Attorney decides to test legality of texting while on Autopilot

[Shawn Snider]

"Surrey" = location of the poster in the UK
"Colonies" = USofA

Actually it's Surrey, BC, Canada. The West Coast's Gangster's Paradise!

I used to live near New West/Surrey, gun shots every night with ambulances screaming by... Ahhh, the good life... I wonder when those gangs will run out of corpses...

 

[brucet999]

For the lawyers in this thread I have always wondered something. In my state (GA):

§ 40-6-241.2 - Writing, sending, or reading text based communication while operating motor vehicle prohibited; exceptions; penalties for violation :: 2010 Georgia Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia



It would seem to me that doing something on my phone that doesn't send or receive data would not be prohibited by this statute (eg I have an RSS reader that only syncs on demand, or reading a Kindle, or playing solitaire).

Therefore the officer seeing somebody use a device shouldn't be enough to convict; they should have to prove that data was being sent or received, right?

Think you would lose. The text says"…while using a wireless telecommunications device to write, send, or read any text based communication…". It seems to me to define the device as wireless but does not say anything about receiving data in real time.

 

[kirkbauer]

Think you would lose. The text says"…while using a wireless telecommunications device to write, send, or read any text based communication…". It seems to me to define the device as wireless but does not say anything about receiving data in real time.

Playing solitaire would be ok perhaps?

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Silly attorney. You are still technically "driving" even though Autopilot is engaged. How can an attorney miss something so obvious?

 

[luvnMyTS]

Silly attorney. You are still technically "driving" even though Autopilot is engaged. How can an attorney miss something so obvious?

No you're not technically "driving". All comes down to how the law is written your state. He is the "operator" of the vehicle. As someone quoted a law from one state above, they have this covered in stating that you may not text while "operating" a vehicle. In this case, he is guilty. Other other states however state you may not text/talk while "driving" a vehicle. So it just depends on how the law is written in his particular state. As a "driver" he's not guilty, if he can prove that auto-pilot was engaged at the time of the occurrence. As an "operator" of the vehicle, he is guilty, regardless.

 

[bonnie]

No you're not technically "driving". All comes down to how the law is written your state. He is the "operator" of the vehicle. As someone quoted a law from one state above, they have this covered in stating that you may not text while "operating" a vehicle. In this case, he is guilty. Other other states however state you may not text/talk while "driving" a vehicle. So it just depends on how the law is written in his particular state. As a "driver" he's not guilty, if he can prove that auto-pilot was engaged at the time of the occurrence. As an "operator" of the vehicle, he is guilty, regardless.

Totally disagree. Tesla does not sell AP as 'self-driving'. They make it clear that your hands are to remain on the wheel. Someone has to be driving and it's not AP.

 

[stopcrazypp]

No you're not technically "driving". All comes down to how the law is written your state. He is the "operator" of the vehicle. As someone quoted a law from one state above, they have this covered in stating that you may not text while "operating" a vehicle. In this case, he is guilty. Other other states however state you may not text/talk while "driving" a vehicle. So it just depends on how the law is written in his particular state. As a "driver" he's not guilty, if he can prove that auto-pilot was engaged at the time of the occurrence. As an "operator" of the vehicle, he is guilty, regardless.

I would love to see the lawyer try telling that to the judge that he was not the "driver" but rather the "operator". I doubt the judge will accept that as an excuse or that the lawyer was not the "driver" in that example.

Again, as I mentioned, until Tesla makes the car fully self-driving/autonomous and assumes all legal liability, whoever is in the driver's seat is still the driver.

 

[Johan]

I hope he takes it to court, loses, appeals and (obviously) the appeal is denied. And then I would like my 5 minutes back please (for reading this silly thread). One more note: posts like the OP's go to show how lawyers and attorneys sometimes lose their sense of how important the function they serve in society really is. Hint one: the importance is not always proportionate to the income. Hint two: the main function of an attorney is not to waste the time of law enforcement or the courts in order to play legal acrobatics and twist every word of every law.

 

[Quantum`]

Hint one: the importance is not always proportionate to the income. Hint two: the main function of an attorney is not to waste the time of law enforcement or the courts in order to play legal acrobatics and twist every word of every law.

No?

 

[BertL]

I hope he takes it to court, loses, appeals and (obviously) the appeal is denied. And then I would like my 5 minutes back please (for reading this silly thread). One more note: posts like the OP's go to show how lawyers and attorneys sometimes lose their sense of how important the function they serve in society really is. Hint one: the importance is not always proportionate to the income. Hint two: the main function of an attorney is not to waste the time of law enforcement or the courts in order to play legal acrobatics and twist every word of every law.

Well said. I couldn't agree more.

 

[Super_Popular]

the laws will have to adjust for the changes in technology

It kind of already has.

Using cellphone map while driving OK'd by California court - San Jose Mercury News

 

[Discoducky]

No you're not technically "driving". All comes down to how the law is written your state. He is the "operator" of the vehicle. As someone quoted a law from one state above, they have this covered in stating that you may not text while "operating" a vehicle. In this case, he is guilty. Other other states however state you may not text/talk while "driving" a vehicle. So it just depends on how the law is written in his particular state. As a "driver" he's not guilty, if he can prove that auto-pilot was engaged at the time of the occurrence. As an "operator" of the vehicle, he is guilty, regardless.

Show us the law which demonstrates the above please. Realize that operating is a super-set of driving. This means that you can be operating a vehicle, but not driving. But you cannot be driving without operating. Level 2 does NOT relieve the driver of any liability in any state.

 

[Canuck]

Actually it's Surrey, BC, Canada. The West Coast's Gangster's Paradise!

I used to live near New West/Surrey, gun shots every night with ambulances screaming by... Ahhh, the good life... I wonder when those gangs will run out of corpses...

Ha! I'm a long way from that area. I'm in South Surrey (well right now I'm at my cabin in Tulameen). I doubt there's any place with a better climate, more beautiful location (I'm by the ocean), or less crime, in Canada than in South Surrey. You may find locations that beat us on each of these individually (except weather -- it's often sunny in SS while raining in Vancouver) but none collectively.

Where are you located in BC?

 

[luvnMyTS]

I would love to see the lawyer try telling that to the judge that he was not the "driver" but rather the "operator". I doubt the judge will accept that as an excuse or that the lawyer was not the "driver" in that example.

Again, as I mentioned, until Tesla makes the car fully self-driving/autonomous and assumes all legal liability, whoever is in the driver's seat is still the driver.

The problem is, the law is the law. As it is written. In most cases, it is written in a manner that leaves little room for interpretation to prevent biased judges for including their personal opinions into guilty/not guilty verdicts and in the sentences they impose. It doesn't matter if the judge "thinks" it's the same thing. The fact that it's not is all that matters. You simply cannot drive a car from the trunk of a car. You can be considered the operator of the vehicle, but not the driver, unless of course you have a remote control that you're using, but that's a whole other type of case. As sad as it is, there are thousands, millions of criminals, small and large, still out on the streets because of loopholes in the law. California seems to have closed up the loophole. Not sure all states have done so yet. As long as any state says you cannot "drive" and text/talk/whatever, then if and a BIG IF, you can prove the car was on auto-pilot control at the time of the incident, based on the way the law was written (if it says "driver") then accordingly to that particular law, you're not guilty. Again, would be very difficult to prove in court and you'll probably lose and Tesla likely won't assist you with the data from your car to prove it was on auto-pilot, but that's not the point I'm making. Not stating whether you will or won't be found guilty, and only pointing out whether the actual law says you are guilty.

 

[stopcrazypp]

The problem is, the law is the law. As it is written. In most cases, it is written in a manner that leaves little room for interpretation to prevent biased judges for including their personal opinions into guilty/not guilty verdicts and in the sentences they impose. It doesn't matter if the judge "thinks" it's the same thing. The fact that it's not is all that matters. You simply cannot drive a car from the trunk of a car. You can be considered the operator of the vehicle, but not the driver, unless of course you have a remote control that you're using, but that's a whole other type of case. As sad as it is, there are thousands, millions of criminals, small and large, still out on the streets because of loopholes in the law. California seems to have closed up the loophole. Not sure all states have done so yet. As long as any state says you cannot "drive" and text/talk/whatever, then if and a BIG IF, you can prove the car was on auto-pilot control at the time of the incident, based on the way the law was written (if it says "driver") then accordingly to that particular law, you're not guilty. Again, would be very difficult to prove in court and you'll probably lose and Tesla likely won't assist you with the data from your car to prove it was on auto-pilot, but that's not the point I'm making. Not stating whether you will or won't be found guilty, and only pointing out whether the actual law says you are guilty.

The problem with your example is that the law doesn't necessarily have a hard definition of driving and that is where the judge will have to use discretion (AKA use common sense in the context of the situation to find if the person was "driving").

Just some googling found the following article on California's law in relation to the definition of driver/drive. California law defines "driver", but does not define "drive". Thus the law does not require the judge to find a hard definition of driving, but rather to see the specific situation.

The first case example shows that circumstantial evidence is enough to establish someone as a driver (example raised was a single person in the driver's seat with the engine running and the car parked on a freeway 1 mile from on-ramp).
https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/2100/2241.html

Definition of driver in the law in section 305, but no subsequent definition of "drive":
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/vctop/vc/d1/305

The texting law in California uses "driving" in phrasing.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/vctop/vc/d11/c12/a1/23123_5

I think if the lawyer was trying the same shenanigan in California, the judge would find that he fits a common sense definition of being the driver.

Anyways, if the lawyer was trying to test the law and whether the definition of "driver" or "driving" vs "operator" has a distinction, Minnesota was not a good state to pick, as the relevant law says:
"No person may operate a motor vehicle while using a wireless communications device to compose, read, or send an electronic message, when the vehicle is in motion or a part of traffic."
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=169.475

 

[luvnMyTS]

The problem with your example is that the law doesn't necessarily have a hard definition of driving and that is where the judge will have to use discretion (AKA use common sense in the context of the situation to find if the person was "driving").

Just some googling found the following article on California's law in relation to the definition of driver/drive. California law defines "driver", but does not define "drive". Thus the law does not require the judge to find a hard definition of driving, but rather to see the specific situation.

The first case example shows that circumstantial evidence is enough to establish someone as a driver (example raised was a single person in the driver's seat with the engine running and the car parked on a freeway 1 mile from on-ramp).
https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/2100/2241.html

Definition of driver in the law in section 305, but no subsequent definition of "drive":
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/vctop/vc/d1/305

The texting law in California uses "driving" in phrasing.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/vctop/vc/d11/c12/a1/23123_5

I think if the lawyer was trying the same shenanigan in California, the judge would find that he fits a common sense definition of being the driver.

Anyways, if the lawyer was trying to test the law and whether the definition of "driver" or "driving" vs "operator" has a distinction, Minnesota was not a good state to pick, as the relevant law says:
"No person may operate a motor vehicle while using a wireless communications device to compose, read, or send an electronic message, when the vehicle is in motion or a part of traffic."
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=169.475

Sounds like in Minnesota, there would be no question as to a guilty verdict. Based on your post, it says "operate" which takes out the loophole possibility. Someone above posted that California law also states "operator" as well. If that's the case, then it differs from your examples above. Your examples leave room to argue the case. Remember, guilt is beyond all reasonable doubt. So, if there's a chance the defendant is not wrong, the law is supposed to error on the side of the defendant. If the person who posted that California law states "operate", then that means California has closed the loophole as well and the OP's goose is as good as cooked!

 

[ViperDoc]

You know whats more distracting than phones in a car? Kids. Should we ban them too? Talking on a phone handsfree is the same thing as talking to a passenger, maybe we should ban passengers while we at it. Ban everything!

Actually, I am pretty sure that studies have shown that talking handsfree is MORE distracting than talking to passengers because (a) the user is often drawn to try to keep their face turned towards the mike and (b) passengers in the car have the situational awareness to stop talking when things get busy. I know with certainty that studies have shown that the area covered driver's eye scan is MUCH deceased while using a hands-free phone.

Kids are distractions for sure. I only use my phone hands-free, but I have to at least be honest when I read studies showing the distraction with hards-free is not better than when you use your hands. Now texting is another matter entirely!

David

 

[wk057]

Well, since we're making up ridiculous scenarios, what about this:

You get in the car with the seat belt buckled but tucked behind you because you hate seat belts. You're driving along on 6-lane (3 on each side) divided highway with a speed limit of 70 MPH, going 70 MPH. You engage autopilot. Now, you're driving along and you end up in tons of traffic. The car stops behind the car in front and you're stuck for a while. Well, you decide to climb out the driver side window because your door is broken and you need some fresh air. You're sitting on the guard rail playing on Facebook when all of a sudden traffic starts moving again. Much to your surprise, your car goes too since you never took it out of gear or disengaged autopilot. Now your car is gone, 70 MPH behind the car it was tailing. Speed limit drops to 55 MPH and a cop tries to pull your car over. Eventually he lucks out and is able to by jumping in front of it and slowing to a stop while the car followed his car. To his surprise, no one is in the car that has driven for 10 miles by itself.

While the puzzled cop is trying to figure out what to do, you, having hitchhiked a ride to catch your car, pull up and go over to your car. You explain that it's your car and it took off by itself and drove the last 10 miles on its own.

Who gets the speeding ticket? Were you driving still? You weren't even in the car. (For simplicity we'll say no one else was either)

My answer would be you should get some reckless endangerment type of ticket for being an idiot... but what if you never showed up? There's no proof you set the car in motion. The cop only ever saw the car with no driver, so no witness to say you were the driver. The car was obeying the law aside from the speed limit change. What gives?

 

[luvnMyTS]

That would be funny as hell.

You are partially correct. You wouldn't get a speeding ticket, because you weren't driving the car. But as the owner/operator of the vehicle that set it in motion, you could be subject to more serious charges. Would vary from state to state depending on where that scenario falls under the law. However, if nobody got hurt, then negligence with no damages has a tough time holding up in court as well.

There's always going to be scenarios that can be argued both ways. This thread could go on forever and ever and ever.

Let's just say, be smart, first because it's not safe. Second, so Musk doesn't take away all of the features of auto-pilot to protect his own ass from idiotic drivers that ruin it for the rest of us!!

 

[stopcrazypp]

Sounds like in Minnesota, there would be no question as to a guilty verdict. Based on your post, it says "operate" which takes out the loophole possibility. Someone above posted that California law also states "operator" as well. If that's the case, then it differs from your examples above. Your examples leave room to argue the case. Remember, guilt is beyond all reasonable doubt. So, if there's a chance the defendant is not wrong, the law is supposed to error on the side of the defendant. If the person who posted that California law states "operate", then that means California has closed the loophole as well and the OP's goose is as good as cooked!

I don't think that is how the law works. The judge is not supposed to use an interpretation that errs on the side of being favorable to the defendant. Rather the judge is supposed to use an interpretation that fits the common sense intention of the law (when the law does not define something clearly and there is no binding precedent, as in this case). The reasonable doubt comes in when examining evidence, not the interpretation of the law.

In this case, the law is supposed to prevent accidents that happen because the driver was distracted by texting. With Tesla's autopilot system, it is not a fully autonomous system (driver has to continue to monitor the vehicle and take control at any moment). You are in danger of an accident if the autopilot has to relinquish control and you were distracted by texting, especially if both hands were fully occupied by texting as in the example. I think the judge will find you are in violation of the law in that context.

This is different from fully autonomous vehicles (like the Google ones) where you are not expected to monitor the vehicle and you truly are just a "passenger" that is free to do other things.