Get lost, drivers: Google Maps is not for you – US judge Checking Google Maps has been placed on the list of things you're not allowed to do while at the wheel – at least in the US. A court in California has ruled that accessing a GPS app on a mobile phone while driving is illegal. In January last year, plods pulled over Steven R. Spriggs and slapped him with a charge of driving …
Well, you apparently don't know much about US law. But not to worry, El Reg apparently knows just as little.
There are actually quite few US laws on the books about acceptable driving practices. There are probably thousands of state laws, however.
This article, for example, was about California law, not US law.
>"Where does US law stand on accessing actual Satnav units - either built in, or third-party (suckered to the windscreen)?"
What's funny is that 15 years ago, in order to navigate California's byzantine highway system, you had to have a giant paper map that you were folding and unfolding while trying to drive down the highway.
Now which do you think is more distracting? Using your phone as GPS, or trying to unfold the correct portion of a giant map and read the tiny writing to figure out where the hell you are? Personally, I find that I'm far more focused on the road when using the GPS on my phone.
Actually, we used to pull over to look at the map. And it wasn't that long ago. Still haven't upgraded to a gps smart phone, I print a google map from my pc before we leave and navigate for my husband. If he is driving alone, he pulls over to look at it or glances down at the large print handwritten directions for the exit #. I agree with the law banning any form of cell phone use while driving. I'm sick of people I know being in wrecks or dying.
Hahaha, good one. Welcome to the rat hole California. We've got laws against nearly everything including the "GPS Windshield Safety Act" which effectively bans attaching anything to the windscreen of a modern automobile. The only place you can mount a GPS is in a 5"x5" square on the bottom corner of the driver's side or a 7" x 7" square on the opposite side. It might work if you have a '50s Caddy with a near vertical windscreen but if it has a rake like more modern autos forget about it. Essentially so long as it is mounted in a more dangerous position out of the line of sight of the driver, like under the dashboard, then it's ok to mount the GPS there. Logic and reason checked out a long time ago and they are never seen.
@Eddy Ito: Dude, I'm not exactly a California fan, but California isn't alone in these ridiculous laws, not by a long shot. Also, no matter what I think about California, a "rat hole" it is certainly not! Maybe you've never been to Jersey, but I can confidently tell you California compared to Jersey is like comparing a castle to a basement, or maybe even literally a rat hole!
Anyways, like you think probably, I think the term "Mobile Phone" should just be deprecated and reworded to "Mobile Computer". There is a certain stigmata associated with a phone while driving, as there should be, but a phone is not what is being utilized while using GPS.
Side Note: With you, me, and everyone else here understanding that a mobile phone is really a mobile computer, how in the hell does a state like California not know that as well? Has Silicon Valley been removed/relocated? Of course, with a law like this put in place, think about the revenue increase from traffic violations...they would be tremendous!
Oh you don't understand politics out here (or maybe you do, all too well). The original purpose of the law was to allow Satnav units since they would have been completely illegal without it. This is Sacramento's way of "helping" folks out. As for how they can not know, it's pretty simple to figure out if you talk to any of the politicians long enough. Just don't talk to them too long, it's been known to lower intelligence and I think California politicians should come with a warning like "Known to cause idiocy in humans". We could make it an addendum to Prop 65 and call it a Prop 65 IQ label.
I have to give you Jersey. I've been through it several times and only stopped once for gas but that was only because I had to.
wait..when did this happen?
I try to keep abreast of stupidity here in CA, more so than the average bear. And I did not know of this.
In fact, I'm in violation right now.
this shows the real problem-so many laws even the aware cannot keep up. And the hippies only protest weed laws making people criminals, while continuing to elect the same morons who got nothing better to do than make everyone a criminal without their knowledge.
as I type, I'm keeping mine in place in an act of "civil disobedience". Perhaps I'll use my illegally Center Low windshield suction cup mount as a holster....or worse, to mount a police recording dashcam!
either way thanks for the headsup, Eddy.
Pretty much every built in sat nav system I've owned in the US all disable the keyboard and most touch screen input functions wile the vehicle is in motion. The Sync unit in my new Ford Truck allows for voice commands which I personally find a lot more distracting than a touch screen menu.
As for the portable ones and early laptop devices I have found some of them to lock up when moving more than 5-10 MPH while others do not. I find it interesting that it's still legal in some states to have the old hocky puck antennae hooked to a laptop with cables and power inverters run all over the front seat that you have to bend down to look at but you can't suction-cup a touch screen to the window.
Of course it varies state by state so please don't judge us all by the strangeness of California. :-) I always found it quite odd that in New Jersey it's illegal to pump your own gas until I caught an episode of Jersey Shore.... context makes a huge difference!
California has long since turned into a police state, and most of their laws and regulations are in large part a way for communities to earn large amounts of cash. A new form of highway robbery made possible only by the heist and subversion of the United States Government.
U.S. Citizens are considered "property" of the United States and "things" i.e. a "legal persona" of the same status as any corporate entity under Admiralty (commerce) law. By this method, they can be subjected to all kinds of nonsense.
Its very similar to what the corrupt elite is doing in the UK and soon in the new EU dictatorship. In the EU, people will loose their real citizenships and become chattel of the EU, to whom common law won't apply.
They already cleared the way to use - for example - Italian military to put down an uprising in the Netherlands, since Netherlands soldiers may hesitate to shoot their countrymen. Addendums to the Lisbon contracts allow them to just shoot those people dead, no different from what Assad is being blamed for. The addendum and use of admiralty (commercial) law turns the "human rights" and "right to life" article into a farce.
Welcome to the corporate ruled world
This post has been deleted by its author
Just bring up the directions before you start driving. That's smart no matter which state you are driving in.
But this ruling is stupid if you aren't allowed to put your phone where you can see it to figure out which exit to take. California's highway system is hideous. You've got to be able to see some of the directions to figure out where to go.
(Big Brother - alive and well in California).
I guess that's an imperfect solution if your phone doesn't do turn-by-turn directions (as then it also won't correct itself if you miss a turning), and it's similarly possible you'll be caught using the phone for GPS if you've no way of routing the audio through your car speakers or if you just can't hear the instructions because it's California so obviously you've got a convertible.
Since the judge explicitly cited using your hands on the phone as the distraction, I guess mounting it within eyesight would be acceptable.
>"I guess that's an imperfect solution if your phone doesn't do turn-by-turn directions"
No, it's got turn-by-turn. It's just that California highways are extremely nuts in the way they are laid out, often with two exits right on top of each other. Usually I've got to look directly at the screen a few times in order to figure out where I'm trying to go.
Oh, I live in San Francisco right now so I'm fully aware of the California freeways — my favourite is when there's a central lane that divides without any discontinuity so that if you head to the left you're on one freeway and if you head to the right then you're on another. Naturally that divide often happens just after the crest of a hill, and quite a lot of the time it isn't even a real hill but just an artefact of the way that elevated portion of road was built. I can't think of anywhere in the UK where the same lane just suddenly divides like that, without one road explicitly being a junction off the other.
And that's just the junction-by-junction stuff, the overall layout is a nightmare in itself. While driving to Pacifica this weekend I naturally had to go 101 south, 380 west, 280 north then 1 south, making four freeways for a 25-ish minute journey to a reasonably popular destination.
I can't think of anywhere in the UK where the same lane just suddenly divides like that, without one road explicitly being a junction off the other."
Driving south over the Tyne Bridge.
Two lanes become three. It's not at all obvious if that new middle lane belongs to the left splitting into two or the right lane splitting into two. There's lots of jockeying for position.
To add to the confusion, you stay in the right lane to to turn right at the second right, the middle lane to turn left and the left lane to go straight on because just over the next rise the left lane goes up and over the flyover while the middle lane turns left under it.
Remember above I mentioned the second right? If you wanted the first right you just missed it. You needed to be in the left lane to take the first right by turning left where you drive around the loop and back to the traffic light junction you just drove over.
Just to add to the confusion, there's three sets of traffic lights within about 100yds, the 3rd set being the new light controlled pedestrian crossing over one of the busiest roads in the area so as to give pedestrian access to the new Gateshead college from the main transport interchange. I think "bridge" would be the word I'd rather use, but, well, there isn't one.
> And that's just the junction-by-junction stuff, the overall layout is a nightmare in itself. While driving to
> Pacifica this weekend I naturally had to go 101 south, 380 west, 280 north then 1 south,
And just to add to the fun, directions like North or South refer to the immediate small section of road you're about to enter, not to the road in general. Central Expressway goes generally in a north-south direction, but for a short bit in the middle it is s-shaped and runs east-west, so when you want to get onto it to head generally northerly, you may need to know if you want Central East or West.
Planning ahead with a map is the only reliable option.
>You can get 3 points on your licence in Britain for using a hand-held mobile phone,
As several papers pointed out at the time that legislation came in, it seems only to refer to mobile phones, with 'similar device' being a fuzzy term. There have been successful defences on the premise the driver was using their phone to record a voice memo.
However, as the Gov guidance notes, it is what the police officer at the time thinks is distracting. Like that driver who was prosecuted for holding an apple (the fruit) whilst driving.
The big problem is that, to date, there's been no appeals to the crown court so its relying on the fairly varied judgement of magistrates to define 'using'.
This isn't a bad thing as such, but it means that there are a lot of prosecutions that are being succesfully defended on the basis of some fairly sketchy arguments. Equally, there're a lot of prosecutions going forward that shouldn't (some over zealous traffic officers extending the definition of handheld to units firmly affixed to cradles, for example).
In this case, the driver was specifically holding the phone in his hand. Read the ruling on scribd (linked in the article), and you'll see that handsfree operation would have been fine (at least with respect to this particular law.)
>"In this case, the driver was specifically holding the phone in his hand."
But that's the problem - when I go to California, I'm in a rental car - I don't have a GPS holder on the dash. If I need to look at the GPS on the phone, I've got to pick it up in my hand, or find some spot by the cupholder where it will sit with a good viewing angle.
But if the California cops are so ticket-happy that they are pulling over people simply for having a phone in their hand, they should also go ahead and pull over all the people driving to work eating donuts and drinking coffee and putting on their lipstick (male or female), and smoking pot for that matter - plenty of that happening on the California freeways.
What really distracts me is all the motorcycle drivers who are allowed - by California law - to drive on the lane stripes in between cars. I'm always certain I'm going to end up seeing one of these guys getting killed someday.
"What really distracts me is all the motorcycle drivers who are allowed - by California law - to drive on the lane stripes in between cars"
In the UK it's called filtering and it is perfectly legal. When you say it "distracts" you, do you really mean it pisses you off because the biker isn't stuck in the traffic jam with you?
"I'm always certain I'm going to end up seeing one of these guys getting killed someday."
Make sure you signal and check your mirrors and blind spots before changing lanes and at least you can be more certain you won't be the one doing the killing.
>"In the UK it's called filtering and it is perfectly legal. When you say it "distracts" you, do you really mean it pisses you off because the biker isn't stuck in the traffic jam with you?"
No, I don't mind. Anyone that can get through the parking lot that is LA rush hour traffic, more power to them!
>"Make sure you signal and check your mirrors and blind spots before changing lanes and at least you can be more certain you won't be the one doing the killing."
I DO check - worries me a lot, the way they suddenly pop up on you. No - I'm worried I'll see one get killed right in front of me by someone who doesn't check their mirrors. Some of the bikers move at a reasonable pace between cars, but some are flying right along and would end up eating a lot of concrete if someone suddenly turned their car a few inches.
The technical term for this is "splitting lanes" and it's permissible because of the traffic jams and heat. Many motorcycles are air cooled and as such you have to maintain an airflow over them to keep them from seizing up and becoming expensive paperweights.
While you may not like it (and as a rider, I don't) it is legal in California. It's not in many other states that are a little more intelligent, but you still catch people from Cali doing it here as well and getting pissy when they get tickets for it
"when I go to California, I'm in a rental car - I don't have a GPS holder on the dash."
I think it's pretty fair to say that this is your problem.
"If I need to look at the GPS on the phone, I've got to pick it up in my hand"
You really don't. You need to have sorted it out before you set off.
Not to make it sound black and white, but you are the one in control of the x tonne vehicle capable of doing serious amounts of damage, it is your job to stay in control of it. Everything else is secondary.
If you get the first part wrong, someone could die (possibly you); if you get the second part wrong, you might get to your destination late.
>"Not to make it sound black and white, but you are the one in control of the x tonne vehicle capable of doing serious amounts of damage, it is your job to stay in control of it."
Never had an accident in 30+ years of driving, so your implication that I can't control a vehicle is a bit absurd by the simple evidence. Save that talk for your 16 year-old child.
My point is that there is a sane way to design highway systems, and then there is the California way of designing highway systems. At some point, nearly all drivers on those freeways are going to have to check a phone or a GPS or a map or a printed set of directions, and even then you are likely to miss an exit or misunderstand a highway intersection. I think one poster got it right - this is not about highway safety, this is about cops trying to raise a few extra bucks for their debt-burdened municipalities.
"Never had an accident in 30+ years of driving, so your implication that I can't control a vehicle is a bit absurd by the simple evidence."
Not that I implied such a thing, I merely said that it was your responsibility to be in control.
And 30+ years or 100+ years, it only takes a few seconds for someone to pull out in front of you at high speed to cause an accident, and it won't matter whose fault it is if someone is seriously injured.
The default position I have when driving is to assume the other drivers are about to do something stupid (and I see enough doing things like high speed undertaking or sitting in blindspots). Driving is not a right.
The default position I have when driving is to assume the other drivers are about to do something stupid
They usually are. In my experience at any given moment on the road at least one driver within 50 yards is always about to do something stupid. Anticipating the stupid is one of the essential skills of a safe driver.
But that's the problem - when I go to California, I'm in a rental car - I don't have a GPS holder on the dash. If I need to look at the GPS on the phone, I've got to pick it up in my hand, or find some spot by the cupholder where it will sit with a good viewing angle.
Or rent the right kind of car. Or fix a detachable holder. Or any number of things apart from "ignore the law and break it because it doesn't apply to me, I'm special".
If you say "California's highway system is hideous" because its ugly, I agree...
But driving all over it is cake and requires no Nav at all.
Something that happened a few days ago:
I was walking down the street, and some woman stood on the sidewalk, looking this way and that, making an impression of being lost. As I drew near, she asked me for help with the following words: "Do you know where number 52 is? My nav said its right here, but this is the wrong number!" I said: "did you check in which direction the house numbers go up or down on this street?" She replied: "no, but my nav said it was right here!!" She looked exasperated, like "how can this nav just be broken..."
So, I had to actually explain to her how to find the house number using her own brain.
And she didn't look like a dull, McDonalds eating, Fluoride contaminated water drinking zombie, to the contrary, she looked bright and educated.
Makes you wonder if we've not gone way too far on our tech craze...
This ruling should be overturned if it was appealed to somone who does not want to think past the end of his/her nose.
When is a phone not a phone? When it is being used as a GPS device, ( a dedicated GPS is legal to use in almost every state except the land of dumb twats..California)
The issue from how I read it isn't that he was using it as a GPS, but he was holding the phone, and using it while driving. That is illegal where I live too(no where near California), and can be met with a $250 ticket if I remember it right.
Now if he would have secured it to the windshield or somewhere else, and not had it in his hands he would have been fine. Honestly he was more likely texting while driving than using it as a GPS IMO if he had to hold it in his hands, even if he was setting coordinates in a GPS he should have pulled over, and done it, not do it while moving. A idiot like this deserves the ticket, and like some of the other posts I saw I agree they should reword it to any mobile device not just phones.
The thrust of my comment revolved around the fact that when a law is not what it should be, some judges will take an unreasonable position to force the law to make a more finite decision upon appeal.
IE "When is a phone not a phone, when it is a gps" The article did not completely clarify all the details.
This is not a reading comprehension forum but a place for commentartds to speak their opinions
The first time I was out in SF for classes, I took my Magellan GPS and it worked great. When I went out a year later I thought that since my Blackberry had a few nice navigation programs I would use it instead. It turned out it was worthless, because my roaming connection never had decent data, so the apps rarely worked.
G Maps connects to the Internet (not the web), via the data connection on the smallish tablet device - that also happens to have a phone app (from the Greek meaning 'voice sound'). Currently, all common carrier mobile communications systems in California (and the US) use separate communications connections for voice and data.
So, the device is not using the "phone system" to access the mapping system.
Neither is it always a "phone". The phone app and voice communications connection can both be disabled or removed entirely - while the data connection and mapping/navigation app function properly.
These devices are really mobile computers with a phone app and voice connectivity.
>"between 5 & 100? No minimum speed? I also note the poster DIDN'T say "stop on a 12 lane highway".
You obviously haven't spent much time on California's interesting road system.
Oh - and, pull over to the side? What side? You mean the 6 inches between your car and the construction zone (that has been under construction for the past 20 years)? Yeah, that's going to work out real well.
You realize, of course, that outside of Chicago and Los Angeles, there are relatively few 12 lane freeways... But the six lane Eastshore Freeway (I-80) between Richmond and the San Francisco Bay Bridge makes up for some of the lack... especially at rush hour.
Where's that da** wine glass?
Is probably the most unfriendly place on earth. Lived there briefly and travel through it frequently. The list of things you cannot do in this state are endless. It's not a fun place to drive, you have to work out which criss-crossing freeway intersection leads where at the same time as protecting yourself from the nutters they allow on the roads. They're like kids playing a video game, just randomly slowing down and speeding up, changing lanes for no apparent reason, swinging across the entire freeway at times - probably because of the novelty of being able to do it. In mitigation I suppose if I spent every morning on a 2 hr, 6 mile drive to work I'd go a little nuts if I came across a road with little or no traffic.
Their distracted driving laws are clearly designed to raise to money for a cash strapped state. The comments about GPS unit placement and turn by turn navigation on cell phones are entirely accurate, I know people who've fallen foul of these laws. My only solution is to take someone with me when I attempt to use their roads, relying on them to let me know when to exit a freeway or which lane to use. I expect that will become illegal soon too, along with talking and listening to music.
As a British driver in Canada at the moment, the main problem as far as I see it over here, is that the signs are so poor. Very often highway junction (intersection) signs are way too late. By the time you can read them, it's way too late to make a decision to change lanes.
I agree the best solution is better quality signing and have drivers use them.
Very often highway junction (intersection) signs are way too late"
Ah! So THAT'S why Garmin make such a song and dance about "lane assist" and "photo realist junction views".
I find I rarely need them in the UK. Lane assist is occasionally useful but the photo realist junction views seem to be almost exclusively motorway based and in the UK they are so well signed that it's almost impossible for reasonably aware driver to miss a turning.
For you non-UK drivers, here in the UK, if anything, the problem can sometimes be too many signs with advance warning of junctions etc up to a mile in advance depending on the road speed and type with repeaters as you get closer. And yes, there are still dickheads who change lanes at the last second!
I live in California and work at a court. You’re just not allowed to grab the phone while driving. So set it up with your destination and put the phone on the seat next to you and listen for the directions. Works fine for me. If I need to fondle the phone, I just pull over and stop. That way, I get where I’m going, no worries and no tickets. If that’s too hard, driving is probably too hard for you. Take a bus.
Re: Andy's point.
Just carry an unfolded paper map in your lap. The legal system is a mess. I watched a Youtube video a while back, concerning talking to the police and what it can do for you ... NOTHING!
The US (all states and the federal government) have so many laws the you are most likely violating one if you simply breath long enough.
Oh well ... this will never change.
Since when did anonymous lives become worth protecting against ANY hazard, regardless of how likely? When birth control let people have too few kids to consider some of the them in the traditional way - as backups should some not make it? This modern fad is ridiculous. Ease and convenience are FAR too important to let a few hypothetically dead or maimed folks hold us up. And, I mean this, it's not a joke.
I run Google Maps on my iDrone..errr..iPhone as a GPS, the device mounted in a cradle. I use it for realtime navigation just the same as if I were able to afford some newer car with a corporate subscription plan navigation system.
It's "hands free" by every definition.
So bite off, nanny state. Some of us aren't so defective that we cannot process instrumentation and external conditions at the same time.
What's next? gonna force us to cover the gauge clusters so those needles and displays telling us vehicle status aren't too "distracting"?
CA needs to quit legislating to the lowest common denominator. This "Idiocracy" thing is getting very old.
"Where does US law stand on accessing actual Satnav units - either built in, or third-party (suckered to the windscreen)?"
US law says nothing, these are all state laws. But, indeed, this is a good reason I opposed anti cell phone laws. People'd look at me like I'm nuts and I'd point out, well, no, I don't want people on their phones while driving. But, the right way to handle it would have been to make it clear that dicking around with electronics while driving will be considered distracted driving and enforced as such, rather than a narrow law that makes cell phone use illegal but probably not even tablets. Oh well.
That said, sounds like he was not using Google Nav -- he was using Google *Maps*. Important difference, Nav would have just been sitting there and reading directions, Maps he would have been dragging the map around while (probably) insisting it didn't affect his driving at all.
"Now which do you think is more distracting? Using your phone as GPS, or trying to unfold the correct portion of a giant map and read the tiny writing to figure out where the hell you are? Personally, I find that I'm far more focused on the road when using the GPS on my phone."
Probably the touch screen, because your dragging a little picture around on a little screen instead of having a persistent printed map. That said, both are distracted driving and you should get a fat fine for both. Plan your route ahead, and pull over and stop if you need to seriously work over your map (electronic or paper.)
So, I don't recommend driving distracted in California. I took I-5 north from San Diego to Los Angeles about 10 or 15 years ago... well, through San Diego, the traffic slowed to about 60 in the 30MPH zones. Up I-5, the slow lane was doing about 100MPH (people were passing me, because my Chevy Celebrity would top out at about 95-100MPH unless it was very flat), middle lane about 110MPH (I could hear cars bounce off their speed governor every so often, which on some cars is at 111 or 112MPH), and faster lanes appeared to be pushing 140MPH. In LA, in heavier traffic it alternated between 50MPH or so and gridlocked at a dead stop; lighter traffic people just drove as fast as physically possible as near as I can tell. I seriously doubt you'd be hassled IF you were messing with a map stopped in gridlock, the rest of the time it would have been SERIOUSLY unsafe to even think about it.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
