Michigan new hands free driving law.

[WRPF281]

We need more clarification on this new law that goes into effect June 30,2023. Is the term distracted driving mean and including the use of mobile microphone use in a moving vehicle? Will all radio operators be required to use headsets now? I asked a County sheriff this same question and his response was as follows. It will be up to the officer who gives the tick and the traffic court judge, to decide if it is within such parameter's of the law.

[kidphc]

Here in Maryland, they specifically exclude radio handsets.

The logic was if they didn't, every first responder could be violating the law otherwise.


Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[kidphc]

Did some further research. Although the law does not spell out "you can use a radio". They tried hard to limit it to "cellular mobile devices". I think you are safe.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(wdrt4cb1pq0li15ad1tplx3q))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-257-602b

"257.602b Reading, typing, or sending text message on wireless 2-way communication device prohibited; use of hand-held mobile telephone prohibited; exceptions; "use a hand-held mobile telephone" defined; violation as civil infraction; fine; local ordinances superseded."

NOTE: "use of hand-held mobile telephone prohibited"

I am not of advocate of texting even with APRS devices. It's tedious even when standing still. So as long as you aren't texting, or reading on your Garmin or ham APRS rig you SHOULD be completely fine. Consult a lawyer to be safe, then put them on rerainer.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[nokones]

Also, some States have written in their statute that public safety personnel are exempt in the performance of their duties.

[Guest]

In California, the hands-free legislation initially protected two-way radio operation and later clarified that only mounted radios (with corded microphones) were exempt. However, work trucks and some other commercial groups legally continued cell phone usage. and ... and ... and ... I honestly lost track!

 

I am sorry to hear that another state thinks of such a law as a solution. As a teacher / admin, I prefer education over punishment!

 

Here is the reality: People (here in CA) are using heir phones just as much as they did before the law !!! It actually got worse because they are now "hiding" their devices.

Texting while driving is not a good idea if it involves your finger - but before the law, people would hold their phone up to the wheel and would be able to see the street and the phone - now, they are holding their phone very low and take their eyes completely off the road to text.

Where I live and drive, many motorists are suspiciously looking into their lap or down at the middle console while driving - "like, all the time, totally".

 

Fortunately, my car has apple car play and I can use my voice to text - still a distraction but a legal one

[kidphc]

In California, the hands-free legislation initially protected two-way radio operation and later clarified that only mounted radios (with corded microphones) were exempt. However, work trucks and some other commercial groups legally continued cell phone usage. and ... and ... and ... I honestly lost track!
 
I am sorry to hear that another state thinks of such a law as a solution. As a teacher / admin, I prefer education over punishment!
 
Here is the reality: People (here in CA) are using heir phones just as much as they did before the law !!! It actually got worse because they are now "hiding" their devices.
Texting while driving is not a good idea if it involves your finger - but before the law, people would hold their phone up to the wheel and would be able to see the street and the phone - now, they are holding their phone very low and take their eyes completely off the road to text.
Where I live and drive, many motorists are suspiciously looking into their lap or down at the middle console while driving - "like, all the time, totally".
 
Fortunately, my car has apple car play and I can use my voice to text - still a distraction but a legal one

I have yet to see any state enforce it. Some states even just mark it as a secondary offense.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, kidphc said:

I have yet to see any state enforce it. Some states even just mark it as a secondary offense.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
 

Welcome to California !!!

I have been pulled over and received a warning - - during the first or second year of the law - - for using my cell while sitting at a red light (not moving).

 

In any case: A law that does not work and is not enforced or not enforceable is a BAD piece of legislation and needs to be deleted. Otherwise, those laws erode the legal system following the "nothing ever happens anyways" logic.

 

In any case: A law that is regularly not enforced can still be used against you when "convenient" ...

 

[KAF6045]

9 hours ago, WRPF281 said:

We need more clarification on this new law that goes into effect June 30,2023. Is the term distracted driving mean and including the use of mobile microphone use in a moving vehicle? Will all radio operators be required to use headsets now? I asked a County sheriff this same question and his response was as follows. It will be up to the officer who gives the tick and the traffic court judge, to decide if it is within such parameter's of the law.

https://www.bridgedetroit.com/hands-free-distracted-driving-law-takes-effect-june-30-in-michigan/

Quote

Emergency calls, cell phone mounts and Bluetooth-connected dashboard screens for mapping trips and changing tunes are exempt, as are electronic medical devices like insulin pumps, two-way radios and CB radios. 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2023-2024/publicact/pdf/2023-PA-0041.pdf

Quote

(12) As used in this section:
(a) “Hold” means to physically support with any part of the hands, arms, or shoulders.
(b) “Mobile electronic device” means an electronic device that is not permanently installed in a motor vehicle, including, but not limited to, a device capable of text messaging, voice communication, entertainment, navigation, accessing the internet, or producing email. Mobile electronic device does not include either of the following:
(i) A radio designed for the Citizens Band Service or the Amateur Radio Service of the Federal Communications Commission or a commercial 2-way radio communications device or equipment permanently installed in a motor vehicle.
(ii) A medical device that is designed to be worn, including, but not limited to, an insulin pump.
(c) “Operate” means to drive or assume physical control of a motor vehicle on a public way, street, road, or highway, including operation while temporarily stationary because of traffic, road conditions, a traffic light, or a stop sign. Operate does not include a motor vehicle that is lawfully parked.
(d) “Social networking site” means any web-based service that allows individuals to construct a profile within a founded system and communicate with other users of the site for social or amusement purposes.

Note that a strict reading of (12)(b)(i) would not permit using an HT from within the vehicle (my interpretation is that "permanently installed" applies to ALL the "or"ed items (CB, Amateur, commercial, and whatever "equipment" includes)... So no MURS/FRS rigs (since none are available in vehicle mount units). I'm going to be generous and let GMRS fall into the "commercial 2-way" category -- carry a printed copy of your license (I doubt most police could tell the difference between Part 95 and Part 90 licenses , though they may differentiate Amateur from non-Amateur).

The main criteria is that one is using a PTT/microphone system where the primary controls are just channel up/down, volume -- and said controls are mounted within reach and position that one does not have to take their eyes from the road or shift around in their seat. IE; as distracting as the speedometer and light-switch controls.
 

[WRUU653]

5 hours ago, KAF6045 said:

So no MURS/FRS rigs (since none are available in vehicle mount units

Murs is… https://www.buytwowayradios.com/wouxun-kg-1000m.html

[Lscott]

So how does my remote control Bluetooth speaker mic fit into the picture? It seems technology is a step or two ahead of the law and it hasn’t even gone into effect yet!

 

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, Lscott said:

So how does my remote control Bluetooth speaker mic fit into the picture? It seems technology is a step or two ahead of the law and it hasn’t even gone into effect yet!

Looks to me like this is considered a "electronic device that is not permanently installed in a motor vehicle". Yes, you could try to argue that this is a "radio part / accessory" by gluing a cable to it ...  

The way that the law is written provides an easy way into stopping any person with "any" device in their hand. The rest is just falling into place during the "chat" after the stop. If the cop concludes that the driver was "distracted" ... or takes a close look at the driver's cabin ... or at the paperwork ... or ...

"If you look close enough, you will find something!"

[Lscott]

17 minutes ago, WRXD372 said:

Looks to me like this is considered a "electronic device that is not permanently installed in a motor vehicle". Yes, you could try to argue that this is a "radio part / accessory" by gluing a cable to it ...  

The way that the law is written provides an easy way into stopping any person with "any" device in their hand. The rest is just falling into place during the "chat" after the stop. If the cop concludes that the driver was "distracted" ... or takes a close look at the driver's cabin ... or at the paperwork ... or ...

"If you look close enough, you will find something!"

If the law is written in such a matter where it’s vague and subjective interpretation that varies from officer to the next courts have found these laws invalid and or unconstitutional. It seems to me the law is arbitrary without logical reason for the distinction. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Lscott said:

If the law is written in such a matter where it’s vague and subjective interpretation that varies from officer to the next courts have found these laws invalid and or unconstitutional. It seems to me the law is arbitrary without logical reason for the distinction. 

 

I agree that, based on my lay man understanding of the legal system, in theory such laws would not make it through a judicial review.

However, who would initiate that case?

Let's say that you get pulled over and the officer give you a ticket, this will not be a case that the ACLU will pick up! 

If the legislator is arguing 'reckless behavior' that leads to 'accidents, injuries, and manslaughter' VS the 'urge to text' -- the court of public opinion will side with the legislator!

As I mentioned before, the consequences here in CA include worse driving behavior as motorists try to 'hide' their phone while texting (and taking their eyes completely off the road. 

 

At the end of the day, being distracted is not about holding a device (or cup of coffee) in your hand but rather about not paying attention -- I can be distracted while listening to music (hands free), having a conversation through 'car play' (hands free), or just being 'miles away' after a difficult conversation with my boss or my wife or ... (hands free).

 

Be save while driving - there are idiots on the road !!! 

 

[Lscott]

7 minutes ago, WRXD372 said:

Be save while driving - there are idiots on the road !!! 

No doubt about that point.

[kidphc]

No doubt about that point.

I resemble that remark.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Lscott]

12 hours ago, WRXD372 said:

"If you look close enough, you will find something!"

Stalin’s head of the KGB once said “show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Lscott said:

Stalin’s head of the KGB once said “show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”

“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” ― Ayn Rand

[WRQC527]

I commute 26 miles each way for work here in SoCal. My friends and I talk on ham radio the entire time. We see law enforcement all the time, they see us. I see drivers every day pulled over, but never us. My guess is it's cell phones and car pool lane violations. That's where the money is. 

[Hoppyjr]

Cell phone laws are ridiculous, being just another example of government being too big and feeling that they need to “do something”.

States already have laws for inattentive or distracted driving, in addition to negligent and reckless driving. Law enforcement can, used to, and should use those to cite when any action results in bad driving, a collision, or otherwise egregious behavior.

Cell phone laws are punitive for all, because some can’t function as responsible citizens. Heck, some people can’t eat a burrito or drink coffee while driving safely, so maybe they need a burrito law….

Rant ends.

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, WRUZ229 said:

Heck, some people can’t eat a burrito or drink coffee while driving safely, so maybe they need a burrito law….

Rant ends.

The following might include SATIRE  or so you hope 

 

I do not think that the masses that Starbucks would rally against the coffee provisions would be something the legislator wanted to engage with ...

BUT

If we are clever about it, we can get to the total prohibition of Burritos in cars in a few easy steps!

(1) Targeting any wet burrito with green sauce - The wet part is just a hazard following a "slippery when wet" argument and therefore it would be easy to convince the populus that this is a commonsense provision... the limitation to "green sauce" shows consideration on the side of the legislator!

(2) Include "red sauce" into the law as the unchanging number of accidents clearly indicates that the provision is not far reaching enough. - No, we did not expect for burritos to be a major problem and cause of accidents and we did not expect a change in accident frequencies. But now that we have "claimed" this connection, we will use the lack of change as an indicator that our provisions are not sufficient.

(2) b - we explicitly exclude doughnuts from the law. This seems to make no sense for a burrito law but, by excluding doughnuts we can show solidarity with law enforcement!

(3) Using the "logic" from step two, we move to expand the reach of the law to include dry burritos - We are carefully avoiding calling this "all" but rather stating that we shall now also include "dry" (in addition to the previously included "wet" versions).

(4) We now need to make a decision what other food we want to prohibit from being consumed in a car. - Wait - you thought that we are only looking at the driver and the consumption of the burrito while operating the car ?!? - A close reading of the law should show that any "open container" with burritos is covered by the provision...

(5) ... with enough momentum, we might be able to take on Starbucks next 

 

[KAF6045]

20 hours ago, Lscott said:

So how does my remote control Bluetooth speaker mic fit into the picture? It seems technology is a step or two ahead of the law and it hasn’t even gone into effect yet!

Lack of a cable connection to the actual radio along with the presence of a significant display on the unit would likely put it on the wrong side. The former as holding it will look a lot like a cell-phone to any outsider (police), and the latter serving as the "distraction factor". Anything where one is likely to be looking away from the windshield&instruments.

From other sections of the bill (emphasis mine)

Quote

(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to any of the following situations:

...

(c) The use of a global positioning or navigation feature of a mobile electronic device if information is not entered by hand into the global positioning or navigation system feature of the mobile electronic device.
(d) The use of a mobile electronic device in a voice-operated or hands-free mode if the operator of the motor vehicle does not use the operator’s hands to operate the device, except for either of the following:
(i) Using a single button press, tap, or swipe to activate or deactivate a feature or function of the mobile electronic device or to select a telephone number or name.
(ii) Using a mobile electronic device that is integrated into a motor vehicle and utilizes the user interfaces that are permanently installed into the motor vehicle.
(e) The use of a mobile electronic device used for the sole purpose of continuously recording or broadcasting video inside or outside of a motor vehicle.
(f) The use of a mobile electronic device that is placed in a mount and used in any manner as described in subdivisions (a) to (e).

(d)(ii) appears to cover devices that can be (bluetooth) linked to the vehicle dash/display unit such that one only interacts with the vehicle, not the device itself.

(e)... dashcams

(f) with (d)(i) -- suction cup mount on lower windshield, with device in hands-free operation other than maybe needing a touch to, say, answer an incoming voice call.

 

They'd have had fits with my first dual-band mobile rig. Transceiver mounted in trunk. NO dash-mounted control head -- ALL controls were tiny buttons on a T-shaped speaker-mike, along with a narrow LCD display. (I don't know of anyone who paid for the optional "front panel"). https://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/fm_txvrs/C5718DA.html From before Standard Radio became part of Vertex-Standard (which got entangled with Yaesu, before splitting again and maybe getting sucked up by Motorola).

[Lscott]

40 minutes ago, KAF6045 said:

Lack of a cable connection to the actual radio along with the presence of a significant display on the unit would likely put it on the wrong side. The former as holding it will look a lot like a cell-phone to any outsider (police), and the latter serving as the "distraction factor". Anything where one is likely to be looking away from the windshield&instruments.

From other sections of the bill (emphasis mine)

(d)(ii) appears to cover devices that can be (bluetooth) linked to the vehicle dash/display unit such that one only interacts with the vehicle, not the device itself.

(e)... dashcams

(f) with (d)(i) -- suction cup mount on lower windshield, with device in hands-free operation other than maybe needing a touch to, say, answer an incoming voice call.

 

They'd have had fits with my first dual-band mobile rig. Transceiver mounted in trunk. NO dash-mounted control head -- ALL controls were tiny buttons on a T-shaped speaker-mike, along with a narrow LCD display. (I don't know of anyone who paid for the optional "front panel"). https://www.universal-radio.com/catalog/fm_txvrs/C5718DA.html From before Standard Radio became part of Vertex-Standard (which got entangled with Yaesu, before splitting again and maybe getting sucked up by Motorola).

This is exactly why the law is very poorly written. Leaving it up to the cop or judge to make a technical determination is not how the law should have been crafted. There is no “objective” standard and leaves it to the personal option of the officer or judge. That’s how laws get invalidated.

Just to make it clear the law as written ONLY mentions some part of the upper body holding or supporting the offending device, nothing about the legs. I mention this because on more than one occasion I’ve had Hams tell me they send CW while driving with a Morse key strapped to their thigh. Dah?! That’s OK while a wireless BT speaker mic isn’t?

[WRUU653]

4 hours ago, WRXD372 said:

The following might include SATIRE  or so you hope 

 

I do not think that the masses that Starbucks would rally against the coffee provisions would be something the legislator wanted to engage with ...

BUT

If we are clever about it, we can get to the total prohibition of Burritos in cars in a few easy steps!

(1) Targeting any wet burrito with green sauce - The wet part is just a hazard following a "slippery when wet" argument and therefore it would be easy to convince the populus that this is a commonsense provision... the limitation to "green sauce" shows consideration on the side of the legislator!

(2) Include "red sauce" into the law as the unchanging number of accidents clearly indicates that the provision is not far reaching enough. - No, we did not expect for burritos to be a major problem and cause of accidents and we did not expect a change in accident frequencies. But now that we have "claimed" this connection, we will use the lack of change as an indicator that our provisions are not sufficient.

(2) b - we explicitly exclude doughnuts from the law. This seems to make no sense for a burrito law but, by excluding doughnuts we can show solidarity with law enforcement!

(3) Using the "logic" from step two, we move to expand the reach of the law to include dry burritos - We are carefully avoiding calling this "all" but rather stating that we shall now also include "dry" (in addition to the previously included "wet" versions).

(4) We now need to make a decision what other food we want to prohibit from being consumed in a car. - Wait - you thought that we are only looking at the driver and the consumption of the burrito while operating the car ?!? - A close reading of the law should show that any "open container" with burritos is covered by the provision...

(5) ... with enough momentum, we might be able to take on Starbucks next 

 

I do love when you start a post with “the following might include”… for real

I have to disagree with the idea that this is focused on burritos though. The whole reason I get burritos is because all the goodness is wrapped up and easy to manage while motoring about. Now tacos that’s where you run into trouble! Stuff just sliding out the ends, it’s a mess, total food chaos.

[WRQC527]

Here's an interesting tidbit from the California Highway Patrol that "exempts", if you will, radios such as commercial and CB, from hands-free laws. I suspect it applies to ham radio and GMRS as well. You be the judge, I'm just sharing it.

 

AB-1785-CVC-23123-CHP-Memo-Leg-Intent.pdf

[tweiss3]

Ohio just passed new distracted driving laws as well. The biggest thing is it can now be a primary offence for being pulled over, but there are some odd things in the rules, such as you can use a cell phone and hold it up to your ear, but cannot hold it for GPS usage.