Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, as I and LegalEagle have already pointed out, "using" has a specific definition under that statute and the OP's action does not fall within that definition.
.
Did he do anything I highlighted? Or is his cell phone braille?
Quote:
(b) "Using" shall mean holding a portable electronic device while viewing, taking or transmitting images, playing games, or, for the purpose of present or future communication: performing a command or request to access a world wide web page, composing, sending, reading, viewing, accessing, browsing, transmitting, saving or retrieving e-mail, text messages, instant messages, or other electronic data.
I'm only going by what was posted, so there may be another section that directly applies, but:
New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1225-d
§ 1225-d. Use of portable electronic devices. 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person shall operate a motor vehicle while using any portable electronic device while such vehicle is in motion;
****
(b) "Using" shall mean holding a portable electronic device while viewing, taking or transmitting images, playing games, or, for the purpose of present or future communication: performing a command or request to access a world wide web page, composing, sending, reading, viewing, accessing, browsing, transmitting, saving or retrieving e-mail, text messages, instant messages, or other electronic data.
The statute clearly defines what "using" means in this context. OP's use doesn't fall within the definition of "using" provided for in the statute. Perhaps there's an argument to be made that the transmission and reception of electronic song data is "present or future communication" but I would counter that by saying that is clearly outside the intent of the law, which is an ant-texting / talking law.
You're quite correct and that was the statute on the ticket. My view is that I did not fall under the definition of "using." By the officer's definition, even hitting the green "answer" button could be considered using. When these laws were passed it was explained that you could still dial a call but not hold the phone near the ear.
If the officer's view were law there'd be a citizen's revolt, much like the 55 mph speed limit caused and the law would change. I suspect the officer wrote the ticket to demonstrate that he was on the job, and counted on the fact that probably a small minority of motorists fight these tickets.
You're quite correct and that was the statute on the ticket. My view is that I did not fall under the definition of "using." By the officer's definition, even hitting the green "answer" button could be considered using. When these laws were passed it was explained that you could still dial a call but not hold the phone near the ear.
If the officer's view were law there'd be a citizen's revolt, much like the 55 mph speed limit caused and the law would change. I suspect the officer wrote the ticket to demonstrate that he was on the job, and counted on the fact that probably a small minority of motorists fight these tickets.
The law allows for hands-free operation in relation to answering a call. Not answering with your hands.
That being said, a judge will be assigned to your case and will be empowered to make an assessment of your case and interpret the law as it applies.
No, as I and LegalEagle have already pointed out, "using" has a specific definition under that statute and the OP's action does not fall within that definition.
The State decided to get technical instead of relying on enforcement of the already sufficient prohibition against "distracted driving", and *because* they decided to get technical and define all of the conditions that were prohibited, *they* introduced a technicality that creates a situation where the OP is NOT, in fact, in violation of the law.
This is a clear-cut example of meatheads, that *we* put in positions of power, being stupid and shooting themselves in their feet because they want to rush and put all kinds of additional laws on the books to make more things "illegal"...
...when the problems can be solved very simply by just enforcing the laws that are already on the freaking books!
We are paying these people far too much money to do things that do not need to be done, and who, by doing so, create more problems.
try again my friend, and read what LE posted;
Quote:
(b) "Using" shall mean holding a portable electronic device while viewing, taking or transmitting images, playing games, or, for the purpose of present or future communication: performing a command or request to access a world wide web page, composing, sending, reading, viewing, accessing, browsing, transmitting, saving or retrieving e-mail, text messages, instant messages, or other electronic data.
the part of performing a command is what loses the case for the OP. he wanted to change a music track, and that is performing a command. sorry but you lose.
Every car doesn't have steering wheel buttons. In fact my current vehicle is the first vehicle that I owned that had them.
There's nothing wrong with pulling over if you need to change a song. If changing a song is that high of a priority it's best to do it without putting others at risk by taking your eyes off the road while driving.
the part of performing a command is what loses the case for the OP. he wanted to change a music track, and that is performing a command. sorry but you lose.
I disagree, "a command" is not referring to a command in general. Rather it is referring to a command to access a web page. You are wrong. The OP's actions are not included in this law. They did not break the law. They should fight the ticket and they should win.
All of the self-righteousness on this thread is ridiculous.
Do you Great drivers here on CD ever have other people in your car and carry on a conversation? Oh you do. Do you ever glance there way? Oh your just as bad as the op and you should just march right down to the court house and turn yourself in. That is if you live in some nanny state.
I disagree, "a command" is not referring to a command in general. Rather it is referring to a command to access a web page. You are wrong. The OP's actions are not included in this law. They did not break the law. They should fight the ticket and they should win.
All of the self-righteousness on this thread is ridiculous.
Actually both of your are wrong. The part the OP violated was accessing electronic data. He broke the law and should be held accountable. He can simply take his chances with a judge, however.
Quote:
(b) "Using" shall mean holding a portable electronic device while viewing, taking or transmitting images, playing games, or, for the purpose of present or future communication: performing a command or request to access a world wide web page, composing, sending, reading, viewing, accessing, browsing, transmitting, saving or retrieving e-mail, text messages, instant messages, or other electronic data.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
