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.

  • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    Since the article appears to be mostly a weird collection of badly referenced random cases, let me give you the primary source on the case in the headline:

    https://www.tiktok.com/@kristakampz/video/7640403411845877012

    Edit and also to save you having to go to tiktok, here’s a frame extracted from the video:

    Note, this was in Alexandra Headland in Queensland in Australia. So no idea why the article cites Georgia law…

    Also this is relevant: https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/road-safety/mobile-phones

    Illegal mobile phone use while driving includes:

    • holding it in your hand
    • resting on any part of your body (eg. your lap or shoulder)

    If you hold your phone or have it on your body, you will be fined even if you’re not operating the phone, or it’s turned off.

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      So no idea why the article cites Georgia law…

      Because there was another case in Georgia in December that they were citing as well. In fact they cite several cases in different parts of the country. The article is making a case for a supreme court challenge to these Constitution violating cameras and fines. The Australian cases just a viral opener for the topic.

      • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 days ago

        Can’t be that viral if the tiktok is already two months old. I think they are just too bad at journalism to check their sources.

    • pirat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      Does a phone in the pocket count as resting on any part of the body?

    • lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      Why is it illegal to have a phone in your lap? That doesn’t make sense. That’s bizarre.

      Edit:

      Really? This is a hot take? WTF!

      • jsnfwlr@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        I know in Western Australia, where I live, it is illegal to have the phone resting on any part of your body.

        https://www.wa.gov.au/organisation/road-safety-commission/mobile-phones-and-distractions

        I wonder where the line is drawn between on your lap vs in your pocket. By that I mean, what if it is in a clear pouch on a lanyard around your neck, or in a running-armband. In both those cases it could still be used by need not have been touched while the car is driving.

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        9 days ago

        The only reason to have a phone in your lap while driving is if you intend to use said phone while driving.

        • lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          9 days ago

          That logic can be applied to anywhere in the car that the driver can reach. Is the Australian government suffering a collective stroke? Should we send help?

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 days ago

        If you write enough laws in a manner that makes it easy to violate them accidentally, then anyone can be prosecuted at any time and civil liberties can be removed via technicalities.

      • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 days ago

        A law that specified you were actively using the phone would be hard to enforce. Simmiliar to how it is usually illegal to have open alcohol within reach of the driver. The officer doesn’t have to actually see you drinking it.

            • lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              9 days ago

              These are cargo cult laws. They don’t understand what the original laws were about. They just know “use phone in car bad” but they don’t know why. Used to you had to hold the phone to your head and block half of your vision.

      • Auli@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 days ago

        Yes it does. Your phone is in your lap so you can look at it. Keep it away. I know everyone is addicted to them but just drive without looking st it.

        • lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          I don’t own a car. I ride a bicycle and take Ubers and Lyfts for long distance travel, and smart phones are like the spice mélange to those drivers. They seem to need them to navigate the Universe. So this law just seems terribly ill-conceived. The lap is just an oddly specific place to focus on. So you can set them on the dashboard, center console, or anywhere else, but the lap is the danger zone?

          My main phone is a dumb phone. I hate smart phones and only got one specifically for Ubder and Lyfts, so I’m not addicted. So I’m standing outside looking in and it’s a bizarre law. Sure, we don’t want people playing Angry Birds while driving, but I don’t think this is a well thought out solution that does anything at all except cause more chaos and suffering.

      • WindyRebel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        If you slam on the brakes or maybe brake too sudden and it flies off and onto the floor, then it could potentially slide under a pedal (like the brakes), hindering its function.

        Is it likely? Probably not, but it is a dangerous hazard waiting to happen.

        • lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          I’ve been trying to wrap my mind around the logic of this law and this was one of the things I considered they must be worried about. It’s not so much people using them, it’s just they don’t want them in the lap. Because Uber and Lyft drivers have to use them for work in the US. Here they have they often have a mount on the dash board to hold their phone and they’re constantly taking calls and checking maps.

          As you say though it’s like a one in a million event freak accident if it flies off the lap and gets stuck under the pedal. It would be weird to pass a law for some off the wall scenario like that.