PDA

View Full Version : California Court Rules Anti-Texting Laws Apply to Checking Maps While Driving




MacRumors
Apr 8, 2013, 04:21 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/04/08/california-court-rules-anti-texting-laws-apply-to-checking-maps-while-driving/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/06/iphonemapscrop.jpgAccording to a court ruling (http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/JAD13-02.PDF) from the California Court of Appeals (via Orin Kerr (https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/319938158584295424)), using a mobile phone such as Apple's iPhone to check or update a mapping or GPS program violates the state's distracted driving law (http://www.distraction.gov/content/get-the-facts/state-laws.html). Vehicle Code 23123, aka the distracted driving law, was developed to prohibit drivers from texting and making handheld calls with a mobile phone.

The ruling came in late March after a driver was cited for driving a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone. The driver, who was accessing the phone for directions, argued that he had not been using the phone for talking or texting, which led to the newly expanded law.This case requires us to determine whether using a wireless phone solely for its map application function while driving violates Vehicle Codesection 23123. We hold that it does.

Our review of the statute's plain language leads us to conclude that the primary evil sought to be avoided is the distraction the driver faces when using his or her hands to operate the phone. That distraction would be present whether the wireless telephone was being used as a telephone, a GPS navigator, a clock or a device for sending and receiving text messages and emails.The expanded law applies only to mobile phones, not to in-car touch-controlled navigation systems. iPhone users who need to access maps for directions can use Apple's Siri for handsfree GPS access.

Article Link: California Court Rules Anti-Texting Laws Apply to Checking Maps While Driving (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/04/08/california-court-rules-anti-texting-laws-apply-to-checking-maps-while-driving/)



iPaf
Apr 8, 2013, 04:25 PM
Time to buy Garmin stocks!

komodrone
Apr 8, 2013, 04:26 PM
but checking Facebook while driving is ok?

Joe-Diver
Apr 8, 2013, 04:27 PM
So, it's legal to use a Garmin mounted to the windshield.....but not an iPhone mounted to the windshield......

Hrmmmmmm

bushido
Apr 8, 2013, 04:29 PM
im not even allowed to touch my iPhone in the car to change music here in Germany yet the iPod Touch would be okay :D

dukebound85
Apr 8, 2013, 04:33 PM
So, it's legal to use a Garmin mounted to the windshield.....but not an iPhone mounted to the windshield......

Hrmmmmmm

Exactly

If they use the logic "the primary evil to is prevent distractions" as the basis for not allowing map access, then why are garmin devices ANY different?

What if I was using an old iphone as a dedicated gps device?

ScottHammet
Apr 8, 2013, 04:34 PM
So, stay tuned for laws that prohibit turning on the radio, changing radio stations, operating the window cranks or buttons, etc. California...the nanniest of the Nanny States.

Moshe1010
Apr 8, 2013, 04:35 PM
Is watching porn on my iPad mini instead of texting or navigating is legal? If not, I should get at least 300 tickets <3

UnfetteredMind
Apr 8, 2013, 04:35 PM
Can I still eat a Big Mac while shaving with my electric shaver while driving? If so, then I'm good.

Seriously, why not just make a true "distracted driving" law that covers all the stupid stuff people should not be doing while driving?

I'm not sure I see what the difference is between using the built-in Nav unit (many of which are much less intuitive and much slower to interact with, thus taking more of your attention) and a mobile phone.

Daniel B
Apr 8, 2013, 04:36 PM
Idiots!

What if the bulit-in touch navigation system has a mobile data connection?

Achiever
Apr 8, 2013, 04:37 PM
Decisions and laws like these make Apple's continued efforts to build Siri support directly into the steering wheel of motor vehicles an imperative part of the iPhone's growth.

Making Siri and Maps work better with those voice commands wouldn't hurt, either.

chuckd83
Apr 8, 2013, 04:40 PM
"iPhone users who need to access maps for directions can use Apple's Siri for handsfree GPS access."

You can, but it's not recommended if you want to get to your destination.

OtherJesus
Apr 8, 2013, 04:45 PM
If I didn't have so many roots in this crap hippie state of California I would be gone in a flash.

So women can put on make up while they drive or people can shove burgers in their face...
God forbid we look at directions...

When will the hippies learn that utopia is a pipe dream?

Radio
Apr 8, 2013, 04:47 PM
If Siri worked well I would be against this law but we aren't there yet with hands free

Siri is pure poop

Plutonius
Apr 8, 2013, 04:48 PM
Apple maps give you turn by turn directions so why would you need to look a it ?

Are there some other map apps that don't give turn by turn ?

I can see a bunch of people getting arrested for using traditional car GPSs :D.

JetLaw
Apr 8, 2013, 04:56 PM
I think the court erred in its reasoning, as it failed to consider the fact that a driver who is in need of directions would have the additional burden and distraction of being lost but for having the ability to get directions from the phone.

Essentially, navigating is a fundamental requirement of driving (unlike making phone calls or sending text), thus, it is faulty logic to treat them as being the same in this context.

denaliOnDubs
Apr 8, 2013, 04:57 PM
Exactly... As usual I will continue doing as I please with no consequences... I text as I need, as well as spend a lot of time on the phone in my car for work. These half baked laws are a joke.

milo
Apr 8, 2013, 04:58 PM
I wonder if he was specifically cited for using his hands to input the destination while driving. I would hope that if he did that while parked and had the phone mounted in say a windshield mount and it was just giving directions without him having to interact with it, that would be fine.

And if they really want to crack down on that, the law might as well include hands interacting with a GPS unit while driving.

liven2
Apr 8, 2013, 05:00 PM
So I assume all those Police cruzers with those mobile units, and radio systems are not considered driving distractions? I can not tell you how many times I see a police officer driving down the highway looking at their mobile laptops. I am thinking the people enforcing these laws are total fools. No, I am not assuming, they obviously are...

nagromme
Apr 8, 2013, 05:07 PM
The danger is real (and not just to you the driver), and no law can ever be perfect.

But my iPhone is MUCH easier/quicker to navigate with than the standalone Garmins/etc. I see people fumbling with.

Maybe a better law would be: no TYPING or manual text entry on any device by a driver. No texting, no searching for a song, no entering an address--and that goes for Garmins, music players, phones... anything. But you're free to use your navigator/phone in other ways, like skipping songs, toggling the map view, etc. (and of course voice operation).

It's not a perfect rule but at least it's clear and covers a lot of dangerous situations. Pull over if you need to enter information!

Siri saves the day for me. She doesn't always get my more obscure web searches right, and her geofence reminders have... issues... But she's nearly flawless at understanding my navigation queries, including weird restaurant names, and I've never had her mess up an SMS either. (She's less than perfect with song and artist names... but I just shuffle my music and Skip anyway.)

rbonzer
Apr 8, 2013, 05:18 PM
Exactly... As usual I will continue doing as I please with no consequences... I text as I need, as well as spend a lot of time on the phone in my car for work. These half baked laws are a joke.

Most people believe they are above average. Clearly you believe that putting some of your attention elsewhere will not affect your driving. Usually you will be correct.

Perhaps the only deterrent should be complete liability for any damages if you are found to have interacted with your phone within 15 seconds of an accident.

As my teen son will state, nothing is ever my fault, other people are just idiots.

APlotdevice
Apr 8, 2013, 05:19 PM
"iPhone users who need to access maps for directions can use Apple's Siri for handsfree GPS access."

You can, but it's not recommended if you want to get to your destination.

Oh enough with the Apple Maps jokes already. When you get past the hype, overall it's not really any more flawed than Google maps.

gluckett
Apr 8, 2013, 05:41 PM
The cops need to be held to this as well. At least here in AL, it is illegal to do the texting, emails, etc., yet you will always see cops messing with their laptops, cell phones, etc. It needs to work both ways.

macse30
Apr 8, 2013, 05:54 PM
If they want to eliminate distraction of the driver, they will need to start with my spouse!

japanime
Apr 8, 2013, 05:54 PM
The cops need to be held to this as well. At least here in AL, it is illegal to do the texting, emails, etc., yet you will always see cops messing with their laptops, cell phones, etc. It needs to work both ways.

So, in jurisdictions where citizens are prohibited from carrying handguns in public, police officers also should be prohibited from carrying handguns in public?

Where do we draw the line on this belief that "it needs to work both ways"?

Mr.damien
Apr 8, 2013, 05:57 PM
"The driver, who was accessing the phone for directions, argued that he had not been using the phone for talking or texting, which led to the newly expanded law."

Thank you *******.

----------

"The expanded law applies only to mobile phones, not to in-car touch-controlled navigation systems. "

Which are by far worst than using an iphone as the usability of those GPS sucks so much ...

Vegasman
Apr 8, 2013, 06:09 PM
"The driver, who was accessing the phone for directions, argued that he had not been using the phone for talking or texting, which led to the newly expanded law."

Thank you *******.

----------

"The expanded law applies only to mobile phones, not to in-car touch-controlled navigation systems. "

Which are by far worst than using an iphone as the usability of those GPS sucks so much ...

But those system have a mechanism that disables the device if you are moving.

nsayer
Apr 8, 2013, 06:10 PM
So, it's legal to use a Garmin mounted to the windshield.....but not an iPhone mounted to the windshield......


Actually, it's illegal to mount any such devices to your windshield in California.

There are two small spaces set aside as exceptions... but they're places no sane person would ever use to mount such a device. They're intended for FasTrak or parking passes or the like.

peb123
Apr 8, 2013, 06:10 PM
So I assume all those Police cruzers with those mobile units, and radio systems are not considered driving distractions? I can not tell you how many times I see a police officer driving down the highway looking at their mobile laptops. I am thinking the people enforcing these laws are total fools. No, I am not assuming, they obviously are...

Every time I see a cop driving they break a law. Speeding, lane changes without signaling, rolling stops...

nsayer
Apr 8, 2013, 06:11 PM
But those system have a mechanism that disables the device if you are moving.

So does Waze. Your point?

macse30
Apr 8, 2013, 06:24 PM
Wait until California starts ticketing pilots for using iPads in flight!

denaliOnDubs
Apr 8, 2013, 06:24 PM
I concur. Lol, I'm not sure if it would be safe to adjust my ac... Could be a distraction.

So, stay tuned for laws that prohibit turning on the radio, changing radio stations, operating the window cranks or buttons, etc. California...the nanniest of the Nanny States.

Vegasman
Apr 8, 2013, 06:33 PM
So does Waze. Your point?

The UI sucks but gets disabled?

DoogieMedic
Apr 8, 2013, 06:36 PM
So how does this ruling apply to this part of the vehicle code? It specifically allows a mapping display on a potential entertainment device. If I "install" my iPhone with a mount?

27602. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driverís seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle:

(1) A vehicle information display.

(2) A global positioning display.

(3) A mapping display...

----------

So, it's legal to use a Garmin mounted to the windshield.....but not an iPhone mounted to the windshield......

Hrmmmmmm

California Vehicle Code section 26708(b)(12) actually allows the mounting of a GPS on a windshield.

C DM
Apr 8, 2013, 06:36 PM
Actually, it's illegal to mount any such devices to your windshield in California.

There are two small spaces set aside as exceptions... but they're places no sane person would ever use to mount such a device. They're intended for FasTrak or parking passes or the like.Technically one of those is on the inside of the lower left (driver's side) corner of the windshield, which isn't exactly a crazy place to have a device for navigation. It might make it a bit of a hassle for a right-handed person to operate the device when manual input is needed, but beyond that (since manual operation isn't something that the law would like you to involve yourself with anyway) it's a fairly reasonable place to put a device that you could glance at when needed (for navigation, etc.).

EddieCurrent
Apr 8, 2013, 06:39 PM
If you read the actual PDF that is linked from the article you will see MR left out an important point that makes all the difference to the story.

"each testified that, while driving, appellant was cited for looking at a
map on his cellular phone while holding the phone in his hand."

The law bars use of a mobile phone IN YOUR HAND.( I know this because I actually live in California). If your phone is on a mount and you touch the screen or interact, you will not get pulled over. That's why the Garmin units don't count. Because they are mounted in the car. I have even talked to police officers I know and they are looking for someone with a phone to their ear, in their hand or a their heads down operating something. They normally do not mess with someone touching something on their dash.

That doesn't mean it is any less distracting, it is just the way they enforce the law.

Some ass-hat in the state assembly is trying to get voice texting banned as well because it is "equally distracting".

That said I do agree with making things hands free. Why? Because of the number of times I have almost been run into and look at the driver and they have their heads facing their laps or are holding a phone to their ear. In fact I would say in my experience that 3/4 of the time some jackass almost runs into me they are frakking with a hand-held device of some sort.

And it isn't a nanny law. Technically a nanny law keeps you from doing something that would only harm yourself, like not wearing a seat belt. This law is meant to prevent you from KILLING another person because you couldn't put down your damn cell phone. That is fair. You cannot safely operate a vehicle with your head facing your lap.

MacRumors was sloppy in reporting this without providing the context to this story and clarifying how the existing law is enforced.:mad:

crees!
Apr 8, 2013, 06:44 PM
So, stay tuned for laws that prohibit turning on the radio, changing radio stations, operating the window cranks or buttons, etc. California...the nanniest of the Nanny States.

You left out the prohibition of eating listed under the banned nourishment activities while driving clause. Not joking, California will be the first. Be happy who you vote for.

SockRolid
Apr 8, 2013, 06:53 PM
iPhone users who need to access maps for directions can use Apple's Siri for handsfree GPS access.

And if you have an Eyes Free pushbutton built into your car's steering wheel, the iPhone screen doesn't even turn on as Siri gives you directions.

gluckett
Apr 8, 2013, 06:56 PM
So, in jurisdictions where citizens are prohibited from carrying handguns in public, police officers also should be prohibited from carrying handguns in public?

Where do we draw the line on this belief that "it needs to work both ways"?

I didn't say that did I? I am saying that them staring down at their computers or messing with their cell phones while they're driving is just as much a hazard if not more since they're typically flying along a lot faster than everyone else.

GoCubsGo
Apr 8, 2013, 06:57 PM
California tells drivers to get lost.


*slaps knee*

Squilly
Apr 8, 2013, 07:04 PM
So, it's legal to use a Garmin mounted to the windshield.....but not an iPhone mounted to the windshield......

Hrmmmmmm

Exactly what I was thinking.

herr_neumann
Apr 8, 2013, 07:22 PM
California tells drivers to get lost.


*slaps knee*

Writing for the NY Post now?

johncrab
Apr 8, 2013, 07:47 PM
But the 80 year old guy with the map on the steering wheel going 65 is just fine.

----------

Ready for that California road trip this week:

Frosty drink in cup holder #1
Coffee in cup holder #2
Burger
e-cigarette
iPad on armrest
iPhone on knee
Bose Bluetooth unit in back seat
Monopoly board game on passenger's seat

Ready to hit the roads in Cali-for-ni-ayyy!

cire
Apr 8, 2013, 08:01 PM
I left California about 15-years ago. This is one more reason not to return.

joeshmo2010
Apr 8, 2013, 08:25 PM
If this is the kind of thing they're going to do then they need to make it a requirement for all new vehicles to have standard voice-guided navigation systems.

Rajani Isa
Apr 8, 2013, 08:32 PM
But those system have a mechanism that disables the device if you are moving.
? The garmin I used to use for work didn't have any kind of lockout based on moving. It did say "Don't program while you are driving" but it wouldn't stop you from putting in addresses, etc. Which was nice since I usually didn't drive, my coworker did while I typed in the destination :)

And it isn't a nanny law. Technically a nanny law keeps you from doing something that would only harm yourself, like not wearing a seat belt. This law is meant to prevent you from KILLING another person because you couldn't put down your damn cell phone. That is fair. You cannot safely operate a vehicle with your head facing your lap.

Considering everything that can happen as a result of someone eating dirt from not using a seat belt (or other similar types of safety equipment), I wouldn't call it a nanny law.

You want an example of a nanny law, look to New York's failed drink ban.

Clean up of the site.

Hospital bills.

Emergency Services bills.

If you die, all other kinds of details have to be dealt with (What happens to any kids? Who now takes care of them, without your help? etc.)

Oblivion426
Apr 8, 2013, 09:44 PM
There is no single "California Court of Appeals." This article should state which court made the ruling rather than within the link to the opinion. They read the statute broadly to include any use of a cell phone that isn't in a hands free manner. I'm not sure what the problem is here.

janderson0719
Apr 8, 2013, 09:51 PM
I left California about 15-years ago. This is one more reason not to return.

Having lived in California all my life, I just do what true Californians are known for... ignoring the rules and doing as we please.

ArtOfWarfare
Apr 8, 2013, 10:05 PM
How's this for a law: Keep your goddamn hands on the steering wheel while the vehicle is in motion?

If you're caught doing anything with your hands not pertaining to operating the vehicle (IE, touching the PRND1 or lights or windshield wiper controls are okay) while you're in the driver seat of a moving vehicle, you get a ticket.

Doing your makeup, texting, handling GPS units, eating, flipping the bird, etc, is not okay while driving, okay? Have someone else feed you and make your obscene gestures.

I'm sure there's already laws against trying to drive from a non-driver seat...

NOS2U
Apr 8, 2013, 10:11 PM
Last time I was on the freeway within the LA area, I was able to check my voice mail, text messages, e-mail, and call my mother while traffic only moved three feet! People can't do this while stuck in traffic now?

Fruit Cake
Apr 8, 2013, 10:21 PM
Laws were enacted here and many other parts of the world many moons ago. Just use some common sense and get yourself a windscreen mount, you'll be fine.

markiv810
Apr 9, 2013, 12:46 AM
I have seen people texting while driving or even riding a bike. Today while driving to work I saw a person holding an iPhone while driving to make a call, and was utilising two lanes on the highway. How much does it cost to get a hands free set. This is how accidents happen, if your call is that important just pull over and get it over with. Why should anyone die for your phone call or text.

Buckeyestar
Apr 9, 2013, 12:50 AM
So in dash navigation and apps are okay though? Idiots.

FakeWozniak
Apr 9, 2013, 01:06 AM
I have Ford's latest touch screen in my car. The MS software really bites, but that is for some other blog... I assume the touch screen has been blessed by the NTSA. It currently allows me to exercise features from my iPhone, and I think texts are supported. So, I am not allowed to touch the iPhone that I can place straight in front of my face and still have sight of the road, but I am allowed to look over and down at the touch screen on the dashboard to do the same function, but which takes my peripheral vision away from the road. Honestly though, forget the phone functions, just adjusting the temperature control is dangerous enough from personal experience.

I think the law is only there to stick it to you when an accident happens. It was added by the lawyers for use by lawyers. The laws won't keep us from being distracted no more than it will keep us from speeding.

robbysibrahim
Apr 9, 2013, 01:36 AM
This was me two days ago. CHP was cool though and cited me a fixit for my tinted windows when I told him I was checking traffic.

Guess he won't be as cool next time!

Lancer
Apr 9, 2013, 03:32 AM
Dumb question but how does this apply to a phone that is securely mounted in the car, just like any screen mounted GPS unit? I would assume if its mounted to the screen and being used as a GPS (and not texting) then it's legal. But if you use it while driving and have an accident you could still be charged.

macs4nw
Apr 9, 2013, 03:36 AM
I think the court erred in its reasoning, as it failed to consider the fact that a driver who is in need of directions would have the additional burden and distraction of being lost but for having the ability to get directions from the phone.

Essentially, navigating is a fundamental requirement of driving (unlike making phone calls or sending text), thus, it is faulty logic to treat them as being the same in this context.

Unless you have a passenger with you, doing the navigating for you, the safe thing to do is to pull over to consult a map or a Maps App.

Exactly... As usual I will continue doing as I please with no consequences... I text as I need, as well as spend a lot of time on the phone in my car for work. These half baked laws are a joke.

I can only hope I'm not on the road anywhere near you.

.....Perhaps the only deterrent should be complete liability for any damages if you are found to have interacted with your phone within 15 seconds of an accident.....

All the money in the world will not bring back someone's loved-one, after a fatality.

Sorry if I seem harsh on this subject, but I do spend a lot of time on the road, and the outright dangerous manoeuvres I see on a daily basis, done by people taking their eyes off the road for even only several seconds, is enough to fear for my safety on many occasions. Statistics proving these dangers, are to be found everywhere you care to look.

If you lost a child or loved-one, due to a distracted driver, you might look at that 'minor inconvenience' of pulling over, in a whole new light.

Lancer
Apr 9, 2013, 03:44 AM
Forgot to add, I have a Garmin 5" in my 20 year old car and the only thing I do is sometimes enter an address from the favorite list and stop to enter an address from scratch.

Also I guess the laws are different here in Australia but the basic law is if you're distracted and cause a crash you can be charged, whether it's touching your GPS, eating or talking to someone. There are separate laws banning holding your phone while driving but you can use hands free and I just updated my cars stereo which now have BT built in!

coffeemadmanUK
Apr 9, 2013, 05:21 AM
Generally, if you have to hold an item to use it (maps, music, text, calls, whatever) then this should be illegal. The point being that if, in an emergency, you need to use both hands, you will instinctively drop whatever you are holding and that might cause problems (stuck under the accelerator as an example).

Touching something (radio, GPS, or yes, iPhone in a dock) will mean you will not drop anything and can safely stop in the emergency.

Whilst I understand that, say, an iPod shuffle probably won't cause an accident, we cannot list every item under the law - it's all or nothing.

If this ruling means an iPhone docked and not held is illegal then I would argue against it.

I am sure everyone can handle themselves in a car whilst holding a phone, but I wouldn't want to allow the risk or chance of my child, friend or myself walking down the street to be hit by a driver not taking care or being distracted.

Kaibelf
Apr 9, 2013, 05:48 AM
I think the court erred in its reasoning, as it failed to consider the fact that a driver who is in need of directions would have the additional burden and distraction of being lost but for having the ability to get directions from the phone.

Essentially, navigating is a fundamental requirement of driving (unlike making phone calls or sending text), thus, it is faulty logic to treat them as being the same in this context.

For god's sake. Pull over and look. It's not that hard.

----------

So in dash navigation and apps are okay though? Idiots.

Do you use in dash apps AS YOU DRIVE!?

----------

Exactly... As usual I will continue doing as I please with no consequences... I text as I need, as well as spend a lot of time on the phone in my car for work. These half baked laws are a joke.

I hope you are being sarcastic, but if not, I hope that when you have an accident you are the only one killed by your recklessness and not some poor family that has the bad fortune of being on the road with you. I mean, I know you're a real big shot and need to make your special phone calls and all.

TC25
Apr 9, 2013, 06:24 AM
This is not rocket science, it's cause and effect. CA is getting the exact legislation they deserve.

There have been reckless driving laws on the books almost since the first automobile accident. Distracted driving is a specific type of reckless driving. But why have 1 law when you can have 2?

This idiocy will continue in CA and in every other state where the population keeps voting in politicians whose goal is to micromanage every aspect of your life.

Boatboy24
Apr 9, 2013, 06:42 AM
Still perfectly OK to unfold a large paper map and block your entire field of view though! Thumbs up, CA! :rolleyes:

screensaver400
Apr 9, 2013, 07:36 AM
There have been reckless driving laws on the books almost since the first automobile accident. Distracted driving is a specific type of reckless driving. But why have 1 law when you can have 2?


This. The cell phone law is terrible policy, because it leaves open so many possibilities. It's still legal to read newspapers and books, and apparently I could hold a standalone GPS unit in my hand without violating the law.* Absurd.

*The law does not specifically forbid such a use, even while it provides an exemption for mounted units.

TC25
Apr 9, 2013, 08:06 AM
This. The cell phone law is terrible policy, because it leaves open so many possibilities. It's still legal to read newspapers and books, and apparently I could hold a standalone GPS unit in my hand without violating the law.* Absurd.

*The law does not specifically forbid such a use, even while it provides an exemption for mounted units.

The nanny state does not care about effectiveness, facts, logic, need, appropriateness, etc., and the uninformed, unthinking dolts who keep voting for them don't care about it either.

Even when it is proven that legislation will not address the problem, nanny state politicians and nanny state voters do not care. "We have to DO something!" is the cry from the masses.

All the nanny state cares about is 'Good Intentions'.

John.B
Apr 9, 2013, 08:13 AM
Is it still OK to look at a paper map?

Edit: Beat to the punch by Boatboy24!

kevinof
Apr 9, 2013, 08:14 AM
No way. Nobody would ever be so stupid as to text while riding a bike... :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE3XsZaL-zo

On a more serious note - Here in Ireland the law is that you can't "cradle" a device in your hand. Ie you can't hold it so you must use a hands free kit. Using maps is (I guess) ok.

I have seen people texting while driving or even riding a bike..

GoCubsGo
Apr 9, 2013, 08:16 AM
Having lived in California all my life, I just do what true Californians are known for... ignoring the rules and doing as we please.
HAHAH this is so true it is sad.
:)
I left California about 15-years ago. This is one more reason not to return.
They're not making it easy to want to return. I left too but I haven't been convinced not to return, yet.
Writing for the NY Post now?

Come on now. :D

georgB
Apr 9, 2013, 08:23 AM
This is a very good law, and a good interpretation. An amazing number of accidents are attributable to drivers using their phones in some manner - and other devices, too, of course. I'm sure other posters who have variously brought up other devices are aware of this, and so are legislators. It's hard to get the law just right, but I'm sure they're working on it, as they are all over the world.

But the point isn't even remotely unclear: the driver of a car should be attending to driving the car, and nothing else, else he becomes the driver of a big, dangerous, unguided missle. You've all seen the signs on busses DON'T TALK TO THE BUS DRIVER. That's not because bus drivers are anti-social, but because they shouldn't be distracted. Of course, there'll never be a law prohibiting conversation in a private car, but, of course, even that - or stuff like it, like necking, or more - can be quite distracting, and is best left for the roadside, or drive-in movie.

TC25
Apr 9, 2013, 08:28 AM
This is a very good law, and a good interpretation. An amazing number of accidents are attributable to drivers using their phones in some manner - and other devices, too, of course. I'm sure other posters who have variously brought up other devices are aware of this, and so are legislators. It's hard to get the law just right, but I'm sure they're working on it, as they are all over the world.

But the point isn't even remotely unclear: the driver of a car should be attending to driving the car, and nothing else, else he becomes the driver of a big, dangerous, unguided missle. You've all seen the signs on busses DON'T TALK TO THE BUS DRIVER. That's not because bus drivers are anti-social, but because they shouldn't be distracted. Of course, there'll never be a law prohibiting conversation in a private car, but, of course, even that - or stuff like it, like necking, or more - can be quite distracting.

What don't you understand about existing reckless driving laws and why they are sufficient?

kevinof
Apr 9, 2013, 08:29 AM
I (sort of) agree. Sometimes laws are made with good intent but are too strict in practice.

For instance - What's the definition of driving. Is it seated in the car with the engine running. If so If I am stuck in a traffic jam for 15 minutes because of an accident, is it against the law to use my phone (while the car is stopped, in park etc)? I bet that most laws don't specify.

Here we have a law which is "driving without due care and attention". If you are spotted by the police using your phone (while moving) then you can be done. If however you are stopped, as above in traffic then you would not get done for the offence.

This is a very good law, and a good interpretation. An amazing number of accidents are attributable to drivers using their phones in some manner - and other devices, too, of course. I'm sure other posters who have variously brought up other devices are aware of this, and so are legislators. It's hard to get the law just right, but I'm sure they're working on it, as they are all over the world.

But the point isn't even remotely unclear: the driver of a car should be attending to driving the car, and nothing else, else he becomes the driver of a big, dangerous, unguided missle. You've all seen the signs on busses DON'T TALK TO THE BUS DRIVER. That's not because bus drivers are anti-social, but because they shouldn't be distracted. Of course, there'll never be a law prohibiting conversation in a private car, but, of course, even that - or stuff like it, like necking, or more - can be quite distracting.

georgB
Apr 9, 2013, 08:31 AM
I think the law is only there to stick it to you when an accident happens. It was added by the lawyers for use by lawyers. The laws won't keep us from being distracted no more than it will keep us from speeding.
Meaning what? There should be no speed limits, either? Or DUI laws? Or any other laws, about anything, for that matter? Or do you mean that all those things are OK, since people - obviously - do them, and curtailing such activity is an unwarrented restriction of your civil rights?

Get a grip.

Gasu E.
Apr 9, 2013, 08:39 AM
If they want to eliminate distraction of the driver, they will need to start with my spouse!

Do not touch your spouse while driving. Use the hands-free voice interaction mode.

georgB
Apr 9, 2013, 08:40 AM
What don't you understand about existing reckless driving laws and why they are sufficient?
The same thing I don't understand about murder laws and why they are supposed to be sufficient. No, they're obviously not. I believe gun control is necessary, too. I'm aware that many disagree, and you may be among them, but I know I'm far from alone. BTW, I also favor DUI laws, which are, in principle, the same idea.

tbrinkma
Apr 9, 2013, 08:49 AM
So, in jurisdictions where citizens are prohibited from carrying handguns in public, police officers also should be prohibited from carrying handguns in public?

Where do we draw the line on this belief that "it needs to work both ways"?

Actually, yes. That would certainly point out the absurdity of disallowing normal citizens the means to defend their lives, while equipping the investigatory portion of the government with the means to do so.

Swampthing
Apr 9, 2013, 08:56 AM
Martyrdom is the only way in which a man can become famous without ability.

- George Bernard Shaw

George is wrong. He never had the chance to watch reality tv.

thekev
Apr 9, 2013, 08:57 AM
So, stay tuned for laws that prohibit turning on the radio, changing radio stations, operating the window cranks or buttons, etc. California...the nanniest of the Nanny States.

It's to protect others. The justification is the same reason you're legally required to have liability insurance for your car while collision and comprehensive are optional. Both talking and texting while driving were legal for many years. California had a very long time to gather data prior to passing such laws, and really when you're driving, you're not supposed to pay attention to things that are unrelated to the road.

iGrip
Apr 9, 2013, 09:13 AM
Most people believe they are above average. .

And half of them are 100% correct.

TC25
Apr 9, 2013, 09:27 AM
... and really when you're driving, you're not supposed to pay attention to things that are unrelated to the road.
Hence, the reckless driving law.

There is absolutely no need to create a new law for every possible way people can drive recklessly.

charlituna
Apr 9, 2013, 09:36 AM
but checking Facebook while driving is ok?

No. Read the article. The issue isn't what you are doing in the phone, it's that your hand is off the wheel so you can hold the phone.

----------

I think the court erred in its reasoning, as it failed to consider the fact that a driver who is in need of directions would have the additional burden and distraction of being lost but for having the ability to get directions from the phone.


Pull over and look at a map when you are out of the flow of traffic potentially pulling dumb stunts like realizing that's your turn and you are in the wrong lane and diving in front of folks etc.

Not a hard concept

----------

So, in jurisdictions where citizens are prohibited from carrying handguns in public, police officers also should be prohibited from carrying handguns in public?

Where do we draw the line on this belief that "it needs to work both ways"?

If the cop is controlling a motor vehicle that is on a road and in motion and he's not looking at the road with hands on steering wheel then he's as much a potential safety hazard as a non cop. So yes, it needs to work both ways.

powers74
Apr 9, 2013, 10:21 AM
The cops need to be held to this as well. At least here in AL, it is illegal to do the texting, emails, etc., yet you will always see cops messing with their laptops, cell phones, etc. It needs to work both ways.

Good luck with that.

I can understand this to an extent, I was using maps this weekend while driving, and it is somewhat dangerous - of course, I don't have a mount for my phone. One thing that would be nice would be to set the +&- buttons to zoom in & out. But seriously, driving drunk is illegal too. People aren't going to stop doing this.

TC25
Apr 9, 2013, 10:52 AM
Of course, there'll never be a law prohibiting conversation in a private car...
Typical, naive opinion. Some governments already prohibit smoking in a private home. Such nannies would not think twice about prohibiting conversation in a private car. All they'd have to do is conduct a PR campaign to convince a majority of dolts it was in their best interests, or the current favorite, "It's for the children."

paul8
Apr 9, 2013, 11:21 AM
Image (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/04/08/california-court-rules-anti-texting-laws-apply-to-checking-maps-while-driving/)


Image (http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/06/iphonemapscrop.jpg)According to a court ruling (http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/JAD13-02.PDF) from the California Court of Appeals (via Orin Kerr (https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/319938158584295424)), using a mobile phone such as Apple's iPhone to check or update a mapping or GPS program violates the state's distracted driving law (http://www.distraction.gov/content/get-the-facts/state-laws.html). Vehicle Code 23123, aka the distracted driving law, was developed to prohibit drivers from texting and making handheld calls with a mobile phone.



I think what the court is saying is that it is ok to use your phone mapping app while driving, you just can't push any buttons on the screen while driving. For example, you could set up the maps app for driving directions while you are not driving, use the app when driving. If you needed to access another map function or change locations, you should stop the car to make the changes.

gnasher729
Apr 9, 2013, 11:36 AM
I think the court erred in its reasoning, as it failed to consider the fact that a driver who is in need of directions would have the additional burden and distraction of being lost but for having the ability to get directions from the phone.

Essentially, navigating is a fundamental requirement of driving (unlike making phone calls or sending text), thus, it is faulty logic to treat them as being the same in this context.

When you are lost, you are free to find your way to a place where you can park your car, then ask your phone for driving instructions. If you are incapable of driving safely if you don't know where you are, then you shouldn't be driving.

waterbug
Apr 9, 2013, 11:54 AM
I think what the court is saying is that it is ok to use your phone mapping app while driving, you just can't push any buttons on the screen while driving. For example, you could set up the maps app for driving directions while you are not driving, use the app when driving. If you needed to access another map function or change locations, you should stop the car to make the changes.

This is exactly right. The MR headline (and most headlines I've read on this today, in fact) have it wrong. The court ruled specifically on the driver's use of his hands on the device while driving. Please read the court ruling in its entirety (linked from the original article, and only 8 very-readable pages without a lot of legalese).

Is it illogical, then, to permit the use of hands on a Garmin device? It certainly would be more logical to prohibit touching the screen of any device while driving, and I would support such a rule.

But there is a difference between a phone used for navigation purposes and a dedicated navigation device. If you're touching your Garmin (ooooh, that sounds dirty!) you're extremely unlikely to have to clear an alarm, clear a text message, and see that you have 42 fb messages before touching the "Re-route" button, whereas this is an extremely common scenario on a phone. It's far easier to get distracted with a phone-as-nav and find your mind wandering away from driving task for 2-3 seconds. With a dedicated navigation device the distraction is likely to be a second or less.

Of course with "dedicated" navigation devices getting features like music players and speakerphone functions, now that line is blurring as well. I'd prefer to keep all drivers' hands on the wheel as much as possible.

So why is it OK to fiddle with the car radio and climate control? I'll suggest that _most_ in-car radio and climate control systems have physical knobs and buttons* that can be found and controlled by touch, with minimal visual distraction. Their positions are fixed, and there's plenty of tactile feedback, so the driver doesn't have to look at them for very long, if at all. And there's zero chance of getting distracted by a text message.

One could make an analogous extension to phones with hard keypads vs. touchscreens. Back before it was specifically prohibited, I frequently dialed phone numbers on my Treo while driving, but it was 100% by touch, without ever looking at the keypad. I could never do that with my iPhone.

But it would be pretty difficult to split this hair, legislatively, so it'd be safest to just prohibit any manual interaction with any "device" while in the roadway. If you need to fiddle with the device, pull over.

I invested money in an aftermarket kit for my car so I can summon Siri, change tracks, etc., using my original steering wheel buttons, so I never have to touch my phone or look at it while I'm driving. And when I need to fiddle with it, I have my passenger do it, or I pull over.


* on this note, I find the Tesla's 17" touchscreen to be a bad precedent. It's going to be way worse than a phone wrt potential for extended driver distraction. Any distraction from the actual task of driving needs to be fixed-position, tactile, immediate, and single purpose.

JAT
Apr 9, 2013, 12:12 PM
Do not touch your spouse while driving. Use the hands-free voice interaction mode.
Even Siri works better than that.

nsayer
Apr 9, 2013, 12:16 PM
The UI sucks but gets disabled?

"Sucks" is in the eye of the beholder, but yes, Waze won't let you do certain things while you're moving without you clicking an extra button that proclaims to it that you're a passenger.

----------

Laws were enacted here and many other parts of the world many moons ago. Just use some common sense and get yourself a windscreen mount, you'll be fine.

Windshield mounts are illegal (yes, there is a tiny exception space, but it's not anyplace a sane person would mount a phone or GPS) in California and (last I checked) Minnesota.

dysamoria
Apr 9, 2013, 02:01 PM
I think the court erred in its reasoning, as it failed to consider the fact that a driver who is in need of directions would have the additional burden and distraction of being lost but for having the ability to get directions from the phone.

Essentially, navigating is a fundamental requirement of driving (unlike making phone calls or sending text), thus, it is faulty logic to treat them as being the same in this context.

Exactly. They went for sweeping instead of logical and reasonable application of the law.

What about regular dedicated GPS, actual paper maps or written directions on paper??

These are necessary activities in driving. Texting and holding a phone to one's head is not (not with availability of hands free headsets, wired or Bluetooth).

If they care about distractions so much, why aren't they banning billboards (especially lit up, animated ones) and attention-getting car modifications (boom boom stereos, lights, spinning hubcaps, exaggerated exhaust, car alarms, etc).

Inconsistent application of the law is as damaging as irrational sweeping application.

BTW: the people that coded this mobile view... Did you ever attempt to select text on a mobile device??? This sucks.

dysamoria
Apr 9, 2013, 02:13 PM
No. Read the article. The issue isn't what you are doing in the phone, it's that your hand is off the wheel so you can hold the phone.

----------



Pull over and look at a map when you are out of the flow of traffic potentially pulling dumb stunts like realizing that's your turn and you are in the wrong lane and diving in front of folks etc.

Not a hard concept

----------



If the cop is controlling a motor vehicle that is on a road and in motion and he's not looking at the road with hands on steering wheel then he's as much a potential safety hazard as a non cop. So yes, it needs to work both ways.

Well, for staters, police would have to actually be capable of being found guilty of anything at all. It happens, in extremes, but rarely. The smaller issues (which are horrendous en mass) are essentially invisible. Police have so many exceptions (both legally binding and on the good old boy system) that they get away with far more than anyone else ever could. When caught, they rarely have to pay the consequences. On top of that, with all this extra "permission" to do what regular citizens cannot, they have a massive amount of power over average persons (being armed, having authority and being frequently intimidating by default). The whole establishment itself is a problem.

So, like someone else said: good luck with that. The authority doesn't police itself and it exempts itself from the things it polices in others. How do you make this a fair system and force them to set good examples when the system itself determines policy? You can't use antisocial people to change their behaviors. They're in charge.

Anyway, back to the topic: distraction is bad. Yet industry seems hell bent on producing as much distraction as it can. It increases daily. It's called advertising. It's also called "loud pipes" (which don't actually save lives) and pimped-out/tricked-out car modifications. The merchandise is legal but the use of it is ... very inconsistently regulated.

Advertising is barely regulated at all.

California... Such a mix of good, awesome... and stupid.

komodrone
Apr 9, 2013, 02:22 PM
No. Read the article. The issue isn't what you are doing in the phone, it's that your hand is off the wheel so you can hold the phone.[COLOR="#808080"]


I did read the article.
You can launch Facebook using Siri.

IJ Reilly
Apr 9, 2013, 03:23 PM
The danger is real (and not just to you the driver), and no law can ever be perfect.

But my iPhone is MUCH easier/quicker to navigate with than the standalone Garmins/etc. I see people fumbling with.

Maybe a better law would be: no TYPING or manual text entry on any device by a driver. No texting, no searching for a song, no entering an address--and that goes for Garmins, music players, phones... anything. But you're free to use your navigator/phone in other ways, like skipping songs, toggling the map view, etc. (and of course voice operation).

Pretty much what the court decided. The law was not written to specifically prohibit texting or talking, but made it a misdemeanor to be distracted while driving by mobile devices that require the use of your hands. (Seems nobody read the actual decision. If you do you'd see, given the way the law reads, that they didn't have a lot of logical options.)

----------

Actually, it's illegal to mount any such devices to your windshield in California.

There are two small spaces set aside as exceptions... but they're places no sane person would ever use to mount such a device. They're intended for FasTrak or parking passes or the like.

I guess that makes me insane (new definitions of words every day). When I use my Garmin it goes in the allowed corner of the windshield, where it works just fine and doesn't obscure my forward vision. Based on what I see around me on the road, it seems I am one in about a thousand who even knows where you are allowed to mount a GPS in California.

C DM
Apr 9, 2013, 08:11 PM
"Sucks" is in the eye of the beholder, but yes, Waze won't let you do certain things while you're moving without you clicking an extra button that proclaims to it that you're a passenger.

----------



Windshield mounts are illegal (yes, there is a tiny exception space, but it's not anyplace a sane person would mount a phone or GPS) in California and (last I checked) Minnesota.Lower left (driver's side) corner of the windshield is hardly a place that a sane person would really find horrible issues with. Perhaps not as "in your face" and thus "convenient" as mounting something in the center (of not right in front of you), but it's must less distracting and in the way that way, and still can be used decently well (and perhaps even better when it comes to left-handed people).

thekev
Apr 10, 2013, 01:31 AM
Hence, the reckless driving law.

There is absolutely no need to create a new law for every possible way people can drive recklessly.

There are plenty of traffic laws on specific topics beyond just reckless driving/endangerment. Most traffic violations have specific criteria and levels of punishment. If you look at the terms, they're slightly ambiguous (http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc23103.htm). In this case they outlawed something that was previously legal. Can you explain why you're concerned that they did this via a new law rather than by amending the definition of the older one?

And half of them are 100% correct.

He said better than average, not above the median.:p

markiv810
Apr 10, 2013, 01:45 AM
George is wrong. He never had the chance to watch reality tv.

Wish I could give you more than +1 for that comment.

TC25
Apr 10, 2013, 03:02 AM
Can you explain why you're concerned that they did this via a new law rather than by amending the definition of the older one?

Read my previous posts in this thread for an answer.

thekev
Apr 10, 2013, 10:53 AM
Read my previous posts in this thread for an answer.

I read nanny state and that they should rely on pre-existing laws. You offered little in the way of reasoning one way or the other, then of course the condescending "everyone else is a sheep" attitude. Those posts are a projection of opinions. They don't really contain information or logic.

\-V-/
Apr 10, 2013, 10:55 AM
Get a mount that attaches somewhere below the window while driving around in California. That's what I do. This law is absolutely asinine, though.

turboluis
Apr 10, 2013, 12:13 PM
So, it's legal to use a Garmin mounted to the windshield.....but not an iPhone mounted to the windshield......

Hrmmmmmm

It should be obvious to everyone that this guy got ticketed because he had the phone in his HAND, two big no nos (hand off the wheel and eyes off the road). If he had it mounted to his dash (windshield mounts are also illegal in CA) he wouldn't of had a problem. Distracted driving has always been illegal everywhere and all it takes is some common sense to know much you able to do while driving.

freediverdude
Apr 10, 2013, 02:07 PM
Basically I think these state legislatures are just biding their time, and making some laws that make it look like they are trying to do something about using smartphones while driving. They just need to get through the next 10 years or so until a lot of cars will be sold as self-driving cars, and these laws will be moot. They're pretty unenforceable anyway, unless the cop can snap a picture of you holding a cell phone through an untinted window so it's very clear (like what happened to Maria Shriver). They do need to get the self-driving cars on the road as quickly as possible though.

TC25
Apr 10, 2013, 05:27 PM
I read nanny state and that they should rely on pre-existing laws. You offered little in the way of reasoning one way or the other, then of course the condescending "everyone else is a sheep" attitude. Those posts are a projection of opinions. They don't really contain information or logic.

Why don't you explain why more laws are better? It is all reckless driving and could be prosecuted as such.

More laws = more govt to enforce them.

It's not complicated to understand.

thekev
Apr 11, 2013, 01:53 PM
Why don't you explain why more laws are better? It is all reckless driving and could be prosecuted as such.

More laws = more govt to enforce them.

It's not complicated to understand.

They would have to amend the old law that way, which does happen at times. Are you saying that it takes more government to enforce a greater number of laws as opposed to fewer laws with greater complexity?

TC25
Apr 11, 2013, 04:33 PM
They would have to amend the old law that way, which does happen at times. Are you saying that it takes more government to enforce a greater number of laws as opposed to fewer laws with greater complexity?

Reckless driving is reckless driving, regardless of the cause. No law needs amended which renders your second sentence moot.

thekev
Apr 11, 2013, 04:53 PM
Reckless driving is reckless driving, regardless of the cause. No law needs amended which renders your second sentence moot.

You still have to define recklessness. This doesn't mean via dictionary. Texting is a specific action. If lawmakers are going to target it specifically, it would be included as a specific detail, not under an ambiguous term. I was afraid this would turn into an argument over semantics.

TC25
Apr 12, 2013, 03:25 AM
You still have to define recklessness. This doesn't mean via dictionary. Texting is a specific action. If lawmakers are going to target it specifically, it would be included as a specific detail, not under an ambiguous term. I was afraid this would turn into an argument over semantics.

No, it's not semantics, it's common sense for people who are not pedants or legislators.

1. There are reckless driving laws now that are enforced. So, reckless driving has already been defined. Comprende?

2. There are many causes of reckless driving and they are all irrelevant. Why someone was driving recklessly isn't important, the fact they WERE driving recklessly is and that's what they are charged with.

nsayer
Apr 24, 2013, 02:46 PM
Lower left (driver's side) corner of the windshield is hardly a place that a sane person would really find horrible issues with. Perhaps not as "in your face" and thus "convenient" as mounting something in the center (of not right in front of you), but it's must less distracting and in the way that way, and still can be used decently well (and perhaps even better when it comes to left-handed people).

Lefties are, what? 20% of the population? For everyone else, I call shenanigans on your assertion that, mounted as the law allows, that the device "still can be used decently well."

C DM
Apr 24, 2013, 04:07 PM
Lefties are, what? 20% of the population? For everyone else, I call shenanigans on your assertion that, mounted as the law allows, that the device "still can be used decently well."At the very least equal shenanigans can be called on the claim that "it's not anyplace a sane person would mount a phone or GPS".

That aside, using something "decently well" is essentially well enough to do what needs to be done on it and see/hear it well enough to get use out of it--it'd be pretty hard to say that you simply can't do those things well enough from that location. Is it the most direct and easiest/simplest, no (but that wasn't the claim), but is it a location where you can still use it when needed without anything subjecting yourself to anything really crazy, yes, it is.

It can be said it's an inconvenient location in some sense, sure, but that's still ways away from being some sort of a crazy location.

rumourmill
Aug 20, 2013, 10:36 PM
the court erred. the cited vehicle code section (23123) specifically talks about using the phone AS A PHONE. not as a gps, not sending texts, not as a music provider. there is no law that prohibits non-minors from texting.

the law is all about semantics; anybody who says otherwise doesn't understand the law. I am a firm believer in "what the law says, the law means". This "what the legislature REALLY meant by that law" dookie from the court is disappointing. If the legislature meant NO TEXTING, they would have included it in the law (like they did in 23124, prohibiting texting FOR MINORS). If the court meant NO GPS USE, they would have included it in the law. Those activities aren't mentioned in the law, so the legislature clearly didn't intend for them to be illegal. (common sense)

the law says absolutely nothing about "distracted driving"; where the court invented that theory is probably the same place the russians keep their UFOs.

C DM
Aug 21, 2013, 03:20 PM
the court erred. the cited vehicle code section (23123) specifically talks about using the phone AS A PHONE. not as a gps, not sending texts, not as a music provider. there is no law that prohibits non-minors from texting.

the law is all about semantics; anybody who says otherwise doesn't understand the law. I am a firm believer in "what the law says, the law means". This "what the legislature REALLY meant by that law" dookie from the court is disappointing. If the legislature meant NO TEXTING, they would have included it in the law (like they did in 23124, prohibiting texting FOR MINORS). If the court meant NO GPS USE, they would have included it in the law. Those activities aren't mentioned in the law, so the legislature clearly didn't intend for them to be illegal. (common sense)

the law says absolutely nothing about "distracted driving"; where the court invented that theory is probably the same place the russians keep their UFOs.Whatever your interpretation of the law might be, the interpretation of the law that actually matters and play a role is one that still falls largely on the judges, good luck using any of that to get out of some violation that you got as a result of something related to it. Some certainly will, but most will not, no matter what the common sense, or logic, or semantics, or anything else might dictate.