Enforcement of "Hands Free" laws

[MrMCar]

Folks,

 

I'm an infrequent poster (mostly technical stuff) to date. I live in central NJ and the riding season is upon us. I have become increasingly frustrated with the non-enforcement of the "hands free" laws that are a primary offense (violator can be pulled over & ticketed) in my state & many other states.

 

I have been alarmed at just how many times this winter I have had my life threatened by someone either phoning, texting or using an app on their handheld whilst driving. The last one just about put me over the edge, when I realized that if I had been on two wheels I most likely would have been killed.

 

With that said I'm seeking support from those of you that live in NJ to take this to the lawmakers in Trenton and have the police enforce a law that is on the books but just about completely ignored.

 

Don't get me wrong, the police are a busy lot and have much to do. As of the current moment, there is a lot of energy against "distracted driving" and all of the dangers it brings about. They say, "Strike while the iron is hot." Now is a good of a time as any that I've been aware of.

 

I'm willing to put energy into this, but cannot do it alone. I'm seeking the help/support of folks who can give time to get a letter writing campaign with multitudes of signatures to take this to the lawmakers at the state level.

 

Don Fields

MrMCar

 

[BanjoBoy]

I hear ya brotha.

Here in northern California LEO spend million of $$$ we don't have on radar, LIDAR, and all kinds of fancy gadgets when motor cops with binoculars could write all the tickets they want.

I've never understood this obsession with "speeders" when we all know the distracted driver is the most dangerous driver. Distracted drivers cause all the crashes.

[Woodie]

See Oprah. She's been on a big kick about this, getting celebrities (and watchers) to "Take the Pledge".

 

(My wife is big time on this kick too. Something to do with working in the Emergency Dept??)

[motorman587]

I hear ya brotha.

Here in northern California LEO spend million of $$$ we don't have on radar, LIDAR, and all kinds of fancy gadgets when motor cops with binoculars could write all the tickets they want.

I've never understood this obsession with "speeders" when we all know the distracted driver is the most dangerous driver. Distracted drivers cause all the crashes.

 

16 years as a traffic homicide investigator, can not say that I worked a death crash involved with texting/using the cell phone. It was always, early in morning, speed and too much drinking.......just saying.......

[Peter Parts]

Ontario started "hands free" a few months ago which includes zero texting (and ought to include fooling with GPSs).

 

Being Ontario, people are pretty law-abiding and you pretty much never see folks holding their cellphones up their ears. My guess is that half of the previous use has gone to hands free talking. Which means you can't see people on their cellphones and avoid them!

 

But the evidence is clear that it makes no difference in the homicidal impact hands-on or hands-free.

 

While I rarely say the world is going to hell-in-a-handbasket, I do think the introduction of cellphones is a major risk for bikers. The most optimism I can generate is to think people will adapt to talking-and-driving. Not too convinced, given the basic channel capacity limits of brains.

 

Funny, the streets are filled with numskull pedestrians talking on cells.

 

 

New oil, valves (no change, once again), new Odyssey battery (every 5 yrs unless you are a risk taker since they don't signal impending failure), new alternator belt... all set for spring in Toronto, in a month or two.

[Beemer_Nancy]

Well we've had some local enforcement: "Torrance police issue 41 cell phone citations in 70 minutes" but haven't seen anything by CHP.

 

Easy money for the CA coffers.

[upflying]

I write every hands free violator I see. Each one is a $156 fine for the bankrupt Ca state budget.

Some violators getting are pretty defensive though. The chronic violators tint their side windows dark, hold the CF in their right hand, wear a "hoodie" over their head and conceal their hand and CF with long hair. Night enforcement is just about impossible. The LCD glow of the dial is about the only thing you might see.

Texting enforcement is dang near impossible. A clue is when drivers are looking at their lap while driving. I've only caught one so far, stopped at a red light, thumbing away on her lap. Only way I could see it was from the high perch of a motorcycle. Car cops can't see laps.

Man violators will also deny holding a CF. Some claim they were holding an iPod to their ear or they were just scratching their ear.

Lot's of violators ask me how much the fine is. I reply, "it would have been cheaper to buy a Blue Tooth".

Investigated a rear ender crash yesterday in commute traffic. Splashed Starbux coffee in the bullet car means the driver was distracted with sucking on the coffee. Cell Fones is not the only cause of distracted driving.

I will also add that in any fatal accident a search of the driver's cell phone activity will be conducted as part of the investigation.

[RPG]

Distracted drivers cause most of the accidents but how many more laws do we need to force people to be smart and focus on their driving?

 

More laws are rarely if ever the answer. Instead, how many distracted drivers were sent away for a long, long time when they killed the poor motoryclist just out for a spin? In MI, rarely.

 

I feel your pain and get ticked off when I see a soccer mom doing her makeup, but a law telling her not to do it doesn't go to the root cause, which is some people are just plain dumb!

 

More cops peering into our lives to observe behavior (Government does too much of that anyway) is not the answer, BUT it does help fill the coffers so we can expect more laws in this area.

 

RPG

[MrMCar]

I understand your stance against "big brother" and believe me, I'm in the same camp.

However I'm talking about a law that is already on the books in NJ, and goes on un-enforced. If I can save ONE cyclist's life, perhaps my own? I'm going to do it.

 

 

 

Don Fields

MrMCar

95 K 1100 LT

02 R1150 RT

[moshe_levy]

Hey Don-

 

I'm in Central NJ too. I'm with you, but before expending too much effort... Take a look at the LEOs themselves. I seriously cannot remember the last time I saw one driving who was NOT talking on a cell phone. I commute all the way up the NJTP a few times per week, so I see a few State Troopers per trip. Send a bad message when the ones who are supposed to be enforcing the law are violating it themselves.

 

It's a sad thing when so many people are so self absorbed that they feel their gabbing is more important than the safety of others around them. I'm willing to help with what limited time I have.

 

-MKL

[upflying]

Hey Don-

 

I'm in Central NJ too. I'm with you, but before expending too much effort... Take a look at the LEOs themselves. I seriously cannot remember the last time I saw one driving who was NOT talking on a cell phone. I commute all the way up the NJTP a few times per week, so I see a few State Troopers per trip. Send a bad message when the ones who are supposed to be enforcing the law are violating it themselves.

 

It's a sad thing when so many people are so self absorbed that they feel their gabbing is more important than the safety of others around them. I'm willing to help with what limited time I have.

 

-MKL

Don't know about NJ law, but California law allows on-duty LEO's to hold and use a cell phone while driving. I've actually had some violators complain about the hypocrisy. They can't understand why LEO's are exempt. Could be an exemption in New Jersey law too.

BTW, truckers operating vehicles over 26,000 lbs can also hold a cell phone while driving. The only criteria is that it must be a "push to talk" type of the Sprint variety.

Why are truckers and LEO's exempt? Lobbyists.

[motorman587]

Distracted drivers cause most of the accidents but how many more laws do we need to force people to be smart and focus on their driving?

 

More laws are rarely if ever the answer. Instead, how many distracted drivers were sent away for a long, long time when they killed the poor motoryclist just out for a spin? In MI, rarely.

 

I feel your pain and get ticked off when I see a soccer mom doing her makeup, but a law telling her not to do it doesn't go to the root cause, which is some people are just plain dumb!

 

More cops peering into our lives to observe behavior (Government does too much of that anyway) is not the answer, BUT it does help fill the coffers so we can expect more laws in this area.

 

RPG

 

I totally agree. More laws is not the answer, can barely remember the once on the books as it is. What I would do is that knowing those type people are out there and attempt to drive for them. Meaning give yourself space to avoid such drivers and do as much training as possible to be the best trained rider there is. That is were I would put my energy. And to end my point, look at all the laws on sexual offenders?? And they still kidnap, molester, and kill. Does that mean I keep my kids on the house?? Wish I could, but all I can do is educate my children and pray for the best.

[BailyD]

New Jersey guys, I've tried to make an effort to curb this problem, but there are some mistakes in the statute. I sent a letter to an officical in order to help bring this to light.

 

Here is part of it:

 

Sir,

 

I am writing this correspondence in regard to several observations I have made of the "Cellular Phone" and "Unclear Plates" statutes.

 

Cell Phone Statute:

 

I am an avid supporter of the cell phone statute and have seen first hand the results of drivers improperly using their various electronic devices while driving. Being a staunch supporter of this statute I have found myself appearing in our court in front of Judge XXXXXXXXXXXX. Learning from my court experiences and carefully reading the current Cell Phone statute I have come to the conclusion that several problems may exist in it's current wording.

 

Use of hands free wireless telephone in moving vehicle 39:4-97.3

 

1. a. 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........etc.

 

This overall wording does not take into account any and all vehicles stopped on the highways at various points of travel such as: waiting at traffic signals, on ramps, off ramps, traffic signs, heavy congestion etc. This wording specifically allows drivers to text or use their wireless devices while "operating" their vehicles. This does little to discourage drivers allowing a "technical" distinction between operating their vehicles or operating "moving" vehicles. This will still allow for collisions at intersections between stopped cars and or pedestrians crossing the roadways and at a minimum causes an annoyance to waiting drivers in the rear of traffic queues.

 

 

The next two sections of the statute cover the definition of "use" as to what is illegal and "use" as to what is acceptable.

 

"Use" of a wireless telephone or electronic communication device shall include, but not be limited to, talking or listening to another person on the telephone, text messaging, or sending an electronic message via the wireless telephone or electronic communication device.

 

provided, however, this definition shall not preclude the use of either hand to activate, deactivate, or initiate a function of the telephone.

 

 

The problem associated with these two different messages is that it gives a legal allowance for the use of the hands free device when turning on or initiating the function of the phone. What I have discovered is that nearly ALL persons stopped for the appearance of "texting" are stating they were "dialing" their phones. Any person who purports to be dialing, turning on or activating a function of their phone is NOT acting outside of the legal use of their device. It is virtually impossible for a police officer to distinguish between "texting or sending electronic communications" vs. "dialing or activating a function".

 

The most important and dangerous part of the cell phone statute cannot be enforced, regardless of whether or not the vehicle is moving since allowances are made for dialing or activating while moving. The wording of the statute appears to be fatally flawed.

 

_________________________________________________________________

 

As for the Police, feel free to write down their car numbers/City and report them. I will NOT use mine w/o my bluetooth while operating. I actually prefer to pull over and have the converstaion out of traffic.

 

As for fatal crashes, I've had ONE where the cell phone was the singular cause (other than the failure to maintain lanes, WHILE talking on the cell phone)

 

We are trying, but it's like holding back the tide. More guys need to get on board. As someone who is constantly watching traffic and vehicle actions I fully support these statutes (when written correctly). These observations are my opinion only.

[moshe_levy]

Baily-

 

Very illuminating. If your quotes from the statutes are accurate, it is surely a pathetic state of affairs and essentially hamstrings the police from being able to crack down. Yet another reason to detest this state's politicians.

 

-MKL

[KDeline]

LEO's do a lot more then that. See the big lap top sitting the front seat?

[motorman587]

LEO's do a lot more then that. See the big lap top sitting the front seat?

 

Does that mean I have to pull over to use the Motorola too?? lol

[roughwaterjohn]

..... The chronic violators tint their side windows dark, .......

 

At least you've got 26708.5 right?

 

I think we're all missing the point here. With all these drivers using cell phones, can't we just call ahead and ask them to watch for us?

[Beemer_Nancy]

..... The chronic violators tint their side windows dark, .......

 

At least you've got 26708.5 right?

 

I think we're all missing the point here. With all these drivers using cell phones, can't we just call ahead and ask them to watch for us?

 

Ohhhh, John I really like that idea. Just like a fire engine can automatically change traffic lights (I think) my phone should put out an alarm to all the drivers in the left lanes of the 405 telling them I'm coming up between them, move over! Great idea.

[FLrider]

 

16 years as a traffic homicide investigator, can not say that I worked a death crash involved with texting/using the cell phone. It was always, early in morning, speed and too much drinking.......just saying.......

 

How do you know? I mean, how do you know that the driver that caused the crash wasn't on the phone? Did you confiscate the phone and compare the time of incoming/outgoing phone calls/ texts/ to the estimated time of the accident?

 

Do you really think they are going to volunteer that they were distracted?

[BailyD]

Baily-

 

Very illuminating. If your quotes from the statutes are accurate, it is surely a pathetic state of affairs and essentially hamstrings the police from being able to crack down. Yet another reason to detest this state's politicians.

 

-MKL

 

 

You got one part right on!........It surely is a pathetic "State".

 

How about someone in Traffic Enforcement read their statutes before they pump them out? That blunder was GLOWING.

[EddyQ]

What ever happeded to black boxes in cars? Does anyone read the data after a crash? Is it the right data? Track down the phone company phone usage and link the two. I think soon if not now, the data is all there. Don't ask the guy (or gal) if she was on the phone unless you want to catch a lie. Maybe it is too late . .

 

It should be possible to track an individual using a cell phone if you had access to the phone company data. Perhaps a system should be put in place to help LEO's catch the buggers.

 

The only way to stop it is through enforcement. Laws are no good if you cannot catch them.

[motorman587]

 

16 years as a traffic homicide investigator, can not say that I worked a death crash involved with texting/using the cell phone. It was always, early in morning, speed and too much drinking.......just saying.......

 

How do you know? I mean, how do you know that the driver that caused the crash wasn't on the phone? Did you confiscate the phone and compare the time of incoming/outgoing phone calls/ texts/ to the estimated time of the accident?

 

Do you really think they are going to volunteer that they were distracted?

 

How do I know, that is good question?? You can subpoena the phone company, but that would be done only in a criminal crash with a death. I.e. DUI manslaughter. Then you would need some sort of probable cause to get that subpoena from judge, stating why you thought that person was on the phone, which may contribute to the crash. But if I was working a DUI manslaughter case I would focus on the evidence on the DUI part. Even if I got the subpoena and it showed a time when the phone was in use, how someone would compare the call time was made to the time of crash. Usually in crash, a serious crash there would be multiple 911 calls. Even if you use the first call there is a delay in the 911 calls, so I could see “reasonable doubt” that person was using the phone at the time of the crash. Then someone could argue that the phone was on speaker (hands free) and it was on the passenger seat………….again would spend my energy on training.

[motorman587]

What ever happeded to black boxes in cars? Does anyone read the data after a crash? Is it the right data? Track down the phone company phone usage and link the two. I think soon if not now, the data is all there. Don't ask the guy (or gal) if she was on the phone unless you want to catch a lie. Maybe it is too late . .

 

It should be possible to track an individual using a cell phone if you had access to the phone company data. Perhaps a system should be put in place to help LEO's catch the buggers.

 

The only way to stop it is through enforcement. Laws are no good if you cannot catch them.

 

The black boxes in vehicles are protected and LEOs in Florida need to get a subpoena to read those. In my experience with black boxes you need a special equipment to read them. Each make as their own data collection. Usually the information obtain from the box comes in a formal data and you need some sort mathematic degree to read them. There are only of number of LEOs in the state that can read and testify in court. I remember working a crash with Mercedes Benz and they had to send a specialist from the company to remove and read the box. The only information I was able to get was who was and who wasn’t wearing a seatbelt in the car. No information was given on speed. So I was told…. The information was handed over to State Attorney's office.

[Dietrich]

Living in Ontario with new "handsfree" laws, made me adjust my "Crackberry" habits. Bluetooth helps. But let's be honest, by having both hands on the steeringwheel now but with my brain still being disengaged from what's happening around me while talking on the phone, I am still not paying attention as I should. Taking this further to us riding motorcycles, which in my opinion needs even more attention and alertness, the use of a cell phone while riding is absolutely insane (IMHO). Use the bike ride to get away from it all, leave the phone in the tankbag. Check for messages when you stop for a break. The sun is still going to rise in the east even if you don't answer that all important call. GPS is just as distracting, having it piped into your earphones is not a great solution either. And in many cases we know where we are going anyways but are just fascinated by the technology. Not saying that GPS isn't helpful in finding places but use it with discretion.

Ride safely everyone.

[BailyD]

Any GM product, Chrysler/Dodge and Ford (and some others) all have easy access to their records stored in their computers. (A new law has been passes and should be taking effect now/soon, standardizing the way the data is recorded). GM has 5 seconds PRE-crash/airbag deployment OR near deployment. I believe Dodge is about 8 seconds and Ford (our Crown Vic has 20 seconds, recording 5x's a second).

 

They show speed, engine RPM, throttle position, brakes on/off and whether seatbelt was on. They can also show the deltaV or change in velocity over time via a graph.

 

The police can access via the OBDII port under your dash (usually) or directly from the recorder itself once removed. A SEARCH WARRANT from a Superior Court Judge is required or a consent to search from the owner.

 

They are accurate, taking into account gear size, tire size or any changes to the drive train post preduction. It has passed legal challenges and can be used in NJ.

 

I tell our guys all the time to be aware of their driving. It's not their car and they have NO expectation of privacy if the department wants to download should a record have been made. There was a big criminal case involving a NJ State Trooper where the Prosecutor used the box against him. Upper Township NJ, double teenage fatal (sisters).

 

These inquiries can be viewed as intrusive and may be done for any case which is considered serious, ie: fatal non-criminal, fatal criminal, criminal assault, assault w/vehicle etc...

[BailyD]

Living in Ontario with new "handsfree" laws, made me adjust my "Crackberry" habits. Bluetooth helps. But let's be honest, by having both hands on the steeringwheel now but with my brain still being disengaged from what's happening around me while talking on the phone, I am still not paying attention as I should. Taking this further to us riding motorcycles, which in my opinion needs even more attention and alertness, the use of a cell phone while riding is absolutely insane (IMHO). Use the bike ride to get away from it all, leave the phone in the tankbag. Check for messages when you stop for a break. The sun is still going to rise in the east even if you don't answer that all important call. GPS is just as distracting, having it piped into your earphones is not a great solution either. And in many cases we know where we are going anyways but are just fascinated by the technology. Not saying that GPS isn't helpful in finding places but use it with discretion.

Ride safely everyone.

 

So you are indicating there should be no phone use at ALL. : )

[Peter Parts]

Living in Ontario with new "handsfree" laws, made me adjust my "Crackberry" habits. Bluetooth helps. But let's be honest, by having both hands on the steeringwheel now but with my brain still being disengaged from what's happening around me while talking on the phone, I am still not paying attention as I should. Taking this further to us riding motorcycles, which in my opinion needs even more attention and alertness, the use of a cell phone while riding is absolutely insane (IMHO). Use the bike ride to get away from it all, leave the phone in the tankbag. Check for messages when you stop for a break. The sun is still going to rise in the east even if you don't answer that all important call. GPS is just as distracting, having it piped into your earphones is not a great solution either. And in many cases we know where we are going anyways but are just fascinated by the technology. Not saying that GPS isn't helpful in finding places but use it with discretion.

Ride safely everyone.

 

So you are indicating there should be no phone use at ALL. : )

 

Unless you are a Tibetan monk or like living in a cave you'd know that a mountain of well-conducted research routinely aired in the news points to the conclusion that talking on the phone is comparable to driving drunk and hands-free makes no difference.

 

Legislators know this perfectly well but are simply too cowardly to enact the needed laws.

 

When I see somebody on a cellphone driving, I say to myself, "there's somebody who is willing to kill a biker."

 

Learned footnote: yes, there are studies which reviewed cellphone records to match against time of accidents.

[David]

I'm with Peter.

 

And this group of gadget-using bikers hardly contains a poster child for an anti-distracted-driver campaign.

[upflying]

What ever happeded to black boxes in cars? Does anyone read the data after a crash? Is it the right data? Track down the phone company phone usage and link the two. I think soon if not now, the data is all there. Don't ask the guy (or gal) if she was on the phone unless you want to catch a lie. Maybe it is too late . .

 

It should be possible to track an individual using a cell phone if you had access to the phone company data. Perhaps a system should be put in place to help LEO's catch the buggers.

 

The only way to stop it is through enforcement. Laws are no good if you cannot catch them.

 

The black boxes in vehicles are protected and LEOs in Florida need to get a subpoena to read those. In my experience with black boxes you need a special equipment to read them. Each make as their own data collection. Usually the information obtain from the box comes in a formal data and you need some sort mathematic degree to read them. There are only of number of LEOs in the state that can read and testify in court. I remember working a crash with Mercedes Benz and they had to send a specialist from the company to remove and read the box. The only information I was able to get was who was and who wasn’t wearing a seatbelt in the car. No information was given on speed. So I was told…. The information was handed over to State Attorney's office.

 

Here is the black box retreival system.

http://www.cdr-system.com/

It's a $4,000 system, money well spent by larger LEO agencies.

In any fatal accident, the involved vehicles are impounded as evidence in a secure police facility. As part of a routine fatal investigation, a search warrant is obtained to search the Collision data Recorder in the vehicle for pre-crash telemetry. This data is used in conjunction with other physical evidence to conclude what occurred. Search warrants are also obtained for the cell phone records of the involved drivers. If a cell phone turns up after a search of the driver or vehicle, that's all the probable cause you need to get a warrant to search the phone records.

The vehicles are a crime scene and a phone is part of that scene.

[motorman587]

What ever happeded to black boxes in cars? Does anyone read the data after a crash? Is it the right data? Track down the phone company phone usage and link the two. I think soon if not now, the data is all there. Don't ask the guy (or gal) if she was on the phone unless you want to catch a lie. Maybe it is too late . .

 

It should be possible to track an individual using a cell phone if you had access to the phone company data. Perhaps a system should be put in place to help LEO's catch the buggers.

 

The only way to stop it is through enforcement. Laws are no good if you cannot catch them.

 

The black boxes in vehicles are protected and LEOs in Florida need to get a subpoena to read those. In my experience with black boxes you need a special equipment to read them. Each make as their own data collection. Usually the information obtain from the box comes in a formal data and you need some sort mathematic degree to read them. There are only of number of LEOs in the state that can read and testify in court. I remember working a crash with Mercedes Benz and they had to send a specialist from the company to remove and read the box. The only information I was able to get was who was and who wasn’t wearing a seatbelt in the car. No information was given on speed. So I was told…. The information was handed over to State Attorney's office.

 

Here is the black box retreival system.

http://www.cdr-system.com/

It's a $4,000 system, money well spent by larger LEO agencies.

In any fatal accident, the involved vehicles are impounded as evidence in a secure police facility. As part of a routine fatal investigation, a search warrant is obtained to search the Collision data Recorder in the vehicle for pre-crash telemetry. This data is used in conjunction with other physical evidence to conclude what occurred. Search warrants are also obtained for the cell phone records of the involved drivers. If a cell phone turns up after a search of the driver or vehicle, that's all the probable cause you need to get a warrant to search the phone records.

The vehicles are a crime scene and a phone is part of that scene.

 

Thanks for the link. I sent it to our traffic guys, my old unit........