Mounted phones, and drivers operating them with a single swipe, are exempted, according to the decision, but looking at a map while holding the phone would violate the current law, the court ruled.
Makes sense. It seems they're considering the distraction as being caused by trying to hold the device, and not merely its use.
This makes sense, from a political perspective. Cell phone usage while driving causes major harm, and while hands free devices don't significantly reduce that harm (https://www.fastcompany.com/91076805/cellphones-hands-free-d...) banning use of cell phones while driving is politically untenable, because constituents want to be able tu use cell phones while driving. Writing a law to ban the holding of a cell phones while driving, without banning their actual use, provides the appearance that politicians care about the constituency, without the inconvenience of regulations that actually impact safety.
From a statistical perspective, it's possible that it's worse than having no regulation at all, because people take more risks when using safety equipment (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4767144/), so ineffective safety equipment might increase risk taking, making a net negative effect.
The least dangerous way of using a device while driving is to hold it in front of you in a way that doesn't block your forward field of few but also doesn't require you to look away as mounted devices do.
How about making it so cell phones limit most functionality when in a moving car going faster than some threshold, unless making an emergency call?
Perhaps with an exception that allows full functionality if the car and the phone support some way to precisely localize the phone within the car to being somewhere other than near the driver?
I don't really disagree, but cars are still allowed to be sold with mounted touchscreens from the factory. I don't see a good rational reason why operating a mounted touchscreen phone should be illegal when operating the wipers or AC is done the same way.
In theory those screens are regulated to be safe to use while driving - my car for example has a lot of more complex features disabled while the car is in gear - while the phone does not have the same safeguards.
Whether those safeguards are effective is a separate, albeit critical, question
But that's an equally bad solution, because usually the touchscreen is located on the center console and can also be operated from the passenger seat. Disabling touchscreen features is needlessly restrictive when there are two people in the car.
My vehicle UI is not a general purpose internet device. I can access vehicle features and that’s pretty much it. My car doesn’t even let you open the preferences for Spotify unless you shift to park.
I can’t watch TikTok or message people. I literally saw a dude watching a movie on his phone on the freeway the other day.
People need consequences for that level of irresponsibility and I’d prefer it happen before there is a collision.
Yes. The obvious conclusion is that touchscreens for those functions should also be illegal. It would be better if they didn't need to be illegal and, if their use resulted in an accident, the user would be liable, but concluding that would be challenging.
What's the practical difference between changing the radio station on the built-in entertainment system and pressing the "next track" button on a playlist playing on a phone which is mounted on a dashboard mount in the same general area as the built-in entertainment system?
Playing the next track on the phone may actually be less distracting than changing the radio station because many built-in radios lack voice control whereas on the phone you might be able to use the phones voice assistant to change the track.
The practical difference is that physical buttons can be changed without looking, since they provide tactile feedback and they're physically present in the world. Touchscreens require looking, even if you're pretty familiar with the interface, because you can miss.
Of course even this is kind of moot, because a lot of car manufacturers put vital controls on the touchscreen. I mean, Teslas have the fucking gear shift on the touchscreen.
Depends what you're using the phone for. Navigating? That's equivalent to a dedicated GPS unit, and AFAIK those have always been legal. On the other hand, if you're doomscrolling TikTok then it's a distraction regardless how the phone is held.
Many cars have functions that are disabled on the screen when the car is moving. The carmaker can enforce that on the car’s screen. It can’t be enforced on a phone.
In Australia it has been illegal for ages. They have also had mobile (cell) phone cameras for years to penalise drivers. They claim that distracted drivers are as dangerous as drunk drivers. Why is LA only doing this now?
It's generally illegal in (most?) of the United States to "use your phone" while driving. I think this news is more of a clarification on what "using a phone" means.
You’re not being cynical, just realistic. The later model year Mercedes or BMW the more likely I see some thirty something talking into the bottom of her phone. They don’t have Bluetooth on Mercedes?
Are tinted windows legal in CA? If your windows are super tinted or you car is lifted - it might be quite difficult to see that someone is using their phone.
Some tint is allowed, but the legal limit is rather low. It needs to let in 70% of the light on the front side windows, and nothing is allowed on the front windshield (bar a strip at the top).
If you’re engaged into a serious accident and your phone history shows that you were texting while driving, this law will get you under a pile of trouble.
Because the device records detailed usage information with timestamps such as device locks/unlocks, the screen lighting up and going dark, apps going in and out of focus, and in many cases details of exactly what you were doing in the app.
I followed the Murdaugh murder case a while back and that level of evidence was critical
The father killed his family and had a pretty good shot at sowing reasonable doubt until they pulled his sons phone telemetry and it showed the son unlocking his phone and checking socials at a time that conflicted with the dads story.
Phones truly are a surveillance dream. You couldn’t ask for a more invasive tracking device, and people love it. You couldn’t pry a phone away from most people these days
Here in Norway, it has been illegal some years. The fine for using a cellphone while driving has been going up year after year.
Right now, the fine is equal to around $1035, with a couple of "marks" on your drivers license (if you get too many of them, you lose your license for some time).
IIRC, the only exemption here is if your phone is mounted to the dashboard.
> Mounted phones, and drivers operating them with a single swipe, are exempted, according to the decision, but looking at a map while holding the phone would violate the current law, the court ruled.
If car screens were grouped under the same ruling, a lot of modern implementations would (rightfully) be illegal.
On a modern BMW with iDrive 8 I need at least 2 presses to change my blower settings, all while the temperature indicator is flashing at me that it is heating / cooling.
That's certainly how CA gun laws are. They're almost all performative and make things very annoying or expensive for legal owners but do very little to dissuade illegal use. Yet, if you own guns and do anything with them, it can be surprisingly easy to accidentally commit a felony while otherwise being a responsible owner. Which... is just not how felonies should work.
Should be sufficient to just use the front-facing camera on the phone, yes? Because of the screen, you can even apply your make-up with your other hand that way.
The law prohibits concerns "handheld wireless telephone or an electronic wireless communications device." So, this is ok as long as the device is unable to connect to WiFi?
Any what, exactly, does looking at a map have to do with telephones or communications? I despair far too often reading court decisions.
The issue with this sort of tightening is that people drive way more distracted putting phones down in their lap to "hide" them. (This is how my how my neighbor was hit and killed walking down a sidewalk.)
To be clear, I hate people staring at their damn phones and texting in traffic, and wish that was punished more often.
Here's the text of the current law [1] for those curious. That link is to the heart of it, but for completeness there is more on the next and previous pages at that link.
Some observations.
1. The gist is that driving while "holding and operating a handheld wireless telephone or an electronic wireless communications device" is prohibited unless it is specifically designed and configured to allow voice or hand-free operations and it is used in that matter.
2. "This section shall not apply to manufacturer-installed systems that are embedded in the vehicle".
I wonder where this leaves CarPlay and Android Auto? My understanding is that while these use the car's infotainment system for their UI the applications such as navigation are running on your phone.
3. There is an exception allowing use of the driver's hand if two conditions are satisfied:
• The device is mounted on the windshield in the same manner as a a portable GPS as described in some other section of the Vehicle Code that they cite or it is mounted or affixed to the dashboard or center console in a way that doesn't interfere with the view of the road.
• The driver's hand is used to activate or deactivate a feature or function with a single swipe or tap of the driver's finger.
It's interesting to compare with other states to see the different expressions of essentially the same intent. I just recently had occasion to look at Washington's equivalent [2] law. It's more concise in some parts and more detailed in others.
It starts out with a general prohibition:
> (1) A person who uses a personal electronic device while driving a motor vehicle on a public highway is guilty of a traffic infraction and must pay a fine as provided in RCW 46.63.110(3)
That's followed with some exceptions including contacting emergency services, some transit system employee communication with dispatch services, some commercial driver use within the scope of their employment, and operators of emergency vehicles.
It defines some of the terms:
> "Driving" means to operate a motor vehicle on a public highway, including while temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic control device, or other momentary delays. "Driving" does not include when the vehicle has pulled over to the side of, or off of, an active roadway and has stopped in a location where it can safely remain stationary.
and
> "Personal electronic device" means any portable electronic device that is capable of wireless communication or electronic data retrieval and is not manufactured primarily for hands-free use in a motor vehicle. "Personal electronic device" includes, but is not limited to, a cell phone, tablet, laptop, two-way messaging device, or electronic game. "Personal electronic device" does not include two-way radio, citizens band radio, or amateur radio equipment.
and
> "Use" or "uses" means:
> (i) Holding a personal electronic device in either hand or both hands;
> (ii) Using your hand or finger to compose, send, read, view, access, browse, transmit, save, or retrieve email, text messages, instant messages, photographs, or other electronic data; however, this does not preclude the minimal use of a finger to activate, deactivate, or initiate a function of the device;
> (iii) Watching video on a personal electronic device.
I built a hands free cell phone adapter based on a headset for an android phone, little dash mike, and an answer button, it puts out audio to honkin amp that powers the trucks stock speakers, the amp has a high impidence output and gain control that works with the headphone output just fine (no hum)
hitting the button cuts off music and answers the call.
Totaly stealth phone shelf where the stereo used to be.
> That case also arose when a driver was found guilty of violating the law because he was looking at a map on his phone while driving. But when the case reached the court of appeal, it interpreted the word “using” in the law’s language as prohibiting listening and talking while holding a cellphone and driving.
Legislators seem to love to do this. They deliberately write these laws using vague terms like "using" and then expect people (and the courts) to read their minds later on.
> In issuing its ruling on Tuesday, the California Court of Appeals noted that, when the current law was being drafted, the Assembly Committees on Transportation and Appropriations concluded that the new law would prohibit wireless phones from being used “for any purpose” while driving, and would include “all distracting mobile device-related behavior.”
No shit. The spirit of the original law was pretty clear. Why couldn't they have simply written what they meant in the first law without it having to be amended? Sloppy people writing sloppy laws.
[EDIT: Wow, the up-and-down voting swings on this comment have been wild. Is this really that controversial?]
In my state the law is that such devices must be used "hands-free" so it's OK to have it mounted on the dashboard and displaying a map, but not held in your hand. I'm not sure if it's clear whether operating a touch interface is considered "hands-free" but considering almost every new car has a touch screen it would seem so.
All that aside these laws don't seem to be enforced. I see drivers using phones in their hands every day even though it's supposedly illegal.
Yeah, my state has a similar law. The broad rule is that you can't have any wireless device in your hand or supported by any part of your body while driving, whether you're using it or not. (Except for earpieces and wrist devices, which are still subject to rules against texting and driving.)
I think we can blame the court for this one. "Using" means using. It's not specific, but the court reinterpreted it to be more specific for some reason. It's essentially impossible to write a statute to defend against this since you can't depend on any particular word to be load bearing.
Even if you use comprehensive forward-looking language, the court can choose to strike any part they don't like under the guise that the current situation didn't exist at the time of the drafting.
The law could've been written like "While operating a motor vehicle, it is unlawful to use a smartphone, tablet, or other hand-held device, regardless of the activity being performed on the device."
I agree the law should attempt to be specific, but I have to point out that this is still quite ambiguous!
Is it permissible to dictate/listen to text messages on my handheld smartphone, so long as I don't hold it in my hand? Can I click "next track" on the steering wheel, but not on my phone screen?
What about smart watches? They are not handheld, but they are equally distracting, if not more so than a phone because their screens are so tiny and fiddly.
"While operating a motor vehicle, it is unlawful to use a smartphone, tablet, or other hand-held device in a manner that requires physically touching the device, regardless of the activity being performed on the device."
California courts do whatever they want. Did you know that CA banned affirmative action by statewide referendum? And gay marriage? CA is the least democratic state in the country, by a wide margin.
California voters later enshrined the right to gay marriage into the state constitution by a statewide referendum that won by larger margin than the earlier anti-gay marriage referendum won by.
This seems like the complete opposite of legislators doing that.
The part you're quoting is about a previous version of the law, but you left out the money part:
> That interpretation, according to the court’s written decision, was because the state law at the time stated phones had to be used in a way that allowed for “hands-free listening and talking.”
> In 2016, the law was amended, with legislators pointing out that cellphones now acted more as “pocket-sized computers” and the law was too narrow.
So using it for maps doesn't prevent hands-free listening and talking. The law was outdated, if anything because the law was too specific about "listening and talking", not too vague.
It was from 2008. From some googling, it seems there was also a text message-specific update from 2009 or so.
And now the courts are saying "yes, when they updated that law in 2016 in the smartphone era about using a non-mounted phone, they meant 'using' generally, as opposed to the prior laws just about talking and texting."
There's also debate elsewhere about the "mounted vs unmounted" thing and whether or not that's a "loophole." But IMO that's intentional and reasonable because preventing using a mounted phone for navigation but allowing using a built-in-touch-screen would be completely absurd, and "mounting so you can glance and it and hit it with one hand" seems like a reasonable-enough line to draw for now.
I think we are agreeing here. We can guess that the original law's intent was that mobile phones were not to be used for any purpose while driving, with a specific narrow carve-out for "hands-free listening and talking." But, instead of saying that, it was written both too narrowly and too vaguely and had to be expanded and clarified later.
I also agree that the next fight is going to be about mounted vs. unmounted, and the distinction between a driver's phone attached to the vehicle vs. what we are starting to see in cars now, which looks and functions exactly like a tablet rigidly attached to the vehicle, except the tablet itself is made by the car manufacturer. If one is not legal to use by taking your eyes off the road to tap and swipe, then the other one should not be legal either!
Honestly, I wish we could just legislatively get touch screens out of cars in general. The roads would be safer overall.
> Legislators seem to love to do this. They deliberately write these laws using vague terms like "using" and then expect people (and the courts) to read their minds later on.
I don’t think it’s as intentional as you think. Writing rules to cover every situation ahead of time is extremely hard.
Even writing simple rules for something like an Internet forum or Discord has proven time and time again to be more difficult than anyone predicts. People will find loopholes in everything and real world situations will expose edge cases you never would have been able to predict.
Is it unrealistic to include something like an "abstract/summary/intent" with the law? Something like
> This law is intended to make it illegal for the driver of a motor vehicle to use a mobile device in a way that it is distracting to the goal of driving safely. One one end, holding it in one hand up to their head while talking to someone, or playing a visual game on it, would be distracting and negatively impact their ability to drive. On the other end, having it mounted on their dashboard and using it as a source of GPS would be considered reasonable. While it's true that any level of "use" of a mobile device can prove to have some level of distraction, the goal of the law is to allow such uses where it's clear the benefit of the use (to driving or health) outweighs the negatives.
^ The intent there is to demonstrate the idea of "a summary of intent", not to put forth what the summary should be. Don't sweat the details of my wording.
Agreed. I remember thinking, at the time it was enacted, that it would solve the problem of people holding their phones and being distracted. Nope. Hopefully this gives the CHP (and other orgs) the mandate to give tickets.
I wonder if using CarPlay to listen to music from your phone counts as "using"?
How about issuing voice commands, which I would argue is only slightly better, as your attention is still split and possibly much more of your immediate focus.
Mounted phones, and drivers operating them with a single swipe, are exempted, according to the decision, but looking at a map while holding the phone would violate the current law, the court ruled.
Makes sense. It seems they're considering the distraction as being caused by trying to hold the device, and not merely its use.
This makes sense, from a political perspective. Cell phone usage while driving causes major harm, and while hands free devices don't significantly reduce that harm (https://www.fastcompany.com/91076805/cellphones-hands-free-d...) banning use of cell phones while driving is politically untenable, because constituents want to be able tu use cell phones while driving. Writing a law to ban the holding of a cell phones while driving, without banning their actual use, provides the appearance that politicians care about the constituency, without the inconvenience of regulations that actually impact safety.
From a statistical perspective, it's possible that it's worse than having no regulation at all, because people take more risks when using safety equipment (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4767144/), so ineffective safety equipment might increase risk taking, making a net negative effect.
Right.
The least dangerous way of using a device while driving is to hold it in front of you in a way that doesn't block your forward field of few but also doesn't require you to look away as mounted devices do.
How about making it so cell phones limit most functionality when in a moving car going faster than some threshold, unless making an emergency call?
Perhaps with an exception that allows full functionality if the car and the phone support some way to precisely localize the phone within the car to being somewhere other than near the driver?
Me when i can't use my phone in a bus because some fucker decided to block it's functionality when moving
Things you own shouldn't enforce laws against you, especially with a guilty-until-proven-innocent system.
You'd better have that exception in there.
Absolutely infuriating when the family minivan refuses to let the passenger change the Bluetooth pairings while driving.
I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic but this sounds absurd to me.
Operating a phone while driving - whether it is mounted or not - is irresponsible. Period.
I don't really disagree, but cars are still allowed to be sold with mounted touchscreens from the factory. I don't see a good rational reason why operating a mounted touchscreen phone should be illegal when operating the wipers or AC is done the same way.
In theory those screens are regulated to be safe to use while driving - my car for example has a lot of more complex features disabled while the car is in gear - while the phone does not have the same safeguards.
Whether those safeguards are effective is a separate, albeit critical, question
But that's an equally bad solution, because usually the touchscreen is located on the center console and can also be operated from the passenger seat. Disabling touchscreen features is needlessly restrictive when there are two people in the car.
My vehicle UI is not a general purpose internet device. I can access vehicle features and that’s pretty much it. My car doesn’t even let you open the preferences for Spotify unless you shift to park.
I can’t watch TikTok or message people. I literally saw a dude watching a movie on his phone on the freeway the other day.
People need consequences for that level of irresponsibility and I’d prefer it happen before there is a collision.
Yes. The obvious conclusion is that touchscreens for those functions should also be illegal. It would be better if they didn't need to be illegal and, if their use resulted in an accident, the user would be liable, but concluding that would be challenging.
Given the 'single swipe' restriction, it's impossible not to extend that argument to changing the radio, adjusting your seat or turning on the AC.
I think the difference is that changing tactile knobs and dials and buttons can be done without looking
Touchscreens lack that ability, you have to look at them to interact with them
There are cars that are primarily based on touch.
Yep and they should never have been allowed to exist. Tactile operation keeps your eyes where they need to be.
I think you are in agreement. Cars based on touch are good, yes?
Not touchscreens?
You can manipulate all these with minimal or no disruption of the driver. There are designed to be so.
What's the practical difference between changing the radio station on the built-in entertainment system and pressing the "next track" button on a playlist playing on a phone which is mounted on a dashboard mount in the same general area as the built-in entertainment system?
Playing the next track on the phone may actually be less distracting than changing the radio station because many built-in radios lack voice control whereas on the phone you might be able to use the phones voice assistant to change the track.
The practical difference is that physical buttons can be changed without looking, since they provide tactile feedback and they're physically present in the world. Touchscreens require looking, even if you're pretty familiar with the interface, because you can miss.
Of course even this is kind of moot, because a lot of car manufacturers put vital controls on the touchscreen. I mean, Teslas have the fucking gear shift on the touchscreen.
Depends what you're using the phone for. Navigating? That's equivalent to a dedicated GPS unit, and AFAIK those have always been legal. On the other hand, if you're doomscrolling TikTok then it's a distraction regardless how the phone is held.
The same laws should extend to the 18” tablets many cars seem to be going towards.
Many cars have functions that are disabled on the screen when the car is moving. The carmaker can enforce that on the car’s screen. It can’t be enforced on a phone.
In Australia it has been illegal for ages. They have also had mobile (cell) phone cameras for years to penalise drivers. They claim that distracted drivers are as dangerous as drunk drivers. Why is LA only doing this now?
https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/fines/cameras
It's generally illegal in (most?) of the United States to "use your phone" while driving. I think this news is more of a clarification on what "using a phone" means.
Washington state has been doing this for a while also. Phones have to be mounted or you get penalized.
I hate being cynical, but in LA this ruling means nothing. I can’t remember the last time I saw someone pulled over for a traffic offense.
You’re not being cynical, just realistic. The later model year Mercedes or BMW the more likely I see some thirty something talking into the bottom of her phone. They don’t have Bluetooth on Mercedes?
I'll take that over the eyes in the lap group I see everywhere everyday.
All this tells me is that you live in either North Hollywood, Santa Monica, or Glendale.
I was fined for using a phone a while back. Fine aside it had a very bad impact on my insurance prices.
They didn't give you a driving school option?
They did. I skipped the fine but the real fine was insurance premium going up.
I know somebody who tried to check their phone on a red light and got pulled over/fined for it, this was ~4 weeks ago.
Edit: This was in Riverside County (~60 miles from LA)
Are tinted windows legal in CA? If your windows are super tinted or you car is lifted - it might be quite difficult to see that someone is using their phone.
Some tint is allowed, but the legal limit is rather low. It needs to let in 70% of the light on the front side windows, and nothing is allowed on the front windshield (bar a strip at the top).
If you’re engaged into a serious accident and your phone history shows that you were texting while driving, this law will get you under a pile of trouble.
I send texts via voice command/dictation all the time. How would this be distinguished?
Because the device records detailed usage information with timestamps such as device locks/unlocks, the screen lighting up and going dark, apps going in and out of focus, and in many cases details of exactly what you were doing in the app.
https://cellebrite.com/en/how-a-suspects-pattern-of-life-ana...
https://cellebrite.com/en/samsung-rubin-digital-forensics-va...
I followed the Murdaugh murder case a while back and that level of evidence was critical
The father killed his family and had a pretty good shot at sowing reasonable doubt until they pulled his sons phone telemetry and it showed the son unlocking his phone and checking socials at a time that conflicted with the dads story.
Phones truly are a surveillance dream. You couldn’t ask for a more invasive tracking device, and people love it. You couldn’t pry a phone away from most people these days
Here in Norway, it has been illegal some years. The fine for using a cellphone while driving has been going up year after year.
Right now, the fine is equal to around $1035, with a couple of "marks" on your drivers license (if you get too many of them, you lose your license for some time).
IIRC, the only exemption here is if your phone is mounted to the dashboard.
> Mounted phones, and drivers operating them with a single swipe, are exempted, according to the decision, but looking at a map while holding the phone would violate the current law, the court ruled.
If car screens were grouped under the same ruling, a lot of modern implementations would (rightfully) be illegal.
On a modern BMW with iDrive 8 I need at least 2 presses to change my blower settings, all while the temperature indicator is flashing at me that it is heating / cooling.
The great thing about California is that most things are de jure illegal and de facto unenforced until someone decides to make an example of you.
That's certainly how CA gun laws are. They're almost all performative and make things very annoying or expensive for legal owners but do very little to dissuade illegal use. Yet, if you own guns and do anything with them, it can be surprisingly easy to accidentally commit a felony while otherwise being a responsible owner. Which... is just not how felonies should work.
Good time to remind everyone to get a driver-facing dashcam.
Should be sufficient to just use the front-facing camera on the phone, yes? Because of the screen, you can even apply your make-up with your other hand that way.
This makes me want to put shaving cream on and pretend to shave while driving.
Anyway, distracted driving is probably already an offense in most places I'd want to live.
https://archive.ph/d9bbW
Pokémon Go players in shambles!
The law prohibits concerns "handheld wireless telephone or an electronic wireless communications device." So, this is ok as long as the device is unable to connect to WiFi?
Any what, exactly, does looking at a map have to do with telephones or communications? I despair far too often reading court decisions.
The issue with this sort of tightening is that people drive way more distracted putting phones down in their lap to "hide" them. (This is how my how my neighbor was hit and killed walking down a sidewalk.)
To be clear, I hate people staring at their damn phones and texting in traffic, and wish that was punished more often.
Here's the text of the current law [1] for those curious. That link is to the heart of it, but for completeness there is more on the next and previous pages at that link.
Some observations.
1. The gist is that driving while "holding and operating a handheld wireless telephone or an electronic wireless communications device" is prohibited unless it is specifically designed and configured to allow voice or hand-free operations and it is used in that matter.
2. "This section shall not apply to manufacturer-installed systems that are embedded in the vehicle".
I wonder where this leaves CarPlay and Android Auto? My understanding is that while these use the car's infotainment system for their UI the applications such as navigation are running on your phone.
3. There is an exception allowing use of the driver's hand if two conditions are satisfied:
• The device is mounted on the windshield in the same manner as a a portable GPS as described in some other section of the Vehicle Code that they cite or it is mounted or affixed to the dashboard or center console in a way that doesn't interfere with the view of the road.
• The driver's hand is used to activate or deactivate a feature or function with a single swipe or tap of the driver's finger.
It's interesting to compare with other states to see the different expressions of essentially the same intent. I just recently had occasion to look at Washington's equivalent [2] law. It's more concise in some parts and more detailed in others.
It starts out with a general prohibition:
> (1) A person who uses a personal electronic device while driving a motor vehicle on a public highway is guilty of a traffic infraction and must pay a fine as provided in RCW 46.63.110(3)
That's followed with some exceptions including contacting emergency services, some transit system employee communication with dispatch services, some commercial driver use within the scope of their employment, and operators of emergency vehicles.
It defines some of the terms:
> "Driving" means to operate a motor vehicle on a public highway, including while temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic control device, or other momentary delays. "Driving" does not include when the vehicle has pulled over to the side of, or off of, an active roadway and has stopped in a location where it can safely remain stationary.
and
> "Personal electronic device" means any portable electronic device that is capable of wireless communication or electronic data retrieval and is not manufactured primarily for hands-free use in a motor vehicle. "Personal electronic device" includes, but is not limited to, a cell phone, tablet, laptop, two-way messaging device, or electronic game. "Personal electronic device" does not include two-way radio, citizens band radio, or amateur radio equipment.
and
> "Use" or "uses" means:
> (i) Holding a personal electronic device in either hand or both hands;
> (ii) Using your hand or finger to compose, send, read, view, access, browse, transmit, save, or retrieve email, text messages, instant messages, photographs, or other electronic data; however, this does not preclude the minimal use of a finger to activate, deactivate, or initiate a function of the device;
> (iii) Watching video on a personal electronic device.
[1] https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-veh/division-11...
[2] https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.672
I built a hands free cell phone adapter based on a headset for an android phone, little dash mike, and an answer button, it puts out audio to honkin amp that powers the trucks stock speakers, the amp has a high impidence output and gain control that works with the headphone output just fine (no hum) hitting the button cuts off music and answers the call. Totaly stealth phone shelf where the stereo used to be.
> That case also arose when a driver was found guilty of violating the law because he was looking at a map on his phone while driving. But when the case reached the court of appeal, it interpreted the word “using” in the law’s language as prohibiting listening and talking while holding a cellphone and driving.
Legislators seem to love to do this. They deliberately write these laws using vague terms like "using" and then expect people (and the courts) to read their minds later on.
> In issuing its ruling on Tuesday, the California Court of Appeals noted that, when the current law was being drafted, the Assembly Committees on Transportation and Appropriations concluded that the new law would prohibit wireless phones from being used “for any purpose” while driving, and would include “all distracting mobile device-related behavior.”
No shit. The spirit of the original law was pretty clear. Why couldn't they have simply written what they meant in the first law without it having to be amended? Sloppy people writing sloppy laws.
[EDIT: Wow, the up-and-down voting swings on this comment have been wild. Is this really that controversial?]
In my state the law is that such devices must be used "hands-free" so it's OK to have it mounted on the dashboard and displaying a map, but not held in your hand. I'm not sure if it's clear whether operating a touch interface is considered "hands-free" but considering almost every new car has a touch screen it would seem so.
All that aside these laws don't seem to be enforced. I see drivers using phones in their hands every day even though it's supposedly illegal.
Yeah, my state has a similar law. The broad rule is that you can't have any wireless device in your hand or supported by any part of your body while driving, whether you're using it or not. (Except for earpieces and wrist devices, which are still subject to rules against texting and driving.)
I think we can blame the court for this one. "Using" means using. It's not specific, but the court reinterpreted it to be more specific for some reason. It's essentially impossible to write a statute to defend against this since you can't depend on any particular word to be load bearing.
Even if you use comprehensive forward-looking language, the court can choose to strike any part they don't like under the guise that the current situation didn't exist at the time of the drafting.
The law could've been written like "While operating a motor vehicle, it is unlawful to use a smartphone, tablet, or other hand-held device, regardless of the activity being performed on the device."
I agree the law should attempt to be specific, but I have to point out that this is still quite ambiguous!
Is it permissible to dictate/listen to text messages on my handheld smartphone, so long as I don't hold it in my hand? Can I click "next track" on the steering wheel, but not on my phone screen?
What about smart watches? They are not handheld, but they are equally distracting, if not more so than a phone because their screens are so tiny and fiddly.
That doesn't seem like a good change. I can't use voice control to navigate?
Ok, I'll fix that.
"While operating a motor vehicle, it is unlawful to use a smartphone, tablet, or other hand-held device in a manner that requires physically touching the device, regardless of the activity being performed on the device."
That's not the rule. Per the article: Mounted phones, and drivers operating them with a single swipe, are exempted, according to the decision
California courts do whatever they want. Did you know that CA banned affirmative action by statewide referendum? And gay marriage? CA is the least democratic state in the country, by a wide margin.
California voters later enshrined the right to gay marriage into the state constitution by a statewide referendum that won by larger margin than the earlier anti-gay marriage referendum won by.
This seems like the complete opposite of legislators doing that.
The part you're quoting is about a previous version of the law, but you left out the money part:
> That interpretation, according to the court’s written decision, was because the state law at the time stated phones had to be used in a way that allowed for “hands-free listening and talking.”
> In 2016, the law was amended, with legislators pointing out that cellphones now acted more as “pocket-sized computers” and the law was too narrow.
So using it for maps doesn't prevent hands-free listening and talking. The law was outdated, if anything because the law was too specific about "listening and talking", not too vague.
It was from 2008. From some googling, it seems there was also a text message-specific update from 2009 or so.
And now the courts are saying "yes, when they updated that law in 2016 in the smartphone era about using a non-mounted phone, they meant 'using' generally, as opposed to the prior laws just about talking and texting."
There's also debate elsewhere about the "mounted vs unmounted" thing and whether or not that's a "loophole." But IMO that's intentional and reasonable because preventing using a mounted phone for navigation but allowing using a built-in-touch-screen would be completely absurd, and "mounting so you can glance and it and hit it with one hand" seems like a reasonable-enough line to draw for now.
I think we are agreeing here. We can guess that the original law's intent was that mobile phones were not to be used for any purpose while driving, with a specific narrow carve-out for "hands-free listening and talking." But, instead of saying that, it was written both too narrowly and too vaguely and had to be expanded and clarified later.
I also agree that the next fight is going to be about mounted vs. unmounted, and the distinction between a driver's phone attached to the vehicle vs. what we are starting to see in cars now, which looks and functions exactly like a tablet rigidly attached to the vehicle, except the tablet itself is made by the car manufacturer. If one is not legal to use by taking your eyes off the road to tap and swipe, then the other one should not be legal either!
Honestly, I wish we could just legislatively get touch screens out of cars in general. The roads would be safer overall.
> Legislators seem to love to do this. They deliberately write these laws using vague terms like "using" and then expect people (and the courts) to read their minds later on.
I don’t think it’s as intentional as you think. Writing rules to cover every situation ahead of time is extremely hard.
Even writing simple rules for something like an Internet forum or Discord has proven time and time again to be more difficult than anyone predicts. People will find loopholes in everything and real world situations will expose edge cases you never would have been able to predict.
Is it unrealistic to include something like an "abstract/summary/intent" with the law? Something like
> This law is intended to make it illegal for the driver of a motor vehicle to use a mobile device in a way that it is distracting to the goal of driving safely. One one end, holding it in one hand up to their head while talking to someone, or playing a visual game on it, would be distracting and negatively impact their ability to drive. On the other end, having it mounted on their dashboard and using it as a source of GPS would be considered reasonable. While it's true that any level of "use" of a mobile device can prove to have some level of distraction, the goal of the law is to allow such uses where it's clear the benefit of the use (to driving or health) outweighs the negatives.
^ The intent there is to demonstrate the idea of "a summary of intent", not to put forth what the summary should be. Don't sweat the details of my wording.
Agreed. I remember thinking, at the time it was enacted, that it would solve the problem of people holding their phones and being distracted. Nope. Hopefully this gives the CHP (and other orgs) the mandate to give tickets.
I wonder if using CarPlay to listen to music from your phone counts as "using"?
How about issuing voice commands, which I would argue is only slightly better, as your attention is still split and possibly much more of your immediate focus.
We solved the problem by building the cell phone into the car.