California Judge: Illegal to Check Map on Phone While Driving

 

Saw that

--
Nuvi 2595LMT, Nuvi 1490T, Nuvi 260, GPSMAP 195

They should make it illegal

They should make it illegal to have passengers in the car as well, or have billboard signs, or even breathing in the car. All those things distract.

--
http://www.poi-factory.com/node/21626 - red light cameras do not work

.

nuvic320 wrote:

They should make it illegal to have passengers in the car as well, or have billboard signs, or even breathing in the car. All those things distract.

Call me crazy but I would think it would be pretty dangerous if drivers stopped breathing!

paper maps

Is it still legal to unfold and read a huge, awkward paper map while driving??

Sound like they desperate

Sound like they desperate for making $$$....because the decline of red light camera's revenue.

Misinterpretation of Decision

I have read three different stories about this specific decision. I think people are misinterpreting the court's statement.

The court ruled the OPERATION of a phone-based navigation system was illegal while driving, not "viewing" it, as the headline of this story implies. If you have to scroll through several screens or enter a location, you are "operating" the device. I believe the decision clearly refers to those activities as being the same as making a call or sending a text message while driving.

In my opinion this is a completely justifiable decision and is not a revenue-generator.

Activism

Sounds to me like a typical activist judge making law from the bench. Maybe I missed something, but from what I've seen, the LAW states you can not use a hand held telephone. It says nothing about a hand held mapping system. A judge is supposed to interpret law, not make it.

--
-Quest, Nuvi 1390T

Interpretation is what he seemed to do

ddeerrff wrote:

Sounds to me like a typical activist judge making law from the bench. Maybe I missed something, but from what I've seen, the LAW states you can not use a hand held telephone. It says nothing about a hand held mapping system. A judge is supposed to interpret law, not make it.

Quote:

Elsewhere within his ruling, Hamlin clarified the wide-ranging scope of California's legislation.
"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," the judge wrote. "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 court framed its ruling by looking at legislators' original intent when crafting "hands-free" Senate Bill 1613, which ultimately passed in April 2007 and went into effect on July 1, 2008. In the related Senate Assembly analysis, legislators indicated that the intent of the bill was to address the mechanical aspects of operating a phone when making or silencing a call during the driving process. However, that doesn't mean that the legislation was only designed only to ban making calls.
According to Hamlin, an identical distraction would occur regardless of what a person was technically doing on their phone – be it ending a call or navigating through directions on a mapping application.
"There is, however, no evidence in the legislative history of Senate Bill 1613 that would support the conclusion that those who voted in support of that bill, including its author, understood or intended the bill to be so limited in its application when it was passed. To the contrary, the legislative history set out above suggests that the bill was designed to prohibit the 'hands-on' use of the phone while driving, without limitation," Hamlin wrote.

My opinion

Judge

Quote:

"There is, however, no evidence in the legislative history of Senate Bill 1613 that would support the conclusion that those who voted in support of that bill, including its author, understood or intended the bill to be so limited in its application when it was passed.

The law did not cover the defendants use of his phone. Therefore the ticket should be dismissed. The legislature should author a bill that prohibits all uses of a phone if that is what they intended.

--
1490LMT 1450LMT 295w

Exactly

spokybob wrote:

The law did not cover the defendants use of his phone. Therefore the ticket should be dismissed. The legislature should author a bill that prohibits all uses of a phone if that is what they intended.

Exactly. It still appears to me the judge arbitrarily expanded the law to include something not in the original legislation.

--
-Quest, Nuvi 1390T

well that's cali for ya

Next will be your GPSr. Like your gas powered weed eaters.

--
Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.

Enforced to what extent......

DanielT said" If you have to scroll through several screens or enter a location, you are "operating" the device. I believe the decision clearly refers to those activities as being the same as making a call or sending a text message while driving."

Will be interesting to see if this decision carries over to the manipulation of built in display screens, to adjust the the audio, heating,A/C controls, etc in the vehicle.

.

Too dangerous for California!

MrTom wrote:

DanielT said"

Will be interesting to see if this decision carries over to the manipulation of built in display screens, to adjust the the audio, heating,A/C controls, etc in the vehicle.

.

Yeah, those are all touchscreens too.
Clearly it's too dangerous to use any touchscreen or pushbutton device while driving in California.

In the other 49 states, it's much safer.

In California, you are

In California, you are guilty when pulled over and even more guilty if you go to court.

I've lived in many different states but California has the most blatant traffic ticket attitude of "It's not about justice, it's about the money".

--
Re-CAL-culating... "Some people will believe anything they read on the internet" - Abraham Lincoln

I was wondering the same

I was wondering the same thing!

california and tickets

unlock2010 wrote:

I was wondering the same thing!

As a state, California is bankrupt in many ways.

--
Illiterate? Write for free help.

So . . .

can I still check my paper map, totally unfolded, finding my location, and looking for my route while driving?

This morning

This morning in Rockville, MD I watched a middle aged lady open a large magazine while waiting at a light. She continued reading despite the fact that the light had changed to green & cars behind her began honking. That was not enough for her. She continued to read the article while driving up Rockville Pike for at least a mile. I was ready to arrest her myself if not take more violent action.

I can never understand people like that, but I would never grant them a license to drive - EVER!!!

Fred

California...

gadget_man wrote:

California Judge: Illegal to Check Map on Phone While Driving

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2417501,00.asp

I've driven through some parts of Calif. Looking at map on cell phones is the least of their driving concerns.

--
Originator of Keeping Your Windmill Alive. Live in MA & have a cooking website. 6 yr. member. http://kitchentoysmakecookingfun.blogspot.com/

Nothing New

15 years ago I witnessed a "driver" eating a sandwich and reading a newspaper while careening between lanes 2 and 3 on I-95. Technology has not changed what drivers do much.

So now its a law against mobile phones, backed up with a ruling against using a mobile phone. What next? possibly a law or court ruling against voice activated "free standing" GPS units?

All this while at the same time, auto manufacturers are cramming multiple video displays into vehicle consoles.

It is time we enforced exising laws about the conduct of drivers, not about their status or about a statistical guess on the harm certain actions could lead to.

Having a mobile device in your hand should not be prima facia evidence of wrongdoing. The state must prove what driving infractions you committed. For example, in days gone by, my sandwich eating example above would have gotten citation(s) for lack of signalling a lane change, failure to maintain lane control, failure to control a vehicle, etc. There was no need for a "eating while driving" or "having access to reading material in the passenger compartment of of a motor vehicle" law on the books.

We cannot legislate our way out of risk and danger. Hold those responsible accountable WHEN they have been observed making a moving violation, not IF they could do wrong.

I think I read something about this in our constitution somewhere.

But then again, this was California...

--
GO

So ... smartphone GPS=bad but standalone GPS=ok?

???

...

Some of the touch screens built into vehicles require far more distraction than dialing on a phone or even clicking on Google Maps.

I was stunned how difficult and unintuitive it was just to manually tune an AM radio station for traffic in some cars. (This means you, Ford and Land Rover!)

Valid Points - If Common Sense Existed

gordyo wrote:

Having a mobile device in your hand should not be prima facia evidence of wrongdoing. The state must prove what driving infractions you committed...

We cannot legislate our way out of risk and danger. Hold those responsible accountable WHEN they have been observed making a moving violation, not IF they could do wrong.

I snipped your comments to present two different points.

Most jurisdictions already have distracted driving legislation, but that can be very difficult to "prove" in a court of law: how many times did the car weave out of it's lane? how long was the driver's attention away from the road?, etc. So they make laws that "define" the violation... like talking on a cell phone while driving or blowing over 0.08 for impaired driving.

People may argue that there should be a higher level of proof needed because not everyone's driving skills are as badly affected by these activties as others. But most public safety laws are not intended to catch "law breakers" as they are to discourage poor behavior through light punishment.

Which brings us to the second point, about punishing people WHEN they are observed making a moving violation. Although this is a great idea, the result of minor distractions can be quite disasterous. So the state enacts public safety laws to attempt to alter bad behavior before it results in a tragic situation.

I am not disagreeing with your points but they only work if all drivers would use common sense. Sadly, that is missing in too many of our drivers crying

Good Points

You have good points on the public safety aspect. My fear is that the state is going too far on "preventative" laws that make an otherwise law abiding citizen a criminal.

It's the age-old "mala prohibita" versus "mala en se" conundrum again.

--
GO

You can't solve every perceived problem with laws.

That's not really the issue. Lately there is incredible pressure to "solve" every perceived problem by making new laws. And lots of problems don't need to be solved, at least that way.

We have these slick GPS units that help us find our way. You do have to touch them to get that to work. Clearly if you are careening from lane to lane and into oncoming traffic while doing it that can be a problem. If you can however touch it without careening that's not a problem. I don't want a one size fits all solution to that "potential problem".

But heck, you can't provide cradle to grave security by making laws against anything you can think of that might somehow be a problem for someone some day.

What's next? A law requiring everyone to wear steel toed shoes unless you are in bed or in the shower? People do drop things on their toe, right? How long before some government agency proposes universal steel toed shoes?

shaking head

Steevo wrote:

What's next? A law requiring everyone to wear steel toed shoes unless you are in bed or in the shower? People do drop things on their toe, right? How long before some government agency proposes universal steel toed shoes?

Steel toe high heels?

--
Illiterate? Write for free help.

Nanny State.

Box Car wrote:
Steevo wrote:

What's next? A law requiring everyone to wear steel toed shoes unless you are in bed or in the shower? People do drop things on their toe, right? How long before some government agency proposes universal steel toed shoes?

Steel toe high heels?

Oh, I don't wear them anymore. Heh.