Slashdot Mirror
Using Handheld Phone GPS While Driving Is Legal In California
jfruh writes "Steven R. Spriggs was ticketed and fined $165 for violating California's law on cell phone use while operating a motor vehicle, which states that you can only use a phone while driving if you have a hands-free device. But he appealed the judgement, arguing that the law only applied to actually talking on the phone, whereas he had been caught checking his GPS app. Now an appeals court has agreed with him. The law in question was enacted in 2006, before the smartphone boom."
No reason why a windshield or dash mount cant be required for using the phone as a gps.
If he was only pulled over because the officer observed him using an electronic device then the driver was correct. If he was pulled over for dangerous or reckless driving while using a device then the office wrote him the wrong ticket.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Looking at the screen and interacting with it is obviously safer than holding the phone to your ear and talking to someone. Don't be an idiot. You're operating a two ton machine at speed. Keep your eyes on the road.
Steven R. Spriggs, the appellant, held his mobile phone in his hand to use the mapping application to find his way around the congestion when STOPPED in heavy traffic
This person was not moving at the time. On top of that, if the phone had been a Garmin GPS instead of a phone the ticket would never have been issued even though the user would have been using both devices in the same way.
This kind of stuff is just stupid.
Dumb ruling, or accurate ruling on a dumb law?
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Arguably, simply holding your phone to your ear and talking on it is a lot less distracting than LOOKING at the phone and tapping to find map directions.
Why is the former illegal, while the latter is okay? Either make them both illegal, or make it okay to *talk* on the phone as well.
speaking as an angelino, using a cellphone in los angeles is arbitrarily legal depending on class and social status. Are you a police officer? Do you have diplomatic plates? were you Justin Bieber? then rev up those angry birds on the 101 and get ready to snapchat your next novel.
if you're one of the unwashed masses then be prepared for an almost entirely random enforcement experience. is today a warning day? or is it our legendary MANDATORY ENFORCEMENT ZONE policy where you'll be fined no matter what. Did you use your cellphone at a red light in a school zone? double fine. Was there construction? double fine. Did you just rear-end someone while on a cellphone? that piece of technology will never be considered in the accident report and is as good as having never happened.
dont get me wrong. im not here to defend cell usage in a moving vehicle but there is nothing about LA that precludes you from setting your 4-ways, pulling over, checking the phone, and safely entering traffic again. Or hell, plan the route before you get in the car. The trouble i find is the LAPD is like a magic 8-ball when it comes to enforcing this law. if you can make it to court, if you have the money and the time, then 60% of the time you'll get out of it every time.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Read the article, there is a relevant clause of the legislation that is open to interpretation. This is why we have courts, so that the interpretation of laws can progress with changes to technology, society, etc.
How are police supposed to distinguish between drivers texting and drivers using their GPS? Texting requires hands-free operation, so should using a GPS.
Studies have shown that hands free mountings do NOT reduce accidents.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I think that a smartphone mount should be mandatory so that the device isn't in your hand.
Even better: Make the navigation app stop responding to input whenever the phone is moving.
No sig today...
They should just pass a law that states that you must be hands free while driving. Problem solved because that's the obvious reason for the cell phone law.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's a good idea.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
California cop: Hafta make my quota...hafta make my quota... Hey you! Is that a phone?
Driver 1: No, it's a handheld GPS device.
Cop: Oh. Hey you over there! Is that a phone?
Driver 2: No, it's a handheld navigation system.
Cop: Oh. Hey, you, is that a phone?
Driver 3: No, it's a handheld telescoping built-in pleasure device.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Even better: Make the navigation app stop responding to input whenever the phone is moving.
The phone can't distinguish between the driver using the phone while it's moving and a passenger using the phone while it's moving. I, for one, would be very annoyed if my phone stopped working whenever I was riding in someone else's car, or on public transportation. There's also the fact that this misfeature would actively prevent a passenger from assisting the driver with navigation functions.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
So you suggest people stopping on the freeway and waiting until they can make changes to their device? How about we just make the driving test harder so not every shit driver can get one
All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
Stop and go traffic is among the most accident prone situations.
This might be true. But accidents are not all equal. You are MUCH more likely to die
or seriously injure someone while driving at high speed than in slow stop and go traffic
because of both the speed of collision as well as reaction time.
It not only made it illegal to text while driving, but the wording covered anything that took a significant portion of your attention from driving.
If it could have potentially precluded lawyers from billing hours on the phone while commuting then I'm surprised the bill even made it to the veto phase.
This is exactly the issue I have with my Subaru BRZ. If the car is moving, you can't enter information into the GPS. Thats all well and good when there is only me in the car, but stopping my passenger from using it is asinine! I hit this issue on a road trip, I wanted my passenger to try and find somewhere up ahead for us to eat (in the country with no decent cell data connection). I ended up having to pull off the highway and pull over just to find a nearby restaurant... not impressed.
The beginning of knowledge is the discovery of something we do not understand. - Frank Herbert
They are still around but soon they will be no more. You will have to subscribe to a cellphone service and have a connection (lots of luck in rural areas). There is nav systems built into cars that contains maps in memory (but have to pay I heard a few hundreds every year to upgrade). Call me a luddite but I liked the Thomas Guides (map page and grid). Unlike large foldout maps, these are like a book. With paper maps I can quickly look at general spot of my destination, then do an overview on how to get there, then zoom in with my eyes to see specifics and cross streets. But the Thomas Guides are now out of print, I heard new versions are all screwed up.
These days you address by GPS coordinates (great for flying a helicopter or firing a cruise missile) but give me an address. These car nav systems are kind of dumb if you ask me. Ok so you key in the address and it will speak specific directions. But geez I don't want it to say, "turn on El Camino, drive 1.73 miles, turn right to enter hwy 85. turn left to 280, turn. " I know how to get on freeway to SF, it is the specific address in the big city I am interested in seeking.
I don't like using maps such as http://quickmap.dot.ca.gov/ on smartphones, screen too small to see detail unless I zoom in but then lose the overview.
mfwright@batnet.com
This. So damn annoying.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
This person was not moving at the time. On top of that, if the phone had been a Garmin GPS instead of a phone the ticket would never have been issued even though the user would have been using both devices in the same way.
I think that's giving more credit to the cop than is deserved. As you said, the guy was stopped. The cop is already ignoring the spirit of the law. I doubt the cop would pay attention to the specific lettering of the law which would draw a distinction between GPS only and cell phones.
Except many studies have shown that hands-free phone operation is about just as bad as hands-on.
Most of the distraction-based accidents are caused by people picking the wrong time to do something, even simple things like changing radio station, heating/AC settings or checking their speedometer.
Hands-free does not prevent people from letting themselves get distracted by or otherwise focusing their attention on the wrong things at the wrong time. Some people have suggested locking out non-essential controls while vehicles are in movement so drivers have no choice but to focus on the road but going to such an extreme would likely become a grievance for many people and cause its own lot of problems such as passengers being unable to access those controls either.
Ideally, people should be able to gauge circumstances and their own abilities to decide the most appropriate moments to do something safely but most people grossly over-estimate their abilities and the safety margins around them so we end up with stiff restrictions to eliminate most variables.
Fortunately you can just pull out your cell phone, and use the GPS on that. Clearly Subaru thinks this is much safer.
Here's the full text of the opinion: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/F066927.PDF
geek. lawyer.
No, it is not the judiciary's job to create new laws for changing times. That's judicial activism, and changing laws is the job of the legislature. The Judiciary should rule according to the constitution, laws, and case law. Often, judges have to rule about ambiguous situations and they should rule with the language and spirit of the laws, not with what's progressive at the time.
it is not illegal to have a windshield mounted GPS provided:
per CA Vehicle Code 26708 (a)(12)
A portable Global Positioning System (GPS), which may be mounted in a seven-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the driver or in a five-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest to the driver and outside of an airbag deployment zone, if the system is used only for door-to-door navigation while the motor vehicle is being operated.
its stupid, but there is a lot of confusion about this by both LEOs and drivers.
All the ruling says is that particular law does not apply to smart phones displaying maps. It says nothing about the law that deals with devices that can display video and do not have a vehicle interlock. The driver was just charged with the incorrect offence.
The danger of inattention, though, is linked to the speed of the vehicle. No movement, no extra danger. A stopped car is a stopped car whether the driver is checking his mirrors every second or asleep. If the situation changes and he doesn't notice that he can become un-stopped, I'm sure the drivers around him will be sure to let him know, but until then, his behavior does not affect anyone's danger level.
Then you should also ban GPS units. Or is there some significant difference between a phone GPS app in a handsfree mount and a Garmin GPS appliance? The studies I've heard of that address your point are still talking about conversation, not GPS usage.
I think that a smartphone mount should be mandatory so that the device isn't in your hand. It's unfortunate that the court isn't willing to uphold the spirit of the law here.
Would it be against the law to have a paper map sprawled out all over the console? Is this any less distracting than a device which automatically tells you where you are at all times? If referencing paper maps is legal it is not clear to me "spirit" of law is consistent with your interpretation especially given GPS maps on cell phones didn't exist at the time this law was enacted.
Texting and driving is a huge safety issue, and I'd imaging that screwing around with a GPS (entering text) is similarly dangerous.
There is no information to suggest from ruling any inputting or screwing around was occurring at the time. "Spriggs was cited for looking at a map on his cellular telephone while holding the telephone in his hand and driving"
I think that's giving more credit to the cop than is deserved. As you said, the guy was stopped. The cop is already ignoring the spirit of the law. I doubt the cop would pay attention to the specific lettering of the law which would draw a distinction between GPS only and cell phones.
Had the motorist spent 10 bucks for a generic window mount, there would't have been an issue.
However, the judges ruling doesn't specify that you can mess with your phone if stopped, it just says you can mess with your phone as long as you are not "listening and talking" on the phone other than hands free .
Now the law has to be amended, to make it clear that you can't be fiddling with a phone while driving, and that includes while stopped at lights
or in heavy traffic. Because as it stands, playing Angry Birds, or watching porn is ok.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Don't care if its a 'real' gps, phone, radio or just looking at your passenger's tits. If you take your eyes of the road for any amount of time at all you *are* distracted, and a hazard to others.
Tragedy can happen in a liberal blink of an eye at road speeds, if you are not looking at what is going on around you, it can happen before you even know it was going to.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
...and not maintaining a safe following distance under the conditions. It's perfectly safe to do those things if you give yourself enough reaction time.
Except speed limits. The 85th percentile rule says that, if 100 cars are clocked along a road, the speed limit should be set at the speed of the 16th fastest car.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Personally, i dont touch my phone while moving. I *might* look at the phone at a stoplight to see who called, and pull over to call back if its important, but i wont even talk on the phone while driving.
I also dont yak up a storm with passengers, for the same reason.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
At least he was engaged in the act of driving, which includes both navigation and piloting.
I see way too many drivers doing something other than driving while driving, beyond just texting or chatting on their phones. I've seen people applying makeup, shaving, eating with two hands, and even reading a book.
Even with a handsfree device, holding a conversation is a distraction from driving.
I can see the fnords!
How about a simpler idea: it's illegal to take your attention off the road and the act of driving. Doesn't matter why, only matters whether you're paying attention to your driving or not. That simplifies enforcement, if the cop sees you looking down inside the car rather than out the windshield at the road he doesn't have to worry about finding the right law for what you were looking at or even figuring out what you were looking at and you can't weasel out of it.
people would quickly learn to drive around with a bag of potatoes.
I can't handle a long drive without picking my nose and releasing some endorphins, you insensitive clod!
I agree... but that really, that rule already exists, and is impossible to actually enforce in practice because even daydreaming can take your attention off of the road. Simply by observing externally, unless a person's driving is already visibly erattic, you cannot tell if a person is thinking about other things than driving their car. The point behind my suggestion is an objective metric by which you can unambiguously observe that a person is breaking the law and they will have absolutely no reasonable defense when they do such things.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It's certainly safer than navigating using a paper map.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
A friend of mine was ticketed a few months ago for checking the map on her cell phone while she was stopped at a red light. Some things are just absurd.
This is exactly the issue I have with my Subaru BRZ. If the car is moving, you can't enter information into the GPS. Thats all well and good when there is only me in the car, but stopping my passenger from using it is asinine! I hit this issue on a road trip, I wanted my passenger to try and find somewhere up ahead for us to eat (in the country with no decent cell data connection). I ended up having to pull off the highway and pull over just to find a nearby restaurant... not impressed.
Same with Lexus. They have blocked input to the Nav system if the car is not in Park. So now it's just a nice screen to show where you are since the input in vehicles kinda sucks anyway compared to dedicated GPS or phones.
Everyone pulled over for a phone violation has an out, and with Google lobbying to make sure their Glass isn't targetted what becomes of public road safety?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
How about a simpler idea: it's illegal to take your attention off the road and the act of driving. Doesn't matter why, only matters whether you're paying attention to your driving or not. That simplifies enforcement, if the cop sees you looking down inside the car rather than out the windshield at the road he doesn't have to worry about finding the right law for what you were looking at or even figuring out what you were looking at and you can't weasel out of it.
Distracted Driving is already a law on the books in most/if not all states. That's partially why there was pushback to start being specific about types of distractions. Just enforce what laws you already have.
On a recent trip I rented a Hyundai Elantra. The bluetooth-enabled stereo wouldn't let you sync a phone while the vehicle was in gear, which kind of frustrated my passenger who wanted to sync up his phone and listen to some tunes.
do not read this line twice.
From the statute:
23123. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving.
"Using a wireless telephone" is the part that is open to interpretation. I never said anything about any other object (map, etc.). The person had the phone in their hand. The vehicle was running and on a roadway (i.e. "driving"). I disagree that using smartphone functionality doesn't fall under the "using a wireless telephone" part of the statute.
I get the pushback about laws pertaining to specific types of distractions but the problem is that "distracted driving" is not an unambiguous enough concept that you can definitely say, by simple observance, "that person is distracted"... they have to be actually doing something that obviously distracts them and the problem is that every single person is going to think differently about what they are or are not capable of. By drawing a hard line somewhere, you make what they are doing unambiguously illegal when they are breaking the law.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
That simplifies enforcement, if the cop sees you looking down inside the car rather than out the windshield at the road he doesn't have to worry about finding the right law for what you were looking at or even figuring out what you were looking at and you can't weasel out of it.
"License and registration, please. Do you know how fast you were going?"
"I have no idea, it is against the law to look at my speedometer while driving, and it always says '0' when I'm stopped. Was I going '0'?"
Trying to set maximum speeds based on 85th sounds like a futile thing to do: if that causes the speeds to rise, the 85th will likely rise when it gets re-evaluated at some future point until speeds are high enough that people do not dare go any faster and no matter what the maximum speed is, people still need to have the common sense to adjust speed based on driving conditions - people who fail to slow down when driving into fog, wet/snowy/icy roads, etc. is where/when monster pileups tend to start.
There is a road where I used to drive on a regular basis where the speed limit is 70km/h but people often drive through there at over 120km/h. With the number of blind corners and hills on that road, I would be nervous driving at over 90km/h there - I totaled a car on that road once due to a traffic jam backing up all the way to one of those blind hills and I was only going at the 70k limit. I would not want to find out at what speed people would drive through there if the speed limit was raised to 100km/h and prefer not thinking about how much nastier that crash would have been with twice the kinetic energy involved.
You are MUCH more likely to dieor seriously injure someone while driving at high speed than in slow stop and go traffic
This doesn't invalidate your point, but most motorcycle deaths occur on 60 km/h roads
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds -- Albert Einstein
Stop and go traffic is among the most accident prone situations.
This might be true. But accidents are not all equal. You are MUCH more likely to die
or seriously injure someone while driving at high speed than in slow stop and go traffic
because of both the speed of collision as well as reaction time.
This is true.
But fixing a polyurethane bumper because Dopey Doris was too busy on their phone to notice traffic had stopped (or to keep her foot on the brake pedal) is an expensive PITA.
There are a lot of stupid drivers out there with no insurance and even if your insurance covers you at no cost you still lose your car for 3 or so days (if you want the job done properly).
So you're not likely to die from a little shunt in peak hour traffic, but that doesn't make it OK.
If you're in the car, you're off the phone. I live in WA (Western Australia) and the rules here are clear, you can only touch the phone if you're parked.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Most people don't look at the GPS, they listen to it. Big difference. Personally, I think they should put them so that the driver can't see them, just the passenger in the shotgun seat.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
"Using a wireless telephone" is the part that is open to interpretation. I never said anything about any other object (map, etc.). The person had the phone in their hand. The vehicle was running and on a roadway (i.e. "driving"). I disagree that using smartphone functionality doesn't fall under the "using a wireless telephone" part of the statute.
I think I was making an argument in the broader context of what is effectively allowed by law not limited specifically a single law.
Lets say instead of a phone the object in hand while driving was a Garmin for the sake of argument assume the interface is materially similar to that of a smartphone mapping application. How does one being illegal when they are the same make any sense? In 2006 most people only made calls and sent text messages via their wireless telephones. Very few had access to smart phones and mapping applications at that time.