A woman drives with both hands on the wheel. Her phone sits face-down on her lap. No officer pulls her over. No lights flash. Weeks later, a $1,251 ticket arrives in the mail. The evidence: a single frame from a Camera surveillance app. The charge: phone use while driving.
Automated camera companies market their devices as automated license plate readers — tools for catching stolen cars, flagging warrants, and aiding serious investigations.
Sold as a Crime Tool. Used as a Fine Machine.
Presumably the driver had previously used her phone, and the phone was in her lap. So the alcohol analogy would actually be re-sealed alcohol held by the driver or in a container around the driver’s seat. Which is illegal in most of the USA.
She probably used it earlier, but not necessarily. She might not have a good place to set her phone in her car.
She might have used it earlier, at a time where it was legal. For instance, setting navigation or music before driving. Or (depending on local laws) while stopped at a light.
Right, but if we’re making alcohol an analogy for phones then she wouldn’t be given such leeway by the law. Alcohol is just a bad analogy here.
Because the alcohol law is “open container”. There is no “phone in reach of driver” law. The analogous activity with alcohol would be active drinking.
So if the phone was on the seat she should get a ticket, if was on the console 2" to the right she should get a ticket, if it was in her pocket she should get a ticket? If it’s in a dash mount within reach she should get a ticket? If the phone’s in a sealed box like an unopened liquor bottle then she shouldn’t?
You see now why alcohol is not a great analogy.
I got a lot of down votes above for pointing out the discrepancy. I think people got ahead of their skis: I wasn’t trying to say she deserves DUI-level charges, I’m demonstrating that the analogy isn’t great.
Removed by mod