How To Get A Ticket For Using A Cell Phone While Driving

Transcription

1 CELL-PHONES & DRIVING WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY? RULE 193A CHANDIGARH MOTOR VEHICLE RULES 1999 USE OF CELL-PHONES NO DRIVER OF A MOTOR-VEHICLE SHALL USE OR ANSWER THE CELL PHONE WHILE DRIVING THE VEHICLE. RULES 21(6)(25) OF THE CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES RULES 1989 WHEN READ WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HON BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT ON THE MATTER, MAKE IT AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE SAID ACT CAN BE CHARGED UNDER BOTH S.177 (FOR VIOLATION OF RULE 193A) AS WELL AS S.184 (FOR DANGEROUS DRIVING) OF MVA 88. RULE 21(6) OF THE CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES RULES 1989 STATES THAT IF THE DRIVER, WHILE DRIVING A TRANSPORT VEHICLE, ENGAGES HIMSELF IN ACTIVITY WHICH IS LIKELY TO DISTURB HIS CONCENTRATION HE WOULD BE GUILTY OF THE COMMISSION OF AN ACT THAT SHALL CONSTITUTE NUISANCE OR DANGER TO THE PUBLIC. RULE 21(25) OF THE CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES RULES 1989 STATES THAT THE ACT OF USING MOBILE PHONE WHILE DRIVING A VEHICLE SHALL CONSTITUTE NUISANCE OR DANGER TO THE PUBLIC. NOTE: RULES 21(6)(25) OF THE CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES RULES 1989 HAVE BEEN LAID DOWN WITH REFERENCE TO S.19 (1)(F) MVA 88 THAT DEFINES THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE LICENSING AUTHORITY MAY INVOKE THE POWERS TO DISQUALIFY THE HOLDER OF A DRIVING LICENCE FROM HOLDING THE DRIVING LICENCE OR TO REVOKE SUCH LICENCE. YET, THE SAID RULE PROVIDES A VALUABLE GUIDELINE FOR DETERMINING AS TO WHAT KIND OF DRIVING WOULD CONSTITUTE DANGEROUS DRIVING UNDER S.184 MVA 88. IT MAY BE CONSIDERED REASONABLE, THEREFORE, TO TREAT THE ACT

2 OF USING A MOBILE PHONE WHILE DRIVING (AN ACTIVITY THAT MAY SAFELY BE ASSUMED TO CAUSE A DISTURBANCE TO THE DRIVER S CONCENTRATION) AS AN INSTANCE OF DANGEROUS DRIVING CHARGEABLE UNDER SECTION 184 MVA 88. THE MATTER IS FURTHER CLARIFIED BY THE CLEAR DIRECTION OF THE HON BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CWP NO.7639/95- NIMIT KUMAR VS CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS & CWP NO OF 1999 THAT READS AS FOLLOWS: NO PERSON WHILE DRIVING A VEHICLE OF ANY KIND INCLUDING TWO-WHEELERS SHALL USE CELLULAR PHONE ANY PERSON FOUND VIOLATING THIS DIRECTION, SHALL BE LIABLE TO BE PROCEEDED AGAINST IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW UNDER THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT AS WELL AS FOR VIOLATION OF TRAFFIC REGULATIONS.

3 RELATED READING THE DIRECTION OF THE HON BLE HIGH COURT, THE AMENDMENT OF CHANDIGARH MOTOR VEHICLE RULES 1990 TO INCLUDE RULE 193A AND THE READING TOGETHER OF THE PROVISIONS OF R. 21(6) (25) CMVR 89 WITH THE PROVISIONS OF S.184 MVA 88 TO CHARGE, THE ACT OF USING A MOBILE PHONE WHILE DRIVING A VEHICLE, AS AN INSTANCE OF DANGEROUS DRIVING FOLLOWS THE INTERNATIONAL TREND OF LEGISLATION ON THE MATTER. THE LAW ENACTED RECENTLY BY THE NEW YORK STATE HAS BEEN CITED BELOW, AS HAVE BEEN THE FINDINGS OF RESEARCH STUDIES ON THE MATTER. THE READER MAY NOTE THE PRECISE YET SIMPLE LANGUAGE USED IN DEFINING THE OFFENCE IN THE NEW YORK STATES VEHICLE & TRAFFIC LAW. SUCH PRECISE DEFINITION REDUCES THE CHANCES OF THE ENFORCEMENT BECOMING ARBITRARY AND THUS REDUCES RESISTANCE TO THE SAME. NEW YORK STATE S VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW SECTION 1225(C), CHAPTER 69. SECTION C TO THE NYS VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, BANS THE USE OF HAND-HELD MOBILE TELEPHONES WHILE DRIVING. THIS NEW LAW STATES "NO PERSON SHALL OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE UPON A PUBLIC HIGHWAY WHILE USING A MOBILE TELEPHONE TO ENGAGE IN A CALL WHILE SUCH VEHICLE IS IN MOTION". USING A HAND HELD CELL PHONE IS DEFINED AS HOLDING A MOBILE TELEPHONE TO, OR IN IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY OF, THE USER S EAR." AS OF DECEMBER 1, 2001, USING A HAND-HELD MOBILE TELEPHONE WHILE DRIVING, FOR OTHER THAN CONTACT WITH EMERGENCY OR MEDICAL PERSONNEL REGARDING AN EMERGENCY SITUATION, WILL BE A TRAFFIC INFRACTION PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $100. IN ADDITION TO THE FINE, A SURCHARGE OF $30 SHALL BE ASSESSED FOR CONVICTIONS OF THE CELL PHONE LAW. TOWN AND VILLAGE COURTS SHALL ADD $5 TO THIS BASELINE SURCHARGE. NO DMV DRIVER VIOLATION POINTS WILL BE ASSIGNED, AND THIS VIOLATION WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED A PROBATIONARY LICENSE VIOLATION. THE LAW ALSO PROVIDES THAT UNTIL MARCH 1, 2002 THE COURT SHALL WAIVE ANY FINE UPON CONVICTION OF SECTION C IF THE DEFENDANT SUPPLIES THE COURT WITH PROOF THAT, BETWEEN THE DATE OF THE VIOLATION AND THE APPEARANCE DATE FOR SUCH VIOLATION, HE OR SHE POSSESSES A HANDS FREE MOBILE TELEPHONE. THIS WAIVER SHALL NOT APPLY TO A SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION. AS OF MARCH 1, 2002 THE FINE MAY NOT BE WAIVED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. FROM NOVEMBER 1 THROUGH NOVEMBER 30, 2001, FOR THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATING DRIVERS, POLICE ARE AUTHORIZED TO STOP VEHICLES AND ISSUE VERBAL WARNINGS TO DRIVERS WHO WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THIS LAW IF IT WERE IN EFFECT.

4 INTRODUCTION: THE CELLULAR PHONE EXPLOSION WE HAVE ALL SEEN DRIVERS TALKING ON A CELLULAR PHONE WHILE DRIVING. IN FACT, THE NUMBER OF CELLULAR PHONES SOLD IN THE UNITED STATES IN 1995 WAS HIGHER THAN THE NATIONAL BIRTH RATE FOR THE SAME PERIOD! THERE ARE NUMEROUS BENEFITS TO CELLULAR PHONE USE. TWO-THIRDS OF NEW CELLULAR PHONE OWNERS IN THE U.S. LISTED THEIR MAIN REASON FOR PURCHASING A CELLULAR PHONE AS A SECURITY MEASURE. NEARLY HALF OF ALL CELLULAR PHONE OWNERS HAVE USED THEIR CAR PHONES TO REPORT CAR TROUBLE, MEDICAL EMERGENCIES, CRIMES AND DRUNK OR RECKLESS DRIVERS. POLICE AND EMS OFFICIALS SAY THAT IN MANY CASES RESPONSE TIMES HAVE BEEN CUT, CRIMINALS HAVE BEEN APPREHENDED AND LIVES HAVE BEEN SAVED DUE TO CALLS FROM CELLULAR PHONE USERS. BUT IS IT POSSIBLE TO DRIVE SAFELY WHILE TALKING ON THE PHONE? RESEARCH & DATA: DRIVER STUDIES WHILE THE FOLLOWING STUDIES ARE BEGINNING TO HELP SHED SOME LIGHT ON THE ISSUE OF CELLULAR PHONE USE IN MOTOR VEHICLES, IT MUST BE REMEMBERED THAT THIS IS STILL A NEW AREA OF CONCERN. THE FACT THAT THESE STUDIES FOCUS ON DIFFERENT POPULATIONS OF DRIVERS AND USE DIFFERING RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES MAY LEAD TO CONFLICTING CONCLUSIONS AND MAY LIMIT THE COMPARABILITY OF THE FINDINGS. NATIONAL PUBLIC SERVICES RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR AAA A STUDY DONE BY THE NATIONAL PUBLIC SERVICES RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR AAA IN 1991, "THE EFFECT OF CELLULAR PHONE USE UPON DRIVER ATTENTION", USED A DRIVING SIMULATOR TO TEST REACTION RESPONSES WHILE TUNING A CAR RADIO, HAVING A SIMPLE CONVERSATION ON A CELLULAR PHONE, DIALING A CELLULAR PHONE AND HAVING A COMPLEX CONVERSATION ON A CELLULAR PHONE. THE CONCLUSIONS WERE: 1. ALL FORMS OF CELLULAR PHONE USAGE LEAD TO SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN RESPONSE TIMES OR NON-RESPONSE TO HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SITUATIONS. 2. INTENSE OR COMPLEX CONVERSATION LEADS TO THE GREATEST INCREASES IN OVERLOOKING SIGNIFICANT HIGHWAY TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AND THE TIME TO RESPOND TO THEM. THE DISTRACTING EFFECT IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF TUNING A RADIO. THE EFFECT OF PLACING CALLS OR ENGAGING IN CASUAL CONVERSATION WAS LESS OF A PROBLEM, ALTHOUGH IT DID SLOW RESPONSE TIMES. 3. THE DISTRACTING EFFECT OF CELLULAR PHONE USE AMONG DRIVERS OVER AGE 50 IS TWO TO THREE TIMES AS GREAT AS THAT OF YOUNGER DRIVERS AND ENCOMPASSES ALL THREE ASPECTS OF CELLULAR PHONE USE - PLACING CALLS AND CARRYING ON SIMPLE AND COMPLEX CONVERSATION. THE EFFECT IS TO INCREASE NON-RESPONSE BY 33-38%.

5 4. PRIOR EXPERIENCE WITH CELLULAR PHONES APPEARS TO BEAR NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE DISTRACTING EFFECT OF CELLULAR PHONE USE. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE ACCORDING TO A SUMMARY OF A 1993 STUDY BY THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE, THE STUDY RANKED, ON A SCALE OF 1 TO 10, THE RELATIVE DISTRACTION LEVEL OF VARIOUS TASKS CONFRONTING DRIVERS. THE MOST DISTRACTING TASK, READING A MAP, WAS FOUND TO BE ALMOST TWICE AS DISTRACTING AS TALKING ON A CAR PHONE, AND CHANGING A CASSETTE TAPE WAS MORE DISTRACTING THAN TALKING ON A CAR PHONE. ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CELLULAR-TELEPHONE CALLS AND MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISIONS THE RESULTS OF A RECENT STUDY CONDUCTED BY RESEARCHERS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO, "ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CELLULAR - TELEPHONE CALLS AND MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISIONS", WERE PUBLISHED IN THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE IN FEBRUARY OF STUDIES WERE MADE OF 699 DRIVERS WHO HAD CELLULAR PHONES AND WERE INVOLVED IN TRAFFIC CRASHES RESULTING IN SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY DAMAGE BUT NO PERSONAL INJURY. EACH MOTORISTS CELLULAR PHONE BILLS WERE ANALYZED FOR THE DAY OF THE CRASH AND THE WEEK PRIOR TO THE CRASH. THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY SHOWED THAT THE RISK OF COLLISION WHEN USING A CELLULAR PHONE WAS FOUR TIMES HIGHER THAT THE RISK WHEN THE CELLULAR PHONE WAS NOT BEING USED. CALLS CLOSE TO THE TIME OF THE COLLISION (I.E., WITHIN 5 MINUTES) PRESENTED A GREATER RISK THAN CALLS PLACED 15 MINUTES OR MORE PRIOR TO THE CRASH. THE RISK WAS SIMILAR FOR DRIVERS WHO DIFFERED IN PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS, SUCH AS AGE AND DRIVING EXPERIENCE. THE STUDY ALSO FOUND THAT CELLULAR UNITS ALLOWING HANDS-FREE OPERATION OFFERED NO SAFETY ADVANTAGE OVER HAND-HELD UNITS. THE RESEARCHERS CAUTIONED THAT "DATA DO NOT INDICATE THE DRIVERS WERE AT FAULT IN THE COLLISIONS; IT MAY BE THAT CELLULAR TELEPHONES MERELY DECREASE A DRIVER'S ABILITY TO AVOID A COLLISION CAUSED BY SOMEONE ELSE." THIRTY-NINE PERCENT OF THE DRIVERS CALLED EMERGENCY SERVICES AFTER THE COLLISION, WHICH SUGGESTS THAT HAVING A CELLULAR TELEPHONE MAY HAVE HAD ADVANTAGES IN THE AFTERMATH OF AN EVENT. THE AUTHORS NOTED THAT MOTOR VEHICLES ARE A LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH IN NORTH AMERICA AND THE MOST FREQUENT CAUSE OF DEATH FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG ADULTS. THEY ALSO POINT OUT THAT DRIVER ERROR CONTRIBUTES TO OVER 90% OF COLLISIONS.

6 NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, USING 1993 DATA, REPORTS THAT OF THE 53,343 DRIVERS INVOLVED IN FATAL CRASHES, 28 DRIVERS, OR TWO ONE-HUNDREDTHS OF ONE PERCENT WERE INVOLVED IN A FATAL CRASH DUE TO CELLULAR PHONE USE. HOWEVER, THESE NUMBERS WERE TAKEN FROM POLICE ACCIDENT REPORTS LISTING FACTORS THAT MAY HAVE PLAYED A ROLE IN A CRASH, AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THESE NUMBERS REFLECT ONLY FATAL CRASHES AND NOT THE MUCH LARGER NUMBER OF NONFATAL CRASHES.