California No-Texting Law Details
So today was day 2 for the California no-texting law, and I must say that I am disappointed, though not very surprised, that there has been little attention brought to this matter. Perhaps it’s because the current performance of law enforcement in citing drivers who are violating the hands-free cell phone law has been abysmal. As a result, most drivers realize that violating the hands-free cell phone law is as easy as picking up a hooker in Thailand (which has technically been illegal since 1960).
However, given that texting actually requires you to remove your eyes from the road, it’ll be interesting to see how strict our traffic officers will be with this new law, especially since there is absolutely no doubt that texting makes you a more distracted, unsafe driver (as opposed to the argument that having cell phone conversations with a hands-free device doesn’t make drivers any less distracted).
Here’s an interesting factoid: unlike the hands-free cell phone law, only emergency professionals in properly licensed emergency vehicles within the course and scope of employment are exempt from this law. This law does not provide any exceptions for deaf or hearing-impaired drivers. More details below:
New Law Bans Texting
Effective January 1, 2009, a new law expands the prohibition of using a wireless communication device while driving a motor vehicle, to include writing, sending, or reading a text-based communication such as text-messaging, instant messaging, and email.
Exemptions
This new law excludes emergency professionals who use these devices, while operating an emergency vehicle in the course and scope of his or her duties.
This law does not prohibit reading, selecting or entering a phone number, or name in an electronic wireless device for the purpose of making or receiving a phone call. Drivers are strongly urged not to enter a phone number while driving.
Penalties
Violating the law is an infraction and the violator is subject to a: $20 fine for the first offense and $50 fine for each subsequent offense. A negligent operator point will not be assigned to a driver found guilty of a text-messaging violation.
Procedures
Driving Schools and Traffic Violator Schools must:
• Update curriculum and lesson plans to cover these new restrictions in every traffic safety education and behind the wheel training course.
• Distribute updated curriculum and lesson plans to all instructors to ensure implementation and enforcement of these changes.
• The revised lesson plans do not need to be submitted to the department for review at this time.
The Law
Visit the California Legislative Information website for the law on electronic wireless communication device restrictions.
Background
This new law expands the text-messaging penalties and other add-ons, these fines can increase to $76 for the first offense and $190 for subsequent offenses.
References
California Vehicle Code 12810.3, 23123.5
OLIN Memo 2007-09
Contact
Call the DMV Customer Communications Section, at (916) 657-6560, for further clarification of this memo.
Filed under: cell phone, reviews
Ooo-thanks for that information. I did wonder, as a deaf driver, whether any exemptions existed. Clearly not. Cool. It’s not like it’s easy to type out a text message on my iPhone anyway. But that’s sensible. No need to have a whack of people trying to get out of a ticket by claiming they’re deaf and needed to send/read a text message or e-mail.
Am I allowed to use my cellphones mapping software?
Can I look at google maps while driving?
If the answer is no, are GPS systems included because they are essentially the same thing.
According to the letter of the law, you can still use your cellphone’s mapping software and other GPS devices, as long as you’re not typing in the location while you’re driving or stopped in traffic.
How about using Pandora? For example, I want to move to the next song, so i press the “forward” button.
I’m assuming this is illegal, because it requires me to have my cell phone in my hand, and look down. But what if the cell phone is mounted on the dash? (which would essentially be no different then using the car stereo to change the station)
Well, it’s still legal to dial a number in your phone, so I’m assuming that using Pandora isn’t illegal. However, nothing is going to stop a CHP cop from pulling you over for speeding if he sees you staring at your phone fiddling around with channel controls while driving on the freeway. Using GPS systems is still legal, so using a cell phone mounted on a dash probably falls in the same category. The laws are specifically anti-texting and no holding the phone in your hand while chatting.
I was pulled over and cited one week ago for skipping a song on my iPod/iPhone, which is mounted to my center console of my vehicle. I do not use ear buds, and my iPod plays through my car stereo system.
I was stopped at a red light at the time and the entire “incident” took less than a second. Because I was stopped, the officer had a clear view of me reaching down to “handle” my “hand-held device”.
For the record, I am in favor of the cvc 23123 banning the use of wireless communication while driving. I feel it is a big distraction to talk or text and I don’t do so while driving. I don’t even use a hands free device to have a conversation while driving because I think even that can be too distracting.
I do however use my iPhone to listen to music while I drive and I try to do so responsibly. I felt that being stopped at a stoplight was a safe time to press the skip button. By comparison, it is no more distracting than changing the radio station and far safer and less distracting than changing a CD (or cassette) all of which are not prohibited.
The citation I received was cvc 23123.5, which specifically prohibits text-based communications while driving. The officer informed me that even though I was not actually communicating, the law is vague enough as to include “any handling of hand-held devices” and can easily fall under the umbrella of “distracted driving”. He also informed me that a first offense carried a minimum fine of $182 in his district last year, and that it was most likely higher this year.
Unfortunately for me, the wording of the law is so vague that even with evidence that I was not talking, texting or emailing I will most likely still be found guilty. This seems to point to a larger problem. Are we too incompetent to apply reasonable discretion to interpreting the word of the law, or is it necessary too word the laws so specifically as to include every possible circumstance so that nobody will be able to interpret them without an attorney?
It is a tricky problem, but the only answer seems to be that we should all be capable of practicing personal responsibility and should have faith that the legal system will not take advantage of vaguely worded laws when it comes time to make a judgement. Sadly this does not seem to be the case at this time.
As for me, I will most likely still use my iPod while driving. However armed with this new information, I will exercise extreme caution when I choose to “criminally” change a song. I recommend you do too.
J. Chergosky, that’s unfortunate. The law still allows you to physically dial a phone number into a phone, so the vague phrasing of the law could still benefit you in this case. I’m guessing that this is a case of making quota, and you just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. It may not be worth your time to fight it, but I would at least submit your rebuttal in writing.
I-95, U-405, thank you for your advice. I do plan on filing a written rebuttal even though I have been pretty well assured that it will be seen as my word against his, and if he so much as breathes the words “distracted driving” it is a done deal. A fact, the officer even stated at the time of the citation.
Your intuition about a quota (which we are told do not exist) is also pretty close to the mark. The officer told me that he had been instructed to exercise a “100% enforcement policy” because apparently “April”, is no texting while driving month. His supervisor had told all traffic officers to make it top priority. One could easily infer a quota situation from his statement.
I don’t hold out much hope for dropped charges, but I would like to do my part to spread the information around. My biggest frustration is that I have little patience for dangerous driving, and I, fully assumed I was breaking no law. It seems without constantly monitoring of all the new and ratified vehicle codes, it is near impossible to ever be sure. Even now, I’m vague on whether there is any law against what I did.
As for dialing the phone while driving, the law (cvc 23123) originally stated that it was not prohibited to enter a name or number for the purpose of making or receiving a phone call. “Texting” was not specifically prohibited, but is highly discouraged by the end user. It is recommended that you pull over or wait to dial or text at a traffic light. Umm… I don’t recommend that.
With the addition of cvc 23123.5 which banned texting completely, you are still allowed to dial. However, if the officer wants to assume you were “texting, emailing or instant messaging”, they are completely entitled to write a ticket at which point it becomes your word against theirs. Ironically, the fact that I was NOT dialing a phone number may actually be what makes what I did illegal.
If by some miracle I am cleared of the citation, I will post my written rebuttal. Other than that, I can only strongly urge other drivers to keep track of the laws (the best they can), not to text or talk irresponsibly, and be aware of the possible far reaching affects of their actions. When someone is killed, by a “texting driver” not only is a life lost, but we may potentially loose other things we take for granted as well. There was a time when nobody would have ever believed you could be cited for such a benign behavior as pressing skip. Have we completely lost the ability to judge what is safe and reasonable for ourselves?
If we continue to act irresponsibly and then complain about the consequences (i.e. traffic accidents and/or fatalities), who knows which basic freedom we could loose next. I hate to sound so melodramatic, but I cherish my freedom and hate to see it eaten away by stupid things like text messaging.
J. Chergosky, I don’t think it’s a matter of your word against his since as a sworn officer (and therefore the only person allowed to issue a citation), he can vouch for the fact that you were stopped at a light changing songs on your mp3 player. That’s not texting. The law bans texting completely….I’d like the officer to find me the alphanumeric characters on an iPod. In many ways, an iPod is an extension of your stereo system, especially since so many newer vehicles have input jacks that allow you to plug in your player and play the music through your sound system. Moreover, you were also stopped at a light. You were not doing this while you were driving, nor did you hold up traffic (as in situations where you didn’t know the light was green). You can’t be charged for hypotheticals, and in reality, you were not distracted at all while driving. Lastly, the reason why there’s a judge and jury (for other cases) is to add the human element of compassion, empathy, and nuance into the equation. The law is rarely black and white, and I’m sure some judges would dismiss your case. I doubt the officer would even show in court given the ambiguity of this particular situation.
Though not nearly as extreme, this reminds me of the news piece two nights ago that showed a 6-year old girl getting pat down by a TSA agent at an airport in New Orleans. With so many blatant offenders out there, I find it hard that the officer couldn’t wait a few minutes for a real hands-free cell phone/texting violator to roll by.
I see a lot of people with TINTED WINDOWS still talking on the phone and texting. These idiots think they are “hiding” behind their illegally tinted windows…(by the way, ANYTHING that is NOT FACTORY and is on the drivers windows is ILLEGAL in California.) The trouble is, that the CHP is usually the one to enforce this, so if you’re just leisurely driving around town, you’re less likely to get targeted. BTW – those of you that are “hiding”….I still see you. Morons!