Using Handheld Phone GPS While Driving Is Legal In California 142
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."
Still should be hands free (Score:2)
No reason why a windshield or dash mount cant be required for using the phone as a gps.
Re:Still should be hands free (Score:4, Informative)
No reason why a windshield or dash mount cant be required for using the phone as a gps.
A cell phone mount is required in some states to use it for gps including the one I live in. I had three cars totaled while they were parked by cell phone users two before they passed a no cell phone law and once after.
Re: (Score:2)
What states ban cell phone talking while driving? GPS while driving?
My state really only recently made it an offense to text while driving, but everything else in most states I move about it don't restrict cell phone use for talking etc...nor do they require hands free.
Is it mostly just CA and NY that ban all things cell phone while operating a vehicle?
Re: (Score:3)
No states ban all cell phone use while driving. Some states ban cell phone use under certain conditions - novice drivers, school bus drivers, commercial vehicles, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's not a complete ban
Exceptions to the Laws
When the driver uses a hands-free mobile telephone, which allows the user to communicate without the use of either hand.
Using a handheld electronic device that is affixed to a vehicle surface.
Using a GPS device that is attached to the vehicle.
When the purpose of the phone call is to communicate an emergency to a police or fire department, a hospital
Re: (Score:3)
Kansas did about five or six years ago you can talk on the phone but texting and apps are a $60 fine. if you are using it for GPS it needs to be in some kind of mount.
Same in Colorado and Nebraska but I'm not sure how much the fine is.
Missouri bans texting for driver under 21 years old.
Oklahoma bans texting or cell phone use for intermediate or learner permits and a distracted driving law that a cell phone could fall under if you are in an accident while using it.
Re:Still should be hands free (Score:5, Informative)
What states ban cell phone talking while driving?
Here you are http://www.ghsa.org/html/state... [ghsa.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Which makes the OP's point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know about state laws, but you'd better be "hands-free" in Santa Fe. Personally, I find someplace to pull over should I need to talk because I find myself distracted but am safer looking at a GPS-focused map than craning my neck to figure where the hell I'm going. My wife's just the opposite - She talks on the phone just fine while driving, but looking at a GPS unit could endanger herself and others.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about state laws, but you'd better be "hands-free" in Santa Fe. Personally, I find someplace to pull over should I need to talk because I find myself distracted but am safer looking at a GPS-focused map than craning my neck to figure where the hell I'm going. My wife's just the opposite - She talks on the phone just fine while driving, but looking at a GPS unit could endanger herself and others.
In California stopping on the shoulder to talk on the phone will also result in a ticket. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Finding a place to pull over doesn't necessarily mean the side of the freeway. And, from my experience in CA having lived in the Bay Area for ~6 years, I'd feel safer walking through Oakland wearing a KKK robe/hood than sitting at the side of the freeway. Thank the gods for BART.
Re:Still should be hands free (Score:4)
Unless the law explicitly excludes it, being pulled over anywhere while sitting in the driver's seat with the keys accessible is considered "driving".
A person can get a DUI while sleeping in their car in a parking lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not disagreeing as California law does seem to be better in this regard than other states, but the police don't really have to prove anything to arrest a person for DUI. A person may get lucky and avoid a conviction, but the arrest is still on their record which can be enough to ruin their life.
I did a quick search and California DUI attorneys warn about having the car running even if parked - they advise sleeping in the back seat.
To be clear, I think that all of this is absurd. If MADD, cops and the
Re: (Score:2)
But it isn't texting....
Re: (Score:2)
Is it mostly just CA and NY that ban all things cell phone while operating a vehicle?
How did you get this deep into the conversation and not realize CA does NOT ban all things cell phone?
The story is about CA.
Re: (Score:2)
I had three cars totaled while they were parked by cell phone users ...
That's what you get for letting cell phone users park your cars. :-)
Re:Still should be hands free (Score:4, Funny)
Except ironically that would require repealing laws in California since windshield mounts were made illegal many years ago. I can't recall whether dash mounts were similarly criminalized. California became a nanny state a long time ago and that nanny is a German fraulein bitch.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
that nanny is a German fraulein bitch.
Kinda like Senator Dianne Feinstein?
Re:Still should be hands free (Score:4, Informative)
Windshield mounts are legal in California in the lower left hand corner of the window.
Re:Still should be hands free (Score:4, Informative)
Except ironically that would require repealing laws in California since windshield mounts were made illegal many years ago. I can't recall whether dash mounts were similarly criminalized. California became a nanny state a long time ago and that nanny is a German fraulein bitch.
Oh the horror of not being allowed to put your GPS where it will block your view or get launched into your skull by an airbag. You can mount it to the windshield, but it has to be in a corner.
(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,
Re: (Score:2)
I find that would be more obstructive than top-left or tucked against the mirror.
Re:Still should be hands free (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh the horror of living as an adult who is capable of making decisions which impact only him.
Next they should pass a law only allowing buying things on credit terms when the first 24 months are no interest and the interest rate is under 2% thereafter; and perhaps we can ban the consumption of buttered popcorn.
If you want the government to make all of your decisions for you, you could move to North Korea or Cuba. Otherwise kindly mind your own business.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, as other folks have corrected me, in a 7-inch square in the opposite corner,
Re: (Score:3)
Except ironically that would require repealing laws in California since windshield mounts were made illegal many years ago.
Whatchotalkin' 'bout Willis?
Cal. Veh. Code 26708(b)(12) [ca.gov]: “A portable Global Positioning System (GPS) ... 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 ...”
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I didn't know. Did laws change or did I hear it wrong in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
Letter of the law says that mounting your cellphone, even used as GPS, qouldn't be legal.
Re: (Score:2)
>>German fraulein bitch...
Talk about the Dept of Redundancy Dept [urbandictionary.com]. Tell us how you really feel :P
Re: (Score:2)
Dumb ruling (Score:1)
I think that a smartphone mount should be mandatory so that the device isn't in your hand. Texting and driving is a huge safety issue, and I'd imaging that screwing around with a GPS (entering text) is similarly dangerous. It's unfortunate that the court isn't willing to uphold the spirit of the law here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Dumb ruling (Score:5, Informative)
Studies have shown that hands free mountings do NOT reduce accidents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Dumb ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Dumb ruling (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
people would quickly learn to drive around with a bag of potatoes.
Re: (Score:2)
This. So damn annoying.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 w
Re: (Score:2)
...and not maintaining a safe following distance [wikipedia.org] under the conditions. It's perfectly safe to do those things if you give yourself enough reaction time.
Except
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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 phon
Why was he pulled over? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
If he was pulled over for dangerous or reckless driving while using a device then the office wrote him the wrong ticket.
Dangerous and reckless driving are subjective judgements. If there is any debate, the debate can become expensive. Talking on your cellphone is illegal whether you're driving badly or not, and it can easily be proven from records. So they go for the ticket which requires less paperwork and less potential time in court.
Re:Why was he pulled over? (Score:5, Informative)
Spriggs said he was stuck in traffic at the time, and therefore it would have been impossible to be driving recklessly.
He has also said that he opposes phone calls and texting while driving and would support reckless driving charges for mobile phone users where appropriate, but this was not one of those cases so he challenged the ticket.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why was he pulled over? (Score:4, Funny)
If he didn't get into a car accident, then he was driving wrecklessly.
Re: (Score:2)
That's driving crashlessly
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to re-check your definition of reckless driving.
By most states' definition, a reckless driver must display *wanton* (violent, intentional and unprovoked) disregard for the public's safety and traffic rules. As long as your electronic-device-using driver sticks to his lane in traffic, maintains safe speed and distances, follows signs, etc. reasonably well, there is no reckless there. Distracted and potentially dangerous, sure. But not reckless.
Weaving through traffic, ignoring speed limits, ro
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! This is why we should ban all electric razors from use whilst driving! Oh, you were talking about cell phones only? Why? What's the difference?
This doesn't make much sense. (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of moot since he was not moving at the time (see TFA). But you don't have to be tapping to find map directions in order to use a mapping app. Often the app itself doesn't allow that.
The navigator built into my vehicle will give you turn-by-turn while you're moving, but won't let you program an address unless the parking brake is on. The Garmin that we rented twice on trips back east would not let you program it if it sensed that you were in motion. This makes it kinda difficult when you have a navi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was rear ended at a stop light coming off an interstate by a woman talking on her cell phone. She got out of the car and came up to my car window before I had even managed to collect myself. She was still talking on her cell phone, trying to carry on two conversations and beg me not to call the police because it didn't do any damage, it's her boyfriend's car, and she doesn't know if he has insurance.
The only response I could get out was "uhhm" and to point at the sheriff standing behind her. Apparently th
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea what she was charged with but they took her away in handcuffs.
was she able to continue her conversation per hands-free feature on cellphone?
Re: (Score:2)
No, but I wouldn't have been surprised if she had tried.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea what she was charged with but they took her away in handcuffs.
was she able to continue her conversation per hands-free feature on cellphone?
I was going to say something to the affect of, "there wouldn't have been an accident if she used handsfree"; but no, I doesn't sound like she even had the mental capacity for carrying on a conversation with someone in the vehicle and driving either.
Re: (Score:2)
...there is nothing about LA that precludes you from setting your 4-ways, pulling over, checking the phone, and safely entering traffic again.
That's also illegal, at least on the freeways. http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vct... [ca.gov]
Being stupid legal in CA (Score:1)
Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's a good idea.
paper maps? (Score:2)
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 the
Re: (Score:2)
No one prints them around my parts.
But regardless, it doesn't really address the issue here, as you could always look at your digital map before you left the house so you know where you are going before you get there. Your map being on paper doesn't matter. In the old days when i traveled a lot, i have seen people trying to read maps 1/2 folded in their passenger seat weaving all over the place.
Re: (Score:2)
A couple points:
1) You do not need a data connection to use GPS navigation. You do need to obtain offline maps and an app that can use them. I typically use OSMAnd with OpenStreetMaps when I'm traveling internationally to avoid data roaming charges.
2) I'm old enough to have grown up with Thomas Guides, and then printing out directions from MapQuest after that, and trying to figure out your next turn with them is far more distracting than using a GPS nav app. Looking at a paper map while driving should be co
Re: (Score:2)
Edit: Total cost for OSMAnd and OpenStreetMaps for offline navigation: $0
Full text of the opinion (Score:2)
Here's the full text of the opinion: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/F066927.PDF [ca.gov]
Bad summary, as usual (Score:2)
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.
Distracted driving (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That is such a stupid comment it doesn't deserve a direct response.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually i do due to lazy eye, smart ass.
Pleased to hear this (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why I like my Pebble.
It's a watch, not a phone :-)
Re:Yes, that's obviously safer (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
This kind of stuff is just stupid.
That's lawyers for you...
One law saying "don't drive like an ass" should be good enough, but nooooooo, we're lawyers.
(I know, I know... there are asses with far more road sense than many drivers around here... [youtube.com] )
Re:Yes, that's obviously safer (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 Bir
Re:Yes, that's obviously safer (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's certainly safer than navigating using a paper map.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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'?"
Re: (Score:2)
I can't handle a long drive without picking my nose and releasing some endorphins, you insensitive clod!