or even someone's parked car in danger should be charged and carried as impaired driving.
"He wasn’t trying to find a loophole or “beat the law,” I don't believe you.
Up 23 Down 17
HappyRock on Jan 14, 2015 at 4:12 pm
All on board technological devices are potentially dangerous to the public safety and cudos to Pumphrey and the Judge for bringing this matter to light so there is clarity in the law and increased safety on our roads.
Up 53 Down 26
Tater on Jan 14, 2015 at 4:03 pm
The police are correct. The spirit of the law is to prevent the distraction and that's what the police were doing.