Olympus' Micro Four Thirds 75mm prime
Pentax K-30: a pretty package of a camera
Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
The Joy Of Winning A Photo Contest
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
Choosing the Right Light Stand
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
How To Buy Digital Photo Frames For An Exhibit - Part 2
Hey MAC users! A great source and an April Fool that is no joke
My week with Q
How To Become A Successful Photographer
"When the Wind Stopped" — poem with 4 photos
Creating The New Family Portrait
Tips for Textures 
Cast aways - saving those photographic memories
One Man Show: My 25 Years With Digital Photography
Studio, Flash, & Available Light — Three Books Reviewed
Portrait styling: dangerous pairings
Adobe Photoshop CS6 Product Managers Interview Audiocast
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
No-Brainer Setup For A Digital Photo Frame Exhibit - Part 3
Exhibiting With Digital Photo Frames (DPF) Part 1
Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Find Inner Peace and Beauty at San Jose, California, Airport
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
What Moves You?
FIGURES IN MOTION: Decades of Evolving Personal Imagery in Photography, Part 7
Lomography Store, Austin, Texas — GALLERY
GALLERY — Up to $1,000 Reward for Cattle Rustlers
25% off on photography eBooks
eyePhone: The eBook for iPhone Photographers
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?Illinois Trying to Ban People from Taking Photos at Accident Scenes
Illinois, the state that is trying to send a man to prison for recording a cop on public property, is now trying to forbid people from taking photos of traffic accidents.
State Rep. Tom Holbrook, a democrat, believes that people with cell phone cameras are interfering with emergency personnel with the mere act of taking photos.
So he is proposing a bill that would make it illegal to use a wireless telephone within 500 feet of an accident.
Here is the full text of the proposed bill.
The House Transportation Committee approved the bill this week and it now heads to the House floor.
It would seem that emergency personnel should worry about the emergency on hand rather than worry about witnesses snapping photos.
Not only is it already illegal to interfere with an emergency service worker at the scene of an accident, police and EMS workers should worry about the actual emergency instead of the witnesses snapping photos.
I would say this bill in unconstitutional, but this is a state that believes police have an expectation of privacy while on public duty.
Comments
I think you've misjudged Rep. Holbrook. It doesn't ban photographs or video per se; it specifies transmission via cellphones, while actually driving the car.
I've excerpted the relevant portions of the bill:
A person... may not use a wireless telephone at any time while operating a motor vehicle on a roadway in a school speed zone established under Section 11-605, or on a highway in a construction or maintenance speed zone established under Section 11-605.1, or within 500 feet of an emergency scene.
"Electronic communication device" means an electronic device... used for the purpose of composing, reading, or sending an electronic message...
"Electronic message" means a self-contained piece of digital communication that is designed or intended to be transmitted between physical devices. "Electronic message" includes, but is not limited to electronic mail, a text message, an instant message, a digital photograph, a video, or a command or request to access an Internet site.
This says nothing about devices that take photos or videos and do not broadcast any kind of signal. So I can take as many photographs as I like with my Nikon D50. And as much video as I want with a video camera. Of course, doing that while driving would be STUPID, particularly in traffic disrupted by an accident.
Does this mean that if I am in a car accident in Illinois I will not be permitted to use my cellphone to either call for help or take pictures of the scene for insurance purposes?
Taking photos of your own car or the other guy's for insurance purposes is allowed under the bill, but don't attempt to take photos of anything else (trees, that cloud that looks funky due to your concussion, etc) or use the photos for anything but an insurance claim, or you're going to jail.
If you're in an accident, can you call?
...does not apply to... a person using an electronic communication device for the sole purpose of reporting an emergency situation and continued communication with emergency personnel during the emergency situation.
So yes, you can call for help.
Furthermore:
...does not apply to.... a driver using an electronic communication device while parked on the shoulder of a roadway; or... a driver using an electronic communication device when the vehicle is stopped due to normal traffic being obstructed and the driver has the motor vehicle transmission in neutral or park.
So, once you are stopped, or if you've pulled over, yes, you can take a photo of the damage and email it to your agent. If you see an accident, you can pull off the road, put the car in park, pull out your iPhone, and take all the pics of the accident you like. This law only forbids using the phone WHILE ACTUALLY DRIVING.
Which is already illegal...
Correct. This merely closes a loophole in the existing law; drivers were arguing that they weren't talking on the phone, they weren't texting, they were "only" taking pictures and/or video. The amendment simply takes away any excuse to have the phone in your hand while you are actually driving the car.
If I place my phone in airplane mode shutting off all transmitting features,my phone now becomes a Hi-Def camera and mini computer. because the law clearly states
(while being used for the purpose of composing, reading, or sending an electronic message)
Of course they have to add this little wording to the bill (Adds digital photographs and video to the definition of "electronic message")
Could someone please explain to me how a recording only device is an electronic message? This one I am actually going to challenge.
The problem is that someone using a cell phone in "airplane mode" to take photos while driving is indistinguishable from a someone using a cell phone to send texts. And the fact is that it creates exactly the same kind of impairment to the safe operation of the vehicle. The only thing you should be operating while driving a car is the car itself.
Why aren't cameras specifically named in this law? Because there are hardly any accidents caused by people using their Canon 5D while driving. This isn't a law about photography, it's a law about using a cell phone WHILE DRIVING.
This law has zero impact on your right to take pictures; you can pull over and take all the pictures you want, or, if traffic has come to a standstill, you can put the car in park and snap a few shots with your cell phone - and even upload them to Facebook.
I'm sure we're both on the same page but that is kind of like saying "if a terrorist wears underwear carrying a bomb anyone wearing underwear could be carrying a bomb under their clothes so that gives the police and TSA the right to violate all of our right with out knowing the truth if we are actually breaking a law like while traveling" not being able to distinguish if a crime is actually being committed.
The bill also says (or within 500 feet of an emergency scene) but does not give a definition of what an emergency scene is. A police officer can simply say I was having an emergency asthma attack and you just broke the law for using your cellphone near a cop. The law is to vague and subject to abuse.
I thought Carlos was above spinning stories so fit his view of the world, sadly I was wrong.
You are going down hill Carlos, many more "stories" like this and you will start to lose your integrity and your readership.
I also think that the bill does not go far enough, it should be illegal to use your phone while driving, period.
Seems like a stupid, if not unconstitutional law to me. What if traffic is stopped due to the accident and I am at a standstill and decide to take a few pics while waiting for the vehicles to start moving... Boom, arrested and/or cited. Ridiculous! What should be of concern is any compromise in my ability to operate the vehicle, not the fact I am taking photos. It seems that existing laws regarding inattentive driving/reckless driving would cover such circumstances and the need for photography specific laws are redundant if not unconstitutional since they specifically target protected activities.
Tom, the law does have an exclusion for being stopped in traffic:
...does not apply to.... a driver using an electronic communication device while parked on the shoulder of a roadway; or... a driver using an electronic communication device when the vehicle is stopped due to normal traffic being obstructed and the driver has the motor vehicle transmission in neutral or park.
This isn't about photography as Carlos implies: it's about not using your cell phone will driving. I suspect that someone was being ticketed for texting while driving, and the driver tried to argue that they weren't texting, they were taking pictures. This simply negates that argument.
If you're fully and legally stopped, you can still take all the photos and video like without reprisal.
I was all set to join this chorus until I actually read the bill. Which you should do, too.
As an Illinois resident who is always looking for a reason to bash the idiots in Springfield, I have to agree with CLJ. This is a meaningless bill to photographers.
It does not prevent you from parking and taking pictures. It does not prevent your passengers from taking pictures. CLJ has perfectly explained the bill.
Photographers have nothing to worry about. Hopefully everyone reads the comments, not just the post.
It's a meaningless bill until some Jack-Booted Illinois Thug decides to deliberately ignore or misinterpret the law and arrests someone who is photographing under the myriad exceptions.
New York has a cell phone/texting law that specifically applies only to cell phones, but a ham was arrested in Troy for using a radio. "It's a cell phone to me" was the exact quote of both the State Trooper and the judge.
Exactamendo!
I hate these laws with a bunch of exceptions. I am a ham radio operator and once lived in a state with a scanner ban. Hams were exempt, but many cops didn't pay attention and attempted to arrest us for having a radio in the car. I was almost cuffed once when the dispatcher told the cop in no uncertain terms "you cannot arrest him, he is perfectly legal." I knew about a dozen others that had similar experiences. One had his car towed and went to jail for a few hours. The county attorney let him go and dropped all charges.
America has hundreds of thousands of laws and cops don't know them all. They know a lot of them but don't know all the exemptions in the statutes. I really thought that was why they had computers in their cop cars, so they could look things up quickly and actually read the statute.
On the other hand if we break the most obscurest of laws cops and prosecutors tell us "ignorance of the law is no excuse". I believe the same premise should apply to cops and that police departments and the cops personally should be civilly and criminally liable for each and every false arrest.
Post new comment