Another law with a built in loop hole to allow cell phone use while driving
calling it a handheld device. Even for navigation they should not be allowed to
use a handheld device unless they are stopped and not in motion. This law just
defeated itself before its even law. The police cannot prove they weren't
navigating if they are using their cell phone while driving. So why do our
legislators waste so much time in laws that aren't laws? So stupid.
"hands-free or voice operated technology"or"a system
that is physically or electronically integrated into the motor vehicle."///Are these proposed to be allowed or criminalized? Just
for law enforcement or for everyone? The bill was a hack job so it was hardly
readable imo. I've read a lot of bills and sometimes you have to pay close
attention, but in this case I can't even make sense of it.1 -
The bill should be more clear2 - The state shouldn't restrict
hands-free operation. Argue distraction all you like but parents with 3 kids in
the car are far more distracted than someone with an ear-piece or a car
integration system.I'd rather we require car manufactures to
put sync systems in every car instead. Standards for cars haven't improved
much in the past few decades. If the times have embraced mobile devices, so
should the cars.
Just the way Utah rolls. Pretty clueless on a lot of common sense issues.I've lived in two other States during the last 8 years and BOTH of them
had laws AGAINST using cell phones when driving unless hands free.Utah needs to wake up. I've seen DOZENS of close calls since moving here
as people tried to drive and hold their cell phones to their ear at the same
@My2Cents - Given a warrant and some staffing time, it would be extremely easy
to be able to conclusively prove what the person was doing on their phone at any
specific time, although not a very practical use of resources in some cases.
The driver in the picture is sitting on the right side of the car. That is OK
in Great Britain, Japan, and Australia. Not very likely in Utah.
I suspect the REAL reason the legislature didn't do the right thing once
and for all (outlaw cell phone use while driving)is that most of them are
probably the WORST ones.ALL of us have been stuck behind someone at
a traffic light waiting for the person in front of us to quit gabbing and drive.
ALL of us can identify with that. Some of us have seen MANY near misses as
people ignore pedestrians, and traffic around them while they blather on using
their cell phone.Its' bizarre to me that the state tries to
pretend that, by law, they will eliminate all drunk driving and distracted
driving, while ignoring the cell phone nonsense.Ask ANY cop how many
cell phones are involved with even fender benders. You'll get an earful!!
If I had a nickel for every time I've witnessed a police officer in this
valley driving a squad car and either talking on a cell phone or typing into
their dash mounted laptop while driving I'd have at least a few nickels.
@ I know it etc.: From the bill, "(3) Subsection (2) does not prohibit a
person from using a handheld wireless 86 communication
device while operating a moving motor vehicle: ...
100 ... (g) to operate: 101 (i)
hands-free or voice operated technology; or 102 (ii)
a system that is physically or electronically integrated into the motor
vehicle."If you start at the beginning and read the whole bill,
it is actually very easy to understand.@ Shaking and Fitness: The
bill pretty much states that unless you are making a call regarding an
emergency, your system needs to be hands free (you cannot manually dial the
phone while driving, although the bill does't say anything about talking on
the phone after it is dialed). Talking on the phone, handsfree or otherwise,
has been shown to still be rather distracting.
@ mcdugall: Actually, it doesn't take much to see what a phone has been
used for - and chances are, if someone is pulled over for using their phone, a
warrant may not be required. The officer can ask to see the phone and if the
driver shows it to him or her, the officer will be able to see what is on the
screen. If the screen is locked, blank, or on an application other than a
navigation app, or the driver refuses to show the phone, the officer will have
reason to suspect the driver was acting inappropriately and can ticket the
driver. If there is an accident, the phone can be examined as
evidence in assigning fault. Text messages, phone calls, and emails are all
time stamped, most apps take some time to get into, so if the driver was on the
phone and a navigation app is not loaded or not fully loaded, with a realistic
destination entered, the officers at the scene can fault and ticket the
driver. Once ticketed, the driver would be responsible for providing
the evidence that they were not in the wrong.
@ kallyAre you actually serious? This directly violates my fourth
amendment rights when he asks to see my phone for any reason. I only have to
provide license and registration and anything more would be ridiculous.
Secondarily I should not have to prove my innocence, they need to have evidence
that indicates I may be guilty of a crime. It's this kind of globalist
thinking that is really dangerous. Stand up for your rights before you
don't have them any more.
@ midvale guy: If an officer sees you on your phone he can ticket you for
violating the law - unless you show him your phone and prove your innocence so
he doesn't ticket you. And if there is any doubt, the officers
can arrest you and then search your phone. Of course, that may change pending
the Supreme Courts rulings on Riley v. California, 13-132 and U.S. v. Wurie,
13-212 (expected in June of this year).
@ Kally: Thankfully Utah is not waiting on SCOTUS and passed HB 128 requiring
warrants to search cell phones.
Kally,I did read from the beginning. I'm very capable at
articulating a clear case and reading through redundant info to find the nuggets
I want. However, I did not find what I wanted to know here.Laws
should be simple, to the point, and unmistakable. If there is any room for
doubt, misunderstanding, or misinterpretation, our laws are not secure. The
SCOTUS proves this continually. The constitution doesn't define Judicial
Review, Marriage, Privacy, or an alterable interpretation of laws regarding the
equal protection clause, yet courts have ruled in each case as if such support
had already been in place. The law was clear enough, yet neglected. If left
unclear, laws get abused even more.In this case, I am not convinced
this bill wouldn't be misunderstood later.
@KallyPlease explain to me how looking at your phone would necessarily
give evidence that you were breaking the law. I have an integrated motor
vehicle system that uses bluetooth. My phone is paired with the car's
system. When I turn on the car's system and VERBALLY tell the phone who I
want to contact through the car's system, the phone dials the number and
the call then comes through my car radio. Note: At no time have I touched my
cell phone during this process. I typically only carry on short conversations
when I am driving, but the phone would still show that I made a call and that
the call was dialed from my cell phone. How should this automatically allow a
police officer to ticket me because my phone had been used. How would I be able
to prove that the call was actually made by bluetooth connection with my vehicle
and why would it be incumbent upon me to show I was innocent?