The driver is not allowed to use a cellphone - but what about the driving instructor?
According to the findings, a number of traffic accidents caused by distraction have been on a steep rise in recent years, partly due to the use of the cellphone while driving. But how does the law treat driving teachers who spend many hours in their vehicles when they are not the ones holding the wheel?
Driving teacher (illustration photo: shutterstock)
Young girl fails test for driver's license (Photo: ShutterStock)
Rule 28 of the Traffic Regulations states the obligation to hold the steering wheel or handlebars in the following language: "A driver of a vehicle must hold the steering wheel or handlebars as long as the vehicle is in motion; however, it may remove one hand from the steering wheel or handlebar if it must do so to ensure the proper operation of the vehicle or to maintain it. Traffic rules. " Specifically, the regulations state that as long as the vehicle is in motion, the driver will not hold it on a fixed or mobile phone, and will not use it except through handsfree and will not send or read a message (SMS).
The installation is designed to deter drivers from distracting them while driving. The Supreme Court narrowed in its interpretation of the word "use" and held that any hold or touch on the cell phone while driving - use is.More in Walla! NEWS More in Walla! NEWS
It's not (just) a business: How to manage a crisis in a family or nonprofit?To the full article
The law and driving instructors
The traffic ordinance provides for a special directive directed at driving instructors. According to the directive, a driving instructor will not use the class time on a fixed or mobile phone, but with a headset. But do driving instructors also have the same expansive interpretation that prohibits touching or holding the cell phone while driving instruction?
According to the Israeli police, not only does the extension really concern the driving instructors, but when they do not obey, it is an even more serious offense than other drivers. In the pamphlet booklet that the traffic police officers hold, they are instructed to enforce this instruction even when the vehicle is stopped, and the report must also state the student's name, name and identity number.
A driver-related installation, on the other hand, prohibits the use of the phone only while the vehicle is in motion. The conclusion is clear: The Legislature wants to take great care with the driving instructors who will not talk on the phone without talking even when the vehicle is stopped.
However, the command regarding driving teachers does not prohibit "use" but merely speech. This is in contrast to the driver, who was prohibited from using any phone while in motion.
Teacher must be alert to student leadership (illustration photo: shutterstock)
Young girl studying driving with the help of a driving instructor (Photo: ShutterStock)
By hand or the docking facility
At the entrance of the traffic court came a case of a driving instructor who at one point during a driving lesson touched the cellphone. When the policeman stopped him, the cellphone was in the handsfree. The defendant's response when registering the report was: "The phone is permanently in place, the handsfree is constantly on me, there is no situation that I held the device in my hand."
The dispute between the parties revolves around whether the defendant held the cellphone. According to the accuser, the defendant did indeed hold the cellphone in his right hand, and the defendant claimed the phone was a headset, and there he touched it. Another question under discussion: Can the defendant be attributed to an offense even if his version is accepted?
The court acquitted the defendant of the charge, ruling that there was no dispute that the defendant had touched the phone. It was not proven whether the touch was instantaneous or not (such as writing a message) and whether the defendant's gaze was diverted. According to the officer, the thumb touched the screen, so it could be assumed in the defendant's favor that it was a momentary non-prohibition, although it was a smartphone and not buttons.
The teacher must be free without distraction
After analyzing the evidence presented to it, the court ruled that there was no express prohibition on keeping the mobile separate from use, and no prohibition on reading or writing messages when a telephone was fixed in the facility. The section allows for holding and using the phone with a headset.
However, the court offered a proper interpretation of the instructions of the ordinance which would conclude that the use of the messages is prohibited to the driving instructor even when the telephone is in a docking facility. The premise, when it comes to a driving instructor, is that the driver sitting next to him, who does not have a driver's license, is unskilled in driving, and therefore the person in charge of driving the student is the teacher and should be free without distraction to correct mistakes and prevent accidents. In the court's opinion, the law seeks to ensure that the teacher's attention is not distracted from the way the student is driving. The "glitch" that the legislature sought to correct is not only about holding the phone and not being able to respond as required as a driving instructor, but the mere distraction from the road, in a way that draws the attention of the student leader. In this regard, there is no doubt that sending and reading messages is a distraction.
However, the court held that any touching of the telephone on the docking station should not be interpreted as a use, even as such touching is not prohibited by law and in comparison with the provisions of the Traffic Regulations relating to the driver of the vehicle.
Attorney Shai Gilad is one of the prominent traffic lawyers
The article is courtesy of ZAP Legal
The information presented in the article does not constitute or replace legal advice and does not constitute a recommendation for taking proceedings or avoiding proceedings. Anyone who relies on the information contained in the article does so at his own risk