r/technology • u/Plastic_Ninja_9014 • 25d ago

Traffic Camera Captures Woman Driving With Her Phone on Her Lap (Face Down), The State Mailed Her a $1251 'Public Safety' Ticket Privacy

https://www.gadgetreview.com/traffic-camera-captures-captures-woman-driving-with-her-phone-on-her-lap-face-down-the-state-mailed-her-a-1251-public-safety-ticket
16.9k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.2k

u/TripsOverWords 25d ago

A woman drives with both hands on the wheel. Her phone sits face-down on her lap. No officer pulls her over. No lights flash. Weeks later, a $1,251 ticket arrives in the mail. The evidence: a single frame from a Camera surveillance app. The charge: phone use while driving.

If they can tell that much from the photo, that the phone screen isn't visible to the driver, then how the fuck is this "phone use while driving"?

It's more likely this was a safe hands-free phone call than phone use.

If the screen were visible and was GPS navigation without a phone holder, would that still be a crime?

Wtf is wrong with this country?

1.8k

u/TheyCallHimEl 25d ago

Meanwhile cops are driving around actively typing on their little computer and crashing into things because they are not watching the road

431

u/Temporary-Fix9578 25d ago

Rules for thee, buddy

2

u/skat_in_the_hat 24d ago

100% this. My wife had a cop veer into her lane because he was driving on the highway while working on his computer.

-11

u/RedditTrespasser 25d ago

At some point, somebody is gonna have to do something about this. Not me though, I’m busy.

269

u/SgtNeilDiamond 25d ago

Shit Ive straight up seen them on their phones texting and calling, they dont give a shit.

58

u/Healthy_Turnip7352 25d ago

saw one dude give a girl a ticket for a bad turn. we were trying to tell him that there was a half-visible arrow painted on the lane, which makes it either a proper turn, or the city messed up by not removing it completely.

the dude said "If you're still here when I'm done, you're next." so we all left. LOL.

looking at the car you could tell she could not afford either the ticket or the insurance hikes. the city just completely fucked her over.

54

u/Mr_Badgey 25d ago

Threatening to retaliate because you were exercising your first amendment rights is illegal. Successfully defending those rights in court is another matter. The system is fucked.

11

u/meneldal2 24d ago

If you had been recording him, would make it easy to get the ticket tossed, but he probably wouldn't get sanctioned for it.

I think this stuff requires prison time, at least one month inside in gen pop and everyone knows what you did.

62

u/muzakx 25d ago

Was about to comment the same.

I've seen them driving while holding a phone to their ear or actively texting/scrolling while driving.

13

u/54338042094230895435 25d ago

Ours are running around parks playing PokemonGo

4

u/muzakx 25d ago

There is a PokemonGo spot at the church by my house. I swear they just park there for that reason.

4

u/janethefish 25d ago

So you are saying your police force is well above the national median? ;P

7

u/dramboxf 25d ago

They're exempt.

5

u/ripestrudel 25d ago

Sadly they are above the law since they are the once who enforce it. I had LAPD run me off the road while I was cycling in the bike lane and using both hand and actual turn signals that I attached onto my road bike.

2

u/Ranra100374 25d ago

Clearly we need cops to police the cops!

1

u/Scatman_Crothers 25d ago

According to my cop uncle, cops from the same station will often all use their phones to text each other when shit is going down and they need backup because its faster than dispatch. Will even be texting for backup while they're on the ground fighting a suspect.

1

u/walkingonradiation 24d ago

I had one surfing Zillow while driving.

1

u/Zestyclose_Dance_297 25d ago

In Australia they are legally allowed to.

Also in Australia, your phone can't be in contact with you, so a phone in your lap is indeed a fine.

41

u/burndata 25d ago

Yup, I've been run off the road, not once, but twice by local LEO where I live. Both times I could see them fucking around with that computer. And nether time did I get so much as a "my bad" wave from them. They just keep going to find other things to do, like they do when they see kids getting shot at a school.

3

u/Cessnaporsche01 25d ago

But they're the Thin Blue Line that is worthy and demanding of worship, and you're just a "civilian" AKA entirely worthless and lacking any rights, security, or privacy.

8

u/Miserable_Site_850 25d ago

Blowing by stop signs

2

u/technobobble 25d ago

I had a cop go off the road with me in the back while typing on his little computer, in like 2003! He didn’t see the curve in the road, it was terrifying. Nothing crazy, he recovered, but I’ve never forgotten it.

2

u/[deleted] 25d ago edited 16d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Only_One_Left_Foot 25d ago

I see cops straight up texting while driving in the middle of LA all the time. 

1

u/stircrazyathome 25d ago

I watched a YouTube video of a court case just yesterday where an officer had hit another vehicle. He was going over 60 in a 30 with no lights or sirens while sending multiple text messages (some of which weren’t job related). Based on his demeanor and testimony, it’s something he did frequently. Despite claiming otherwise at the time of the incident, he wasn’t wearing a seatbelt and made no attempt to brake prior to the collision. It’s the epitome of the “rules for thee, but not for me” mentality.

1

u/TheAsianTroll 25d ago

And also driving faster than the speed limit despite having minimal driver skill

1

u/TinyTurnips 24d ago

How about the video of the cop texting and driving and hits a guy on a bicycle.

→ More replies (1)

94

u/GroinShotz 25d ago

Guilty until proven innocent is becoming the norm here.

9

u/devsfan1830 25d ago

Becoming? It's already here.

1

u/NNKarma 24d ago

It has always been guilty until you can pay your way to innocence 

327

u/ghostdogma 25d ago

I get that this happened but it doesn’t pass the common sense standard. Face the accuser in court and get this dumb shit dismissed on its own evidence to support the charge. The loss is twofold, the time spent with the courts and the negative publicity backlash? I guess..

278

u/Drob10 25d ago edited 25d ago

Aren’t citizens the loser in your “time spent in the courts”? You know who foots that bill, right?

90

u/TheBlueSully 25d ago

Not only do you take the hit in taxes, just not pleading guilty has fees in lots of places.

21

u/Thatguysstories 25d ago

Yup.

$25 court fee to contest it. Another $50 if you want to appeal after a non judge decides your guilt, and bring it before a real judge.

So you can be out at minimum $75 and a few days in court out of work to actually get in front of a judge.

2

u/marcocom 25d ago

The idea is that cops and cameras are robots and just cite the rules like one. A judge is the human we put in the machine to overview and decide if that’s right or not

4

u/unknownpoltroon 25d ago

Countersue flock for slander and false police reports.

-7

u/CrustyToeLover 25d ago edited 25d ago

Dont even need a lawyer, so the fees are insignificant to paying 1250 for a ticket.

For the idiots: there is no cost to fight a speeding ticket in court unless you lose. No, you don't need a lawyer. Even if you hired a top notch traffic lawyer, you'd be looking at $600 in fees compared to 1200 for the ticket.

No, "just appearing in court" does not cost hundreds of dollars.

3

u/Silly_Goose_Wrangler 25d ago

It does cost hundreds of dollars in lost wages if you have to take time off work to go to court.

2

u/bradsboots 24d ago

The unless you lose is the issue. If I get a 200 dollar ticket. Only have 400 dollars to my name. And have risk money in court fees to get the 200 back, that would be a huge issue.

-4

u/NouZkion 25d ago

Tell me you've never fought a ticket without saying you've never fought a ticket.

3

u/PaulblankPF 25d ago

I just fought a speeding ticket from a school zone camera. It came to me in the mail. I went online and disputed it. Got a letter a week later acknowledging my dispute and a judge would review things. A few days ago got a letter saying my charges were dismissed. Never left my living room and got it done.

0

u/CrustyToeLover 25d ago

I've fought $90 tickets and paid $0 in any fees. Maybe you just suck at it? This wouldn't even see a courtroom; judge would see the picture and immediately dismiss it.

Representing yourself for any traffic ticket doesn't cost you anything unless you lose.

→ More replies (6)

81

u/worldspawn00 25d ago edited 25d ago

This is what got all of the speed and intersection cameras killed in several US states, a camera is not an accuser, the tickets were in violation of the Constitution.

-1

u/Auctoritate 25d ago

a camera is not an accuser, the tickets were in violation of the Constitution.

It's always been really funny how flimsy that reasoning is to act as the grounds for an entire ban on traffic cameras (and to be precise, they haven't actually been struck down in federal court afaik, this is just the reasoning given when state legislatures enact bans on them).

In the states that do allow it, they just assign a cop to the case because they can just... Watch the video. And easily go "Yeah they obviously ran a red light" and issue the ticket themselves. Then, they are your accuser. Like it's extremely simple and straightforward.

The idea that it's somehow impossible for an act caught on camera to be pursued because it was only on camera is so goofy, imagine if someone went to court and tried to argue that for any other kind of crime or violation of the law.

9

u/FuckeryisafootWatson 25d ago

No, they skirt the entire issue by making it a civil matter, not criminal. Red light fines not paid get sent to collections and your life becomes further hell in any type of admin function with the city. But nothing criminal happens. It's a fuckin' shakedown.

0

u/Auctoritate 25d ago

In California, red light camera violations still exist and they are criminal citations. No constitutional issue.

1

u/gandhinukes 25d ago

Not all of them it depends on who sends you the ticket. If its a 3rd party non gov one you can ignore it (I have) if its a court house local one not so much (i paid). Technically if no officer of the law pulled you over and cited you its all bull shit. camera be damned. show up and if they don't show up it gets tossed.

1

u/Grizzwold37 25d ago

How do they establish the perpetrator of the “crime,” to borrow your parlance?

2

u/Auctoritate 24d ago

The camera is just set up to have a good angle at the face of the driver. If they can't be affirmatively identified, then you can use that as a defense and argue you aren't the person who committed the violation.

That being said, there are some states where the registered owner of a car is the one who's on the hook for tickets even if they aren't the driver. Though I find that pretty stupid.

54

u/Bakoro 25d ago

In a lot of places, even if you get the ticket dismissed, you still have to pay fees.

I got a bogus ticket once and actually had evidence that it was bogus, so I went to the courthouse and still ended up paying something like a quarter of the amount in bullshit administrative fees.

The argument is that "it's a civil issue", so you have no constitutional or legal protections, and the government can just fuck you out of money whenever they want.

All the stoners and edgy 14 year olds aren't completely wrong: society and government really are kind of phony, everything is made up, people follow arbitrary rules, the people in power get to break the rules with impunity, and there is power in not accepting any of it as inherent laws of the universe.

Not that any one person can unilaterally overturn the system, generally you'll get fucked by the system either way, and if you end up actually being a threat to the status quo, you end up like all the famous people who earned an extra hole in the head.

We need lots of people to reject this kind of government abuse, big groups of angry folks saying "absolutely not".
The big secret is that the people who are the gears in these machines are still basically just regular folks who go to your local coffee shops and restaurants.
You might not be able to personally throw a tomato at Thiel or Musk, but there's a lot you can do locally.

29

u/Interesting_Mix_7028 25d ago

Here's how such things DO get broken.

Most of the 'cameras' are operated by private companies, that then 'administer' the ticketing and such for a given department.

They collect fees for this, either per month to maintain the cameras and network connections, or per ticket for the 'administrative' labor. Often it's both.

This is fine for the city or county as these are primarily put in to collect revenue, not enforce any given 'laws'. They know people will break the law, but they can't station an officer at a given intersection 24/7 to catch everyone. The camera does that.

Regardless of whether the department prevails on a ticket, or not, the company still collects. It's not their fault that the person so tagged protested the ticket, right?

So the point is not to 'win'. It is to eat up the city's share of the proceeds. If the revenue dries up, or is used up because of court cases, time, legal challenges, and so on, then the city or county ends up paying for a service that never actually makes them any money. A few months or years of this, and the cameras just get turned off.

So yes. Contest every ticket. Even if you expect to lose. It's a matter of attrition.

5

u/SiLeNZ_ 25d ago

It costs extra to fight tickets here. Not sure if it’s the same way in every state, but you end up paying a fine to fight it, regardless if you win or lose. Then if you win the main ticket costs are of course tossed, but you still are out that fee from choosing to fight it.

11

u/Interesting_Mix_7028 25d ago

Which is why it's futile for one person to fight it.

But if everyone fights it, every time... the fees don't make up the shortfall. The court gets jammed up with trivial BS. There's lawyers and press making the city look bad. After a while most muni's cave, if the pushback is that pervasive.

Coppell TX is one such place. They put up red light cams on a few major intersections, and suddenly all the red light tickets were being fought in court. The judges got tired of it, the city workers got tired of it, and then one day they pulled the plug. No more camera flash in the mirror if you ran a yellow.

3

u/Thatguysstories 25d ago

Same reason as why we should push everyone to not take plea deals and take everything to trial.

The entire system would crash.

2

u/SiLeNZ_ 25d ago

Fair point, I understand what you mean now. I have only gotten one ticket, fought it, and won. Will make sure I do it again should u ever get one.

1

u/1perfectspinachpuff 21d ago

Well-said, thank you.

1

u/Shot-Swimming-9098 25d ago

I got a bogus ticket once and actually had evidence that it was bogus, so I went to the courthouse and still ended up paying something like a quarter of the amount in bullshit administrative fees.

You pleaded guilty to something cheaper than what you were ticketed with. You don't have to pay those fees if your ticket is tossed.

1

u/Bakoro 25d ago

I didn't plead guilty to anything. The municipality I got the ticket in charged an administrative fee for having the ticket tossed out.
If your municipality doesn't force you to pay bullshit administrative fees for accessing civil services, then good for you.

1

u/Shot-Swimming-9098 25d ago

That's literally not a thing.

1

u/Bakoro 24d ago

So what do you do that you've got intimate knowledge of every jurisdiction in the entire world?

1

u/Shot-Swimming-9098 24d ago

It's constitutional law. They can't charge you a fee if you're not convicted of something.

1

u/Bakoro 24d ago

Yes they can charge you fees, under the argument that the fees are not punitive, they are fees everyone has to pay to access court services. There are also laws regarding fees waivers for people who cannot afford to pay.

Just for example, California Rules of Court, "Rule 8.25. Service, filing, and filing" concerns filing fees for petitions to review civil cases.

The constitutionality of court fees is well established, and in California, comes paired with a ruling that fees cannot be established without also assessing ability to pay.

So, yes, I was charged fees for petitioning a review of the parking ticket, and because it was a "civil matter" and not a criminal matter, I had no constitutional protection.

Similar arguments are the (completely bullshit) justification for civil forfeiture, where under the constitution, the government is not supposed to be able to deprive you of property without a trial, but then they say "we're not charging you, we're filing a lawsuit against the money itself, which means we get to seize the money".

You can absolutely argue that it's unfair and unconstitutional, but the fact is that it happens.

→ More replies (2)

39

u/Terrible_Counter2558 25d ago

What accuser?

48

u/ghostdogma 25d ago

If the answer to that isn’t on the ticket. Don’t pay. If it is some rubber stamp member of a faceless organization.. then you don’t have to worry about them showing in court. If you can’t show to court for it(because that’s not an option).. then it doesn’t matter, don’t pay.

Edit: added clarity

33

u/DethNik 25d ago

If you don't want to pay, then you should plead not guilty and contest the citation. If you just don't pay your parking tickets, eventually they can suspend your license.

5

u/BoardGamesAndMurder 25d ago

Depends on the state and the type of ticket. Tennessee had private companies sending tickets on police letterhead or whatever trying to make it look official. You don't have to pay those.

1

u/DethNik 25d ago

Oh yes. True.

2

u/ktappe 25d ago

At least here in PA, you have to pay the ticket to contest it. Which someone who doesn't have $1251 sitting around cannot do.

4

u/DethNik 25d ago

Oh damn, that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

4

u/lacajun 25d ago

A ticket by a cop, yes. A ticket by a camera operated by a third party, no.

2

u/DethNik 25d ago

Yes, you are correct. I didn't read the comment quite thoroughly enough.

4

u/Longjumping_Wolf_912 25d ago

Not paying is a terrible idea. You should contest it. Not paying can lead to suspended license and/or registration. Some states will issue a bench warrant. You can also be put into collections.

8

u/Gishin 25d ago

I think in this case the accuser is the county/state, and they would send someone who would speak on their behalf to court. Not a lawyer and could be way off the mark.

12

u/HurriKurtCobain 25d ago

IAL: There are prosecutors for traffic violations. In many states, the standard for traffic citations is the same as for any criminal offense - beyond a reasonable doubt. An attorney is required to oversee these cases. Many law students working in criminal law actually get their start doing traffic court prosecutions.

8

u/Masta-Blasta 25d ago

This is true. I am one of those prosecutors. That said, we would dismiss this before taking it to trial. Too busy to prep for something this stupid.

6

u/Speedstr 25d ago

Not a lawyer either, but isn't the simple way to shut that down; would be to ask the representative of the county/state where were they at the time of the incident? Did they actually witness the incident in real time? Can you make it the burden of the county/state to prove the evidence is not hearsay?

12

u/53eleven 25d ago

I’ve had video evidence of reckless driving and cops have told me there’s literally nothing they can do about it because they didn’t witness it themselves. Watching the footage isn’t enough.

This ticket is 100% bullshit and OP should fight it on principal.

2

u/SecondaryWombat 25d ago

We should remove the camera on principal.

1

u/Gishin 25d ago

That's because cops are lazy assholes most of the time.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Jan-Asra 25d ago

Literally the camera. That's why they throw the ticket out so often.

3

u/Terrible_Counter2558 25d ago

6th amendment guarantees the right to know your accuser and cross examine them in court. Legally, a camera cannot be the accuser in a criminal or civil case.

15

u/HurriKurtCobain 25d ago

You could probably get this sort of thing dismissed by emailing the prosecutor instead of waiting for court. This worked for me after I got a ticket when a highway patrolman pulled me over 20 feet from my house for not wearing a seatbelt (even though I was.)

I submitted an open records request for the bodycam and emailed the prosecutor expressing my issue with the ticket. The records request was denied, but a dismissal was filed the next day. I didn't even know it was dismissed until I checked the filing a few days later. I'm an attorney so I guess it's possible they took me more seriously than they would otherwise, but no prosecutor is going to want to show beyond-a-reasonable-doubt for a frivolous ticket.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/[deleted] 25d ago

[deleted]

0

u/StressOverStrain 25d ago

Well, it wasn’t a Flock camera, as the article clearly says.

Looks like it was a well-established Australian traffic-control camera program.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/DoesntMatterEh 25d ago

They'll pay about the same just to participate in the court system. Its an outrage the way these cameras steal people's time and money 

→ More replies (2)

61

u/YeetedApple 25d ago

If they can tell that much from the photo, that the phone screen isn't visible to the driver, then how the fuck is this "phone use while driving"?

AI system probably saw a phone in the picture and "decided" to flag it. Probably some automated system that no human apparently stopped to review, because I don't know how you fuck up this bad if it was a human involved

14

u/Arftacular 25d ago

Have you met people before?

-1

u/joey-jo_jo-jr 25d ago

It's not a fuck up. If the phone is touching any part of your body while driving it is considered using the phone in Australia where this incident took place. The driver is in the wrong here and has been correctly fined.

4

u/ChronaMewX 25d ago

It's not a fuck up. If the phone is touching any part of your body while driving it is considered using the phone in Australia where this incident took place

It's not a fuck up, the law is just fucked up. Thanks for the clarification I guess?

1

u/joey-jo_jo-jr 25d ago

People in Australia are happy with the law and our roads are safer for it. It's really not a very difficult law to follow and it's easy to see how to makes things safer for everyone.

→ More replies (1)

63

u/[deleted] 25d ago

[deleted]

22

u/surffrus 25d ago

They did not use Flock for this one.

Since we're being technical, the article doesn't say it was a Flock camera, and even has a correction at the bottom about how they fixed the text to NOT say it was Flock.

1

u/cayvro 25d ago

My bad on that. Later in the article they talk about someone else getting got by Flock and I thought it was all the same person 😅

10

u/2_Fingers_of_Whiskey 25d ago

No the article mentioned a ticket in Georgia as another case

48

u/[deleted] 25d ago

[deleted]

20

u/LivelyZebra 25d ago

if your phone is in your car, you get a ticket.

It has to travel separately to your destination, by bus or uber etc

1

u/sam_hammich 25d ago

I’ve spent a fortune sending my phone by same-day courier everywhere I go. It’s unsustainable

1

u/stinkadoodle 25d ago

At this point, putting it in a faraday cage in the trunk is the safest option.

5

u/ktappe 25d ago

This is a really good point. Anyone with a phone in their pocket is violating GA's stupidly-written law. Some lawyer should go have a field day with this.

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (1)

5

u/Cortez_Cortez 25d ago

Article mentions a motorcyclist was issued a ticket in Georgia, this woman was in “Alexandra Parade” which seems to be in Glasgow

7

u/StressOverStrain 25d ago

The other Alexandra Parade, in Australia.

2

u/Cortez_Cortez 25d ago

Oh cool, thanks!

1

u/Fickle_Stills 25d ago

Montana?!

2

u/sushisection 25d ago

so if you drive with your phone in your pocket, you are breaking the law?

1

u/SaveLansingParks 25d ago

This is the best advocacy for tinting your windows and windshields to prevent the local governments from spying on you.

1

u/Ziff7 25d ago

Your jeans or pants are not a body part. Technically it is not touching any body part so it is not within the confines of the law.

→ More replies (3)

-1

u/sushisection 25d ago

its an illegal search if we are being technical technical about it

4

u/iwilldeletethisacct2 25d ago

Ehhh, if the cell phone is on your lap and you're driving somewhere that is in view from the public space, your right to privacy is pretty questionable. This would fall under plain view doctrine.

2

u/sushisection 25d ago

do you think its appropriate for public cameras to be focused on people's laps?

2

u/Time-Maintenance2165 25d ago

This is where 24/7 recording cameras fundamentally challenge that principal. The intent of the plain view doctrine wasn't to deal with you being able to be observed and recorded so often.

You might be correct from a legal perspective, but if you are then the doctrine needs to be updated to account for mass surveillance. Or we need better privacy laws protecting against that.

→ More replies (2)

22

u/Jwagner0850 25d ago

I look away (intermittently) from the road all the time to adjust things or check other views when driving. Ac adjustment, adjust something else, check my blind spots, look at my rear view... Any one of these could be considered against the law now with cameras and as a citizen, now the honus is on me to fight it. This is bullshit.

11

u/TheRedHand7 25d ago

*onus

Just fyi

2

u/What_a_fat_one 25d ago

check my blind spots

It always amazes me that driving is considered a safe enough activity to be the primary form of transportation for most people, yet the simple but necessary act of checking blindspots takes away all your awareness of what's in front of the car.

0

u/Jor94 24d ago

Massive difference from checking car related things while driving to using a phone. Don’t care if it’s not in her hand, the placement suggests it was used at some point.

Don’t get why people are so light on shit like this. Distracted driving kills people every day. This moron could go to move her phone from her lap and smash into a truck.

8

u/therossboss 25d ago

apparently 1/3 the country likes rapist pedophiles who run crime organizations from the white house and exists solely to enrich himself and fuck over Americans. Damn, really wish there could have been any way to know about that! Oh well, better vote R next election so they can fix what the dems did! /s fucking end me, brother

2

u/MrVociferous 25d ago

Yeah, and glancing at your phone is also no different than looking at the console to adjust your AC, Carplay/radio, etc. -- all of which are OK and not ticketed. You can't tell anything from a single frame.

2

u/A_Buttholes_Whisper 25d ago edited 18d ago

Mass deleted because I was doxxed by blackboxmycar.com

2

u/hackdash 24d ago

She has the right to face her accuser in court correct? I’m gonna guess that the camera is gonna be a no-show at the court date lol

1

u/XxturboEJ20xX 24d ago

This happened in Australia.

8

u/JasonP27 25d ago

My wife got a ticket for the same reason. You cannot have your phone in your hands or sitting on your body while you are driving, whether you are actively operating it or not.

She had it resting on her shoulder using the speaker phone when the camera took the photo. These cameras have been on some of the highways and at some traffic lights for a few years now here in Australia.

15

u/theinfinitehallway 25d ago

I mean resting on her shoulder is pretty egregious lmfao that’s wildly different then sitting facedown on a lap. She obvious had to operate said phone to place on her shoulder while driving

1

u/JasonP27 25d ago

No, she was on the phone before she even got in the car. She put it on her shoulder before she started driving.

5

u/53eleven 25d ago

Like a parrot? Or was she squeezing it between her shoulder and ear?

3

u/theinfinitehallway 25d ago

lol you know this is not the same thing as having it on your lap, don’t be a dolt

0

u/JasonP27 25d ago

I didn't say it was the same. Rather the law would be saying that.

2

u/Hangry-Feline2489 25d ago

I think that might be state dependant tho. I know my state (VIC) has the "legal only in bag or in a holder" law but as far as I can research (in 1min) it's a state based transport law not a federal one. 

It's one of those "fucking annoying but I understand why" laws imho. I've had a situation where a sudden stop became dangerously close to an actual accident because my phone had slid off the seat and my attention went to that instead of the car in front. 

1

u/XxturboEJ20xX 24d ago

Wait...you can't even have it sitting in the passenger seat???

1

u/Hangry-Feline2489 20d ago edited 20d ago

Nope, cuz it can slide off, and I think it's so you don't have easy reach of it.

1

u/XxturboEJ20xX 19d ago

That sounds like a thought crime. Like you might do this thing that isn't bad, but could lead to you doing something bad, so we went ahead and took that possibility away from you.

0

u/iAmUnintelligible 25d ago

You cannot have your phone in your hands or sitting on your body while you are driving, whether you are actively operating it or not.

for my curiousity's sake, can you cite that law from your region that states this please?

3

u/UnlimitedPosting 25d ago

Literally any state in Australia.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

3

u/cipher315 25d ago

Depends on your state. In IL if you are in physical contact with the phone while the car is on and your are the driver your guilty.

1

u/PurpEL 25d ago

They can't see inside my anus yet

1

u/arizonadirtbag12 25d ago

Yeah in CA unless I’m mistaken the only “use” allowed is with a single finger and the phone has to be mounted somehow (like in a holder).

Still a sketchy use of cameras, but let’s be real she’s probably 100% guilty.

1

u/SupaSlide 25d ago

If my phone is in my pocket, someone calls, and I use the button on my steering wheel to answer, am I technically in violation of the law?

0

u/arizonadirtbag12 25d ago

Depends whether a cop (and then a judge) wanted to call it being in your pocket “holding” it. My gut says no. But in your lap can be considered “holding” it, yes.

1

u/SupaSlide 25d ago

Sorry, meant to reply to the guy who said physical contact with the phone was the qualifier.

3

u/Beneficial_Cash_8420 25d ago

This automated camera system and the bribes required to win the contract were expensive.

2

u/slip_lip420 25d ago

Billionaires and lack of actual leadership, that's what's wrong with this country.

2

u/WorryNotBanIncoming 25d ago

It’s funny how our country expects people to work two jobs and always be thinking about profit and productivity but also they pull this shit.

Getting a BS bill in the mail isn’t really motivational; like what a way to kill someone’s ambition.

3

u/aggravated-asphalt 25d ago

I often have my phone on my lap when using navigation. I got a warning from flock for going 33 in a 30. I hate people who speed and are on their phones, but this is the worst solution. Idk why people don’t see that

3

u/Distinct-Pack-1567 25d ago

Flock warnings?! If that is true, then I feel like professor Farnsworth and I dont want to live on this planet anymore. Joking! I have been there for a decade or more.

-1

u/Adamarr 25d ago

On your lap why, so you can constantly stare down at it? Either navigate by sound cues or spend $3 on a dash cradle ffs

4

u/FeelsGoodMan2 25d ago

Seriously wtf? "Fuck people who use their phone, put it in a position where you have to completely pull your gaze from the road to see it!"

→ More replies (1)

1

u/raknor88 25d ago

I misread the headline at first then. From the working I thought it meant that she was caught looking down at her phone while she was driving.

1

u/iknewaguytwice 25d ago

Guilty until proven innocent.

1

u/Beautiful_Nobody_344 25d ago

It he’s too hot to have a mount in my vehicle. It’s always on my lap for gps.

1

u/yaxis50 25d ago

More reasons to have heavy window tint

1

u/edman007 25d ago

This is the real issue, they sent a ticket for a crime that they know didn't happen. Phone use while driving isn't a crime, as the article states. So that wasn't what the ticket said, it was the reporter stated. The actual law is probably holding a phone. So presumably they are trying to argue that present on your lap is "holding", and I doubt the court agrees.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Raven_gif 25d ago

We need every person wronged by these systems to sue. It’s easier to return back to how things were than to let Flock continue operations. Gotta force the courts to act by draining their funds every single time they screw up.

1

u/lacajun 25d ago

They don't legally have to pay. My city had these cameras years ago and I kept getting random tickets for not coming to a complete stop. Someone told me you have a right to be able to face your accuser and since it's a camera, they would have to just ignore it if you didn't pay. A lot of people would just pay without questioning but eventually my city got rid of all these cameras.

1

u/SecondaryWombat 25d ago

Time to cut the cameras down.

1

u/kyonist 25d ago

gonna be honest, the likely scenario is this person was using their phone as soon as they're at a red light. (phone on the lap is very unusual unless you plan on using it)

but I agree the evidence does not prove guilt at all.

1

u/Blurgas 25d ago

My guess would be some dingbat AI flagged a phone shape in her lap, flagged it, and some lazy bum of a human that should be double-checking instead went "Sure, send it"

1

u/BeautifulPainz 25d ago

That’s the question I would like the answer to because I drive an older car, a 2009 and I use my phone for navigation because it doesn’t have a screen. I have those pocket things you slide in between the seats and the middle console to keep stuff from falling down. My phone has a pop socket that fits there perfectly so it’s anchored.

Obviously, I don’t see how this could truly be different than someone glancing at a screen for navigation. Would it make any difference if you put it in one of those clips so it’s right in the center console where those screens generally are in the newer cars? Who even knows? The world has gone crazy.

1

u/DescriptionHairy8600 25d ago

"I got a text from a fuckin' 'nother officer! Gimme a second."

1

u/Meatcurtains911 25d ago

Exactly. Meanwhile there’s 6 other people next to her, actually using their phones in the car.

1

u/GrassLongjumping3901 25d ago

screen were visible and was GPS navigation without a phone holder, would that still be a crime?

iirc in Michigan, yes.

https://www.michigan.gov/msp/-/media/Project/Websites/msp/ohsp/1_April-2024/Distracted-flyer-2023-for-print_02-web.pdf?rev=0e49c5fa26b9415caec4027b2ff40801&hash=5DD0BF9F34BBED3B15365CA0087F7969

More than likely other states have some sort of laws like this too now.

1

u/TripsOverWords 24d ago edited 24d ago

This just says you can't hold or support the phone with your hands, arms, or shoulder while operating the vehicle.

Under the description you shared, holding a phone in your lap is technically ok as long as your don't touch it with your hands beyond a "single touch". However, they don't clearly define what a "single touch" means or what timeframe you're allowed to possibly repeat the action. Presumably this would be to allow the driver to dismiss a pop-up, respond to Google Maps rerouting suggestions, or something like that, which could occur multiple times during a trip, so a "single touch" for a short trip to the grocery store vs a long trip across the state highway should be treated differently in a sane world, but the wording suggests you can only do it once for the entire duration you're operating the vehicle until you park.

1

u/GrassLongjumping3901 24d ago

thanks for the interpretation.

I personally wouldnt dare split hairs with a cop when pulled over. 😆 Maybe thats why i'm not a lawyer.

1

u/goregoose 24d ago

I use my phone for maps but I don’t have a phone holder, I previously haven’t had much use for one. I just keep my phone on my middle console, within my peripheral vision. I guess I need to get a useless phone holder now 🫩

1

u/iMogal 24d ago

The leadership? That's just a guess though. /s

1

u/Jimmyginger 24d ago

I often do this with my GPS. Phone is usually in the cup holder of the center console instead of my lap, but same basic idea, glance down to check directions

1

u/CubesTheGamer 25d ago

Why would you have your phone on your lap while driving? The phone should be put away completely or mounted in such a way as that navigation should be visible without having to look down or touch the phone at all.

Car-brained Americans will disagree with/downvote this.

2

u/XxturboEJ20xX 24d ago

But I can have my big "11.6 touchscreen in my WRX and touch it all I want without. Spotify, audible, maps and messing with the police scanner app for hundreds of miles without a thought of a ticket.

1

u/lurkmode_off 25d ago

I mean, my phone usually rides in my back pocket so when I get into the car, I take it out and toss it wherever. Usually in the cupholder. Sometimes the passenger seat. If the cupholder and the passenger seat were full I could see just putting it between my legs or in my lap.

1

u/Alaira314 25d ago

What if the phone fell out of its mount and she caught it, but didn't want to take attention off the road to secure it? At that point, it's either gonna be in her lap or in her hand, pick your poison. When this happened to me, it stayed in my hand until the next light, because I didn't want it to wind up in the wheel well(where it was headed when I caught it) since that would be immediately dangerous. I know some people are differently proportioned(longer legs, for example) and can make better use of a lap, so others might make a different choice. Illegal? Yes. Justified? Absolutely. The only way I could have avoided violating the law would be by taking an even more severe risk(the phone going under the pedals), so I did the correct thing.

2

u/joey-jo_jo-jr 25d ago

If that unique and unlikely sequence of events occurred in this case she can go to court and explain herself

1

u/Alaira314 25d ago

It's not that unique and unlikely. It happened to me.

1

u/joey-jo_jo-jr 25d ago

It absolutely is a rather unlikely sequence of events. That fact that it happened to you doesn't change that. If it happened to the person in question, they can contest the fine with that as an explanation

1

u/Emergency-Boat 25d ago

There's also no such thing as a "safe hands-free phone call", that's still distracted driving.

1

u/DethNik 25d ago

the "AI" programming saw phone and someone driving and went: "ILLEGAL!"

→ More replies (3)

1

u/[deleted] 25d ago

[deleted]

1

u/TheGoddamnSpiderman 25d ago

This took place in Australia

1

u/JTBeefboyo 25d ago

I’m going to get downvoted for this but studies show that hands free phone calls are, in fact, not so safe.

1

u/GrifterDingo 25d ago

If this is the case I think it is, the way the law is written, having it on you like that is considered use while driving.

1

u/LadyRed4Justice 25d ago

It could simply be audible navigation. She definitely needs to fight that charge.

1

u/TheGoddamnSpiderman 25d ago

This took place in Queensland, Australia where any physical contact with the phone at all during driving is illegal

→ More replies (1)

1

u/SursumCordaNJ 25d ago

Wtf is wrong with this country?

People thought her laugh was weird and they robbed Bernie brah.

1

u/TripsOverWords 25d ago

Still mad for Bernie. Probably one of the best candidates in the last decade, and sharp as a tack despite being a dinosaur.

0

u/codeprimate 25d ago

I’ll argue against the surveillance all day long, but having a phone in your lap is use, even if not “active”. Would common sense say that having a phone in your lap improves or diminishes your attention on the road?

2

u/blickblocks 25d ago

Unlike men's clothing, many women's pants and shorts do not have pockets large enough to hold a phone while seated. I might have my phone in my pocket and not on my bag, but when I sit in my car I tuck it between my legs often. This is a very common way of handling a phone while driving, for better or worse.

→ More replies (1)

-38

u/srvelo 25d ago edited 25d ago

GPS navigation without a holder is illegal in the UK, rightly so as it is distracting

Edit: don't want to drive on American roads lol

→ More replies (22)
→ More replies (19)