Jump to content

New law clear as mud


uxorious
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

lol....are they talking about a cell phone or a GPS? that was the most confusing article. So they said Obama's speech on the oil spill the other night was written at a 10th grade level. What level was this law written at? 4th? Don't eat the paste while writing laws.

Link to comment

Don't know how the legal system would view it, but if the GPS is attached to my windshield, and I'm not messing with it, there is no cause to ticket me for it. If you're driving down the highway trying to punch an address in, then you're asking to be pulled over, and I think its right for you to be pulled over. Keep your hands on the wheel, and your eyes on the road.

Link to comment

Don't know how the legal system would view it, but if the GPS is attached to my windshield, and I'm not messing with it, there is no cause to ticket me for it. If you're driving down the highway trying to punch an address in, then you're asking to be pulled over, and I think its right for you to be pulled over. Keep your hands on the wheel, and your eyes on the road.

 

There may be no cause to ticket you for it, but according to the article, the State patrol may ticket you anyway.

 

I have a Garmin 60 CsX. I use it for navigating on the road, as well as finding Geocaches. I always set it before I start out, do not mess with it while driving. But, apparently that is not enough to avoid a ticket in some jurisdictions.

Link to comment
The line of the Revised Code of Washington section that is in question states, "Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a person operating a moving motor vehicle who, by means of an electronic wireless communications device, other than a voice-activated global positioning or navigation system that is permanently affixed to the vehicle, sends, reads, or writes a text message, is guilty of a traffic infraction."

 

I don't see it as a reason to be concerned. It's a provision for the police to disqualify the "I was using my cell phone as a GPS" argument.

Link to comment
The line of the Revised Code of Washington section that is in question states, "Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a person operating a moving motor vehicle who, by means of an electronic wireless communications device, other than a voice-activated global positioning or navigation system that is permanently affixed to the vehicle, sends, reads, or writes a text message, is guilty of a traffic infraction."

 

I don't see it as a reason to be concerned. It's a provision for the police to disqualify the "I was using my cell phone as a GPS" argument.

 

I am concerned because the State Patrol says they will ticket for the use of a "GPS" unit that is not permanently affixed to the dash. I think they make it clear it does not have to be a cell phone with GPS capability.

 

I guess we will have to wait and see how it works out, but I won't be changing how I use my Garmin to navigate the roads until after I get a ticket and see what the court says. ( I am willing to risk $124. to find out.)

Link to comment

I am concerned because the State Patrol says they will ticket for the use of a "GPS" unit that is not permanently affixed to the dash. I think they make it clear it does not have to be a cell phone with GPS capability.

 

I guess we will have to wait and see how it works out, but I won't be changing how I use my Garmin to navigate the roads until after I get a ticket and see what the court says. ( I am willing to risk $124. to find out.)

 

Let us know what happens.

I would be willing but my last set of tickets cost me $1,751.00 not including the lost wages.

 

No, that's not a typo. And no it was not DUII.

Link to comment

;)

 

I find it amazing that the TPTB are so ignorant for the thousands of GPS users with handheld GPSrs. Handhelds were available long before the auto GPS units came on the market. What is the WSGA position on this? Did they do any input before this law was brought in?

 

Up in BC, the same type of law has been dictated (as BC government is operating like an oligarchy.) The wording of the law is just as vague and contradictory.

 

Help! Clear responsible laws are one thing, confusing, contradictory laws is another!

Link to comment

What is the WSGA position on this? Did they do any input before this law was brought in?

WSGA doesn't have a formal position and was not asked for input. As an individual, I think it would be unfair to fine me for having a cheap car with a window-mounted GPS instead of a fancier car with an in-dash unit. ;)

 

I personally am not too distraught about this at present; I'd like to see how things shake out. My GPS is still in its window mount and will remain that way, and I never use it for texting.

Link to comment

Call the non emergency line to your local PD, they would have the answer.

 

Unfortunately, if you do that, then ask a different LEO, you are very likely to get differing answers. For S&Gs I asked the King County Sheriff at my wifes work about texting when stopped at a light, and he said it was perfectly fine. The Washington State Highway Patrol has gone on record stating the opposite. I think this one is very unfortunately up to interpretation of the individual LEO.

Link to comment

The reference to GPS in this statute is dumb. The statute is intended to deal with text messaging, only:

 

by means of an electronic wireless communications device ... sends, reads, or writes a text message

 

The clause I omitted above: "... other than a voice-activated global positioning or navigation system that is permanently affixed to the vehicle ..." Is a permanently-installed navigation system "wireless"? And does anyone know of one that can be used for text messaging? "No" on both counts, I'm pretty sure.

 

My take: Don't use your phone to text in the car, but don't worry about using your GPS for navigation. My personal opinion (not legal advice!) is that this law is not written in a way that would extent to use of a GPS (permanently installed or not) for navigation.

Link to comment

The reference to GPS in this statute is dumb. The statute is intended to deal with text messaging, only:

 

by means of an electronic wireless communications device ... sends, reads, or writes a text message

 

The clause I omitted above: "... other than a voice-activated global positioning or navigation system that is permanently affixed to the vehicle ..." Is a permanently-installed navigation system "wireless"? And does anyone know of one that can be used for text messaging? "No" on both counts, I'm pretty sure.

 

My take: Don't use your phone to text in the car, but don't worry about using your GPS for navigation. My personal opinion (not legal advice!) is that this law is not written in a way that would extent to use of a GPS (permanently installed or not) for navigation.

PN-60 with Spot Communicator.

Link to comment

Not being critical of anyone... well, maybe somebody...

 

This law is written vaguely (as are many others) by lawmakers to intentionally involve the courts -- in reality, they are "passing the buck". It is the courts' function to determine what it was that the lawmakers intended.

 

Another fine example of the people you/we elected!

Link to comment

What is the WSGA position on this? Did they do any input before this law was brought in?

WSGA doesn't have a formal position and was not asked for input. As an individual, I think it would be unfair to fine me for having a cheap car with a window-mounted GPS instead of a fancier car with an in-dash unit. :P

 

I personally am not too distraught about this at present; I'd like to see how things shake out. My GPS is still in its window mount and will remain that way, and I never use it for texting.

 

I wouldn't drive your vehicle to the state of California. ANYTHING mounted via suction cup to the windshield is against the law.

 

I suctioned cup my navigation system to the Tach on the dash. Who needs a tach with an automatic in a Mitsubishi Outlander? It is in the same place but enough to the side on my truck at home. My speedometer quit so it is my speedo for now.

Link to comment
I wouldn't drive your vehicle to the state of California. ANYTHING mounted via suction cup to the windshield is against the law.

 

It is my understanding California just recently changed that law to allow the use of suction cup type mounting. There was something about that in one of these threads a while ago.

Link to comment
I wouldn't drive your vehicle to the state of California. ANYTHING mounted via suction cup to the windshield is against the law.

 

It is my understanding California just recently changed that law to allow the use of suction cup type mounting. There was something about that in one of these threads a while ago.

Yep, there are a couple of small areas that you can mount on the windshield, but on my mini van they are unuseable/unreachable or too far away to read the GPSr.

Link to comment

The reference to GPS in this statute is dumb. The statute is intended to deal with text messaging, only:

 

by means of an electronic wireless communications device ... sends, reads, or writes a text message

 

The clause I omitted above: "... other than a voice-activated global positioning or navigation system that is permanently affixed to the vehicle ..." Is a permanently-installed navigation system "wireless"? And does anyone know of one that can be used for text messaging? "No" on both counts, I'm pretty sure.

 

My take: Don't use your phone to text in the car, but don't worry about using your GPS for navigation. My personal opinion (not legal advice!) is that this law is not written in a way that would extent to use of a GPS (permanently installed or not) for navigation.

PN-60 with Spot Communicator.

... is not "permanently affixed to the vehicle." My point was that the clause mentioning GPS is essentially pointless. A PN-60, if used for texting, will not not fall into the "permanently affixed" exception to the prohibition. A PN-60, if used for navigation, is not, by my reading, being used for text messaging, and is therefore just fine.

Link to comment

The reference to GPS in this statute is dumb. The statute is intended to deal with text messaging, only:

 

by means of an electronic wireless communications device ... sends, reads, or writes a text message

 

The clause I omitted above: "... other than a voice-activated global positioning or navigation system that is permanently affixed to the vehicle ..." Is a permanently-installed navigation system "wireless"? And does anyone know of one that can be used for text messaging? "No" on both counts, I'm pretty sure.

 

My take: Don't use your phone to text in the car, but don't worry about using your GPS for navigation. My personal opinion (not legal advice!) is that this law is not written in a way that would extent to use of a GPS (permanently installed or not) for navigation.

PN-60 with Spot Communicator.

... is not "permanently affixed to the vehicle." My point was that the clause mentioning GPS is essentially pointless. A PN-60, if used for texting, will not not fall into the "permanently affixed" exception to the prohibition. A PN-60, if used for navigation, is not, by my reading, being used for text messaging, and is therefore just fine.

Agreed. However, I was answering to your question if there was a GPS capable of text messaging. The answer is yes and it will (by my reading) fall under purview of distracted driving, particularly when the wireless mesh network is enabled between the PN-60w's to allow texting back and forth without the use of the SPOT. If I missed the point of your question, my apologies, but I believe this is pertinent to the discussion.

Edited by TotemLake
Link to comment
I wouldn't drive your vehicle to the state of California. ANYTHING mounted via suction cup to the windshield is against the law.

 

It is my understanding California just recently changed that law to allow the use of suction cup type mounting. There was something about that in one of these threads a while ago.

 

That may be true. But they haven't changed it in either of the two places I read it on my trip this month.

 

I probably didn't need to be too concerned since I watched the CHIP radar a guy passing me on the right @ 80+ in a 65 construction zone both coming and going, then go back to checking others coming.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...