You can`t legislate common sense.....

Where I live the road is a windy snake......

I have my cell phone,if a call comes in I glance at the display and pull over to talk or to make a call....
A carte blanche law won`t work,imagine stuck in grid lock where you move one car length at a time(top speed 3 mph)......or out in the flat straight prairies.....or what if your calling to report a drunk driver? you get a ticket and the drunk gets away....or what about at a red light,a red light knowing your going to be there awhile.....
Yes,there a 1000 scenarios......Remember the idling by-law....let me refresh your memory...

You would /could get a ticket for idling longer than 30 seconds,ridiculous,what if it`s cold,does the cop sit there and time you,do you shut your car off in gridlock every time you stop/intersections,nanny state indeed,I will go in the back country,and there is of course a case for driving without undue care and attention if your in an accident and it`s determined you were texting at the time.
But you can`t legislate common sense.

Morphing From a Social Democrat Into a Libertarian

A study last week found that TEXTING while driving resulted in an increased crash risk 23-fold.

That same study found that using a cell phone resulted in an increased crash risk 4-fold - the same crash risk as DRUNK DRIVING.

Hands-free cell phones also require dialing of the device and are also a major driving distraction.

Ipsos also completed a public opinion poll earlier this week with these findings:

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=4469

Bill, you seem to be morphing from a social democrat into a libertarian.

Remember Bill, that I'm driving on the same road that you are!

2010 will see the end of all

2010 will see the end of all liberty on the planet - look Orwell and V for Vendetta FOR REAL and expanding in Britain.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/115736/Sin-bins-for-worst-families

Monitoring homes with private security guards using in house CCTV - to do homework and eat meals and not drink or do drugs...

PFU

400 million pounds to ensure

400 million pounds to ensure folks go to bed on time too.

BEYOND BELIEF YET THERE IT IS.

asleep at the wheel

slowing down traffic is what make people fiddle with a cell phone etc. etc. --- if they required all their attention for navigating there would be NO time for all these silly games people engage in now, because they are bored driving at a snails pace.

Australia has proven that since they reduced their speed limits the rate of accidents skyrockets 70%!

Maybe that should tell you something?

This column is a disgrace.

This column is a disgrace. Particularly nauseating is the term "nanny state," one beloved of right wing anti-government whiners everywhere--I am surprised Bill didn't use the term "social engineering" while he was at it. Motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death of children and youth in British Columbia. Ban the use of all such devices and make the ban part of a broad-based, province-wide campaign to make our roads and neighbourhoods safer.

Brain-free driver on a hands-free cell

$1.3 billion in injuries in BC in 2008 caused by 45,000 car accidents. Total offsetting fees paid by cell-phone-using road users - $0.

I think some reasonable restrictions on use of distractions are in order, Bill, even if you can't do the math. I'd like the cops to charge more people with "driving without due care and attention" too, but they seem to be too busy finding ways to pull over that patch-wearing Harley rider with the obscene muffler and the knife sticking out of his back pocket without unleashing a Charter appeal.

Bill, I don't know whether you typed this article in on a keyboard or used a hands-free dictation program like Dragon, it doesn't make any sense either way.

You screwed up your data and sources on the study - you've quoted a study privately financed by the cell-phone industry. The actual U of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Centre study is here at http://www.hsrc.unc.edu/safety_info/distracted_drowsy/cell_phones.cfm
and shows that drivers talking on cellphones are nearly twice as likely to be involved in rear-end crashes as other drivers. And of course, everyone knows that cellphone use has gone down in the years since this 2002 study, right?

And if you think you can't legislate common sense, then I suggest you build your own road on which you can drive your own car so you can talk all you like into your cell phone and not put any of the rest of us at risk if you happen to have a brain fart and cause an accident, which you seem to think is exceedingly unlikely. Just like smoking - go ahead and smoke, but don't do it where other people have to work or live.

All kinds of other stupid personal behaviours are not legislated against until they interfere with someone else's right of enjoyment of public property, and then they're legislated to within an inch of their lives, so don't get on your high horse that the nanny state is taking over. This has been the way of the world since Jeremy Bentham first expounded on "the greatest good for the greatest number". You can still fight MMA or eat potato chips or drink (favourite brand of Scotch here) to excess, but as long as these only hurt you, and you alone, the government declines to step in with legislation.

You just can't do them in a way that puts someone else at risk. Bring on Kash's law!

Agreed

If Kash wants to ban cell phones then that would take a big chunk of communication from his own police forces. Has anyone seen the communication devices in the front seat of a police cruiser? Including the cell phones?
So what are you going to do Kash? Exempt the police? That makes this a police state in my view.

Can't anyone here use the Queen's English?

It's actually "driving without due care and attention". Driving with "undue care and attention" would be driving with more care and attention than is necessary.

I carry a cellphone for

I carry a cellphone for emergencies, but it is never on when I'm driving. And I mean never.

The one thing I'm grateful for is that there were no cellphones when I was in business in Vancouver and when I got into my van I was free of calls and had some peace.

The use of cellphones in vehicles is strictly a self induced fashionable hysteria and the sooner they're banned, the better.

If and when there are any real emergencies, people can stop and make a call. The rest of their calls and conversations are needless, stupid and well proven to be dangerous. If they get killed it is OK by me, but when they damage, or kill others they should be charged as a criminals.

Ed Deak.

...

Sorry Bill, I'm with Kash on this one.

Ban them

Cell phone use while driving has increased drastically over the last couple of years and has become a real hazard. People are getting killed because of it and it's completely unnecessary. Bill's logic is weak to say the least. Shall we only charge people with dangerous driving when they get in an accident? Up to the time they actually hit someone it's okay? Studies have shown that people talking on cell phones while driving drive no better than people who are drunk.

People are oblivious to what's going on around them when they are talking on the phone. Ban them now!

Maybe someone can explain...

...how using a hands free phone is any different than changing a CD while driving or having a conversation with the passenger next to you. There have been accidents caused by people fiddling with their radios.

I've never had a hands free so don't know how distracting it is but I have witnessed cases where the hand held phone has caused some near collisions. Perhaps it is because making a turn requires full attention and the ability to turn your head - something you can't do very well with a hand on your phone and your ear. Note though, there are some drivers who should even be allowed to talk when they are driving.

So will we make sure car manufacturers put all CD players in the back seat, all heat controls as well and all other dials have to be voice activated.

Yes, ban them now

Thank you, Mr. Tieleman, for posting the link to comment on Kash Heed's proposal. As soon as I've posted this comment, I will tell Mr. Heed that I fully support banning drivers from phoning or texting. It's about time. Not long ago my car was very nearly hit side-on by another car whose driver was talking on cell phone. I honked loudly and she stopped just in time. I jumped out of my car to yell at her to put the phone away, but she just sat there, continuing her phone conversation, as if nothing had happened.

As Booker commented, studies have shown that talking on a cell phone makes people drive as if they are drunk. Here's a recent piece from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/technology/19distracted.html?fta=y

Now I'm off to urge Mr. Heed to implement a strict ban. If that's the "nanny state", bring it on!

ban them

Writer is absolutely wrong on this on. Ban them all, now, including hands-free. It's not the physical part of being on the phone, it's the mental part. I've already been hit twice but idiots on cell phones — one using a so-called hands-free device — and it's time they pulled over...

I would not be against a ban

I would not be against a ban on cell phone use without hands free. I think hands free use is no more of a risk than talking to someone in the car or yelling at your kids.

I think the bigger concern is the licensing of drivers in BC. I see people all the time who should not have a license.

I have no idea how they passed the tests. Maybe they bought it, maybe they got lucky, maybe they got the license before the tests got harder.

More people should be called in for random testing and current laws most be enforced.

As for the people that want to ban GPS mapping devices in cars. Give your head a shake. As if a GPS mapping device is worst than holding a map on the wheel while mentally mapping out a route.

Having used both GPS and hand held maps in an area I'm new to, I can say that the GPS makes me a much safer driver. I can pay attention to the road and only worry about my route when the GPS lets me know when to turn. Compare this to a map where one would have to look down every couple of minutes, when holding on the wheel with one hand.

I get a strong luddite feel from many of the comments. I don't care if you don't like cell phones, GPS, other technology. People have always been against new technology and they have always been proven wrong.

Oust cell phone use and Campbell

I don't agree with very many points and policy the Fiberals have implemented but I do agree with Kash Heed and the ban on cell phone use. I'm a transit operator and have witnessed many serious accidents and close calls by those distracted while on their phones. And let's not forget that next generation of drivers who can text message 100 words per minute and would be sharing the road with the public. Long overdue make your call from home save your cell for emergencies.

Long Time Cyclist

As a long timer cyclist I'm Happy to see this move to ban cell phones on the road.

Enough is enough.

The problem with your analogy, Skywalker,

is that a hands free device is not the same as having someone in the car with you, who also has a vested interest in your driving, and will be watching not just your driving but the other vehicles on the road. A hands free device focuses your attention on someone not in the car.

(As for changing a CD, I would hope that operation takes a little less time than dialing and making a cell phone call. If it doesn't it may be time to switch to the radio.)

This is not a political

This is not a political problem so don't blame Kash Heed. People on cell phones while driving should be shot if seen on cell phones. They are a menece on the road.

So, now we live in a Police State

Mr. Heed had two unresolved complaints against him at the Police Commission when he slithered in to take away Waffling Wally's seat. Did he escape them? In this latest POWER TRIP he is now giving orders to the RCMP. Any now he is telling us what to do and when. I will continue to carry my cell phone, park at the side of the road when I use it, and have it on hand in case of emergencies such as accidents, the car breaks down or the gangers who seem to be in charge in BC cross my path and start firing. Why not put the effort in to cancelling out the 126 gangs? Bike carriers who are doing deliveries at record-breaking speed also need their cell phones to stay in business.

Who is going to police this? With the ban on ID's at downtown restaurants, who is going to stop the unwanted from creating more shoot-ups? Why not put a stop to the drug dealers on Fraser St.

Let's get serious, Mr. Heed, recognize you are taking orders from someone who has problems.

In memory of Mr. Dziekanski

In isolated areas cellphones are a godsend in an emergency. One once saved my mother's and my life when we skidded in my car on black ice and ended up dangling over a cliff.

However, using them when driving for mostly trivial conversation, and texting that can wait until later, clearly endangers the lives of others.

This cellphone issue, is, of course, (along with the HST) all a clever distraction from the REALLY big corruption issue surrounding the present government's involvement with the sale of BC Rail....and consolation land prizes etc. These guys are real good at trying to remove your gaze from the shell game going on....don't fall for it.

If we really cared about our human rights we would be demanding a ban on tasers as a first priority. Tasers are a much darker and more insidious threat to our human rights and lives.

Wasn't it a cellphone camera that revealed to the world what happened to Mr. Dziekanski, his first day in his new country, when he landed at Vancouver airport and was simply unable to communicate his distress through language in order to be understood?

Remember this article?

This is the real threat. Now and in the future.

"The e-mail written by [RCMP deputy commissioner for the Pacific region Gary] Bass on Nov. 24 indicates that [BC Premier Gordon] Campbell was "highly complimentary" of the police force despite the fact Dziekanski's death was still under investigation.

The e-mail was addressed to Elliott and Bill Sweeney, an RCMP deputy commissioner and special adviser to the commissioner.

"I just ran into our premier at the airport and we had a great 20-minute discussion on this issue generally.… He was highly complimentary of the force, disappointed over the degree of criticism and wants to support the members involved somehow," Bass wrote.

"He [Campbell] asked me to think about what he could do in this regard.… He supports the continued use of Taser and any other tools which support and protect our members."

Just ban cell phones period

Bill, you're sounding like the Campbell Liberals of 2002. Too many laws, cut back on legislation, yeah that's what wrong with BC. What's next, a column on the virtues of civil libertarianism? I loathe this government as much as any socially progressive person, but I'm dead set against cell phone use while driving and I think there should be a law against it.

Sure, there are other causes of bad driving and accidents and no, we won't stop all drivers from using cell phones while their driving, just as any law doesn't stop all people from breaking it. But it will make people realize driving and cell-phoning is so dangerous it is illegal.

Hey, just a small possible result if they are banned: remember the old days, when drivers actually signaled their intention to turn?

Cell phones are so ubiquitous and people so dependent on them, it's amazing we managed to communicate before their arrival. But I'm living proof you can work full time, have kids and friends AND NOT HAVE A CELL PHONE. I'm sure we are all capable of driving without talking on cell phones.

cellphones

unbelievable ignorance from the writer, I was hit twice by a driver who was on a cellphone at the time
and Tieleman should take a test and see how he would perform safe driving while yapping on his cellphone.
To write an article like this where the evidence is overwhelming about the unsafe use of cellphone while driving. Typical NDP don't let facts stand in the way of one man's bullshit.

Cell phones should NOT be used while driving!

I was disgusted to read this editorial. While I am not a fan of excessive government intervention in my life, I can't belief anyone would be an advocate of the continued use of a distraction device while piloting a vehicle!

Cell phones should NOT be used while driving! I don't care if it's a hands-free phone or not. It is UNSAFE to divide your attention from the road for any reason! People should be intelligent enough NOT to use cell phones while driving but the majority of the evidence is that they are NOT. So yes, government, please intervene to protect us from the stupid people. Please ban an activity that contributes to accidents and fatalities!

The fact that anyone feels they are entitled to use a cell phone while driving is so incredibly ignorant.

Keep 'em legal

And while were at it, we can continue to use our ipods, CD and/or tape players, looking for that perfect tune; radios, looking for that perfect station; maps and GPS's to find our way after we got side-tracked. The problem is there are too many distractions. And that makes driving dangerous.

speaking of distraction devices.....

just remember that while Gordon Campbell has found an issue where he can pretend to be protecting the public interest with one hand.....it is important keep an eye on what his other hand is doing.

It's what's "not" being reported on in the media that is central to our human rights as citizens of this province.

You lose, Bill!

You're dead wrong on this one. I wish I could find the story I just read this week which sated that talking on the phone is far more distracting than loud music or singing because of the mental effort that is required to maintain the dialogue.

All handheld electronic devices should be banned while driving. Period.

And while you cannot legislate common sense, you can enforce it...especially when the person lacking the common sense is guiding a tonne of metal.

Actual research here

Here's a paper from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General and the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles from this year that Mr. Tieleman seems to have overlooked in his "research" for his piece:

http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/legislation/docs/distracted-driver-cell-phone-discussion-paper.pdf

Some quotes:

"In both simulated and real driving environments, the use of electronic devices has been shown to result in crashes and near misses. Drivers fail to process approximately 50 per cent of the visual information in their driving environment when they are using electronic communication devices. Evidence also concludes that there is no difference between the cognitive diversion associated with hands-free and hand-held cell phone use."

"Talking to a passenger in the vehicle versus talking to someone through electronic means and who is not in the vehicle does not cause the same level of distraction....At the other end of the spectrum there is no evidence that listening to the radio or a book on tape degrades driving performance. This finding underscores that not all distractions are alike and that there is clearly a continuum of distractions."

Please leave the rest of your straw man arguments at home.

Bill gets behind baseball bat swingers.

My aluminum baseball bat feels really neat when I take a couple of practice swings with it in the back yard. It's even funner when I walk down the sidewalk, casually taking a couple of cuts as I amble alongside other folks out enjoying the day.

For whatever reason, the police seem to want to charge me with a crime when I do that...

Won't you help me end that outrageous infringement on my rights Bill?

Or does preventing carelessness and stupidity only deserve your wrath when it comes to being a driver?

Ugh

This isn't going well, Bill. 32:1 against. And I'm not too sure about the irony in the one - perhaps I missed something...

Next windmill!

Laws

Sez Clarendon

"It is UNSAFE to divide your attention from the road for any reason!"

And so I am also against the use of any device like a cell phone that unnecessarily takes one's attention from the road. OTOH we've learned to tune a radio, for example, without looking at it, even though I'm sure many accidents have happened even in those split seconds too.

In the end, however, it is impossible to guarantee a perfectly safe driving environent, no matter how many rules and laws one makes. For example, I've often followed vehicles in which the driver turned his head to talk - at length - to a passenger while zipping down the highway.

Obviously, it is impossible to legislate against stupidity, and it has to be considered, as some here correctly claim, that the more we attempt to do so, the more we chip away at our own personal freedoms.

The problem we face is that in a more liberal society, the police could be trusted to judge on-the-spot whether an infraction poses a risk to other's safety, as was the case with RCMP officers when I was a youth. The result was that for the most part, the youth respected the police officer and rules they enforced.

As we've followed the Right Wing law'n'order moralistic prescriptions, the rules have become more and more oppressive and authoritarian, and policing of them more and more formulaic.

And as a sidenote, as enforcement of our laws becomes progressively arbitrary, it becomes ever clearer that there is "A law for the rich and a law for the poor"

Don't Agree Bill

Bill, I always enjoy your columns and this is no exception but we don't agree on this topic. There are enough people out there that have a hard time remembering driving protocol and rules without a phone attached to their head. Any distraction that takes your mind off the road, and fellow drivers, hampers a person's ability to safely get from point A to point B. You are not only endangering your own safety but the safety of everyone around you.

There should be limits to the restrictions that are imposed on us but this is one area I don't mind the government butting in.

Its on hands free phones.

All the near accidents and carelees driving I have seen have been with people holding a phone to their ears while driving. All at stop signs or intersections. Bill's comment is on "hands-free car cell phones". There is a distinction. I submit that changing a CD or tuning a radio or sealing with screaming kids in the back seat is more distracting than a hands free phone. That is reality as well.

At what point to we try to outlaw sheer stupidity before we worry about someone doing nothing more than talking while driving.

Yes to the ban!

Give me a break, Bill. I can't tell you how many idiots I have seen who are talking on their phones, barely paying attention while driving one-handed around corners.

Yes to the proposed ban!

Bring back Photo Radar

Is it really necessary, Bill, to keep referring to "Kash" as if whatever policy a "Top Cop" proposes is his and his alone. Is it your experience as an NDP insider that cabinet ministers are the sort of lone gunmen you, Bill, are trying to portray? Mr. Heed is our Solicitor General, not a "cop" at all but a cabinet officer with oversight of our police. (Yes, Mr. Heed was a "cop," Bill - why is it so hard to drag an NDPer out of the past and into the present?)

This tone has destroyed your argument for me, Bill. Do you know the term "ad hominem"? Bill? To attack the person, rather than their argument?

Your case that governments should not address one issue when other issues also call for action (you note "bloody gang war going on, sex trade workers ... being murdered, drunk drivers and street racers ... killing people") is typically a right-wing canard against the legitimacy of government and law itself. Bill, you are becoming an Obama-era Republican. Bill?

Your point that, for instance, bicycle helmet laws are underenforced is apt. Should we repeal such laws, Bill, or require that, within the capacity of our police forces, they be enforced. My pet peeve is unleashed dogs in city parks. Should I argue, Bill, that until all dog owners are keeping their pets on leash no other laws should be enforced?

Cell phone use in cars is but one aspect of a car culture that has taken over civil society, to our physical peril. Many jurisdictions have taken action already, as they should. More action is needed to calm runaway car culture, not to impede the freedoms of lawful car drivers but to restore the rights of responsible drivers as well as cyclists and pedestrians who also have a right to safe use of our publicly funded road infrastructure.

A start: bring back Photo Radar (yes, Bill, I know this won't happen, but it should). Expand programs such as cameras that catch red-light runners. A small part of the efficacy of such programs is that they catch bad drivers and potentially deter them in future. A larger part is that they keep open the public discussion re: what constitutes responsible behaviour on the road.

You do not have a right to drive a car on public or any roads, Bill. You have a driver's licence, which you earned, and which carries with it the solemn responsibility to drive in a manner that first respects the rights of other users and only after that, Bill, respects your personal freedom.

Bill Tieleman calls in a reply - handsfree!

Talk about road rage! People - calm down. Just because I drive safely and use a handsfree cell phone kit in my car I've given up on social democracy?

C'mon, you must be kidding?

Anyway, I don't care if I'm outnumbered on this one at the Tyee - it's still my opinion.

And I suggest a few readers may not have finished reading this column before spouting off - I very clearly said I support using handsfree technology, oppose texting while driving and restricting new drivers on cell phone use.

But - just to be clear - I have a clean driving record, I use my cell phone for business a lot and I think - based on other jurisdictions' experience - that a complete cell phone ban is impossible to enforce and a waste of time.

Furthermore, if cell phone use is so distracting, why don't we have reports of several cell phone-related accidents every single day in BC? After all, it's obvious that tens of thousands of drivers are using cell phones - hand held to the ear - all the time.

Cell phone records are available to police investigating crashes, especially fatalities - and should be used.

But again, should we ban all distractions from cars? Simply not practicable.

Bill

Perhaps you're unaware of this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/technology/21distracted.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=cell%20phone%20use%20and%20accidents&st=cse

And this:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/nytint/docs/documents-from-the-u-s-department-of-transportation-s-national-highway-traffic-safety-administration/original.pdf

Your personal self-confidence and driving record notwithstanding, I'd feel a lot better sharing the roads with you if you shut it off - law or no law.

cell phones should definitely be banned while driving.

I appreciate the link to the government comment on banning cell phones, and have sent my support for such a ban. We NDPers support the collective good over the individual, or at least, I thought we did. Rare to see the Liberals do something right, so thanks for the tip Bill, on how to tell them.

Nanny State?

Banning cellphones while driving makes us a nanny state? Wow, that's rich.

Some of you may not be aware that Bill recently called for mandatory voting, in the wake of the May election. So apparently, it's alright to use state power to coerce people as long as you have a good reason - such as saving the political elite from the painful realization that our political system is failing.

But public safety? Well, Albertans might think we're wusses if we legislated for that.

Bill, you're in denial. It makes me wonder whether you used to think (or maybe you still do) that the crackdown on drunk drivers was overdone.

Do us all a favour. If you insist on conducting business while driving, perhaps you could enhance your website to track your location. If you're on the road, I'd like to take a different route.

cell phones

True, you can't ban people fighting while driving, nor hot coffee, screaming kids, dogs etc, but why add cell phones to the list of allowable distractions? Just adds another danger. Through my own due attention as well as dexterity I've avoided two smash-ups with women talking on cell phones. I don't know why ICBC would allow them and ICBC should have the last say.

Tieleman defending cell phones while driving

There is zero necessity for the most important business person in the world to use a cell phone during driving. He or she is still not important enough. And Tieleman is 3.4 light years less important than that person. Tieleman’s business and personal life would not change one iota if he had to pull over to make or receive a call; or wait until the end of his trip. And Tieleman uses the time-worn, fatuous ‘comparison’ argument; why not ban squealing kids, playing music etc. That is akin to a drug addict fighting the banning of cocaine and heroin because cigarettes and liquor are not banned.

The use of cell phones while driving should absolutely be banned regardless of hands-free and regardless of the perverted desires of Tieleman or any other, I-wanna-appear-important, person. The ban would have between zero and inconsequential impact on cell phone users and would save lives and injuries. Let’s just do it!

I’m a consummate cell phone user but would never use it while driving...just too darn dangerous!

Bill, Just Get Off the Phone and Drive

It is quite ridiculous that you try and score cheap political points on a safety issue. If you would have bothered to spend a fraction of time you spend coming up with cute slogan on actual research, you would have realized that hands free cell phones are really no safer than handheld.

I said try and score cheap political points. If you would have done your research, you would have realized that the majority of drivers are in favour of a ban.

So again, Bill, get off the phone and drive and while your at it, get over yourself.

Cops not for criminals but to intimidate and suck from public

This is just another excuse to invade your privacy and restrict your freedoms. These intrusive nanny laws are happening on a global scale and our provincial government (including all parties) serve globalists’ agendas not the people of BC or Canada. The country’s gone folks along with BC. “While you were sleeping they came and took it all away.” In Briton they're ahead of us. They’re installing cameras in people’s homes to monitor family behavior. http://www.javno.com/en-world/scorporate urveillance-cameras-in-20000-british-homes_273456

They don't give a crap about your "safety". It's just another law that moves us incrementally closer to the ultimate orwellian police-nanny state. And after they hire all those new shaved headed cops for the Olympics they’ll need something for them to do besides looking tough in their new black uniforms.

Whenever they want to take away a little more of your freedoms it's all done in the guise of "safety" and "security". And judging by the comments many love giving up freedom if it means they can feel safe and secure. Ya… let ICBC take care of you (ICBC: from auto insurance to Big Brother enforcer. That was the plan all along).

“Ooo it’s so terrifying out there with all those people driving with cell phones. I hope I can make it to work with out being killed. I wish my big brother government ICBC would protect me from them cause that would make me feel a whole lot safer. Until then I don’t know what to do…. Everyday these cell phone crazed drivers are smashing into everything in sight, killing and maiming people by the thousands. I’m so scared.”