https://cellebrite.com/en/how-a-suspects-pattern-of-life-ana...
https://cellebrite.com/en/samsung-rubin-digital-forensics-va...
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
Edit: This was in Riverside County (~60 miles from LA)
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.
Makes sense. It seems they're considering the distraction as being caused by trying to hold the device, and not merely its use.
Operating a phone while driving - whether it is mounted or not - is irresponsible. Period.
Whether those safeguards are effective is a separate, albeit critical, question
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.
Touchscreens lack that ability, you have to look at them to interact with them
Not touchscreens?
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.
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.
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.
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?
Absolutely infuriating when the family minivan refuses to let the passenger change the Bluetooth pairings while driving.
Any what, exactly, does looking at a map have to do with telephones or communications? I despair far too often reading court decisions.
Anyway, distracted driving is probably already an offense in most places I'd want to live.
To be clear, I hate people staring at their damn phones and texting in traffic, and wish that was punished more often.
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.
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...
ryandrake•8h ago
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?]
Aurornis•8h ago
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.
e40•8h ago
RHSeeger•8h ago
> 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.
majormajor•8h ago
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.
ryandrake•8h ago
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.
SoftTalker•8h ago
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.
LegionMammal978•8h ago
singron•8h ago
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.
ronsor•8h ago
bqmjjx0kac•8h ago
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.
jeffbee•7h ago
ronsor•7h ago
"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."
tqi•7h ago
gotoeleven•7h ago
tzs•4h ago
lubujackson•8h ago
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.
Gibbon1•8h ago