[HN Gopher] Holding Cellphone while driving is illegal, Californ...
___________________________________________________________________
Holding Cellphone while driving is illegal, California court rules
Author : firefoxd
Score : 41 points
Date : 2025-07-05 20:36 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.latimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.latimes.com)
| ryandrake wrote:
| > That case also arose when a driver was found guilty of
| violating the law because he was looking at a map on his phone
| while driving. But when the case reached the court of appeal, it
| interpreted the word "using" in the law's language as prohibiting
| listening and talking while holding a cellphone and driving.
|
| 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 wrote:
| > 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.
|
| 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 wrote:
| Agreed. I remember thinking, at the time it was enacted, that
| it would solve the problem of people holding their phones and
| being distracted. Nope. Hopefully this gives the CHP (and
| other orgs) the mandate to give tickets.
| RHSeeger wrote:
| Is it unrealistic to include something like an
| "abstract/summary/intent" with the law? Something like
|
| > 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 wrote:
| This seems like the complete opposite of legislators doing
| that.
|
| 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 wrote:
| I think we are agreeing here. We can guess that the original
| law's intent was that mobile phones were not to be used _for
| any purpose_ while driving, with a specific narrow carve-out
| for "hands-free listening and talking." But, instead of
| saying that, it was written both too narrowly and too vaguely
| and had to be expanded and clarified later.
|
| 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 wrote:
| In my state the law is that such devices must be used "hands-
| free" so it's OK to have it mounted on the dashboard and
| displaying a map, but not held in your hand. I'm not sure if
| it's clear whether operating a touch interface is considered
| "hands-free" but considering almost every new car has a touch
| screen it would seem so.
|
| 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 wrote:
| Yeah, my state has a similar law. The broad rule is that you
| can't have any wireless device in your hand or supported by
| any part of your body while driving, whether you're using it
| or not. (Except for earpieces and wrist devices, which are
| still subject to rules against texting and driving.)
| singron wrote:
| I think we can blame the court for this one. "Using" means
| using. It's not specific, but the court reinterpreted it to be
| more specific for some reason. It's essentially impossible to
| write a statute to defend against this since you can't depend
| on any particular word to be load bearing.
|
| 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 wrote:
| The law could've been written like "While operating a motor
| vehicle, it is unlawful to use a smartphone, tablet, or other
| hand-held device, regardless of the activity being performed
| on the device."
| bqmjjx0kac wrote:
| I agree the law should attempt to be specific, but I have
| to point out that this is still quite ambiguous!
|
| 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 wrote:
| That doesn't seem like a good change. I can't use voice
| control to navigate?
| ronsor wrote:
| Ok, I'll fix that.
|
| "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 wrote:
| That's not the rule. Per the article: Mounted phones, and
| drivers operating them with a single swipe, are exempted,
| according to the decision
| gotoeleven wrote:
| California courts do whatever they want. Did you know that CA
| banned affirmative action by statewide referendum? And gay
| marriage? CA is the least democratic state in the country, by
| a wide margin.
| lubujackson wrote:
| I wonder if using CarPlay to listen to music from your phone
| counts as "using"?
|
| 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 wrote:
| We solved the problem by building the cell phone into the
| car.
| tylerflick wrote:
| I hate being cynical, but in LA this ruling means nothing. I
| can't remember the last time I saw someone pulled over for a
| traffic offense.
| linotype wrote:
| You're not being cynical, just realistic. The later model year
| Mercedes or BMW the more likely I see some thirty something
| talking into the bottom of her phone. They don't have Bluetooth
| on Mercedes?
| testfrequency wrote:
| All this tells me is that you live in either North Hollywood,
| Santa Monica, or Glendale.
| emilsedgh wrote:
| I was fined for using a phone a while back. Fine aside it had a
| very bad impact on my insurance prices.
| no-reply wrote:
| They didn't give you a driving school option?
| whiplash451 wrote:
| If you're engaged into a serious accident and your phone
| history shows that you were texting while driving, this law
| will get you under a pile of trouble.
| checkyoursudo wrote:
| I send texts via voice command/dictation all the time. How
| would this be distinguished?
| djmips wrote:
| Are tinted windows legal in CA? If your windows are super
| tinted or you car is lifted - it might be quite difficult to
| see that someone is using their phone.
| OptionOfT wrote:
| Some tint is allowed, but the legal limit is rather low. It
| needs to let in 70% of the light on the front side windows,
| and nothing is allowed on the front windshield (bar a strip
| at the top).
| no-reply wrote:
| I know somebody who tried to check their phone on a red light
| and got pulled over/fined for it, this was ~4 weeks ago.
|
| Edit: This was in Riverside County (~60 miles from LA)
| poplarsol wrote:
| The great thing about California is that most things are de jure
| illegal and de facto unenforced until someone decides to make an
| example of you.
| Enginerrrd wrote:
| That's certainly how CA gun laws are. They're almost all
| performative and make things very annoying or expensive for
| legal owners but do very little to dissuade illegal use. Yet,
| if you own guns and do anything with them, it can be
| surprisingly easy to accidentally commit a felony while
| otherwise being a responsible owner. Which... is just not how
| felonies should work.
| jon_adler wrote:
| In Australia it has been illegal for ages. They have also had
| mobile (cell) phone cameras for years to penalise drivers. They
| claim that distracted drivers are as dangerous as drunk drivers.
| Why is LA only doing this now?
|
| https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/fines/cameras
| vineyardmike wrote:
| It's generally illegal in (most?) of the United States to "use
| your phone" while driving. I think this news is more of a
| clarification on what "using a phone" means.
| stuckkeys wrote:
| Washington state has been doing this for a while also. Phones
| have to be mounted or you get penalized.
| TrackerFF wrote:
| Here in Norway, it has been illegal some years. The fine for
| using a cellphone while driving has been going up year after
| year.
|
| 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.
| userbinator wrote:
| _Mounted phones, and drivers operating them with a single swipe,
| are exempted, according to the decision, but looking at a map
| while holding the phone would violate the current law, the court
| ruled._
|
| Makes sense. It seems they're considering the distraction as
| being caused by trying to hold the device, and not merely its
| use.
| whiplash451 wrote:
| I can't tell if you're being sarcastic but this sounds absurd
| to me.
|
| Operating a phone while driving - whether it is mounted or not
| - is irresponsible. Period.
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| The same laws should extend to the 18" tablets many cars seem
| to be going towards.
| whiplash451 wrote:
| Many cars have functions that are disabled on the screen
| when the car is moving. The carmaker can enforce that on
| the car's screen. It can't be enforced on a phone.
| tremon wrote:
| I don't really disagree, but cars are still allowed to be
| sold with mounted touchscreens from the factory. I don't see
| a good rational reason why operating a mounted touchscreen
| phone should be illegal when operating the wipers or AC is
| done the same way.
| kgermino wrote:
| In theory those screens are regulated to be safe to use
| while driving - my car for example has a lot of more
| complex features disabled while the car is in gear - while
| the phone does not have the same safeguards.
|
| Whether those safeguards are effective is a separate,
| albeit critical, question
| tremon wrote:
| But that's an equally bad solution, because usually the
| touchscreen is located on the center console and can also
| be operated from the passenger seat. Disabling
| touchscreen features is needlessly restrictive when there
| are two people in the car.
| mhb wrote:
| Yes. The obvious conclusion is that touchscreens for those
| functions should also be illegal. It would be better if
| they didn't need to be illegal and, if their use resulted
| in an accident, the user would be liable, but concluding
| that would be challenging.
| standardUser wrote:
| Given the 'single swipe' restriction, it's impossible not to
| extend that argument to changing the radio, adjusting your
| seat or turning on the AC.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| I think the difference is that changing tactile knobs and
| dials and buttons can be done without looking
|
| Touchscreens lack that ability, you _have_ to look at them
| to interact with them
| abeindoria wrote:
| There are cars that are primarily based on touch.
| btmiller wrote:
| Yep and they should never have been allowed to exist.
| Tactile operation keeps your eyes where they need to be.
| bluefirebrand wrote:
| I think you are in agreement. Cars based on _touch_ are
| good, yes?
|
| Not touchscreens?
| whiplash451 wrote:
| You can manipulate all these with minimal or no disruption
| of the driver. There are designed to be so.
| dlcarrier wrote:
| This makes sense, from a political perspective. Cell phone
| usage while driving causes major harm, and while hands free
| devices don't significantly reduce that harm
| (https://www.fastcompany.com/91076805/cellphones-hands-
| free-d...) banning use of cell phones while driving is
| politically untenable, because constituents want to be able tu
| use cell phones while driving. Writing a law to ban the holding
| of a cell phones while driving, without banning their actual
| use, provides the appearance that politicians care about the
| constituency, without the inconvenience of regulations that
| actually impact safety.
|
| 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.
| nandomrumber wrote:
| Right.
|
| 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.
| unyttigfjelltol wrote:
| The law prohibits concerns "handheld wireless telephone or an
| electronic wireless communications device." So, this is ok as
| long as the device is unable to connect to WiFi?
|
| Any what, exactly, does looking at a map have to do with
| telephones or communications? I despair far too often reading
| court decisions.
| kylecazar wrote:
| Good time to remind everyone to get a driver-facing dashcam.
| tremon wrote:
| Should be sufficient to just use the front-facing camera on the
| phone, yes? Because of the screen, you can even apply your
| make-up with your other hand that way.
| nandomrumber wrote:
| This makes me want to put shaving cream on and pretend to
| shave while driving.
|
| Anyway, distracted driving is probably already an offense in
| most places I'd want to live.
| gedy wrote:
| The issue with this sort of tightening is that people drive way
| more distracted putting phones down in their lap to "hide" them.
| (This is how my how my neighbor was hit and killed walking down a
| sidewalk.)
|
| To be clear, I hate people staring at their damn phones and
| texting in traffic, and wish that was punished more often.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| Pokemon Go players in shambles!
| OptionOfT wrote:
| https://archive.ph/d9bbW
| OptionOfT wrote:
| > Mounted phones, and drivers operating them with a single swipe,
| are exempted, according to the decision, but looking at a map
| while holding the phone would violate the current law, the court
| ruled.
|
| 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.
| tzs wrote:
| Here's the text of the current law [1] for those curious. That
| link is to the heart of it, but for completeness there is more on
| the next and previous pages at that link.
|
| 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...
|
| [2] https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.672
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-07-05 23:02 UTC)