Got it. I don’t text, have GPS, do email or music from my phone, so I just wasn’t thinking of those things.
But you wouldn’t.
As i and others have pointed out, there are plenty of things that you can do on a modern handheld device that don’t involve making a call.
I doubt that the cops need any additional excuses for pulling you over. It’s been said that any cop worth his or her salt can find a half dozen legitimate violations on virtually any vehicle.
Why do you think I put the words operating system in there? Your calls will be recorded. Your email is recorded. Its certainly not out the realm of possibilty for an operating system to record activity on a device either. Whether they all already do or a law would required for it to be so is a whole nother ball of wax.
And if it DOESNT record something that will get you in trouble, what are you complaining about?
I was booked last year for talking on the phone while driving, something I hate other drivers doing. Because there were no cars within sight when I answered the call I thought it was OK. When I turned onto another road at a set of lights I didn’t even notice the cop stopped there, so they are as distracting as they say.
Anyhow, when he was going through the motions of writing the ticket at one stage he asked me to show him the phone I had been using. I took it out and showed him and he said “Black Motorola Razr?” and I confirmed that.
After he gave me the ticket we were chatting and I asked him why he wanted to know what phone I was using. He explained that the law was written by people with no practical policing experience and no idea how to prove anyone’s guilt in court. So that they didn’t have to provide experts to argue in court what is and isn’t a phone, they make a note of the driver’s confirmation that he/she used a particular device.
He also explained that even taking the phone out of my pocket to see who was calling was the offence - using it in any way, even to throw at someone. He said, “You can pull a ham sandwich out of your pocket but not your phone.” He happily agreed that the law is stupid - you can use a CB radio or your GPS, but not the GPS app on your phone.
I was ticketed for using a cell phone while driving last year. I wasn’t. My cellphone was in my pocket. When I challenged it, I produced a copy of the call log for the judge, and he replied “how do I know you weren’t using another phone?”
It was easier to pay the fine than challenge it. I agree with the OP and others, because it’s impossible to prove you weren’t using the phone. It comes down to the officers word versus yours, which is a no-win situation.
In my case, the officer claimed he was parked in a lot when I drove past him. Maybe he saw someone else on their phone, maybe I scratched my face and he thought I was holding a phone… but at 40mph and a distance of maybe 40 yards, I have no idea how he could have seen anything.
This is, i think, one of the biggest problems with these laws: they don’t really address the real, underlying issue, which is not so much “using a cellphone while driving” as it is “distracted driving.”
There are myriad ways to be distracted in a car without using a cellphone. If you have a CD player, changing a CD while driving (which plenty of people do) is probably much more distracting and dangerous than talking on a cellphone. Some people fumble for and light their cigarettes in the car; others eat or apply makeup. Then there are people who drive around town with a dog sitting in their lap, which i’ve always thought is incredibly dangerous.
From mhendo’s link, there’s a link to a Word document, and the actual line that presumably led to the reporter’s line quoted in my OP reads:
Here’s the proposed ordinance. As I said, it seems to be overly broad. Just using a CB radio would run afoul of the ordinance.
TRAFFIC
AN ORDINANCE TO ADD A NEW SECTION 10:101a TO CHAPTER 126 (TRAFFIC) OF TITLE X OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ANN ARBOR.
The City of Ann Arbor Ordains:
Section 1. That a new Section 10:101a be added to Chapter 126 of the Code of the City of Ann Arbor to read as follows:
10:101a. Use of Cell Phone or Other Portable Electronic Device While Operating Motor Vehicle or Bicycle Prohibited.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person shall not operate a motor vehicle or bicycle on a highway, street or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles or bicycles while using or operating any portable electronic device to do or attempt to do any of the following:
(a)talk to or listen to another person;
(b)create, transmit, receive, read or listen to a text, voice, or any other digital or electronic message including email;
(c)perform other non-driving tasks besides selecting and playing music, including but not limited to playing electronic games, viewing movies, and transcribing notes;
(d)type into or otherwise operate a navigation system;
(e)use the Internet.
(2) “Electronic Device” as used in this section mean any object that may be used to perform any action that this section prohibits while operating a motor vehicle or bicycle, which includes, but is not limited to:
(a)A mobile or satellite telephone or any other electronic object commonly known as a wireless, cellular, cell, digital telephone or smartphone;
(b)Any type of paging device or personal digital assistant;
(c)Any video game or digital photographic equipment.
(d)Any type of portable computer;
(e)Any portable navigation system including but not limited to any equipment commonly known as a global positioning system or GPS.
(3)This section does not apply to the use of an electronic device while operating a motor vehicle or bicycle under any of the following circumstances:
(a) the person is using a hands-free electronic device and the electronic device is not hand-held;
(b) the person uses the electronic device to communicate with or obtain directions to a police department, a fire department, an authorized emergency vehicle, a hospital, or a physicians office, during an emergency situation only;
(c) the person uses the electronic device while performing his or her official duties as a police officer, a member of a fire department, or the operator of an authorized emergency vehicle; or,
(d) the person uses the electronic device while the motor vehicle or bicycle is stationary in a location that is not within the portion of the highway that is intended for the purpose of moving traffic and that is a legal place to park, stop, or stand a motor vehicle or bicycle.
(e) the person uses the electronic device while performing his or her duties as a volunteer in the Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RACES) created by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Federal Communications Commission and as provided for in Title 47, Part 97, Subpart E, Section 97.407 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(4) This section does not apply to the following electronic or other devices if they are built into the vehicle and they do not otherwise violate City ordinance or state and federal laws:
(a) An audio entertainment system and other accessory controls in the motor vehicle;
(b) A vehicle navigation system, when it is in a fixed position and not hand-held.
(5) The exceptions contained in subsections (3) and (4) are to be strictly construed. The exceptions apply only under the conditions and to the persons specifically described. The exceptions do not apply under any other conditions or to any other person including, but not limited to, City employees while on duty, drivers of any type of bus, and drivers of taxicabs.
(6)A defendant who claims he or she used the electronic device without using his or her hands has the burden of proof that this exception applies.
(7)This section may be enforced against the operator of a motor vehicle or bicycle whether or not the operator has been detained for a suspected violation of this Chapter or of any other law or ordinance.
(8)A person who violates this section is responsible for a civil infraction.
(9) The penalty for a violation of this section shall be:
(a) A fine of $125.00 plus costs, if there was no motor vehicle accident for which defendant was reported to be at fault on a vehicle crash report form completed by the police.
(b) A fine of $300.00 plus costs, if there was a motor vehicle accident for which defendant was reported to be at fault on a vehicle crash report form completed by the police.
Section 2. That this Ordinance shall take effect on the sixtieth day following legal publication.
Actually, as a matter of general principle, i don’t think that’s a bad thing. I’ve used CB radios a few times, and seen them used by other people, and it seems to me that using a CB is not more or less distracting than talking on a cellphone.
Certain types of infractions or code violations do not operate under the “innocent until proven guilty” or even “right to trail by jury”. For example, parking and even some traffic violations in CA.
ianal
To which I would reply, “Let’s ask the officer what phone I was using.” BEFORE I showed mine.
YMMV with jurisdiction IME.
Here in Orange County California, I have seen many police officers driving squad cars while holding cellular phones to their ear. It is common enough that my friend has a few pictures (City of Irvine police officer) and a video of a police officer on the phone while driving.
V.C. Section 23123contains this exemtion:
(d) This section does not apply to an emergency services professional using a wireless telephone while operating an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and scope of his or her duties.
So, a police officer who is talking with his girlfriend on his cellular phone can simply state that he was “in the course and scope of his or her duties” if a civilian makes a comment about the officer’s driving and phone useage.
Nothing like a double standard to keep you warm at night.
“Your Honor, with all respect, how many people do you know who carry two cell phones? I don’t, and I don’t know anyone who does. I mean, why would one? I don’t doubt Officer Friendly made an honest mistake, but it was a mistake.” The judge might wonder whether you pulled a fast one, but I bet the charge would have been dismissed.
It reads to me like a CB radio would be OK. They are not listed in Section (2) unless they are called something else there. I don’t think they can really be construed as a mobile device. That is the logic here - that they are fitted to trucks, vans and taxis and used in the ordinary course of business.
I agree. Do there even need to be specific laws about this? Surely a “driving while distracted” type law would cover everything and prevent people from saying “it’s not a phone it’s a [insert something that manages to avoid the definition of ‘cell phone or similar device’]”
I have to admit that I sometimes drive with my dog on my lap. I think it is probably quite dangerous for the dog but no worse for the other occupants of the car than if the driver was talking on the phone. It’s a different kind of distraction. Mentally it’s fine, but physically it can be more difficult turning the steering wheel to full lock, say for if you want to make a u-turn or something. It depends on the dog of course, you wouldn’t want to do it with a St Bernard.
Sure it’s included. Section (1) says any device to talk or listen to another person. Section (2) says any object “not limited to” the ones listed.
Driving back from an out-of-town meeting one snowy night, a co-worker had a handheld CB radio we were listening to for any info truckers might have had. You could set it to one channel or to scan, but didn’t have to operate it beyond that. That would have been illegal under this law.
I’d think that a restriction on CBs or mounted radios used in the course of business would be ripe for a challenge on the basis that it interferes with trade. If nothing else, Ann Arbor would find itself sans truck traffic or cab service until the city council got its head out of its ass. If their police department is anything like ours, the assumption is to ticket until someone challenges a ticket and the judge tells the cops not to ticket under that circumstance anymore.
The ADAC* and an university did tests on using a cell phone in your hand while driving (on a simulator) vs. hands-free phoning, and both found that using a phone, even hands-free, is very distracting; and it’s different from a normal conversation with a passenger (not a parent trying to get children to behave, or a spousal shouting match). The difference, as the psychologists in the Uni tests, explained, was that, since the passenger is in the car with you, the driver will stop the conversation if he needs to concentrate on driving, knowing that the passenger will understand.
On the phone, where the partner can’t see what’s going on, people feel pressured to answer immediatly, and thus put priority on the conversation over the driving.
As for other distractions like smoking: a lot of that is so automatic that it doesn’t distract on the same level as phoning. If your burning cigarette falls down and you look away from the street for one second, you are fully culpable, though.
Similar, you are allowed to listen to music on the radio or cassette player, but if you look away from the road to turn the knobs, and something happens, you are fully culpable.
Applying lipstick or similar is of course forbidden over here - do police not pull you over for this?
- German Automobil club; this was done back when the German law was passed that talking on the phone while driving without hands-free was forbidden; given the results of the tests, I wished they had pressed on to ban all phoning or distraction while driving, but since the ADAC is pro-driver, they don’t wan to to ask for new restrictions, even though it would show more responsibility.
Do you know how much you are endangering your own health and life, and the life of your dog in case of an accident? Even a small dog of 5 or 10 pounds, even with moderate speed of 40 o 50 km/h, the weight increases to dangerous levels because of momentum.
Either you put your dog on the backseat with a special seat belt, if you want to protect his life. Or at least you put him in the back, and install a safe fence, to protect the rest of the occupants.