A California court has allowed drivers to use their smartphones for maps, while driving their vehicles. Until now, this was considered to be a violation of the California law.
So, the law in this state indicated that if you use a wireless telephone while driving you are actually breaking the law, regardless of the reason why you accessed your phone. Now, it seems that for checking maps, you are allowed to use your smartphone.
A California Appeals Court ruled that reading maps while driving is legal. Naturally, this means that you will no longer be ticketed for that in this American state. However, this might become an addition to the law just in the state of California.
In many states within the United States talking at your phone, texting or actually using your phone while driving, except for the hands-free talking, is considered to be a severe violation. Now, the new law adds something to what drivers are allowed to do.
The new law might be appreciated by many people, having under consideration that numerous drivers depend on the maps and GPS function of their smartphone to reach different places or directions. However, it is still mandatory for drivers to limit the use of their phones to that.
The case was brought to court by Steven Spriggs, a man who received a $165 fine in January last year for using his iPhone’s map feature to reach a certain location. As the man found this situation to be unfair, he appealed the case in court. The first ruling on the case was against Spriggs, but the man did not give up.
Spriggs claimed that he is against driving and talking at the phone, as this is extremely distracting and can lead to dangerous situations. However, according to the man it is not the same to look at your phone to find a route and to know where you are going and how to get to your destination.
Naturally, further appeals can be made to the law. The state can appeal the decision of this court to the California Supreme Court. The question of whether such a law will be distracting or not still remains. Spriggs’ lawyer claimed that his client did not break the law, so he said that maybe the entire law should be rewritten.