California Appeals Court Rules State Law Doesn't Prohibit Driver Use of Smartphone Maps

[burne]

MOST "distracted driver" laws are idiotic.

And it's not because distracted driving is OK. The problem is that most of these laws concentrate on SPECIFIC distractions:

Dutch law prohibits handling a phone when driving as such. Good solution? No, because you can play with an iPod or a PND and be just as distracted.

There's something like the distracted driving law, but that requires actual nuisance or danger to be caused before the cops can use it.

*Sigh*

 

[Lancer]

We have similar laws regarding not holding cell phones while driving, unless parked. Not including stopped at in traffic.

Anyway the other day I was at the lights and need to take a photo, I just happened to have my proper SLR camera so no problem. But if I used my iPhone I could have been fined for doing exactly the same thing. The laws here are so stupid when it comes to cell phones now you can do much more then text and call.

 

[gnasher729]

The answer to that is obvious: You shouldn't be handing out tickets to anyone JUST because they are distracted. The distraction must lead to actual harm. We shouldn't punish people for what might have happened; we should punish them for what DOES happen.

So if I have to do an emergency brake while having the right of way, because some idiot in a 2.5 ton SUV is on the phone and drives straight to where he would hit me, that's OK?

----------

It was okay for me to cruise at 170mph last month when I was there, yet here in the U.S. I would be considered a dangerous criminal. Why?

Americans are not capable driving 170 mph on a German motorway _safely_. Driving faster than you can drive _safely_ is illegal in Germany, so it was definitely not OK.

Anyway, at any speed over 80mph any accident will be your fault, automatically, unless you can prove it would have happened at a lower speed as well. Even if it was caused by someone else making a mistake. Because driving at over 80mph means you have to take into account that others make mistakes, and drive carefully enough to be able to avoid accidents _if_ that happens.

 

[inscrewtable]

I love the way the law is always interpreted literally. Reminds me of a driver in Australia whose lawyer challenged his DUI conviction as the law was written to make it illegal to have 0.08 (later changed to .05) ml of alcohol in 100ml of blood.

His lawyer asked 'which 100ml were the prosecution referring to', the law was subsequently changed to 'per 100mls' rather than 'in 100ml'

 

[Popeye206]

Thank god! I'd hate not to be able to watch my movies while driving!

Anyway… I sure wish some real rumors would pop-up soon… I want to see an announcement of an Apple event so we can get some new toys soon.

 

[Boatboy24]

There should be a number of traffic tests and studies of this before they write any more laws. What's the difference between a "smartphone map app" and an old standalone Tom-Tom?

Or, a (gasp!) paper map! What about reading written directions? Or putting on makeup? Hell, I've seen people reading novels while commuting in highway traffic.

 

[JohnArtist]

NY: using cell while STOPPED legal

According to this article, the DMV says (in NY) that using cell phone while stopped is LEGAL.

http://longisland.news12.com/news/d...d-at-red-light-is-legal-in-new-york-1.5939429

This isn't gonna fly in NY. The Vehicle and Traffic Law doesn't allow you to use ANY electronic device while driving.

1225-d. Use of portable electronic devices. 1. Except as otherwise
provided in this section, no person shall operate a motor vehicle while
using any portable electronic device while such vehicle is in motion;
provided, however, that no person shall operate a commercial motor
vehicle while using any portable electronic device on a public highway
including while temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic
control device, or other momentary delays. Provided further, however,
that a person shall not be deemed to be operating a commercial motor
vehicle while using a portable electronic device on a public highway
when such vehicle is stopped at the side of, or off, a public highway in
a location where such vehicle is not otherwise prohibited from stopping
by law, rule, regulation or any lawful order or direction of a police
officer.
1-a. No motor carrier shall allow or require its drivers to use a
portable electronic device while operating a commercial motor vehicle as
provided in this section.
2. For the purposes of this section, the following terms shall have
the following meanings:
(a) "Portable electronic device" shall mean any hand-held mobile
telephone, as defined by subdivision one of section twelve hundred
twenty-five-c of this article, personal digital assistant (PDA),
handheld device with mobile data access, laptop computer, pager,
broadband personal communication device, two-way messaging device,
electronic game, or portable computing device, or any other electronic
device when used to input, write, send, receive, or read text for
present or future communication.
(b) "Using" shall mean holding a portable electronic device while
viewing, taking or transmitting images, playing games, or, for the
purpose of present or future communication: performing a command or
request to access a world wide web page, composing, sending, reading,
viewing, accessing, browsing, transmitting, saving or retrieving e-mail,
text messages, instant messages, or other electronic data.
(c) "Commercial motor vehicle" shall have the same meaning as such
term is defined by subdivision four-a of section two of the
transportation law.
(d) "Motor carrier" shall have the same meaning as such term is
defined by subdivision seventeen of section two of the transportation
law.
3. Subdivision one of this section shall not apply to (a) the use of a
portable electronic device for the sole purpose of communicating with
any of the following regarding an emergency situation: an emergency
response operator; a hospital; a physician's office or health clinic; an
ambulance company or corps; a fire department, district or company; or a
police department, (b) any of the following persons while in the
performance of their official duties: a police officer or peace officer;
a member of a fire department, district or company; or the operator of
an authorized emergency vehicle as defined in section one hundred one of
this chapter.
4. A person who holds a portable electronic device in a conspicuous
manner while operating a motor vehicle or while operating a commercial
motor vehicle on a public highway including while temporarily stationary
because of traffic, a traffic control device, or other momentary delays
but not including when such commercial motor vehicle is stopped at the
side of, or off, a public highway in a location where such vehicle is
not otherwise prohibited from stopping by law, rule, regulation or any
lawful order or direction of a police officer is presumed to be using
such device, except that a person operating a commercial motor vehicle
while using a portable electronic device when such vehicle is stopped at
the side of, or off, a public highway in a location where such vehicle
is not otherwise prohibited from stopping by law, rule, regulation or
any lawful order or direction of a police officer shall not be presumed
to be using such device. The presumption established by this subdivision
is rebuttable by evidence tending to show that the operator was not
using the device within the meaning of this section.
5. The provisions of this section shall not be construed as
authorizing the seizure or forfeiture of a portable electronic device,
unless otherwise provided by law.
6. A violation of this section shall be a traffic infraction and
shall be punishable by a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more
than one hundred fifty dollars upon conviction of a first violation;
upon conviction of a second violation, both of which were committed
within a period of eighteen months, such violation shall be punished by
a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than two hundred dollars;
upon conviction of a third or subsequent violation, all of which were
committed within a period of eighteen months, such violation shall be
punished by a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than four
hundred dollars.

 

[unplugme71]

In my opinion, the law should state that removing your hands off the steering wheel is considered distracted driving. Only when you are at a complete stop may you adjust something.

If you are found operating a phone, applying make up, etc while driving and the cause of the accident, you should be charged with more than just a ticket for careless/wreckless driving, but you should also be charged with a criminal offense. Just like driving drunk. Pay a nasty fine, go to jail, and license suspended.

Software on phones should also alert an 'Accept' or 'Decline' message if it determines its in motion. Accepting the terms makes you more liable if you are the owner of the phone and were the driver. It should be illegal to give your phone to someone else while in a vehicle.

I personally hate people who text and talk on cell phones. I've had a few drive outside their lane of travel. When you have young kids in your car, the last thing you want is someone destroying or injuring their lives.

 

[msandersen]

It is possible that the California state legislature will address the issue in a future session as the law was likely intended to ban drivers from playing Angry Birds...

I love the idea of a law specifically banning drivers from playing Angry Birds! Never mind Candy Crush or Facebook, Angry Birds is the scourge of our time!

 

[mcfmullen]

Why is everyone missing the fact that gps apps auto reroute once you start a detour?

This guy had no reason to touch the phone in the first place.

 

[LordVic]

MOST "distracted driver" laws are idiotic.

And it's not because distracted driving is OK. The problem is that most of these laws concentrate on SPECIFIC distractions: Texting and e-mailing are NOT OK, but scrolling through your list of contacts to find a number to dial or using a map IS OK? That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Here's a simple suggestion: Write a law that says ANY distraction is punishable, IF it causes you to cause or be involved in an accident. I don't care if the distraction is your cellphone, your desire to apply makeup while you are driving, your trying to fish a CD case off the floor on the passenger side, or you turning around because your kids in the backseat are misbehaving -- if you take your hands off the wheel or take your eyes off the road, YOU ARE A DISTRACTED DRIVER.

So, eyes front and DRIVE.

----------

"No, officer, I wasn't distracted when I caused that accident; I was looking at porn on my iPhone. Pretty sure the law doesn't cover that."

Ontario has distracted driver laws. They found that they didn't have enough Teeth to really put a dent in the amount of collisions caused by cell phones and mobile devices.

They passed a law here explicitely aiming at handheld devices. In Ontario, it is against the highway traffic act to be even seen holding in your hand any mobile device. Whether it's on, off, or you're just moving it to a different location in the car. They have passed that it is not the cops responsibility to prove that you are using the device or not, but that the device itself should never be in your hands.

A lot of studies have actually shown, that while public support for this law is low, Collisions and Insurance claims involving cell phone accidents have dropped dramatically.

There have been a few cases of people fighting it, like this story. And most often the courts just say "tough". One woman faught that she dropped her phone at a red light. Bent down to pick it up, and the cop gave her a ticket for holding the phone. Court ruled that under no circumstances is it appropriate for her to have picked it up till she had arrived at her destination, since, she can't use it anyways till then.

And no. According to our laws, Even using your phone at a stop sign or red light is illegal. you cannot use your device till you are safely parked.

 

[C DM]

Why is everyone missing the fact that gps apps auto reroute once you start a detour?

This guy had no reason to touch the phone in the first place.

Perhaps he wasn't using GPS but while he wasn't moving deviced to use a traffic or maps at that time to find an alternate route or even just see how long the backup he is in is and what's causing it perhaps.

 

[doctor-don]

The problem is, how do define "distracted driving?" Most new cars now have built-in GPS. If you glance at the built-in screen, like intended, is that distracted? If you use a phone gps, how is that any different than looking at the built-in screen? How is any of this different than when we had paper maps or printed turn by turn directions? How is manipulating a gps any different than manipulating a radio or other controls on a car?

The real problem is caused by people texting or talking on the phone, one-handed and not paying attention. But drivers get just as distracted by talking with other people in the car. A mother with her kids can be equally distracted while driving as someone who is texting while driving.

Where are all the lines drawn?

No, a person talking to another person in the car is NOT as distracted as someone talking on a phone (hands-free or not).

On the phone, the other person expects a reply to continue the conversation. In a conversation in the car, the other person expects the driver to attend to the business of driving and does not worry that the driver stops talking for a minute here and there.

Kids fighting in the back seat is an entirely different matter, and it is not a problem that legislation can solve. A parent can always pull over to take care of the situation with kids.

Distracted driving is distracted driving. Looking at a GPS screen or selecting an address is something that needs to be done while the car is stopped. The driver needs to know his route before he starts so that any voice instructions are received with a "Yeah, that's right." or "Finally got to that turn."

I have a brother who drove a small car with his wife next to him in the front seat and my wife and me in the back seat. He would look at the paper map while we were going around the narrow mountain roads in Sweden and Norway. I guess his wife wasn't a person who could read a map.

 

[phillipduran]

I'm almost certain that 'vacuum' won't last; too much at stake with lives lost due to distracted driving.

Having said that, there should be a clear distinction between such cases whether you are driving, or stationary due to traffic lights or construction, etc.

Common sense. That's what police used to have.

Kids are getting kicked out of school and sent to alternate schools now because they drive to school in their dads car and there is a fishing knife in the trunk of the car that gets found in some random vehicle search.

So many rules, laws, regulations and the adoption of zero tolerance policies are making us oppressed by our government and law.

This guy was just trying to find a new route and hes getting ticketed. Just silly.

 

[doctor-don]

So if I have to do an emergency brake while having the right of way, because some idiot in a 2.5 ton SUV is on the phone and drives straight to where he would hit me, that's OK?

----------



Americans are not capable driving 170 mph on a German motorway _safely_. Driving faster than you can drive _safely_ is illegal in Germany, so it was definitely not OK.

Anyway, at any speed over 80mph any accident will be your fault, automatically, unless you can prove it would have happened at a lower speed as well. Even if it was caused by someone else making a mistake. Because driving at over 80mph means you have to take into account that others make mistakes, and drive carefully enough to be able to avoid accidents _if_ that happens.

Americans? HUMANS - other than race car drivers.

At 170 MPH a car is moving 249 feet in one second. Don't blink!

Personally, I do not put my trust in all the parts of a car - especially when it is moving at a high rate of speed. Can a driver avoid that washing machine that fell off the truck in front of her?

 

[iBreatheApple]

How will they determine if people are actually texting or using GPS? Surely people will simply tell the officer they were using navigation, even if they were texting.

 

[solopro]

If he/she was 'stuck in traffic', then technically, he wasn't 'driving'...

 

[theheadguy]

What issue?

What part confuses you?

Spriggs, who is entitled to recoup his $165 fine, said the Superior Court judges who had upheld his violation were guilty of overreaching by applying the spotty law to him. He hopes that California legislators will now revisit the issue in a future session so the law is clearer.

 

[bawbac]

MOST "distracted driver" laws are idiotic.

And it's not because distracted driving is OK. The problem is that most of these laws concentrate on SPECIFIC distractions: Texting and e-mailing are NOT OK, but scrolling through your list of contacts to find a number to dial or using a map IS OK? That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Here's a simple suggestion: Write a law that says ANY distraction is punishable, IF it causes you to cause or be involved in an accident. I don't care if the distraction is your cellphone, your desire to apply makeup while you are driving, your trying to fish a CD case off the floor on the passenger side, or you turning around because your kids in the backseat are misbehaving -- if you take your hands off the wheel or take your eyes off the road, YOU ARE A DISTRACTED DRIVER.

So, eyes front and DRIVE.

----------

"No, officer, I wasn't distracted when I caused that accident; I was looking at porn on my iPhone. Pretty sure the law doesn't cover that."

In Washington state, it's unlawful to talk on a cellphone if it's up to your head but OK if the cellphone is in front of your face.
It seems looking at the cellphone in front of you would be more distracting than having it up to your head.

Makes you wonder who writes these laws with exceptions that make no sense.

----------

If he/she was 'stuck in traffic', then technically, he wasn't 'driving'...

If you're in gear and moving your foot over several inches to the right or letting off the brake causes the car to move, what's the difference.

 

[pmjoe]

I guess it's time for me to buy a new set of paper maps. Apparently unfolding a huge paper map on my lap is safer than if I dare even touch a mobile device.

 

[LordVic]

If he/she was 'stuck in traffic', then technically, he wasn't 'driving'...

in many of the laws, its a distinction they don't care about.

if you are behind the wheel of your vehicle. it is in drive. And you are on a roadway. You are not allowed to be holding any portable electronic devices.

(thats the law here)

you can't be at a red light using your device.
You can't be in heavy traffic not moving using your device.
you can't put your car in park randomly in the middle of the roadway (say at a red light) and use your device.

If you want to use your device here. you HAVE to pull off the road. Put your car in park and be clearly not operating the vehicle in any matter.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I suspect what is being suggested is that there is no objective way to measure how distracted a driver is and whether or not that level of distraction actually increases the risk to themselves or anyone else.

Whereas, you can objectively measure someone's blood alcohol level, and objectively measure their MPH over a posted limit and those can be tied at least statistically to harm resulting in previous actual events caused by drivers with that level of DUI or traveling at those speeds.

It's already known that people talking on their phones while driving are roughly as likely to be in an accident as if they were DUI. This affect has been studied, hence the term "phone drunk." Objective enough for you?

And for everyone with the "revenue generator" theory, the penalty for driving phone drunk in California is $20, and is rarely enforced as a separate infraction. Never underestimate the ability of corporations to make sure that rules regulating their industries are meaningless.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

What part confuses you?

Spriggs, who is entitled to recoup his $165 fine, said the Superior Court judges who had upheld his violation were guilty of overreaching by applying the spotty law to him. He hopes that California legislators will now revisit the issue in a future session so the law is clearer.

Again, what issue?

 

[Dorje Sylas]

Frankly I welcome our Google Overloards and their robot cars, if it means we can get people who think being allowed to use complicated non-tactile electronic devices while driving is "okay" and a "right" off the road.

Which is the kicker. With things like radios/AC controls they have large and tactile controls that doesn't require visual inspection to utilize, and are not utilized for a lengthy period. Using a smart phone to check a map means you have to divert full visual attention away from the road and conditions. You can't just glance and get a partial fix on physical controls. Your full attention is on the device to both get infromation and operate it.

It is a serous flaw in modern devices, the lack of tactile feedback. Which is why I'm not happy to see so many controls moving to touch screens.

You should not have to cause an accident for distracted driving laws to kick in (as I've spotted being argued while skimming up to this point). That's like saying you shouldn't be prosecuted for driving drunk until you cause an accident. If you aren't doing your job of driving the car I don't want you behind the wheel.

Take public transit, hire a driver, buy/test a self driving robot car (which will likely do the job you should be doing better, safer, and with better reaction times).

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Now there's an old-fashioned sentiment for you. These days, it seems most people treat every one of their personal desires as a God-given right.