The law, in this case, is an ass. I’d fight it. I recently got out of a fine (£60!) for another idiotic traffic law by simply writing to the clerk of the court, explaining my circumstances.
My GPS is my phone. And while I use an earpiece with it while using it, sometimes I have to look at the map, which requires touching the phone because I have no mount for it. So I would be screwed if Ii lived where the OP does. But picking up a paper map and reading it at the light would be okay, even though that takes much more time and concentration.
Quick question:
Did you actually make a call prior or during the time the ticket was issued?
That should show up on your cell phone bill.
I mention this as a friend of mine drives his car with his left arm up by his head and got pulled over - the cop thought he was talking on his cell phone. My friend said it was a bad habit of having his arm up, but he made no call and his cell was actually in the back seat in his briefcase. He showed the cop his phone, showed that he had not made a phone call in over an hour and the cop let him go.
So, don’t know how it would hold up in court, but if your ticket was written at 10:35 AM and you can prove you didn’t make a call from 10:00 until 10:50 AM, well - sounds like you might have a case.
Look we all get tickets, and no one likes it. But so what? There are SO many things in this world to get your back up on, but this isn’t one of them.
Pay your ticket and forget it. And ask yourself do you even need a cell phone in the car? No you don’t. Stick a cell phone in your purse and if your car breaks down use it. Otherwise just wait till you get home to make your phone calls. Unless your a brain surgeon on call nothing is that important where it can’t wait. 10 years ago it waited and we all were just fine with it.
All that is gonna happen is you’re going to go to court and with a 99% probablity you’ll lose and it’ll only make yourself get madder.
So pay the fine, and look at it as a life lesson.
Oh fuck off. Fight the damned ticket.
How the fuck do you know what he does and doesn’t need?
Fight it with what, precisely? The law says you are not allowed to hold a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle. The OP freely admits he had the phone in his hot little hand while behind the wheel of a running, though temporarily stationary, car. Regardless of what one thinks of the law’s merits, he very clearly and unambiguously broke said law right in front of a cop. He can throw himself on the mercy of the prosecutor, but he has no valid legal grounds argue that the ticket should be dismissed.
By the way, my wife has gotten three tickets (in Toronto) and opted for court each time. Twice the ticket was dismissed because the issuing officer didn’t show up, and once they dismissed the ticket before the court date (no reason given). So I wouldn’t say “zero chance”, from my experience.
Actuall going by what little I did read when the diktat came down from queens park, exmptions are off or on duty cops, ems people, and I believe making emergency calls.
I don’t know the validity of that yet, as the cops are just starting now to ramp up giving out tickets, now that the grace period is over, but we still have signage up for reporting drunk drivers via calling 911.
Course you could have the passenger call, if you have one. Or pull off to the side of the road, if you remembered to get the plate and model of the other car.
Declan
The problem here is you can’t prove that the phone bill you are presenting in court is for the phone that was in your possession on the date/time in question.
I too say fight it. Of course another consideration is whether you’ll lose income by skipping work to go to traffic court, and if they’ll charge you points as well-in the latter case you very well may not be able to afford the insurance hike. It all depends on what kind of judge you get-a reasonable one, or a hanging one. And what Hogarth said in #48.
It doesn’t matter whether he’s given a ticket within the bounds of the law. My ticket was well within a strict reading of the law too, but fighting it lead to the ticket being revoked. As mentioned, simply requesting a court hearing may force them to cancel the ticket, as they decide the costs aren’t worth the hassle.
It seems to me that the key factor for me is whether the prosecutor thinks like some of the posters in this thread: Cell phone use in cars should be banned and anyone who does anything with a cell phone in a car should be punished, period.
Argument goes something like this:
- Using a cell phone is distracting.
- Driving while distracted is dangerous.
- Dangerous activities should be banned.
- Therefore, cell phone use while driving should be banned.
- And, therefore, anyone who uses a cell phone while driving deserves to be punished, regardless of how the law is worded and enforced, and regardless of the circumstances.
Is that pretty much it?
I got a similar ticket in California and I was told by the judge that:
[ul]
[li]I had committed the most egregious, intentional, and dangerous crime there is; and[/li][li]my cell phone bill is not proof I wasn’t using my phone- it’s hearsay; and[/li][li]There is literally no proof (in CA) one can offer that the officer was mistaken (actually said by the officer).[/li][/ul]
I don’t think the prosecutor’s personal opinion really enters into it that much, except in the sense that the court might or might not accept a lesser plea.
The law says “drive” a motor vehicle. How can it be said that a person is driving while stopped at a red light? Doesn’t “drive” imply forward propelled motion?
drive
/draɪv/ Show Spelled [drahyv] Show IPA verb, drove or ( Archaic ) drave, driv·en, driv·ing, noun, adjective
–verb (used with object)
1.
to send, expel, or otherwise cause to move by force or compulsion: to drive away the flies; to drive back an attacking army; to drive a person to desperation.
2.
to cause and guide the movement of (a vehicle, an animal, etc.): to drive a car; to drive a mule.
3.
to convey in a vehicle: She drove them to the station.
By that logic, a 4 year old should be able to sit in the driver’s seat with his foot on the brakes at any and all red lights and that would be perfectly legal. There is a commonly understood definition of “drive” when it comes to cars, and that includes stopping at red lights and stop signs as a normal procedure of following safety and traffic management instructions while driving a car.
I don’t doubt your story, but find it odd that an official cell phone bill is considered “hearsay”. I mean, how much more legal can it get than official company records?
I thought they used cell phone records in lots of trials - proving someone called certain people on certain days and times.
I agree, but it could be argued that the intention of the legislation was not to prohibit glancing down at your phone while stopped, anymore than it would be illegal to read anything else while stopped. Are you saying that is would be legal for me to read a handwritten note from my wife at this light, but if I glanced at the same thing in email form on my phone, that is illegal? It makes no sense.
Now if you were to argue that this gives you the opportunity to play music chairs with your 4 year old, then you would be on shakier ground.
Even though it isn’t the law down here, I try to stay off of the phone in traffic because it is dangerous, but I don’t give two thoughts about checking my email in a long line of stopped traffic. It adds zero danger to myself or any other people, and it has no rational basis.
Or glance at a map in your car, or even take a look at a billboard while you are stopped at a traffic light? To me, it was never the intent of the legislators to prohibit all activity except looking at traffic while having both hands on the steering wheel. But cell phone use in a car has become the worst of all possible traffic offences so any method to rid the world of such a heinous practice is appropriate and warranted. :dubious: Seriously, it seems that for some people there is no such thing as “safe and proper” use of a cell phone, and that’s why I’m wondering whether the prosecutor is one those people. (Also, FWIW, I did mention in the OP that I am meeting with the prosecutor to determine whether we’ll be setting a court date. There won’t be a judge at the meeting, and just paying the fine is not an option now.)
Another point that I emphasized but nobody else has agreed is a valid argument is the fact that I have a built-in hands-free system in my car. It goes to what was my intent when I picked up the phone. All I was wondering was whether my cell phone was active. It made no sense for me to use my phone directly (which is against the law) instead of the much more convient, safer, and legal option of using my car’s hands-free system. That’s why when the officer motioned me to pull over, the first thing I said was “I have a hands-free system.” (In retrospect, had I known he was going to give me a ticket no matter what I said, I should have said nothing, taken the ticket, and then it would have been up to him to testify in court how he determined that what I was holding was “a hand-held wireless communication device or other prescribed device that is capable of receiving or transmitting telephone communications, electronic data, mail or text messages.” Also, it would be interesting to explore what “capable” means within the context of this law. If the battery is dead, is the device “capable”? What about a cell phone with no SIM card or a SIM card that hasn’t been activated? If the device wasn’t capable at the instant of the alleged offence, how much modification would be acceptable to still have it fall within the definition of “capable”?)