User Tag List

Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: I'm ok with this Ruling

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, United States
    Posts
    3,759
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default I'm ok with this Ruling

    Just looking at your phone while driving is now a crime - latimes.com


    Direction-impaired drivers, prepare to meet your doom.


    A California appellate court has ruled that it’s illegal to hold your phone while driving to use it for anything -- like checking Google maps, or even looking at an email or text.

    The case was brought by Steven R. Spriggs, a 58-year-old professional development officer at Fresno State University. On Jan. 5, 2012, Spriggs found himself in stop-and-go traffic caused by road construction on California 41 near the California 180 interchange. For the uninitiated, that’s basically the middle of Fresno.

    It was 6 p.m., and dark, and Spriggs wondered if he got off at the next exit if he could avoid the jam. So he picked up his iPhone 4 and hit the map app. Something out his left window startled him. It was California Highway Patrol motorcycle officer Jack Graham, motioning to him to pull over.

    “He said, ‘Pull over, I’m going to write you a ticket for using your cellphone,’” Spriggs told me Tuesday. Graham cited Spriggs for driving a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone. Not talking on a wireless phone. Not texting on wireless phone. But using the phone.

    On April 26, 2012, Spriggs fought his ticket at trial in Fresno County Superior Court. He brought in a paper map and opened it to demonstrate that trying to use a traditional map is much more cumbersome than using an iPhone map. He lost.

    Having attended law school, Spriggs decided to file his own appellate brief. There was a hearing -- “It took all of 31 seconds,” Spriggs said -- then the court took the case under advisement. Months passed.

    Last week, he got a call from a Fresno newspaper reporter. “He informed me that I’d lost.”

    A three-judge panel of the Appellate Division of Fresno County Superior Court found on March 21 that Spriggs had violated the California law that prohibits distracted driving.

    “Our review of the statute’s plain language leads us to conclude that the primary evil sought to be avoided is the distraction the driver faces when using his or her hands to operate the phone,” wrote Judge W. Kent Hamlin. “That distraction would be present whether the wireless telephone was being used as a telephone, a GPS navigator, a clock or a device for sending and receiving text messages and emails.”

    (A clock? As I mentioned, we are doomed.)

    “The judge said you can’t touch the unit while you are in the car,” Spriggs told me Tuesday by phone from Santa Ana, where he was working. “I think that’s judicial overreaching.”

    Spriggs had not expected the case to be made public and has been surprised at the response. The ruling has been featured on many tech blogs, and seems to have touched a nerve. “It’s been pretty stupid the last 48 hours,” he said. “I’ve been on radio stations I never thought I would have my name associated with.”

    Spriggs, who was fined $160 for his ticket, would like to appeal but said he can’t do it on his own. He is very much in favor of laws that prevent distracted driving. “I believe this in my heart,” he told me. “My son was hit on his bike by a distracted driver on a cellphone,” he said. “He still suffers daily because of that injury.”

    But he thinks there’s a distinction to be made between actions caused by distraction and distraction itself. “I recognize the dangers of using a cellphone while driving but everyone is distracted all the time.”

    He noted that most new cars have video displays in their dashboards. “You have to manipulate them to do anything.” Why is it legal to futz around with your dashboard video screen, but not look at your cellphone to check the traffic or the time?

    “I don’t know how it’s any different,” said Spriggs. “They have to look at the actions caused by our distraction, not by what’s distracting us.”




    Talk amongst yourselves.
    elysian
    Tom Tolhurst

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Oakland Ca
    Posts
    3,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: I'm ok with this Ruling

    Whatever, it won't change behavior.

    Last week during rush hour a lot of people were being good, getting out of the garage before being surplus charged, checking their messages, making calls...all squarely parked in the bike lane. Never mind the curb is 4 feet away.

    What's the dif btwn an in-dash 3/4g unit and a phone anyway? Answer: one is not yet regulated, one is. NHTSA needed to get in front of the former but no political will avail.
    "Old and standing in the way of progress"

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Oakland Ca
    Posts
    3,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: I'm ok with this Ruling

    Also: was he moving or not? If not cop has a hard on for authority.
    "Old and standing in the way of progress"

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,151
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: I'm ok with this Ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by jitahs View Post
    Whatever, it won't change behavior.

    Last week during rush hour a lot of people were being good, getting out of the garage before being surplus charged, checking their messages, making calls...all squarely parked in the bike lane. Never mind the curb is 4 feet away.

    What's the dif btwn an in-dash 3/4g unit and a phone anyway? Answer: one is not yet regulated, one is. NHTSA needed to get in front of the former but no political will avail.
    Eventually it will. People used to wink and nod about inebriated drivers too. Not anymore. It's no longer really in dispute the distracted driving is very dangerous and not just for pedestrians and cyclists. People are killed in traffic accidents every day because of this and I think attitudes will eventually shift. That said, the best way to avoid temptation on my part is to simply shut the damn thing off and put it away while driving. Using it is tempting.
    La Cheeserie!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Oakland Ca
    Posts
    3,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: I'm ok with this Ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by Saab2000 View Post
    Eventually it will. People used to wink and nod about inebriated drivers too. Not anymore. It's no longer really in dispute the distracted driving is very dangerous and not just for pedestrians and cyclists. People are killed in traffic accidents every day because of this and I think attitudes will eventually shift. That said, the best way to avoid temptation on my part is to simply shut the damn thing off and put it away while driving. Using it is tempting.
    Wanna bet? Drive out from SF over the Bay Bridge 9pm onwards on a Friday or Saturday night. Everyone is drunk.
    "Old and standing in the way of progress"

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,151
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: I'm ok with this Ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by jitahs View Post
    Wanna bet? Drive out from SF over the Bay Bridge 9pm onwards on a Friday or Saturday night. Everyone is drunk.
    I'm not saying it's not still a problem but it used to be that you'd get a slap on the wrist. Today you end up in jail and it will cost you tens of thousands of dollars and in my industry is a career killer. Many others too. It's still a problem but I don't know how to address the problem that is so preventable unless we legislate stiff penalties. Just my opinion of course.
    La Cheeserie!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    7,187
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: I'm ok with this Ruling

    Great ruling. If we really recognized driving as a privilege, and made people earn it, people would be goggling their smartphones where they should--on mass transit.
    Dan Fuller, local bicycle enthusiast

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Oakland Ca
    Posts
    3,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: I'm ok with this Ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by Saab2000 View Post
    I'm not saying it's not still a problem but it used to be that you'd get a slap on the wrist. Today you end up in jail and it will cost you tens of thousands of dollars and in my industry is a career killer. Many others too. It's still a problem but I don't know how to address the problem that is so preventable unless we legislate stiff penalties. Just my opinion of course.
    Obviously we, as cyclists, are for this.

    But when I see guys load up their bikes at a trailhead or cut out, get in their cars, pull out their phones and immediately execute a bone-headed maneuver...I think the problem with their behavior lies in a kind of monomania or, more accurately, an "everyone does it so I'm going to do it" attitude. Plus "I drive better than the others." Not so much a cyclist vs. car driver dialectic.
    "Old and standing in the way of progress"

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, NY
    Posts
    82
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: I'm ok with this Ruling

    kickstarter is probably not for this purpose but i would be happy to contribute to his appeal /defense fund.

    Quote Originally Posted by false_aesthetic View Post
    Just looking at your phone while driving is now a crime - latimes.com

    Spriggs, who was fined $160 for his ticket, would like to appeal but said he can’t do it on his own.
    ride hard. be well. have fun.
    bill (aka rustylion)
    404-242-5966
    rustylion54@gmail.com

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: I'm ok with this Ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by rustylion View Post
    kickstarter is probably not for this purpose but i would be happy to contribute to his appeal /defense fund.
    I disagree, unless you're looking to solidify the ruling. Having been popped twice by inattentive drivers, I'm a touch sensitive to the subject. Look at it this way: so he didn't hurt anybody by his actions. So... I shoot into a crowd but miss everybody. Is that OK?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Mertztown, PA
    Posts
    4,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Re: I'm ok with this Ruling

    His son was hit by a distracted driver, and he still doesn't get it? Fucked. Up.

    PA has a texting ban. I've always felt it was stupid for this very reason. Get pulled over. Oh, I'm not not watching the road because I'm texting, I'm not watching the road because I'm doing X. Outcome is the same. So why single out texting?

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •