“Despite the Apple Watch being smaller than a cellular phone, on the evidence it is a communication device capable of receiving and transmitting electronic data,”
“While attached to the defendant’s wrist it is no less a source of distraction than a cell phone taped to someone’s wrist. It requires the driver to change their body position and operate it by touch,”
我把安大略省這案例找了出來看: R. v. Ambrose, 2018 ONCJ 345 (CanLII) (連結)。案例所述的案情這樣講:
Victoria Ambrose was charged with a single count under the Highway Traffic Act, Section 78.1(1), drive hand-held communication device. She was issued a Part I Offence Notice and the matter proceeded to trial on April 24th, 2018.
In this matter the onus is on the prosecution, and the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence is, for the most part, admitted.
Ms. Ambrose was driving her motor vehicle on South Ring Road in the City of Guelph when a University of Guelph police officer noticed the glow of a device she was using from his cruiser stopped directly beside and to her right. Both the defendant and the officer were facing a red light. The officer observed Ms. Ambrose to be looking up and down at the handheld communication device approximately four times over the course of his observations.
The officer testified that he saw the traffic signal turn green and the two cars in front of Ms. Ambrose moved forward but she did not. He activated the ditch light on the cruiser light bar which shone into Ms. Ambrose’s car and she began to drive forward. The officer testified that his observations of the use of the device totaled 20 seconds and I accept this testimony as it is consistent with the description of his observations of the other vehicles in the use of his light.
The officer pulled Ms. Ambrose over a short time later and learned that the device she was using was an Apple watch. Ms. Ambrose confirms this in her testimony. The evidence before me is that an Apple watch is capable of receiving and transmitting electronic data. Ms. Ambrose testified that the watch was not connected to her phone which was in the car with her at the time.
Whether it was actually connected to another device at the time of the offence is not a determining factor. It is the holding, or use of the device that the court must determine.
Ms. Ambrose testified that despite the capabilities of the Apple watch she was merely checking the time which requires touching the screen to activate and deactivate it. It is apparent that she chose this method over the use of the clock in her automobile.
本案除了法律上的闡釋外, 先要作事實裁斷。很明顯, Ambrose用Apple Watch來看時間的解釋屬一派胡言, 我都不會相信。此案驅使我粗略比較安大略省、新南威爾斯省及香港3地的類似法例。3地對駕駛時使用手機或通訊器材都有不同要求, 安省較詳細, 新省最嚴苛, 香港最寬鬆。
Ontario: S. 78.1 Highway Traffic Act
Subsection (1): no person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a handheld wireless communication device or other prescribed device that is capable of receiving of transmitting telephone communications, electronic data, mail or text messages.
Subsection (2): No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a handheld electronic entertainment device or other prescribed device the primary use of which is unrelated to the safe operation of the motor vehicle, hands-free mode allowed.
Subsection (3): Despite subsections (1) and (2), a person may drive motor vehicle on a highway while using a device prescribed in those subsections in hands-free mode.
只要免提, 便可合法地使用。違例罰款$300至$1000加元。Ambrose案的層次低, 所以參考價值也不大。
New South Wales: S. 300 Road Rules 2008
S.300 Use of mobile phones by drivers (except holders of learner or provisional P1 licences)
(1) The driver of a vehicle must not use a mobile phone while the vehicle is moving, or is stationary but not parked, unless:
(a) the phone is being used to make or receive a phone call (other than a text message, video message, email or similar communication) or to perform an audio playing function and the body of the phone:
(i) is secured in a mounting affixed to the vehicle while being so used, or
(ii) is not secured in a mounting affixed to the vehicle and is not being held by the driver, and the use of the phone does not require the driver, at any time while using it, to press any thing on the body of the phone or to otherwise manipulate any part of the body of the phone, or
(b) the phone is functioning as a visual display unit that is being used as a driver’s aid and the phone is secured in a mounting affixed to the vehicle, or
(c) the vehicle is an emergency vehicle or a police vehicle, or
(d) the driver is exempt from this rule under another law of this jurisdiction.
Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.
1 penalty unit即A$110, 違此例扣5分。
Hong Kong: S. 42 CAP 374G ROAD TRAFFIC (TRAFFIC CONTROL) REGULATIONS
(1)A driver shall not—
(g)if a motor vehicle being driven by him is in motion—
(i)use a mobile telephone while holding it in his hand or between his head and shoulder;
(ii)use any other telecommunications equipment while holding it in his hand; or
(iii)use, while holding in his hand, any accessory to—
(A)a mobile telephone; or
(B)any other telecommunications equipment. (L.N. 192 of 2000)
香港法例寬鬆之處是汽車移動時(in motion)才不准使用手機, 安省籠統地限制駕駛時使用(坐在司機位已屬駕駛), 而新省則講明停紅燈及塞車時也有規限。香港違此例最高罰HK$2000, 但不扣分。如果在香港駕駛像Ambrose那樣頻看Apple Watch, 就不受規管了, 因為條例訂得太狹窄, 除了in motion, 還要while holding it in his hand, 可以檢控的情況實在太少, 把電話放在大髀上, 就可以為所欲為了。