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.

  • lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours 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!

    • isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      Why is it illegal to have a phone in your lap?

      Likely to make the law in any way practical to enforce. Many people will use their phone in the car by keeping it between their legs like a middle schooler hiding their phone use from their teacher. They can read messages or watch videos while keeping it out of their hands, but it’s still just as distracting.

      You could just ban looking at a phone in your lap while driving, but then you have the nightmare of proving that someone who glanced down was actually looking at their phone, rather than just randomly glancing down for some other innocent reason. And they would have to glance down at their phone at the exact moment a camera or police officer saw them.

      Phone use is actually very hard to enforce because of the nature of its use. People using their phone while driving don’t tend to continuously look at the phone the whole time they drive - they would be completely incapable of driving if they did so. Instead, they use it intermittently, such as while stopped at a traffic light or while cruising down the highway. That use is still enough to degrade their driving performance to the level of a drunk driver, but it’s not continuous. To make enforcement practical, you need to write the law so that it doesn’t require a lucky coincidence to enforce.

      For an older comparable example, consider open container laws. You might reasonably ask, “wait, as long as I’m not drinking from it, why can’t I have an open beer in the car? Maybe I just want to take my half-finished beer home from the bar and finish it at home!” And while that would be a perfectly innocuous reason to have an open container of alcohol in the car, it would also make drunk driving laws much more difficult to enforce. You could only ticket someone for drinking in the car if they happen to take a sip right when you’re watching. Instead of trying to outlaw the infrequent action, you instead outlaw the necessary but continuous action. It’s not practical to only ban drinking in vehicles. Instead you ban having an open container, as “possessing an open container” is something a drunk driver will be doing for a protracted period of time.

      It’s not a perfect approach to writing laws; you do end up criminalizing some innocuous behavior. But trade offs have to be made. Yes, it’s unfortunate that open container laws also make it so you can’t bring your half-finished drink home from the bar. And yes, it’s unfortunate that banning cell phone use while driving also requires banning just having a phone in your lap.

      But if you’ve ever worked in a classroom, you’ll know that this is the only way to actually ban cell phone use while driving. Teachers learn very quickly they can’t just ban students from using their phones, they have to completely ban them from having them out at all. Relying on lucky coincidences to enforce laws is not a practical solution.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours 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.

      • tristynalxander@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Vague / broad laws that allow anyone to be arrested or fined for anything are a distinguishing feature of police states, and solid basis for blanket opposition-to or at least skepticism-of laws in general (e.g. “illegal strike” are we slaves?).

        I’m not opposed to law itself; however, I struggle to respect laws from non-democratic governments. Unfortunately, that’s all governments right now. I’m not aware of any electoral democracy at any level of government. Electoral Democracy has four required mechanism: Ranked Voting, Lottery Option, Recall Mechanism, Randomized Districting. That’s what it takes to acquire consent of the governed. That’s what it takes for legitimacy. Most governments are electoral oligarchies that function like weak police states for the lower classes.

        This is a tragedy, but we can start installing the mechanisms required for electoral democracy at a local level and in private organizations to slowly entrench democracy and establish norms / standards before we slide farther into the oligachic police state we’re currently facing.

    • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

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

    • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours 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.