Texting at a red light or stop sign

IIRC, in NYC you will get a ticket for texting even if you are stopped at a red light.

It's unenforceable because of the sheer number of violators and the reality of circumstances. For example, the idiots that drive 70 mph on the highway and are texting as they go are very unlikely to ever be caught or stopped by a cop. And just ask yourself: How many people have you seen talking on the phone while driving around local streets? And how many have you ever seen pulled over? 

For decades, I lived across the street from an elementary school, and I frequently saw parents cruising around while talking or texting. Never did I see a cop. Not once. And this was on the school block!

mikescott said:

Actually, so many people make it so obvious, not sure why you think it is unenforceable.  If I see the person with a phone in their hand, I am sure the police do as well.  

and if the police pulls them over, it is easy enough to check the time on text messages or phone calls to confirm.  

unicorn33 said:

A large part of the problem is that the law is simply unenforceable. Your chances of being caught and ticketed for texting or talking on your cell phone are very small, which is why so many people do it even though they know they shouldn't. The only useful solution would be some sort of technological preventive system that keeps drivers from using their phone while the car is in motion.

marylago said:

The issue is that it's only a fine. There are no points attached, even for second and third offenses. You start issuing points for it, you'll see a decrease...

Doubt it.  People are self-absorbed and stupid.  They can't help themselves. 

alias said:

I believe it is lawful to text while stopped.

Text from the first paragraph of NJSA 39:4-97.3 (Emphasis mine) "The use of a wireless telephone or electronic communication device by an operator of a moving motor vehicle on a public road or highway shall be unlawful except when the telephone is a hands-free wireless telephone or the electronic communication device is used hands-free, provided that its placement does not interfere with the operation of federally required safety equipment and the operator exercises a high degree of caution in the operation of the motor vehicle.  For the purposes of this section, an “electronic communication device” shall not include an amateur radio."

I think they could easily get you on the "high degree of caution" bit.  You're clearly not exercising that if you're oblivious to the road and what's going on around you while texting.  

http://www.motoring.com.au/cop...

New York State law-makers are rushing to pass legislation to allow its police forces to start using road side textalysers in a bid to cut down on distracted driving.

The technology that detects texting behind the wheel has already been developed by Israeli-based company Cellebrite and uses roadside devices that are claimed to be able to detect whether or not your mobile phone is actively sending text messages.

Cellebrite isn’t the only company that has developed the mobile phone hacking tech but is well-placed to win the contract after helping the FBI break into an iPhone when it was investigating the recent San Bernardino shooting massacre.

Standing in the way of the traffic cops gaining the power to begin using textalysers are strict privacy laws.

Countering this argument, Cellebrite claims their devices won’t actually be able to read the content of the messages, nor will it be able to read the contact the messages are being sent to.

Cellebrite also says its textalyser could also help cops investigate traffic accidents as it can also detect whether the handset was being used in the moments leading up to a crash.

In the future, campaigners against distracted driving hope routine traffic stops will see cops asking for both your licence and mobile phone when you’ve been pulled over. A quick scan of your phone will then determine if the phone has been used on the move.

The lobby groups hope refusal to handover your phone would result in your licence being instantly revoked.

In the US, it’s been reported that eight people die every day as the result of distracted driving.

Back in Australia, meanwhile, a terrifying study conducted back in 2012 found 93 per cent of drivers confessed to using a phone, operating a satnav, eating and drinking or even applying makeup while driving.

ctrzaska said:

alias said:

I believe it is lawful to text while stopped.

Text from the first paragraph of NJSA 39:4-97.3 (Emphasis mine) "The use of a wireless telephone or electronic communication device by an operator of a moving motor vehicle on a public road or highway shall be unlawful except when the telephone is a hands-free wireless telephone or the electronic communication device is used hands-free, provided that its placement does not interfere with the operation of federally required safety equipment and the operator exercises a high degree of caution in the operation of the motor vehicle.  For the purposes of this section, an “electronic communication device” shall not include an amateur radio."

I think they could easily get you on the "high degree of caution" bit.  You're clearly not exercising that if you're oblivious to the road and what's going on around you while texting.  

I believe the "high degree of caution" bit describes the permissible limits of the use of a hands free device, but that is only relevant to this law if the motor vehicle is moving.

This, a thousand times this!!!

marylago said:

The issue is that it's only a fine. There are no points attached, even for second and third offenses. You start issuing points for it, you'll see a decrease...

In my experience, highway texters tend to drive under the speed limit, creating dangerous conditions for drivers who are actually driving their cars and not glued to their cell phones.

unicorn33 said:

It's unenforceable because of the sheer number of violators and the reality of circumstances. For example, the idiots that drive 70 mph on the highway and are texting as they go are very unlikely to ever be caught or stopped by a cop. And just ask yourself: How many people have you seen talking on the phone while driving around local streets? And how many have you ever seen pulled over? 

For decades, I lived across the street from an elementary school, and I frequently saw parents cruising around while talking or texting. Never did I see a cop. Not once. And this was on the school block!

mikescott said:

Actually, so many people make it so obvious, not sure why you think it is unenforceable.  If I see the person with a phone in their hand, I am sure the police do as well.  

and if the police pulls them over, it is easy enough to check the time on text messages or phone calls to confirm.  

unicorn33 said:

A large part of the problem is that the law is simply unenforceable. Your chances of being caught and ticketed for texting or talking on your cell phone are very small, which is why so many people do it even though they know they shouldn't. The only useful solution would be some sort of technological preventive system that keeps drivers from using their phone while the car is in motion.

ElizMcCord said:

To play devil's advocate, I don't believe the law allows for the officer to search your phone without a warrant, to determine what you were doing, regardless of whether you're guilty of texting and driving. I think your records can be subpoenad if you fight your ticket in court, but I think you can decline to show the phone. Fwiw I'm against texting while driving, but I'd never hand over my phone.  

mikescott said:

Actually, so many people make it so obvious, not sure why you think it is unenforceable.  If I see the person with a phone in their hand, I am sure the police do as well.  

and if the police pulls them over, it is easy enough to check the time on text messages or phone calls to confirm.  

To play devil's advocate:

Cop sees me, in a motor vehicle, with a cell phone to my ear: pulls me over; gets my license, registration and insurance card. Does the Cop have a reasonable basis of suspicion that an offense has been committed?

If yes; does that reasonable basis of suspicion allow the Cop to request/demand that I produce the cell phone for inspection?

If I decline, and the Cop writes me up: why would the Prosecutor need a subpoena?

(Think in practical terms.) Absent objective extrinsic evidence; how do you think the Judge is going to rule if the Cop testifies I was on the phone; and I say I wasn't?

TomR

P.s., I readily admid that I have no idea whether the standards for a toss, change on the offense/crime dichotomy.

Sounds like unlawful surveillance (or something similar) to me.  Good luck in court Cellebrite.

richiekess said:

http://www.motoring.com.au/cop...

New York State law-makers are rushing to pass legislation to allow its police forces to start using road side textalysers in a bid to cut down on distracted driving.

The technology that detects texting behind the wheel has already been developed by Israeli-based company Cellebrite and uses roadside devices that are claimed to be able to detect whether or not your mobile phone is actively sending text messages.

Cellebrite isn’t the only company that has developed the mobile phone hacking tech but is well-placed to win the contract after helping the FBI break into an iPhone when it was investigating the recent San Bernardino shooting massacre.

Standing in the way of the traffic cops gaining the power to begin using textalysers are strict privacy laws.

Countering this argument, Cellebrite claims their devices won’t actually be able to read the content of the messages, nor will it be able to read the contact the messages are being sent to.

Cellebrite also says its textalyser could also help cops investigate traffic accidents as it can also detect whether the handset was being used in the moments leading up to a crash.

In the future, campaigners against distracted driving hope routine traffic stops will see cops asking for both your licence and mobile phone when you’ve been pulled over. A quick scan of your phone will then determine if the phone has been used on the move.

The lobby groups hope refusal to handover your phone would result in your licence being instantly revoked.

In the US, it’s been reported that eight people die every day as the result of distracted driving.

Back in Australia, meanwhile, a terrifying study conducted back in 2012 found 93 per cent of drivers confessed to using a phone, operating a satnav, eating and drinking or even applying makeup while driving.

The police do not need to see your phone history to convict you of a violation. 

I know a young man who was pulled over at night in Montclair while allegedly using a cell phone. The young man produced the phone records in court to show that he wasn't (I also believe him) and the police/judge determined "How do we know those are the records for the only phone you may have, -guilty".

In other words, -the officer's word about what he claims he saw were enough to convict.

A police officer told me a car is considered in motion if the engine is on -- even at a parking space and texting or using your phone without a hands free device is illegal at stop signs and red lights.  

I don't doubt your experience.

But if upheld by the court I find that an odd defination of "In motion."

I can't understand how public safety is served by prohibiting one from texting in a parked car that has the engine running.  (For the sake of this argument lets leave alone any idling engine law.)  It seems public safety would be served if a law allowed one to text via hand when parked as it might alleviate some texting while driving.  But this is NJ and I am easily baffled by some laws.

As an aside I was in traffic court in Jersey City last year and overhead a defendant speak with the prosecutor before court.  He asserted he wasn't moving at the time of the incident.  The Prosecutor responded if that is his position they will go to trial and bring in the Officer and both can testify as to if the car was moving.  The defendant pleaded guilty and paid the fine.  I mention this because the Prosecutor did not assert that the vehicle is considered "In motion" if the engine is running which might have been an easier slam dunk to persuading a guilty plea.

mikescott said:

A police officer told me a car is considered in motion if the engine is on -- even at a parking space and texting or using your phone without a hands free device is illegal at stop signs and red lights.  

mikescott said:

A police officer told me a car is considered in motion if the engine is on -- even at a parking space and texting or using your phone without a hands free device is illegal at stop signs and red lights.