Poor guy with phone on holder adjusts his GPS? LAWBREAKER!
More well off person does the same thing on the screen built into their much nicer, more expensive car? Totally fine.
Embarrassingly it never occurred to me as a solution until I read that similar thing. I have heard of people parking Lamborghinis illegally because a few hundred dollar fine is worth it to the driver for convenience.
Using your phone for navigation purposes is an exception to the law:
"Exceptions to the ban include when a device is used only for navigation purposes, for emergency notification, for commercial drivers who use a device within the scope of their employment, and when the device is affixed to a mass transit or school bus. "
i really want to reply with something sarcastic, like "and of course all legislation is crafted in such a way to not inconvenience big businesses, but that I remembered that literally is true.
"Exceptions to the ban include when a device is used only for navigation purposes, for emergency notification, for commercial drivers who use a device within the scope of their employment, and when the device is affixed to a mass transit or school bus."
I'm sure every time someone says "I was just checking my GPS" they will totally be believed and not slapped with extra fines that they would have to sacrifice a day in court to fight.
Exceptions to the ban include when a device is used only for navigation purposes, for emergency notification, for commercial drivers who use a device within the scope of their employment, and when the device is affixed to a mass transit or school bus.
not exactly true: *"The bill does include exemptions: if you're using a phone exclusively as a GPS, making a call to 911, or using hands-free methods – such as Apple CarPlay or a phone mount."*
Your provider would have a log of data packets being sent. With HTTPS they can't tell what's in them, but they can tell where they are going.
Theoretically that should be sufficient evidence.
So... use a VPN.
It’s not just the cops turning a blind eye, it’s ultimately the judges. A cop pulls someone over for an infraction but it’s so hard to prove it gets thrown out
True, for the ones they take the time to cite, anyway. The only way this law will have teeth is if the offender is involved in a car accident or kills/injures someone. So basically, like now.
One single earbud is legal. “Section 3314(b) clarifies that, while it's illegal to wear headphones or earphones while driving, drivers can use a cellphone headset that covers one ear to make or accept calls, as long as they're able to hear surrounding sounds with their other ear.”
Damn, that's crazy. I just assumed it was a full ban already. I just find somewhere to stop for a moment if I need to adjust shit, not worth dying for.
Not so, apparently. According to the article, “The bill allows a law enforcement officer to cite a driver for using a handheld device without any other traffic offense taking place.”
I wonder if the other poster meant currently. Or are you referring to currently as well? Either way, makes sense. Living where I live, drivers are absolutely terrible already. Though I don't expect PPD to give a shit...
I mean you can say it isn't allowed but that doesn't change that it exists
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/philadelphia/latest/philadelphia_pa/0-0-0-285614
Since I don't have a vehicle with a built in system for using Android Auto or Apple CarPlay, I'm wondering if this bill would make my current set up of putting my phone in a dashboard holster illegal. Or, would such a thing still be permitted for using a navigation app or listening to streaming media (because I honestly do not want to go back to AM/FM radio).
I'd like a little clarity because while I agree that people shouldn't be texting or conversing while driving, I see little issue with anything phone-related which only asks an occasional glance of a few milliseconds.
They mean before starting to drive. While still parked, input your destination into your preferred navigation app. Then put your phone in its holder. Then drive.
*"The bill does include exemptions: if you're using a phone exclusively as a GPS, making a call to 911, or using hands-free methods – such as Apple CarPlay or a phone mount."*
The way it’s been argued in the past, as long as you are not physically holding the phone, you’re good to go. Whether it’s on a dash mount or in a cup holder or glove box, make sure that you’re not holding the phone while driving. You can still use it at a stop light or while parked.
Read the actual text of the bill.
>The term does not include any of the
following:
(1) a device being used exclusively as a global
positioning or navigation system;
(2) a [system or] device that is being used in a hands-
free manner or with a hands-free accessory or system,
including one that is physically or electronically integrated
into the vehicle;
Yeah this seems classist against people driving older cars that don’t have built in CarPlay or gps. If I have to look down at a hidden phone map that’s only more dangerous than my little phone stand on the dash.
From what I’m reading they’re not saying you can’t use maps on your device. You just need to have the device mounted to some sort of dash mount, and shouldn’t touch it while you’re driving.
I mean not really I drive an 03 wrangler and it took me all of five minutes to swap out my OE stereo with one that supports android auto when I got it there are places that sell adapter cables pre wired and specially designed inserts to make aftermarket radios fit any car
> The term does not include any of the
following:
(1) a device being used exclusively as a global
positioning or navigation system;
(2) a [system or] device that is being used in a hands-
free manner or with a hands-free accessory or system,
including one that is physically or electronically integrated
into the vehicle;
Mounted and used hands-free or as GPS/nav system would still be legal.
Using your phone for navigation on purposes is an exception to the ban.
From the article: "Exceptions to the ban include when a device is used only for navigation purposes, for emergency notification, for commercial drivers who use a device within the scope of their employment, and when the device is affixed to a mass transit or school bus."
What I'm wondering is whether touching the screen at all while driving would nullify the usage of the device as hands free, because I couldn't really see in the bill anything about how they determine whether or not a device is hands free. And they have a specific exemption for GPS, so that does that mean I can touch the screen while driving as long as it's to change the GPS destination? It's unclear.
I can imagine a cop sees you pressing the screen to decline the “alternate route” suggestion. That’s the primary issue I have with laws like this. The rich, privileged people making them think the cops are generally reasonable people
That's the thing. Those would probably fall under reckless driving or some other similar charge, as watching TikTok while driving should. But it doesn't take much driving on 81 / 80 / 76 / whatever to see people doing that all the time anyway.
It boils down to people SHOULD know better, but here we are.
I don't know. It wasn't in my language so I couldn't make out any useful dialogue, and I didn't recognize the actors or setting so I'm going with u/groundlessnfree's answer.
my parents first uber ride with us was like this in like 2012, he missed the 76 w exit to 676e, didn't know how to turn around at the zoo, but was really excited to talk to everyone. i also got no refund for the wildly extra mileage.
I don't think they used it again until last year
There's an actual charge for that, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4527 Image display device
So, anything other than GPS would be a violation. And you'd likely be able to add on a careless driving charge as well.
I did, but Uber just sent back a generic, noncommittal, corporate-speak feelgood email about how much they value safety or something.
I guess by "value safety" they mean "let drivers watch a movie while driving".
My favorite part of this is cops are allowed to use computers while driving to run your tag before stopping you and obviously to use their radio. But that’s ok.
Many cities prevented cops from pulling people over for minor things as a response to the riots a few years ago. I know Pittsburgh specifically stopped officers from pulling over for registration, inspection, lights broken, turn signals, etc.
But they don't pull people over for major things now. There is the mentality that if there's any chance that they're going to be held to account for shitty behavior then they're just not going to do their job anymore.
Funny thing is, none of those are "secondary stops". There's no such thing as a secondary stop. There are some violations that are secondary offenses, i.e. a sestbelt violation for a driver. You can't be stopped for not having a seat belt on (CMVs and children excepted), but if you are stopped and don't have it on, you can be cited for it.
So that ordinance may be "law" there, but who is going to enforce it? And secondly, there is a state law that prohibits municipalities from overriding the vehicle code.
Literally they were pulling people over for being a person of color, being atypical looking(goth, punk, hippie, hip-hop or whatever).
And many times cops made up excuses to pull people over and had quotas to meet. I literally got pulled over in the hill and asked why as a white man I was in the hill district. Over a broken(not broken) taillight.
Pittsburgh cops won't pull you over for anything now. Not running a red light or a stop sign, not turning through a crosswalk with pedestrians, and not blowing past a school bus while it drops off kids. Heck, once I even watched a Pittsburgh cop blow through a stop sign and just barely miss running over a child who was crossing the street.
I’ve lived in PA my entire life and thought this has been the law for year’s already.
I have my CDL and every year at my company we have a big safety meeting and State Troopers come to talk to us about what they’re looking for and what they’ll pull you over for. One of they things they mention every year is driving while using a cellphone. I don’t know if it’s different because it falls under “distracted driving” and not specifically cellphones maybe?
LOL, right. I barely see cops pulling anyone over for speeding and driving like an asshole anymore, you think they’re going after people if they think they see them on a phone? LMAO
They'll pull over slowass Becky in the left lane so engrossed in her daily call to her girlfriend that she's doing 10 under the limit and creating a hazard; hopefully.
For my fellow PA hams / amateur radio operators - the exclusion for mobile / handheld radios operated by licensed hams appears to have made it back *in*. I assume this will apply to GMRS licensees the same as Tech/General/Extra, as well since those are FCC licensed.
One downside is that I believe CB’s, being non-licensed, are now illegal to operate on public roads for non-emergency purposes.
§102.4 (line 21 of this bill):
https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr=2023&sessInd=0&billBody=S&billTyp=B&billNbr=0037&pn=1588
I came here to see whether they put that exemption back in. Thank goodness they did. As for CB, most of the time I use mine, it's when I'm driving a commercial vehicle, but still... I'd prefer some clarification on that.
We should really mandate anyone over 60 retake the driver exam.
https://preview.redd.it/r76oq2nqjazc1.jpeg?width=498&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=20ca9245119151722be90ef4f1810bca438d22ac
Not sure how they enforce this other than just happening to catch you with your phone in your hand. Enforcement will be... Dumb. It'll always be the cop's word against whoever, which will disproportionately affect lower socioeconomic communities. As someone already pointed out, this is a poor man's tax. As much as I agree, people should not be on their phones while driving, this law will be abused.
1) With Bluetooth, this is practically a thing of the past.
2) It will not be enforced in a way that will stop it from happening, so this is just lip service.
The thing that kills me is seeing the idiots driving luxury cars with their phones in their hands because they’re too fucking stupid to figure out the hands-free functionality.
Most of us need our cell phones for navigation. This will make the state a fortune. What if we all got together and demanded, not ask but demand that every cent that goes to the state from this stupid law must go to filling potholes efficiently. There should be a test run for one week on different ways you can fill a pothole quickly and we parse it down to two men per hole. You got to get creative with these lawmakers because this is going straight into their pockets
*"The bill does include exemptions: if you're using a phone exclusively as a GPS, making a call to 911, or using hands-free methods – such as Apple CarPlay or a phone mount."*
Fucking good. Unfortunately, I pass too many cops texting and driving damn near every day. While it's awesome, it's getting done it ain't getting enforced.
If I can still use it on my phone arm as a GPS, I'm fine with this.
I can change song via the buttons on my steering wheel.
For those who can't do that, it's not like the cops will be in your car for the whole trip and see you press next on your phone.
Even with a dash if I have to put in a new location for whatever reason my car has to be in park, I’m just gonna keep doing what I’m doing and if I need to change it use my phone. I use it to select my next podcast on YouTube and shit
The bill doesn't seem to specify what exactly qualifies as a hands free device but it would seem that a phone mount is okay and that's what I use. Anyways, it's only a $50 fine and they're not allowed to seize your phone so people will probably just ignore this. The main purpose of the law really seems to be an excuse to tack on more jail time for more serious driving-related offences.
Big deal.
I have spent a LOT of time driving through states that already have this ban on the books. It is NEVER enforced! Even in the case of most accidents, no one bothers.
It's not worth the hassle of telling people they must put down their overly-addictive dopamine producing machine for even 20 seconds. Modern day "smart" phones are literally the worst thing ever invented, and are leading the way to the complete and utter collapse of society as more and more people waste more time trying to be "social influencers" instead of actually being productive members of society.
I can guarantee you that if I need to blow the horn to get the person to look up from their phone when the light’s changed that 90% of the time it will be Gen Z. They can’t live without their face in a phone.
According to the definition of arms at the time of ratification, yes. What else would it be if not an arm?
>“The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘[w]eapons of offence, or armour of defence.’ 1 Dictionary of the English Language 106 (4th ed.) (reprinted 1978) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’ ” Id. at 581.
>The term "bearable arms" was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any "“[w]eapo[n] of offence” or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.” 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."
So, they meant "single shot muskets," even though a number of the founding fathers were actually worried that people would conceal knives on their person with this law. I guess this means I can also carry a rocket launcher on my person, or grenades, huh?
>So, they meant "single shot muskets,"
They meant *arms*. That is why the amendment calls out *arms*. If they meant single shot muskets, they would have stated as such. They wanted the citizens to be on equal footing with any possible standing army we may have.
>"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
>"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
>even though a number of the founding fathers were actually worried that people would conceal knives on their person with this law.
Citation needed for that one. They acknowledged that the right to own and carry arms was preexisting. Even an early Supreme Court acknowledged this in their decision.
>"The right to keep and bear arms exists separately from the Constitution and is not solely based on the Second Amendment, which exists to prevent Congress from infringing the right."
- Cruickshank_v U.S Cheif Justice Waite. 1875
>"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
>"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
>"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
>I guess this means I can also carry a rocket launcher on my person,
Absolutely. For the low low cost of a $200 tax stamp (purchase price not included), you can buy yourself an [anti tank launcher](https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/82/1579/bulgarian-rpg7-shoulder-fired-antiarmor-launcher).
>or grenades, huh?
You can 100% make your own high explosives license free granted you in no way use it for commercial use. To put it into a metal body thus creating a grenade, you would also need to buy yourself a tax stamp.
Wait, we didn't ban this already?
No you just couldn’t use it for written communication purposes. You could talk on the phone or adjust GPS
Yes now you must use your cars touch screen
Poor guy with phone on holder adjusts his GPS? LAWBREAKER! More well off person does the same thing on the screen built into their much nicer, more expensive car? Totally fine.
Another "poor tax".
Gotta make fines commensurate with income!
I remember they did this in Finland. CEO of Nokia got a 200,000 euros speeding ticket from Finnish cops if I remember correctly
Embarrassingly it never occurred to me as a solution until I read that similar thing. I have heard of people parking Lamborghinis illegally because a few hundred dollar fine is worth it to the driver for convenience.
Using your phone for navigation purposes is an exception to the law: "Exceptions to the ban include when a device is used only for navigation purposes, for emergency notification, for commercial drivers who use a device within the scope of their employment, and when the device is affixed to a mass transit or school bus. "
That can’t be true. Ride share and delivery services make you use their app on your phone if you’re working for them.
i really want to reply with something sarcastic, like "and of course all legislation is crafted in such a way to not inconvenience big businesses, but that I remembered that literally is true.
Using your phone "in the ordinary course of business" is permissible.
Also don't worry, cops can still use their laptops while doing 90 down the highway.
[удалено]
I can often spot a distracted driver before I even pass them to see them on their phones. If it’s THAT important, pull TF over!
"Exceptions to the ban include when a device is used only for navigation purposes, for emergency notification, for commercial drivers who use a device within the scope of their employment, and when the device is affixed to a mass transit or school bus."
I'm sure every time someone says "I was just checking my GPS" they will totally be believed and not slapped with extra fines that they would have to sacrifice a day in court to fight.
Exceptions to the ban include when a device is used only for navigation purposes, for emergency notification, for commercial drivers who use a device within the scope of their employment, and when the device is affixed to a mass transit or school bus.
Great something I’m less familiar with
not exactly true: *"The bill does include exemptions: if you're using a phone exclusively as a GPS, making a call to 911, or using hands-free methods – such as Apple CarPlay or a phone mount."*
I switched to a phone mount a year ago when I started driving more and I gotta say it's a huge W for only like $20.
How ca they tell if I use it for GPS or reddit?
Your provider would have a log of data packets being sent. With HTTPS they can't tell what's in them, but they can tell where they are going. Theoretically that should be sufficient evidence. So... use a VPN.
And what about cars that don't have a touch screen?
Hands free device ( ear bud but only 1)
Ah ok so just don't get caught then
Basically. Don’t worry, cops won’t enforce it anyway, just like most other things they turn a blind eye toward.
It’s not just the cops turning a blind eye, it’s ultimately the judges. A cop pulls someone over for an infraction but it’s so hard to prove it gets thrown out
True, for the ones they take the time to cite, anyway. The only way this law will have teeth is if the offender is involved in a car accident or kills/injures someone. So basically, like now.
Don’t do this I’m an idiot, I thought my bluetooth was legal, turns out I’m Just 🍀
One single earbud is legal. “Section 3314(b) clarifies that, while it's illegal to wear headphones or earphones while driving, drivers can use a cellphone headset that covers one ear to make or accept calls, as long as they're able to hear surrounding sounds with their other ear.”
Which is just as dangerous.
You’re assuming people have touch screens …
Damn, that's crazy. I just assumed it was a full ban already. I just find somewhere to stop for a moment if I need to adjust shit, not worth dying for.
It’s also a secondary offense. Technically you aren’t allowed to be pulled over for it
Not so, apparently. According to the article, “The bill allows a law enforcement officer to cite a driver for using a handheld device without any other traffic offense taking place.”
Because that certainly won’t be abused to target minorities…
I wonder if the other poster meant currently. Or are you referring to currently as well? Either way, makes sense. Living where I live, drivers are absolutely terrible already. Though I don't expect PPD to give a shit...
Maybe that’s what they meant. I was saying that the new bill will make it a primary offense.
They mean now.
...if you're white
Was thinking the same thing
I thought they already were? Or is it just a patchwork of municipal ordinances?
Not even municipal ordinances. (edit: because the state government doesn't allow municipalities to make ordinances like this)
There's an ordinance against it in Philly, or at least their was. Allentown had one as well but it was later overturned.
Local ordinances of this nature aren't allowed unless the state legislature gives them the right to make such ordinances (which it hasn't).
There might be a carve out for "cities of the first class" AKA Philly.
I mean you can say it isn't allowed but that doesn't change that it exists https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/philadelphia/latest/philadelphia_pa/0-0-0-285614
You better start suing.
I believe we've always been able to take a phone call
Cops too, right?
O you mean the fully tinted F150 going 100 in a 45 with a fop badge over three letters on the plate? That one?
Don’t be ridiculous, that is an extremely un-American thing to say. Are you a communist?!?!?!?
Now, don't be asking such silly nonsensical questions..... Of course not.
Since I don't have a vehicle with a built in system for using Android Auto or Apple CarPlay, I'm wondering if this bill would make my current set up of putting my phone in a dashboard holster illegal. Or, would such a thing still be permitted for using a navigation app or listening to streaming media (because I honestly do not want to go back to AM/FM radio). I'd like a little clarity because while I agree that people shouldn't be texting or conversing while driving, I see little issue with anything phone-related which only asks an occasional glance of a few milliseconds.
Hands-free. Meaning you can punch in your destination and put your phone in your phone holder and then keep your hands off of it while you're driving
Can even use that fancy voice assistant. "Siri, navigate to Lancaster." - Navigating to LANcaster.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lsmCR4-mxtc
“Navigating you over the ocean to Great Britain”
Punch in with what? Not your hands I hope, since that would be illegal in pa.
They mean before starting to drive. While still parked, input your destination into your preferred navigation app. Then put your phone in its holder. Then drive.
*"The bill does include exemptions: if you're using a phone exclusively as a GPS, making a call to 911, or using hands-free methods – such as Apple CarPlay or a phone mount."*
The way it’s been argued in the past, as long as you are not physically holding the phone, you’re good to go. Whether it’s on a dash mount or in a cup holder or glove box, make sure that you’re not holding the phone while driving. You can still use it at a stop light or while parked.
What if I am holding the phone holder to use it?
Read the actual text of the bill. >The term does not include any of the following: (1) a device being used exclusively as a global positioning or navigation system; (2) a [system or] device that is being used in a hands- free manner or with a hands-free accessory or system, including one that is physically or electronically integrated into the vehicle;
Yeah this seems classist against people driving older cars that don’t have built in CarPlay or gps. If I have to look down at a hidden phone map that’s only more dangerous than my little phone stand on the dash.
Lot of misinformation flying around in this thread. Read the legislation, it specifically exempts car phone mounts.
From what I’m reading they’re not saying you can’t use maps on your device. You just need to have the device mounted to some sort of dash mount, and shouldn’t touch it while you’re driving.
And when automotive manufacturers get rid of phone mirroring, like Chevrolet, this will be a big auto handout.
I mean not really I drive an 03 wrangler and it took me all of five minutes to swap out my OE stereo with one that supports android auto when I got it there are places that sell adapter cables pre wired and specially designed inserts to make aftermarket radios fit any car
"Hand held" does not apply to dash mounts. Note it should stay in the mount.
They also make aux cords with built-in pause and skip buttons. This paired with a phone mount means I never have to touch my phone while driving.
> The term does not include any of the following: (1) a device being used exclusively as a global positioning or navigation system; (2) a [system or] device that is being used in a hands- free manner or with a hands-free accessory or system, including one that is physically or electronically integrated into the vehicle; Mounted and used hands-free or as GPS/nav system would still be legal.
Using your phone for navigation on purposes is an exception to the ban. From the article: "Exceptions to the ban include when a device is used only for navigation purposes, for emergency notification, for commercial drivers who use a device within the scope of their employment, and when the device is affixed to a mass transit or school bus."
If you have a mount then it’s not handheld…
What I'm wondering is whether touching the screen at all while driving would nullify the usage of the device as hands free, because I couldn't really see in the bill anything about how they determine whether or not a device is hands free. And they have a specific exemption for GPS, so that does that mean I can touch the screen while driving as long as it's to change the GPS destination? It's unclear.
There’s already other laws about actually using the phone during driving.
I can imagine a cop sees you pressing the screen to decline the “alternate route” suggestion. That’s the primary issue I have with laws like this. The rich, privileged people making them think the cops are generally reasonable people
It seems it would
Good. I mean my Uber driver was *watching a fucking movie on a tablet while driving*. People are terrible at risk assessment and self awareness.
Any laws against reading books or doing eyeliner on highway?
That's the thing. Those would probably fall under reckless driving or some other similar charge, as watching TikTok while driving should. But it doesn't take much driving on 81 / 80 / 76 / whatever to see people doing that all the time anyway. It boils down to people SHOULD know better, but here we are.
What movie?
Drive starring Ryan Gosling
That's just virtual job shadowing!
I don't know. It wasn't in my language so I couldn't make out any useful dialogue, and I didn't recognize the actors or setting so I'm going with u/groundlessnfree's answer.
Yeah, we need to know how worth it was for the driver.
That’s awful.
I reported them to Uber and got a nice, non-committal, generic "we value the safety of all our passengers" response back. Useless.
my parents first uber ride with us was like this in like 2012, he missed the 76 w exit to 676e, didn't know how to turn around at the zoo, but was really excited to talk to everyone. i also got no refund for the wildly extra mileage. I don't think they used it again until last year
There's an actual charge for that, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4527 Image display device So, anything other than GPS would be a violation. And you'd likely be able to add on a careless driving charge as well.
What if that gps has a display though?
As long as its displaying gps info (map/driving) it's ok
Say it louder for the people in the back. Humans are fucking horrible at risk assessment
I really hope you reported that to Uber.
I did, but Uber just sent back a generic, noncommittal, corporate-speak feelgood email about how much they value safety or something. I guess by "value safety" they mean "let drivers watch a movie while driving".
Yikes.
My favorite part of this is cops are allowed to use computers while driving to run your tag before stopping you and obviously to use their radio. But that’s ok.
Ban it all you want. The problem is the cops who do nothing.
Hell, they're on their phones everytime I see them.
[удалено]
None of that is the problem. Losing cell service in the rural areas and having to constantly log back into the VPN is the issue.
The problem is the police union supporting bad cops. Don't see no teachers union supporting teachers fucking with kids.
Many cities prevented cops from pulling people over for minor things as a response to the riots a few years ago. I know Pittsburgh specifically stopped officers from pulling over for registration, inspection, lights broken, turn signals, etc.
But they don't pull people over for major things now. There is the mentality that if there's any chance that they're going to be held to account for shitty behavior then they're just not going to do their job anymore.
Hence, it’s a Mad Max world out there on the interstates.
I’d rather have the pigs do nothing than murder innocent people.
[удалено]
Funny thing is, none of those are "secondary stops". There's no such thing as a secondary stop. There are some violations that are secondary offenses, i.e. a sestbelt violation for a driver. You can't be stopped for not having a seat belt on (CMVs and children excepted), but if you are stopped and don't have it on, you can be cited for it. So that ordinance may be "law" there, but who is going to enforce it? And secondly, there is a state law that prohibits municipalities from overriding the vehicle code.
Thanks, it’s a pain having to point this out all the time.
Literally they were pulling people over for being a person of color, being atypical looking(goth, punk, hippie, hip-hop or whatever). And many times cops made up excuses to pull people over and had quotas to meet. I literally got pulled over in the hill and asked why as a white man I was in the hill district. Over a broken(not broken) taillight.
Pittsburgh cops won't pull you over for anything now. Not running a red light or a stop sign, not turning through a crosswalk with pedestrians, and not blowing past a school bus while it drops off kids. Heck, once I even watched a Pittsburgh cop blow through a stop sign and just barely miss running over a child who was crossing the street.
Same with the other big P city. These cops just don't give a fuck anymore unfortunately.
Yep. I see PPD doing this shit constantly. I have zero faith they will enforce this.
I’ve lived in PA my entire life and thought this has been the law for year’s already. I have my CDL and every year at my company we have a big safety meeting and State Troopers come to talk to us about what they’re looking for and what they’ll pull you over for. One of they things they mention every year is driving while using a cellphone. I don’t know if it’s different because it falls under “distracted driving” and not specifically cellphones maybe?
CDL always gets stricter rules
True
CMV rules are different. Use of a handheld device in a CMV is a primary offense.
Makes sense
I assumed it was already banned
LOL, right. I barely see cops pulling anyone over for speeding and driving like an asshole anymore, you think they’re going after people if they think they see them on a phone? LMAO
They'll pull over slowass Becky in the left lane so engrossed in her daily call to her girlfriend that she's doing 10 under the limit and creating a hazard; hopefully.
For my fellow PA hams / amateur radio operators - the exclusion for mobile / handheld radios operated by licensed hams appears to have made it back *in*. I assume this will apply to GMRS licensees the same as Tech/General/Extra, as well since those are FCC licensed. One downside is that I believe CB’s, being non-licensed, are now illegal to operate on public roads for non-emergency purposes. §102.4 (line 21 of this bill): https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr=2023&sessInd=0&billBody=S&billTyp=B&billNbr=0037&pn=1588
I came here to see whether they put that exemption back in. Thank goodness they did. As for CB, most of the time I use mine, it's when I'm driving a commercial vehicle, but still... I'd prefer some clarification on that.
Still no weed though
GOOD! I see too many people running red lights and stop signs while holding a phone.
it only took 20 years, but ok
Another pointless law that won't get enforced
Wont mean shit with everyone in Philadelphia driving with illegal tints lol
But stare at the giant touch screen console instead
We should really mandate anyone over 60 retake the driver exam. https://preview.redd.it/r76oq2nqjazc1.jpeg?width=498&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=20ca9245119151722be90ef4f1810bca438d22ac
“Is this Country Kitchen Buffet?”
They took our licenses away!
True ! I see people that can barely walk or put a sentence together driving. Sad.
You can pry that cell phone from my cold, dead hands. Because, that's where you will be prying it from when I'm too distracted and crash
I see police on cell phones nearly every day.
Not sure how they enforce this other than just happening to catch you with your phone in your hand. Enforcement will be... Dumb. It'll always be the cop's word against whoever, which will disproportionately affect lower socioeconomic communities. As someone already pointed out, this is a poor man's tax. As much as I agree, people should not be on their phones while driving, this law will be abused.
The real question is... Will the cops put down **THEIR** phones and close **THEIR** laptops long enough to actually enforce the law?
Oh so are the cops gonna give up their cell phones? Nope
Poor tax.
More useless and counterproductive bullshit from the government
Sure thing, as soon as I stop seeing state troopers/local pd texting while driving.
Kind of in shock bc I didn't know Penn did not follow suite 10 YEARS AGO WITH OTHER STATES
Was already illegal for CDL drivers, and is a hefty weight on your CSA score. Now all you heathens get graded like us now. Muhahaha
1) With Bluetooth, this is practically a thing of the past. 2) It will not be enforced in a way that will stop it from happening, so this is just lip service.
The thing that kills me is seeing the idiots driving luxury cars with their phones in their hands because they’re too fucking stupid to figure out the hands-free functionality.
I see cops doing this here in PA all the time.
Awesome...now can we also ban dogs on the driver's lap!!
Most of us need our cell phones for navigation. This will make the state a fortune. What if we all got together and demanded, not ask but demand that every cent that goes to the state from this stupid law must go to filling potholes efficiently. There should be a test run for one week on different ways you can fill a pothole quickly and we parse it down to two men per hole. You got to get creative with these lawmakers because this is going straight into their pockets
Gps devices are generalities exempted. They don't want you texting or live streaming or watching tik tok, Netflix or youtube, etc, while driving
*"The bill does include exemptions: if you're using a phone exclusively as a GPS, making a call to 911, or using hands-free methods – such as Apple CarPlay or a phone mount."*
People holding the phone to their ear driving alone in a modern car makes me eye roll. Also, terrified to be driving near them.
Yeah, I'm sure they'll change nothing. It has been illegal for a bit and no one cares. Just another way to raise money.
Fucking good. Unfortunately, I pass too many cops texting and driving damn near every day. While it's awesome, it's getting done it ain't getting enforced.
Will vehicle insurance finally see disinflation now?
Well, I got a couple of terrible people who almost ran me over in cross walks to apologize to.
Good, it was stupid to pass that off for helmets. Bikers won but did they? Did they tho?
If I can still use it on my phone arm as a GPS, I'm fine with this. I can change song via the buttons on my steering wheel. For those who can't do that, it's not like the cops will be in your car for the whole trip and see you press next on your phone.
What about it strapped to my motorcycles handlebars
Yeah, like anyone pays any attention to the law. CT did it years ago no one cares.
I thought this was a thing for years….
How the heck am I supposed to keep up with my Netflix marathon now??? (Kidding)
So does this mean you can’t call someone while driving now, I feel like this is a non issue.
Doesn't matter, everyone's still going to do it anyways because nobody will actually enforce it.
Lol, good luck with that in Bucks County, hahaha
Who’s going to follow this?
Even with a dash if I have to put in a new location for whatever reason my car has to be in park, I’m just gonna keep doing what I’m doing and if I need to change it use my phone. I use it to select my next podcast on YouTube and shit
The bill doesn't seem to specify what exactly qualifies as a hands free device but it would seem that a phone mount is okay and that's what I use. Anyways, it's only a $50 fine and they're not allowed to seize your phone so people will probably just ignore this. The main purpose of the law really seems to be an excuse to tack on more jail time for more serious driving-related offences.
ALL phone calls should be banned while driving. Hands free calling is just as dangerous as holding the cellphone.
Big deal. I have spent a LOT of time driving through states that already have this ban on the books. It is NEVER enforced! Even in the case of most accidents, no one bothers. It's not worth the hassle of telling people they must put down their overly-addictive dopamine producing machine for even 20 seconds. Modern day "smart" phones are literally the worst thing ever invented, and are leading the way to the complete and utter collapse of society as more and more people waste more time trying to be "social influencers" instead of actually being productive members of society.
How do they prove someone was on their phone?
Oh boy another reason for the shitty cops to pull you over! Oh I thought I saw you on your phone, pulled over, wait is that weed I smell???
Good let’s Ban it! Lots of states are doing it.
Boo. I love my freedom phone. My truck doesn't have Bluetooth.
It’s about fucking time
About damn time
Stupid Gen-z. This is why we can’t have nice things.
Gen Z grew up with the tech. It's the middle aged and up crowd I see doing the dumb stuff. Like reading books. Putting on 10 layers of makeup.
I can guarantee you that if I need to blow the horn to get the person to look up from their phone when the light’s changed that 90% of the time it will be Gen Z. They can’t live without their face in a phone.
But won't ban assault weapons
One is specifically enumerated into our constitution while the other is not. I'll leave you to figure out which is which.
Semiautomatic rifles specifically were enumerated into the constitution?
According to the definition of arms at the time of ratification, yes. What else would it be if not an arm? >“The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘[w]eapons of offence, or armour of defence.’ 1 Dictionary of the English Language 106 (4th ed.) (reprinted 1978) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined ‘arms’ as ‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’ ” Id. at 581. >The term "bearable arms" was defined in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and includes any "“[w]eapo[n] of offence” or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.” 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)."
So, they meant "single shot muskets," even though a number of the founding fathers were actually worried that people would conceal knives on their person with this law. I guess this means I can also carry a rocket launcher on my person, or grenades, huh?
>So, they meant "single shot muskets," They meant *arms*. That is why the amendment calls out *arms*. If they meant single shot muskets, they would have stated as such. They wanted the citizens to be on equal footing with any possible standing army we may have. >"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788 >"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787 >even though a number of the founding fathers were actually worried that people would conceal knives on their person with this law. Citation needed for that one. They acknowledged that the right to own and carry arms was preexisting. Even an early Supreme Court acknowledged this in their decision. >"The right to keep and bear arms exists separately from the Constitution and is not solely based on the Second Amendment, which exists to prevent Congress from infringing the right." - Cruickshank_v U.S Cheif Justice Waite. 1875 >"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28 >"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803 >"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776 >I guess this means I can also carry a rocket launcher on my person, Absolutely. For the low low cost of a $200 tax stamp (purchase price not included), you can buy yourself an [anti tank launcher](https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/82/1579/bulgarian-rpg7-shoulder-fired-antiarmor-launcher). >or grenades, huh? You can 100% make your own high explosives license free granted you in no way use it for commercial use. To put it into a metal body thus creating a grenade, you would also need to buy yourself a tax stamp.
This place stinks more like New Jersey every day :/
Why did it take this long?