Handsfree iPhone Call Leads to Ticket

At 3:06 AM -0700 9/15/2007, Google Kreme wrote:

>On 14-Sep-2007, at 17:41, Andrew Laurence wrote:
>>The statute is concerned with having both ears covered, regardless of
>>what content is being played. Given that the iPhone comes with
>>"Stereo earphones with built-in microphone", placement of both
>>earphones in your ears is a violation of the statute.
>>
>>Given that the Bluetooth earpiece only covers one ear, it is not in
>>violation.
>
>I'd be very careful abotu stating absolutes unless you are BOTH a
>lawyer in california and also have been in court on this specific
>statute. As someone else pointed out, these are neither 'earplugs'
>nor 'covering the ear'

I suspect the reality will be--

1) Officer sees you with cables to both ears

2) You have to convince the cop and/or the judge they were not a distraction

--Jim

On 9/15/2007 3:06 AM, "Google Kreme" wrote:
>> The statute is concerned with having both ears covered, regardless of
>> what content is being played. Given that the iPhone comes with
>> "Stereo earphones with built-in microphone", placement of both
>> earphones in your ears is a violation of the statute.
>>
>> Given that the Bluetooth earpiece only covers one ear, it is not in
>> violation.
>
> I'd be very careful abotu stating absolutes unless you are BOTH a
> lawyer in california and also have been in court on this specific
> statute. As someone else pointed out, these are neither 'earplugs'
> nor 'covering the ear'

As someone who lives in California and has talked to police officers about
this law, I can tell that that -- at least from the officers' point of view
-- the law is interpreted to mean "having something on or in both ears" and
earbuds can definitely result in a ticket. Whether or not you can contest
such a ticket based on a technicality is another matter.

Just curious... Doesn't iPhone have a speaker phone? That would pass
muster in California law.

Unless you're under 18. Governator just signed a bill prohibiting the
use of any cellphone while driving if you're under 18 years of age.
They can't pull you over for that, but if they get you for something
else, it's another $50 fine (for the first time offense).

A recent poll showed most Californians not only support this measure,
but want it to apply to everyone and not just to minors.

David Weintraub

>The statute is concerned with having both ears covered, regardless of
>what content is being played.

Funny... when I drive my old car, which is an open two-seater, I wear
earplugs, in both ears. Would this put me in violation of the law in
California?

--chuck

On 16-Sep-2007, at 05:33, chuck goolsbee wrote:
>> The statute is concerned with having both ears covered, regardless of
>> what content is being played.
>
> Funny... when I drive my old car, which is an open two-seater, I wear
> earplugs, in both ears. Would this put me in violation of the law in
> California?

Yes. And in most states.

On Sep 16, 2007, at 4:33 AM, David Weintraub wrote:

> Just curious... Doesn't iPhone have a speaker phone? That would pass
> muster in California law.

Well, yes. But I doubt it would be useful in most cars, as it isn't
partidularly loud. (Works fine in a reasonably quiet room--even one
with a somewhat noisy tower computer nearby.)

   --John

On Sep 16, 2007, at 4:33 AM, chuck goolsbee wrote:

>> The statute is concerned with having both ears covered, regardless of
>> what content is being played.
>
> Funny... when I drive my old car, which is an open two-seater, I wear
> earplugs, in both ears. Would this put me in violation of the law in
> California?

Probably, yes. And also probably in Washington state, where you
likely drive more often than in California.

   --John

>>> The statute is concerned with having both ears covered, regardless of
>>> what content is being played.
>>
>> Funny... when I drive my old car, which is an open two-seater, I wear
>> earplugs, in both ears. Would this put me in violation of the law in
>> California?
>
>Probably, yes. And also probably in Washington state, where you
>likely drive more often than in California.

Which is absurd, as the earplugs allow me to hear what I need to
hear, while also preventing me from going deaf should I *not* wear
them. The ambient noise on a multi-lane freeway is quite literally
deafening.

I'm not filling my ears with music, or a telephone call, I'm merely
reducing the overall decibel level of my surroundings.

I remove them once off a freeway, because when you are on a two-lane
highway or road, the only noise you have is wind, and your own car.
Unlike the freeway where you have wind, your car, and every other car
& truck around you.


Hence the stupidity of such laws.


"The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition
is so powerful a principle, that it alone, and without any assistance,
not only capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity,
but of surmounting a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the
folly of human laws too often incumbers its operations"

--Adam Smith
in "Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations"

johnbaxterlistsmac.com wrote:

>> Just curious... Doesn't iPhone have a speaker phone? That would pass
>> muster in California law.
>
> Well, yes. But I doubt it would be useful in most cars, as it isn't
> partidularly loud. (Works fine in a reasonably quiet room--even one
> with a somewhat noisy tower computer nearby.)

Yes. Wind noise is a real killer to most speaker phone setups. You now have a white noise background on top of echo canceling software and hardware. On top of the physical limits of any cell phone speaker and microphone. At the end of it the sound quality of both what you say and hear winds up being not all that great.

David

--On September 17, 2007 7:03:44 AM -0700 Google Kreme <gkremegmail.com>
wrote:

> On 16-Sep-2007, at 05:33, chuck goolsbee wrote:
>>> The statute is concerned with having both ears covered, regardless of
>>> what content is being played.
>>
>> Funny... when I drive my old car, which is an open two-seater, I wear
>> earplugs, in both ears. Would this put me in violation of the law in
>> California?
>
> Yes. And in most states.

Several years ago I saw a driver with earphones on driving the speed limit.
Unfortunately there was an ambulance behind him that he was completely
oblivious to despite the flashing lights and loud siren. I certainly hope
that was not a situation where the delay meant life or death for whoever
was waiting on the ambulance.

Even if you keep the volume low, earphones block quite a bit of noise, and
there is no way for the cops to know what sound level you have set so
expect to get pulled over.

You should never block both ears when driving. Always keep at least one ear
open.

At 4:33 AM -0700 9/16/07, chuck goolsbee wrote:
>>The statute is concerned with having both ears covered, regardless of
>>what content is being played.
>
>Funny... when I drive my old car, which is an open two-seater, I wear
>earplugs, in both ears. Would this put me in violation of the law in
>California?

Via the letter of the law, perhaps not:

>Wearing of Headsets or Earplugs
>27400. A person operating a motor vehicle or bicycle may not wear
>a headset covering, or earplugs in, both ears. This prohibition does
>not apply to any of the following:

.....

>(d) A person wearing personal hearing protectors in the form of
>earplugs or molds that are specifically designed to attenuate
>injurious noise levels. The plugs or molds shall be designed in a
>manner so as to not inhibit the wearer's ability to hear a siren or
>horn from an emergency vehicle or a horn from another motor vehicle.

(See http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27400.htm)

But the law is more than just the letter, and you'd have to have your
own lawyer search case law to really know what the situation is.

Bob

> Funny... when I drive my old car, which is an open two-seater, I wear > earplugs, in both ears. Would this put me in violation of the law in > California?

Yes. And in most states

Perhaps not. The quoted statute includes:

(d) A person wearing personal hearing protectors in the form of earplugs or molds that are specifically designed to attenuate injurious noise levels. The plugs or molds shall be designed in a manner so as to not inhibit the wearer's ability to hear a siren or horn from an emergency vehicle or a horn from another motor vehicle.

If his earplugs are designed to attenuate noise and allow him to hear, this paragraph should apply.

Dan Frakes wrote:
> On 9/15/2007 3:06 AM, "Google Kreme" wrote:
>>> The statute is concerned with having both ears covered, regardless of
>>> what content is being played. Given that the iPhone comes with
>>> "Stereo earphones with built-in microphone", placement of both
>>> earphones in your ears is a violation of the statute.
>>>
>>> Given that the Bluetooth earpiece only covers one ear, it is not in
>>> violation.
>> I'd be very careful abotu stating absolutes unless you are BOTH a
>> lawyer in california and also have been in court on this specific
>> statute. As someone else pointed out, these are neither 'earplugs'
>> nor 'covering the ear'
>
> As someone who lives in California and has talked to police officers about
> this law, I can tell that that -- at least from the officers' point of view
> -- the law is interpreted to mean "having something on or in both ears" and
> earbuds can definitely result in a ticket. Whether or not you can contest
> such a ticket based on a technicality is another matter.

Driving laws vary incredibly state to state. It wasn't too long ago that driving while drinking was OK in Texas as long as you didn't get drunk. Go figure.

Here in NC the penalties for speeding are so draconian that it has turned into "let's make a deal". The statute monetary fines are trivial but you can lose your license over a single minor offense. So everyone in the know offers to pay more for a reduced "writeup". It's a very messy game where the unofficial rules vary by county. So getting a lawyer is almost mandatory. People not in the know caught speeding on a 4 lane expressway where they missed a limit drop of 10 mph can loose their license if not careful where folks with good lawyers get off for just fines for doing 100.

The point. Know the local situation before you do anything that even might remotely be considered a violation.

David Ross

On Sep 19, 2007, at 5:43 AM, chuck goolsbee wrote:

> Which is absurd, as the earplugs allow me to hear what I need to
> hear, while also preventing me from going deaf should I *not* wear
> them. The ambient noise on a multi-lane freeway is quite literally
> deafening.

In some non-driving situation, ask a handy state trooper. (These
days, handy state troopers are on the ferry crossings I do now and
then...for a long time they were directing traffic in Kingston.
There, I got to know the regulars pretty well, and even got them to
verify stop light operation after I changed a bulb, once (failed
first try, OK second try). Stay away from the ones partnered with dogs.

It was also in Kingston where I got a trooper's interpretation of
"children present" for a school zone (which is more inclusive than
California's definition was when I was there--or at least his was,
and his regular beat includes the school zone I most often pass
through).

   --John

At 6:03 AM -0700 9/19/07, Bob Jacobsen wrote:
>>(d) A person wearing personal hearing protectors in the form of
>>earplugs or molds that are specifically designed to attenuate
>>injurious noise levels. The plugs or molds shall be designed in a
>>manner so as to not inhibit the wearer's ability to hear a siren or
>>horn from an emergency vehicle or a horn from another motor vehicle.
>
>(See http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27400.htm)

In my own convertible days, my local club dug into the law and found
that the allowance basically means you *can* wear earplugs, if <IIRC>
they're custom-molded to your ear and supplied by an audiologist.</>
It seems the allowance exists essentially for motorcycle riders, for
whom deafness due to wind noise is a genuine concern.

So the club called a few motorcycle shops and found a guy who made
custom-molded earplugs, using the same materials used in a doctor's
office. They guy had gotten a ticket for wearing earplugs, looked
into the law and found a doctor willing to teach him to make the
plugs.

So, I have a set of custom molds which match the statute, but were
not supplied by an audiologist.

--
Andrew Laurence
atlaurenuci.edu

On 09/19/2007 08:03 AM, "Kevin van Haaren" <kevinvanhaaren.net> wrote:

>>>> The statute is concerned with having both ears covered, regardless of
>>>> what content is being played.
>>>
>>> Funny... when I drive my old car, which is an open two-seater, I wear
>>> earplugs, in both ears. Would this put me in violation of the law in
>>> California?
>>
>> Yes. And in most states.
>
> Several years ago I saw a driver with earphones on driving the speed limit.
> Unfortunately there was an ambulance behind him that he was completely
> oblivious to despite the flashing lights and loud siren. I certainly hope
> that was not a situation where the delay meant life or death for whoever
> was waiting on the ambulance.
>
> Even if you keep the volume low, earphones block quite a bit of noise, and
> there is no way for the cops to know what sound level you have set so
> expect to get pulled over.
>
> You should never block both ears when driving. Always keep at least one ear
> open.

If that's why they're banning earphones/earplugs, then they're going to only
solve about ten percent of THAT problem. Modern car stereos are *far* louder
than an ambulance when you add in attenuation for distance and the superior
soundproofing in modern autos. Cali would need to set db limits for car
stereos if they want to really solve that issue.

Blanket bans on devices are, to agree with chuck, stupid. What if I'm
driving a utility vehicle which, due to design, exceeds safe noise limits in
the passenger compartment? Do I sacrifice my hearing? If I'm deaf, I'm not
hearing that ambulance *anyways*, so I'm not sure how effective that law is
in the long run.

There is no clear and present danger, nor even *annoyance* that is caused
solely by earphones and earplugs that cannot be better traced back to the
complete lack of respect this country has for driving. If you really want to
make the roads safer, make it harder to get a drivers license. Make people
demonstrate, and regularly, (none of this online renewal garbage) that they
posess the skills to manage an automobile safely in the full range of
driving conditions (as weather would permit. I'm not saying build weather
sim hangars). Spend the money to build proper testing areas for drivers.
Grade them on situational awareness. Make them demonstrate they can deal
with the distractions of modern driving. And no more assumptions that an
80-year old driver is magically safer than a teenager because they've driven
longer, and tend to drive slow. Doing something wrong for 60 or more years
just makes you an expert in doing stuff wrong.

Of course, this will never happen, because this country may not pull
together on much, but any attempt to place even the smallest, most common
sense stumbling block in the way of acquiring a driver's license for anyone
over 18 is met with a fury of millions. But the idea that banning earplugs
makes for safer drivers is inane.

--
John C. Welch

At 6:09 AM -0700 9/19/2007, David Ross wrote:

>--snip--
>Driving laws vary incredibly state to state. It wasn't too long ago
>that driving while drinking was OK in Texas as long as you didn't
>get drunk. Go figure.
>
>Here in NC the penalties for speeding are so draconian that it has
>turned into "let's make a deal". The statute monetary fines are
>trivial but you can lose your license over a single minor offense.
>So everyone in the know offers to pay more for a reduced "writeup".
>It's a very messy game where the unofficial rules vary by county. So
>getting a lawyer is almost mandatory. People not in the know caught
>speeding on a 4 lane expressway where they missed a limit drop of 10
>mph can loose their license if not careful where folks with good
>lawyers get off for just fines for doing 100.
>
>The point. Know the local situation before you do anything that even
>might remotely be considered a violation.

And one more consideration.

In most places, a moving violation is likely to increase your auto
insurance rates for a few years. And don't presume that because you
got the ticket in a different state from where you live, your
insurance company and motor vehicle department won't find out about
it.

--Jim

At 12:14 PM -0700 9/20/2007, John C. Welch wrote:

>On 09/19/2007 08:03 AM, "Kevin van Haaren" <kevinvanhaaren.net> wrote:
>

--snip--

> >
>> You should never block both ears when driving. Always keep at least one ear
> > open.
>
>If that's why they're banning earphones/earplugs, then they're going to only
>solve about ten percent of THAT problem. Modern car stereos are *far* louder
>than an ambulance when you add in attenuation for distance and the superior
>soundproofing in modern autos. Cali would need to set db limits for car
>stereos if they want to really solve that issue.
>
--snip--

John:

California does have a law. And despite it I have been subjected to
"music" coming from nearby vehicles that is painfully loud even with
my windows up.

<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=60665922398+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve>

27007. No driver of a vehicle shall operate, or permit the
operation of, any sound amplification system which can be heard
outside the vehicle from 50 or more feet when the vehicle is being
operated upon a highway, unless that system is being operated to
request assistance or warn of a hazardous situation.

    This section does not apply to authorized emergency vehicles or
vehicles operated by gas, electric, communications, or water
utilities. This section does not apply to the sound systems of
vehicles used for advertising, or in parades, political or other
special events, except that the use of sound systems on those
vehicles may be prohibited by a local authority by ordinance or
resolution.

------

Of course, one would hardly expect it to be enforced any better than
speed laws.....

--Jim

--

Jim Carr
jimcarrmac.com

On 09/24/2007 01:35 AM, "Jim Carr" <jimcarrmac.com> wrote:

>> If that's why they're banning earphones/earplugs, then they're going to only
>> solve about ten percent of THAT problem. Modern car stereos are *far* louder
>> than an ambulance when you add in attenuation for distance and the superior
>> soundproofing in modern autos. Cali would need to set db limits for car
>> stereos if they want to really solve that issue.
>>
> --snip--
>
> John:
>
> California does have a law. And despite it I have been subjected to
> "music" coming from nearby vehicles that is painfully loud even with
> my windows up.

So do most other states. That's why I said "set db limits". Just telling
people to turn it down won't work. They'd have to legislate physical db
limits to have any effect.

--
John C. Welch

> So do most other states. That's why I said "set db limits". Just
> telling
> people to turn it down won't work. They'd have to legislate
> physical db
> limits to have any effect.

And then the enforcement folks have to carry measuring equipment.
And that has to be calibrated in a way that satisfies the courts and
used at the statutory distance (or beyond if the legislature is more
careful than usual in drafting).

(Not alone among the states, Washington is having troubles with the
procedures used by the state lab to do the calibration, which has
removed breathalizer results from a discouraging number of
prosecutions--those prosecutions are of course more serious matters
than noise level violations.)

   --John