CA raises fines for using your phone while driving

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
1

Well, they almost have. Link. Not only are the fines going up (first time offense was originally $20, now $50), but you will also get a point on your record.

Personally, this really upsets me. No, I promise I’m not just some ninny who lurrrves to check her Facebook while driving.

Last summer, I got a ticket for using my cell phone while driving. The problem was: I wasn’t using my phone. You see, my handsfree thing that clings to the dash fell off when I made a turn so I picked the phone off my lap, had it face down on the wheel for about 10 seconds, and got pulled over. I wasn’t making a call. I wasn’t texting. I wasn’t surfing the internet. My bill verifies all of this. I explained this to the officer when he pulled me over, but he just kept repeating that when I use my phone in the car, it has to be hands free. I asked how the law defines “using” and he said he didn’t know, handed me the ticket, and off I went.

It turns out, the law is- unsprisingly- very clear about what “usage” is- you have to be making or receiving a call, reading or writing a text message, or something along those lines. Oddly, you are allowed to be typing in a phone number or a name into you phone without penalty, though I’m not sure how that distinction is made.

Long story short, I brought my phone bill to court to identify that I hadn’t done any of the above (all beautiful and organized and highlighted that bill was), but was quickly informed that my cell phone bill is hearsay. How could they know that it was THAT phone I was using? The officer was a nice enough guy, so I was talking to him after and I asked, “Seriously though, if I can’t bring my cell phone bill, what evidence can I bring to defend myself? I mean you’re nice enough, but even the best folks at their job sometimes make mistakes.” He thought for a second and said he had never seen that courtroom find on behalf of the citizen in regard to a cell phone ticket. “You know,” he said, “I’m really not sure there’s any evidence you could have.”

I ended up getting a reduced fine- which almost didn’t happen, since the judge said I “clearly violated the law in the most serious and egregious way” (seriously), but the officer went to bat for me and said to the judge, “Your honor, I know you find these items to be hearsay, but she did bring her phone bill. She was ready to defend herself.” The judge wouldn’t even listen to my point that I wasn’t actually using the phone- even when the officer went to mention this.

Anywho, I am clearly against any expansion of this law. Obviously we need to promote safety, but if there really is no acceptable defense to this ticket, that’s. . . I mean, I’m no legal expert, but that’s not how our system works, right?

For what it’s worth, the officer looked at my print out of the law after were in court and he did say it was interesting, because the break down of what you can and can’t be doing with the phone was never explained to them the way it is written. Go figure, eh?

2

I am very sorry to hear about what happened to you, and how the system that is suppose to be for all of us has failed you, and in doing so all of us. It is a sad moment that you even had to deal with this.

3

It is depressing to hear how you got hosed. It is even more depressing to see they can hose everybody. It is about revenue after all. I absolutely agree people should not be allowed to drive and phone. But, allowing no defense is absurd. Where’s Kafka when you need him?

4

As a pedestrian who gets nearly run over every day by drivers on cellphones, I say fine the hell outta every one of them.

5

Even the ones who aren’t using their phones? And should there be no allowable defense?

Don’t get me wrong, I boil with rage when I am almost murdered by some dildo on his iPhone, but there’s an inherent flaw within the law if my experience is typical.

6

Just have a credible neutral third party ride with you in the car all times.

7

But what if the third party looked away at the flashing lights in the rear view mirror? WHAT THEN? That’s probably when you used your phone. . .

8

What city were you in when this happened? I hear Burbank has a bad rep for ticketing drivers for every minor thing.

9

Don’t put a cellphone on the dash. You have no reason to be using it while you’re driving, and using hands free devices does not decrease the impairment anyway.

If it drops on your lap toss it on the seat next to you.

I don’t feel sorry for people who yak on phones while driving. I believe they’re a pestilence and should be severely punished.

I also don’t much care if someone gets a ticket who wasn’t really using the phone. If you have it in your hands, you’re guilty, as far as I’m concerned. Otherwise everybody who gets a ticket will be saying they weren’t using it. The judge is also right that a bill means nothing if you can’t prove it was for the phone you had in your hands.

If you don’t want to get a ticket, make sure the damn phone is nowhere where it can be interpreted as being in use. Having it in your hands is like having an open container. That, in itself, is enough to merit the ticket. We don’t need to waste cops’ time trying to figure out whether people were really talking on the phones or not. if you have it in your hand, you’re using it. Nice and simple.

I commend that cop and that judge on doing their jobs, and I hope the penalties continue to increase.

10

No sympathy for you on this issue, Diosa - the reason we’re cracking down on cellphone use while driving is the dangers of distraction, and you were driving distracted (messing around with your phone). It was a fair ticket. What I’d really like to see is laws fining for all cellphone use while driving - fines for handheld phones but not handsfree phones are bullshit, since the problem of distraction is not reduced for handsfree use.

11

I just spit out my drink…

Okay, first of all, that judge is crazy. Second of all, it would seriously be awesome to fine the hell out of all the scofflaws, since my personal crusade (which involves significantly disapproving looks) doesn’t seem to be stemming the tide.

Have you thought about appealing? That’s really only important if you yelled at the judge, “I’m taking this all the way to the Supreme Court!”

12

California is running short of money. 'Nuf said.

13

The danger in talking on a cell phone while driving is that having a conversation is a distraction (c i t e s), not that your hands are occupied. Any law that has a hands-free device exception is stupid. And for my money, to be rational and consistent, the law would have to also make it illegal to have a conversation with a passenger.

In full disclosure, I’m biased against most law-makers. I think it’s ridiculous to pussy-foot around an issue like you’re scared of offending someone’s mother. If you want to make people safer and you found something danger, then make it illegal, goddammit, or don’t do anything at all. None of this “well, we’ll make it a little safer, but we don’t want to piss off the hand-held device companies, and we want to make sure hot-shot CEOs can still conduct business on the road”. Forget all that, just make a sensible, rational law.

14

I was in CA last week and wondered if holding your phone would be enough to get a ticket, and how you would prove that it wasn’t you- I guess I got my answer. Still, I would like to hold some sort of decoy and drive around town for a bit. “No officer, this isn’t a phone- I just happen to like holding glossy black, cigarette pack sized boxes to my ear, and talking to myself. Keeps me calm on the freeway. Or maybe that’s the weed? Which one is illegal again?”

I thought California was supposed to be a liberal paradise of freedom? :smiley:

15

I’d say that cellphone drivers make up about 60% of my near-death encounters. (Actually, I’m very much into defensive walking, so I rarely have to jump out of the way :stuck_out_tongue: ) The rest just aren’t paying attention, or they’re in too much of a hurry…I guess that’s not against the law unless they actually run me over.

Allowable defense? Ha. Not when I see people with phones up to their ear as they’re backing out of parking spaces or pulling out of a driveway. Their attention is distracted at the very moment when they should be paying attention to the task at hand. What that says to me is that the conversation is more important to them than pedestrians and other vehicles. Sorry, no excuse for that.

16

Here in San Jose, the local paper has a columnist who discusses highway and driving issues: “Mr. Roadshow”. The topic of what constitutes cell phone usage comes up often among his readers and writers-in, and Mr. Roadshow quotes his CHP connection: “If we see you holding a cellphone while driving, we will ticket you. We don’t care if you’re not using it. We don’t care if you’re just checking messages. We don’t care if you’re looking at the phone clock. We’re still going to ticket you.”

People also write in anecdotes of silly things people do to get around this law. One that stands out in my memory is the story of a driver who wasn’t holding the cell phone, but had her kid hold the cell phone up so that the driver could talk into it. Another was a woman who tried hiding the cell phone buried in her long hair so that others couldn’t see it.

17

I’ve seen women driving with cellphones tucked into their headscarves.

18

I use my phone while behind the wheel. I also exceed the speed limit and do not always stop fully at stop signs. Hell, I even smoke a lil weed (though not while driving). I would consider a fine for any of these infractions as the cost of doing business.

19

I was actually wondering about something like this myself, though not as extreme :D. I mean, there’s no law that I can’t be fiddling with my MP3 player, so what if I’m using my iPod and the officer thinks I’m texting on my iPhone? They look exactly the same to my untrained eye. (On edit: it looks like Teela’s quote covers this one)

That’s all completely hypothetical of course, I don’t own any products like that.

And like I said before, I may agree that the law should be more comprehensive, but if the law is that you can’t be touching a phone at all once you’re in a vehicle, then it needs to say that. As it stands, what I was doing is in no way a violation of the law. Should it be? Yeah, I actually can get behind that- if you’re touching a phone, you’re “using” it, you get a ticket. But as it stands, that is not what the law says.

I guess that’s my beef with it. Everyone here who is saying I should just accept the punishment (which this was months ago now, so I certainly paid up and everything) on principle- I agree on a general basis. As a citizen, though, it bothers me that the law is written in such a way that when I am not in violation of it, I can’t defend myself against accusations to the contrary. And- beyond that- the law is being applied to things for which it isn’t written. If the Senate were trying to pass a redefinition of what usage is in the law, I’d actually be behind that; expanding the current law? I obviously have a bit of a problem with that.

Fuck it. I’m moving to Nevada. Hookers, no State tax, and cell phones. A paradise, I tells ya! :smiley:

20

Oh jeez! That’s awful. Both of them, actually.

I don’t do either of those things, for those of you that are wondering :stuck_out_tongue: