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.
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 Court Rules Anti-Texting Laws Apply to Checking Maps While Driving
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
im not even allowed to touch my iPhone in the car to change music here in Germany yet the iPod Touch would be okay
iPod touch is OK in class here in the US as a calculator, not an iPhone. I don't know where my SIM-less jailbroken iPhone falls.
----------
I tried using both while traveling across the east coast in the US a week ago. Apple Maps was right every time, and Google Maps was wrong twice, once with a street name and again with a POI, but it was close anyway and didn't cause a problem.
----------
It's fine if you don't touch the iPhone, right? I'm not going to complain as long as I'm allowed to glance at it. You shouldn't be allowed to touch the iPhone or the other GPSs while driving; in fact, many cars don't let you do it at all unless (sometimes) you say that you are a passenger.
----------
I went to San Francisco and noticed that all of the car rental areas had signs warning people that this facility has cars, which emit chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects.
It was a proposition too, meaning that people actually PETITIONED to get this added. WTF!? I thought hippies were supposed to fight the big man, not waste money.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Guess he won't be as cool next time!
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.
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.
I can only hope I'm not on the road anywhere near you.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
For god's sake. Pull over and look. It's not that hard.
----------
Do you use in dash apps AS YOU DRIVE!?
----------
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.
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.
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.
Still perfectly OK to unfold a large paper map and block your entire field of view though! Thumbs up, CA!
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'.
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.
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.
HAHAH this is so true it is sad.
They're not making it easy to want to return. I left too but I haven't been convinced not to return, yet.
Come on now.
Fine law - needs tweeking
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.
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.
Last edited:
What don't you understand about existing reckless driving laws and why they are sufficient?
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.
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.
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.
Do not touch your spouse while driving. Use the hands-free voice interaction mode.
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.
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.