Tempted to take a photo of another driver behaving badly? Resist the urge - San Jose Mercury News

[Bob Shanteau]

A lot of us use helmet cams, so the part about snapping a picture while
driving being illegal does not apply, but the part about police not
being able to issue a citation for an infraction based on photographic
evidence does.

Bob Shanteau

---
<http://www.mercurynews.com/traffic/ci_20729175/tempted-take-photo-another-driver-behaving-badly-resist>
By Gary Richards <gric...@mercurynews.com>
Posted: 05/28/2012 06:42:08 PM PDT
Updated: 05/29/2012 05:01:57 AM PDT

A driver cuts you off, flips trash out the window or cheats in the
carpool lane. How do you report this scofflaw?

If you're like a growing number of drivers, you may be tempted to pull
out your cellphone and take a picture or video to send to the police in
hopes of getting a ticket issued. But if the cops see you doing this,
you may be the one who gets in trouble.

Using your phone to take a picture while driving is illegal, like any
other use of a handheld phone, and police will not issue tickets for
violations they don't witness.

Police and safety officials say drivers snapping pictures of others is
unsafe and could lead to dangerous road-rage incidents. That is what
happened May 20 and resulted in the beating of a motorist on Highway 101
who caused a crash after losing control while videotaping motorcyclists
near Ralston Avenue in Belmont.

"Their heart is in the right place," CHP Officer Art Montiel said of
drivers who snap photos of lawbreakers. "I feel the same way when
traveling in my personal vehicle.

"Unfortunately, in order for a motorist to be cited for an infraction,
it would have to be witnessed by an officer. No, I don't mean witnessed
via video or digital camera, but live."

The recent incident on 101 remains under investigation, and the CHP says
it hasn't determined why a 19-year-old Prius driver was using his
cellphone to videotape a group of motorcyclists shortly after 8 a.m.
that Sunday.

He was in the No. 3 lane when traffic ahead slowed and he swerved into
another lane, losing control of his car. The driver, who remains
unidentified, veered into the center divider and hit one rider. The car
then bounced back across two lanes and hit another. Two other
motorcyclists were injured in an ensuing pileup. All injuries were minor.

After the crash, some of the angry riders hit the Prius driver in the
head and threatened him with a knife.

"There is no specific reason at this time to why the driver of the Prius
was videotaping the riders, as well as why the confrontation
afterwards," Montiel said. "However, this shows exactly how dangerous it
can be to drive a motor vehicle while not paying attention to the road
ahead."

But the urge to snap photos can be hard to resist. Mike Bauer was
incensed as he drove around 70 mph in the toll lane on Interstate 680
recently. On his rear roared a driver in a large SUV, pushing him to go
faster.

"I was so mad, and I see this all the time," Bauer said. "So I got out
of the carpool lane and as he blasted by me I took his photo. Got his
license plate number."

John Gordon took a photo of a car with a GPS placed almost directly in
front of the driver's eyes. Laurie Coleman photographed carpool cheats
on Highway 85. A woman named Erika, who didn't want her full name used,
grabbed her cellphone and photographed a car from which a woman flipped
her cigarette out the window at a red light near Stanford.

"I did not have the nerve to get out of the car and give it back to
her," Erika said. "Though my heart wanted to do it, my gut said not to."

Instead she sent the photo to the Mercury News, hoping it would be
passed on to police and the litterbug would at least get a verbal
lashing from traffic cops.

The CHP may send a letter to some offending drivers who repeatedly are
seen violating traffic laws. But, CHP Officer Steve Creel said, snapping
a photo to identify a violator could lead to a confrontation with that
person. "Many highway violence incidents have been triggered by much
less provocation than an attempted taking of a photo," he said.

Dee DeVincenzi, of Hayward, has the right idea. Her pet peeve is the
number of solo drivers who use carpool lanes at onramps to beat traffic.

"We patiently sit in these lines day in and day out watching the
single-occupancy drivers speeding through the HOV lanes and sometimes
even ignoring the red meter lights," she said. "Well, I've decided I
would stop fuming and start recording the type of car, etc. Where and to
whom do I send this information?"

If the CHP can positively identify the registered owner of the vehicle,
Creel says it will make contact with that person and report the nature
of the complaint.

"There are varying degrees of success on these notifications," he said,
"but having the CHP make contact eliminates the potential trouble that
could be set in motion by trying your own policing."

But with traffic congestion mounting, police traffic units being reduced
and cellphones owned by everyone from new teen drivers to senior
citizens, the snapping of photos is only likely to rise.

"We can't control the actions of other drivers who feel that it is OK to
violate the law," said Sgt. Tom Rodrigues, of the Alameda County
Sheriff's Office. "I only see the problems getting worse."

Contact Gary Richards at 408-920-5335.
---
Keep your mind on driving

It is illegal to use a cellphone to take photos or video while driving.
Infractions or misdemeanor offenses must be witnessed by an officer for
a ticket to be issued.
If it is a serious offense, dial 911.
If you witness a nonemergency event, make note of the details, and call
800-TELL-CHP later.
---

[Mark Nockleby]

Is there a vehicle code that explicitly bans taking photos? CVC
23123-23125 prohibit non-wireless phone use and texting.

-mark.

On May 29, 12:10 pm, Bob Shanteau <rmsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A lot of us use helmet cams, so the part about snapping a picture while
> driving being illegal does not apply, but the part about police not
> being able to issue a citation for an infraction based on photographic
> evidence does.
>
> Bob Shanteau
>
> ---

> <http://www.mercurynews.com/traffic/ci_20729175/tempted-take-photo-ano...>

[Pa...@enet.com]

No.

I don't think so.

While I can't claim to be an expert on every aspect of the CVC, there's
nothing whatsoever in Mr Roadshow's column which suggests photography with
a _camera_ while driving is illegal, nor no reason from past history to
suggest that legislators would have had any reason to in act a narrowly
focused law like that.

Roadshow's focus (pun NOT intended) is on the illegality of using cell
phones to take photos...as the law currently targets hand-held cell phone
use as illegal...and doesn't differentiate whether using it for talking or
for taking photos, to the best of my knowledge.

...as well as the INADVISABILITY of taking photos of other drivers, since
that could provoke road-rage.

Paul Wendt



Mark Nockleby
<nockleby@nockleb
east.net> To
Sent by: CABOforum
caboforum@googleg <cabo...@googlegroups.com>
roups.com cc

Subject
05/29/2012 11:00 [CABOforum] Re: Tempted to take a
AM photo of another driver behaving
badly? Resist the urge - San Jose
Mercury News
Please respond to
nockleby@nocklebe
ast.net

--

[Bob Shanteau]

On 5/29/2012 5:10 PM, Pa...@enet.com wrote:
> Roadshow's focus (pun NOT intended) is on the illegality of using cell
> phones to take photos...as the law currently targets hand-held cell phone
> use as illegal...and doesn't differentiate whether using it for talking or
> for taking photos, to the best of my knowledge.

True. The Vehicle Code prohibits use of a wireless telephone while
driving unless it is being used in the hands-free mode to talk or listen:

---
23123. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a
wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and
configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in
that manner while driving.
(b) A violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a base
fine of twenty dollars ($20) for a first offense and fifty dollars ($50)
for each subsequent offense.
(c) This section does not apply to a person using a wireless telephone
for emergency purposes, including, but not limited to, an emergency call
to a law enforcement agency, health care provider, fire department, or
other emergency services agency or entity.
(d) This section does not apply to an emergency services professional
using a wireless telephone while operating an authorized emergency
vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and scope of his or
her duties.
(e) This section does not apply to a person driving a schoolbus or
transit vehicle that is subject to Section 23125.
(f) This section does not apply to a person while driving a motor
vehicle on private property.
(g) This section shall become operative on July 1, 2011.

23123.5. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using an
electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a
text-based communication.
(b) As used in this section �write, send, or read a text-based
communication� means using an electronic wireless communications device
to manually communicate with any person using a text-based
communication, including, but not limited to, communications referred to
as a text message, instant message, or electronic mail.
(c) For purposes of this section, a person shall not be deemed to be
writing, reading, or sending a text-based communication if the person
reads, selects, or enters a telephone number or name in an electronic
wireless communications device for the purpose of making or receiving a
telephone call.
(d) A violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a base
fine of twenty dollars ($20) for a first offense and fifty dollars ($50)
for each subsequent offense.
(e) This section does not apply to an emergency services professional
using an electronic wireless communications device while operating an
authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course
and scope of his or her duties.

23124. (a) This section applies to a person under the age of 18 years.
(b) Notwithstanding Section 23123, a person described in subdivision (a)
shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone, even
if equipped with a hands-free device, or while using a mobile service
device.
(c) A violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a base
fine of twenty dollars ($20) for a first offense and fifty dollars ($50)
for each subsequent offense.
(d) A law enforcement officer shall not stop a vehicle for the sole
purpose of determining whether the driver is violating subdivision (b).
(e) Subdivision (d) does not prohibit a law enforcement officer from
stopping a vehicle for a violation of Section 23123.
(f) This section does not apply to a person using a wireless telephone
or a mobile service device for emergency purposes, including, but not
limited to, an emergency call to a law enforcement agency, health care
provider, fire department, or other emergency services agency or entity.
(g) For the purposes of this section, "mobile service device" includes,
but is not limited to, a broadband personal communication device,
specialized mobile radio device, handheld device or laptop computer with
mobile data access, pager, and two-way messaging device.
(h) This section shall become operative on July 1, 2008.

23125. (a) A person may not drive a schoolbus or transit vehicle, as
defined in subdivision (g) of Section 99247 of the Public Utilities
Code, while using a wireless telephone.
(b) This section does not apply to a driver using a wireless telephone
for work-related purposes, or for emergency purposes, including, but not
limited to, an emergency call to a law enforcement agency, health care
provider, fire department, or other emergency service agency or entity.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a violation of
subdivision (a) does not constitute a serious traffic violation within
the meaning of subdivision (i) of Section 15210.
---

Bob Shanteau

[Michael Graff]

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Bob Shanteau <rms...@gmail.com> wrote:

The Vehicle Code prohibits use of a wireless telephone while driving unless it is being used in the hands-free mode to talk or listen

23123 covers listening and talking.  23123.5 covers texting and emailing.  If 23123 prohibited *every other* use of a handheld wireless telephone aside from listening and talking, then 23123.5 would be redundant.  

So if you have a gadget that can do GPS navigation, or play MP3 files, or take pictures, the fact that it also has a telephone is irrelevant if you're not using the phone app.

[Pa...@enet.com]

Thanks Michael...your interpretation of 23123 looks likely to be correct to
me.

...wouldn't be the first time Gary Richards/Mr Roadshow got it completely
wrong (though he's more usually wrong about bike issues...)

Cheers,
Paul



Michael Graff
<michael.graff@po
box.com> To
Sent by: rms...@gmail.com
caboforum@googleg cc
roups.com cabo...@googlegroups.com
Subject
Re: [CABOforum] Legality of taking
05/29/2012 08:12 photos while driving [Tempted to
PM take a photo of another driver
behaving badly? Resist the urge]

Please respond to
michael.graff@pob
ox.com

--

[Harry Lichtbach]

Memory is (I read the original article) that he had referenced an "expect".
Can't recall if it was one of his PD contacts.

On Tue, 29 May 2012 22:55:46 -0700, Pa...@enet.com wrote:

>Thanks Michael...your interpretation of 23123 looks likely to be correct to
>me.
>
>...wouldn't be the first time Gary Richards/Mr Roadshow got it completely
>wrong (though he's more usually wrong about bike issues...)
>
>Cheers,
>Paul

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Harry Lichtbach
LCI #1047
Almaden Cycle Touring Club
San Jose, CA. USA

[Bob Shanteau]

On 5/29/2012 8:12 PM, Michael Graff wrote:

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Bob Shanteau <rms...@gmail.com> wrote:

The Vehicle Code prohibits use of a wireless telephone while driving unless it is being used in the hands-free mode to talk or listen

23123 covers listening and talking.

Only? Maybe, maybe not. A court might interpret CVC 23123 to prohibit use of a cell phone for any purpose unless it is being used in hands-free mode for listening and talking.

---
23123. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving.

---

23123.5 covers texting and emailing.  If 23123 prohibited *every other* use of a handheld wireless telephone aside from listening and talking, then 23123.5 would be redundant.

It wouldn't be the first time a code section was redundant. Consider that the exceptions in CVC 21202 were only meant to clarify the meaning of the word "practicable".

So if you have a gadget that can do GPS navigation, or play MP3 files, or take pictures, the fact that it also has a telephone is irrelevant if you're not using the phone app.

A court might find that such uses are prohibited because you are only allowed to use a cell phone while driving to listen and talk in hands-free mode. All other purposes for using a cell phone while driving are prohibited.

And yes, I agree that it would be just as distracting to use a GPS or camera whether part of a cell phone or not, but the law only specifically addresses cell phone use.

For that matter, does anyone know what CVC section an officer would cite for driving while distracted by something other than a cell phone?

Bob Shanteau

[Serge Issakov]

It's an absurd situation in which iPhones cannot be used for picture taking, but iTouches can be.  

It's even more absurd when you consider that an iTouch connected to the internet can be used to make calls with the Skype app, though technically they're not cell calls.  

Serge

Sent from my iPhone

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To post to this group, send email to cabo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/caboforum?hl=en.

[DAG]

Serge,
I always have an inexpensive digital camera in my car, so I don’t have to deal with cell phone weirdness in the law when I shoot photos on the move.

- Dan -

[Willie Hunt]

That always seems to happen when you make the law too complex to cover
all the issues. Does that remind you of VC21202 and VC21208? :)
Clearly, we would be safer without either, because the other rules of
the road are sufficient.

Willie

[Michael Graff]

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Bob Shanteau <rms...@gmail.com> wrote:

It wouldn't be the first time a code section was redundant. Consider that the exceptions in CVC 21202 were only meant to clarify the meaning of the word "practicable".

If 23123.5 was meant to clarify and specify the reasons you can't touch a "phone" while driving, it's an oddly specific and limited list: "write, send, or read a text-based communication".  That's not clarification, that's one more prohibition.

By 2008, Senator Simitian would have been aware of all the things a "phone" can do.  He could have written a law that specifies exactly when a driver can or can't touch a "phone", e.g. to answer, dial, or hang up.  

And he could have included similar non-phone devices such as MP3 players and GPS navigators, specifying exactly when a driver can touch one of those, e.g. to play/pause a song.

Instead, we have a very specific list of things you can't do: talk, listen, write, send, read.

Enforcement is a whole 'nother issue, of course.  An officer could notice signs of distracted driving even if you're not touching any gadgets.  Or they could see you holding a gadget in your hand, but they have no way of knowing if you're holding a cheap disposable camera or fancy smartphone.

[David Whiteman]

Before any of the cell phone laws were passed I have heard several officer say that they could always cite someone under the Basic Speed law, if the circumstances warranted it.  If you were holding a cell phone, or sandwich, or electric razor, or newspaper, while driving, you are driving unsafely at any speed.  The speed limit becomes effectively "zero.". So you are cited for that.  To continue the analogy, I remember one officer told me at a community meeting, that a bicyclist  riding on what he considered to be an unsafe street for bike riding that the speed limit for bicycles, and not cars is zero.  So you have to walk the bike.  I heard this a long time ago.  Way back before I heard of CABO, or even before I became an adult.  I don't know if the officer ever cited anyone in that way, or if he was just using hyperbole to make a point. 

Sent from my iPad