Anecdotal observation: a huge percentage of people in LA when I visited a couple weeks ago were texting and driving around the streets. You can spot them because they're going like 20mph, or sitting at a stop sign WAY too long and letting other people go ahead of them as they half-drive, half-text.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
California Appeals Court Rules State Law Doesn't Prohibit Driver Use of Smartphone Maps
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So it is fine for a cop to race at speeds of 100 mph while chasing a vehicle with a bunch of electronics in the car, but you look down at what street you are on and you get a ticket? Police have far more distractions in their cars yet nobody worries about the safety of others on the roads.
Because the fine is insignificant, and the law is only rarely enforced. The other one is GPS location on your windshield. In California the only legal places to put one is in the lower right or left-hand corners. Probably not one driver in a thousand knows this, and since the law isn't enforced, the vast majority of drivers stick them right in the middle of the windshield.
I live in Los Angeles, and got a ticket a few years ago for using Apple's Maps while I was driving. Can I get a refund now?
Except police officers are supposed to be highly trained drivers (they are at least here) and capable of handling extreme driving conditions, situations, and multiple tasks at once.
some exception to the rule must be made for emergency services to be able to do their jobs. Police need to be able to communicate with eachother while driving. Same with Ambulances and other Emergency Vehicles.
Well, to be fair, that has increased at least once if not more in the past year or two to make it a more reasonable number. Not to mention, that even at something low like $20, with court fees, county fees, and other fees added in, the ticket would still usually be more than $150 in total (and even more now it would seem). That said, I don't think it's a revenue generator really either way (if there's a low or a high fine behind it).
----------
Yup, enforcement is another big part of the equation.
----------
While it's true that police have more distractions and it would be good to decrease those, comparing them to the common public is just silly--when was the last time a typical driver took any type of driving courses or training, let alone specialized ones covering all kinds of special driving situations? It's simply not a comparison that is a reasonable one to make.
I think it's been raised all the way up to $30. Granted court costs add quite a bit to any traffic fine, but I mentioned it in part as a response to the "revenue generator" argument. The courts see most of the money, not the local agency that employ the police.
His car was completely stopped, he looks at a map on his phone (how is that different than looking at a paper map?), there's no law against it, and that fascist road-side pirate gave him a $165 ticket. "Protect and serve" who? Not us, that's for sure.
I disagree. I think you have this backwards. Talking to someone in the car is more distracting than talking to someone on the phone. I have encountered many drivers turning to look at the person in the front seat as they talk, like you would in a normal conversation. On the phone, you keep your eyes on the road. But both are not good. The real issue is manipulating the phone to dial...or worse, text. Talking on the phone is not and shoudl not be an issue as it is nothing different than what we've done in cars for over a hundred years.
I also disagree. Glancing at a screen is not a problem. A driver cannot be expected to know the route by heart (especially in a new and unfamiliar place). That's the whole purpose of a GPS. When there are a lot of turns and confusing roads, you need to visually see where to go on a map. Typing in an address, I agree with, though. You would typically enter that when you start your journey. Otherwise, it is no better than texting.
Exactly. We have had distracted driving since the invention of the automobile. Matthew Crawley (heir to the Downton estate), died while driving. Insetad of paying attention to the road he was all giddy and happy, looking at trees instead of the road. He didn't see the delivery truck coming around the corner. Anything can be distracting. Point is, how do you draw the line? Also, what is distracting for one person is not for another. There's people who can't walk and talk at the same time.
Texting, entering information into a device or holding a phone to your head is clear. Everything else is a gray area that cannot explicitly be defined as a distracting activity.
Actually, using any screen is illegal in California
I would have expected the cop to write a ticket based upon the law which states that using any video screen where it's visible by the driver, is illegal in California. So, technically, everyone who looks at a smart phone or even at a GPS mounted on their window, is in violation of that law. Furthermore, you can't legally mount a GPS in the bottom center of your windshield, because there's a law stating explicitly what areas of the windshield can be blocked, and it's the lower left and lower right sides (with a bigger area on the lower right).
Of course, no one is going to stop you for anything of this, ... usually.
I would have expected the cop to write a ticket based upon the law which states that using any video screen where it's visible by the driver, is illegal in California. So, technically, everyone who looks at a smart phone or even at a GPS mounted on their window, is in violation of that law. Furthermore, you can't legally mount a GPS in the bottom center of your windshield, because there's a law stating explicitly what areas of the windshield can be blocked, and it's the lower left and lower right sides (with a bigger area on the lower right).
Of course, no one is going to stop you for anything of this, ... usually.
I agree in general. That's why I support the idea of punishing actions that actually lead to some harm (accident, injury, etc). One driver may be able to drive 100mph with both hands on the wheel, paying close attention, and be very safe. Another driver, as you point out, may not be able to get down a residential street at 25mph without sideswiping a parked car. Let's punish the one's that demonstrate that they can't drive safely, instead of drivers who exceed some arbitrary speed limit. (Within reason, of course. I am not advocating no speed limits everywhere - even in Germany they have speed limits, they just use them in reasonable locations.)
Punishing after the fact won't stop people who can't handle these things from trying to do them and then getting into problems. I can't really see anyone willing to see more and more people get hurt just because we try to be reactive vs. proactive. Unfortunately that's the price we pay for living in a society where not everyone (and actually too many) can't really handle themselves (whether or not they realize it)--all of us have to be limited for the greater good.
I suppose horse-and-buggies should replace cars, then. Much lower speeds and far fewer fatalities. After all, we can't trust people with automobiles.
Sure, going straight to the irrational extreme is a good way of looking at it all.
You're assuming he was using GPS. I know how to use a map, I don't use the GPS. I look at my phone's map and determine what is my best route.
----------
And how do you know those people actually lived in LA? Perhaps they were lost and or confused were trying to find their way around?
Glad we don't have that here, although most people still do it...