California Bans Front-Seat Computer Use

An anonymous reader submits "As of January 1, 2004 the State of California has banned the use of notebook computers used anywhere in the front seat (PDF) of a moving vehicle. Previously, the ban applied just to TV sets. Even if your car-pooling front seat passenger is just doing some programming, you can be charged with a crime (AB 301). Thanks go to CA Assemblymember Sarah Reyes for this well meaning but overly broad piece of legislation." The text is mercifully short, but still contains some tricky language; probably the meaning of "installed" at the very least needs to be clarified. Would a laptop affixed to a installed bracket count? Considering the complexity of modern automotive navigation/control systems (now sneaking into budget vehicles, too), it seems like a very fine distinction. The law would seem to ban handheld computers being used as navigation aids, too, or GPS devices with games, and very soon, nearly all cell phones.

Comments

Many times

[mrpuffypants]

Many times I've been going somewhere and either needed to get directions for the drive or a phone number and I pulled my PowerBook up to the front seat to get the info. I tried to at least stop somewhere first though...

Re:Many times

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

In Britain you are not allowed to be controlling a vehicle while using your hand with a phone. I don't know what the law is wrt computers. This seems a lot more sensible and workable than banning cell phones/computers from the front seat(s); as long as your hands and eyes are free to drive, you can pretty much do what you want.

Re:Many times

[gvc]

It is intuitively appealing to believe that the problem with mobile phones is the use of your hands. It isn't. A number of studies have shown that there is no difference in accident rates between users of hand-held and hands-free phones.

Here's one reference

A second point is that the risk of using a cell phone, perhaps a factor of 4, is less than other risks we consider acceptable, like driving at night, or driving in bad weather, or driving unecessary distances.

For that matter, it may be that pulling over to use a phone is more risky than using it while driving. First, there is the risk of the act itself and of parking at the side of the road. Second, the same studies noted above show that risk persists for 10-15 minutes after the phone conversation is terminated. So the driver pulling back into traffic or otherwise manoevering in an unfamiliar situation may be at extreme risk.

Re:Many times

[ackthpt]

In Britain you are not allowed to be controlling a vehicle while using your hand with a phone. I don't know what the law is wrt computers. This seems a lot more sensible and workable than banning cell phones/computers from the front seat(s); as long as your hands and eyes are free to drive, you can pretty much do what you want.

Last January 1 (2003) A state law went into effect banning the talking on cell phones while driving. Consider that I can wait at a light and see every other driver crossing the intersection blathering away while one-handed-driving, I don't think this is going to be any more enforced.

In the USA you drive on the right hand side. Drivers going slow are to remain to the right lanes, leaving the left for passing. Yet on multilane freeways I frequently observe cars crawling along, well under the speed limit, while the driver gesticulates (why do people even do this while on cell phones?) and ignores all the traffic having to pass on the right because they can't be bothered with merging traffic while they concentrate on their phone call.

Just one day of the police rigidly enforcing the ban on cell phones while driving would be a good thing to get the message across, too bad they don't. I see patrol cars pass drivers chatting away. There's no enforcement

Re:Many times

[homer_ca]

"Yet on multilane freeways I frequently observe cars crawling along, well under the speed limit"

That's a different problem. The laws for slower traffic keep right are rarely enforced. Most drivers generally follow that rule, but all it takes is one slow driver in the left lane on a crowded freeway to back up traffic for a 1/4 mile behind him. Some of them are just oblivious to their surroundings, but some actually do it deliberately as their way of enforcing the speed limit. Never mind that in most states, the slower traffic keep right laws apply whether you're exceeding the speed limit or not.

Re:Many times

[ackthpt]

Sometimes they are just putting along, but my point was the driver who knows he/she will be on their phone or doing some other activity while driving, and sits in the left lane so they won't have to attend traffic other than keeping off the bumper of the car ahead. Lane changing is where accidents frequently happen -- someone wants to get into another lane and even with signal on may be cut off by other (more aggressive drivers) in the midst. Presenting an obstacle to traffic which requires more lane changing by other drivers is effectively why there's a minimum speed. Sitting in the far left crawling along behind a sloth on the phone or simply two people in the front seat in a heated discussion can be frustrating, and we know that frustration is the root of roadrage.

Re:Many times

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

Interesting. I've long thought "pulling over" might be more dangerous than continuing. This stdy, however, examines responses to road signs, not ability to respond to crisis situations. Though I can see that failure in the former may lead to the latter. The problem with banning all mobile phone conversations is that it is unenforceable (link below), and not sufficiently different to normal conversation, at least in the popular mind, to be accepted as fair.

A friend of mine worked for a British governmental institution that examined road safety. They found that mild cannabis improved the safety of drivers (less fast driving, more awareness etc).

Relevant articles: BBC1 BBC2

Re:Many times

[epsilon_alpha]

We all know that focusing on something else, whether it be cell phone, computer, or radio, takes attention from the primary task; driving the car. Cell phones require double duty distraction (so far as no hands-free systems go); operating the phone and communicating through it.

A second point is that the risk of using a cell phone, perhaps a factor of 4, is less than other risks we consider acceptable, like driving at night, or driving in bad weather, or driving unecessary distances.

Back to what I said above. a distraction is a distraction, and most people don't stop to think of 'risk factor' numbers as you've presented here. Instead, they think more along the lines of, "I wonder if I got my mobile food processor in the mail today; I'll call home and find out." This descision is made without regard to the environment; driving in the dark, bad weather, et cetera. Using a cell phone in these circumstances compounds the possibility of crashing.

The wisest idea would be just to wait until you arrive at your destination to use your phone, computer, whatever. Focus on one thing at a time; worry about secondary things when they become primary, when they don't put yourself or somebody else at risk.

Re:Many times

[the argonaut]

The laws for slower traffic keep right are rarely enforced

Wrong. In most situations, "slower traffic keep right" isn't a law but a social custom (note that I said in *most* situations. This obviously excludes those in which there is a posted sign). So while it's rude to drive slower in the left lane and likely to make you very unpopular, it's not a traffic infraction per se.

Never mind that in most states, the slower traffic keep right laws apply whether you're exceeding the speed limit or not.

The generic law you're referring to is obstructing traffic, and it can be enforced if you're driving in the right lane as well (although it's *very* unlikely to be unless you're *really* going under the speed limit). If you're familiar with Critical Mass bike rides (where a large number of people "spontaneously" meet up and go on a bike ride together, generally tying up traffic along their route (it's a civil disobedience/direct action/protest thing)), when they're broken up by police that's usually what they're ticketed with. And I've known people who have gotten tickets as well even when driving simply because they weren't keeping up with the traffic flow.

Re:Many times

[rjamestaylor]

I commonly lookup directions with Google and
keep the map pages open (I like Yahoo maps
best). I'll keep my laptop on standby and
refer to it as necessary. How is that
different from a map book of similar size?

But, when Ricochet was more than a San Diego/Denver operation, I *did* enjoy maintaining IM conversations while driving the 5 in Orange County...so shoot me.

Re:Many times

[homer_ca]

Wrong. In most situations, "slower traffic keep right" isn't a law but a social custom

No it's the law. The wording varies, but in most states drivers must keep right if they are going slower than the normal flow of traffic regardless of the speed limits. Only two states, Missouri and Arkansas, refer to obstructing traffic, and only Missouri's law is not specific about driving slowly in the left lane.

Re:Many times

[welsh git]

> It is intuitively appealing to believe that the problem with mobile phones is the use of
> your hands. It isn't. A number of studies have shown that there is no difference in accident
> rates between users of hand-held and hands-free phones.

It's probably not quantifiable, but I wonder how using a hands-free phone compares with chatting to a passenger in the car ?

Re:Many times

[Anonymous Coward]

on multilane freeways I frequently observe cars crawling along, well under the speed limit, while the driver gesticulates (why do people even do this while on cell phones?) and ignores all the traffic having to pass on the right because they can't be bothered with merging traffic while they concentrate on their phone call.

Just one day of the police rigidly enforcing the ban on cell phones while driving would be a good thing to get the message across, too bad they don't. I see patrol cars pass drivers chatting away. There's no enforcement

The problem isn't that they're failing to enforce the law against phone usage. The problem is that they are failing to enforce the law against obstructing traffic. I don't care why someone drives unsafely -- whether it's because they're talking on a phone, they're drunk, they're daydreaming, or just don't have enough brainpower to be able to operate a vehicle. They're behaving unsafely, and that alone (never mind the cause) is enough reason to discourage them from driving on public roads.

Phone-usage laws are just as dumb as hate crime laws, or "using a gun in the commission of a crime" type laws. Someone is already fucking up, so we don't need to invent new laws for them to concurrently violate.

Re:Many times

[babbage]

Yet on multilane freeways I frequently observe cars crawling along, well under the speed limit, while the driver gesticulates (why do people even do this while on cell phones?) and ignores all the traffic having to pass on the right because they can't be bothered with merging traffic while they concentrate on their phone call.

Oh no, don't worry -- this was a problem long before cell phones became popular. I don't know why some people are so resistant to the simple idea of "drive on the right, pass on the left", but there have always been idiots that just poke along in the passing lane at 70% of the average roadway speed.

Some of them probably think that by "enforcing the speed limit" they're doing everyone a favor, but the difference in speeds they're creating between themselves and the line of cars piling up behind them can be far more dangerous than if everyone were just moving together at 75 miles per hour.

In any case, this isn't a cell phone issue, even if the people doing this sometimes happen to be using a phone at the time. No, it's a bad driving etiquette issue, and it's been around for a long, long time...

Re:Many times

[fenix down]

My anecdotal evidence indicates that the phone's worse. Take those fuckers that wander around the grocery store talking to their family on the phone rather than making a fucking list like a normal person. I've been rammed by cart-wielding maniacs 3 times in my life, once in 1995 by a pothead so stoned his eyes were about to start dripping blood, and twice in the last 6 months by stupid fuckers on phones.

No matter how engrossing the conversation with your supermarket buddy, you're not gonna ram people in the ankles with the damn cart while talking. Only a phone can get you that fucking high.

Re:Many times

[Moofie]

If a distraction is a distraction, we also need to ban radios, food, and children in cars.

That'll make the world safe for democracy.

Re:Many times

[Anonymous Coward]

I sure hope you people don't take flying lessons!
You would probably say it's impossible to make all the mandatory postion announcement radio calls in traffic pattern at a non-controlled airport while adjusting carb-heat, throttle RPM, flaps setting, landing gear position,..., while still monitoring wind drift, descent rate, glide path, traffic above and below as well as in front and to the side,..., all in a vehicle which will suddenly fall on the ground and kill you if you let the airspeed drop BELOW 55 mph... Oh yeah, you can do a lot of things at the same time with a little training and experience! (Appologies to fellow pilots if I omitted your favorite in-flight multitasking overload.)

Re:Many times

[Sabalon]

In the USA you drive on the right hand side. Drivers going slow are to remain to the right lanes, leaving the left for passing. Yet on multilane freeways I frequently observe cars crawling along, well under the speed limit,

There is one on/off ramp I have to go by on the way to work that people stay in the left hand lane until the last moment, and then cut their SUV's across 3 lanes of traffic to get off, and then when they get on there, they immediatly cut to the left hand lane. I guess they are allowed to do that because their vehicles cost more and the roads must be just for them.

Re:Many times

[epsilon_alpha]

You know what I mean.

Re:Many times

[Moofie]

Obviously, I don't.

What do you mean?

Re:Many times

[epsilon_alpha]

What I mean is that visual distractions are detrimetal to driving saftey. Audio distractions, such as the radio, can trigger visual distraction (leaning down to read the display, or something of the sort.) In essence, laptops in the front seat are a purely visual distraction. You cannot 'hear' somebody's code or their web-surfing. If you want to know more about it, you must look; with the radio, all you have to do is listen, and you can keep your eyes on the road.

Re:Many times

[Moofie]

See, now that's a reasonable position.

I think there shouldn't be any displays visible to the driver. Yes, I think that includes moving map displays that are more complex than big arrows that say TURN RIGHT IN 400 FEET.

However, simply having a laptop in the front seat does not imply a visual distraction. There is no reason a passenger should not be forbidden from using a laptop, so long as the driver isn't distracted by it.

Re:Many times

[epsilon_alpha]

Well, you might as well get rid of the risk entirely-- and I think that the big arrows are not distractions, but guidelines on the road. And don't even say MAPQUEST.com is a guideline on the road. Maps are useful, but the passenger should hold them and give the directions to the driver via voice. If the driver thinks it's necessary to read the map him/herself, he/she should pull over into a gas station or other such outlet, as the situation may indicate.

Re:Many times

[Moofie]

See, there's where I disagree with you. "You might as well get rid of the risk entirely" is the road to a police state.

We take ALL SORTS of risks every day. Having the police prevent us from taking those risks would be tyranny. We need to have fewer, smarter laws.

I think you misunderstood my contention. I think big arrows in a properly engineered nav system are OK and relatively non-distracting (better than snapping your head around trying to see a road sign you almost missed). Mapquest.com does not feature this, so it should never be used by the driver.

Re:Many times

[epsilon_alpha]

Hmm... I see what you are saying, and I agree. Fewer, smarter laws encompass both of our ideas in a sort of a comprimise -- not that this was a conflict or anything, but I agree.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

Re:Many times

[Moofie]

No problem. Kind of a treat when it happens around here, huh? : )

Reading? Eating? Sleeping?

[Brahmastra]

How about someone reading or eating or sleeping? Especially the sleeping part seems like it would be more distracting to the passenger than using a laptop. Stupid laws...

Re:Reading? Eating? Sleeping?

[dir-wizard]

Have you ever seen carpoolers in the morning? They read the paper. I can't see a larger hazard than a fully opened newspaper in the passenger seat. I am also curious about law enforcement vehicles. Now they can drive in excess of the speed limit during non-emergencies AND surf the internet... Who is above the law here?

Re:Reading? Eating? Sleeping?

[Dr. Evil]

"I can't see a larger hazard than a fully opened newspaper in the passenger seat."

That's either a horrible overstatement, or a slight pun on the word "see"

Re:Reading? Eating? Sleeping?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't see a bigger hazard? I thought blind people couldn't drive.

Re:Police

[z-kungfu]

RTFA. It is allowed in authorized emergency vehicles.

Just a slight inconvenience.

[Anonymous Coward]

I usually start long compiles and then leave the laptop running on the way home, compiling.

Now, I guess I'll just put it in the back seat.

Re:Just a slight inconvenience.

[vasqzr]

I've actually installed Windows over a long road trip.....

Re:Just a slight inconvenience.

[amerinese]

Haha, why was parent modded funny?

Well I guess that makes sense, I mean, I thought that the original poster's example was hilarious:Even if your car-pooling front seat passenger is just doing some programming
Vs something like...Even if your carpooling front seat passenger is just looking up directions or Even it's your front seat passenger is the one using the computer. But no, I think programming is holy so even if they don't let you do anything else, the front seat passenger should be at least allowed to program.

Re:Just a slight inconvenience.

[zephc]

I drive a pickup truck... i don't HAVE a back seat! *cries*

Oh, wait, I don't have a laptop either...

Re:Just a slight inconvenience.

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize of course, this increases the chances of a crash during your trip.

it's about time some one did this

[unclefungus]

I almost wrecked into a guy with an LCD screen mounted in his passenger seat. some things are not meant to do while driving. If you "think" you can do it while you drive, then you should pull the car over.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[diablobynight]

Some of us have the ability to do two things at once, considering the fact that driving is a rather simple mental process, books should be outlawed too if laptops are, I see lots of people reading books on the road, and it takes more concentration for me to read in my car than glance over at mapquest on laptop.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[GoofyBoy]

>Some of us have the ability to do two things at once,

I really hate people who think this way. "I am above average and don't need to be treated like the rest of you." Just like people who still drink and drive.

>considering the fact that driving is a rather simple mental process

At best you can say that this is the case most of the time. Its that rare time which its a pretty complex thing which could have serious consequences. Thats the part you don't want to get into.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[unclefungus]

multi tasking on the net, or in the office is one thing. But doing it in a car can get you and others killed. I seriously think that the only thing while driving should be driving. How would you feell if some guy plowed through you're family becuase he was to busy on his laptop looking for directions. I'm sure mapquest didn't tell him to drive through innocent children and mother on the side of the road.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[akedia]

I sure hope you never drive around where I live, lest you get distracted while you are reading and driving and crash into me. Can you say 'lawsuit'?

Driving is NOT a simple mental process. If it was, don't you think we would have built a robotic system based on a series of simple algorithms to do the driving for us? (Yes I know the military has a few prototypes but that's not my point.) Driving is the process of several visual, audible, and physical processes. You have to be able to see down the road and around your car, you need to hear other drivers' warning and emergency vehicles, and you need to be able to properly physically operate all the controls of your car. In addition, there are many other variables to account for. Weather conditions, traffic conditions, other drivers, animals, children, police and other emergency vehicles, and there are NUMEROUS others. By reading your book, or yapping on your phone, or poking at your laptop, you are taking mental ability AWAY, for whatever duration and capacity, from a particular task for driving. Operating a vehicle SAFELY requires most, if not all of your attention span, and skills that are only acquired with years of experience.

By the way, does anyone here live in the DC Metro area? I moved here from the Philadelphia area a few months ago and the FUCKERS AROUND HERE CANNOT DRIVE! Good Lord, people, get off your phones while you're driving your minivans full of nine kids! Only in northern Virginia do I have to watch the traffic IN FRONT OF ME while I do a high-speed merge onto the Beltway! JESUS, people, find a hole and stick yourself in it! OK I'm done.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[OlaL]

It is not enough to be able to do two thing at once, you should keep your eyes on the road. You never know when that idiot driving in front of you just happens to goof up while you're busy reading Slashdot... :)

Seriously though, how about those head up displays (HUDs) which at least some car manufacturers (GM?) have been introducing? Just hook your laptop to that and voila!

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

Driving is a 'simple mental process' until an incident happens. The more you're multitasking when something happens (nearby car swerves, sudden stops, hydroplane, etc etc) the less likely you'll be reacting to the danger in time or at full capability.

And when you take that risk, you're forcing it on everyone else on the road with you.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[diablobynight]

Yep, guess we should take those computers our of jets and helicopters then. Or are you implying that your drive to work requires more mental capacity than my buddy piloting an apache. Where he has a whole eye devoted to a computer screen. If you can't glance at mapquest and keep your mind focused on the road as well, please don't breed, we don't want your genes spreading.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

WORD ac, word.

T

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Creep73]

considering the fact that driving is a rather simple mental process

Not if you are doing everything correctly. Your eyes should be moving about identifying possible problems and you should be constantly working out how you would handle those problems. You should be glancing at mirrors to identify traffic and keeping track of people around you.

Putting your foot on the gas and keeping between the lines is driving but it isn't proper driving (as I have learned it).

I see horrible drivers daily and they are horrible because they are self-centered and they believe that driving is simple.

I do not ask that everyone take driving as seriously as I do. I rarely play music in my car because I think it is a distraction. I do however feel that you should respect the fact that if you don't pay attention and identify those hazards that are on the road you and your family have a much greater possibility of getting harmed by those hazards. Yes in most cases an individual driving mindlessly down the road doesn't cause allot of problems but we do not normally have an individual doing that. We have a large group of people driving mindlessly and that causes accidents daily.

With that said, I believe that this law goes overboard. Laptops and such are valuable if properly used. The problem they are trying to prevent is the inevitable misuse due to people thinking they can do multiple things at once because driving is simple.

And yes books and newspapers should not be read during your morning commute into work unless you take a plane or train.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[at_18]

Or are you implying that your drive to work requires more mental capacity than my buddy piloting an apache.

No, but it requires that you keep you eyes on the road the whole time, unlike on an helicopter where you can look away and be sure that no dumbass will change lane in front of you.

If you can't glance at mapquest and keep your mind focused on the road as well, please don't breed, we don't want your genes spreading.

Right, because you can see what other cars are doing with your mind focus, instead of using your eyes.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[HiThere]

That was why I revoked my drivers license. I kept spacing out. Driving was boring, so I would think about other things... and once I came a bit too close for comfort to real trouble. No external device was needed.

OTOH, I *know* the relationship between reaction time and stopping distance, and I frequently see people doing things that *should* get their licenses revoked. But it won't happen. It won't happen even if they get into an accident because they drove too close at too high a speed (relative speed, even, but you also need to consider how fast the lead car might slow in a panic stop over something that the following car can't see). And nothing will be done about it even if they cause an accident. Most people aren't aware of how unsafe they are being, or that anyone except the *** who's following them (or coming in from the side) are being.

Given that, this is probably a needed rule. Not always appropriate, and not sufficient, and it will be enforced in stupid ways. But needed anyway.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[leenoble_uk]

Probably OT but who cares, we all need to rant once in a while.
I'm in the UK and seem to be in a dwindling minority of people who know that you're supposed to MATCH THE SPEED of the traffic on the motorway when you are joining the flow. DON'T STOP, JUST PUT YOUR F-ING FOOT DOWN.
The problem is that joining a motorway ISN'T EVEN PART OF THE TEST for fricks sake!!!
It's in the highway code and left up to the newly passed driver to read up on it later or take further lessons. Yeah, like that's ever going to happen.
I've even seen people sitting STATIONARY on the hard shoulder (emergency/recovery lane) indicating their intention to pull out when a big enough gap emerges. NO NO NO NO NO. YOU ARE ALLOWED TO ACCELERATE TO A SENSIBLE MEGING SPEED WITHIN THAT LANE.
MORONS FRICKING EVERYWHERE

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Zathrus]

Or are you implying that your drive to work requires more mental capacity than my buddy piloting an apache. Where he has a whole eye devoted to a computer screen.

Yeah, and he can stare THROUGH that computer screen and focus both eyes on the terrain in front of him. Better yet, he has one eye on the terrain the entire time.

When you're looking at your laptop, exactly how many eyes do you have on the road?

I don't care that you can multitask. Whoop de do. You cannot, physically, look in two different directions at once. You are not a gecko. And you're driving a multi-thousand pound vehicle that's moving at some velocity (if you're stopped then I really don't give a crap what you're doing, as long as it's not impedeing traffic). It's a bloody weapon when used improperly.

Look, if all you're doing is using mapquest to guide you then that's probably not a huge deal. Odds are you're not staring at the screen for any longer then you'd stare at printed directions. You are not the problem. The problem is all the utter dipshits out there that think that reading the news, some blog, watching a movie, or playing a game while driving is acceptable. It isn't.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

books should be outlawed too if laptops are

Yes, in fact, they should. Do you honestly believe it should be legal to read a book while driving?

I agree with many of the other posters who stated that the laws should specify that anyone driving a vehicle should maintain the focus of his or her attention on the road-- yes, this means that the driver should not be allowed to have access to books, laptops, newspapers, DVD players, makeup kits, cellular telephone screens, CD changers or anything else that could potentially distract him or her.

Note that many of these information tools have handsfree options:

-as a replacement for books, there are books on tape
-nearly all cellular phones have handsfree kits
-CD changers allow you to preload 1, 2, 3, however many CDs you want for the trip (yes, I have a friend who actually does change out CDs from his backseat 6-CD changer while driving, which is pretty dumb)
-newspapers have the web version you can read at work on your desktop or PDA, or the paper version you can get delivered before you leave the house
-laptops have passengers who can look up your directions or read your e-mail for you (the one part of this law which seems stupid to me is its failure to allow for this)

The problem, as I see it, is that the no-fault accident insurance laws (where the driver who is at fault pays for the accident) aren't sufficient enough disincentive for people to stop driving with these dangerous behaviors. People are stubborn and and will continue to do stupid things, much like people refused to wear seatbelts for a long time until they became mandatory in all vehicles and most states enacted laws requiring their use (and a massive PR campaign finally took root). Laws prohibiting this kind of behavior will provide the kind of incentive people need to stop these dangerous behaviors and make the road safer for everybody.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Elvisisdead]

As someone who used to do psychological testing on this very subject, I can say to you that driving is not a simple mental process. We conducted experiments using driving simulators to discover the information threshold at which point drivers begin to become overwhelmed. It's been about 7 years since I worked on that project, but I seem to recall that the presence of 3-4 other vehiles produced a marked degredation in performance. The research was done for the USAF. Sorry I can't provide a reference.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

I ride my bicycle around town a lot more than I drive, and I have news for you: NOBODY thinks they're a bad driver. You may think you're hot shit behind the wheel, but you're not. You think you're good at driving distracted, but you're too distracted to notice your driving sucks.
I see it almost every day. Distracted drivers point their optical sensors in the direction of oncoming traffic when making a turn, and rely on the pattern detectors in their visual cortex to trigger an alarm when there's an oncoming car. Those pattern detectors don't trip for a person on a bicycle, and their conscious mind is off in la-la land and so they nearly commit manslaughter.
Most likely, I've never shared a road with you personally, but I know the above applies to you because you are human.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[duffbeer703]

Your buddy in the attack helicopter works with a user interface that was designed to allow a pilot to safely look at a screen or heads up display and safely fly.

You'll also note that the more intensive work of targeting and firing the helicopter's various weapons systems is left to a dedicated gunner.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[chunkymunky]

unless of course you have nose-to-tail juggernauts intent on not letting, or unable to let you on to the road... this is when an alternative use for the hard shoulder presents itself. M25 J20(clock) anyone?

Re:it's about time some one did this

[MidnightBrewer]

The trick with the "simple mental process" is that it requires your concentration. That, and your eyes. What is simple one second turns into a six-year-old chasing a ball into the street the next, and then let's see how talented you are while you're fiddling with your laptop and not paying attention.

It seems stupid to ban this from the passenger seat, though, since the passenger isn't driving. The car navigation thing is going to be a big issue, too, as built-in car navigation screens become more popular.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[DarkSarin]

WOW!

I have to say that I don't believe that you know much about the mental processes that are actually involved in driving. Have you ever studied it? Here's the first clue: if it was really so easy, why do people who are intoxicated have such a hard time with it?

Also, when you say "a rather simple mental process", what, exactly, are you comparing it to?

Let me put this another way: if driving is so simple, why can't robots do it as well as humans? Sure, racing games exist, and computers do well, but the data is very different.

Driving is quite complicated, and it is getting more so every time you add a gadget to your car. As a note, reading a book while you are driving is EXTREMELY stupid, but reading a computer screen is equally so.

So, while no offense to you "diablobynight" is meant, I respectfully disagree with everything you have said in this post, except that I too see lots of people reading in their cars. It should be banned too.

As a note, one of my professors has extensively studied the use of cell phones in cars (he has a driving simulator here at clemson), and guess what? It is a bad idea--a very bad idea. Now, I would guess that looking at a laptop (for mapquest or what have you) is more complicated than that.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[jagapen]

-nearly all cellular phones have handsfree kits

It ain't the hands which cause the problem.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[bwalling]

Some of us have the ability to do two things at once, considering the fact that driving is a rather simple mental process, books should be outlawed too if laptops are, I see lots of people reading books on the road, and it takes more concentration for me to read in my car than glance over at mapquest on laptop.

The reason that certain distractions are being outlawed is that they avert your eyes from the road. It's not about mental complexity, it's about constant monitoring. When you are using a laptop or television, your eyes are not on the road. When the car in front of you hits his brakes or the car next to you cuts you off or the car on the side road pulls out in front of you or the deer runs in front of you or the cargo falls off the truck in front of you or the car in front of you blows out a tire, you need to be watching the road instead of looking at porn.

Maybe you're only 16 and haven't been driving long or maybe you live in an area with no other cars, but you need to recognize the fact that your driving environment can instantly and dramatically change. It doesn't take a smart person to avoid an accident, it takes someone who is paying attention. It's not myslef that I worry about while driving - it's all of the other people (and things - deer are pretty stupid).

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

It has nothing to do with driving being a complex or a simple thing. Some people have the ability to context-switch quickly. These people can immediately remove their divided attention from a distracting object and shift it entirely towards driving.

I always say people should be allowed to talk on a cellphone while driving -- they can just take the driving test while on a cellphone. If they score perfectly, they can do it. (Although this isn't very realistic anyway because these people only get into trouble during emotional conversations plus difficult driving, which overwhelms their presence of mind.)

But anyway you can't tell me there's no difference between people. No one should drive after drinking. That's a physical impairment and affects reaction time adversely. Some people really CAN drive while on a cell phone. If you can't, you should be responsible enough to refrain.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[diablobynight]

No, it's ok I understand, like that research I did for the NSA, CIA and the FBI, that I also can not provide a refence for. Also why did the air force, want to know about driving?

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish there was some sort of moderation that was appropriate for you. Something like "-1, Idiotic Hypocritical Wanker"

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us have the ability to do two things at once, considering the fact that driving is a rather simple mental process, books should be outlawed too if laptops are, I see lots of people reading books on the road, and it takes more concentration for me to read in my car than glance over at mapquest on laptop.

One thing you should have done is pay attention in English class and learn what a run-on sentence is. Or did you type this in while driving?

Re:it's about time some one did this

[fitten]

Some people really CAN drive while on a cell phone. If you can't, you should be responsible enough to refrain.

This is exactly the point. Very few people will honestly admit to themselves that they can't - especially when they see other people doing it. This would be an honest admission that they are somehow inferior to others, which is a difficult thing for many people to do. The vast majority of people think that they can, even despite evidence to the contrary. I know plenty of people who think they are the best drivers on the road even though many of their friends are nervous about riding in a vehicle they are driving.

In the end, what you have is almost everyone driving and doing these things and being a hazard on the road. The only fair way to do this, to many folks, is to universally ban it. If you start making tests to allow some and not others, you will get lawsuits of descrimination, racial profiling, and all of those similar garbage things.

Not only that, but how would you enforce the law? Stop everyone and see if they are allowed? or simply not stop anyone for it unless there is another reason (speeding/wreck/suspicion of chemical influence/etc).

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Russ Nelson]

Um ... the way *my* grandmother used to say it was "Wish in one and and shit in the other and see which fills up first." But then, my grandmother was the salt of the earth ... or salty anyway.
-russ

Re:it's about time some one did this

[leenoble_uk]

I used to drive that way regularly. Joined J21 (M1) exit J16 (A40). I assume you're talking about the drive home.
I know of what you speak. I had two approaches. Either get out into lane 3 well before the exit from the M25 or stay in lane 1 and adopt a laid back attitude and let a 100 to 150 yard gap open up between myself and the truck (invariably) in front. I'd then match the speed of the truck accelerating occasionally to discourage opportunists from lane 2 racing past across lane 1 over the hatch markings and into the acceleration lane and on into the hard shoulder (A$$HOLES) to undertake everybody.
I'd then proceed to let in as many cars as possible. And this would usually even out the flow of the traffic and things would move along a lot more freely. However self-righteous driver that I am, if I saw anybody in the acceleration lane go beyond the approprate merging speed and race on toward the end of the lane hoping to join the traffic a lot further up I would make life extremely difficult for them on purpose by matching their road position in an attempt to force them to comply.

Oh, there was a third approach which I found worked best and is by far the most relaxed way of getting from J21 to J16 even if it may take a little longer. I'm not kidding. This is an almost traffic free route on most days. The only exception being Wednesday when Watford have a home game.

Stay on M1 South to J5
Take road into Watford town centre, no really it's not bad at all.
Follow ring road around harlequinn centre and exit at Vicarage road (football club).
Turn left at the end of Vicarage road.
Kepp going until you hit traffic lights of four-way crossroads.
Take right hand lane and turn right.
Stay on that road for a few miles until you get to a mini roundabout where you must turn left or right.
Turn left.
Immediately follow road round 90 degree bend to the right and turn left at the end of the road. There is an iron bridge to the right at that junction.
Drive straight on for half a mile or so until you get to the roundabout at the top of Northwood high street.
Turn right into Northwood and keep driving through to Eastcote and Northolt.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose you're looking to the left to scan for traffic, so you're DRIVING. You're NOT driving when you're checking your email on a laptop, you're NOT scanning for possibly dangerous situations on the road.

So, yes, nobody has a fisheye view, but no, looking at your laptop is not the same as watching for traffic; all the time you spend looking at your laptop, you're not watching for traffic.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[fishbowl]

In 1998, I saw a guy in the carpool lane, in a Ford pickup truck, with a small TV sitting on the dashboard between the steering wheel and the windshield. One person in the truck. In the carpool lane. Watching TV while driving in traffic. And it wasn't even a "car tv", it was
just a portable.

Scared the hell out of me, although it was not the stupidest thing I'd seen on that road (I635, Dallas).

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Stugots]

The issue here is all wrong. Our society has taken to demonizing certain kinds of specific behavior, without thinking the general problem.

We shouldn't be demonizing laptop use (or even cell phone use) in the car. Instead, we should be legislating and talking about drivers who don't pay attention, or who are impaired. To wit, using your rear-view mirror to look at your two darling children in the back seat, or fiddling with your radio controls, or unwrapping and feasting on a Quarter Pounder while you drive is just as or more hazardous as using a laptop in the front seat. And I'll bet you these situations happen far more often.

There's a subtext to some of these demonization statutes to "get the yuppie". I can't believe there's an epidemic of drivers using laptops and getting into accidents.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[diablobynight]

LOL, Clemson, the engineering school. In another post I compared driving to walking, which is even harder to get computers to do, hence millions of dollars spent researching the honda robot that walks like a three hundred year old man. So I should say driving is simple for humans, like breathing, making decisions and other things we do that robots can't. Digestion for instance is very complicated, but I don't need a manual for it, and as a matter of fact I don't even think about it. A cell phone is just as distracting as a normal conversation if you have a hands free phone like I do. Since I drive a manual I can't have a phone in my hand.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[dreamchaser]

You, sir, are an idiot. Driving is *usually* simple, until a deer runs in front of your car, or someone cuts you off. People like you get other people killed.

I can multitask with the best of them and even I don't make bold, baseless claims like this.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Megaslow]

I once saw a person driving down the freeway (in the fast lane), with a bowl of cereal in his left hand and a spoon in the other... Made me want to go in front of him and slam on the brakes just to see the Froot Loops go flying :)

Re:it's about time some one did this

[diablobynight]

LOL...I always love the grammar police. I have nothing to add to the conversation, but I can rip into someone for bad grammar. I am typing quickly because I want to get an idea across even if it isn't in perfect form. I read for content not grammar.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[GoofyBoy]

>It has nothing to do with driving being a complex or a simple thing. Some people have the ability to context-switch quickly.

Travelling at 55 miles per hour, in one second you have travelled 80 feet.

Even with perfect context-switching, thats a large enough distance for lots to happen.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[TheGax]

And the sum total of all helicopters in the air at any given time in the whole world is probably much less than the number of cars on a given 10 mile strech of highway in a large city during rush hour.
Then take into account that your Apache driver buddy is doing most of his work in formation with other highly trained people. One of his wingmen isn't going to veer left just for the hell of it. And if he has to make a move, he's going to check what's around him, radio the other helos, then make his move.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Burnon]

It doesn't matter how quickly you can context switch if your eyes aren't on the road when something happens in front of you.

As long as a driver is using a handsfree kit and speech recognition or steering-wheel mounted controls, a cell phone's fine, but only under those conditions. If you can reduce the use of the cell phone to an activity like talking to someone in the passenger seat or back seat, with no other distractions, your in good shape. But as soon as hands start coming off the wheel, or eyes migrate to the LCD screen on the handset instead of the road, you (and everyone aroung you) has got a problem.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[phunhippy]

Some of us have the ability to do two things at once,

I really hate people who think this way. "I am above average and don't need to be treated like the rest of you." Just like people who still drink and drive.

I've never heard of two drunks hitting each other in a car accident... maybe sober people should stay off the road at 3am.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[the_mad_poster]

Your brilliant analytical mind sure has felled the opponents in this thread, hasn't it?

That was sarcasm, kid. You know, over on Sitepoint, where I no longer participate because it's full of morons like you, there was an idiot named "Darryl" who thought it was oooohhhhh so hilarious that he got a ticket for driving some 115 mph up the freeway in a Sunfire. His infallible "logic" for why this was perfectly acceptable behavior"?

I can handle it.

Well guess what, shithead, I don't think you can. And, until you can show me that you've passed some high-speed driving test that says "we have verified that this guy can drive as safely at 115 mph as everyone else can at 65", Darryl is nothing more than a total fucking moron.

Much like yourself.

First point: navigational equipment is an integrated part of flying a helicopter or airplane. It is meant to be there and it is meant to be viewed while flying. In addition, other systems are handling the small possibility of a midair collision. None of this exists in your mapquest-enabled vehicle which has, effectively, three navigational tools: the steering wheel, the brakes, and the accelerator. Your comparison was illogical, irrelevant, and the shelter of someone who knows they've been called bullshit on and can't keep up the fight, but doesn't want to admit they're wrong.

Second point: Looking in two different directions is not an issue, because the parent poster was pointing out that, while viewing mapquest, you are not looking in ANY direction that is relevant to driving the vehicle. When looking left, right, forward, or back, however, you are covering a path of travel. That is countless times better than looking in no directions at all, especially given that fact that you CANNOT properly steer the car while not looking out through the windshield. Do not even argue this fact. You CANNOT. You have NO point of reference for determining where your vehicle is on the roadway or how fast it's traveling, much less where it is in relation to moving objects around you. If you try to argue against this point, you are arguing against some of the very principle laws of physics determining human understanding of position and speed in an environment with no reference points. Unless you're psychic, you simply cannot - it is IMPOSSIBLE. You may be able to steer it well enough to keep it in your lane and infer a very rough estimate of speed based on pressure on the gas pedal and current gear, but if you're already close to the double yellow, all it takes is minor drifting and you've gone head on with a van full of schoolchildren.

To put it quite bluntly: I don't care if you THINK you can drive and look at a computer screen at the same time. I'm not going to put my life or the lives of my loved ones in the hands of a marauding moron who THINKS they can do something. There are a lot of idiots like you out there who THINK they can drink five beers and drive home. They kill a lot of people. There are a lot of idiots out there like you who THINK they can talk on a cell and drive at the same time. Coincidentally, those idiots are typically all over the road.

You CANNOT effectively drive a vehicle by NOT looking at the road. It really is that simple, and if you can't get that through that thick chunk of bone you call a skull, then the only thing that's even simpler is YOU.

I bid you good day and will be praying that you drive into a telephone pole on the way home so you don't hurt any innocent people when the time comes that you cause an accident while trying to concentrate on something other than driving.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[tap]

You're talking on the phone while walking and bump into someone. You say, "Excuse me," and the person you bumped is satisfied with your apology.

You're driving while reading /. and run over someone in cross walk. You say, "Excuse me," but the person you hit doesn't hear you, because YOU #!$%! KILLED THEM.

diablobynight, surely your mighty multitasking mind can grasp the difference between these situations. It is the risk involved, that makes driving while not paying attention a crime while walking without paying attention is merely rude.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[digitalsushi]

the best reason not to do stuff while driving is pretty simple to me. if you're just watching the road and hit a kid, you're going to forgive yourself eventually. if you're dialing a phone, you never will. that mental insurance alone is worth it to me.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

the really funny part is that everyone I know who thinks like this has totaled a couple cars.

meanwhile, I've been driving for just as long and I have a perfect record.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[FL180]

I lived there for about 7 years (off of Duke St.). Now I don't. One of the primary reasons I left is because of the stupid drivers. Them, and the metro busses...

Re:it's about time some one did this

[DarkSarin]

As a bit of information, like I posted previously, the parent to your post is correct. His research for the USAF may or may not have been real (who can tell?), but his information is accurate. Try looking it up in a respectable psych journal (try journal of applied psychology, or something similar), and see what you find.

Sorry, but you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, while there are others who very obviously know what they are saying. I think we are all wondering where you get your information.

Remember--anecdotal evidence is worthless compared to statistics, even though it is much more fun.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[DaveOke]

How many of you people actually read the PDF file? The ignorance posted on the front page is skewed of to what is the law.

It clearly states if the screen is used for
1) vechile info display
2) a GPS display
3) a MAPPING DISPLAY
4) display used to enhance driving
5) any display (television, monitor, computer) that is when the vechile is in motion, the display can be only used for the purposes of 1-4.

Maybe some people should read everything before basing their judgement on ignorant (get-your-attention) slashdot articles.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but this law is stupid. It essentially means that your buddy sitting in the passenger seat can't use his/her laptop, Palm or Gameboy. Anyone who doesn't see how lame that is can be rated as just a retard.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

Computers context-switch,people don't.

Always saying something doesn't make it any less nonsense.

that about covers it. bye.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[jotaeleemeese]

Simple mental process.

And then you screw once and I am dead.

Thanks but no thanks.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe sober people should start putting cinder blocks out in the road during that window of time after bar closing.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[diablobynight]

http://www.home.zonnet.nl/waard2/mwlch5b.htm

There is a nice study for you. I am glad I clearly have no idea what I am talking about based on the information you gave above. How are you stating his information is correct? Should I just trust you and accept you're all knowing and define truth from untruth with no references to back up what your saying.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[enigma48]

I don't have the links anymore, but there is a good amount of research saying cellphone use is cellphone use, regardless of handsfree or other 'aids'.

When you use a cell phone in a car, you are distracted. As a previous poster said, at 55MPH, you are moving 80 feet per second.

A Ford Taurus is not a small car and comes in at 16 feet. You need at least another full second to brake.

How many people do you know give themselves 10 car lengths on a highway?

Cell phones are dangerous to use, period. Sadly, this hasn't stopped me from using a cell phone while driving but I minimize it and don't kid myself that handsfree = safe. Be careful.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[HairyCanary]

That same research also indicates that in-car conversations with a passenger are just as distracting as cell phone conversations on speakerphone. Maybe we should ban passengers, too.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[BoomerSooner]

Lol, every police car I've seen has one for the driver. ABOVE THE LAW!!!! Of course if the law says it only is when the car is moving then that's different.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[plastik55]

Unfortunately the info on the front page is correct. The exemption is for when the device is a dedicated mapping display, not for when a general-purpose device is used as a mapping display.

My handheld produces "entertainment and business applications" and does not have any interlock to make it only produce maps when in the car. As written, it doesn't matter that I only use it to display maps in the car--it's now illegal to use.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

By the way, does anyone here live in the DC Metro area? I moved here from the Philadelphia area a few months ago and the FUCKERS AROUND HERE CANNOT DRIVE!

Welcome To Nova! Actually, what gets me about the drivers around here is not all of the ones that don't pay attention when they drive, but that so many are drivers are agressively bad. I don't even know how often I see people go out of their way to be assholes. With the merging example, it's not unusal for a driver with plenty of room in front of him to allow another driver to merge in, and who doesn't need to take any action whatsoever, to speed up and then stand on his brakes specifically to prevent another driver from merging.

And don't even get me started about passing on the right when the left lane is open...

Re:it's about time some one did this

[evilad]

Oddly, I find it much easier to simply stop talking to a passenger when driving requires my full attention.

Perhaps it's because a passenger is more intimately acquainted with the fact that I am doing something a little more important than talking to them -- and has something invested in my safe driving.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Lehk228]

Don't need to actually risk getting hit, when i finally get a car i plan on wiring an extra switch to activate my brake lights to keep idiots from tailgating me

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's your reference? Oh, here, this must be it...

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's your reference? Oh, here, this must be it...

Re:it's about time some one did this

[almaw]

> ...considering the fact that driving is a rather simple mental process,
> books should be outlawed too if laptops are, I see lots of people reading
> books on the road...

Of course books should be banned. Doing anything that takes your eyes off the road at all is inherently dangerous, whether it be trying to read a map, look at a computer, fiddle with your radio, or turn around to tell your screaming kids to shut up and stop squabbling.

Of course, it's all a matter of common sense, something that legislation these days doesn't seem to allow for. You're probably quite safe reading a book if you're heading down a bit of dead-straight deserted road in Arizona provided you look up every few seconds. You're obviously not in the rush hour in L.A.

Anyone who reads while driving in most situations is asking to drive into the back of someone. Obviously.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

• ...but how would you enforce the law? Stop everyone and see if they are allowed?

Simple! Those that have been convicted of drink / drug driving display a red number plate; those that are capable of talking / driving faster etc. get a green number plate and associated privileges. Everyone else keeps their original number plate until they pass the advanced test or are convicted of driving dangerously.

Result: I get places quicker whilst being able to avoid the red plates and people with inferior driving abilities.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Tellalian]

The distinction here is use "anywhere in the front seat". We can probably all agree that the driver doesn't need to be playing solitaire, but I see no reason why the passenger seat occupant can't use a laptop or other similar device.

I'm not sure how the police operate in California, but here in Delaware, every patrol car has a laptop mounted on the center-dash oriented towards the driver.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's your reference? Oh, here, this must be it...

Re:it's about time some one did this

[JawFunk]

One problem with losing focus on driving is that most people send time in traffic. With ever decreasing attention spans and more gadgets to play with (inlcuding fishing in the back seat for old snickers bars) we are more inclined to DO SOMETHIGN instead of stare at the plate on the car in front for a long while. Personally, I love driving, I currently am deprived of a car, but when I drive I take it more as a skill than as a chore (I grew up watching rally in my family). When behind the wheel, focus on driving alone, avoiding potholes, making the turn at high speeds, cutting off as many people as possible in five minutes. Can I move into your neghborhood?

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Burnon]

Perhaps. Although I have no problem telling the person on the other end of the hands-free kit that I'm driving, and I regularly ignore them as traffic dictates. Sure, it's more distracting, but by how much? I'd love to see a study that addresses that specific point. Not sure if it can be quantified, but it's the sort of thing that would get me to shut up, pun intended.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[karnal]

You know, the way I read this was that you were watching the DVD that was playing in the other car's passenger seat....

Gotta wake up....

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's your reference? Oh, here, this must be it...

Re:it's about time some one did this

[JawFunk]

Yeah, and he can stare THROUGH that computer screen and focus both eyes on the terrain in front of him. Better yet, he has one eye on the terrain the entire time.

Not only can he see the terrain all the time, but these pilots develop a form of tunnel vision attributed to oficers with extensive experience in shooting. While they see the dataa on the screen, they are concentrating on the field past the window, the real world. The brain learns to interpret movement on the screen in front of the eye like we woulda movement in our peripheral view, like second nature, but not as a distraction. If you are driving, staring ata laptop means you are not staringat the car in front of you.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Sancho]

Most of the actions you've stated as "dangerous" are hard to prove. It's easy to stop a car when the officer sees the lit LCD in the front seat. It's much harder to stop a car because the person is looking in their rearview mirror at their kids. Laws like this have their place, they just shouldn't be overly broad or improperly used.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[jasonbw]

When they make laws like this, its based on the idea of lowest common denominators. Its how speed limits are *supposed* to be determined, an average vehicle in good repair can take a corner safely at a certain speed. Sure, a Porsche may be able to take the corner at twice the speed, not everybody has a Porsche, and not everyone can drive one correctly.
So, worst case scenario, you can't use a computer in your front seat while you're driving. you get a little less work done on a long trip.
Someone else in the same situation: a multicar accident with fatalities is prevented.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Cruciform]

Some people really CAN drive while on a cell phone. If you can't, you should be responsible enough to refrain.

But do they react as quickly to emergency situations? Until you can prove that you do, pull over and park to take that "important" call.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[plastik55]

I'm glad you're actually posting evidence now.

It seems from the link you provided that people tested using cell phones were able to keep their cars inside the lane just fine.

Now, keeping your car inside the lane is just one aspect of driving. Other studies show that using a phone markedly impairs reaction times to traffic signals and brake lights.

Even if phone use is not significantly impairing, you can't conclude that computer use is also non-impairing. Phone use mostly involves your auditory and language facilities, which are not used much in driving. Computer use requires your vision to look at the screen, and vision is essental to driving. There is mountains of evidence (like this and this) showing that while people can multitask easily between tasks using different sensory modalities, they cannot multitask efficiently between two tasks requiring the same sensory modality.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

You're 12, aren't you?

Re:it's about time some one did this

[alexq]

This argument is like saying that "well, some people who buy handguns won't use them to murder people. but some will! so we should ban all handguns"... except that using a cell phone is perhaps more useful than using a handgun to the average person.

can you argue that _more_ people would use cell phones and be unable to drive with them than would murder people? probably. can you also argue that using a cell phone is a problem because (without a headset) you lose the ability to turn your head all the way and also lose one hand? certainly. can you even argue that talking on the phone at all is distracting? i've heard it. can you argue that talking to a person in your car is equally distracting? yes.

some people are such bad drivers that they are less safe than a good driver who can use the cell phone while driving. is it fair to discriminate against people who _can_ do something just because some people _cannot_?

(for the record, i think cell phones should not be used in cars without a headset - i'd never do it myself because i feel it's very dangerous, and perhaps can even be argued to definitively hamper your abilities enough to be outlawed - but using a headset is a good way to deal with it, since i don't think it's more distracting than talking to a person).

Re:it's about time some one did this

[pla]

I really hate people who think this way. "I am above average and don't need to be treated like the rest of you." Just like people who still drink and drive.

Why the hell did a sarcastic snipe from a PC-drone that believes we all have the exact same level of ability in everything get modded to 5:Insightful???

We all (at least in the US and most "Western" countries) have legal equality. But that doesn't make us literally equal... Some people have better reaction times than others; Some people multitask better than others; Some people just seem to have more CPU power in their head. Similarly, some people can run faster than others, or lift more weight, or jump higher. Some people have better eyesight than others, or better hearing, or sense of smell.

People differ in ability by a HUGE margin. Pretending otherwise wastes time.


Relating back to the actual topic, I do not consider myself a "good" driver. I have great reaction times, I multitask well, have passable eyesight, but just don't feel comfortable while driving. So I limit my distractions. Other people drive very very well. A friend of mine in highschool could make a car do anything he wanted - Twisty back roads at 60, no problem. Flat spin on ice, no problem (if he encountered such a situation, he deliberately caused it in the first place). People with exceptional skills in various areas exist, and we need to accept that.

That said, I do support legally restricting the number of distractions available in a car. I know, this sounds hypocritical, but I support laws like this (and more usefully, against cell phones) for one very simple reason - Not everyone will admit to themselves and others that they drive poorly (or only average) to start with. As someone else pointed out, most people believe they have a higher level of skill than they actually do. When out for a highway ride, watch the other drivers - You can spot the ones on a cell-phone from a mile away. They make long slow swerves from one line to another, sometimes drifting slightly out of their lane, then make a quick jerk on the wheel to correct their drift. Some people can talk and drive. Enough exist that can't to count as a threat to my safety. Screw that - If we need to ban major distractions from the car, fine.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Ralph Wiggam]

I'm not above average and I should be treated like everyone else. That being said, I'm still fully capable of driving properly while using my cell phone.

If I'm driving unsafely, give me a ticket. Please, If I'm swerving out of my lane, kick my ass for it. But if I'm driving a safe speed, a safe distance from the car in front of me, and staying in my lane, then why can't I talk on the phone, watch a DVD, and make a smoothie on a little blender?

The legal problem is that driving isn't a basic right. They can make any crazy ass law about driving. I dare anyone to live in Atlanta and say that they don't NEED to drive.

-B

Re:it's about time some one did this

[merlyn]

I'll give up my cell phone and laptop when you give up:

• Fast food eating
• Coffee mugs even in cup holders
• "baby on board"
• Putting on makeup
• Car pools
  • Etc etc. I'm tired of being singled out because I'm doing things that are useful during otherwise useless times.

  • Yes, I realize that these things are a distraction. But let's be sensible. Either ban them all, or let the results be the judge . That is, cite a person for "driving while distracted" when they get into the wreck. Not if they're just doing things that might not necessarily cause an accident.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[alexq]

That is countless times better than looking in no directions at all, especially given that fact that you CANNOT properly steer the car while not looking out through the windshield. Do not even argue this fact. You CANNOT. You have NO point of reference for determining where your vehicle is on the roadway or how fast it's traveling, much less where it is in relation to moving objects around you. If you try to argue against this point, you are arguing against some of the very principle laws of physics determining human understanding of position and speed in an environment with no reference points.

When changing lanes, one is required to look over the shoulder and check to see if there are any cars in the blindspot. This can take half a second or more. During that time, the eye is not on the road, and indeed the untrained driver will swerve because they don't know how to drive on a road while glancing away momentarily. A trained driver will _not_ swerve, they will stay more or less on the road. Likewise glancing at a map, a fuel gauge, a rear-view mirror, a clock, a radio tuner, a cd player, any of the things that one does while in a car. I agree that for any extended period the likelihood that you are properly on the road decreases with time, I think that any reasonably good driver can glance away for a few seconds - indeed, HAS TO glance away for a few seconds occasionally - and still be in their lane, even if it's curved somewhat (although that's tougher).

What's really the issue for driving safety isn't the lack of looking at the road (although if your eyes aren't on the road for more than, say, two seconds, then you may not see something that's happened in front of you and may end up in a lot of trouble). The real issue is lack of attention span. To drive safely you should really be aware of what's going on - looking in front, side, back, etc, with regularity. If your mind is on reading the news, discussing stocks on a cell phone (forgive the stereotype), or anything like that, then you may not be fully attentive and may not notice the car slowing down in front of you. I think this is MUCH more of an issue.

and, just for the heck of it, i'm going to point out that there aren't principal laws of physics determining human understanding of position and speed in an environment with no reference points. at least not in any meaningfully precise definition of 'physics'.

and also that just because some people say they can handle something and cannot does not mean that nobody cannot handle it.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Scott Wood]

Wouldn't pressing very lightly on the brake accomplish the same thing?

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Avihson]

You obviously have never flown a helecopter. It requires constant attention, there is no cruise control, it is not like the games you play on your PC. I take it you never watched TV and noticed that the Apaches and the Blackhawks fly in close formation, and if you are daydreaming, you don't have a fender-bender, you fall out of the sky and die! There is no pulling over onto a cloud and getting a spare rotor out of the trunk.

When it is a helmet mounted HUD, he has a screen in front of his eye, he can not look away, but has to concentrate and look through the screen image.

It is funny how fast the surface to air missles (SAMS) can change lanes in front of you! Parallel parking those Apaches are a bitch also. I spent 2 years of my career in the 101st Airborne and witnessed some spectacular incidents at the FARP (forward arming and refueling point) in daylight. They didn't permit nonessential people around the FARP at night or during inclement weather

It is true that the helecopter and fighter pilots are a breed apart. They are not your average slashdot reader, and far from your average countryman. Their testing and training is designed to weed out the average, the above average, and select only those who are above the best.

I met the mental and physical requirements, and was selected for Rotary Wing Flight Training at Ft Rucker Alabama. I just didn't have what it took to fly those contraptions with the finesse and grace required to share the sky with other 'copters, so I was washed out. I could fly if I was the only one on the field, but was a liability in formations.

We had exercises to train our minds to focus on changes at the periphery of our vision, so I guess you are accurate when you said:
you can see what other cars are doing with your mind focus

I became an aerial surviellance specialist instead, and rode around taking photos, and collecting radar imagery in fixed wing aircraft.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[coolgeek]

I agree an in-car conversation can be just as immersing as a cell phone conversation. Actually, I'd say my conversations with passengers are much deeper, and require more thought, than those with people calling me while I'm driving. The difference with a passenger though, is sometimes they will alert the driver to potential danger, and will probably stop talking when there is a road crisis.

FWIW my family members and most of my friends have an understanding that one party can say "I'm driving, let me call you back", and the conversation ends.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[bubbazanetti]

Lets get to the meat of the matter. Young drivers have less experience and get into more accidents...mostly because they are invincible. However there are a LOT of older drivers that should not be allowed anywhere near a vehicle. The issue is Drivers Licensing. A skills test/reaction test...one that is actually challenging should be a part of the Drivers licence. Going to the issue of flying. I have flown at 200' at 390Kts (about 400MPH), with radios blaring, and other things being done. The issue isn't so much multitasking or task switching. It is task prioritization. Use of maps, phones, conversation, etc are all lower on the list than maintaining proper speed, distance, and location on road. If you are on a busy street then all your attention is on distance and location. If you are on the interstate, and it isn't too busy, then you have some extra attention to share with phone,gps, converstation whatever. When you look at your speedometer you look away from the road, how long you look away depends on how quickly you are able to interpret the info on your dash. If you drive like you should, then you are not only monitoring your dash instruments, but also all your mirrors, and keeping track of all the other vehicles in your vicinity. So I resent the dumbing down of America. Set a higher standard, and those that cannot handle it lose their licenses and support the cab companies. This law (of course the link I read mentioned nothing about laptops and said GPS's were OK) is just a PC knee jerk reaction. I would rather see a law against women drivers putting on makeup, or grey haired ladies driving gigantic road battleships that they cannot even see over.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[xpurple]

*nod*

I would hope that the law would apply to them as well.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[boarder]

RTFA, it states clearly that the info display devices for law enforcement and emergency assist vehicles are legal and allowed.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Rasta Prefect]

Why the hell did a sarcastic snipe from a PC-drone that believes we all have the exact same level of ability in everything get modded to 5:Insightful???

People differ in ability by a HUGE margin. Pretending otherwise wastes time.

Because it's a common sentiment, and largely a correct one? Yes, people differ hugely in ability, but that doesn't excuse them from the rules. The problem is that those who are least competent are also the least capable of judging their competency. So you get what I used to deal with every day on the way to work - people who think they're just great drivers, so they have no problem talking on their cell phone while piloting their SUV in bumper-to-bumper traffic at 70 mph. Or what I see every night here at college - people who think _they_ can drive safely when they're drunk, cause they're big tough men and they can handle their liquor. You don't get to arbitrarily exempt yourself from the rules because _you_ think you can handle it.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[nharmon]

Yes, the amount of pressure required to activate the brakes is more than the amount required to activate the brake light. The original poster's idea of rigging a switch would not accomplish much.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

Some cars don't have any significant play between touching the brake pedal and a deceleration. In particular, sports cars *respond*.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[mabhatter654]

right on....and judging from our operations in Iraq, even those highly trained pilots can barely keep their copters in the air while being shot at...witness how many have crashed vs. shot down! They get to fly in controlled airspace where the next copter is 50-100' away! far less distracting circumstances that your local commute on the superfreeway.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Jackazz]

i think you mean "Wish in one HAND and shit in the other..."

kind of doesn't make sense the other way...silly green day fan...

Re:it's about time some one did this

[jez9999]

Bad method. The worst case scenario is that not everyone can drive properly, not everyone has a roadworthy car, and therefore cars should be banned because they cause more than 0 deaths per year.

The law does *NOT* cater for the lowest common denominator, nor could it; you can always think of some reason to ban something outright. What the law *should* try to do is cater for the average person, and be reasonable. I think banning cellphone use is stepping over that line.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[mattgreen]

By the way, does anyone here live in the DC Metro area?

That's what everyone says around here but I can't tell if its just because the area is positively overrun with new people streaming in (because northern Virginia is now a relatively hip place to live) or if it is particularly bad around here. Nevertheless, your comment made me chuckle.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Funksaw]

It's still overbroad.

I recently had to drive cross-country, using a laptop to guide me. While I never operated the laptop while the vehicle was in motion, I'm wondering if I could still be pulled over if I had to glance at the monitor for mapping while I was driving.

Thankfully, I didn't have to do that. Know why?

Because I kept my directions on my Palm Pilot. The illuminated screen meant I could read the directions in the dark - which would have been *harder* to do and more dangerous to do with a piece of paper.

-- Funksaw

Re:it's about time some one did this

[homer_ca]

There's no detail in the law about how foolproof the interlock should be or how to certify one, but it shouldn't be that hard to retrofit one to a PDA GPS system. Just prevent the user from running anything except the GPS mapping app under certain conditions. One way would be if it detects motion from the GPS position. Another would be to have a special cradle that signals the PDA that it's in a car mount and to only allow the GPS app. Still, the whole law is poorly written. A front seat passenger can't use a PDA or even an Ipod since it has an organizer and address book. What about cell phones? Even a 5 year old Nokia 5190 has a Snake and Memory game built in.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[jasonbw]

i'm not arguing that any possible distracting device in a car should be banned outright. I'm arguing with the parent poster who claims that he was an excellent driver and apparently that certain laws shouldn't be enacted.
i'd rather not have cellphones be banned, but i'm all in favor of huge fines and/or punishments if someone's cellphone/device use results in an accident.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

This argument is like saying that "well, some people who buy handguns won't use them to murder people. but some will! so we should ban all handguns"... except that using a cell phone is perhaps more useful than using a handgun to the average person.

Actualy that is a very poor analogy. It is more akin to. Some people who bring handguns on aircraft will use them for malicious uses so we should ban them on aircraft. Hmmm... well we do!

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Technician]

I'm hoping the IR scanning cameras will come down in price. Getting through the fog near San Francisco is a real bear sometimes. I would love to have a fog cutting camera hooked up to a display to enhance driving.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Daytona955i]

considering the fact that driving is a rather simple mental process

WTF?!?!? since when is navigating a few thousand pound vehicle at high speeds a simple mental process?

There are so many things that can happen when you are driving a car.... a kid could run out into the street, a car could run a red light, a car could swerve into your lane. I could go on and on but I won't. The simple act of pressing the gas pedal and turning the wheel may be a simple mental process but actually being aware of what is going on around you at the time isn't.

I see it all the time... I'm following someone on the highway and they pick up the phone to either recieve a call or make a call and from that moment on they drive like an idiot. Then when they hang up the phone driving resumes as normal. I'm certainly not up for someone using a computer and driving at the same time except MAYBE for the occasional brief glimps at directions but I think not allowing a passenger to operate a computer is rediculous.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

What if this telephone pole falls into the middle of the street and kills someone?

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow, through the magic of multi-tasking, I'm sure you've looked at your gauge cluster once or twice while driving down the road, if you would like to explain to me how a quick glance at your odometer is any different than a quick glance at a screen saying: "Take Next Exit".. I'd be happy to hear it.

This is irrelevant of the fact that a few of us can safely drive at 20, 30, 40mph faster than the rest of you. I'm not psychic, and I don't have to be; The dynamics of traffic are generally a predictable system, and with some common sense, plenty of driving experience and experience handling critical situations (the uncontrollable / unpredictable elements), one can easily navigate medium-to-heavy traffic with little effort.

People are extremely predictable, especially while driving (something they do on auto-pilot, without a lot of conscious thought), every little move they make is subject to a simple map of behaviour.

I can also say, that without a doubt, I pay a lot more attention to the road than any other driver around me, the problem usually isn't the people who are speeding, but the people who are zoned right out, staring at the license plate in front of them, not paying any attention to the world around them (this encompasses 95% of drivers.)

People tend to make minute gestures that as an experienced driver I notice and can start classifying them. I see the tiny correction swerve of the blue car 3 lanes over and 11 vehicles ahead that shows that he just smacked his kid in the passenger seat and will probably slam on his brakes now that he notices the car in front of him has been slowing all along. I can see the Drunk Driver 2 cars back, riding the right outside line, drifting across and back several times before realizing his turn signal has been on for the last 10miles. I have been watching the psycho cab driver with his high-beams on 4 cars ahead of me, lane changing like his steering wheel can only make 45degree turns, and his turn signal was probably sold on eBay as brand new from lack of use. These characters, and everyone else on the road are far more dangerous than I, as it's the lack of attention, and lack of skill, coupled with distraction that is the highest cause of accidents.

I won't suggest I can see every single thing that's happening, and I won't ever be in a problematic situation, but I know that I can drive well enough to usually compensate for the lack of attention of my neighbors. I am constantly monitoring (field of view, sound, touch) the part of the system I am currently involved in, and at any second, am making thousands of predictions about the behaviour of every other person driving in my part of system, this weighted with probability and common sense has yet to fail me.

Going twice as fast as everyone else, tends to ensure the road has my full and utmost attention, and you won't see me talking on the phone or to my passengers, checking my GPS, or fixing my hair. The point of this, is that when I'm on the highway at normal speeds, I can shift my attention for brief periods of time (cell phone, laptop, gps) away from the road and still know exactly what's happening at any time.

I use my peripheral vision, and the behavioural predictions I generated at the last full check to guide me for the 0.2sec intervals I may look away from the road, no different than looking at my gauge cluster, radio, etc. I switch tasks much faster, hopping back and forth, never losing focus on the general task (the road) for more than a fraction of a second. I don't need to stare at the radio display if I know that a half turn to the right will adjust the volume louder, so I can time my view time and multi-tasking accordingly. I can talk on the phone at normal highway speeds and still keep more attention on the road than most can without a phone.

I have been monitoring the behavior of the car in front of me, and am more in tune with where he is going, than his passengers, thus I can shift a glance to a GPS Map or an mp3 player for a timeslice and still know I'm paying more attention than he is.

Now, if you'd like to tell me I'm a hazard on the road, I think you need to get your head examined. I am a professional driver, and won't have 2% of the problems everyone else on the road will.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Aidtopia]

A CHP officer told me that the terminals police officers have in there cars are blamed in lots of rear-end collisions (where a cop rear-ends a civilian). Bored officers are often constantly typing in license plates as they cruise, checking for outstanding warrants, etc.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Lehk228]

But with a switch you can't accadentally push too hard and actually slow down

Re:it's about time some one did this

[2short]

"I'm not above average and I should be treated like everyone else. That being said, I'm still fully capable of driving properly while using my cell phone"

Statistical evidence indicates that the average person is not fully capable of driving properly while using a cell phone. But I'm sure the average person would, like you, assert that they are, much as the vast majority of people say they are above average drivers.

"They can make any crazy ass law about driving"

Going with the assumtion that alien invaders have not yet secretly taken over, WE can indeed make any crazy-ass law, or even any sane law, about driving.

"I dare anyone to live in Atlanta and say that they don't NEED to drive"

I'll take your word for it. I used to live in DC, and I certainly NEEDED to drive, even though driving near DC basically sucks. Then I realized I didn't NEED to live in DC. You need to drive because most American communities are designed on the assumption that everyone does drive, and will drive whenever they go anywhere. Hence suburban sprawl: Vast tracts of dense residential space with nowhere to work, shop or play for miles around. So people move there and then complain about the traffic. OK, I'll quit since I'm deep into rant mode now...

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Elvisisdead]

Listen. It was unpublished, unclassified research. Believe me if you want, I don't care. It was done at USAF's Armstrong Labs (which was one of the superlabs at the time) at Brooks AFB. It was a correlary project to one we were working on regarding flight simulators and pilots keeping track of incoming threats.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[toddestan]

Not to mention in order to press the brake he would have to take his foot off the gas, which would also slow down the car. You can press the pedal with the left foot, but that's not a very good idea.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Elvisisdead]

My dad's was actually "want in one hand and shit in the other", but I figured I'd clean it up a bit.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[timothy]

My laptop could be used for any of the purposes listed in 1-4, especially as a big GPS / map display using GPSDrive. It does not, however, have a lockout switch to limit its display capabilities to these functions while driving. (And since it would make a good car audio source, I wouldn't want it to, but that's another matter.) Do you know any laptops or handheld GPS-capable computers that do have such a lockout?

That's what the law calls for, if such a device is to be used legally in the front seat or with the display in view of the driver.

timothy

Re:it's about time some one did this

[alexq]

Why is that analogy any better? (i'm really asking here, not attacking)

Re:it's about time some one did this

[bwy]

Maybe a better law would be that you're breaking the law if you're doing something other than paying attention to the road. Difficult to enforce, but- where does this end otherwise?

For example, do we outlaw reading books, like you said, and newspapers, playing game boys, reading maps, working on laptops, using a palm pilot, fussing with your Fossil PDA watch, fiddling with a GPS, messing with your in-dash MP3 player, etc?

When I was younger I rear-ended someone because I was messing with my car's CD player, not paying attention. This kind of stuff is not limited to laptops and phones.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[jubei]

Some of us have the ability to do two things at once, considering the fact that driving is a rather simple mental process, books should be outlawed too if laptops are, I see lots of people reading books on the road, and it takes more concentration for me to read in my car than glance over at mapquest on laptop.

I'm sure glad I'm not driving the same roads as you are. Anybody that drives while reading is severely endangering those around them.

Even if driving is a simple mental process, most of the task is in observation. You must observe people swerving into your lane, people slamming on the brakes ahead of you, etc.

The most important thing is to keep your eyes busy with the traffic, not other tasks.

Talking on the cell phone is about as distracting to me as talking to any passenger (not a lot). The only times I consider the cell phone dangerous is when I have to dial or look to see who is calling. In these situations, I put the phone in my field of vision so that looking at it is similar to looking at the car's instruments. I also do not keep my focus on the phone for more than 1 second at a time.

I've also had a laptop in the car with mapping software. If you want to use it for this purpose, please mount it as high and as close to the normal field of vision as possible. That will make it much faster to glance and get the information you need.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never heard of two drunks hitting each other in a car accident... maybe sober people should stay off the road at 3am.

Nah, they just need to impose a two-drink minimum for anyone who wants to drive. Put a breathalyzer right in the car, and if it doesn't detect enough alcohol, the car doesn't start. Maybe put a little spout in the dashboard so the car can pour you a shot if you're under the minimum.

After a week or two full of disasterous car wrecks, the roads ought to be empty enough to cut down significantly on accidents.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[the argonaut]

Why the hell did a sarcastic snipe from a PC-drone that believes we all have the exact same level of ability in everything get modded to 5:Insightful???

I don't think he implied that we all have exactly the same level of ability, but that why isn't that everybody seems to think that they are somehow part of that "above average" group, as you point out yourself. So you're ranting at him for making basically the same point as you did, but not as clearly expressed.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[the argonaut]

In addition to the obviously more extensive training your buddy gets before being allowed to pilot an apache, doesn't your buddy get a co-pilot though to help point out obstacles and other things he could miss? And in general, when flying jets or helicopters (definitely in non-combat situations, perhaps as well in some combat situations) aren't there simply fewer things out there competing for the space your vehicle is occupying than there are during the typical morning rush hour drive?

Sounds to me you're comparing two sets of people with vastly different preparation levels in two completely different types of situations.

If you can't glance at mapquest and keep your mind focused on the road as well, please don't breed, we don't want your genes spreading.

And please, refrain from breeding yourself, as we already have enough arrogant piece of shit assholes in the world and we don't want your genes or nurtured qualities spreading.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[PhuCknuT]

Because they aren't talking about banning cell phones (or guns) outright, they are talking about banning them in a specific situation where being destracted for even 1-2 seconds can potentially kill someone. Not too long ago about a mile from my house, a lady slowed down to make a left, while the person behind her was answering the phone. The person answering the phone was sufficiently distracted to not see the car stopping in front of him, and he proceeded to rear end it, pushing it into oncoming traffic on the other side of the road and the driver was killed in a head on collision. This sort of thing happens daily because people think they can do other things while driving. The reality is, when you are driving you in control of something with a million times the energy of a bullet (no i didn't do the math), that can easily kill, and if you aren't giving it your full attention you should lose your license (IMHO).

Re:it's about time some one did this

[the argonaut]

This argument is like saying that "well, some people who buy handguns won't use them to murder people. but some will! so we should ban all handguns"... except that using a cell phone is perhaps more useful than using a handgun to the average person.

Bad analogy - owning a gun is explicitly a constitutional right, but owning a cellphone or driving a car has no similar protection. There's not a whole lot beyond the potential electoral consequences stopping the government from banning either. although I think it's unlikely a state could ban driving (a barrier to interstate trade) - it would probably have to be a federal law - though they could get otherwise "creative" by raising the standard for getting and keeping a driver license (which would be a good idea IMHO) or since states and local governments fund and plan most roads, they could make driving very inconvenient by cutting funding or planning that eliminates (or at least reduces) the need to drive - kind of like they currently treat riding a bike, walking, or taking mass transit, but reversed.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[alexq]

hm.. well, i have a response, and am very interested in actually discussing this, because personally i'm still kind of unresolved on the issue..

and if you aren't giving it your full attention you should lose your license (IMHO).

that's a fair enough thing to say.. let's see...

what if you're sleepy at the wheel? what if you're flipping radio stations? what if you're talking to someone and they say something funny and you laugh, and are distracted for a second? what if you see a distracting billboard? what if you start sneezing? what if you hear bad news on the radio? what if you're looking at your gas meter or the clock?

all of these things take some amount of time, and you can get into an accident in the right circumstances while doing any of these - just as easily as if you were answering the cell phone. should they all be outlawed?

then there's the argument that if you get INTO an accident, and it's proved you were negligent in some way, how about then? should your license be revoked? but then, how do you PREVENT these accidents? is it be not allowing any of these things?

i like the insurance sort of response... in the case of the accident you mentioned, the driver behind was simply following too closely - and also, answering a phone is more distracting than talking on one (most distracting? dialing one. very dangerous. give yourself a few BLOCKS with that ;).

i think there are certain things that, when combined, are clearly irresonsible - for example, tailgating while dialing your phone. but dialing your phone on an empty road isn't so bad. tailgating, in fact, is much more dangerous inherently.

enough rambling for now? :)

Re:it's about time some one did this

[zaffir]

I'm the same way. When it comes to paying attention to the road, or paying attention to the phone, the road comes first. Often times i just stop talking and totally blank out on the conversation because i'm paying attention to traffic. I guess some people just don't understand that the fight they're having with their boyfriend/girlfriend over the cell phone is less important than the one-ton hunk of metal they're in control of.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[pipingguy]

I really hate people who think this way. "I am above average and don't need to be treated like the rest of you." Just like people who still drink and drive.

Yeah weell screww you, as i type, I'm [hold ooni a sec) bareling down hiway 401 whilew chuggging a beeer and

Re:it's about time some one did this

[pipingguy]

Oddly, I find it much easier to simply stop talking to a passenger when driving requires my full attention.

Exactly. If you're a good driver, you know everything that's going on in front and to the sides of you and think at least 5 seconds ahead.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Ben Hutchings]

Vast tracts of dense residential space...

Vast tracts of low-density housing, surely?

Re:it's about time some one did this

[the argonaut]

Thank You, Thank You, Thank You. You may have just restored my faith in humanity. This is one of the most insightful thing I have read on /. in ages, and one of the best analogies as well. You are to be commended, sir.

To go a little further, it's much easier for me if I'm walking down the street to avoid another pedestrian who is obviously distracted or acting otherwise strangely, but once you're in a car, you can't even easily tell that the driver in front of you is looking at a laptop, reading a book, dialing their phone, or whatever. You lose the ability to easily foresee and avoid a potentially dangerous situation (aside from not driving altogether).

If anything, my only complaint about this law is that it is too specific. It should have been something like:

1. The driver's only responsibility is to drive the car.
2. Doing anything that distracts from this responsibility is an infraction of this law.
3. Section (2) includes the activities of all passengers in the car as well as the driver himself.

Issue the tickets and let the court's figure it out on a case by case basis. If you want to be explicit, make a list of some activities that would be considered distracting but make it clear that it's not inclusive. I'm not generally a fan of common law in cases like this, but it seems to me that this is just such a potentially expansive area (why laptops and not books? and so on...) that to have to go back to the legislature every single time a new potentially distracting gadget comes on the market is ludicrous. If you want more flexibility in the law so that all you self proclaimed "excellent drivers" and "exceptional multi-taskers" aren't getting pulled over needlessly, maybe make it a secondary infraction (i.e., they can't pull you over for talking on a cell phone, but if they pull you over for speeding and it's obvious you were talking on a cell phone, then they can ticket you for that as well).

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

Was that a two-tome F-150 (blue and grey, like the Cowboys)? You should've waived....I'm friendly.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[alexq]

that is a valid point only in a purely legal sense - which is assuming that the laws are complete and just in everyone's eyes. my analogy wasn't meant to present a legal argument - rather, an argument of reason (which is completely different)...

is there a non-legal reason you see it as a bad analogy?

Re:it's about time some one did this

[pipingguy]

None of this exists in your mapquest-enabled vehicle which has, effectively, three navigational tools: the steering wheel, the brakes, and the accelerator

Don't forget that other invaluable digital driving accessory, the appendage next to the index finger.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Bourbonium]

Doesn't surprise me a bit. Just about every law ever written includes an exemption for politicians, police officers or the author of the law (or any other ass-kisser they choose to include). Note that employees of the Social Security Administration are the only citizens in this country (except U.S. Senators and members of congress) who are exempt from paying social security taxes.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[UserGoogol]

Myself, I blame all those shifty trees.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[the argonaut]

Only that were it not for the constitutional protection of the right to own a gun, then one could make a number of reasonable arguments why they should be banned (i.e., if the number of people who use guns to kill people or the number of people killed with guns is >X, then guns are now more of a burden than a benefit to society and should be banned). So if the purpose of the analogy is to support not banning cell phones (or at least not while driving), then comparing it to something that legally can not be banned and pointing out "see, we don't ban handguns and cell phones are much more useful" is misleading: we don't ban handguns because legally we cannot (at least without the extreme difficulty of passing a Constitutional amendment), not necessarily because there are not good reasons to. The unique status of gun ownership rights inserts enough of a difference that you can't really compare the two.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Katharine]

They recently passed a law relating to this in Illinois. I'm not sure of the details. Basically, if you are a high school student who just got his or her driver's license, for the first six months you aren't allowed to have more than one passenger under 21 in the car with you unless your passengers are family members. I guess they put the exception in so you can drive your younger siblings to soccer practice, etc.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[DarkSarin]

Look up the following articles:

Cell phone-induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving
Strayer DL, Drews FA, Johnston WA
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-APPLIED
9 (1): 23-32 MAR 2003

Driven to distraction: Dual-task studies of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular telephone
Strayer DL, Johnston WA
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
12 (6): 462-466 NOV 2001

The effect of cell phone type on drivers subjective workload during concurrent driving and conversing
Matthews R, Legg S, Charlton S
ACCIDENT ANALYSIS AND PREVENTION
35 (4): 451-457 JUL 2003

Gaze-eccentricity effects on road position and steering
Readinger WO, Chatziastros A, Cunningham DW, Bulthoff HH, Cutting JE
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-APPLIED
8 (4): 247-258 DEC 2002

: As for the last one, you may consider this a rebuttal of your position that looking at a laptop will not impair your driving. Yes I looked at your link, and his thesis looks interesting. What else did he find? I simply don't have time to look through the entire book, but simply put, there are a lot of factors involved in driving, and as someone else mentioned, there is more to it than lane maintenance.

Allow me to ask something--do you know anything about Clemson's graduate applied psychology program--especially as compared to some others? It is quite good. Clemson is an engineering school, true, but in some ways that helps in doing psychology.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[YAN3D]

Very few people will honestly admit to themselves that they can't

I agree and wish to add a bit. I can't count the amount of times a driver on a cell phone almost collided with me and kept driving as if nothing ever happened; they are oblivious. This leads me to believe that many people don't realize how horrible their driving is while on a cell phone. Unfortunately, it is left up to the rest of the responsible drivers on the road to avoid accidents with these people.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

5 mod points aren't enough for you! This is what I've often tried to tell people.

If you talk on the phone, there is a strong but often subconscious demand that your attention be about 90% focused on that conversation. The person at the other end is expecting as much, since he/she cannot see what else might be competing for your attention.

If you talk to someone in your presence, I think that demand drops from 90% to somewhere around 30% to 70% (depending on the environment), but with a lot of flexibility if the other person is immediately aware of the same distractions you are (i.e., it can drop to 0% when necessary). Also, there is less time pressure to complete the conversation when in a captive environment; in a phone call the other person is often busy and needs to limit the length of the call, so your pauses aren't tolerated very well.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[diablobynight]

I know students of Clemson, quite honestly I am not impressed with the school in general, but hey what can you expect from SC

Re:it's about time some one did this

[gcaseye6677]

cars should be banned because they cause more than 0 deaths per year.

The only reason someone hasn't seriously proposed this is because automobiles are so essential to modern society and the alternatives (going back to horses and buggies) would not necessarily be much safer.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the reasons why computers can win at racing games is that they're running the other X cars, and you only get 1. Or if it's a multiplayer game, the human players get Y cars, while the computer controls the rest. In either case, the computer has god-like knowledge about the race course, the position and velocity of all the cars involved, and can tweak the physics to fudge over minor problems. Doing the same thing in real life, with a radar or camera or whatever, would be a much harder problem.

Of course, you could also take the opposite approach, and make the real world more like a computer game, where a central AI has full knowledge and control over all the participants (cars). Such an approach is the one pursued by California's automated highway project, PATH. While it's certainly a logistical problem to deploy, the technology does work.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[I8TheWorm]

Putting on makeup

I testified in Nashville a few years back against a woman who was late for church and putting on makeup using the driver side vanity mirror (why in the world do they make those?). I'm sure she thought she had everything under control. One turn, slight overcompensation, and she went across Briley Parkway, got airborne, and landed on a minivan, killing 2 of the 7 people in the van on their way to a Titans game. Those two happened to be the grandparents, while the grandchildren were in the back seat and got to see the whole thing.

That woman first testified she'd fallen asleep at the wheel (I and one other witness said it wasn't so... this driver came close to hitting both of us at one time), then that she had diabetes (a doctor said it wasn't so), then fessed up and took a plea.

Not only did she think she was capable of driving while distracted, she wouldn't (at first) even own up when she was proven wrong.

I think she's out of jail now, by the way.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[alexq]

this is very well put!

i'd only like to add that the reason for outlawing cell phones isn't quite that they divert your eyes from the road (i think). rather, if you've ever driven with a cell phone, you know that it's hard to look at your blind spot, or turn your head at all really to get proper visibility (which is similar, yes).. and also, you lose a hand.

incidentally, i was once almost hit by a woman who was driving her car and holding TWO cell phones! one with a hand, and one cradled with her shoulder.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[alexq]

interesting.. i wouldn't have interpreted what i'd said the way you interpreted it.. but you have a good point..

is it your opinion, though, that if guns were NOT written in to the constitution (or arms, at least. but i can't imagine life without arms) that they WOULD be outlawed entirely?

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, there's always the situation where traffic is so heavy and moving so slowly that you could probably go ahead and put the car in park for a minute or two right there in the middle lane without anyone noticing. Happens all the time where I live, which is why I take public transit to work.

I'm not advocating that people watch tv or play computer games when they drive. However, the point is that people aren't always driving fast when they do things like check their map on their laptop or even when they are talking on the phone.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[RedWizzard]

It seems from the link you provided that people tested using cell phones were able to keep their cars inside the lane just fine.

Read the rest of that thesis. Using a phone increased the drivers' response time to the vehicle in front's speed changes by 20% and halved the frequency of mirror checking. Clearly phone conversations are intrusive and it seems reasonable to conclude that the reduced lane position variation is in fact due to the reduced steering that the drivers were doing while on the phone (i.e. a further indication of reduced attention on driving).

Re:it's about time some one did this

[RedWizzard]

That thesis doesn't support your position. It found that while using a phone response times and mirror checking frequency were both significantly reduced.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Chibi]

Why the hell did a sarcastic snipe from a PC-drone that believes we all have the exact same level of ability in everything get modded to 5:Insightful???

Do you really think that the government should do things like test individuals to see how much alcohol they can consume before having their driving skills impaired to the point where they will be a danger to themselves and to others? Maybe it can be something they add to our driver's licenses...

While I agree with you that different people have different levels of ability and tolerance, it gets a lot harder to accurately gauge your abilities when you have been drinking. And, unfortunately, most of us have a higher opinion of ourselves than we really should, so we feel that we are OK, when we might not be.

I have a relative who has received 2 DUIs. To this day, he will still not accept the fact that he broke the law. He likes to refer to his own "above average" alcohol tolerance and motor skills. Never mind the fact that he was probably binge-drinking prior to both incidents. It's really all a conspiracy against him. He's probably one of the more reckless drivers I know. I don't even feel safe in the car when he is sober (although I honestly question how often that happens these days). It gets tiring after a while, hearing everyone talk about how much better they are than everyone else...

Re:it's about time some one did this

[2short]

Well, density is relative. If neighbors windows must be considered before beginning a game of baseball, I declare it dense.

The areas I'm talking about is where basically all the land is covered by houses, their yards, and roads. It's less dense in people per area than apartment buildings, sure, and that's perhaps what people find attractive about it.

I'd save "low-density" for places which are mostly something non-residential (woods, farmland, etc.) with widely seperated residences. These can be nice places to live. You still have to drive everywhere, but you're not in a traffic jam the whole way, so the other advantages make it worth it.

What most might call "high-density" (e.g. New York), I'd call "super-ultra-mega-high-density". This can also be a nice place to live.

The areas I'm talking about should maybe be called "medium density", but it seems pretty high to me. But "medium density" comes in a few flavors. The one that I don't get the appeal of is "fairly big houses, on fairly small lots, and nothing else as far as the eye can see". This seems like the worst of both worlds to me. Another flavor of medium density is places like where I live now: fairly big houses, on fairly small lots, some small-to-medium office buildings, some shopping, a bit of light industry, and plenty of parks and other open spaces all jumbled together. Basically the way most small-to-medium towns are that have grown organically over a long period, as opposed to most "towns" that have been entirely built from nothing in the last few decades.

Everybody lives somewhere, works somewhere, shops somewhere, plays somewhere. Why segregate all thos activities into widely seperated areas accessible only by miles and miles of gridlocked highway.

As you can tell, I have no strong feelings on this...

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

Seatbelts are different, in the situation of adults. I fully agree that children should be buckled up, and adults should too pragmatically speaking, but it shouldn't be ILLEGAL for an adult to not wear their seatbelt.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[rmohr02]

Note that employees of the Social Security Administration are the only citizens in this country (except U.S. Senators and members of congress) who are exempt from paying social security taxes.

I didn't know that--kind of makes me feel special to not have had to pay that when I worked over the summer as a flagger for the Miami County (Ohio) Highway Department.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

>>You cannot, physically, look in two different directions at once.
You haven't done the right drugs yet...

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

All members of Congress pay into Social Security. Where did you get your info from?

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

what makes you say that? Why is it "not a very good idea"? Using both feet while driving has shown to decrease reaction time, dispite the extra wear on the car's brakes.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

Flat spin on ice, no problem

Because a car can go into a non-flat spin, like an airplane, right? ;)

Re:it's about time some one did this

[NuttyBee]

How many people do you know give themselves 10 car lengths on a highway?

The answer is ME. I drive anticipating that everyone around me is a moron. I'm usually right. I drive with the speed of traffic, if its getting too tight, I slow down. If I really don't like the aggressive nature of the people on the road, I'll take an off ramp, wait 5 minutes, go.

This is a stupid band-aid law. It doesn't change the fact that there are too many bad drivers out there who shouldn't be on the road. Giving them distractions just exacerbates the fact that they shouldn't be driving.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[DunbarTheInept]

Any law that cannot be fairly enforced to avoid false positives should not exist. It's better to let some of the guilty go free than to punish some of the innocent. If the intent of the no-laptop law is to prevent inattentive driving, then it is an unfair law because not all uses of laptops in the front seat will result in inattentive driving. If it isn't possible to tell, in general, who is being inattentive and who isn't, then it shouldn't be a law. PERIOD.

The fact that innatentive driving can get you killed should already be incentive enough for people. If that's not enough for some people, than a law won't help.

Here's an example - using a cellphone in a car being illegal in some places. When I'm in the car, I have my cellphone on to receive calls, but all I do with it is glance at it for a moment to see who the call is from. If I think it's not important, I let them leave a message and call back when I'm done driving. If I think it is important, I still let them leave a messgae instead of picking up - but I find the first spot to pull over so I can stop the car and call them back within a few minutes. But with those stuipid laws, as soon as I pick up and look at the phone, it would count as a violation of that law - even though it takes no more distractive effort than changing the radio station.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[DunbarTheInept]

I really hate people who think this way. "I am above average and don't need to be treated like the rest of you." Just like people who still drink and drive.

You're analogy is bad, because AVERAGE people are severely impared by drinking, but AVERAGE people are NOT severely impared by doing something else while driving. He's not saying he's above average - just that he not BELOW average like the idiots who can't talk and drive at the same time. Drivers do it all the time when there's passengers in the car.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[DunbarTheInept]

Statistical evidence indicates that the average person is not fully capable of driving properly while using a cell phone,

No, it does NOT.

A study of a random sampling of drivers is *NOT* the same thing as a study of what the average driver can handle. A random sampling such as would exist in such a study will include some average drivers, some bad drivers, and some good drivers. If there's some situation that the bad drivers don't handle well, that would drag down the score of the whole set of them, even if the average and better than average drivers are able to handle it.

The score of a random sample is not necessarily indicative of the average people within that sample.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[DunbarTheInept]

If you are driving 55 and aren't leaving enough room to react, then that's a problem no matter whether you are on a cell phone or not. The need to context switch comes up a lot - a passenger asks you a question, a car cuts in front of you, an animal runs out on the road, etc. People who aren't trying to leave two seconds of 'context switch' room with the car in front are *already* being bad drivers right there. The cellphone that they are using isn't causing the accident - their failure to leave enough room to react WITH OR WITHOUT the cellphone factor, is the cause of those accidents. (Exception - if traffic is dense, sometimes you can't leave 2 seconds of room because someone pulls into your lane to fill the gap every time you try. But in those situations, you shouldn't be talking to passengers or doing *anything* else either.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[DunbarTheInept]

Oddly, I find it much easier to simply stop talking to a passenger when driving requires my full attention.

Then that's your psychological problem, NOT a problem inherent with cell phones. Getting a person on a cellphone to shut up is decidedly simpler. There's a little button you can hit that will shut them up immediately. Not so for a passenger.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[DunbarTheInept]

True, to a point - but the problem is that a sufficiently pessimistic attitude can always generate an even LOWER lowest common denominator, and restrict the mass of people even further, in a never ending cycle. Seing has how the person doing the driving might be an elderly person with Alzheimer's and a very weak deteriorating body with slow reaction times, let's make sure that the cars can't go faster than 10 miles per hour.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[DunbarTheInept]

While your arguments are true, they ignore the unfairness of the law in quetsion, which would ban any laptop from the passenger seat, even if the person using it IS THE PASSENGER and not the driver, and even if they have the screen aimed such that the driver doesn't see it.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely, it will have an exemption for law enforcement. DMCA did.

Hmm.. hypothesis of the day: LE exemptions may be reliable indicator of corrupt laws.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

Statistical evidence indicates that the average person is not fully capable of driving properly while using a cell phone.

Statistical evidence indicates that the average person is not fully capable of driving properly.

No conditions. Cell phone, no cell phone, the statement still stands. ;)

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

Driving is NOT a simple mental process. If it was, don't you think we would have built a robotic system based on a series of simple algorithms to do the driving for us?

I agree with you that driving is not a simple mental process. But the fact that we don't have automated highways isn't sufficient evidence that your conjecture is true -- there are far too many groups interested in keeping us stopping at the gas station.

I would like to see more questions asking why we don't have automated highways. I don't think it is that hard. We have algorithms to keep satellites in geosynchronous orbit. What do I know, I just write code to manage inventory. Although, after reviewing the algorithm to convert between earth-fixed coordinates to lat long alt I sometimes think anything is possible.

Let's all take taxi's -- at least on Friday nights. I'm convinced it would help the economy, make us happier people, and get us where we need to go more safely.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[bluGill]

I drive a stick shift. I already use my other foot for the clutch. When I brake I need to have my other foot ready to push the clutch at the right time. (which isn't the moment I start braking as the engine helps to slow the car for a time)

Doesn't apply to tailgaters I know, but it isn't a good idea to get into bad habbits.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[the argonaut]

Maybe, maybe not, but I think restrictions would be greater than they are now without the Second Amendment. With the situation as it is, both states and the federal government have passed a number of restrictions on firearms, with some upheld and some struck down by the Supremes. So the lack of a ban on guns is not necessarily due to a lack of trying.

Personally, I'm torn by the whole gun debate: I despise guns and I think the world would be better without them, but like nukes and the whole justification for MAD policies, unilateral disarmament doesn't strike me as such a bright thing and mutual disarmament seems like a no go. But then again somebody has to make the first move if we're ever going to get anywhere, and unlike nation-states who at least have some facade of legitimacy, are you going to trust criminals in negotiations? So maybe we all just agree that some level of guns in society is inevitable and instead focus on not glamorizing violence and encouraging non-violent dispute resolution and things like that, but then how do you do that? Government censorship? Consumer boycotts? Public school programs?

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

"traffic is so heavy and moving so slowly that you could probably go ahead and put the car in park for a minute or two"

This is a worse situation for multi-tasking. When you're cruising along on a fairly open road at the speed limit, the chance of somebody in front of you suddenly stopping is fairly low. A few times a year you swear "My god, that guys just cut me off! Scared me to death."

In stop and go traffic jams, though, people are constantly trying to go up to twenty miles an hour from a standing start, then stop again, with only a two-metre margin of error between them and the car in front of them. On the way to work at rush hour, you may do this tricky maneuver a hundred times. It is NOT the time to be distracted, however bored you may be.

To put it into terms that may be more easily understood here, if you're camping with your sniper rifle, is that the time to discuss with your wife whether your daughter is shtupping her boyfriend? You can't do both, because you need to pay attention to your wife, but you don't know when you may need to shoot.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Sancho]

Any law that cannot be fairly enforced to avoid false positives should not exist.

Guess it depends upon your definition of "fair." There are plenty of people in prison for crimes they did not commit. DNA evidence is proving this. But under our legal system, if the laws were changed so that these people had gone free, imagine the multitudes of murderers that would still be walking the streets.

And the point is that there are certain types of inattentiveness that you can easily take note of. Probably, this law should only include computer screens that are visible to the driver. Thus if a police officer can see the screen through the LCD, he should stop them. Otherwise, it's probably safe.

If it isn't possible to tell, in general, who is being inattentive and who isn't, then it shouldn't be a law. PERIOD.

Perhaps.
In Texas, we have open container laws. If there's an open alcoholic beverage in the car when a police officer stops you, the driver will be fined and charged. This is because there is no way to tell whether or not the beverage was just handed off to someone else. This law isn't really a stretch from that, and to be honest, I don't mind open container laws one bit. It infringes only slightly on my rights as a passenger (if alcohol consumption can even really be called a right) but I imagine it goes a long way towards preventing accidents. People can no longer just hand the beer over to someone else in the car. And just like your example, the officer can't tell who actually had the beer, so the law was made to circumvent the fact that police officers aren't all-knowing.
Is it overly broad? I don't think so, personally.

*snip your cell phone example*

If that's really how you act, then good for you I guess. I've heard of plenty of accidents where "I just took my eyes off the road to change the channel on my radio!" Accidents happen in the blink of an eye. You can look down and a kid can run into the street from behind a bush. One's attention should always be 100% on the road. If you can't change your radio station by feel (and some would say that even this is too much inattention) then you shouldn't be changing it. You want to know if the person is worth talking to? Get a cell phone that has personalized ringtones. You shouldn't be looking down to see who's calling any more than you should be reading or watching TV while driving.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Skuld-Chan]

Problem is when I drive to work in the big city I live in the same traffic problems happen every day - eventually I'm driving 5-10 miles per hour. Frankly there's very little that can happen thats life threatening at that speed.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[instarx]

A study of a random sampling of drivers is *NOT* the same thing as a study of what the average driver can handle. A random sampling such as would exist in such a study will include some average drivers, some bad drivers, and some good drivers. If there's some situation that the bad drivers don't handle well, that would drag down the score of the whole set of them, even if the average and better than average drivers are able to handle it.

You are using circular logic. You can't say the risk for the average driver population is skewed because bad drivers were included in the calculations. Data collected MUST be from a random sample to determine the risk. If a random sample were not used [for example by excluding drivers that have had two or more accidents], one would not be able to say anything about the overall driver population - only about drivers who don't have accidents.

Additionally, because random samples generate bell curve distributions, the Relative Risk calculated applies most accurately to the average population (read "average driver").

As an aside, an 'average' driver would usually be defined as one who's abilities fall within one standard deviation of the mean. Using this criteria would make about 66% of all drivers average.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[chunkymunky]

Must admit I hadn't tried that particular trick, as I've always assumed that that will be a complete 'mare as well. Might have a go next time I'm stuck. If I can get as far as J20 (I come from J26) on a bad day I'll squirrel up tha A41 instead and cut across country back to the M40. Here's looking forward to Monday!

Re:it's about time some one did this

[DunbarTheInept]

You are using circular logic. You can't say the risk for the average driver population is skewed because bad drivers were included in the calculations.

Yes, I can. There is nothing circular about realizing that in English the following two phrases are different:
"The average of all X's is Y"
"The average X has value Y".

One is called the "mean". The other is the "mode". The problem is, these studies find the mean, and then claim it's the mode when they publish, by using the little trick of rephrasing it and hoping nobody will notice.

Claiming the average driver behaves in a certain fashion, based on the average of a sampling of drivers is just like claiming the average American family has 2.5 children. Nope, I'm sorry - ZERO families have 2.5 children. There are no such families in existance.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[instarx]

But that isn't what you said in your first post.

You said: A random sampling such as would exist in such a study will include some average drivers, some bad drivers, and some good drivers. If there's some situation that the bad drivers don't handle well, that would drag down the score of the whole set of them,...

In the English I know, the above statement says - "Because the sample for the study was random, poor drivers were included in the study. This caused the resulting average score for all drivers to be too low and required upward adjustment of the mean". That is circular logic in any language.

You have also said: Claiming the average driver behaves in a certain fashion, based on the average of a sampling of drivers is just like claiming the average American family has 2.5 children. Nope, I'm sorry - ZERO families have 2.5 children.

You are correct in pointing out the error in someone saying the average family has 2.5 children, but it is perfectly correct to say the average family simply "has children". Similarly it was correct for the original poster to say there were situations the average driver might handle poorly if he were talking on a cellphone. This is correct in both language and logic.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[DunbarTheInept]

but it is perfectly correct to say the average family simply "has children".

Of course. Because the average family (which means the mode, not the mean) *does* actually have children. (in fact, it has to, by definition, or it's not a family.).

That is different than saying, for example, that the average student got 18.4 points, on a test which only gives scores as integers.

And, Yes this is the same as my complaint about the driving tests. If the average driver does really well, but the ones that do poorly end up doing VERY porly, then the mean will be somewhere in between them where no such member of the population actually exists, and so it's wrong to phrase the result as if it was a mode (which is what "the average driver is like such-and-such" means.)

If I give a test with only one question on it, and half the people get it right and half get it wrong, it would be true to report that as "the scores averaged to 50%". But it is a lie to say that the average person scored 50% on the test.

And if some drivers are distracted by something that others are not, it is wrong to say the average driver is somewhat distracted by it.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[lelnet]

>This leads me to believe that many people don't realize how horrible their driving is while on a cell phone.

Right. Just like the same people don't realize how horrible their driving is when they're not on a cell phone.

Have you ever seen one of these awful cellphone drivers _hang up_? Did their driving habits become better when they did? (I have...they didn't.)

It's not about the damned cell phones (or laptops, or books, or whatever). It's about the aggressive, inconsiderate, and just plain-old reckless drivers. If you're the kind of person who could let a telephone conversation distract you from your driving, you're the kind of person who could let something else distract you, even if a cellphone ban were effective in preventing cell phone use while driving.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Random832]

books should be outlawed too if laptops are

Yes, in fact, they should. Do you honestly believe it should be legal to read a book while driving?

Do you honestly believe it should be illegal to read a book while riding in the front side passenger seat? geez, remind me never to vote for _you_

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

If you "think" you can do it while you drive, then you should pull the car over.

If that's the mentality, California will be banning environmental controls (air conditioning), radio's and cd players, and children from the front seat.

While we're at it, why not ban anyone over 60, and food....so much for in-and-out burgers.....ooh, and we should ban women who put on makeup while driving, or men who shave on the way to work......maybe we could ban street signs because they take our eyes off the road......

OR, we could stop electing liberals and take the country back.

good,bad and the ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

In one respect I'd sad that such a law has to be passed... What kind of idiot would use his laptop while driving? but then what kind of idiot reads a bok while driving, watches TV while driving, puts on MAKEUP WHILE DRIVING????

we all must remember.... over 50% of the population has an IQ below 100. so I guess such laws need to protect the rest of us from the complete morons that are just a inch away from being drooling idiots. now we have to deal with the retards that drive BMW's 3 inches form the rear bumber. why is it that the more you spend on your car the smaller your brain get's behind the wheel?

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[Malachi]

I just wish we had more license levels. Those who can use devices, those who can speed, those who can't do anything but putter, and have special plates that show it (you know like the proposed RED plate for DUI ppl)

I drive to my capacity which is determined by both physical and enviornmental circumstances. I am not unsafe, I just use those variables to my opportunity and advantage. I'm tired of blanket rules for all the buffoons of the world.. If you're a buffoon, fail a test, get a buffoon sticker and stop fudging with those of us who are able.

When driving began they said that if you went over 35mph you'd go insane.. well that clearly didn't happen.

-M-

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

Morons and kids always drag society down to their level, since it has to operate for the LCD. So when Bob Moron tries to play minesweeper on his PDA while cruisin the highway and gets into a wreck, we all have to suffer the consequences.

Meritocracy, anyone?

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[operagost]

No, we all got stupid instead!

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

...protect the rest of us from the complete morons that are just a inch away from being drooling idiots.

Yes, unfortunately a lot of people are just on the wrong side. :P

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

we all must remember.... over 50% of the population has an IQ below 100

Do let me know when you get out of the 5th grade.

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[edalytical]

have special plates [...] get a buffoon sticker

What happens when I have to borrow the buffoon's car?

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[MarkJensen]

we all must remember.... over 50% of the population has an IQ below 100

Errrr... Don't you mean exactly 50% (by definition of IQ)

;)

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

Start walking

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

The IQ curve is not symmetric. As a result the average person's IQ is over 100.

Example: consider 5 people, where one is a complete moron with an IQ of 60. The other people would have IQs of 110 for the average to be 100, yet 80% of the sample size have IQs over 100.

The assymetry happens because IQ can get almost arbitrarily low due to things like brain damage, which extremely high IQ is rare.

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[bhtooefr]

Approximately 50%, because IQ isn't perfect, and the stupid people all migrated here to the US.

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[LordDethstar]

Don't forget that IQ was defined some time ago and TV made everyone dumber in the mean while.

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between median and an average you know.

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[LnxAddct]

Hey watch what you say about BMW's. Last I checked Linus drove one:)
Regards,
Steve

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[smack_attack]

We like to punish the masses for the sins of the few, it makes us feel good about shit.

Some dumbass can't be trusted to drink coffee without burning his crotch? Ok, then coffee is now piss-warm.

Some fuckers think it's a good idea to drink 10 beers and then careen home? Yippee, now we'll just pull over everyone coming out of a bar.

Some jackass thought it was a great idea to install a datacenter in his front seat, complete with LCD monitors? Yeah, now you're not allowed to have legitimate navigation software (I hope everyone realizes that they will be breaking the law anyways, because there is a computer embedded in your car, under the dash usually, that controls braking, fuel economy and many other things).

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[loraksus]

What kind of idiot would use his laptop while driving?

dunno, cops, emt's, yuppie scum. . .

but then what kind of idiot reads a bok while driving, watches TV while driving, puts on MAKEUP WHILE DRIVING????

everybody freaking else. /no, not bitter at all.

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[MarkJensen]

Don't forget that IQ was defined some time ago and TV made everyone dumber in the mean while.

I read somewhere that it was PowerPoint that did that...

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[TarpaKungs]

This is the one case were I was glad when I owned a knackered old diesel Maestro car (British Leyland). Everytime I got one of those tail gating pillocks up my a**e I'd just lead foot the clutch and the accelerator and clear the exhaust pipe soot out in their general direction. They used to give me plenty of space after they'd stopped choking! Sad really to ave to use such tactics, but I take exception when someone endangers my life with their lack of respect for a one ton vehicle. Dickheads...

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[Deflagro]

That's actually a good idea. Graduated licensing is kind of like that, but wholly ineffective. More for making money.

I like the idea that you take a test and prove your ability, get the license you need, etc. Of course there will be costs involved and the penalties should be stiffer since you've proven you can do this, if you fail, you fail big.

I hate things with class levels but this would make it a little more fair.

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[Thomas Shaddack]

Who would read a book during driving?

Ever got stuck in a really really bad traffic jam?

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[dasmegabyte]

Uh. My IQ is well above 100, and I've been known to do all of the things you mentioned in this post (not the makeup, but I have tied a tie while driving). I know this has probably been pointed out a thousand times to you geeks, but the ability to reason does not give you any more common sense. I know plenty of very pragmatic people who are nonetheless quite dull, logically speaking. I, on the other hand, approach absent minded. However, in most cases I quickly realized how incredibly stupid it is to be doing stuff while driving, and have been smart enough to STOP doing the distracting activity when it became obvious I was endangering the planet so I could change MP3s.

Besides, there are lots of reasons to use a laptop while driving that are pertinant TO driving. Computers are certainly better at providing exactly the directions you need than a 12 square foot folding map. The problem is that laptop functions were not designed to be performed when the user does not have most of his attention available to the laptop for opening files, scrolling, performing searches, etc. I have imposed on myself a laptop ban: when i get in the car, i put the lappy in the trunk. That way, if I get lost, I have to pull over.

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[LnxAddct]

He's a moron? Wow! Send me your kernel that is used by millions of people all around the world, even NASA. I can't wait to see what great things you've achieved if Linus is a moron compared to you. Unfortunately I've chosen to respond to your flamebait, which is something Linus is intelligent enough to avoid. Linus never starts them and rarely continues them, that makes him smarter then the both of us right now.
Regards,
Steve
P.S. I too rarely continue a flame, but I take insults to Linus and Linux somewhat personally:)
P.S.S. Linus is not a thief. If you knew anything about the SCO case you would know that they have nothing against Linus, but rather against IBM for other reasons. But let's not get started on the SCO case.

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[DarkSarin]

try again, this time with sources.

as a point of interest, your sample size of 5, although neat for an illustration, falls apart completely with 100 or 1000 or 10,000 people.

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[bogie]

"you know like the proposed RED plate for DUI ppl"

Oh, that's just a GREAT idea. Why not start handing out Gold Stars for the Jews again? Or better yet, make anyone who has ever been convicted of any crime have to where a pink jumpsuit and put up a billboard outside their house which states there crime. That will teach them.

" I'm tired of blanket rules for all the buffoons of the world."

See the post in the beginning or this thread. Saying your above everyone is just making you look like a total jackass.

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[DarkSarin]

yes, but like most human traits, IQ seems to be fitted to a normal curve, which means that mean, median, and mode are all the same (in this case 100).

There are other issues at hand, however, and IQ is probably not the best indicator of driving ability. Spatial reasoning would be better, and it is not as heavily tied to IQ as one might think.

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

Cops use their laptops all the time while they're driving. I'm sure this has an exemption for it unfortunately.

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[Malachi]

Lets put a test to it and see who scores out..

Gold stars, jewish.. don't infer too deeply there. Maybe most people should have a brand on their forhead if they are a fucknut. My fiancee is a social worker, do you know how many people never ever change; that just milk the system or will not correct debilitating behaviorisms? Human nature is lazy and greedy. It won't teach them a lesson to be branded, but it will sure let me know to get the hell out of their way.

I am not saying I'm above everyone else, but I'd sure like to find a metric and see how I score. I'm not the fucktard painting her toenails in the car or yelling at my kids, reading a book, viewing a dvd, bleeding the lane, putting on makeup, looking for papers that slid off the seat, or getting in accidents.

I've been a motorcycle motorist for 10 years and have seen the most amazing bad road behavior and would love for a classification system because I haven't been apart of the other percentage causing issues, but I have escaped by my chinny chin chin on a daily basis due to these people.

I believe in my personal responsibility of my actions, and I uphold my end of the bargain. Then again this is why libertarinism will never hold, because too many people would rather not be responsible.

I just want to live and do what I want as long as I take hold of the actions that I am doing. Rules are generally made to protect those who should have been culled from the herd anyhow.

Babble babble rant rant.. -M-

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[Malachi]

Yea the beauracracy (sp?) in all that would be HUUUGE.. the mismanagment, corruption.. Oyyveeyy.. its completly impossible.. but its fun to dream ;)

-M-

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[evilad]

Seems more likely to me that the stupid folks are outbreeding the smart folks. That's the way it is in my hometown, anyhow.

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[dillon_rinker]

The US military is just such a bureaucracy, with just the flaws you describe. Yet it accomplishes its primary mission quite effectively.

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an even bigger moron. And probably a bigger thief.

And gay as all hell for using PS and PSS.

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[LnxAddct]

P.S.S.S. Posting as anonymous coward is not an effective manner for presenting an argument, no matter how absurd it may be.

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[FunkSoulBrother]

yeah, but they get billions of dollars a year to spend on that sort of thing, enough to overcome all the red tape and bureaucracy. Americans don't like spending billions of dollars on projects that might improve the actual quality of life domestically.

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[toddestan]

"you know like the proposed RED plate for DUI ppl"

Oh, that's just a GREAT idea. Why not start handing out Gold Stars for the Jews again? Or better yet, make anyone who has ever been convicted of any crime have to where a pink jumpsuit and put up a billboard outside their house which states there crime. That will teach them.

I agree that's a stupid idea. If they get a DUI they shouldn't get red plates, they should get their license revoked. Simple as that.

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[IM6100]

Equating the persecution of the Jews in 20th century Europe to a measure to issue red license plates to confirmed repeat drunk driving offenders is ridiculous.

Red plates isn't about 'teaching them.' It's no different than putting hazard signs at dangerous spots on the road.

If you're going to escalate it to 'everybody wearing red jumpsuits.' You'll find people will stop taking your comments seriously.

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[seann]

new york state cops look away!

I went to pick up my friend from the buffalo airport, I live in canada, and about 10 minutes after I got over the boarder, up lifted my powerbooks lid, and checked on my map to see if it was right ;)

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[the argonaut]

(I hope everyone realizes that they will be breaking the law anyways, because there is a computer embedded in your car, under the dash usually, that controls braking, fuel economy and many other things)

If you had actually read the article and not the badly summarized /. headline, you would realize that the aim of the law is not to restrict computer usage, but VIDEO DISPLAYS: the digest title for the section of the Vehicle Code being amended is "AB 301, Reyes. Vehicles: video displays.". Can't be much clearer than that. And there are a number of exceptions for displays that are specifically driving aids so no, your in-dash speedometer, tachometer, gas gauge, et al, no matter how high-tech and digital, are not in violation of the statute.

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[smack_attack]

My stereo is a video display, my tachometer, speedometer, gas gauge, engine temp are all displays.

This is a silly law.

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[the argonaut]

I wasn't debating whether or not the law is "silly" (although I do not think it is, although it's not perfect either). I was just noting that the things you listed would be allowed by the law as they are "vehicle information display[s]" allowed under Subsection (b)(1). I was simply pointing out that the statute allows for them therefore contrary to your "you're automatically breaking the law because your car has a computer in it..." comment, the statute specifically exempts such things from its scope.

The interesting one though is the stereo display - I guess you could say it's a "vehicle information display" but I think that would be stretching it. I would chalk this up to the law being badly written, not it's purpose being bad, but you're free to disagree on that point.

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[Grizzlysmit]

In one respect I'd sad that such a law has to be passed... What kind of idiot would use his laptop while driving? but then what kind of idiot reads a bok while driving, watches TV while driving, puts on MAKEUP WHILE DRIVING????

we all must remember.... over 50% of the population has an IQ below 100. so I guess such laws need to protect the rest of us from the complete morons that are just a inch away from being drooling idiots. now we have to deal with the retards that drive BMW's 3 inches form the rear bumber. why is it that the more you spend on your car the smaller your brain get's behind the wheel?

ummm by definition of IQ exactly 50% are above and 50% are below.

Definition of IQThe average IQ of the population as a whole is, by definition 50.

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

I once saw a lady driving, reading, and applying makeup near here eyes.

I REALLY wantd to get in front of her and hit the breaks...

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[coopaq]

...over 50% of the population has an IQ below 100.

now we have to deal with the retards that drive BMW's 3 inches form the rear bumber.

Perhaps your IQ fluctuates based on how angry you are, Mr. Banner.
Your capitalization and grammar seemed to take a dive for the worse.

heh.

[pb]

Although some of this does sound overbroad, at least having less drivers using cellphones (especially while driving) is not necessarily such a bad thing, IMO.

Actually, they should just enact a law that states that while driving a car, your attention should be focused on (duh!) *driving the car*, and if you weren't, and you get in an accident, then you should be held responsible for your negligence.

Re:heh.

[garcia]

pretty difficult to prove that you were not paying attention... First thing most people do after an accident is get on their cell phone to their insurance companies or to 911.

Re:heh.

[lone_marauder]

Actually, they should just enact a law that states that while driving a car, your attention should be focused on (duh!) *driving the car*

I'll make your neurosurgeon aware of that when the attending tries to call his cell for advice re: the catscan of your shattered neck.

Re:heh.

[nettdata]

Actually, they should just enact a law that states that while driving a car, your attention should be focused on (duh!) *driving the car*

EXACTLY.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen near misses because some woman was doing her makeup on the way to work while driving, or some guy was fishing fries out of the McD's bag while pulling into traffic.

<MarvinTheMartian>And it makes me angry! So very angry!</>

Re:heh.

[Xamdam_us]

You already are responsible for what you do while driving. If you cause an accident you are at fault period. It dose not matter if you were on a cell phone, reading the paper, eating, or using a laptop.

Re:heh.

[GoofyBoy]

>You already are responsible for what you do while driving.

If you are 100% legally responsible in an accident depends on many things besides if you are "ethically/morally" responsible. One big factor is how good your lawyer is and how crappy your insurance company is.

Re:heh.

[KozmoStevnNaut]

But proving that a persons attention wasn't on the act of driving might be very hard. Eye witnesses won't be much help since you can't really judge it that well unless you're sitting right next to the person.

I'm all for banning distractions, but some people just *want* to be distracted it seems. "Oh look at that funny car/building/person!".

Banning every kind of monitor except navigation systems from the drivers view and restricting navigation system from accepting input while the car is moving would go a long way to prevent accidents.

And of course, if we could stop people from being so friggin' ignorant to the safety of others we would prevent even more accidents.

Re:heh.

[Xamdam_us]

Okay so by your logic then if I plow into a car load of kids because I'm using a laptop while driving and it explodes in a giant fire ball and they all die and I live, I'm okay if I have a good insurance company and/or lawyers? I would be in no way responsible?

Re:heh.

[TheSync]

I find myself much more relaxed and less distracted with a cellphone in the car.

That way, if I get in a traffic backup, I can call someone and tell them I'll be late.

Otherwise, I'd be going nuts worrying about people wondering where I was. This is distracting.

Just a data point.

Re:heh.

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK it is a criminal offence to drive "without due care and attention" (and you can be charged with this whether you cause and accident or are just deemed to be likely to cause one by the police). Also, legislation was brought in recently to deal specifically with the use mobile phones whilst driving.

Re:heh.

[p3d0]

Yeah, too many laws aim at the symptom rather than the problem itself.

Re:heh.

[ed333]

Well, OJ got off, so I guess it could happen.

Re:heh.

[pb]

Hey, that's fine with me, as long as you aren't actually moving...

Re:heh.

[macmaniac]

The biggest problem with this legislation is the simple fact that you can't legislate common sense, nor can you legislate very effectively good driving skills.

For example: New York has a ban on using cell phones while driving. Do people pay attention to it? No. I was almost hit by a moron talking on his cell phone who came within five feet of my car going the wrong way on a divided parkway.

The California law seems to do everything but that - and will likely be equally as effective. One more reason not to move to California.

Re:heh.

[p3d0]

Brother, you need to get a grip. In the olden days, they used to do this thing called "planning ahead" where they would leave enough time in case traffic is bad. Most times they would get to the destination ten minutes early and find something to do.

Today people think their time is so extremely important that they can't bear to arrive some place before they absolutely need to. Well, I have news for you: when you arrive someplace, you are either early or late. There is no third choice, unless you can manage to arrive within planck time of the chosen moment.

Just get accustomed to being early for everything and life is less stressful. Yes, you might get one less thing done over the course of the day. (The horror!)

Re:heh.

[duffbeer703]

Wow.

I'd venture to guess that people aren't as worried as you think. Sounds more like you have an overbearing and controlling wife or boss.

Re:heh.

[grazzy]

If they can monitor that, they'll probably be able to monitor where they called aswell. Do you call 911 from your car for fun alot?

Re:heh.

[ReadParse]

Just yesterday, my family approached and warily passed a car in which the driver was applying makeup. She was wandering all over the lane just like when one of the two cheeseburgers I'm holding starts dripping ketchup or when I (dread) drop a lit cigarette. This is not the first time I've seen this, and it's one of the many examples of distracted driving, which is the only acceptable label for what legislators are trying to stop. Ban as many electronic devices from as much of the car as you want, but people will continue to eat, apply makeup, argue with a passenger, stare at their fellow man, and watch low-flying airplances as they drive their vehicles. It's the distraction that causes a lower level of safety, not the very presence of certain types of devices.

RP

Re:heh.

[anthony_dipierro]

How often are you in a traffic backup with a cop car right behind you? Sure, it's a stupid law, but it's not like it's going to be enforced all that strictly. Just another excuse to pull people over and a tax to help cover the costs of motor vehicle accidents.

Re:heh.

[tap]

If you're not drunk, you'd be looking at $250 fine. That's it. Don't think so? Read this and this. About a year a half ago a Sarah K Potts was speeding in a SUV while taking on a cell phone when she plowed into someone's car on interstate 405 in Bellevue. An entire family of four was burned to death because of this woman. Is she where she belongs in the cell next to Charles Manson and other murderers of entire families? No, she got off without even being charged. Nothing. Not a day in jail. Didn't even go to court. All she gets is a bullshit $250 fine.

So if you think laws about reckless or negligent driving will punish those responsible, much less bring the innocent killed back to life, think again.

Re:heh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you say 'alittle' too?

Re:heh.

[Politburo]

This already exists in most states. Distracted driving is considered 'Careless Driving' in New Jersey, a 2 point offense. However if that action causes an accident, things get much more serious. For example, you can now get up to 10 years in jail if it is determined you caused an accident due to drowsiness.

Re:heh.

[FroMan]

That's why I always have on eye in the digital camera viewfinder when I am driving... So I can get a picture of the idiot with the cell phone plastered to his ear if he causes me to get into an accident.

Re:heh.

[Politburo]

I was going to reply to OP, but then I read your post. +1.

Re:heh.

[Col. Panic]

operator: 911, what is your emergency?

me: do you have prince albert in a can?

Re:heh.

[GizmoToy]

That is absolutely horrible. I can't believe how out-of-whack our laws are when a killer of a family of 4 is fined $250, and possesion of a narcotic can net you 5-10 years. Its sad, really...

Re:heh.

[Idarubicin]

Actually, they should just enact a law that states that while driving a car, your attention should be focused on (duh!) *driving the car*

I'll make your neurosurgeon aware of that when the attending tries to call his cell for advice re: the catscan of your shattered neck.

Interesting, but this is why on-call physicians carry pagers. Doctors are often doing things that they can't drop at an instant's notice. (If the neurosurgeon is operating on your shattered neck, would you want him to drop his scalpel and answer his cell phone?) If a physician gets a page, then they put down what they're doing in a controlled manner, and calls back as soon as is reasonably appropriate.

The neurosurgeon can pull over to the side of the road or into a driveway, and then do a consult. As an aside, who reads a CT scan over the phone--and would you want someone do to a neuro consult while they're distracted by driving? Who reads the neurosurgeon's CT scan after he crashes into a bridge embankment?

Re:heh.

[jc42]

The biggest problem with this legislation is the simple fact that you can't legislate common sense,

Nah; the biggest problem is that applies to the passenger as well as the driver.

On a recent vacation trip that included California, my wife and I took along our cute new Garmin iQue, a GPS-enabled Palm Pilot that was loaded with lots of maps. One of us would drive while the other navigated. This Garmin gadget was a great aid in navigating. It can show the street system at any scale, and can find routes for you (and modify them on the fly when you go off route). It's a huge improvement on printed maps, mostly because you can't carry detailed printed maps of the entire continent in your shirt pocket or purse.

This law would outlaw such useful gadgets, for no good reason. We do have the sense to not try to use it while driving. But with two people in the car, that's not a problem. And with separate driver and navigator, we didn't have to try to pull off on major highways, a risky operation in many situations.

Granted, a driver trying to use complex electronic gadgetry is stupid. But navigation equipment in the hands of a non-driver is emminently sensible. This law bans it, so it's an idiotic law.

Re:Laptops while driving

[Darth23]

I've seen people reading the newspaper while driving. The idea of having someone driving while working on a laptop is MUCH more frightening that the ida of someone driving while a passenger dows the same thing. Plus, everyone knows that when someone in on the computer is dead tot he outside world. Ever try to talk to someone who's surfing the web? Passengers with laptops would probably be LESS distracting to drivers than passengers WITHOUT laptops.

So what?

[cnelzie]

Really, what's the huge deal? The driver's job is to keep the vehicle on the road and going from point A to point B as safely as possible.

I have seen some real morons driving around the state I live in, fiddling with their cell phone, playing with the radio and many other things. I have also witnessed a number of accidents because some nut was to busy doing everything else instead of driving their car.

I say kudos to legislation that will force drivers to drive, instead of fiddling with all of their electronic gadgets. I am also a little guilty of that myself, I have a cell phone and I really should be using one of those hands free devices and I do intend on getting one.

Re:So what?

[Brahmastra]

and you want the passenger to drive too?

Re:So what?

[iainl]

The problem with the law, as I see it, is that it is against the use of these devices in the front of the car at all, rather than just by the driver.

The front passenger using Autoroute (or whatever) on their laptop is genuinely useful, and funtionally equivalent to a satnav system which isn't banned.

Re:So what?

[EasyTarget]

String them up I say.. I got sideswiped off my bike last week in Amsterdam by some total dork watching hardcore rap video's in his little toy BMW, via a front mount DVD player. THere are a lot of total twats doing that in this town.
Mostly my pride injured but I was not amused.

Watching anything other than the road is just an idiotic thing to do. Full stop. End of discusion. If you think you can drive and also focus on a VDU then you're an arrogant twat who puts your own pleasure before the safety of others.

Re:So what?

[Lord of Ironhand]

Then again, with your username, who can blame him...

Re:So what?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Exactly. Automobiles are rolling weapons, but not just that, with the safeties off. Just as one shouldn't be on a cell phone while reloading a .45, one shouldn't be on a cell phone while driving.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

just say nigger. i know you want to

Re:So what?

[Hal-9001]

I have a cell phone and I really should be using one of those hands free devices and I do intend on getting one.

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that hands-free devices did not improve the safety of driving while talking on a cell phone. The reason is that talking on a cell phone distracts your attention from the road, regardless of whether or not your hands are free. This is different from talking to passenger, because the passenger can help pay attention to the road.

Re:So what?

[JeffTL]

The "huge deal" is the prohibition on passenger-side front-seat usage of such devices.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

would you say the same about a fighter pilot? the job requires they fly at low altitudes, at extreme speeds, monitoring numerous readouts and above all, focused on administering death.

searching mapquest at 35mph behind an airbag hardly compares.

Front seat passenger

[LordK2002]

Yeah, because it must be really tempting to look across at some tiny lines of code on your passenger's laptop screen while driving.

K

Re:Front seat passenger

[jrockway]

*looks at laptop*
*looks at road*
*looks at laptop quickly*
Driver: Whoa, man. Is that a typedef!?
Passenger: LOOK AT THE ROAD LOOK AT THE
*crash*

Moral of the story? Use java :)

Re:Front seat passenger

[Rick.C]

Yeah, because it must be really tempting to look across at some tiny lines of code on your passenger's laptop screen while driving.

Yeah, and the code probably belongs to SCO, too!

[Must not look at SCO's code...
Must NOT look at SCO's code...]
/peek/

DAMN!!

Re:Front seat passenger

[the_consumer]

s/tiny lines of code/pr0n/g

A good thing, right?

[ksheka]

This is a good thing, right? I mean, if someone's using a computer in the front seat, chances are the driver's more likely to be distracted by it than if no one were using such a device. In addition, the banning of cell phones by the driver is probably a good thing. Yes, even those ones installed in cars. Haven't you noticed that you're less focused on a hands-free cell phone compared to when your not using one?

While the law is a little broad (no cell phones by the passenger seat occupant), given the hair-splitting going on in courts, it's probably better for the law to be a little broad.

Re:A good thing, right?

[Alan Shutko]

Hmm... which is more distracting? A front passenger checking email on a computer, or having kids in the car?

Re:A good thing, right?

[shawn(at)fsu]

In my courts class in college we learned that all laws are made extremely broad by the legislature and are meant to be narrowed and refined by the courts.

So yeah it probably is broad, butit will get more clear as it goes through the court system.

just fyi.

They could simplify it

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't they just ban everything not related to driving the car by the driver. Including watching any non-driving related monitors and displays, talking to cellphones and other crap.

Either you drive the car and make sure you are not killing anyone, or you do something else. No multitasking. Simple as that.

Re:Police

[capt.Hij]

From the article: (c) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a mobile, digital terminal installed in an authorized emergency vehicle or to a motor vehicle providing emergency road service or roadside assistance.

Seems like no problem here.

Nav systems are OK

[G4from128k]

The second page of the PDF clearly exempts navigation systems from the ban (it also exempts veiw-enhancing monitors like rear-veiw TVs). What it does not exempt are those ever-enlarging screens for audio systems.

Re:Police

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumbass moderators today. A stupid question from a lazy FP-ing karma whore is modded up, while a well-deserved "RTFA" response is modded down as Flamebait.

If you're driving

[Tim C]

Then you shouldn't be doing anything that takes your attention away from the road - watching TV, consulting a map/navigation computer, changing the channel on the radio, using a phone, anything.

That said, the linked text specifically exempts global positioning, mapping, vehicle information and vision enhancement displays. I would imagine that GPS units that include games would be covered, as long as you're not playing the game. Let's try to exercise some common sense, shall we?

Re:If you're driving

[KozmoStevnNaut]

I completely and 100% agree with you. When you're driving, you should be *driving*, not doing all kinds of other stuff.

Re:If you're driving

[HiThere]

It's not clear to me that the restrictions on what the occupant of the passenger seat does are reasonable. I would argue the reverse. But the restrictions on the driver appear to be needed.

I don't like the form of the law, but the purpose seems valid. I'd rather have them legislate that using a cell phone while driving should be considered presumtive evidence of reckless driving, requiring proof that it wasn't. Likewise having an active video screen where the driver could see it. They seem to be aiming toward this, but for some reason didn't want to say it this way.

Re:Police

[bwhaley]

From the article:
...does not apply to a mobile, digital terminal installed in an authorized emergency vehicle or to a motor vehicle providing emergency road service or roadside assistance.

RTFA before posting.

What about passengers?

[Aens]

Why shouldn't I be allowed to have my wife, sitting passenger side, connect to MapQuest to help me with driving directions?

Re:What about passengers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why shouldn't I be allowed to have my wife, sitting passenger side, connect to MapQuest to help me with driving directions?

Because that's the male code:

Rule 387: Never admit to your wife that you are lost or need directions. You know exactly where you are, and even if it does not appear that you are going anywhere useful, you are certain that you haven't passed that building twice already.

Re:What about passengers?

[Fortunato_NC]

I think it's similar to the logic that open containers of alcoholic beverages (in some states, at least), are allowed in the backseat of a car, but neither the driver or the front seat passenger may have an open container, because otherwise if you're pulled over, you just hand the drink to the front seat passenger.

I suppose, using similar logic, if I got pulled over for using my laptop while driving (what TLA are they gonna call this, anyway? DWC, for Driving While Computing?), and I hand the laptop to my front seat passenger, then I'm in the clear, unless computers are banned from the frontseat altogether...

Re:What about passengers?

[Anonymous Coward]

How's she gonna be giving you a blow-job if she's doing that direction-finding crap?

Re:What about passengers?

[darkwiz]

The concern, I believe, is mostly about people watching movies.

I know when I was travelling over the holiday - I had to ask my wife to put on headphones to watch a DVD on our laptop. I found myself having to really fight to pay attention to the road instead of the DVD. 14 hours of driving is really boring - and it is really hard not to give in to distraction.

Re:What about passengers?

[Epistax]

I've never heard of that. I always learned an alcoholic container whether open or not anywhere but in the trunk is illegal.

Re:What about passengers?

[GRH]

When my wife and I are travelling (small RV pulled by my truck), she always has the Powerbook going either queing up tunes, or checking maps, or doing a few adjustments to the fuel injection computer (aftermarket programmable unit).

It's not like she can sit in the backseat (there is none), and I can't read the screen anyway since the angle is so oblique.

GRH

Re:What about passengers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if in a crash the passenger side airbag shoud open, your wife will have a laptop firmly implanted in her chest and hip. And since you are a lawyer (according to your sig), you'd probably sue the car/laptop maker.

Re:What about passengers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, if you read the law, you would see that mapping displays were explicitly exempted from this law. A better question would be what if your "car-pooling front seat passenger is just doing some programming," which, ironically, was already asked.

Re:What about passengers?

[dletter]

Depends on the state.

I just saw something a little while ago about Montana thinking about upgrading their drinking and driving laws, because right now I guess while you can't be drunk and drive, you can drink liquor in your car while driving, as long as you are not legally drunk. They were talking to like some woman who enjoyed drinking a beer on her way home from work every day.

Drinks in the car and no speed limits: everyone get to Montana!

Re:What about passengers?

[Anonymous Coward]

What has Slashdot come to when blatantly sexist crap like this is modded up? Chauvinist extremism and the continued gender oppression in modern society is really "funny".

Re:What about passengers?

[jtnishi]

I believe by mapping displays, they mean a GPS device. A laptop doesn't actually count as a mapping display.

Re:What about passengers?

[epsilon_alpha]

I just assume get the directions before you leave the house, print them off, and have your wife read them off to you.

That's easier anyway.

Re:What about passengers?

[Anonymous Coward]

In massachusetts, so far as i know, you can have closed containers anywhere in the car; note closed means never opened, not just having the cap screwed on. Otherwise you can transport empties to the recycling center; even those might have to be in the trunk...

As for opened non-empty containers? I just don't put them in my car at all. I'm not sure if it is [il]legal, but you won't find out by me.

Re:What about passengers?

[pbergstr]

You can use a laptop as a mapping display if you have an attached GPS. Go buy a pcmcia card for under 300 dollars and you get a screen thats a lot bigger than the screen that comes with the in-dash or standalone GPS units.

Re:What about passengers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Having PMS today are We

Re:What about passengers?

[Ciannait]

Because if you rear-ended someone and the airbag went off, that'd be 15" of LCD straight into her face. And as I'm sure you're aware, glass and eyes don't get along very well.

Re:What about passengers?

[rajid]

Queuing up tunes, eh? Wait a minute. Does this law mean you can't use an iPod while driving? Actually, I think it means you can't have an iPod in running in the front seat while driving regardless whether you're actually using it or it's just playing a playlist. If it has a video screen, it's banned.

Re:What about passengers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't trying to be funny. Having stuff in front of you is quite deadly if the airbag opens.

Re:What about passengers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, that's cute. Oh, by the way - every single stand-up comedian on the planet called; they want their joke back.

Re:What about passengers?

[Anonymous Coward]

In mid 1980's it was very common to be driving in the mid west while sipping on a beer.

Re:Police

[fireduck]

of course reading the actual text and finding the following line in the first paragraph: "This prohibition does not apply to a mobile digital terminal installed in a law enforcement vehicle." wouldn't provide any sort of answer to that question now, would it?

Re:Police

[Anonymous Coward]

We should have a "-1, RTFA" moderation option :-)

so this means

[rf0]

that I can no longer use my laptop whilst using my mobile, holding my coffee, speaking to a passenger and driving. Damn

Rus

Re:so this means

[JUSTONEMORELATTE]

.. that I can no longer use my laptop whilst using my mobile, holding my coffee, speaking to a passenger and driving. Damn

Yes, but you can still have your firearms loaded and ready to rock!

/wanders off chanting U-S-A! U-S-A!

Re:so this means

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in Kaliforia motherfucker.

Big Deal

[filtersweep]

Cell phone use while driving has been banned in many european countries for years. People actually respect the law and no one complains.

I have no issue at all with any distracted driver laws. And yes, a GPS system can be a hazard while driving.

I think it is a bizarre US issue that driving is somehow a god-given right... it is legal to drive a five times the legal intoxication limit of many european countries, while shaving, watching TV, reading a book, fiddling with the GPS, talking on the phone, etc... meanwhile we have a realitively high road mortality rate?

It seems many people regard any laws aimed at safety to somehow be inconvenient (even seatbelts). We do not even have mandatory vehicle safety inspections (closest thing are emissions tests).

Safety is a low priority in the US.

Resist change!

Keep the government out of our vehicles!

(sorry the sarcasm font did not properly display in your browser)

Re:Big Deal

[Simulant]

" People actually respect the law and no one complains." Not in Germany. People on the phone while driving all over the place.

Re:Big Deal

[CmdrGravy]

I think people just resent being told what to do because everyone almost automatically considers themselves to be "probably the safest driver on the road" so when they are eating their breakfast, grooming their dog, practicing their golf swings etc whilst driving they are sure that they are "doing it responsibly and safely"

The problem is of course that in reality they are no where near as perfect as they like to think they are and even if they are perfect 99.9% of the time they spend driving it's the 0.1% when they aren't concentrating that they end up crashing.

That's why laws like this one are so important, it's a way of impressing on people the actual definition of responsible driving as opposed to their perceived definition of responsible driving e.g. "it's me doing playing quake on my laptop and I sure don't want to kill anyone on the road so I must be playing quake responsibly".

The fact is that cars and driving are a part of almost everyones daily routine and it's also a fact that it's very easy to kill a lot of people through a lapse of concentration in a car so any law which helps promote the idea that when driving a car you should be concentrating properly on the job in hand is a good thing in my opinion.

Re:Big Deal

[filtersweep]

Germany is a huge and obvious exception to the rule (with speed limits at the very least), but still, I would argue that even Germans regard driving more as a skill and priviledge than most people in the US. I have no idea what their laws are regarding cell phones either... hey, I did not say "everywhere."

In many parts of Scandanavian countries, they publish grisly accident photos in the paper- of practically every driving fatality- including photos of the mangled vehicles, bodies covered with blankets, etc. It truly borders on the macabre. After New Years we get to see all the missing fingers photos and faces blown off following fireworks "mishaps."

I know I am off topic, but my point relates more to the culture as a whole, and how they regard collective safety.

Re:Big Deal

[ClioCJS]

What you established europeans don't realize is that in america, there is not really public transportation. If you cannot drive, in many places, it means you cannot work or put food on your table. In the few places where there are public transportation, it is expensive. Plus, who wants to ride with all the poor people?

Re:Big Deal

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but if public transportation is expensive, how is it that taking it means riding with the poor people? Surely the poor people are in less of a position to take it than not-poor people?

Re:Big Deal

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Germany. Think the law gets respected? Bah. No way. I see people talking on the phone while driving every day.

Re:Big Deal

[10101001 10101001]

What makes you think that during that 0.1% of the time there will be a cop around to stop them before they get into an accident? The problem is, most of these laws don't tend to stop people for the same reason rules at school don't work to stop bullying, there's rarely someone around at the time to stop the bullying and incur significant punishment on said bully. So, the teacher might catch the bully about to punch you, but the bully doesn't get expelled with a restraining order. At worse, they get detention. Then they'll just punch you after school. The only way such a law would work is if you started jailing everyone who remotely broke such laws such that they'd not be on the road the time of the 0.1% so they won't be in said accident. Like others have suggested, the best thing isn't to stop people from doing such things but instead to increase punishment if they were doing such things which resulted in the accident. Attempted anything laws just cannot sanely have the same bite.

Re:Big Deal

[EvilOpie]

Same in New York. I don't see any less people talking on cell phones while driving since the law against non hands free units has gone into effect.

Re:Big Deal

[filtersweep]

You are seriously deluded if you think that EVERY city in Europe has excellent public transportation. Many communities have bus transportation that "rivals" that of bus transportation in the US (where it shuts down early, has poor service in outlying areas, etc.). It does lack the social stigma of "taking the bus". What is true is gas is very expensive, as are the vehicle taxs (that result in a new car costing nearly twice what they do in the US). Drivers licenses themselves are very expensive relative to those in the US. Many larger cities are served by trains that connect to other cities, but these are not exactly cheap either, and it is often as inexpensive to fly or drive. Plus, you may need a car to drive to the city that has a train station.

Taking YOUR line of reasoning, considering there are few alternatives in the good old USA, you might think people WOULD take their responsibilities of driving a little more seriously, no?

In fact, I would think you are reinforcing my argument here.

Re:Big Deal

[Anonymous Coward]

In the few places where there are public transportation, it is expensive. Plus, who wants to ride with all the poor people?

Huh? Expensive, and who wants to ride with all the poor people. That makes since.

Re:Big Deal

[operagost]

I think it is a bizarre US issue that driving is somehow a god-given right... it is legal to drive a five times the legal intoxication limit of many european countries

Number one, it isn't a right. Driving is a privilege based on skill and responsibility, and it's made clear in all 50 states. Your license can be taken away for all kinds of things, some of them stupid (like drinking underage when a car wasn't involved) but regardless, it's not considered a right. Number two, I seriously doubt any European countries have legal BAC limits of .02-.025 as you claim (legal limit in all states is either .08 or .10). I could go over that with one light beer, heck, with a shot of COLD MEDICINE! As a matter of fact, I hope I didn't just spritz some breath spray in my mouth just before breathing into the bag.

Re:Big Deal

[Anonymous Coward]

We fuck over the poor daily in America (why do you think they stay poor?), get used to it.

Re:Big Deal

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent poster was mistaken. Public transportation is financially cheaper, but time wise it's more expensive. You also have to resolve your life around a bus schedule or the like, which is a hassle that many adults feel is unbearable. In big enough cities, though, public transport ends up being faster overall because of traffic gridlock (places with subways, obviously). The population density of the US is so low, though, that a large majority of the population doesn't live somewhere where a subway is financially viable to construct or would be used heavily enough. The end result is everyone uses cars for just about everything.

Re:Big Deal

[filtersweep]

Because we do not even respect the speed limit in the US- or drinking and driving laws. It is a pervasive cultural issue that it is only a problem if you are caught.

Not to keep harping about europe, but in some parts it is considered in extremely bad form to speed or tailgate or do anything like what I experience (or participate in) in my daily commute in the US. How do you think roundabouts with no other traffic control would go over in the US? We NEED traffic control, and even then, we are all blowing yellow-red lights.

I will admit the present car culture will not embrace these types of laws in the US- my only point is that different driving cultures exist in the world.

Re:Big Deal

[anthony_dipierro]

How do you think roundabouts with no other traffic control would go over in the US?

The one down the street from my house seems to go over just fine.

Re:Big Deal

[_UnderTow_]

Safety laws are fine when they're meant to protect people on the road from other people. Examples of this are: drunk driving laws, vehicle safetly inspections, not using a computer while driving. But laws like this, that say a computer can't even be used by a passenger are overly broad.

I recenly moved from california back to New Hampshire, where I grew up. New Hampshire has no mandatory seat belt laws, or mandatory helmet laws (except for children), but they do have yeary vehicle inspections. I wear my seatbelt when I am in a car, but I like that I'm not forced to. I can unhitch my seatbelt to get my wallet out of my pocket without having to worry about some over-zealous police man giving me a ticket.

Do you feel safer because the government has told you to wear your seatbelt? Are you too stupid to wear it on your own?

I completely agree with you on the driving while intoxicated stuff. I don't think we're hard enough. I think vehicles shoule be siezed and auctioned off for DUI offenses.

Re:Big Deal

[filtersweep]

In Norway it IS .02 BAC- and people simply do not drink and drive. Period. Norway is not the only country that has this level, but you can look these up yourself.

If what you say is true, why do people have 15 DWIs in the US? How seriously do we treat a suspended license? We really do treat it more like a right.

Re:Big Deal

[CmdrGravy]

I'm not saying that it would but if you are in the habit of using computers etc whilst driving you are going to be doing it for a lot longer than the split second it takes for them to distract you and for you to crash.

Laws like this allow the police to pull over anyone they see in breach of this law, you may well be driving quite safely when they do this but they will still fine you and you will think twice before using the laptop or whatever again which means that there is much less chance you will be involved in an accident to begin with.

I don't think this law is a way of penalising anyone after an accident has occured, although it will make it easier to blame you for it but it's a way of cutting down on undesirable and potentially dangerous activity whilst driving.

Unless you have a list somewhere of "things which can contribute to accidents" it's probably quite hard for police to get convictions for things like dangerous driving, this kind of law makes it a lot easier for them to do that.

I'd also say it's actually a lot better to stop people doing things than simply wait for them to cause an accident and then do something about it. If you kill someone in your car then you can quite easily find yourself up for man slaughter in which case laws like this are irrelevant because all aspects of what you were doing at the time will be considered anyway, this is purely designed to help police clamp down on bad behaviour.

Re:Big Deal

[mako]

I think it is a bizarre US issue that driving is somehow a god-given right...

Well, unlike Europe the US has only been around for a couple hundred years or so. Many of the western states were developed after the advent of the automobile. There is no workable public transportation. One does not have the choice to walk or ride a bicycle. It is just not possible. This means with rare exceptions if one wishes to be successfully, gainfully employed one must purchase and use an auto. The freedom to find employment is one some Americans actually hold dear.

it is legal to drive a five times the legal intoxication limit of many european countries

Well, then Europe must have zero tolerance because I know many places here where the limit is .05. The end goal of groups like MADD is modern day prohibition. They know that there is no way to get to and from a bar after work except to drive. By forcing the limits to a zero tolerance level they effectively force their moral code on the rest of society.

, while shaving, watching TV, reading a book, fiddling with the GPS, talking on the phone, etc... meanwhile we have a relatively high road mortality rate?

This is true but again look how many and how much Americans have to drive.

It seems many people regard any laws aimed at safety to somehow be inconvenient (even seat-belts). We do not even have mandatory vehicle safety inspections (closest thing are emissions tests).

These safety laws are designed to ensure that everyone in public is doing something illegal at all times. Really. It is along the same lines as the Patriot acts and other .gov grabs for freedom. If the state ensures that all citizens are guilty of something at all times than it can arrest and detain suspects at their leisure. Watch I promise these nickel and dime laws will coincide complete DNA and fingerprints during traffic stops. Did you hide your Atlas? You didn't leave it out did you? Your briefcase looks a lot like a computer better put it under the seat. Wait how fast are you going? Do you think that single beer on your breath will make you blow positive on the new zero tolerance breathalyzers? Did you remember to put on the seat-belt? You're not driving while black are you? Careful now! Have a safe day!!

Personal safety laws like seat belt laws are especially heinous as they are symptoms of the mommy state. They just can't be justified in a free society.

Safety is a low priority in the US.

As it should be in a free society.

Resist change!

If the group trying to change something starts with "Mothers against..." or "Fathers against..." that's a good call.

Keep the government out of our vehicles!

Absolutely.

(sorry the sarcasm font did not properly display in your browser)

No problem we agree swimmingly.

Re:Big Deal

[anthony_dipierro]

I think people just resent being told what to do because everyone almost automatically considers themselves to be "probably the safest driver on the road" so when they are eating their breakfast, grooming their dog, practicing their golf swings etc whilst driving they are sure that they are "doing it responsibly and safely"

Guess what. When I'm doing 85 in a 65 at 3 in the morning I am the safest drive on the road (at least the part of it I'm driving on), because I'm the only driver on that part of the road. A law which gets a true criminal 95% of the time but convicts the innocent 5% of the time is a bad law. That's the problem.

Re:Big Deal

[anthony_dipierro]

Driving is a privilege based on skill and responsibility, and it's made clear in all 50 states.

Actually, driving is a right. Using public roads is also a right, it's just a right which can be taken away.

Re:Big Deal

[enjo13]

Nice troll..

I've lived in Europe (Aviano Italy to be exact), and in that part of the world I saw the same driving habits, distractions, and issues that we face here. I've travelled throughout Europe, and it seemed to me like it was simply more of the same.

The issue isn't so much with the law, after all you really shouldn't be checking e-mail while driving. The issue (if you would pay one lick of attention) has everything to do with the overly broad nature of it. With the fact that I can't use a laptop as a passenger, my GPS system (which is a god-send for those of us dealing with huge traffic problems) would be worthless in California, or any number of USEFUL driving aids are now basically illegal under this law.

The fundamental idea is a sound one, and I've seen very few people argue against it. We don't want distracted drivers after all. But the end result is more far reaching than I think any rationale person would find reasonable. That's the issue..

Instead of bashing the US (I realize how fashionable that is right now), how about pulling your head our of your arse and actually try some reading comprehension.

Re:Big Deal

[Burnon]

Please don't read this as a flame - but I'm going to be blunt. I don't have much sympathy for you using a laptop to get at GPS information. Unless you've got a great solid mount holding the laptop in a position where you can quickly move your eyes between it and the road, and a touch screen interface or some easy to hit buttons, it's unsafe to drive and use it at the same time, period.

The law doesn't seem to be overly broad in this case, for what it's worth, the law does permit the use of "installed" navigational devices, which presumably don't have the above mentioned problems. So your investment in unsafe equipment is wasted, but at least you're safer.

That said, I agreed with the rest of your post. The U.S. bashing was uncalled for.

Re:Big Deal

[acidrain69]

When my girlfriend and I go on long distance drives, she brings her laptop so she can watch DVD's and play games. Usually she wears headphones. How is this distracting to me? It isn't. I probably couldn't even see the screen at the angle I am sitting while driving. This is a stupid law, and I hope it doesn't come to florida.

Florida actually just passed a USEFUL driving law, which is people over 80 have to pass eye exams again to keep their liscenses. 80 is too old I think, it should be younger than that, but it's a step in the right direction, and it WILL get some dangerous drivers off the road.

Re:Big Deal

[CmdrGravy]

I have spoken to some policemen about this kind of thing and most of them tell me that they don't have any problem with the situation you are describing above, their concern is to make sure people behave responsibly on the road and not harass people over points of law.

If there was no speed limit and you were doing 85 when there was a lot more traffic on the road then it would be hard for the police to stop you unless you did actually hit anyone.

If the law is enforced sensibly it will help police educate road users about what is expected of them when they are driving a car, if it's not enforced sensibly then that's a problem with the way the police operate rather than anything else.

Re:Big Deal

[CommieLib]

It's expensive for the rich, who's time value is higher (higher wage, natch). Thus, it's only affordable for those whose time value is low (low wages). Odd thing that.

Re:Big Deal

[anthony_dipierro]

I have spoken to some policemen about this kind of thing and most of them tell me that they don't have any problem with the situation you are describing above, their concern is to make sure people behave responsibly on the road and not harass people over points of law.

I've been pulled over by a number of policemen so I can tell you for a fact that this is not the case where I drive (NY/NJ/CT area). Every time I've been pulled over it's been when there was no other traffic around. It's very difficult for police to get an accurate reading of a car when it's in traffic, and when the car in front of you hits its brakes there's a good chance there's a cop ahead and you should slow down.

If there was no speed limit and you were doing 85 when there was a lot more traffic on the road then it would be hard for the police to stop you unless you did actually hit anyone.

So what? There's nothing wrong with doing 85 whether you're in traffic or not. As long as you maintain an adequate following distance, how is doing 85 going to cause an accident? It's not.

If the law is enforced sensibly it will help police educate road users about what is expected of them when they are driving a car, if it's not enforced sensibly then that's a problem with the way the police operate rather than anything else.

Speed limits are not sensible. Period.

Re:Big Deal

[Dun Malg]

I don't have much sympathy for you using a laptop to get at GPS information. Unless you've got a great solid mount holding the laptop in a position where you can quickly move your eyes between it and the road, and a touch screen interface or some easy to hit buttons, it's unsafe to drive and use it at the same time, period.

His exact words: (emphasis mine)

"With the fact that I can't use a laptop as a passenger, my GPS system would be worthless in California"

It appears his beef is with the fact that the law even prohibits the passenger from using a laptop.

Re:Big Deal

[FroMan]

What are you doing, treating your colds with bacardi 151? Or are you weighing in at 50 pounds?

Re:Big Deal

[Politburo]

We do not even have mandatory vehicle safety inspections (closest thing are emissions tests).

Dunno where you live, but in New Jersey, they test many aspects of the vehicle. All lights are ensured to be operational in all modes. The horn and windshield wipers are checked to make sure they are functioning (I have failed due to worn windshield wipers). The parking brake is tested. Next, emissions are checked with the assistance of a dyno, because idle testing is not an accurate judge of the car's emissions. Cars after 1998 have the OBD (On-Board Diagnostic) test run on them. They plug the car's computer into the test computer and ensure all sensors are operating and reporting normal values. If your check engine light is on, your car will fail, and will need certified repairs (ouch!). After this is complete, the car is accellerated and then put into a hard brake onto a computerized sensor. The computer analyses the braking power of the vehicle and the performance of the tires. This computer then performs a test of the car's suspension, which jostles the wheels harder than a pothole filled road. The final test is a vacuum test on the gas cap, to ensure that evaporative emissions from the gasoline are not leaking into the air.

However, due to the volume of cars here, vehicles 1998 and later recieve 4 year clearance, and other vehicles recieve 2 year clearance. I believe commercial vehicles are still inspected yearly.

Re:Big Deal

[ethanms]

Yeah the T in Boston is full of drunks and assholes... Metro in DC and subway in NYC was pretty much the same last time I was on them...

But... a driver should be worried about the road... not inputing directions to his dashboard GPS, or browsing the web...

There's been a few times where I'll look down to dial the phone, or hit next-track on the ipod and when I look up I have to brake quickly to avoid hitting someone... after about 5-6 of these I finally decided to turn the phone off and not use it in the car, and I just listen to whatever track is playing...

even on an empty road can you can have someone come out at you... it's just not worth the risk...

Re:Big Deal

[Burnon]

I stand corrected. Thanks! Apologies for my non-flame to the orignal poster.

Re:Big Deal

[CmdrGravy]

How many people do you see on Motorways observing sensible stopping distances and how many people do you see doing 90Mph + tail-gating cars in front of them ?

If everyone did drive safely and within their limits under the road conditions at the time then there wouldn't be any need for speed limits or any other road rules, the trouble is that they don't and in not doing so accidents happen and people die.

If someone is doing 70Mph in a built up residential area with school crossings etc dotted around the place would you think that was acceptable behaviour ?

Probably you wouldn't and you'd expect the police to stop anyone doing that and charge them with dangerous driving, the reason they were driving dangerously is because they were driving far too fast under road conditions which are not safe for driving on at that speed. That being the case it's perfectly sensible to enforce a speed limit which is suited to the road layout.

Re:Big Deal

[GizmoToy]

And what do we call a right that can be taken away? Everyone now... a Privilege!

privilege (prv-lj, prvlj) n.
2. A special advantage, immunity, or right held as a prerogative of status or rank, and exercised to the exclusion or detriment of others.

Re:Big Deal

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing people seem to forget about seat belt laws is that the consequences of not wearing one don't fall entirely on the person who chooses not to. If someone not wearing a seat belt gets injured in an accident and requires health care, they are going to consume limited resources (health care workers; hospital space; etc) that could otherwise be applied to others and not wasted on preventable injuries.

Re:Big Deal

[anthony_dipierro]

How many people do you see on Motorways observing sensible stopping distances and how many people do you see doing 90Mph + tail-gating cars in front of them ?

That's irrelevant. I don't have a problem with tailgating laws.

If someone is doing 70Mph in a built up residential area with school crossings etc dotted around the place would you think that was acceptable behaviour ?

Prbably not. It would depend on the circumstances, though.

Re:Big Deal

[anthony_dipierro]

Umm, all rights can be taken away. Would you call the right to life a privilege?

Re:Big Deal

[Anonymous Coward]

I can blow a .02 after taking cough medicine!

Good thing I don't drink... Christ.

Re:Big Deal

[soft_guy]

People actually respect the law and no one complains.

That's the difference between Europe and the US. Here everyone complains and no one has respect for the law.

(And that's the way we likes it!)

Re:Big Deal

[virg_mattes]

> What makes you think that during that 0.1% of the time there will be a cop around to stop them before they get into an accident?

That's not relevant. The goal is to reduce the attractiveness of doing the dangerous thing, so it's less likely that they'll actually be doing it in the 0.1 percent time when they did it before. If they're not doing the dangerous thing, they might very well avoid any accidents on their own.

Virg

Re:Big Deal

[pete-classic]

People actually respect the law [. . .]

I'd rather live somewhere where the laws respect the people . . .

-Peter

PS: They have vehicle safety inspections in Texas.

PPS: In my (admittedly limited and somewhat dated) experience European BA limits are higher than in the US.

Re:Big Deal

[ClioCJS]

Yes, it is more expensive to pay $2 for a bus ride that may only cost 60 cents of gas.

But it is FAR MORE expensive to pay $20,000 for a car, versus paying $2 for a bus ticket.

If common sense doesn't let you reconcile how those 2 statements are in agreement with my previous statements, then you are not worth the effort of being explained to.

Also, refer to some of the other excellent responses to my post. I especially liked what the other AC had to say about public transportation being much more expensive time-wise. My mom used to have a 3 hour commute due to bus transfers and junk. Yes a car is cheaper in the long run, but not everyone has a down payment or a credit rating!

Re:Big Deal

[shawn(at)fsu]

I think it is a bizarre US issue that driving is somehow a god-given right

You have no idea how true you are. I lived in Florida for most of my life, it is the retirement state more or less. Anytime someone talks about limiting driving by the elderly it hits the fan. You hear how it will "limit my freedom" or "limit my independence" etc. Many people don't realize that driving is a privilege not a right!

I respect CA allot for doing this, what seems to be a no-brainer. The fact that this law is upsetting scares me to death.

Re:Big Deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Driving is a right as soon as taxes pay for the roads. I expect sometime in the next decade someone will get take this to court an win. Just because the propaganda says its a privilege doesn't make it so.

Re:Big Deal

[Uma Thurman]

Don't laugh at him. Not everyone can afford oxycontin like all the famous conservatives.

Text of the law

[john82]

For those who might not make it to the link...

Existing law prohibits any person from driving a motor vehicle that is equipped with a television receiver, screen, or other means of visually receiving a television broadcast, if the device is located in the motor vehicle at any point forward of the back of the driver's seat, or is visible to the driver while operating the motor vehicle. This prohibition does not apply to a mobile digital terminal installed in a law enforcement vehicle.

This bill would recast this prohibition and, additionally, would prohibit any person from driving a motor vehicle if a video monitor, or
a video screen, or any other, similar means of visually displaying a video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at any point forward of the back of the driver's seat, or is operating and visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle. This prohibition would not apply to specified equipment or to a motor vehicle providing emergency road service or roadside assistance. Because a violation of this prohibition would be a crime, the bill would establish a state-mandated local program.

So to answer some of the existing questions, law enforcement vehicles do not apply. However, if your co-working is wardriving while in the passenger seat, that's a vi-o-lation.

Re:Text of the law

[Anonymous Coward]

the bill would establish a state-mandated local program.

I guess california doesnt have a reckless driving law? Why on earth to legislators think you need a new law to deal with every permutation of idiocy. Just enforce the !#$#% laws on the books for the new situation.

Re:Text of the law

[CmdrGravy]

"Why on earth to legislators think you need a new law to deal with every permutation of idiocy. Just enforce the !#$#% laws on the books for the new situation."

Because laws like this one make it easier to enforce laws like dangerous driving laws, if you have already classified using a computer on the front seat as driving dangerously then it's very easy to enforce the law.

Secondly when new methods of driving dangerously are invented e.g. cell phones, laptop computers it's a good idea to update legislation to recognise these new developments.

I really can see anything bad about this law at all, no privacy issues, no pandering to corporations, no dilution of rights etc.

Re:Text of the law

[alwsn]

Actually, what you posted isn't the law at all. The actual law doesn't start until after the words: "The People of the State of California do enact as follows:" Here is the text of the law.

SECTION 1. Section 27602 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

27602. (a) A person may not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other, similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at any point forward of the back of the driver's seat, or is operating and visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle:
(1) A vehicle information display.
(2) A global positioning display.
(3) A mapping display.
(4) A visual display used to enhance or supplement the driver's view forward, behind, or to the sides of a motor vehicle for the purpose of maneuvering the vehicle.
(5) A television receiver, video monitor, television or video screen, or any other, similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal, if that equipment had an interlock device that, when the motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive.
(c) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a mobile, digital terminal installed in an authorized emergency vehicle or to a motor vehicle providing emergency road service or roadside assistance.
SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because of this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

The emphasis above is mine. Some points of interest, GPS and Mapping related materials are exempt from the law despot the posters claim that "The law would seem to ban handheld computers being used as navigation aids, too, or GPS devices with games, and very soon, nearly all cell phones."

Re:Text of the law

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind of scary, allowing law enforcement to be distracted by all that gear. Its bad enough they have to contend with watching others drive and can't stay focused.

As they are just regular people, although stressed, they should follow the same rules. All that gear could easily fit in the back seat and be run by a copilot.

The seats next to them could then be converted into the containment cells, as opposed to the back being a containment cell.

Re:Text of the law

[ZoneGray]

>>GPS and Mapping related materials are exempt from the law

Hmmm, well, I'll have an interesting conversation with a cop when they pull me over. What I do is run the laptop with a GPS and DeLorme's maps. No, I don't "use" it while driving, it just remains open to the map with my position plotted on it.

Like any printed map, it's safe to glance at briefly (safer, in fact). And like any paper map, you can get in trouble if you start reading too closely. I don't adjust it while driving, it just sits there, usually closed after dark.

Just for the record, I've logged over 30K miles with this setup without so much as having to stop suddenly. By comparison, as a teenager I once rear-ended somebody while reading a paper map in a parking lot.

making a law that is already a law

[diablobynight]

Ummm...if I am not paying attention and get in an accident, jerking off, playing with my cell phone, stairing at the blonde next to me, I cause the accident, I get the ticket. The law already covers this inherently. THe driver that causes the accident gets a ticket. Why is this law even needed?

Re:making a law that is already a law

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they want to stop people doing it BEFORE there is an accident, not after. If people are gonna get fined for not driving properly then fewer people will do it. If fewer people drive like idiots then fewer accidents will occur. Better that than have the surviving driver "get a ticket" for the mother father and children they have just killed.

Re:making a law that is already a law

[XxtraLarGe]

Because this way, they can pull you over and give you a ticket and raise revenues for the state even if you are not doing anything wrong, silly!

Re:making a law that is already a law

[grahamtriggs]

Obviously because you want to stop accidents from occurring, rather than just punish people after the event.

It makes sense that drivers are banned from doing things that affect their ability to drive the car. But does that really need all these explicit laws about phones, laptops, etc.? There is a concept of 'dangerous driving' / 'driving without due care and attention'. Surely that by definition covers using phones, etc. I guess that the law is really only passed to bring attention to the fact that you can't do it, whereas previously it may have been considered that you could - that and to clarify the penalties imposed.

But the blanket 'front seat' ban is bizarre. How is a front seat passenger using a laptop causing more of a distraction than - say - having a conversation with the driver?

Re:making a law that is already a law

[operagost]

This is exactly why "Hate crime" legislation is also a bad idea. Assault is assault, murder is murder, and vandalism is vandalism. Breaking a crime down into the why instead of the what and how is inequal protection under the law. It's one step away from a bill of attainder (that's where a person or group of people is outlawed, or punished by a law without trial).

Re:making a law that is already a law

[Anonymous Coward]

They arrested me for a crime I didn't commit! Attempted murder, I ask you!

Re:making a law that is already a law

[bhtooefr]

You should see my dad drive when my mom is reading some paperwork... his eyes are on the road 10% of the time...

Re:making a law that is already a law

[duffbeer703]

Because different judges/juries/lawyers/etc have different views regarding what is distracting and what isn't.

Some judges would pull your license for picking your nose while driving. Others share the idiocy of some of the posters here and would dismiss a reckless driving case against a driver reading the paper and playing with a laptop while driving.

Explicitly stating that using a phone or computer is distracting behavior makes enforcement possible and consistent.

Once upon a time, there was no standard speed limit. A policeman would arbitrarily decide that you were travelling too fast for conditions and ticket you. The obvious problems & abuses of that system led to the absurdly low, but consistent posted speed limits that we have today.

Re:making a law that is already a law

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

They arrested me for a crime I didn't commit! Attempted murder, I ask you!

I think you're making a joke, but in seriousness, a better analogy would have been: "They arrested me for a crime I didn't commit! Conspiracy to attempt murder, I ask you!"

However even that isn't as good as: "They arrested me for a crime I didn't commit! Thinking about killing my boss, I ask you!"

Re:making a law that is already a law

[ChristTrekker]

Obviously because you want to stop accidents from occurring, rather than just punish people after the event.

Funny, I thought law was to protect our freedoms. You suggest law should pre-emptively limit our actions? How odd.

No, I prefer not to live in a police/nanny state. Punish crimes that actually occur not ones that might (or might not) potentially occur. If someone was intentionally distracting himself when he should have been fully absorbed in guiding a half-ton of speeding metal down a roadway and he hurts somebody, throw the freakin' book at him! Until them, leave him alone!

Also, why target computer use? Or TV viewing? Or whatever? Tuning the radio, applying makeup, talking on the phone, eating McDonald's...these are all distractions, as others have mentioned. I don't think we any of them should be banned outright. If I'm the only car in sight for miles, darn right I should be able to do any/all of these in my car, and I'll make that judgment, not the cop hiding in the median trying to make his ticket quota.

Freedom is like fire: a wonderful and powerful thing that can harm if used unwisely. But I don't think we should restrict freedom for everyone just because a few morons can't cope with it.

Re:making a law that is already a law

[grahamtriggs]

"Funny, I thought law was to protect our freedoms. You suggest law should pre-emptively limit our actions? How odd."
"Punish crimes that actually occur not ones that might (or might not) potentially occur. If someone was intentionally distracting himself when he should have been fully absorbed in guiding a half-ton of speeding metal down a roadway and he hurts somebody, throw the freakin' book at him! Until them, leave him alone!"

I hope you find that of great comfort when you are lying in a hospital bed for months unable to move because someone thought the importance of their phone call and car journey were both higher than that of your health.

I have two problems with your comment. Firstly, it's the idea of 'justice'. We are supposed to have a system of 'justice'. If you can't put right the wrong after the event, then no amount of punishment can give 'justice'.

Secondly, you fall in to the same problem of many other drivers - "if I'm the only car in sight for miles" - do you really know what is around the next bend, over the next hill, approaching the next junction? And that is just dealing with cars. Of far more concern, what about the pedestrians that may be around, or other people's livelihood that you may have a devastating impact on (for example, if you crash into a farmer's field)? I am sick of drivers that think the only thing that matters are other vehicles on the road - I've lost count of the number of times I've nearly been run over by cars that have failed to indicate that they are about to turn when there are no other cars around.

Re:making a law that is already a law

[virg_mattes]

> Funny, I thought law was to protect our freedoms. You suggest law should pre-emptively limit our actions? How odd.

Not odd. Some laws protect rights, and other laws abrogate them. But by definition, laws restrict actions. The only question is whose actions.

> No, I prefer not to live in a police/nanny state. Punish crimes that actually occur not ones that might (or might not) potentially occur.

There are too many situations where this doesn't work because the risks are too high, based on potential outcomes. Also, there are situations where the outcome of a failure in judgement might not be a crime, but still has repercussions that are unacceptable. Take for example prohibitions against personal ownership of high explosives. If it was legal for me to keep dynamite in my garage, and because I stored it wrong I blew my house off the foundations, the result wouldn't be a crime but could certainly have repercussions for others. By the same token, it's accepted that driving under the influence has unacceptable risks, and it's been deemed insufficient to charge people only with crimes based on what happens after they crash, because innocent people die too often. So, we charge people for the behavior, not just the consequences. There are those who think that operating these devices is too dangerous to let people do it and only punish when it causes grief, because the grief is too high to wait for it to happen.

> Also, why target computer use? Or TV viewing? Or whatever? Tuning the radio, applying makeup, talking on the phone, eating McDonald's...these are all distractions, as others have mentioned. I don't think we any of them should be banned outright. If I'm the only car in sight for miles, darn right I should be able to do any/all of these in my car, and I'll make that judgment, not the cop hiding in the median trying to make his ticket quota.

The problem is that statistics show that too many people are not capable of making this judgement call rationally. Yes, it's true that some of the people are spoiling it for the rest of you, but the numbers don't lie. If everyone did these things only when no other cars were in sight, then it wouldn't be such a big deal (it would still be dangerous, but less so to bystanders). The problem is that people still do it in traffic, so it stands to reason that if they won't stop themselves, someone has to do it for them.

> Freedom is like fire: a wonderful and powerful thing that can harm if used unwisely. But I don't think we should restrict freedom for everyone just because a few morons can't cope with it.

Good idea in theory, but as stated above some of those morons are doing things that involve external effects, so they need to be restricted to protect those innocent bystanders. You and I may not need a law that says to stop at red lights, but there are those who do.

Virg

Re:making a law that is already a law

[ChristTrekker]

Firstly, it's the idea of 'justice'. We are supposed to have a system of 'justice'. If you can't put right the wrong after the event, then no amount of punishment can give 'justice'.

True. But we also have freedom. We don't unnecessarily restrict everybody from doing anything at all just so that nobody will ever be hurt. By your definition, murderers and rapists can never be "brought to justice"...but that doesn't mean we let them go scot-free.

You are concerned about justice, which is good. But where is the justice in punishing somebody for something that didn't happen? Our system stands by the axiom "innocent until proven guilty" but pre-emptively limiting freedoms on the assumption (or statistical likelihood) that something will happen is not justice either.

Secondly, you fall in to the same problem of many other drivers - "if I'm the only car in sight for miles" - do you really know what is around the next bend, over the next hill, approaching the next junction?

I live in the Midwest. What hills? What bends? :) Seriously though, I have equal disdain for negligent drivers that think "dodging the other cars" is their only concern. Driving is not a video game. If only more drivers would understand that dashing around in a car is akin to wearing a loaded pistol on your hip. If you're not careful, it can hurt someone. But because it might happen is not a good reason to restrict guns or take them away, not is it a good reason to restrict cars.

Re:making a law that is already a law

[grahamtriggs]

"By your definition, murderers and rapists can never be "brought to justice"...but that doesn't mean we let them go scot-free."

Correct. Any punishment given is NOT justice. But you do the next best thing you can - remove the problem from affecting others.

"But where is the justice in punishing somebody for something that didn't happen? Our system stands by the axiom "innocent until proven guilty" but pre-emptively limiting freedoms on the assumption (or statistical likelihood) that something will happen is not justice either."

Because society as a whole benefits greater than the few cases that are suffering an 'injustice'. Innocent until proved guilty applies to whether you have committed a crime - and so is still valid, it's not an argument as to whether something should be a crime or not. By your standards, no-one could ever have endangered anyone else's life unless they actually take it (or harm it in some fashion). Speeding, drink-driving, driving without a license, driving a vehicle that is unroadworthy, etc. would all be fair game, as the only way it could be proven that an individual case was actually dangerous is indeed when some harm has been caused by it. Would your conscious withstand the huge volume of injuries and deaths that would occur as a result?

"If only more drivers would understand that dashing around in a car is akin to wearing a loaded pistol on your hip. If you're not careful, it can hurt someone. But because it might happen is not a good reason to restrict guns or take them away, not is it a good reason to restrict cars."

The analogy between a car and a gun is quite a good one - something that I believe myself. But then I guess this where the difference between the US and UK comes into play. Because I treat a gun as a lethal weapon, and so is a car. Not everyone knows how to handle lethal weapon properly. In the UK at least, drivers are continually moaning about things like speed cameras - but how many drivers know how to handle speeds other than the standard speed limits correctly? How many really know the performance limits of their cars / tyres? And the consequences of getting that wrong - even at 30-35MPH - you might as well point a gun at someone and pull the trigger. Too many drivers *think* they can handle situations that they can't to take chances.

Re:making a law that is already a law

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. You can be sure that one day, following the same logic, they'll ban passengers from using cell phones as well (unless the passenger is in the back seat).

I've often used a PDA while my wife is driving. Now I'll have to sit in the back to do that.

Obligatory Dave Barry link

[Darth23]

Dave Barry Gift Guide

Re:Obligatory Dave Barry link

[operagost]

What's hilarious is that Arkon, who sells the laptop steering wheel-mount, actually links to the Dave Barry article like it's a good thing!

Re:Obligatory Dave Barry link

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't understand the need for this device then you've obviously never been or seen a salesman who works out of their car and spends a good deal of their computer time in the parking lot in front of a client's offices.

Police giving self tickets?

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont know what california police car setups are like but where I am they all have laptops inside their cars mounted where the driver can easily use them while they are driving.. Does this mean that their laptops must be mounted in another location or even more likely.. that they are above the law..=/

Re:Police

[Richthofen80]

I think it can be considered an interesting post. I think he meant, "Why is it safe for emergency vehicles and not for the rest of us?"... technologies only allowed by the government is kinda scary... He raises a valid point, even if he didn't RTFA

Tainted Water

[Anonymous Coward]

What's in the water out there in California? You sure have some wacky laws. Did you know it's illegal in Ca. for a woman who weighs over 200 lbs. to ride a horse wearing shorts? No kidding.

Good thing normal states like Alabama don't make up these ridiculous laws.

Re:Tainted Water

[upside]

Whereas if the horse is wearing trousers it's OK?

Sorry, I just had to.

Re:Tainted Water

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing normal states like Alabama don't make up these ridiculous laws.

Yeah, that's because in Alabama, They claim God writes all the laws! Whoopee!

The irony is these fucking rednecks have no idea that their philosophy is 100% in agreement with Osama bin Laden---prayer in schools, check; religious authority creating laws, check, not teaching evolution, check...the list goes on.

Re:Tainted Water

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey now, don't stereotype everyone from Al. as a bible-thumper - I'm definitely *not* like that at all.

Re:Tainted Water

[operagost]

Murdering innocents for the cause, oops... no check.

Also no check on the last two. You're confusing allowing views other than evolution to be taught with EXCLUDING evolution. Not everyone bows at the altar of evolution like you. Frankly, if there was a third theory to compete with creationism and evolution, I'd welcome it too. The second item you mention also has no bearing- nowhere in America there some Christian theocracy in place, thanks to the first amendment. The first item- you got me there. Damn those Christians for wanting to be allowed to quietly say grace over lunch. They should be publicly flogged.

Re:Tainted Water

[oldave]

I don't know if I'd go quite that far.

In Alabama:

It is illegal for a driver to be blindfolded while operating a vehicle.

Dominoes may not be played on Sunday.

It is illegal to maim oneself to escape duty.

It is illegal to impersonate a person of the clergy.

Women are able to retain all property they owned prior to marriage in the case of divorce. However, this provision does not apply to men.

Masks may not be worn in public.

Putting salt on a railroad track may be punishable by death.

Boogers may not be flicked into the wind.

Bear wrestling matches are prohibited.

Sure looks to me like Alabama's just as guilty as the other 49 states!

What about...

[djupedal]

...those large screens on the side of the road called 'billboards'? You can see them from the front seat, right? joke...

I have a small LCD TV (with a rear-view camera and DVD player) I can see while driving. I use it for 'navigation' as well. Damned if I'm going to rip it out.

Re:What about...

[YrWrstNtmr]

Vid screens (TV, DVD, etc) visible from the drivers seat are supposed to be interlocked with the ignition. Car on, screen off.

A factory installation would have this. Your garage hack may well be illegal, even before this law.

Re:What about...

[djupedal]

Calif. used to have laws against non-factory installed driving/fog lights....that law is gone now. Police used to write tickets for glasspacked muffers...that one's history as well.

This one will die soon too.

remove vanity mirrors

[diablobynight]

lets make all cars remove vanity mirrors too then they are distracting for women putting on their make up in the morning. And make women where less revealing clothes so I don't get distracted looking at them. And remove all billboards, they distract me. Hey listen, I pay taxes, I pay for insurance, and I have never been in an accident. So don't be my mother and tell me a bunch of little small things I can't do, because something might happen if I do them. Lets have a little self government. Lets not make a thousand oppressive laws that just replace laws already in place. Like the laws that say you can't hit other vehicles on the road, those laws cover this inherently because if I am not paying attention and hit someone, I get in trouble. Simple as that, no more specific law needed.

Re:remove vanity mirrors

[Lumpy]

And make women where less revealing clothes so I don't get distracted looking at them.

Whoa now buddy! dont get too out of control here...

nothing is better than riding with a friend in a Semi truck and being able to see down though a sunroof to that blond wearing a miniskirt and open top.... do you realize how far up those skirts ride when on the highway for a couple of hours?

I'll gladly go off the road and end up in a roll over for that distraction... Hell probably still have the smile on my face when they pull the body out of the wreckage.

Re:remove vanity mirrors

[Hethcox]

Careful, you're getting close to connecting Liberty with responsibility (which is what I think the Founders had in mind).

Re:remove vanity mirrors

[JaredOfEuropa]

Lets have a little self government. Lets not make a thousand oppressive laws that just replace laws already in place.

I'm all for that... if you don't want to wear your seatbelts or wear a helmet on your bike, that's fine by me. I don't mind if you splatter yourself all over the road... that should be your choice by rights.

However, some things do need to be regulated. Certain things have been proven to have a negative effect on your driving ability, like using a cellphone while driving (without hands-free), or drinking and driving. Rather than use a generic 'you are not allowed to hit other people' law, we need specific laws for these specific dangerous activities. Why? So that we can take the drivers' license away from dangerous people who engage in these dangerous activities, while allowing persons who hit someone by accident to keep theirs (at least for the first few occurances :-)

It's all very well to talk about 'responsible citizens', but a few moments on the highway and you will probably agree that this phrase does not apply to many of your fellow motorists. If you are going to be driving anywhere near me, I want you to have your full attention on driving. I believe you have been driving accident-free so far... but when you find yourself distracted in a situation that demands your full attention for the road, your chances suddenly don't look so good, and neither do the chances of the other people near you. I welcome laws that take care of some of these distractive activities to some extend at least; activities that I see careless drivers engage in every day.

Re:remove vanity mirrors

[duffbeer703]

Just wait until the day finally comes that you plow into some little kid while posting on slashdot and reading the morning paper.

The witnesses watching you fiddling with a PDA or oogling some milf's tits will no doubt seal the verdict in your manslaughter trial.

Re:remove vanity mirrors

[adamfranco]

Well, my car (an old Integra) only has the vanity mirror on the passenger side. Maybe there isn't a law to cause this, but it is a nice safety feature for when I let my girlfriend borrow the car. :-)

Re:remove vanity mirrors

[ChristTrekker]

Right on. Liberty is very powerful. And you know what Spider-man says.

Re:remove vanity mirrors

[Tim C]

Like the laws that say you can't hit other vehicles on the road, those laws cover this inherently because if I am not paying attention and hit someone, I get in trouble

That's true - but these laws are designed to try to prevent you from increasing your risks of hitting someone unnecessarily.

Personally, I don't care if you're distrcted by your phone, or GPS unit, or whatever, lose control and wrap your car around a lampost. I do care if you hit someone else, injuring or killing them, though.

This sort of law isn't designed to protect unwise drivers from themselves, but to protect other road users from unwise drivers.

Re:remove vanity mirrors

[Politburo]

While I agree with your post for the most part, you have left out an important piece of the puzzle.

For smaller towns which have a highway or other major road passing through them, traffic tickets are a major source of revenue. Take away all the silly laws, and you take away some of that money. If you are a safe driver and don't get tickets, you are basically avoiding a tax. If all of these laws are eliminated, the town will need to raise taxes and cut spending to make up for the difference in revenue. Many people do not take into account that these laws aren't out to "get" people, they're out to make money!

So my question to you is this: Would you rather have some silly traffic laws that make stupid and careless people pay money to the government, or a simple tax where everyone* pays money to the government?

* Yes, not everyone pays taxes. However, that's not the point here.

Re:remove vanity mirrors

[OneOver137]

A brilliant post; I'd mod it up if I had points. People who believe the fuzz care about enforcing your speed in the name of safety or conserving oil are missing the point--or rather the condition of the city coffers or the juxtaposition of an election.

Re:remove vanity mirrors

[Hal-9001]

I think there might be a regulation (or maybe just common sense) dictating that vainty mirrors can only be on the passenger side, because I can't recall seeing a vanity mirror in the driver's side of any vehicle I've been in.

Re:remove vanity mirrors

[ad0gg]

I have 0 accidents, 0 tickets, an 80 mile commute(I carpool with my roommate), most of the time during rush over its stop and go traffic with an average speed of 5 mphs. I've seen people reading books, watching movies, and even once a bus driver playing a trumpet. Hell I could close my eyes for few minutes not put anyone at risk because I'm not moving.

Re:remove vanity mirrors

[Cederic]

My car has a vanity mirror on the driver's side.

Then again, if I want to look at myself while driving I'll lean across and use the rear-view mirror.

~Cederic drove 54 miles in 41 minutes today to get to work. Distressingly it took him 45 minutes to get home again.

Re:remove vanity mirrors

[Anonymous Coward]

How about we stop you -before- you hit someone rather than waiting until after the funeral to take you to court? Here in Michigan, drunk drivers usually end up picking up trash along the freeway. I'd like to see a law that required them to do this every weekend until their victim was resurrected.

Self government doesn't work ... that's why there's an alcohol related road death every few seconds, 24 hours a day, every day. That's why there are approximately 3,000 abortions a day. That's why violent crime statistics and drug use statistics are so out of whack. That's why Enron fell -- self-government failed. That's why HIV is killing off a solid third of the population in some African countries. Like me to go on? There's more, much more. Let's consider the divorce rate or the teenage pregnancy rate or the black male high school dropout rate.

With rare exception, self-government hasn't worked since Adam and Eve decided to listen to Satan rather than God. If you can make a stronger case for self-government (aka anarchy) than you already have, let me know.

When traveling...

[dcordeiro]

it should be forbidden to do ANYTHING else but drive. And it also applies to other car passengers.

God damit!! It's not a fucking game, it's your life you're betting.

I had a terrible car accident last year because a moron driving at 200km/h crashed into my car after (without knowing) changing lanes in the highway because HE WAS TRYING TO FIND A PARTICULAR CD to play (looking at the back seat).

You should drive, not listen to music, check your appointments, answer a call, watch TV or even check the map. If you want to do any of this thinks: STOP THE CAR FIRST.

Re:When traveling...

[iainl]

Driving at 200kph (even if you're on one of the rare stretches of road in the world where this isn't speeding) and rummaging around on the back seat counts as driving without due care and attention; its illegal already, yes? Certainly would be in the UK.

Re:When traveling...

[dcordeiro]

This was just a example of "bad things" that ppl do while driving. And trying to make a law to every one of them is far fetched. I just wanted them to say: If you're driving, you're driving. Forget the rest because it's forbidden. Then, you wouldn't need a new law when eveybody starts to use the "new gizmo" while driving

Re:When traveling...

[primus_sucks]

And it also applies to other car passengers.

Sorry about your accident, but what harm would it be for a passenger to be some work on thier laptop while you are driving? I don't think keyboard clicking is too distracting.

Re:When traveling...

[Tassach]

God damit!! It's not a fucking game, it's your life you're betting

If it was just YOUR life you were risking, then (IMHO) there would be no problems. I'm all in favor of removing any obsticle that hinders the process of idiots removing themselves from the gene pool.

The point is that it's not just YOUR life that you are risking -- you are also risking MY life and my CHILDREN'S lives. I don't give a rat's ass if you wrap yourself around a telephone pole, but if you hurt my kids you better pray to your preferred diety that the police get to you first.

Re:When traveling...

[tap]

God damit!! It's not a fucking game, it's your life you're betting.

I could care less if people want to be THEIR lives, it's theirs to bet after all. What piss me off is the asshats who think they are just so damn good at multitasking that they are willing bet MY life that they can drive without looking at the road or having their hands on the wheel.

I'd like to tie them to a post and try to shoot an apple off their head. I'm think I'm a good shot, I probably won't kill them. Their life is a risk I'm willing to take.

Re:When traveling...

[iainl]

Actually, I think I was violently agreeing with you. There is (in most countries, certainly) a generic law called Driving Without Due Care And Attention (or some variant of this), which does what you're after.

The point of this particular law, as I understand it, is to clarify that the legislature regards the distraction of a screen running to be bad, without the need to prove in court that you weren't paying attention to the road. Its similiar to the mobile phones law we've just had in the UK, where its been possible to do people for DWoCaA all along, but this is now easier because you being on the phone is easier to prove than that your conversation was definitely distracting.

Re:When traveling...

[Raptor CK]

You don't, but think like someone half as smart as you. Or even 2/3rds, for that matter. That passenger may be watching a DVD on his laptop, playing a game, or just digging up something "interesting" on his screen. When this passenger mentions this to the driver, his attention will be pulled away from the road, and towards the laptop.

You're right, though. The clicking of keys shouldn't be a distraction. There are just a million other things that *would* be for any driver who lacks common sense, and there are plenty of those out there.

As a side note, on my last road trip, we had a laptop with a wireless connection, cell phones, MP3s, the whole nine yards of "Stupid things you don't do on the road." We just ran them all from the middle row, and the guy riding shotgun got to be the CD-swapping, peripheral-plugging, map-reading bitch. The end result of distraction to the driver was zero, since he didn't care, and was too busy driving to pay attention to the gear being used. It didn't hurt that we just didn't *feel* like using it most of the time, since there's really no major enhancement that a computer provides to a road trip that can't be handled by a good pick of CDs and a pile of AAA maps.

Re:When traveling...

[smchris]

God damit!! It's not a fucking game, it's your life you're betting.

Absolutely, only more so. That windshield isn't a video game display. The people you run into or over are real people who die and had lives. When little monkey behind wheel, dammit, little monkey better pay attention.

Much of my conviction comes from walking/jogging/running to work and back for many years (paradoxically?) for my health. Even though I'm in a state with a state-wide law against a vehicle entering a crosswalk when a pedestrian is present, I'm only alive a dozen times over because of the deadly-serious frosty mindset I take into a crosswalk. But it isn't just a personal issue. I have known three women in various workplaces who each had their fathers killed in a stop sign or stop light crosswalk.

Outside of anecdote, I'm sure the Slashdot audience is intelligent and can appreciate the main point of the author of Innumeracy -- that people individually and collectively make personal and policy decisions based upon poor knowledge of real-world probabilities. How about this: 3000 people killed at the World Trade Center and we have shaken up the constitution internally and disrupted the world externally. What's 3000 people? About 1-1/2 years worth of pedestrians picked off in the U.S. by other U.S. drivers. In others words, since 9/11 more U.S. citizens have been picked off in the mall parking lots and crosswalks of America than died in 9/11. Who's crying for them? Can anyone say "cultural blind spot"?

Look at it this way. Senator Janklow (R-S.D.) blew off speeding laws for decades, apparently because he was too intelligent, observant, and just plain "special" to obey them. Until he breezed through a stop sign at 70 m.p.h. and killed someone. It's just ugly, stupid, immature and sociopathic to think you are so "special" you don't have to take your responsibilities behind the wheel seriously. You want to make that a bulletpoint in your lifetime legacy?

Re:When traveling...

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't, but think like someone half as smart as you. Or even 2/3rds, for that matter. That passenger may be watching a DVD on his laptop, playing a game, or just digging up something "interesting" on his screen. When this passenger mentions this to the driver, his attention will be pulled away from the road, and towards the laptop.

How is this any different than a front seat passenger mentioning something from the book or newspaper they're reading? Or talking about something that happened that day at work? Or pointing out an unusual billboard or a cloud formation that looks like Jay Leno?

Either a person is a competent driver or not and no amount of legislation will ever change that.

not so bad

[ximpul1]

not that i RTFA but in the short description it specifies a Moving vehicle so stopping and compiling 2.6.0 et cetera is fine.

now all this about gps recivers and passengers using laptops and such now that is what needs to be refined. not that im getting arrested these days for jaywalking but the broadness of this law can be both beneficial and harmful to people who are accused but i bet it would be very tough to prove that my passenger playing super mario would affect my driving (turn that crap down!)

relying upon the judicial system (hah!) to handle exceptions and such is not only expensive to us normal carbon units (lawyers fees) but it wastes time in our courts (increased taxes).

bad form arnold....

what about

[relrelrel]

back-seat computer use?

i mean, c'mon, we're all geeks alike here,...

New Product: USB or Bluetooth interlock

[G4from128k]

The law permits displays "if that equipment has an interlock device that, when the motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive."

I would expect some clever peripherals maker (or hacker) to create an interlock device for computers that appropriately locks the computer when the car is in motion. The easiest design would simply blank the screen (a screen saver would not suffice as it might be construed as entertainment). A more complex design, tied to some navigation app, would force the display of the nav app (which is explicitly permitted under this law) and lock out all other apps and distractions. The device could connect wirelessly via bluetooth or via USB. The only obstacle is the hack into the vehicle system to detect the state of the transmission and engage the interlock when the vehicle is shifted out of the "Park."

Re:New Product: USB or Bluetooth interlock

[sean.peters]

The only obstacle is the hack into the vehicle system to detect the state of the transmission and engage the interlock when the vehicle is shifted out of the "Park."

I drive a stick shift, you insensitive clod!

Sean

Re:New Product: USB or Bluetooth interlock

[Cyberop5]

Even easier, use the already hooked up GPS to tell if you're in motion, then display accordingly. Mine GPS gives me speeds more accurate than my speedometer.
However, I leave the lid closed while in motion anyways because if I stop suddenly, it'll fly forward and hit the dash breaking the hinge at the very least.

Maybe a bluetooth device on the car to broadcast the speed. Ohhh the prospects... A cop could sniff everyone passing and not have to rely on a radar.

Recent experiences

[Atryn]

My wife and I spent the holidays out of state with family -- a 6 hour drive away. Yes, on the entire trip back she was playing a game on her laptop in the passenger seat. I did not find this distracting to *my* driving. Occasionally I would hear something and ask her what happened and she would explain.

Guess what? This is no different than rather antiquated forms of distration such as radio (in your own car or the one next to you at 5000 decibals) or (dare I say it?) conversation!

This law goes too far. It prohibits activities that may have nothing to do with the driver.

Dash DVD players usually play only in park.

[Capt_Troy]

I know those flip up DVD players that fit where your CD player normally would be are set to run only when the car is in park. You can install it yourself apparently and "forget" to hook that safety measure up of course. That begs the question though, why would you sit in your car and watch a DVD if you aren't going to go anywhere?

Re:Dash DVD players usually play only in park.

[Anonymous Coward]

It can be a great way to pass the time while the officer is writing up the ticket

Re:Dash DVD players usually play only in park.

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us have bad commutes (Atlanta) that involve many and/or long stops. Movies, books, etc. keep you sane and not bashing the idiot next to you.

This just means we need to do some app redesign.

[iainl]

Many people (myself included) have raised a point about wanting the front passenger to run mapquest/autoroute/whatever. Well, here is the exemption info from the bill:

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when
installed in a vehicle:
(1) A vehicle information display.
(2) A global positioning display.
(3) A mapping display.
(4) A visual display used to enhance or supplement the driver's view
forward, behind, or to the sides of a motor vehicle for the purpose of
maneuvering the vehicle.
(5) A television receiver, video monitor, television or video screen,
or any other, similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast
or video signal, if that equipment has an interlock device that, when the
motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a
visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive.

So, as I see it, what we really need then is some sort of Knoppix-alike that boots straight into the map application of your choice. Either that, or your navigator is going to have to sit in the back.

Re:Police

[ChipMonk]

Before anyone mods me, I did RTFA.

Since when do we simply assume that cops are better drivers than other people? The only point I'll concede to that is that they are trained to handle higher speeds. That doesn't automatically mean that they can still handle their front-seat gadgets better. If anything, driving at normal highway speeds can lull a trained person into a false sense of "normalcy".

In any case, I'm not buying the notion that cops are any better at typing while driving than the rest of us. If anything, because they are vested with more power than Average Joe, they should be distrusted more.

your parents must have been proud

[diablobynight]

What was more dangerous that he was looking for a CD or doing 200KM/H which for people that aren't european fags that's 124.2742384 mile/hour (mph). Which by the way is already illegal. So lets make laws to prevent accidents that could have been prevented by several other laws allready in place. This for instance, reckless operation, speeding, failure to signal.

Re:your parents must have been proud

[dcordeiro]

well, let me change my post a little and imagine that I was driving ad 40km/h and he was driving at 120km/h (both legal where I live). Is your post still correct ?

Re:your parents must have been proud

[diablobynight]

let me also change my post to say something completely different and then see if the question to the previous post then makes any sense, you said 200, not 120, and why was he doing the legal speed at 120 and you were doing 1/3 of his speed, that sounds like a good way to cause an accident, if you need to drive that slow, find a different road.

Re:your parents must have been proud

[Anonymous Coward]

"...which for people that aren't european fags..."

AFAIK, the US is one of the (very few) countries that still officially uses the English system of measurements...regardless of sexual orientation.

Re:your parents must have been proud

[dcordeiro]

I live in portugal, and in here the highways have two limits:
low - 40km/h
high - 120km/h

Also, in a 3 lane highway, there are also low speed limits:
right lane: 40, middle:60, left: 90

So, no! If I want to drive at 40 it's ok if I do it in the right lane. Driving at 200...there's no lane for that.
But it's not the speed the reason for my post... its the careless driving.

solutions to this problem...

[Capt_Troy]

A good solution to this for those of you who just need to watch movies while driving is to set up a series of mirrors that flip the image so that you can see it in your rearview mirror with the player in the back seat. That way you can drive down the highway staring into your rearview mirror! Or you can just get someone to ride in the backseat and provide a running commentary about what's going on in the movie. "Oh man! Murtaugh and Riggs just blew up a semi man!"

Civinilan laws dont apply to police

[nurb432]

Civilian laws don't apply to police, just ask one of them.

Seriously though, I bet there are exemptions for both civil servants and related industries such as trucking and public utilities.. ( all would be dead with out it )

Not that I care, ill still use my PDA to find my way around, if I ever visit California. Its a stupid law, and not one id respect.

Re:Civinilan laws dont apply to police

[Anonymous Coward]

that's super. Next time I am by your house, I'll remember not to respect those laws about trespassing or arson. I consider those laws stupid, therefore I will not respect them.

Re:Civinilan laws dont apply to police

[Macgruder]

DING DING DING We have a winner!

That's the core of what we call civil disobedience. You can break the law, in a peacefull manner. But you still have to accept the consequences.

Too Bad

[Gudlyf]

Looks like the sales of this doohickey are just about shot now. Shucks.

Re:Too Bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Naah... That thing was way too small for my 17" PowerBook anyways...

Re:Police

[martinX]

It is probably considered safer for emergency vehicles because:

1. The drivers of emergency vehicles are (or should be) trained to be better drivers than the average driver
2. It is an emergency vehicle. Look closely at the word emergency. As in "it is an emergency, someone might die". This is not the same as some schmo reading his email while driving in heavy traffic

As for "technologies only allowed by the government is kinda scary*", what technologies are you talking about??? This is a law governing where you can use those technologies, not which ones. Personally I consider this law redundant. This situation should be covered by, or at least tacked on to, current laws covering "thou shalt drive with due care and attention at all times". Now that is a broad law.

*What, like nuclear weapons...

I don't think this is a problem.

[tgd]

A passenger using a computer can be terribly distracting.

When you're driving a car, thats your focus -- driving. Touch screen video nagivation and vehicle controls are dangerous, too. It still amazes me they're allowed. I've watched my parents swerving all over the road trying to change radio stations in their Lexus because they retardedly put the radio controls in the GPS navigation system.

Personally, I hate having any distractions in a car when I'm driving. One of my cars is a fairly new Audi, and the dash is very nicely reserved, nothing jumping out at me. My other car is a vintage 911, and it doesn't even have a radio or a clock. I can give driving 100% of my attention in both cars.

How the government thinks its a good idea to put someone behind the wheel of a 6000lbs SUV with screaming kids and a DVD playing in the back, a touch screen navigation system, and their spouse using a laptop in the passenger seat all with 15 hours of required drivers training is totally beyond me. They'll spend billions preventing terrorism, but they could save 100x the number of people if they mandated real drivers training and taught people common sense.

Laws like this should be encouraged. Make driving more inconvenient for people who are going to be dangers on the road anyway.

Re:GPS

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were to use your eyes to read the article you would see that things like GPS are exempted from this legislation.

Re:GPS

[iainl]

Read That Fine Article. There is a specific exemption for GPS devices, Sat Nav devices and even generic devices if they are rigged in such a way to lock out the other features while the vehicle is moving.

A Wise Man Once Said

[ellem]

First they came for my Apple ][e but I upgraded already

Then they came for my Amiga 500 but I upgraded already

Then they came for my Dell with Windows 98 but I was using Linux

Then they came for my Palm Pilot but I was using paper again

Then they came for my laptop but it was in my car

So they came for my laptop in my car and there was no one left to help me!

AB 301, Reyes. Vehicles: video displays

[djupedal]

Assembly Bill No. 301
CHAPTER 303
An act to amend Section 27602 of the Vehicle Code, relating to
vehicles.
[Approved by Governor September 4, 2003. Filed
with Secretary of State September 5, 2003.]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 301, Reyes. Vehicles: video displays.
(1) Existing law prohibits any person from driving a motor vehicle
that is equipped with a television receiver, screen, or other means of
visually receiving a television broadcast, if the device is located in the
motor vehicle at any point forward of the back of the driver's seat, or is
visible to the driver while operating the motor vehicle. This prohibition
does not apply to a mobile digital terminal installed in a law enforcement
vehicle.
This bill would recast this prohibition and, additionally, would
prohibit any person from driving a motor vehicle if a video monitor, or
a video screen, or any other, similar means of visually displaying a video
signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating
and is located in the motor vehicle at any point forward of the back of
the driver's seat, or is operating and visible to the driver while driving
the motor vehicle. This prohibition would not apply to specified
equipment or to a motor vehicle providing emergency road service or
roadside assistance. Because a violation of this prohibition would be a
crime, the bill would establish a state-mandated local program.
(2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act
for a specified reason.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 27602 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
27602. (a) A person may not drive a motor vehicle if a television
receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other,
similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video
signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating
Ch. 303 --2--
93
and is located in the motor vehicle at any point forward of the back of
the driver's seat, or is operating and visible to the driver while driving
the motor vehicle.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when
installed in a vehicle:
(1) A vehicle information display.
(2) A global positioning display.
(3) A mapping display.
(4) A visual display used to enhance or supplement the driver's view
forward, behind, or to the sides of a motor vehicle for the purpose of
maneuvering the vehicle.
(5) A television receiver, video monitor, television or video screen,
or any other, similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast
or video signal, if that equipment has an interlock device that, when the
motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a
visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive.
(c) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a mobile, digital terminal
installed in an authorized emergency vehicle or to a motor vehicle
providing emergency road service or roadside assistance.
SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the
only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will
be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates
a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction,
within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or
changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of
Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

Re:AB 301, Reyes. Vehicles: video displays

[FooAtWFU]

(a) A person may not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other, similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at any point forward of the back of the driver's seat, or is operating and visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.

So what about all those high-end family minivans with the built-in video systems that fold down from the top of the roof? Those are certainly installed ahead of the driver's seat. Chrysler/Dodge/whoever should complain...

And why can't my passanger use his laptop, anyway?!? (wait, that's because it's broken with a "fan error" and needs to be brought into the tech shop... I don't live anywhere near California anyway =)

Re:AB 301, Reyes. Vehicles: video displays

[djupedal]

Too many vague references in this legislation. My system lets me view:

• DVDs/VCDs
• Rear view camera
• Video games
• iBook
• TV local

The screen is down, at the front edge of the seat, right in the middle (small pickup). It is independant of the ignition, parking brake and transmission. I can view traffic behind and to the sides while in motion...down the road or backing up in a parking lot. I can watch a map DVD or another round of Alien, all while in motion, if I choose.

The state is worried about revenue, not about safety and not about me...in turn, I'm not worried about the state.

I'll make a deal with you

[droleary]

I'll allow you these laws that limit my freedom (however justifiably) if you relax other laws that limit my freedom. To wit, for every communication device that I don't carry in my vehicle, let me go 5mph faster, since I would clearly be less distracted and therefore more able to drive at higher speeds (slower traffic move right, damn it! :-). Given that I have a motorcycle with no possible distraction from radios, cell phones, TVs, computers, massage seats, kids, or anything else to take my attention from the road, I would finally be able to open this baby up! As it stands, I'm expected to putter through traffic at the same speed as a soccer mom on her cell phone with 4 screaming kids in the back watching TV. TANJ!

Re:I'll make a deal with you

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, you motorcyclists shouldn't have a speed limit in the first place. If you feel like killing yourself, go for it.

Re:I'll make a deal with you

[AbbyNormal]

Ummmm, how about no?

They do not limit your freedom, as you don't have a right to have a laptop in your frickin vehicle while driving to begin with.

Also, while I obviously cannot speak for you, I have noticed that Speed Limits do not seem to apply to ANY people on motorcycles anyway.

Just my own observation, while living in the DC area, I have yet to see ANY motorcycle obey any speed limit wherever I have been driving.

I'm expected to putter through traffic at the same speed as a soccer mom...

Right....Who are you kidding?

Re:I'll make a deal with you

[jred]

That's just because it's awfully hard for the average cop car to keep up. I was once parking my bike at work (FedEx hub in Memphis) and one of those crotch rockets pulled up & the guy was trying to hurry & lock his bike up. A few minutes later Johnny Law pulls up & throws him in the back of the car. They clocked him doing 100+ mph waaaay back. The only reason they caught him is that particular stretch of road pretty much only goes to FedEx (well, there's other stuff, but nothing that counts).

Re:I'll make a deal with you

[morcheeba]

I like that idea, but I've got another one...

At a certain number of points on a license, drivers will not be able to use air bags. A few more points, and no seatbelts. And then after that, the doors and front windshield will be removed. And finally, after a whole lot of points, a big spike gets installed on the steering wheel. Drivers can wait the time it takes for their points to expire, or they can choose to drive very carefully.

Re:I'll make a deal with you

[Politburo]

Because driving, and riding, in a car is not a right, none of your freedoms have been limited here. Remember, your rights end where the next person's begin. That line is constantly moving in our society.

Re:I'll make a deal with you

[droleary]

They do not limit your freedom, as you don't have a right to have a laptop in your frickin vehicle while driving to begin with.

You must be new to America; welcome! Just so you know, no mention of fundamental rights was made by myself. Instead, the topic was freedom. Be aware that, in America, you are free to do anything that is not prohibited by law. I'm not sure where it is you come from, but I do hope you make a quick adjustment to what are clearly your newfound freedoms!

Also, while I obviously cannot speak for you, I have noticed that Speed Limits do not seem to apply to ANY people on motorcycles anyway.

Uh, right; as opposed to everyone else who is cruising along at 55mph? What you'll notice about motorcycles is not that they necessarily go a lot faster than everyone else, but that they can accelerate like no compact car or SUV can. So when we're both bottled up by traffic, I can easily shoot into an opening that other vehicles simply can't. That makes things go more smoothly for everyone else, too, since I'm not blocking traffic like every other pokey driver.

Just my own observation, while living in the DC area, I have yet to see ANY motorcycle obey any speed limit wherever I have been driving.

I've lived in areas all over the States, and I have yet to see any vehicle period that obeys traffic laws to the letter. That said, the danger is not speed, but the difference in speed between vehicles on the road. An idiot doing 100 in 70mph traffic is no more of a danger than an idiot doing 40. And, based on the momentum of the vehicles, a 400 pound motorcycle isn't anywhere near as destructive as an 4000 pound SUV. When it comes to safety issues, your concern should not be the motorcycle passing you, it should be the idiot in a minivan that won't get off your ass.

Re:I'll make a deal with you

[baerm]

<BLOCKQUOTE>At a certain number of points on a license, drivers will not be able to use air bags. A few more points, and no seatbelts. And then after that, the doors and front windshield will be removed. And finally, after a whole lot of points, a big spike gets installed on the steering wheel. Drivers can wait the time it takes for their points to expire, or they can choose to drive very carefully.</BLOCKQUOTE>

After I finished laughing, I had to agree and I think the idea needs to be expanded:

The points should be allocatable by other drivers... 'that crazy bastard that just passed me on the shoulder, zap, he gets a crazy point'

Which bring me to the next topic, We need two sets of points:
idiot points & crazy points.

Guy driving in the fast lane at 60 with the number two lane empty?, he gets an idiot point. Guy sitting, stopped, at the stop sign, that waits for me to drive 50 yards up to the stop sign and come to a full and complete stop before he goes, that loser gets an idiot point.

Guy crossing three lanes of traffic at 90 while every one else is going 70, he gets a crazy point. Guy tail-gaiting on the freeway when I'm passing cars in the lane to the right, he gets a crazy point. (rationally, anyone that tail-gaits a car at 70 MPH probably deserves a crazy point)

Crazy point punishment is the above (I particularly like the spike ;) ).

Idiot point punishment is a little different: at a certain number of points, they get more airbags. A few more points and they get more seat belts. 4,5,6 point, etc. After that, a helmet and a full protective suit are required. Finally, after a whole lot of points, their car is anchored to the ground with large metal cables.

Re:I'll make a deal with you

[morcheeba]

That's great! I also had thought of the point system assignable by other drivers (anonymous & hard to forge, of course), but hadn't broken it into two kinds. I love how you handled the idiot points - LOL!

What about the police?

[ruiner13]

I assume law enforcement is exempt from this? Have you seen lately all the computer equipment in the front seat of a police car, aimed directly at the officer driving? Doesn't seem fair that they are allowed to use that stuff and the average joe isn't. Most of the time around here, I see the police driving far worse than anyone else on the road.

I think this is a problem.

[djupedal]

Laws like this should be encouraged.

ouch...

Next it will be the way you hold the steering wheel or the shoes you wear while driving. You'll be forced to buy state mandated fire proof clothes and install halon systems just to leave your driveway.

When your car has a cage to keep you from interacting with your passengers, you'll be free to wonder what happened to your rights as a human. Think I'm kidding? Watch this law die soon.

Re:I think this is a problem.

[tgd]

Actually one my cars does have a cage, and is quite a bit too loud to interact with the passenger.

With a lot of things, I'd agree with you, but driving is one of the most dangerous things an average person does every day, and people are not properly trained at it. If the government isn't going to step up and require proper training, severely limiting what they can do while driving is an acceptable alternative, because someone who is properly trained and understands what they are doing wouldn't be doing those things in the first place.

Re:I think this is a problem.

[djupedal]

I've done many things, over the years, to make my vehicles safer, from better brakes to better visibility....from better lights to safer steering wheel grip...from better seat belts to improved shock absorbers. The list is very long.

In turn, the Calif. Highway Patrol is more worried about things the state can make money on, such as checking for expired tags. Many years ago, a CHP Officer would check things like burned out brake lights and worn tires...now, they only want to know if you can be ticketed for something that will earn the state more money. I've been responsible for my own vehicle safety for years, and I'm going to continue that trend, regardless of what the state does.

Let me say that another way. California does not worry about safety...only about revenue.

If I want a display in view while driving, that's what I'm going to do. Mine lets me view a rear-view camera and surf maps, etc. Of course it also provides TV and DVD...so what.

Re:I think this is a problem.

[CmdrGravy]

well yeah, if you just take any old law and then extend it randomly with the paronoid mutterings of your subconcious then it probably will end up being a bad thing.

Backseat Driver not affected?

[Bu Na Dan]

So where is the geekfriendly car with steeringdevices at the backseat? /.ing pages while driving seems to be affected by this law only for front-seat drivers.

Re:Backseat Driver not affected?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, the law says you can't have the device anywhere in front of the driver's seat. So if the driver's seat were in the back, then no one could use the laptop.

War Driving?

[EvilOpie]

Does this count if you have a laptop sitting open on the passenger seat while war driving for wireless networks, even if you don't look at it? :-)

Though this makes me curious. I know that in NY the driver isn't allowed to see the screen while driving, but this would mean that the passenger couldn't see it either? (at least in CA) And does this apply to police officers? While I don't know what police cars are like in CA, here all of the cars in our county have laptops installed in them. This makes me wonder if a provision will be written in for emergency vechiles. Not like it's a big deal anyway since one cop would never pull over another for having a standard issue laptop in his squad car, even if it IS still illegal.

B-Jobs ...

[Anonymous Coward]

At leats you can still get you lady provide you with some mouth jobs while driving ...

The legal principle has always been. . .

[kfg]

that no TV or such like device be visible to the driver. They can be there, but they have to be angled in such a manner that only the passenger can see them.

In other words, when driving a car your eyes belong on the road.

If you are driving alone and need to consult a gps unit for directions there is a simple first step to follow:

Park the frickin' car.

Honestly, it won't kill you, but not doing so just might. . .

as well as some other poor schmuck whose only transgression was to be anywhere near you.

KFG

Re:The legal principle has always been. . .

[Brobock]

It would be entertaining seeing tons of cars just parked on the side of the highway. Also you now run into the problem of safety pulling back into highspeed traffic from the shoulders.

"Just pulling over" is difficult to do. People tend to pull over and want to assist thinking you are having car problems or your blocking the shoulders that possible emergency vehicles need to use to get by.

Re:The legal principle has always been. . .

[kfg]

Well, perhaps my milage is different from the average bear, but I've always found that when traveling on a limited access highway the need for a gps has been obviated by the fact that my route has already been chosen for me. There really isn't much of any place to go but straight ahead.

If I've been neglectful of my route to such and extent that I'm not sure which exit I'm headed for I've also noted that on most of these highways there are periodic places where you can park for just such purposes as reading a map, taking a whiz, obtaining fuel, etc. without any need to actually exit the highway.

Where such are absent, well, exit. Park. Read map. Reenter.

The inconvenience is rather less than that engendered by causing a flaming wreck.

KFG

Re:Police

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a Police Agency and can tell you it's a safety issue. When a cop pulls over someone for speeding, it's nice to be able to check to see if they have a violent history or not before he/she walks up to the car. Sure there are other ways of checking but having a terminal is the way of the world these days.

Shaving

[foyle]

What about using electric shavers while driving? I'm amazed by the number of guys I see shaving in the car on the way to work in the morning. How long does it take to shave before you get in the car? A minute? Two minutes?

When you're driving a car, you should be driving and not doing anything else. At all. Not a thing.

Dispatch Laptops in Service Vehicles??

[Anonymous Coward]

I happen to work for a major power company in the Southeast US. We have pretty much all our fleet trucks that make service calls outfitted with a laptop and southernlinc radio (like nextel) for recieving orders and service calls from dispatchers ... It's a full featured laptop that's mounted in the vehicle... I have to wonder if companies in California have anything like this. I'm sure they do somewhere ... It's not clear to me if the law would make this type of use illegal or not.

Re:Dispatch Laptops in Service Vehicles??

[dammy]

It probably would and don't forget delivery vehicles like UPS and FedEx have those as well. Let me guess, the author of this stupid bill is a Democrat, right?

Dammy

Proactively punishing negligence

[FreeUser]

The law already covers this inherently. THe driver that causes the accident gets a ticket. Why is this law even needed?

Because they would like to empower the police to put a stop to dangerous behavior before it causes an accident. The prior law you cite only accounted for assigning blame after an accident had already occurred...it did little if anything to prevent accidents ahead of time, or to allow the police to do so if they observed someone behaving dangerously (like half the cell phone users on the road).

Now, this particular form of negligent driving (fiddling with a laptop while driving) is punishable, without the need for twisted metal and carnage first. I too agree that it is overly broad: a passenger navigating should be able to use GPSdrive (more effecient and really no different than using a map), and anyone should be able to use a cell phone provided they are using a handsfree set with voice-tagged numbers. However, fiddling with the thing and looking up names/numbers on the phone while driving is rightly prohibited.

The real issue is that the law hasn't looked at the technology close enough, or drawn the line finely enough, between legitimate, enabling technology (e.g. getting directions on a handsfree phone while driving, or having a navigating passenger use a computer to avoid getting lost) and stupid, moronic, negligent use of technology (browsing the web while driving, watching tv whilee driving, manually tuning the radio while driving, fiddling with one's cell phone while driving, or driving one handed while holding the cell phone up to one's ear). One can reasonably expect future revisions of the law to refine this, particularly as virtually every automobile gets sophisticated computer equipment and "glass cockpit" style displays installed in future models.

Re:Proactively punishing negligence

[anthony_dipierro]

I too agree that it is overly broad: a passenger navigating should be able to use GPSdrive (more effecient and really no different than using a map), and anyone should be able to use a cell phone provided they are using a handsfree set with voice-tagged numbers.

The real issue is that the law hasn't looked at the technology close enough, or drawn the line finely enough, between legitimate, enabling technology (e.g. getting directions on a handsfree phone while driving, or having a navigating passenger use a computer to avoid getting lost) and stupid, moronic, negligent use of technology (browsing the web while driving, watching tv whilee driving, manually tuning the radio while driving, fiddling with one's cell phone while driving, or driving one handed while holding the cell phone up to one's ear).

Or maybe you just haven't looked at the law closely enough (if at all). GPS and mapping applications are explicitly exempted.

Re:Proactively punishing negligence

[Anonymous Coward]

"california, filled with idiots that would elect the terminator"

You do realise that Arnold is an actor, right? That the movies he makes are not real? That he's not really an assassin cyborg?

Sheesh..

Re:Proactively punishing negligence

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree completely. Dangerous behavior should be stopped before it occurs, by addressing the causal agents.

In fact, as with "open container" laws, I believe there should be a blanket front-seat ban on any items possessing the capability to distract a driver, including newspapers, drinks and food, trash or debris, cigarettes, compasses, clocks, cell phones, computers, GPS equipment and passengers.

Individual liberty must sometimes be sacrificed to preserve collective safety, and the lowest common denominators should be the basis of our laws. History bears this out.

Re:Proactively punishing negligence

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget about car radios, CBs, cigarette lighters, air conditioning, window/sunroof controls and lumbar adjustment. But in-car distractions are only the beginning. Our roads must be completely safe from distracted drivers, not just safe from a subset of those.

So, let's not forget about external distractions, either: hitchhikers, homeless with signs, neon signs, billboards, construction workers (with eye-catching orange gear), restaurant signs visible prior to an exit, attractive flora or fauna, the sun (in certain positions), skywriting, ferris wheels visible beyond carnival grounds, other cars with too-loud stereos, roadkill, potholes and (most importantly) road accidents. All must be verboten.

Drivers must focus on the road. Driving is too complex an activity to allow (legally) any other activity at the time of driving.

Re:Proactively punishing negligence

[srleffler]

Or maybe you just haven't looked at the law closely enough (if at all). GPS and mapping applications are explicitly exempted.

The law only exempts them if the device displaying them is "installed" in the vehicle. If your passenger is using a map program on a laptop to navigate, you are breaking the law.

Re:Proactively punishing negligence

[anthony_dipierro]

If your passenger is using a map program on a laptop to navigate, you are breaking the law.

Arguably, you're probably right. Most prosecutors probably wouldn't be so technical, however.

Every Police Cruiser in Riverside, CA

[kiley]

Every one of these has a laptop docking station. Each officer puts it in every time they are in the car. I don't know what this will mean and I haven't read the article or the law...but it seems like a conflict there.

Steve Jobs thanks the assembly member

[Soong]

Because now I have to buy an iPod since I can't use iTunes on my PowerBook for driving music anymore.

Re:Steve Jobs thanks the assembly member

[Samuel Nitzberg]

Yes, But there is a significant loophole here.

If you are listening to any of William Shatner's recordings, you can claim that it was not for Eductional (or Business) purposes.

No Jury would convict you.

Re:Laptops while driving

[li99sh79]

Passengers with laptops would probably be LESS distracting to drivers than passengers WITHOUT laptops.

Not neccesarily. My brother and I did a bit of long distance driving a couple months ago and when I was driving he popped a Cowboy Bebop DVD into my Powerbook. Having those moving pictures and sounds on the edge of my peripheral vision was a distraction. I kept stealing glances at the laptop trying to follow the DVD instead of keeping my eyes on the road.

On the other hand I've used a laptop+GPS combo many times while riding shotgun and it's been a big help, so it cuts both ways I guess.

-sam

Implicit exemption for education and research?

[JetScootr]

It prohibits computers "a video signal that produces entertainment or business applications"
So if you're wardriving, and you call it research or education (depends on whether you have a gov't grant), you're exempt from this law. So do all your school reports in social studies and English on the kind of geeks that wardrive and the jargon they use.
Did I read that right?

How is it more of a distraction?

[cnelzie]

Have you ever noticed that your eyes can be drawn to a screen, particularly one that has moving images on it? A large portion of the populace has this 'issue', a driver that is having a conversation is more likely to be keeping his/her eyes on the road then a driver that has a screen of moving images close by in the periphery of their vision.

Personally, I have some trouble with going to places that have televisions on in the background, my eyes are constantly drawn to them, even taking me out of conversations, it's not something I enjoy and is one of the reasons that I rarely watch television at home, I like to focus on the things that are in front of me and it is difficult to do that with the distraction of television.

I can see it being just as distracting to have a passenger with a laptop or other moving image device directly in my peripheral vision. Now, if there is some kind of 'curtain' that keeps the device from my view, that's okay with me. However, who wants to really risk damaging their delicate electronic device by having it fly off your lap when the driver slams on the breaks?

Re:How is it more of a distraction?

[miskatonic alumnus]

Have you ever noticed that your eyes can be drawn to the face of a person with whom you're having a conversation with? A large portion of the populace has this 'issue'.

Re:How is it more of a distraction?

[cnelzie]

That's less of an issue in a vehicle when you are sitting side by side with someone in seats designed to face your body forward. Personally, I rarely look at the person beside me in the vehicle, unless I am at a stoplight.

Re:How is it more of a distraction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, the passenger next to you is probably also watching the road somewhat during your conversation. They can keep quiet if they notice a tricky driving situation ahead (to remove the distraction). A laptop/movie will not shut off automatically under the same circumstances.

Re:How is it more of a distraction?

[Hans Lehmann]

Have you ever noticed that your eyes can be drawn to a screen, particularly one that has moving images on it?

I don't have any video displays in my car, but spending as much time as I do crawling along the Los Angeles freeways, I see an awful lot of minivans & SUVs with TV's mounted behind the front seats to keep the kiddies amused. And yes, I find myself concentrating on what's happening on the display in that car in front of me, wondering if I've seen that episode of SpongeBob SquarePants.

Re:How is it more of a distraction?

[Anonymous Coward]

A quote from only two days ago:

Passenger (Rob) is on laptop with cell phone for internet access. Driver (Jason) is uh, driving.

"JASON!!! Stop reading Slashdot and DRIVE!"

who is pushing this?

[commo1]

Imagine the following: The makers of GPSs and other mobile units might be behind this legislation (bear with the conspiracy theory here....) They would have two product lines, one WITH games and one without... You could have some units sold as "legislation x123 2003 compliant" and possibly charge more for less functionality. They could then be labelled as a more industrial-class application with all kinds of certifications (which aren't hard for companies like Motorola and Nokia, etc. to get) and be selling the same products for twice the end-user price and 10 times the profit. Especially with the commoditization of the marketplace in cell phones and PDA-type units, this could be the margin builder they were looking for.

On a recent trip...

[theinfobox]

I found it very valuable to have my laptop out while my wife was driving (and vice versa). We used it for navigation (MS Streets and Trips) and entertainment. The maps were extremely helpful in getting around traffic jams and construction. No paper map would have been as good. It also helped us find hotels and restaurants along our route. For the entertainment, I would play DIVX movies and place the laptop on the center console in our truck so my son in the back could watch. While this was technically in the view of the driver, I don't think either my wife or me ever even glanced at it.

If we didn't have the laptop, we would have been stuck in traffic with a cranky 4 year old. What fun.

Besides, I thought California already had a law that said the driver should not have anything in the car that can interfere with their driving. I was told that the law was made so that it could include just about anything (makeup, eating, etc).

Radios, OnStar and sex is next

[gelfling]

Honestly - the great state of Calistan is going to require an armed psychiatrist with a cattleprod and a bottle of Prozac to sit in the lap of every driver soon.

Re:Police

[CmdrGravy]

I don't know how it goes in California, if you just stick a badge on someone and say "Hey, you're a cop now and here's your car" then there would be no assumption they are better drivers than other people.

On the other hand if you have made sure any cops driving cars have had advanced driving instruction and are well versed in when and when it's not OK to use the computers and other jiggery pokery then you should be confident that they are capable of operting safley and effectivley. If you aren't confident of that then they shouldn't be driving.

"If anything, because they are vested with more power than Average Joe, they should be distrusted more."

That's just amusing, you certainly shouldn't trust them with badges, or guns, or cars at all - just let them wander around in a bright yellow suit so everyone can see what they are doing !

I think what you might mean though that their actions are subject to more scrutiny than the average Joe, the only way you can trust them to be doing their job effectivley is after all is make sure you test them and train them enough so you are sure about their competence.

Again I don't know about US police forces ( although I have seen them in action on "The 100 most violent car chases in the world" often enough to be sure I don't ever want to be arrested by them ) but I would certainly hope that they are highly trained and well managed.

Re:aarg

[MorrowLess]

Um.....yeah they actualy used "your" correctly. You might want to reread what your'e complaining about.

Leave the Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like the way California is headed, then do like many of us and move. It's not too hard to find a state with a much lower cost of living, lower taxes, and less government BS. There are jobs elsewhere and the pay isn't much less. (if you consider the cost of living, pay likely increase.)

Re:Leave the Nanny State

[kalislashdot]

All but the weather. I love that is is 65 degrees in the winter. I am a SoCal native and can't imagine living anywhere else. But you are right, some things really push my loyality.

The big picture

[boatboy]

This kind of stuff supports the notion of small government. Name one piece of legislation regarding technology where the legislature has made a rational, informed decision that soundly addressed the issues at hand. Cell phones, spam, digital rights, HDTV- the list goes on of government screwing up things by trying to micro-manage technology.

As with most technology issues, a simple, general solution would have sufficed, and may already be on the books in the form of reckless driving laws.

Re:Police

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it can be considered an interesting post. I think he meant, "Why is it safe for emergency vehicles and not for the rest of us?"... technologies only allowed by the government is kinda scary... He raises a valid point, even if he didn't RTFA

The average (and I know some people do actually go far beyond this) driver has had several hours of very basic on-road training. This hopefully can allow them to handle basic crisis situations, but it's certainly not perfect.

Emergency Service types (police, ambulance, fire department, etc.) get a lot of additional training, but are held to much stricter standards.

I have a friend who is a policeman, and he's had training in a lot of precision high-speed maneuvering, dealing with very bad road conditions and similar. I got him to go to an autocross event and run, and he did pretty well, because he had a lot of background experience. This training, I believe, does include practice in multi-tasking between driving and radio work, for example.

However, the bad side is that if he wrecks his squad car, there better be a good explanation for it, or he's screwed. He could lsoe his job if it's for something stupid that might not be a concern for us 'regular' drivers. If his car has to be replaced, that's taxpayer money.

Now, as far as I know, the in-car laptops aren't used while driving, at least locally. They are in a position to be used from the driver's seat, but that doesn't mean it's at all procedure for the local cops to run tags while driving 70 mph.

Different standards.

No, not really hard to tell

[Baloo Ursidae]

The whole concept of "fault" is to decide who wasn't paying attention and should have been. That being said, I think California should make it harder to obtain a driver's license and enforce actually having one to begin with before deciding what people are allowed to do while driving. While living in Los Angeles, my family had a car totalled by a Mexican border jumper who ran into it parked on the shoulder in front of our house. LAPD's response was, "Well, we can't charge him, he doesn't have a driver's license or insurance, have a nice life, fuck off." And you can make anybody from neighboring states raise their blood pressure by mentioning Californian drivers...man they're terrable.

Re:No, not really hard to tell

[crzfire]

I totally agree with this. I have a friend that moved here from france and she told me that they have to take 40 hours of drivers training there. Also a license cost a hell of a lot more. I also think that they should focus more on training bad drivers then just training young drivers. I cant even begin to remember how many times i have been cut off, or almost got into an accident with some older person that looks like there just got there license yesterday

Re:What about the police?

[Jeremiah Blatz]

I assume law enforcement is exempt from this?

RTFA, dumbass.

Yet another CA pain to do business in & with i

[Multics]

I'm sure there were already distracted driver statutes on the books (Ref anyone?). Was this needed to complicate things more?

This kind of creeping legislation that trys to mandate common sense doesn't help anyone whose trying to do the right thing. I have friends that drive a pickup with hard mounted surveying equipment in it and the passenger operates the equipment. How the hell are they supposed to operate under this silliness?

To those of you /. readers (me included) that have had visits with distracted drivers... TAKE THERE LICENSES FROM THEM. Throw these thoughtless in jail.

-- Multics

Loose heavy objects in general...

[dpbsmith]

I'm currently in a state of denial, because, having a longish commute, and a car with a ridiculously small trunk, the passenger compartment of my car is chock full of things I might happen to need. (My commute is seriously lacking in convenient places where I could stop the car, get out, and get things out of the trunk).

A couple of months ago, Reader's Digest had a genuinely scary article about the hazards of loose objects in passenger compartments in an accident. It made a lot of sense--I remember reading about how demolition-derby participants make a fetish of having their passenger compartments almost surgically clean. RD had horror stories about kids being killed by loose cell phones.

I realize that I had a bunch of genuinely mental pictures about how an accident could occur occur--my mental notion is that I hit something while travelling forward, and that everything in the back seat will conveniently and safely be stopped by the seatbacks. RD made me realize that wasn't how things happen.

Anyway... apart from the distraction factor... it seems to me that you can make a case that anything as heavy as a laptop probably shouldn't be in the passenger compartment at all.

Danger Danger

[CmdrGravy]

The parent really should have pointed out that you are still allowed to breathe and operate you limbs and other body parts pertinent to driving whilst in a car.

I apologise if anyone has died as a result of his omissions.

"well meaning but overly broad"? I think not

[fw3]

I have an acquaintance at whom (or whose behavior) this is directly aimed; who routinely drives a 3 ton pickup truck, often with his laptop affixed to a installed bracket playing DVDs. Dumb.

Thankyou, because I expect there are a lot of people doing this crap I'm perfectly glad if the law wants to also restrict the front-seat passenger also watching DVDs which would likely distract the vehicle operator.

Toys are toys, if you want to play with your car rather than drive it then buy a big enough piece of land that you can get in a wreck without killing anyone else.

Police do IM while driving!

[Anonymous Coward]

Been on a ride-a-long lately? Did you know that the police can (and some do) use those front-seat computers just to IM one another? Sheesh.

Extreme Programming

[mcpkaaos]

Even if your car-pooling front seat passenger is just doing some programming, you can be charged with a crime

See what happens when people blindly preach the "greatness" of extreme programming? Shit like this happens. It used to be that the passenger could haxor some sick ass code like a phreak or whatever without fear of a ticket. Now with that new, trendy "paired progamming" you went ahead and ruined it for the rest of us!

Guess I'll just go back to drinking booze while I get my ride to work. At least then I'd have an excuse for not getting my work done.

Front seat or driver-visible?

[Jeremiah Blatz]

The law specifically disallows laptops in the car "if the device is located in the motor vehicle at any point forward of the back of the driver's seat, or is visible to the driver while operating the motor vehicle." I'm a bit confused by this. The language used is quite sloppy - is it okay if there's a screen in the front seat that's pointed away from the driver? The article seemed to imply that the law merely applied to driver-visible displays, but the law seems ambiguous. Is it OR or XOR?

Re:walking is also complex, get rid of walkmens

[JPelorat]

How do you find room for all that arrogance and still have enough breathable air around you?

QRIO the bi-pedal robot, among others...

Gee....

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess this means that all the police that use their front dashboard computers are now going to have to write themselves tickets each day.

Next they will ban the front seat bj!

[Anonymous Coward]

And there will go yet another great american ideal! I tell you this is terrible! I can see it now, being stopped by the cop, who says "take it to the back seat, you two..."...

Time to bust the cops??

[buffy]

As of January 1, 2004 the State of California has banned the use of notebook computers used anywhere in the front seat (PDF) of a moving vehicle.

So...most cop cars have laptops installed, facing the driver EVEN. So...under this law, such a practice is now illegal, right?

Obvious "truths"

[whiskeypete]

I wish I could find a copy of the article, but about 25 years ago, Popular Science reported about a company that was developing a heads-up style television display for a car. It projected a large television image on the windshield that the driver would be able to see as if it were floating several feet ahead of vehicle.

"Obviously" such a device would be a traffic hazard, right? It turns out that in the testing that they did, the drivers using the HUD to watch TV while driving performed BETTER than they did when not watching. Especially in instances where they needed to avoid a sudden danger. It turns out that having the TV on meant that the driver kept their eyes on the road more consistantly, and were able to respond faster.

The company was never able to bring it to market, because their legal department knew that they could never win any lawsuit. They knew that most people, including juries, don't let facts get in the way of pre-conceived opinions.

Re:Obvious "truths"

[aber]

> It turns out that in the testing that they did,
> the drivers using the HUD to watch TV while
> driving performed BETTER than they did when not
> watching.

Those were not male drivers, I asure you ;-)

Seriously, I find it very hard to believe that a normal person would be able to pay attention to a show projected on their windshield, and still be fully aware to what is happening outside. And frankly, how could they possibly be able to test that properly?

Now I do believe that a hud would be great if it would project intrument info (speed, rpm, even navigation) to the windshield. That would be very helpful indeed.

Re:Obvious "truths"

[whiskeypete]

Seriously, I find it very hard to believe that a normal person would be able to pay attention to a show projected on their windshield, and still be fully aware to what is happening outside.

1) The display was projected as if it were outside.
2) Like I said before, it is very hard to let facts or evidence change pre-concieved opinions. They did the tests and it does make sense when you realize that many accidents happen because the driver is not looking at the road in front of them.

And frankly, how could they possibly be able to test that properly?
Easy, have people drive with it on and with it off. See who hits more of the pop-up items on the test course.

Re:Obvious "truths"

[andyrut]

a heads-up style television display for a car. It projected a large television image on the windshield...

It would be rather interesting for the driver if they were watching car chase flicks (i.e. Dukes of Hazzard or Fast and the Furious) on their windshield.

The past conflicts with the future

[div_2n]

I am speaking purley out of speculation so take this with a grain of salt.

It seems to me that in the past when cars were invented, there weren't many things other than conversation to occupy people's time.

Now we have every gizmo imaginable and you can even communitcate with others via cell phone and internet.

Thus it is that I say the automobile and road travel has reached a point where it is no longer viable with our daily habits. We need to either move our travel to trains or have auto-pilot for vehicles.

It would seem that with GPS and other technologies it shouldn't be that hard to automate automobile travel. The hard part of course would be to transition from the current system to an automated one. Tremendous amounts of computing power would be needed to monitor the system and of course security would be a concern.

Now that I think about it, automated driving would help reduce traffic jams and such as people would automatically be routed the most efficient way with current load.

Re:Police

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it is a problem. I work in the gas utility business. 99.99% of my work is non-emergency; you'd read about the few emergencies in the newspaper. We use laptops and gps to see maps of the mains and services, find previously located gas leaks, and find our way in neighborhoods we're unfamiliar with.

Looks to me like Kalifornia needs to modify their new law just a little. Did anyone see an exception for delivery vehicles? What about insurance adjusters? Realtors? Lame-ass law if you ask me.

He should have had a computer

[wardomon]

http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/news/20040102p2a00m0dm00 7000c.html

Driving directions can help prevent accidents too

[hellfire]

I think the law has the right idea. The driver needs to concentrate on driving and human beings are careless on the road compared to anything else. We are scared of SARS and mad cow now, but heaven forbid we be scared of auto accidents, which are one of the largest killers of Americans every year.

However, if I have a passenger, or "Navigator," siting in the seat next to me, it very well should be allowed that they have a PDA or laptop which can connect to something like driving directions. How many times have you seen a nervous travelling couple get into an accident because they were lost and didn't know where to go? I think the driver should have both hands on the wheel but the passenger can really help out by helping the driver get there.

DVDs are entertainment only, and its real easy for the driver to get caught up for fifteen crucial seconds in a cute little scene in Finding Nemo and cause an accident. There's also not a very good way for the front seat passenger to watch DVDs without also allowing the driver to do so. With a laptop in use by the passenger there are simply too many useful things that you can do, some of which in fact help prevent accidents!

I also think banning all cell phone use by the driver is a bit much too, for example. If I drive, I always always always use my cell phone with an earphone and keep both hands on the wheel. It feels like legislation will be passed on of these days to require including in a car clamps that keep both hands on the wheel while the engine is on. Next thing you know, manual transmissions are going to be illegal because you have to take a hand off the wheel!

Perhaps if the United States invested more in affordable public transportation we'd fix the problems of accidents more easily.

Man!

[xmuskrat]

What, now I can't drive in California and watch Terminator?

Can laptops be used as GPS?

[Saint Stephen]

Since GPS/maps is allowed, but computers are disallowed: are computers being used as GPS/maps allowed? I bet the cop would pull you over anyway.

I use my laptop with an Earthmate sometimes. So they are saying a PocketPC/Palm with a GPS is okay but a laptop is not?

Re:walking is also complex, get rid of walkmens

[diablobynight]

oh and I am well aware of that robot, Honda made great strives, but watch him walk, he is slow and has a terrible time with stairs, it's like watching paint dry. My point is highly difficult to program because of the complexity of bi-pedal motion and yet we find it simple

Cabs & cops often have computer displays

[Roblimo]

Years ago a cab company I worked with evaluated in-car dispatch terminals. We piloted them in 20 cabs (out of ~350) and decided that they were enough of an accident risk not to install them fleet-wide. A competing company got them, and sure enough, their accident rate, especially rear-ends, went up, and there was no evidence that they were able to handle radio calls more efficiently than with traditional voice dispatching.

In fact, the only two supposed advantages of the computer system were that dispatching through it didn't take as much skill as radio dispatch so dispatchers could get paid less; and drivers who didn't speak English well enough for fast radio conversation could supposedly take radio calls more easily, but in the end everyone we knew who installed the systems found that these advantages never really materialized, because drivers who had trouble with English had trouble reading onscreen maps, and dispatchers still needed strong radio skills for emergency situations.

We heard that local police departments (this was in Maryland) that installed mobile dispatch terminals also had higher accident rates, although for both cops and cabbies the increases leveled off as drivers got used to splitting their attention.

I feel using a computer while driving is far more distracting than using a cell phone or other audio communication device. Most sensory input needed to drive safely is visual. But I don't think laws against computers in the front seat make sense. I've had both friends and cab/limo passengers use laptops in the front seat while I was driving, and found that this was lots less distracting than female passengers getting naked in the rear seat and shoving their breasts out the windows or over the seat onto my neck.

- Robin

Re:Cabs & cops often have computer displays

[weston]

I've had both friends and cab/limo passengers use laptops in the front seat while I was driving, and found that this was lots less distracting than female passengers getting naked in the rear seat and shoving their breasts out the windows or over the seat onto my neck.

And clearly, this should remain legal. ;)

Re:Cabs & cops often have computer displays

[NuttyBee]

I multitask well. I am very comfortable operating a car, changing the radio station, adjusting my GPS, and taking a phone call all in the span of 2 minutes while driving. Not everyone should do this, in fact most people should not do this. But if you are HIGHLY aware of your surroundings and aware that you are being distracted so you need to concentrate extra hard on other drivers and your car -- you can do it. I do it.

In 10 years, I haven't caused a single accident or been given a citation. In that time, I've had 5+ incidents where people have backed into me, rear ended me, and scraped my car as part of "normal" driving. These drivers had no distractions, except for being lousy drivers.

This idea that people can't decide for themselves how much sensory loading they can handle is absurd. You gave me a license to drive, let me decide how much technology I can manage at once. If I'm concerned about my ability to interface with it while driving, I don't use it or I pull over.

I can see the marketing campaign .. "Don't Play GTA3 and Drive!"

Re:walking is also complex, get rid of walkmens

[Deflagro]

I don't want to flame or anything but that was a dumb argument.

Driving is not something you learn from birth that gets burned into your brain becoming a virtual instinct. There is a difference. Say you glance down at your laptop for 2 seconds (at least) and the guy next to you decides to merge into your car. Wow, if you were paying attention you could have avoided that, amazing.

Now if you are walking, this extremely complex thing, and reading at the same time and fail to see the staircase ahead and fall down, well then you should have paid attention.

If your car had a HUD built into the windshield, then yea, go nuts. Then all you need to do is focus and unfocus. Mouse and controls built into the steering wheel....hrmmm. Patent office here I come :P

Re:Police

[Anonymous Coward]

Before anybody says RTFA and points out that navigation systems are okay, know that our laptops are used for MORE than simple navigation.

so f*cking stupid

[Ender Ryan]

Ok, I can understand banning these devices for use by the driver, but the front seat passenger?

That is ludicrous! Fuckin' Californian morons...

This isn't about safety

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about allowing some politicians to show the people back home that they care about saving the children. If they really cared about safety they'd simply pass a law requiring that the driver keep both hands on the wheel. That'd prevent everything from using a laptop to shaving to drinking coffee, but that law is probably already on the books so there's no way to win any points with the soccer moms with it.

You should have posted that anonymously

[Anonymous Coward]

If you ever get into an accident while you're talking on the cell phone or typing on a laptop, you'd better seriously hope two things:

1. You didn't seriously injure or kill anyone, and

2. if you did seriously injure or kill someone, their lawyer remains ingorant of your post.

Juries love to stick it to selfish, arrogant twits.

don't CA police cruisers...

[penguin7of9]

Also allowed under the new law are visual displays that help drivers of large vehicles maneuver, screens with a device that locks it in the "off" position when the car is moving and screens in law enforcement and safety vehicles and school buses.

Great. Police get to play PacMan and munch on donuts while driving, while the rest of us can't use a laptop to display a moving map. Flipping through a paper map while driving, which is what most people will likely be doing instead, is just so much safer, right?

Pulling off the highway to look at a map is often pretty much impossible in California: if you take a random exit (remember: you don't know where you are, otherwise you wouldn't be looking at a map), you often end up on another highway or road where you can't stop either and it may take you a long time to find your way back. And you can't just pull over to the breakdown lane because the police is going to stop by within minutes and ask you what your problems is.

Moron

[nurb432]

The laws against events such as arson and trespassing are related to the respect of another person's property.

The law in question from California is purely ludicrous once you actually read it. It has no real value, therefore I personally will ignore it. Much as I do any law that impedes my constructional rights.

Even if you were serious, you aren't comparing apples to apples.. But I bet you just thought you'd make a cute statement instead.. Well, you didn't.

Television video folks, not computer video

[ScrappyLaptop]

Seems to me, and I am no lawyer, that just about every time the word "video" was mentioned in the text of AB301, the word "television" preceded it. In the few instances that it did not, it was referring to a television video screen, used to show full screen images of scenes. Could we be confusing what we consider video (VGA, QVGA, SVGA *and* NTSC or PAL) and what normal everyday people consider video (Broadcast, DVD and VCS)?

It's amazing we need laws for common sense

[chia_monkey]

It baffles the mind that we need so many laws nowadays to keep people from killing each other or from harming themselves. "Warning, coffee is hot." WTF? You should know this. And now we have to make a LAW that says "keep your eyes and your mind on the road while driving"

Granted, some people are soooooo talented and they can talk on the phone, chew gum, read a map, drink coffee, compose a musical, write a novel, read a map, and go to the bathroom all while driving. But the other 99% of humanity finds that when you take your eyes off the road, especially for extended periods of time, and requiring the use of your brain to comprehend things other than driving (or swerving cars, kids running in the street, other people not paying attention, etc), their driving becomes severely impaired.

The part that REALLY gets me about this is that it shows how selfish and ignorant some people are. Fine, maybe you're a good driver. But you're out ther with thousands of other drivers. And other sudden hazzards and obstacles. Pay attention to the other drivers and keep everyone on the road safe.

Re:It's amazing we need laws for common sense

[laird]

"It baffles the mind that we need so many laws nowadays to keep people from killing each other or from harming themselves. "Warning, coffee is hot." "

People keep getting this wrong. The McDonalds lawsuit (http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm) went against them because they made coffee dangerously hot, injured hundreds of people, and refused the settlement that they were offered (the injured old lady just wanted them to cover her medical expenses (which they refused, betting that their lawyers would scare her off). She was ultimately paid just $480,000 (not the millions the jury awarded) due to the usual negotiations when the company appealed, threatening to tie the settlement up in years of legal wrestling. You know those $millions you read about -- companies never actually pay those settlements...

It's easy to complain about product liability lawsuits. But without them, companies would feel even more free to sell dangerous products.

Re:It's amazing we need laws for common sense

[chia_monkey]

It's easy to complain about product liability lawsuits. But without them, companies would feel even more free to sell dangerous products.

I agree with you here. Without liability, I'm sure there would be a lot of dangerous products on the market. I don't dispute that at all. I am however disheartened by the rediculous nature of some of these lawsuits. Suing fast food places because you got fat and didn't know you'd get fat by eating fast food three times a day for 20 years. Some are just rediculous. As far as the coffee, I don't know what the boiling point of coffee is, but assuming it's rather close to water then the hottest it can be is 100 deg C, otherwise it would turn to steam. People should know hot coffee is well...hot. When I get hot coffee from a restaurant, or mother, or friend, I let it cool down before trying to chug it.

All back to the point...some laws are good. But are we really becoming so lazy as a society that we need laws to protect us from common sense things? "Don't burn yourself on hot coffee". "Don't watch a movie in the front seat while driving down the highway". Makes me want to go to Macy's and bash my head through the window because "I didn't see a sign that told me the window is dangerous".

Re:It's amazing we need laws for common sense

[micq]

It's easy to complain about product liability lawsuits. But without them, companies would feel even more free to sell dangerous products.

And people would still continue to buy them. McDonalds was selling that hot coffee for quite some time, at that 'unsafe' temp, and she had purchased the MickeyD's coffee before, so she knew it was that hot, but she kept buying it, then she got burned and sued... MickeyD's should have been fined, to protect the future innocents, that lady should have been tossed out of court.

"Wow, this knife is uncommonly sharp! Great for cutting steak, though, yes'sir, my favorite knife... Ack! I cut myself! This knife is *too* sharp, let's sue."

Or I could be wrong... that's how it all sounds to me.

Re:It's amazing we need laws for common sense

[Mr Smidge]

If it's not a series of common lense laws that the government thinks is the best way to go about solving the problem about complete idiots doing completely idiotic things whilst driving, then the best alternative would probably be a public education campaign.

Now I live in the UK, so my opinion may not be particularly brilliant here, but how difficult is it to pull off a huge-scale public education campaign in the US? I would have thought it would be quite difficult indeed.

So it's either public education, which is:
* Great for people who may or may not have the common sense, but are willing to learn.
* Good for intelligent people who have the common sense, but might find a few new things to learn anyway, without being patronised.
* Useless on idiots who don't want to learn, or arrogant people who think they are brilliant, or can't possibly accept they may be wrong about something.
* Expensive.
Or it's going to be common-sense laws, which are:
* Patronising, or freedom-inhibiting.
* A wider net that will hopefully bash the stupid people into shape (not going to be educating? then we'll slap a law for it on yo ass).
* A catch-all, albeit one that will be difficult to enforce.

It's all about the compromise.

Re:It's amazing we need laws for common sense

[laird]

"And people would still continue to buy them. McDonalds was selling that hot coffee for quite some time, at that 'unsafe' temp, and she had purchased the MickeyD's coffee before, so she knew it was that hot, but she kept buying it, then she got burned and sued... MickeyD's should have been fined, to protect the future innocents, that lady should have been tossed out of court."

Before expressing ill-informed opinions about this case, perhaps you should read the Wall Street Journal's coverage of the story, at http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.ht m. I'll copy it here for reference, and just point out at (1) McDonald's injured hundreds of people with their coffee, and decided that they made more money selling hotter coffee (which allows them to make more coffee with the same beans) than any other restaurant and paying off the hundreds of people that they seriously injured. Amazingly, they refused to settle for the $800 in medical expenses that she ask for to cover her serious, third-degree burns, and instead decided to take her to court. Greedy morons (IMO).

McDonald's Callousness Was Real Issue, Jurors Say, In Case of Burned Woman

How Hot Do You Like It?

by Andrea Gerlin
Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal
September 1, 1994
The Wall Street Journal
((C) 1994, Dow Jones & Co., Inc.)

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - When a law firm here found itself defending McDonald's Corp. in a suit last year that claimed the company served dangerously hot coffee, it hired a law student to take temperatures at other local restaurants for comparison.

After dutifully slipping a thermometer into steaming cups and mugs all over the city, Danny Jarrett found that none came closer than about 20 degrees to the temperature at which McDonald's coffee is poured, about 180 degrees.

It should have been a warning.

But McDonald's lawyers went on to dismiss several opportunities to settle out of court, apparently convinced that no jury would punish a company for serving coffee the way customers like it. After all, its coffee's temperature helps explain why McDonald's sells a billion cups a year.

But now - days after a jury here awarded $2.9 million to an 81-year-old woman scalded by McDonald's coffee - some observers say the defense was naive. "I drink McDonald's coffee because it's hot, the hottest coffee around," says Robert Gregg, a Dallas defense attorney who consumes it during morning drives to the office. "But I've predicted for years that someone's going to win a suit, because I've spilled it on myself. And unlike the coffee I make at home, it's really hot. I mean, man, it hurts."

McDonald's, known for its fastidious control over franchisees, requires that its coffee be prepared at very high temperatures, based on recommendations of coffee consultants and industry groups that say hot temperatures are necessary to fully extract the flavor during brewing.

Before trial, McDonald's gave the opposing lawyer its operations and training manual, which says its coffee must be brewed at 195 to 205 degrees and held at 180 to 190 degrees for optimal taste. Sine the verdict, McDonald's has declined to offer any comment, as have their attorneys. It is unclear if the company, whose coffee cups warn drinkers that the contents are hot, plans to change its preparation procedures.

Coffee temperature is suddenly a hot topic in the industry. The Specialty Coffee Association of America has put coffee safety on the agenda of its quarterly board meeting this month. And a spokesman for Dunkin' Donuts Inc., which sells about 500 million cups of coffee a year, says the company is looking at the verdict to see if it needs to make any changes to the way it makes coffee.

Others call it a tempest in a coffeepot. A spokesman for the National Coffee Association says McDonald's coffee conforms to industry temperature standards. And a spokesman for Mr. Coffee Inc., the coffee-machine maker, says that if customer complaints are any indicati

Re:It's amazing we need laws for common sense

[laird]

"As far as the coffee, I don't know what the boiling point of coffee is, but assuming it's rather close to water then the hottest it can be is 100 deg C, otherwise it would turn to steam. People should know hot coffee is well...hot. When I get hot coffee from a restaurant, or mother, or friend, I let it cool down before trying to chug it."

Actually, McDonalds coffee is brewed at around 200 degrees, and poured at around 180 degrees. That's 20 degrees hotter than any other restaurant tested, and hot enough to give third degree burns in 12-15 seconds.

I'll also point out that all the old lady asked for was $800 to cover her medical expensenses; McDondalds forced her to go to court, and turned down a whole series of settlement offers because they assumed that they would win.

Handled by existing laws? Maybe not

[Anonymous Coward]

For those who say existing laws handle this, are you so sure? I see many people saying that the person who causes the accident gets ticketed. Well, that would be assuming the person who caused it is known. But think about this. The person who causes an accident isn't always involved in the accident. If you've driven for a few years, then you should have experienced at least one case where you had to do something to avoid or evade a dangerous driver. Situations like that are good candidates for causing an accident that won't involve the person who was driving dangerously. Just yesterday I went to pass somebody on the highway, and they began to drift into the other lane. I had to quickly change to yet one more lane over to avoid hitting them. I made a quick check of my blind spot, but even if somebody had been there my choices would have been pretty limited. If I had stayed in the lane and hit her, I would have been the cause of the accident.
If I had swerved and been hit, I would have been the cause of the accident. Except, the real cause of the accident would have been this person who, as it turns out, was holding a cell phone in one hand and digging through papers with the other hand. She drives dangerously, but I would have been in the accident.

Chew on that for awhile, and try to tell me laws like this aren't needed.

Police/Firefighters/Paramedics

[DaFrog]

Darn, they will now have to learn how to use these old paper maps and CB's instead of their integrated comm systems...

Speaking of police...

[SonicBurst]

Wouldn't this law also ban the laptops mounted in the front seat of every police cruiser I've seen in the last couple of years? But oh yeah, they're the cops, they can get away with it ;)

Re:Speaking of police...

[SonicBurst]

Duh shit...I guess I should have RTFA. It makes a specific exemption for cops!

yay no cells

[essdodson]

hoorah for banning cell phones

If it ain't broke

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

pass a law to fix it. California never ceases to amaze me. How aobut the law that keeps you from giving a gun to a sibling? You're allowed to give a gun to children/parents but not siblings?

It's already illegal, or at least you're liable.

[Russ Nelson]

There are a gazillion ways to be distracted. There's no way we can ban them all. So, instead, the law makes you liable for an accident that you could have prevented. Read my blog entry to see why that's the right thing to do.
-russ

right over your head

[djupedal]

When you've paid as much money to the state for vehicle fines as many have, you'll be concerned too :)

Calif doesn't want safety...just revenue. That's the point, not random connections to what may be.

But I thought SUVs were powered by cell-phones?

[freejamesbrown]

Aren't they?

Verizon + Tennis Gossip = Alternative Fuel Source!

m.

Do we NEED another law for this???

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but isn't the real problem covered by a law regarding "driving without due care and attention"???

Or is the issue that that is a subjective law, too open for interpretation? It does seem to address the real problem though - which I see to be driving a vehicle and not paying attention.

Hopefully this won't kill HUD's and GPS

[Anonymous Coward]

We need a good designed HUD and GPS system to help drivers drive, not distract them.

Unfortunately, however, this is a problem for people over the age of 35 only. While only fools watch TV and drive, Gen-X and younger can multitask driving with GPS screen viewing. We were brought up that way, and our technology proves it.

I've said it before, there will be no significant changes to our society until all the baby boomers are buried. They are the vast voting block that keeps nonissues like birth control on the table when we have serious, world wide calamities brewing. Over 35's are more likely to own large SUVs that are changing our 25 year supply of oil to 12 years simply because of 12MPG efficiency.

The baby boomers are perhaps the worst thing that ever happened to America. They are hypocrites of the worst order. They set out in the 60's to right wrongs, and when they finally matured, they wronged rights.

They are the reason this law is in place. Only a baby boomer would be so presumptious as to believe that they can drive and watch TV at the same time. Thanks assholes! Your complete lack of common sense mandated a far reaching law that will certainly halt progress on more advanced driver control systems, HUDs and GPS assisted driving - because you can't get enough Oprah!

Get yours here...

[djupedal]

Want to see LCD's for your car? This is a nice place to check them all out :)

I prefer the 7" widescreen with multiple A/V inputs, for games and rear-view cameras...you can also connect your laptop and DV camera as well.

You missed the point

[Anonymous Coward]

The twit can't even pay attention to a single post and get the grammar even close to correct.

Yet he thinks he can drive a car and a computer at the same time because he's somehow better than most people.

Re:You missed the point

[diablobynight]

You talk about grammar, and yet you put in a sentence that states that I drive my computer. Yet he thinks he can drive a car and a computer

Welcome to...

[Glock27]

Hotel of the People's Republic of California...

Doesn't have quite the same ring does it? ;-)

Hint: It is not necessary to pass a law banning every silly action - a little education would probably suffice. Not to mention the fact that not every driver will be distracted by a passenger using a computer in the front seat...

Here ya go....

[Jaysyn]

enjoy your nanny state, californians.....

Jaysyn

good one

[ruiner5000]

All the more reason to move to Texas I say. This is the most ridiculous law I've seen related to computers in some time. Good job Cali!

What about diagnostics?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have driven around with a passanger with laptop stuck into OBDII port or BRC LPG diagnostics port to see what happens with the car and adjust things accordingly. What about tuned cars with custom chips that allow some tweaking? So that is gonna be illegal, too?

As people said, what about giving directions to the driver based on mapping software in computer?

There are perfectly good uses for laptop in a car, and they don't cause more distraction or accident risk.

I'm happy I don't live in California.

--Coder

Re:Police

[ChipMonk]

Not a problem if the car is stopped. But are there any guards to make sure they aren't poking at this stuff as they're driving down the road? Why not put the same guards in cop cars as the rest of us have to live with?

Actually, that's not what it says....

[iamhassi]

"The law would seem to ban handheld computers being used as navigation aids, too, or GPS devices with games, and very soon, nearly all cell phones. "

Not exactly. At the end it says: "does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle:
1. A vehicle information display
2. A global positioning display
3. A mapping display
4. A visual display used to enhance or supplement the driver's view forward, behind, or to the sides of the motor vehicle for the purpose of maneuvering the vehicle.
5. A television receiver, video monitor, television or video screen, or any other, similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal, if that equipment has an interlock device that, when the motor vehicle is driven, disables the equpiment for all uses except as a visual displaay as described in paragraphs 1 to 4 (above), inclusive

So to me it sounds like it only applies to playing games or watching TV while the vehicle is moving. If you have your laptop and it's displaying a GPS map you're fine.

Re:Actually, that's not what it says....

[myrashka]

I guess that depends on your definition of "Installed" (as pointed out in the original post). Is a laptop on the seat next to you sliding willy nilly installed? Unlikely.

Re:Actually, that's not what it says....

[NuttyBee]

Here's the problem. A computer is a multifunction device. I can use it to display a map.. I can also use it to play Doom. If my passenger is playing Doom in the passenger seat, I'm guilty. I don't even have to be watching it.

Now, I'm not stupid enough to drive and play PS2 at the same time, but it bothers me that the government is making this judgement call for me. You're letting me pilot a 3000 lb missile, but won't let me decide whats a distraction.

My government & common sense. Not a good mix.

That's semantics, not grammar

[Anonymous Coward]

And it can also be termed a "figure of speech", used to convey an idea succinctly.

The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. You're trying to defend a totally indefensible position based upon an arrogant premise that you're better than most everyone else.

Re:That's semantics, not grammar

[Anonymous Coward]

No, chodesmoker, that's grammar.

Re:That's semantics, not grammar

[diablobynight]

I am not in a hole and I did not say I was better than everyone else, I was making the assumption that most people are like me and can multi-task and be safe, I was making the point that I believe you can not multi task and that the possibility of you passing on your genes could be a bigger danger to all of us than me changing songs on my laptop that I mounted in my dash so I could use it as an in dash mp3 player as well an engine monitoring system. I like to keep a close eye on my engine, 20 pounds of boost isn't horribly uncommon, but it puts a lot of strain on my TA

Re:That's semantics, not grammar

[the argonaut]

And I'm making the assumption that most people are like you and think they can multi-task and be safe, but are really just being full of themselves and are not honest enough to recognize their own limits. And when suddenly challenged, they pull themselves up even higher on their horse and begin denouncing everybody else and decreeing who should and should not be allowed to procreate.

So how's this: I don't trust you to drive safely. It appears to me that you care more about your gadgets and tricked out engine than you do about what's really important when driving, which is getting from point A to point B safely and efficiently. I don't drive, I either walk or ride my bike (and no I'm not 15, I'm almost 30. I don't have a need for a car so I don't have one). You in your 1000's of pounds of metal are a threat to me, and anything that you are doing that detracts from the safe operation of your vehicle increases that threat. THis law isn't for your benefit, because really if you want to act like a stupid shit and kill yourself, more power to you. This law is to protect me and everybody else from you. Deal with it.

Re:That's semantics, not grammar

[diablobynight]

If you ride your bike everywhere you must live in the city, because only city dwellers and hippies avoid driving. And since you don't have a car I highly doubt you can be a good judge of how difficult it is to drive one.

Re:That's semantics, not grammar

[the argonaut]

1. Yes I live in the city.

2. Yes I have been called a "hippie", and by better people than you. While I don't take it as an insult, I don't think it's an entirely accurate label either. I prefer to be called a socialist.

3. I have owned a car in the past and I do know how to drive one, my job does require that I drive a company vehicle from time to time (I do not include driving in the scope of employment driving for myself as well, I'm not, I'm driving for my employer), and aside from a few tickets back in my reckless youth (I haven't had a ticket in over ten years, and I got rid of my car about 3 years ago). I simply do not own one now because I do not need one. When I do, usually for things like road trips, moving stuff, whatever, I rent one. I find that since I do not need a car on a daily (or even usually monthly) basis, there is no need for me to own one and it's much cheaper.

I don't view a car as a status symbol or a must have item, it's a tool with it's proper usage. It would probably be overkill for you to take a jet to work, and it would be overkill for me to drive to school (I'm a law student about 1.5 miles), to the grocery store (.5 miles) to work (maybe 2 blocks) or most other places I need to go as they are similarly located. And while I live in a city, it's not exactly one of those burgeoning eastern transit oriented metropolises - I live in Arizona, one of the more hostile to non-car driver states to live in.

Driving is a privilege, not a right

[politicalman]

Generic problems like putting on make-up and shaving can be ticketed by an officer as soon as they feel it is unsafe (unsafe driving is not legal).
They could (and have always been able to) ticket for video screens as soon as they feel the usage is unsafe.
Now the numbers and in and some of our advances in technology are forcing our eyes from the road too often so they are sending a message (i.e. a strong one by making enforcement easy).
California needs to do this because it is actually getting popular to have more and more high-tech distractions.
Companies (dealers and electronic stores) just shrug their shoulders - "he wanted a TV in the dash".
Now the responsibility is where it should always have been - the driver.

cell phones

[Anonymous Coward]

god bless em.

cell phone should be banned from moving vehicles.

cel phone images, video in hands free console

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely drivers would never or glance over at images, pictures, video clips or tv on a cel phone in hands free console or dash mount prudently installed for one's safety in acorrd with recent laws, ordinances.

say what you see

[CmdrGravy]

That wasn't very clear from your original post but it's a fair point, there is a trend at the moment to coerce things like law enforcement into money making opportunities for local councils.

We have seen the same thing here in the UK with the totally uneccesary "warden controlled parking schemes" - i.e. you pay the council to park your car outside your own house and in return they spend the money on rebranding their literature to read "Winterval" rather than Christmas.

However I don't think that's a problem with the actual law in this case, because I think the law is a good thing, but a problem with it's enforcement.

In an ideal world the police should be able to use this law at their discretion if they think doing so will improve road safety and they shouldn't be told to "bust as many of these people as you can" in order to generate some extra money, that is the problem and that it's that culture you should be addressing.

Re:say what you see

[djupedal]

The issue in California is the unrelenting focus to make money off the driver class, while routinely ignoring safety.

The Highway Patrol uses holiday death statistics to leverage budget expenditures heavy with funds tagged for things that in turn allow them to make more money.

In Calif., if you die within 360 days of a traffic accident, you are considered a related fatality. Japan says this only counts if you die within 12 hours. It's not a safety lesson with the CHP, it's a way to gain more budget. The CHP's stats are routinely out of sync with those of other agencies, leading many to question their motives.

They ignore worn out tires and focus on expired tags...they ignore broken windshields while taking their time to check on your insurance status. They set up speed traps based on county lines while ignoring long stretches of highway that seeminly encourage faster cruising. The attitude of the CHP is sharp and hubristic, where many years ago it was patient and concerned with safety.

Turists

[sacrilicious]

While I abstain from offering an opinion on whether driving while computing is good or bad or something else, I take issue with the following:

Driving is NOT a simple mental process. If it was, don't you think we would have built a robotic system based on a series of simple algorithms to do the driving for us?

Whether a process has been implemented in software is not a good indicator of whether that process is effortless vs impossibly hard for humans. Humans recognize speech without even thinking about it, while computers still are in the dark ages when it comes to speech recognition. Computers render 80 fps full motion game video on the fly, while humans can barely scratch out a crude line drawing of something taking minutes for a single frame.

Re:Turists

[JDevers]

I agree fully with what you have said, however I have a nitpick with the second half of your argument. Rendering something at 80 fps isn't the same as sketching it. The vast majority of humans can THINK out complex scenes that have never happened (hence aren't simply memory/pregenerated) in real time that a modern PC system couldn't even come CLOSE to doing, this is more akin to rendering the scene.

Re:Turists

[pipingguy]

Computers render 80 fps full motion game video on the fly, while humans can barely scratch out a crude line drawing of something taking minutes for a single frame.

This is true. "Very few cartoons are broadcast live. It's a terrible strain on the animators' wrists."

Re:Turists

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that you interpret speech without being aware of the effort is not a sign that it is "simple".

Re:Turists

[Anonymous Coward]

Computers may be able to render a repetitive scene 80 times per second, or even 1000s of times a second, but it's still basically the same thing over and over again. If you both give a computer and a human artist a year to do a drawing, the human artist can do things a computer can't even approach (although I suppose the computer can spend that time to push more and more subpixel accuracy).

The thing about driving is that it doesn't involve processes that benefit from being sped up an infinite number of times. While driving could probably benefit from an AI which would be capable of taking into account the motion of others with sub-microsecond precision (especially as vehicles get faster, perhaps with those hovercars we were promised in the future), the important first step of creating a system that can process such information at all, in a reliable manner, still has yet to be taken (except in controlled research environments, which don't really count).

Trying to make computers drive as well as even a dumb human is probably futile, given current technology (and another thing: military robots don't need to drive in rush hour traffic!). It's probably a better idea to make roads smarter (a la PATH) so computers can drive on them.

Re:Turists

[sootman]

"Humans recognize speech without even thinking about it, while computers still are in the dark ages when it comes to speech recognition."

Not quite right. Understanding speech is one thing, following a conversation is another. Try drawing a map from your house to someone else's while carrying on an unrelated conversation. You'll either take frequent lengthy pauses while drawing or you'll have a good map but miss the conversation. A bit of chit-chat is O.K. but no one can safely follow a conversation closely while driving.

1Adam-12

[Anonymous Coward]

What about police officers, using their mobile data terminals to run license plates and other data?

For those that can handle it...

[djupedal]

All you need to know to install an LCD in your vehicle...enjoy.

Say it ain't so!

[The Cydonian]

it is legal to drive a five times the legal intoxication limit of many european countries, while shaving, watching TV, reading a book, fiddling with the GPS, talking on the phone, etc...

You can't do all that in Europe? You mean, all this while, I was only amusing myself by watching the personal videos of a common European criminal ?

I'm shocked.

another great reason for a 4 door or SUV....

[iamhassi]

This is just another reason to get a sedan or SUV, so passengers can sit in the back and type away.

Re:another great reason for a 4 door or SUV....

[Anonymous Coward]

then when the SUV rolls over,. and the nice computer gets flipped out of the car and the passenger still attached the phone.

suvs. the most dangerous consumer vehicle besides the moped

Re:another great reason for a 4 door or SUV....

[Anonymous Coward]

suvs. the most dangerous consumer vehicle besides the moped

I don't know. Somehow I don't think my moped is gonna do the same amount of damage as an SUV if I run into someone's car with it.

Re:another great reason for a 4 door or SUV....

[jimstone]

Gee you're right!

when a car ran into my moped last year - the car sustained a broken headlight cover. My bike was trashed beyond repair and I received a broken arm, a pair of badly scarred and bruised knees etc etc... except for pedestrians, I think mopeds only harm their riders...

The saddest part about that is that in most cases (mine included) the car driver was a fault - she just wasn't paying attention and lurched out of a blind alley...

Ouch!

No more tickets!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

New scenario...

Police officer pulls you over for something, has to jump into his back seat to fire up his laptop to run a check on you. By habit, he closes the door, thus locking himself in. You notice his predicament, and drive away "to get help". Tada!

I'ts still unclear to me if...

[IANAAC]

I can mount a PDA with a GPS receiver on it to my dash.
One of the things I plan to do with my Zaurus this year is outfit it with GPS and get a dash-mount system. Do you think that's going to be allowed? I don't have any first-hand experience with GPS software yet, but from what I understand, it's not exactly simple to task switch with it (and maintain any sort of realtime reception). Anybody know first-hand?

no front seat computers means....

[MoFoQ]

the cops, the ups/fedex guy/gals, and a few others are breaking the law.

The law, like most is too vague and/or focused on the wrong thing though the intention might be good.
Just like the CRV hike, which I think is stupid; a better way to encourage recycling is to make it so ppl can take their empty cans or bottles to the store they purchased from for recycling (turning all retailers into recycling centers). This makes more sense especially because the nearest recycling center is about 8 miles away and I don't drive (nor does public transportation go there....thx to budget "cuts). That's another thing....they say "cuts" but they never cut their own salaries (politicians and management, etc.).

Maybe it's time to get all the cops, fedex/ups guy/gals, and /.ers alike together and protest hypocritical a-holes.

Great

[eap]

This is just one more thing to make America less competitive in IT.

Now all of our programming jobs will be outsourced to non-Frontseat-Computing-Ban countries like India, where carpooling engineers can get in than extra hour of programming each day.

Re:Great

[KontinMonet]

I've just come back from some months setting up an outsource dept. in India. Virtually anyone driving a car is an employed driver with the boss in the back. Hardly anyone owns a laptop, there's no WiFi, the mobile networks are erratic. With IT wage inflation running at 30%/year, in 3 years, they will no longer be competitive (but that won't stop your accountants outsourcing to Ghana or Easter Island if they think it saves money...)

RE: opposite sex not allowed in front seat

[chooks]

Sacrementa, California (AP) -- In a surprising move, the state legislature of California recently passed legislation to outlaw members of the opposite sex in the front seat of vehicles.

Legislature members point to recent studies that cite that cars driven by heterosexuals are 13.232 percent more likely to be involved in accidents when a member of the opposite sex is in the passenger seat. These numbers rise to a shocking 35.243% when that member is a significant other and to an unseemly 75% rate when the passenger is naked and has fake breasts. When the driver and passenger are married, the researchers found that the accident rate hovered around 50.324%, a phenomona known as the "nag factor".

"The numbers don't lie. Having the opposite sex as a passenger in the car is a definite distraction to the driver" said Dr. Frank O. Overman, a head researcher in the project. "Won't somebody please please PLEASE think of the safety of the children!" he continued.

Dr. Overman had no comments on the studies in Massuchusets involving homosexual drivers and same sex passengers.

back to horses

[axxackall]

I think Californians should just switch back horses. What was the movie where their Governer was on the horse?

Well I guess....

[SkewlD00d]

... that means that cops w/ computers in their patrol cars are breaking the law too.... better rip them out and install a secretary in the back seat. Another stupid law created by spineless, ignorant neophytes in Sacramento. I wonder if that means CB radios are outlawed as well, what about delivery people (UPS, FedEx)!??!?!

I think the point of making new laws is to make everyone in volation of some law by contradictions, e.g., simplify political leveraging (extortion) of trouble-makers, and more ways to make lawyers rich.

The real problem is that there is no real debate on laws (because the SIGs/PACs/lobbiests own the politician's ears), and there's no immediate accountability, and there's no review/disposal of outmoded/outdated laws. For example, laws from the 19th century regarding commerce, wagons and livestock ought to be examined w/ a fine-tooth comb.

Re:Well I guess....

[prototype]

No. The first paragraph of the PDF file clearly says:

"This prohibition does not apply to a mobile digital terminal installed in a law enforcement vehicle"

Doesn't anyone actually read what they're commenting on?

Re:What about the police?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. It's in the item.

I am not a fan of legislation, but

[wobblie]

This is good. To hell with these idiots. Anyone using a cell phone or, for crying out fucking loud, a laptop in their car needs to be beaten mercilessly. I don't see how either of these things are really any different from drunk driving.

What's worse is that it's always the soccer mom yuppie retards driving their kids (all armored up in helmets and various protective crap for their day at school no less) who are driving some 6 ton Nimitz class crew operated Ford monstrosity at high speeds while yakking on the goddamn phone about their dogs pedicure appointment.

And to all you geeks out there whining about not being able to use your laptops in the car, get a freaking life.

Resorting to name-calling, I see

[Anonymous Coward]

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

News Flash!

[Anonymous Coward]

Up next: California bans the use of chewing gum while walking.

Here's a thought....

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if your car-pooling front seat passenger is just doing some programming, you can be charged with a crime (AB 301). Thanks go to CA Assemblymember Sarah Reyes for this well meaning but overly broad piece of legislation.

Here's a thought: How about your passenger get in the back seat? I, for one, am sick of the overabundance of distracted drivers. The problem was bad enough before cell phones.

"Assembly Bill No. 301" Text

[SkewlD00d]

93
Assembly Bill No. 301
CHAPTER 303
An act to amend Section 27602 of the Vehicle Code, relating to
vehicles.
[Approved by Governor September 4, 2003. Filed
with Secretary of State September 5, 2003.]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 301, Reyes. Vehicles: video displays.
(1) Existing law prohibits any person from driving a motor vehicle
that is equipped with a television receiver, screen, or other means of
visually receiving a television broadcast, if the device is located in the
motor vehicle at any point forward of the back of the driver's seat, or is
visible to the driver while operating the motor vehicle. This prohibition
does not apply to a mobile digital terminal installed in a law enforcement
vehicle.
This bill would recast this prohibition and, additionally, would
prohibit any person from driving a motor vehicle if a video monitor, or
a video screen, or any other, similar means of visually displaying a video
signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating
and is located in the motor vehicle at any point forward of the back of
the driver's seat, or is operating and visible to the driver while driving
the motor vehicle. This prohibition would not apply to specified
equipment or to a motor vehicle providing emergency road service or
roadside assistance. Because a violation of this prohibition would be a
crime, the bill would establish a state-mandated local program.
(2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act
for a specified reason.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 27602 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
27602. (a) A person may not drive a motor vehicle if a television
receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other,
similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video
signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating
Ch. 303 --2--
93
and is located in the motor vehicle at any point forward of the back of
the driver's seat, or is operating and visible to the driver while driving
the motor vehicle.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when
installed in a vehicle:
(1) A vehicle information display.
(2) A global positioning display.
(3) A mapping display.
(4) A visual display used to enhance or supplement the driver's view
forward, behind, or to the sides of a motor vehicle for the purpose of
maneuvering the vehicle.
(5) A television receiver, video monitor, television or video screen,
or any other, similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast
or video signal, if that equipment has an interlock device that, when the
motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a
visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive.
(c) Subdivision (a) does not apply to a mobile, digital terminal
installed in an authorized emergency vehicle or to a motor vehicle
providing emergency road service or roadside assistance.
SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the
only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will
be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates
a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction,
within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or
changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of
Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

Busy day Mr diablo....

[jotaeleemeese]

In many places safety is a condition to allow for billboard installation.

When there are many people doing something dumb the only way to make them stop is making patently obvious that it is something illegal.

The enactement of these laws is not to nanny drivers doing dumb things, is to protect other people from the lack of common sense of others, after all cars are one thing that when misused becomes a lethal weapon.

Taking away more liberties

[MouseR]

This is another stupid law designed to take away our liberties.

It also reminds me a time where I was passenger in my friend's car (who was driving). We were on our way back from a small local Apple trade show. I was playing Falcon, the F16 flight simulator on our way back--I was quite an addict of that game back them.

Quite suddenly, I lost control of the plane and the computer, an Apple PowerBook 160, was yelling at me "Pull up! Pull up!".

The car crashed on the center girder of the highway at precisely the same time the F16 crashed on the ground. The plane was a total wreck. The car was considerably dammaged and both my friend and I were totally surprised to realize what had just happend, while massaging our sore necks.

When the computer started yelling at me, it distracted my friend some more, wich was peeking one in a while at the screen. When he finally pulled up his eyes from the screen, he saw the traffic ahead in a dead stop, stomped the brake and steered the car clear of the cars in front of us, steering right into the girder.

Stupid laws that take away our liberties also take away our chances at being total idiots and maiming ourselves the fun way. Never had Falcon been that dramatic before.

Re:Taking away more liberties

[MrPink2U]

No, this is a law designed to cure ADD. Some people are just too stupid to know when they should be paying attention to the task at hand.

In many places they are banned....

[jotaeleemeese]

.... or severely restricted.

If wardriving's part of your job...

[TheBitterRaven]

then this law will make your job much more difficult.

I'm a security analyst in a Large Government Organization. Part of what I do is to drive around with a laptop, a WiFi card, NetStumbler, and a big antenna, listening for unauthorized or unencrypted access points. The laptop sits on the passenger seat, with the display closed. Again, the display is closed, and I'm not looking at it unless I stop the car outside one of our buildings.

With this law in place, any display that "is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at any point forward of the back of the driver's seat" is illegal. Is a laptop display "operating" if the lid's closed? I think so. And operating illegally.

I'm still working out how to do my job within the law, and without having constantly to stop to get my laptop out of some "safe" place. Throw the thing in the back seat when a cop approaches? Hit the power switch just in time? Keep my laptop on the floor in the back seat so I can just turn around, open it, and check it? That would really enhance my driving safety.

Re:If wardriving's part of your job...

[mikeg22]

Uhhhh...try putting the laptop in the backseat?

Re:If wardriving's part of your job...

[Sinical]

Or, similarly, what if I have a GPS system and a laptop running a GPS-aware mapping system? Typically I'd keep the lid closed and only look at it at pit stops (but perhaps traffic lights when they're red!), but it would seem safe to take a glance on, say, I-10 in the flats of Texas or whatever. It's navigation functionality, just not built into the car.

I love that, as with everything else, none of the prohibitions apply to the people enforcing the law. What a sweet deal.

Just another reason to stay out of California: as if I needed any more of them!

Re:If wardriving's part of your job...

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

A. Turn off the display, then. Should be simple enough on most laptops; mine is set to turn off after two minutes of no keyboard or mouse. B. Find a passenger to monitor the computer from the back or find a driver as you sit in the back. C. Theoretically, write a script to search for access points as the laptop is kept running in the back seat. Have it log access points for you, or sound an alert so you can park at the nearest possible place. D. If you're in a government organization, shouldn't you get some exemption?

They just made the Prius illegal

[Kevinv]

All the Prius hyrbrids have an LCD monitor in the dash that is normally used for displaying gas mileage and engine/battery components. But it also displays radio and cd information (you know, entertainment stuff).

Guess all the Prius are now illegal in california.

Fuel Control Systems and engine monitoring

[diablobynight]

Everyone has been assuming that I want to use a lap top for coding or something of that sort, but I personally use my laptop to monitor the extra temperature sensors I had installed in my engine as well as a digital boost sensor I have, plus I have been looking into integrating my fuel control system into my dash mounted computer as well. These things may slightly distract me, but no more than talking to a passenger, looking at a billboard, or drinking coffee. Also, you have insulted my driving, but I bet my record is better than yours I haven't even a fender bender, or as much as a speeding ticket on my record. I am quick and courteous. You can not tell me what is possible for me and what is possible for you. If you measure everyone based on your own abilities, I assume you also think that other people have trouble walking and chewing gum.

Re:Fuel Control Systems and engine monitoring

[Blakey Rat]

Maybe you should just buy a more reliable car, and then you wouldn't *have* to monitor the damn engine in real-time.

Criminy, how much money did you spent on that setup instead of just seeing a mechanic and fixing the damned problem in the first place?

What the hell is your car doing so wrong that you not only need to add *more* thermometers, but you need to check them constantly in real-time?

I have a 1996 Dodge Neon that leaks oil into the coolant, and I have no problem driving for 150-200 miles before stopping to check the engine. And that's when I'd stop anyway to take a break. It's more reliable than your hunk, you want it? I'll sell it for the price of your laptop and all the equipment you added to your crap-pile car.

Re:Fuel Control Systems and engine monitoring

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHHAHAHA

OMG brillian response! Oh wait... no. You suck too.

I can see you at your keyboard now... "Hmm.. he has a good argument... Shit, I don't know what to say to this, but I'm too thickheaded to admit it... Oh, I know, I'll go in a completely different direction, somewhere absolutely irrelevant to his point, and make a personal attack on his car! That's it!"

If you can't make a logical argument, please, refrain from wasting our bandwidth.

Re:Fuel Control Systems and engine monitoring

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Maybe you should just buy a more reliable car, and then you wouldn't *have* to monitor the damn engine in real-time. Criminy, how much money did you spent on that setup instead of just seeing a mechanic and fixing the damned problem in the first place?

Most likely, he's got a custom turbo setup and the laptop is used to monitor detonation and adjust timing.

Re:Fuel Control Systems and engine monitoring

[Anonymous Coward]

j00 r teh WIBBLER

Re:Fuel Control Systems and engine monitoring

[the_mad_poster]

I imagine he's either monitoring a turbo/super charger's boost or he's watching the engine closely because he has nitrous.

Re:Fuel Control Systems and engine monitoring

[the_mad_poster]

Gee, for one thing, you didn't say anything about watching your car's internals on a laptop, you said:

I see lots of people reading books on the road, and it takes more concentration for me to read in my car than glance over at mapquest on laptop.

So EXCUSE me if I took "glance over at mapquest on laptop" to mean you were glancing at mapquest on a laptop (barring the fact, of course, that if you're using mapquest you're getting directions and that means you need to break concentration on the road to either read the directions or analyze the map). I can't imagine where I got THAT idea from. We'll also ignore for a moment that that's like saying "I see lots of people lifting 400 lb. weights. It takes a lot more strength for me to lift a 400 lb. weight than it does to pick up a baseball". That is: it's totally irrelevant and, in context, doesn't even make a point of any kind. Besides, other people being incredibly stupid doesn't justify your behavior. Other people are out there raping, murdering, and stealing. Does that make it okay for me to beat a kid up and steal his lunch money?

And for another thing, WTF are you doing with your car that requires you to monitor it like that and why don't you have analog guages mounted? Assuming you're monitoring a turbo/super setup, I can't imagine how much crap you'd have to be monitoring to have no way of placing analog guages and if you're car is so tuned that you need the pinpoint accuracy (relatively speaking, mind you) of a digital setup, you need to get a life and stop driving a near race-tuned car on the street like you were, well, in a race.

If it's a NOS setup you're monitoring, you're still out of your mind because if you're firing off shots of nitrous ON THE STREET, you SERIOUSLY need to lose your license (and, almost certainly will if you get caught). Assuming you were watching the canisters for a leak, all you need is a warning signal, you don't need to actually monitor it yourself continuously.

Sorry, but I can't picture any situation where, under normal driving, you'd need to monitor the detailed internal workings of your engine with a laptop. Race? Yes. However, if you're racing on the streets, or you're driving a race-tuned car on the streets, you're really in trouble in this discussion as far as your credibility on safety matters goes.

What amazes me most about people like you is that my point is very simple:

1. Concentrating on something other than driving decreases driving skill by distracting you.
2. Distracting yourself endangers everyone around you.
3. Intentionally endangering other people is stupid and you shouldn't do it.

And you're STILL arguing with me! How self-centered can you possibly get when you'd argue against the fact that if you distract yourself while driving, you increase the risk of an accident? Not only that, you argue that it's okay for you to do this!

And, I swear to god... the next moron that says something like "looking over your shoulder is distracting".... LOOKING OVER YOUR SHOULDER IS A LEGITIMATE PART OF DRIVING, DUMBASSES! If you can invent something that eliminates this occasional need, you'd make a fucking fortune! Stop trying to use regular driving tactics as justification for doing dangerous things unnecessarily!

Re:Fuel Control Systems and engine monitoring

[diablobynight]

Your absolutely correct and now I am off topic, but yes I have dual turbo running and sometimes I start to get the heads pretty damn hot if I am running her too hard, it's my own fault, their is simply too much compression, and compression makes heat.

Re:Fuel Control Systems and engine monitoring

[diablobynight]

I'll tell you what the monitoring is for. I hate analog gauges. They are ugly and bulky, I fit all my information on one screen. Plus I have the system set up so I can tune back my timing for long car trips that way I can take the compression down and run on cheaper gas. When my compression is all the way up I need to run super blue and that's very expensive. Also monitoring my engine is important to me. It's worth more than my car was when i bought it new, so I like to keep an eye on my investment. SOme of us like performance so excuse me if I drive a TA that's had a little money dropped into it, ok, a little money is a lie. A lot of money dropped into it. But I now can go as fast as they make those little ricers look like they go in the movies.

Re:Fuel Control Systems and engine monitoring

[the_mad_poster]

A twin turbo TA? Well, we got to the meat of that. Launching a TT T/A is not safe on the street, I know. I have driven a Stage 3 Roush Mustang, and I imagine that's about the same, handling-wise. Keep it straight-line, you're golden. Twist the wheels a little and let those turbos kick in, you're gonna drive sideways a bit, then launch into a parked car. I guess that settles the issue of safety knowledge (not to be a smart ass like I've been - seriously, that's NOT a safe setup, as impressive as the power must be).

However, on the subject of overheating...

Did you replace the exhaust with a high flow cat-back system? Preferably, with a MUCH larger outlet and high flow cats. Headers might help a bit too. If your exhaust isn't escaping right, it might be backing up as it comes off the engine and getting pushed back into the system. That would really push a big engine's temps up when the turbo kicked in.

Also, there's some really nice water cooling setups out there for Twin Turbos and, if you have the ram air hood, you might want to cut away the ram air flap (I assume they use a flap in your model) and let the air blow onto the engine instead of into the intake. When you're on the road, the increased wind resistance might hurt gas mileage some since your turbo's never going to suck power, but when you're driving, the air flow might help keep the motor cooler.

Barring highpriced oil coolers and whatnot, however, I don't see much that could be done in a high cid engine with TTs on it. You ought to see how Lingenfelter cools that 427 TT Corvette they built and take a cue from them.

I hate Fast and the Furious. Nothing irritates me more than those twits that think a Civic with 20k in it is any match for a Mustang GT/TA/Vette with 20k in it. Drop a NO2 system in a Civic, will it beat me GT? Yep. It'll mop the streat with it. Of course, if I were to do the same thing, the Civic would like it was sitting still as I ripped it up. When you have a Skyline GT-R or something like that, come talk to me. I always like to point out to the little ricer punks that, while a Prelude may rule the streets, that's only because a big cid engine can be so beefed up that it just can't be street legal anymore (gee... is there a REASON that I always see Civics and Preludes and Integras at the track, but all top 10 times are held by 5.0 Mustangs, 5.7 Trans Ams and Camaros and Corvettes?)

Re:Fuel Control Systems and engine monitoring

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoops. I think you said too much.

Re:Fuel Control Systems and engine monitoring

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your points are very valid except for the analog gauges part. With digital gauges, you can program the tolerances into it so it can warn you when something's out of spec, instead of having to constantly glance at your analog gauges, which doesn't really care that your water temp is 100 degrees over spec

Whay about...

[inertia187]

So what about Game Boy Advance SP? Just don't do it at night, when the cops can see the glow.

Emergency Vehicle Restrictions?

[slave 6742]

Hmmm.... Didn't see anything about this that allows say Police to continue use of computers in their front seat? I know some of the cruisers do have a computer in the front seat so they can look up a drivers driving record.

OnStar

[JawFunk]

This is certainly bad news for OnStar/MapQuest employees, some who literally drive around cities with laptops on the dashboard updating their GPS maps, making sure that as streets and construction change, their services remain accurate. THeir jobs will be much more difficult and less cost effective when the two cannot communicate as well when driving around, needing to monitor the laptop. So you'd better stick to using fold-em maps in Califaornia.

Bad Comparisons

[virg_mattes]

> Yep, guess we should take those computers our of jets and helicopters then. Or are you implying that your drive to work requires more mental capacity than my buddy piloting an apache. Where he has a whole eye devoted to a computer screen.

Comparing driving and flying military aircraft like this makes you look like an idiot. A few points to consider:

1.) Your buddy trained extensively for that particular vehicle, using all of the equipment that comes with it. Ask him how his wingmates or CO would react to his bringing a laptop to use while flying.

2.) Your buddy flies an aircraft. If he flies in a straight line, he won't hit anything, and if he's in a position where that's not true, it's not likely he's looking anywhere other than the terrain in front of him.

3.) Your buddy flies in proximity to other highly trained pilots, if he flies near anyone else at all. Nobody is around who will "cut him off" to make a merge.

4.) Your buddy flies an aircraft, so he has an extra dimension to work with in evading danger.

5.) The computer your buddy uses is designed as a heads-up display so that he can use it while his head is up. Is your laptop designed to project its image on the windshield?

6.) Despite the fact that all of those systems are designed to be easy to use while piloting, there are still large numbers of combat pilots that turn off portions of the HUD because they find it too distracting.


> If you can't glance at mapquest and keep your mind focused on the road as well, please don't breed, we don't want your genes spreading.

If you can't recognize the difference between operating cars and helicopters, or if you think you can drive safely looking at your passenger seat, then you should consider taking your own advice, since you're a danger to others on the road with you.

Virg

Re:Laptops while driving

[jred]

Until you accidentally catch a glimpse of the goatse guy & run off the road...

Wrecked Subaru

[JawFunk]

So much for adolenscent attention spans...my friend crashed his WRX while watching music videos on his dashboard TV tuner.

While drivers should notbe doing anything but driving while in motion, passengers certainly should be free to Check email or use VoIP in the front if on a caonference call, but stuck in traffic.

What about Truckers?

[Avihson]

I know an over-the-road team who have a company issued laptop connected to the dash on the passenger side. It has GPS, their Logs, and sat-com messages to/from the dispatcher.

I guess the company will now have to stop delivering to California, or drop the trailers at the border crossings/fruit inspection points.

Re:What about Truckers?

[reynols]

I personally know a truck driver who took a full size PC and mounted it in his cab. Took a 17" LCD monitor, rewired it to the 12 volt supply and mounted it on brackets attached to the dash. The PC itself sits on the passenger side floor hooked up to a 12v-120v regulator. He has GPS hooked up to it so he can see his position and destination on his mapping software. And since it's a regular PC, _with_ a WiFi card, whenever he want's to check his email, he just looks for an open WiFi port (apartment buildings...) and surfs the net--and does whetever else he want's to when he's parked.

Re:What about Truckers?

[Traveler001]

I posted here somewhere about me using my laptop in the truck (18-Wheeler). Federal law requires that it is within reach whill sitting.

But you just made a good point. Most company trucks, and all trucks hauling sensitive government loads require the Quailcomm satellite system. It sits right by the driver and gives both the driver and the company a view of everything going on concerning the truck including it's location and speed. All electronics in the truck are tied into it. With the proper codes, anyone can tye into the trucks electronic. Communication between the driver and the company is by the Quailcomm system. And some companies use it for the driver's legal log, which the Federal law requies to be within the driver's reach while sitting in the driver's seat.

In fact some new rules which got voted down a year ago by the Federal government would have required this in all trucks. (I, for one, was glad that it got voted down since the system is expensive.)

This also brings up another point. New trucks don't have guages. They have a computer display built into the dash which display guage readings. As I understand this, these required displays are illegal....

Re:What about Truckers?

[Traveler001]

I've considered this same idea in my 18-Wheeler. You're close on how it works. In trucks we use voltage inverters, converting 12 volts into normal 120 volts. Then anything will plug in. Inverters for trucks are frequently running 2,000-3,000 watts. I have a 2,500 watt inverter in my truck. I have both, the wireless telephone card hooked to my laptop and a Wi_fi card. All of the truckstops are putting Wi_Fi stations in. I do my legal log on my computer. I also use a mapping program. Until recently, I also got satellite photos over the Internet of new locations where I was going so that I knew how to approach it. The service was discontinued a couple of weeks ago. I guess someone thought that it was a security risk.... I also use a GPS to verify where I am, and where I am going. I have already been measuring where I would like to put an LCD monitor. I'm still figuring out where the rest of a full size PC would fit. Having it get air for cooling is my biggest concern. But I know that several drivers who have already done this.

Re:What about Truckers?

[reynols]

Voltage inverters... yea, I knew it was something like that. He also put on a custom made antena for his WiFi card that gives him quite a boost on the distance he can be from the wifi Station. You would be supprised on the number of open wifi ports he finds... then again, maybe in this crowd, maybe not.

I'm currious how the new california law would affect this setup. Is the Mapping/GPS software running on a physically mounted computer enough?

Re:What about Truckers?

[Traveler001]

>I'm currious how the new california law would affect this setup. Is the Mapping/GPS software running on a physically mounted computer enough?

I'm not sure what your are refering to.

On the Satellite systems that most company truck have installed, GPS is checked all of the time. Information is provided to the driver, and by satellite back to the company that owns the truck. It is also provided to the military for sensitive government shipments. But the GPS is constantly monitored with this system.

On my mapping system, I have a Garmin GPS unit that plugs into my laptop and my mapping software (DeLorme Street Atlas in my case) gets the information from the GPS unit. While plugged in, it can tell me when to make turns through the laptop speakers. (Talk about a backseat driver...)

But I find the laptop mapping system very useful. In fact, I've been using this so long that I'm not sure that I could find my way across the country without it.... (About 10 years.)

Re:What about Truckers?

[reynols]

>>I'm currious how the new california law would affect this setup. Is the Mapping/GPS software running on a physically mounted computer enough?

>I'm not sure what your are refering to.

What I'm refereing to is how the CA law bans computer use in the front seat, with apparent exceptions for GPS/Navigation units. Does a physically mounted PC running GPS/Navigation software qualify for the exception, ignoreing the fact it's an alt-tab away from anything else?

My friends truck also has a company installed GPS tracking unit. But the one he installed is his, and also has been _extreamly_ helpful in helping him find his destinations.

Re:What about Truckers?

[reynols]

Just talked to my trucker friend. He wasn't aware of the law, nor does he care (Doesn't go to CA much anyway). Being so high up in the cab, it's not like a cop is going to see him using it, and if he is pulled over for something, he just has to turn it off--the few cops that have seen it thought his setup was "pretty cool". He also said he's met quite a few fellow truckers that have similar setups, either a PC mounted, or a laptop sitting on the seat.

Re:What about Truckers?

[Traveler001]

I'm in the same boat. I had not heard of the law until today. But on the other hand, truckers are not that high in the cab when they go though DOT scale houses. Many times the scale house is elevated so they can see into the cab.

As far as it goes, I pull my laptop out and show it to the "Bears" when they want to see my logbook. They think that it's pretty cool and wish that all truckers had them.

But as far as this new law is concerned, I just learned about it here today. But there are a bunch of new laws all over the country taking effect before Monday.

Better Solution

[sysadmn]

Let's let evolution sort this one out. We've already got a law mandating air bags. Just pass a law exempting manufacturers from liablility if you're stupid enough to have a 5lb laptop in front of one. Then we'll select for smarter, more careful drivers, and more nimble pedestrians and bike riders. Everybody wins!

What About...

[virg_mattes]

> I have driven around with a passanger with laptop stuck into OBDII port or BRC LPG diagnostics port to see what happens with the car and adjust things accordingly. What about tuned cars with custom chips that allow some tweaking? So that is gonna be illegal, too?

What about them? Have your passenger bring a slightly longer cable and sit in back. If you don't have a passenger, you shouldn't be doing mobile diagnostics on your own, since it's distracting you from your driving.

> As people said, what about giving directions to the driver based on mapping software in computer?

See above. Put the laptop user in the back seat. If that'll be an issue, print it out.

> There are perfectly good uses for laptop in a car, and they don't cause more distraction or accident risk.

Quite right, but then there are too many who would abuse those uses. For the vast majority of good uses, this law won't be a big problem.

Virg

Legislative Process

[AgentSmith1000]

OK, barring all the state revenue collected from this legislation, anyone in California should be asking what the hell was the thought process behind this? Legislation like this doesn't come up out of the ether. There was mebbe a statistical analysis of vehicle/highway accident performed or someone actually wrote to their State Assembly Representative .

As a hypothetical, it might have gone like this (paraphrase):

Assemblyman #1: Well, as my collegue and distinguished gentleman from Orange County stated our State highways are frequented more and more by vehicle accidents caused by driver inattention due to cel phone use and Video device usage. We need to resolve this an I propose that Bill #301 be passed to amend the Vehicle code to resolve this.

Assemblyman #2: Ok Bob, but what about all those shitbats out there who'll complain that we don't ban for other eletronic distractions?

Assemblyman #1: Well Phil, this Bill will need to be comprehensive and cover anything involving electronic visual distractions. What qualifies?

Unknown technical advisor: Uh Bob, usually anything with a Video signal is going to distract.

Bam! Passed into law. Mebbe for you folks out in California might want to call, fax or email your Assemblyman cause I have no idea why the hell they included passengers.

Of course, I'm in Pennsylvania and I'd be nice to tag all those bastards that near miss my car when talking on a non-hands free cel phone. Mebbe a call to my State Representative is in order. >;-> Right now it's only handled by Municipality, Boro or Township.

Re:What about the police?

[Politburo]

Yeah, but in America, as christian as we claim to be, we feel that the whole "do unto others" thing is a little overrated. So, forgive Iraq's debt, BUY OUR BEEF, and shutup!

Are the police exempt?

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is the case, I would like to press charges against every single police officer in the state of California.

They all have "laptops" "installed" in the front seat of their cruisers.

Or is this yet another case where the law is above the law?

~SoCaliRes

Re:Police

[Daytona955i]

It really depends on where you go, some police forces are trained to drive (though not much) and other places aren't. I don't know how it is in California though.

However, I know some cops and I don't trust them to operate a computer while driving. It also seems like a double standard... oh you can't use a computer because we say so but emergency vehicles can. WTF?

I know more and more utility companies over here on the east coast are using computers and GPS to find there way around and this wouldn't allow for that. I also think it's reduculous because if in an accident the most dangerous place for a laptop to be would be in the back seat because it would fly forard.

Stupid laws, stupid laws and more stupid laws. That and the high prices are 2 reasons I will never move to california. (Though it is beautiful)

Re:What about the police?

[dema]

I assume law enforcement is exempt from this?

Of course they are. Hell, where I live they are exempt from using turn signals and making full stops at stop signs, apparently.

Why prevent a passenger from navigating?

[dara]

I live in California, and I just recently purchased a GPS for use with my laptop. It worked very well while traveling over the holiday in San Diego. I had my father run the program and give me directions. I guess in the future if I want someone to navigate for me in the car, I have to have them sit in the backseat (luckily I have one, some don't).

In a funny way, my laptop is safer than my Thomas Guide (printed map) since it can be programmed to use a large font, center my location, and give voice direction (my program doesn't, but they are available). But it isn't illegal to have a Thomas Guide lying on your passenger seat when you get pulled over. Absurd.

Perhaps one of the overpriced in-dash GPS navigation system companies has been making some large donations. Time to write my representative - I had no idea this one was coming.

Dara

Best driving anecdote...

[Idarubicin]

My aunt and uncle were driving through Toronto a few years ago. It was fairly late in the evening. They were on the 401 by the airport, where the 403 merges in and there's about eight lanes in each direction. Traffic was (fortunately) quite light.

In front of them, a car was weaving back and forth, clearly unable to stay in its lane. At first, they were speculating as to whether or not the driver was sober. Eventually, they were able to pass the dangerous driver.

She was steering with her elbows and knitting.

In Ontario the Highway Traffic Act describes a number of different offenses, including "reckless driving". It's sort of a catch-all that lets the police ticket or arrest individuals who are doing incredibly stupid things that aren't necessarily specifically described in law. (Sort of a "too-dangerously-stupid-to-drive" offense.) Do other jurisdictions not have similar statutes? Why not?

What a joke!

[MrPink2U]

I can't believe this needs to be a law. When behind the wheel of a car, your first responsibility is to DRIVE THE FUCKING CAR! Programming, surfing the web, shaving your ass, etc, etc, etc can wait until you are out from behind the wheel of the 3000 pound projectile.

Re:Laptops while driving

[epsilon_alpha]

You have an excellent point here, but also remember that it is human nature to be curious about what somebody else is doing... just that one little screen-look can be devastating. Besides, can't that web surfing wait until you're at your destination anyway? I'm sure there's nothing all too urgent about your bids on ebay when compared with the safety of said driver, passenger, and potential victim.

My car radio is now illegal in California..

[myrashka]

As it turns out, the exemptions don't allow for a video screen that shows your car's radio. So while my navigation system is up, it's exempt, the second I go to select a preset on the radio screen, I'm driving illegally? Yeah, ok, I probably shouldn't fiddle with the radio while driving - but because it's in a video screen, I'm going to be criminally accountable while the doob in the 70 dart next to me with a traditional push button radio bends over to fiddle with his stuck preset flies on freely to whack any poor schmuck he likes.

Normally, I'm against over legislation because it's really hard to develop vague words to describe any hundreds of specific situations accurately....and to me, one of the many definitions of freedom is that I take some risk that some other moron will end me in exchange for being able to live my own life without having to carry a playbook around that typically can't cover all the reasonable situations anyways.

That being said, I think it's important that we create legistlation that protects us from our own inability to understand our limitations (which a collective can understand but we as individuals continually think we're beyond). My only problem is that such legislation usually goes overboard because it's not specific enough in scope or the law only provides exemption for classes of authority (like they are excluded from the moron clause because they've been given that authority) or worse, it tries to tell us what we can and can't do. Laws should not tell us what we can and can't do - just what the penalities are for making bad decisions or doing things that are not advisable (the law doesn't say we can't murder - it says we'll be punished if we do - and only after we actually try to accomplish the end...the law shouldn't say we can't use a laptop in the front seat - it should say if we use a laptop in the and attempt an accident (or god forbid cause one), then we should be punished harshly for our stupidity).

This law needs improvement - here are my ideas:

- This law doesn't need to punish a passenger for using a laptop. It needs to specifically punish the driver if he lets himself be distracted by such a device...or if there's no passanger and he's using the device (for example, any accident which the driver is at fault in in which a laptop occupies the front seat [with or without a passenger] will carry triple the normal penalties) - if you're a driver and allow the laptop in the front with your passenger, you'll be extra careful to not get into an accident that's your fault.

- It should also allow exemptions based on specialized training - thus allowing any moron to become "authorized" (for example, members of the public who take a certified class teaching the proper use of video screens in the front seat while at rest are exempt from this prohibition). Yeah - ok, if we the normal public moron can't get access to the class, then it's the same as just giving it to any moron with a badge (and please, don't flame me as I have great respect for our officials who aren't morons)..but that's a different debate isn't it?

- Further, it should grandfather certain built-in devices (like my car radio..the dealer is unlikely to take it back) and it should certainly exempt anything "pre-installed" by the manufacturer - with the assumption that manufacturers have to certify their devices with California (I can see it now, California certified video screens versus non-california certified screens;)

Yeah - this isn't the end all be all answer to this - but it's really going to piss me off that my wife can't translate an IM conversation for me while we're hurtling down the highway at 65 mph.

Which brings me to my next silly and yet scary thought - does this law hold me criminally accountable if I get in an accident while looking at the screen in my head as a result of talking a client through a procedure to fix their broken server via a legal hands-free cell phone? *smirk*

Re:My car radio is now illegal in California..

[Anonymous Coward]

there are many cars out there that have built in navigation screens.. this ban doesn't make sense

Why not forbid having a passenger on the front sit

[Anonymous Coward]

That can be distracting..

Origins

[virg_mattes]

> I know plenty of very pragmatic people who are nonetheless quite dull, logically speaking. I, on the other hand, approach absent minded...when i get in the car, i put the lappy in the trunk.

Your use of English indicates that you're British, at least so far as language training is concerned, but despite using "lappy" you refer to the trunk of your car as a "trunk", not a "boot". Please reconcile.

I could only conclude that either you're far too good at English to be here, or you're really a Brit, but in the latter case you've been Americanized enough that you should feel free to do stupid things with impunity while you drive.

Virg

Re:Origins

[dasmegabyte]

Actually, I'm a native American, but many of my favorite authors are British. Therefore at time my rhetoric receives a very British colour. From now on, I will endeavour to insert more Americanisms in my posts. Starting now:

Uh...

Wooo, tits and beer and guns! These colors never run! It's got a Hemi, go Yankees! Matrix rulez! Let's shop at Wal-Mart's, Wooo!

And yes, I do ocassionally refer to my trunk as a "boot," but that results in my wife kicking my ass.

Prius owners

[TClevenger]

I wonder how this will affect Toyota Prius owners. The car comes with a video screen that shows the status of the motor assist system. In fact, pretty much any color "video" screen, such as those that house navigation, climate and radio controls on more expensive cars, would be banned, at least according to the text on the DMV site.

Police cars have laptop installed

[Leykis101]

Does this ban explicitly stated that police cars are exempted?
They have computers installed in their patrolled cars for years....

Laptop Makes me Safer

[jheinen]

Funny, but one of the reasons I have a laptop installed in my front seat is to make me a safer driver. Before I go somewhere I plot the route in Mappoint and use AdvancedGPS to guide me there. Instead of looking around at road signs and trying to figure out where to turn, I focus on the road and other cars and let the computer tell me where to go (in a nice feminine voice BTW). I give the act of driving the car my full attention. I don't have to spend any cycles wondering if I'm going in the right direction.

Troll ?

[CmdrGravy]

How on earth is that a Troll ?

wardriving

[donnyspi]

This will make war driving less fun...

Trucking and delivery vehicles?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what UPS, FedX and other delivery services think about this? I assume they are not supposed to be using their systems while in motion, but I would expect some systems to be on and not closed up. One of the delivery guys where I am uses a GPS and scheduling system for route management. Truck operations to and from the sea ports?

Less people - more oxygen

[melted]

Why oh why does the government have to protect its citizens from themselves. If they want to use a laptop - let'em use it. Give them the statistics on injuries, though so that they make an informed choice. People using laptop are usually not among the dumbest.

Re:Less people - more oxygen

[TCaM]

Without fail everyone I have ever seen driving around with a tv in the front has been in one of the new 'tank-esque' SUVS. When they wreck this 9000 pound monster do you think they are going to be the one being killed? Do you think they should make drinking in cars legal? Hell just print current drinking and driving stats on every beercan and let them choose eh?

Re:Less people - more oxygen

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, you mean fewer people, in your subject line.

Re:walking is also complex, get rid of walkmens

[Blue Stone]

" How do you find room for all that arrogance and still have enough breathable air around you? "

Perhaps Creep73 simply realises that travelling around in a metal lump that weights a ton at great speed and could end people's lives, is something to be taken very seriously.

My father was a driving instructor, and probably wouldn't disagree with much that Creep73 has said.
Although he listens to music on the radio, when he's coming into a busy built-up area, he turns it down or off, so he can properly pay attention to his driving, the driving of others, and the inevitable reckless pedestrian who is sure they can make it across the road in time, suddenly.

It's called being aware of consequences your actions could have, and having some concern for people's lives, including your own.

You're actually getting a better deal than that.

[hey!]

To wit, for every communication device that I don't carry in my vehicle, let me go 5mph faster,

Stow the cell phone, and you can travel at the speed limit. Be talking on the phone, you have to be pulled over (0 MPH).

That'shten 55-65 MPH for a single device.

I'm expected to putter through traffic at the same speed as a soccer mom on her cell phone with 4 screaming kids in the back watching TV.

Take my advice: go to the track and get this speed thing out of your system.

How long until Dean blames George Bush?

[penginkun]

So let's see.

So California, whose government is dominated by Democrats, passes a law regulating what people can and cannot do in their cars. Even if that person isn't the driver and poses no threat to the safety of the car or to other drivers.

Am I alone in seeing this as fascist?

Once again, sumbitter needs to RTFL

[EmagGeek]

It clearly states that the law does not apply to "Vehicle Information Displays," "Global Positioning Display," "Mapping Displays," and what amounts to heads-up displays....

I do disagree that a laptop in use by the front passenger would trigger the law... the passenger can be reading a newspaper and it could be just as distracting as a laptop. Why aren't books and newspapers included in the law?

Once again, the government is on a power grab with these overly broad laws...

Re:Yet another CA pain to do business in & wit

[mabhatter654]

Simple, stop working in the state! If enough service people simply stop doing their work when this goes into effect, people will complain and it will be fixed. If say, both UPS and FedEx simply halted all deliveries in CA in protest, I'm sure it would get fixed quite quickly...

Re:Police

[Anonymous Coward]

RTMFA AGAIN YSFI

This doesn't apply to GPS devices

[mitsuhadeishi]

The law as written pretty specifically excludes GPS devices and mapping systems. Yes, it hinges on the meaning of the word "installed" but I find it unlikely that anyone would be prosecuted under this law if they are using a GPS mapping system on their PDA. The intention is clearly to exclude mapping systems.

However, it does appear to exclude the use of laptops by someone riding in the front passenger seat. I doubt that was the intention of the law (it is apparently a revision of the "no TV in the front seat" law), but it does seem to be a technical violation of the law as written. Still I doubt any cop would cite you for that. I mean, there are millions of things a cop could technically cite you for at any given instant, hidden deep in the Vehicle Code, and most of these things they aren't going to bother to pull you over for (like going 5 mph over the speed limit, as a simple example). A cop once told me that they could pull over pretty much anybody within a few minutes because they're bound to violate *something, somewhere* in the Vehicle Code.

Re:This one goes out to all my dead homies

[xcomm]

I would like to get some *BSD on my box to try it. But I can not install it on a logicial partion at all.

Quick Fix

[Technician]

OK, maybe I'm trolling, but the quickest way to fix a bad law is enforce it. I don't just mean tickets. I mean Hertz Never Lost no longer has any maps or support for California. Same for On-Star. Be sure all the ambulance and pizza delevery guys are impacted.

Step 2, wait for the revolt.

Step 3, enjoy the revision.

Remember the guy who used to find old obsolete lawa on the books and arrested a town mayor for driving a horseless carriage in town without someone going ahead ringing a bell? The guy who arrested people for stacking firewood on a sidewalk? It was great in clearing up old wrong laws.

MTU's?

[Anonymous Coward]

i wonder if this applies to the MTU's in police vehicles as well? technically the police are not exempt from any laws... technically.

People I give rides too..

[Anonymous Coward]

-,- There are folks that occasionally need rides to work, from the Dorms. As of right now, I'm one of two people with a working car of the Dorm-Ridden folks in my shop. Work starts a 0700. I'm at my car, warming it up at 0630, and get there are 0650. They try to call me at 0645, and are then angry at me when they end up late to work after waking up X number of friends elsewhere to get a ride. ...If you're going to hitch a ride, call early. Be ready earlier. Beggers can't be choosers.

The text of the law you quote ...

[timothy]

... I think says something less sensible than you're allowing.

There's still the issue of "installed in a vehicle" which would seem to rule out most laptops, except for semi-installed edge cases like the one I pointed out.

And under point 5, above, a laptop (or an iPaq) is capable of "visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal," and none I know of have an interlock as specified. It would be *possible* for laptops to have a "driving mode" or something, but according to the letter of the law, I don't see how they can fit through the cracks. I don't live in CA -- if you do, and have any law enforcement friends, you have a better chance than I do of finding out ;) (Unless I find the USB cable for my GPS and tempt fate next week on a trip to CA ...)

timothy

115 mph vs. 65 mph

[Anonymous Coward]

On the subject of being able to handle driving at 115 mph when the speed limit is 65 mph, let's apply a little Newtonian mechanics and see if that gives us any insight on how much better a driver you have to be to handle 115 mph rather than 65 mph.

Well, first of all, the amount of damage you can do with your car is directly proporitional to its kinetic energy. So, let's find the ratio of kinetic energy at 115 mph over kinetic energy at 65 mph. The formula describing kinetic energy is KE = 0.5 * m * v^2. Rearranged to get the ratio, all the other terms cancel out, and we are left with the ratio of the squares of the velocities, i.e. v1^2 / v2^2 or (v1/v2)^2. So, all other things being equal, you will do 3.13 times as much damage going at the higher speed, if you collide with something.

What about the time it takes to stop? Actually what matters is the distance to stop. We know that v^2 = 2 * a * s (where s is displacement and a is acceleration). Acceleration due to braking remains constant and is independent of your velocity, so we can rearrange to s = v^2 / (2 * a) and we can cancel some terms to find that the ratio of stopping distances is once again v1^2 / v2^2, which equals (v1/v2)^2. So, the stopping distance is also 3.13 times as great.

But surely you want to be able to maneuver and avoid a collision too, right? That's probably the whole basis of claiming to be a superior driver, right? The math is much tougher here, but still it'd be nice to answer a question: if something appears in front of you, how many feet to the left or the right of it can you swerve before you reach its position (without losing traction and/or rolling your vehicle)? As you turn, you trace out an arc, and because your car in essence has a fixed maximum lateral acceleration, the sharpness of the arc is roughly proportional to the speed you're travelling. What if you start the arc now and end it when you've either hit or missed the object in your path? This is where the math gets complicated. Your ability to swerve and miss an object degrades more than linearly with speed, but for simplicity, let's say it's only linear. So, the safety penalty here is really more than this, but we'll call it just v1 / v2.

You may have noticed that we've only considered three factors, but already we have two ratios of (v1/v2)^2 and one v1/v2. Since changing one factor increases the danger pretty much independently of the others, the ratios multiply, and you get a final ratio of (v1/v2)^5. If v1 is 115 and v2 is 65, then this ratio equals about 17.3.

Driving is a very complex situation, and a better approximation is surely possible. But according to these calculations, if "I can handle it" means "driving at 115 mph is as safe for me as driving at 65 mph is for others", then "I can handle it" equates to a claim of being about 17.3 times as good as other drivers.

And even if 17.3 is not the right number, the point is that danger's relationship to speed is superlinear. Driving twice the speed is more (much more, probably) than twice as dangerous.

The OSDN Personals chick is next....

[buckeyeguy]

... because driving with one eye covered has to mess with depth perception, etc.

Cops are breaking the law!

[Grandmaster Mort]

I haven't bothered to read the PDF and would imagine that cops are exempt from this legislation since all modern cop cars have some type of mounted computers in them for them to access driver info, criminal records, etc. Yeah, it's ridiculous in any case. Stupid ass liberals strike again! Go Dumbocrats!

California Again

[nightwing2000]

So what do you do if the passenger pulls out their PDA? Jam on the brakes? California is known for this sort of brilliance. Many years ago they made it illegal to get into a car with a drunk driver. Your taxi driver gets pulled over and blows over .08, you get charged with criminal offence and hefty fine too. Doh! I would suggest that a piece of equipment used by a passenger should be exempt. Or should they be banning cell phone use in the passenger seat too? PS> Where the heck is open liquor in the back seat legal? Open liquor accessible to anyone in a vehicle is a criminal offence in Canada. Those limo bars always amaze me! As for the take-out window in the bar I saw in Jackson Hole long ago... hmmm.

Re:California Again

[certsoft]

Where the heck is open liquor in the back seat legal?

Vermont and Texas to name two.

What about cops?

[DarthBobo]

Here in Massachusetts, most of the cop cars have notebooks mounted to the dash.

Will California cops have to arrest themselves?

I don't think it's easy to use a laptop

[melted]

and drive the car at the same time. My comment was about laptops. Having said that, I don't think TVs should be banned either. If someone is stupid enough to watch TV while driving, he will find something else but just as stupid to do, like reading a book, or sleeping on the steering wheel.

Law say that I must have my laptop close

[Traveler001]

I drive an 18-wheeler. I do my legal logs on my laptop. Federal law say that it has to be within my reach while sitting in the driver's seat.

Interesting....

Not *breaking* the law ...

[timothy]

Just floating above it :)

The law names excemptions, and police cars are among them. (And if it didn't, I've seen enough cops not stop at stop signs and red lights that I believe they some policepersons have a fair idea of how likely laws are to be enforced against them, anyhow.)

timothy

Speaking of being aware...

[JPelorat]

Perhaps I wasn't responding to Creep73 at all.

Use the Parent link on that post of mine or switch to showing posts at -1, check it out for yourself.

Re:Speaking of being aware...

[Blue Stone]

Ah, my appologies to you good sir.

Re:Speaking of being aware...

[JPelorat]

Spoken like a gentlemen.

(I've been caught by that a couple times myself, heh)

Cops

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how this effects emergency services and trucks.

computers are in almost ever police car, amulance, and firetruck in my area.

Also, most trucking delivery services have computer systems in them for telling them where to deliver the packages.

Advice for Poster

[LouisvilleDebugger]

>Good Lord, people, get off your phones while you're
>driving your minivans full of nine kids! Only in
>northern Virginia do I have to watch the traffic IN
>FRONT OF ME while I do a high-speed merge onto the
>Beltway! JESUS, people, find a hole and stick
>yourself in it! OK I'm done.

0. Calm down.
1. Take your hands off the keyboard.
2. Put them back on the wheel.

Navigators with disabilities

[AzureLunatic]

And I've ridden shotgun with my laptop and a map program many times. (It really sucks when your map program's on crack and things aren't where they actually are.)

I'm an excellent navigator, despite what seems to be a slight case of dysgraphia (I can tell my watch hand from my mouse hand, but can't always put the names "right" and "left" on them, especially under pressure), so when I'm navigating, I need to be sitting somewhere where the driver can see my gestures; a "Turn that way at the intersection!" from me is useless if the driver can't see which way I'm pointing.

It is probably safer to have me up front with my laptop advising the driver, rather than sitting behind the driver and the driver having to divert their attention from the road in order to see which way I'm pointing.

Better formatted

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not above average and I should be treated like everyone else. That being said, I'm still fully capable of driving properly while using my cell phone

Statistical evidence indicates that the average person is not fully capable of driving properly while using a cell phone. But I'm sure the average person would, like you, assert that they are, much as the vast majority of people say they are above average drivers.

They can make any crazy ass law about driving

Going with the assumtion that alien invaders have not yet secretly taken over, WE can indeed make any crazy-ass law, or even any sane law, about driving.

I dare anyone to live in Atlanta and say that they don't NEED to drive

I'll take your word for it. I used to live in DC, and I certainly NEEDED to drive, even though driving near DC basically sucks. Then I realized I didn't NEED to live in DC. You need to drive because most American communities are designed on the assumption that everyone does drive, and will drive whenever they go anywhere. Hence suburban sprawl: Vast tracts of dense residential space with nowhere to work, shop or play for miles around. So people move there and then complain about the traffic. OK, I'll quit since I'm deep into rant mode now...

Re:Better formatted

[2short]

Thanks.

Hey, is there a way to do that auto-magically? Everyone seems to use that italics style, but I don't see how to do it save typing in HTML, which I find a pain because I invariably screww it up slightly and then forget to hit "Preview".

Let the bill's author know what you think

[0WaitState]

For those of you living in California, especially around Fresno, contact the bills author, Sarah Reyes: Assemblywoman Reyes' contact info"

Carpooling passenger can't use a laptop or pda??? Do these people even live in the same world as those of us trying to make a living?

Re:Let the bill's author know what you think

[0WaitState]

Sigh. The email address on her contact page bounces. Looking around at other assembly-persons' pages, the correct format for the email address appears to be:

Assemblymember.Reyes@assembly.ca.gov

Re:Let the bill's author know what you think

[Anonymous Coward]

Be a sport, give her a call from the wireless VoIP app on your laptop while you're doing 80.

Re:Let the bill's author know what you think

[0WaitState]

Only if I'm in the passenger's seat...

MOD PARENT UP!

[soft_guy]

I totally agree. This law is bullshit. My wife can't use the GPS to give me directions from the front seat? Fuck that.

Two words

[Anonymous Coward]

Shift key.

Exemptions?

[SAFH]

So I just have to ask, what exemptions are going to be made? Now - or in the future? Don't most law enforcement vehicles have laptops in the front, permanently mounted? How about commercial vehicles? Delivery vehicles?

Thanks California!

the all encumbering government

[youaredan]

the fact is, computer use doesn't kill people - people kill people. It's not guns, its not computers, its irresponsibility. Sure, you are more likely to get in an accident if you use a computer in your front seat - but such is life. You could be shaving, talking on your phone, putting on makeup, etc - and be almost as likely to get in an accident.

When will the government realize that this country was not founded on micromanagement? Religious freedom was the flagship of the american charter so to speak - but why? Because it is a matter of opinion? No - religion is not relative; the reason is because religion is a matter of faith, which is relative to free will. Something can be obviously true, but people will CHOOSE not to believe it - so how could the government enforce something that is essentially unenforcable? People were burned at the stake for thier beliefs. How do you combat that? How do you regulate someone who would sooner die than be regulated? In light of said dilema, the government realized in a passing moment of clarity that it was futile to attempt to regulate free will in a way that was not easily justified across a public majority that could impose social ramifications for one's actions (think anti-smoking campaign).

The point of all of this, is that as with religion - at a certain point - people will snap and turn something that is not spiritual into a martyr situation. I know I'm close to snapping myself. IMHO - The government is barking up the wrong tree with micromanagement laws. I shudder at the lack of laws this country has now that will be attempted in the future, because the trend seems to be to make a law for every thought and action, rather than to make an appeal to personal responsibility and making an allowance for free will.

Ever wonder why it took a village to raise a child?
Ever wonder when the government will realize it needs to be a village and not an ivory tower?

You are not free.

Ella es una Democrat

[gsfprez]

sorry - she just assumes that most of her constituancy speaks spanish...

She is a democrat.

Look - just stop with the Bush is after your rights bullshit.

They ALL ARE looking to take your rights from you to give them to the government.

San Francisco cops have bracket mounted laptops

[spasm]

San Francisco police cars all have laptops mounted on a bracket in the front seat accessible to the driver for running licenses & *writing reports*.

does this mean they'll have to pull them all? {grin}

I use my laptop

[EvilStein]

I don't have anything besides the stock tape deck in my car, and radio in the SF Bay Area sucks.

So, before I leave, I fire up Winamp, queue up a ton of mp3s, click 'play' and drive off with the laptop sitting on the front seat, 3/4 closed. It's not a distraction, it's merely an audio device.

Guess I can't do *that* anymore. =/

Hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

So I wonder... Police Officers, detectives, and other "Offical" personell would be included in this right? Does that mean that police officers can no longer use their computers while they are driving?

how about Fire and Public Works people? Detectives?

What about those progressive insurance company "Mobile Claims Offices" ?

So much for safety

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess I better hop into the back seat if I plan to do any wardriving.

Points Again

[virg_mattes]

> Murdering innocents for the cause, oops... no check.

Well, it's far from mainstream (but then, so is bin Laden), but there are indeed a number of fundamentalists who like to kill innocents in the name of Christianity. You are only part right here.

> Also no check on the last two. You're confusing allowing views other than evolution to be taught with EXCLUDING evolution. Not everyone bows at the altar of evolution like you.

The point is that creation science is specifically and strongly Christian, and requires a Christian belief system to make any sense. That's what sets it aside from evolutionary theory, which is not tied to any particular religion.

> Frankly, if there was a third theory to compete with creationism and evolution, I'd welcome it too.

Well, then you'd be in a very small minority in the South, and by the way, there are a number of other beginning-of-world theories out there. How much hue and cry do you think you'd get from teaching Buddhism or even the Islamic version of origins in Alabama? If you think that any story other than Christian genesis would be accepted, you're deluding yourself.

> The second item you mention also has no bearing- nowhere in America there some Christian theocracy in place, thanks to the first amendment.

Both incorrect and irrelevant. Firstly, he's discussing what these people want, which is indeed laws based on their religious code. Second, if there's no evidence of theocratic law in the U.S., why can't I buy beer on Sunday morning in 38 states? Why is polygamy a jailable offense? There's plenty of God's law in the U.S. law books.

> Damn those Christians for wanting to be allowed to quietly say grace over lunch. They should be publicly flogged.

You know, if it was only that they could worship in peace, I'd be all for it, but it never is for them alone. They don't want it just to be legal to have their kids carry a copy of the Ten Commandments, they want it legal to post it on the school door, and in the state house rotunda, and have teachers profess it to everyone while the kids who don't agree get to leave the room. Perhaps it's just a few bad apples, but if you'd control your own constituents better, maybe we on the outside wouldn't have to pass legislation to force them to act like grownups.

Virg

I call BS

[Solandri]

I think it is a bizarre US issue that driving is somehow a god-given right... it is legal to drive a five times the legal intoxication limit of many european countries, while shaving, watching TV, reading a book, fiddling with the GPS, talking on the phone, etc... meanwhile we have a realitively high road mortality rate?

The motor vehicle mortality rates are pretty much the same in the US and Europe, with the US being slightly safer.

Overall EU fatality rate for 1999 is 15.8 per billion vehicle km.

Overall US fatality rate for 1999 (PDF file) is 1.5 per 100 million vehicle miles, or 9.3 per billion km. That makes the US vehicle fatality rate lower than all the EU nations except the UK and Sweden.

Personally, I'd attribute the difference to the greater density and complexity of European roadways (US roads tend to be laid out in an easy-to-navigate grid) before blaming one for having worse drivers than the other. I'd also suggest you resist the urge to make up facts in your desire to bash the US. Given the above statistics, someone using the flawed reasoning you just did would conclude that using cell phones, GPS, watching TV, shaving, or being intoxicated while driving are actually attributes of safer drivers.

moms in mini vans

[merbywerby]

Next can we ban moms in mini vans with or without the cell phone their a seriious hazard, ;)

Re:What about the police?

[ducomputergeek]

And the average joe doesn't have hours and hours of specialized high speed driving courses either. Next up, how many times do you see the police checking their laptop while moving. I always see them checking it while pulled over or on the side of the road.

Also, sometimes when cops seemingly are breaking the law doing 60 in a 40, its because many times they are called to haul bloody from one hospital or location to another if ambulances are on other calls and other critical items like that.

Now there are some just Asshole cops out there that think a badge gives them the athourity to do as they please. Especially local yokals.

This law illustrates the PROBLEM with our Govt!

[Newer Guy]

See, our well intentioned but clueless lawmakers truly believe that they can establish a law to deal with every possible circumstance. Got a problem? Pass a law. Find another variation of the same problem? No sweat, pass another law! If I recall, even GOD only had TEN of them for us to follow. These clowns likely pass fifty times that amount every hour of every day! Look, there are certain things that can't be legislated only LEARNED. For one, you can't legislate morality. Nor can you legislate common sense, nor basic safety. Our government treats too many problems like crimes without even trying to really find the reason. For example, suicide is a crime. If you survive, they have no problem with arresting you and putting you in jail, even though 9999 times out of 10,000 there's an underlying reason. same thing with drug use. For some reason, we seem to always want the 'quick fix' and that means passing another law or rule. In a way, it's too bad that not having common sense isn't a crime; most of our lawmakers would wind up going to jail!

Re:Police

[Anonymous Coward]

The editor who posted this didn't RTFA, for fuck's sake. After all, the law specifically exempts all GPS/navigational systems, yet he acts like it's still somehow up in the air. Can we mod editors down?

Whoops, I should have read the article

[dara]

After reading the article, I see my laptop use may be specifically allowed. The article states:

"The new bill bars drivers from operating televisions and video screens in their line of vision while the vehicle is moving but allows the use of mapping and some other devices."

I guess I need to read the fine print of the bill to see if a laptop qualifies as a "mapping device" when it is being used in that capacity, but this seems plausible anyway.

Dara

The law does *not* ban all laptops!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you actually *read* the law (which neither the original poster nor the numbnuts at Slashdot did), the use of GPS-equipped devices and the like are exempt from the law. So, load up GPS mapping software and plug a GPS into your laptop, and you're fine. It also doesn't ban such devices anywhere in the front seat - again, if the Slashdot fool or the actual hysterical poster had *read* the law (along with all the "me-too" posters ranting on and on about it here), there would be a lot less BS being posted.

Next time, READ the article instead of just knee-jerk posting, hmm?

Sense?

[idfubar]

Why ban usage for the passenger as well? Rear-facing screens at eye level like DVD screens are far more distracting to other drivers and pose the true safety threat.

How disappointing.

What most people fail to realize...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a huge difference between "driving" and "aiming the car."

Most people just aim the car so it is within the lines and not too close to other cars.

Driving is much more than that. What the primary issue is awareness of conditions around you. Cellphones and anything that distracts you causes you to be a hazard.

If nothing else, cellphones causes you to move to the leftmost lane and slow down. ...or so it seems to me, anyway.

CR

Another perspective

[Snowdrake]

Here's a slightly different perspective on why a laptop in particular in the front seat could be a bad thing: A woman I know was using her laptop in the front passenger seat of a fairly recent-model car a couple years ago. It was a rainy day, and the driver was at one point unable to stop fast enough to avoid hitting a car in front of them. Driver and passenger-side airbags both deployed; the damage to the car was not what I'd call minimal, but little enough that the car was made roadworthy again afterwards, and the driver says he locked his arms and didn't even hit the airbag. The passenger didn't fare so well; she got a face full of laptop screen, including a number of bits in her left eye that caused her some problems (glaucoma and other assorted fun) for months if not years afterward. Unfortunately, I've lost contact with her since (you know who you are - if you're reading this, I'm on IRC in the usual place), so I don't know what she's up to since or how it's affected her in the long term, but at the very least it definitely was a pain in her ass for many months.

levels of risk

[diablobynight]

Driving itself is risky. To avoid risk we could lower speed limits. There would be less accidents at 30 mph than 60 mph, but we have decided that for the value of getting their faster, we will accept more risk of injury and drive faster. This is the same issue, of course, any distraction in your car is more likely to get you in an accident.

But i see it as an acceptable level of risk. You have to measure the oppurtunity cost of every decision made. You can't just look at one side and give up.

Re:levels of risk

[Rangsk]

Who are you to decide whether something is an "acceptable level of risk" when it comes to driving? Personally, I could care less how you endanger yourself, but when you get on the road, you are endangering everyone else out there who's driving, so you better bet I care when you ram into a minivan full of children.

So, yeah, I think it's perfectly acceptable for the government to regulate what is an "acceptable level of risk," since it tends to represent the general consensus of the people and of experts in the subject. But I certainly don't think that you have a right to decide such things for yourself when such decisions could turn your vehicle an indiscriminant killing machine.

What about car pc?

[aardwolf204]

What about a home brew car pc? I've got a mini-itx/7" lcd setup in my car running map point/gps, netstumbler, mp3, and even MAME for the passengers. The box is installed in my glove and on the outside it doesnt look anything less than professional.

Lots of Things are Legal While Driving

[serutan]

I'm all in favor of any law that punishes drivers for doing anything distracting, because I figure it's my freedom to stay alive vs their freedom to save a little time or relieve boredom. But it's surprising what things are legal while driving in various states; for example, breastfeeding in Ohio and drinking in Montana (where there's also no speed limit!).

Gameboys and stuff?

[g00bd0g]

Your post made me think of something. Does this law ban Gameboys and such from the front seats of the car? They certainly seem to fit the description of "able to display a video signal of entertainment applications"

Horribly written law. Period.

[rpdillon]

"...that visually produces entertainment or business applications..."

So wait, any video screen...? My radio is for entertainment, and it has a screen. Is that banned? How similar does the screen have to be to a television? All the law says is "similar".

But my laptop was running a screensaver. The law doesn't say "is capable of visually producing" it says "that visually produces" - so they can't enforce unless the device is actually visually producing an entertainment or visual application?

Oh wait, what the heck does it mean to "visually produce...[an]...application"? I can use emacs for entertainment, business, or what if it's just programming a game as a hobby? Does that count?

Define entertainment...obviously playing Quake 3 counts, but how does a screen showing your mp3 player playlist differ that much from a radio with all the tuning/seek/volume/equalizer buttons?

The intent is good, but they really need to get someone that understands the realm of techno-devices in vehicles and write the law intelligently, not just toss off some mediocre legislation that will ultimately cause a lot of hate and discontent *cough* DMCA *cough*.

Read the legislation it allows some devices

[Anonymous Coward]

The legislation specifically exempts some types of device, including vehicle information displays, GPS displays, mapping displays and driver visual aids.

Re:Read the legislation it allows some devices

[Palmzombie]

Very true. The original poster failed to read the article before posting it on /. making it seem very Orwellian. Let's face it, the law was poorly written to begin with, updated poorly to cover devices other than television broadcasts and "business" applications (let's define business eh?). And poorly reported by a person who failed to read it. See a trend here? The devices and technology today is poorly understood by the average person, never mind the politician. It is amazing we have not outlawed the use of the vast majority of technology. See why cloning and stem cell research will be done abroad. Wake up America.

Damn!

[Tandoori Haggis]

no more w*^@ing at traffic jams.

http://www.gradeababes.com

Yes, I lived in the DC area

[Anonymous Coward]

By the way, does anyone here live in the DC Metro area? I moved here from the Philadelphia area a few months ago and the FUCKERS AROUND HERE CANNOT DRIVE! Good Lord, people, get off your phones while you're driving your minivans full of nine kids! Only in northern Virginia do I have to watch the traffic IN FRONT OF ME while I do a high-speed merge onto the Beltway! JESUS, people, find a hole and stick yourself in it! OK I'm done.

Those fuckers just cannot drive. Wait until there is some rain, or god forbid, snow. Then watch the accidents pile up. We had a 100 car plus pileup once during a minor snowstorm.

DC fucktards don't know how to drive even when it's sunny, and when there's precipitation, all bets are off. (By DC I also mean Montgomery, PG, Fairfax, Alexandria, Prince William and all other surrounding counties.)

PS--I'm from Massachusetts. We drive kind of crazy^1 here, but not nearly as lethal. For one thing, we drive nowhere near as fast.

1-But not as crazy as Jersey. Though even people in Jersey drive better than 'tards in the DC area.

Re:What about the police?

[ruiner13]

"Yeah, but in America, as christian as we claim to be..."

I've never claimed that, and never will, thank you very much (you insensitive clod?). I'll stick to a religion where I have a chance in getting into heaven (still haven't found one....).

police too?

[PhreakOfTime]

Does this count the police cruisers I see running plates on their laptop when they are stopped at an intersection? When the laws, as written, apply to everyone, Ill follow them, until then stick it up your ass.

Also, if your state has a seatbelt law, take a look at the next officer driving by to see if hes wearing his. Its even better with a camera, and he might even wonder why your pointing your phone at him. T

RE: No it's not!

[King_TJ]

This is just one more reason I'm glad I don't live in California. They're constantly passing more legislation restricting what people can and can't do on a micro-management level.

I've seen a number of people with LCD panels mounted in the passenger seat of their vehicle. Typically, it's so the passenger can watch a DVD movie while sitting in the car. Since the passenger isn't the one driving, I see no harm in that. (Debating whether or not people really need the ability to watch movies in their car is a whole different issue, and one that comes down to personal choice, IMHO. I wouldn't opt to spend the money for this sort of thing, but some people would, and do - and that should be their right to do so.)

If the driver of the car was trying to watch the display on the *passenger* side of the car and got in an accident, then that's his/her own fault for doing something stupid. Don't punish everyone else for that!

I've gone on several road trips where having a laptop running GPS software was very handy. One person drove while the other person in the passenger seat ran the laptop and told the driver what to look out for ahead, how far we'd gone, etc. If CA thinks this should be illegal, I can't see how they'd allow a passenger to look at a paper road map either??

Wi-Fi testing around block

[KeelSpawn]

Wait so I can't use a laptop even as a passenger on the front seat?? My brother and I sometimes do some Wi-Fi range testing for our router around block we live in. I bring my laptop with me in the car. Then we drive down a street, check the wireless signals, turn 90 degrees and keep on driving around and test. So now you're telling me I can't even do THAT?? And I don't watch TV you idiot, not to mention TVs in cars.

So when i'm wardriving...

[ricochet81]

i'll just put the notebook in the back, and point my rearview mirror at it.

Cell phones

[Anonymous Coward]

Cell phones cause more accidents than drunk drivers already. If you use a cell phone while driving, you're a fucking moron, so stop whining.

Re:What about the police?

[Politburo]

I'm not christian either. However you can't deny that the country is christian, when you look at the majority of our elected leaders, on both sides of the aisle.

What about police officers

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the ban include police officers whose patrol cars have laptops installed in the front seat?

No law was needed

[xtronics]

Inattentive driving is already against the law. Why do they keep making needless laws?

an important point seems to be lacking ...

[Cyn]

None of the comments I've read (and perhaps I missed the all important one) seem to address the real issue.

It's not that the average person can't drive well while talking on a cellphone or otherwise distracted.

It's that the average person can't drive well.

PERIOD.

Too many people assume driving is a simple task, when in reality your well being becomes the task of those around you who are busy anticipating your sudden lane change, noticing you drifting into their lane and backing off or changing so you don't sideswipe them, or noting that while their light just turned green - you don't seem to give a rats ass and are going to run a red light 3 seconds late.

Drivers licenses are given out way too casually, and people aren't tested under real situations. I drove around in Ireland this summer - and while it's not nearly as much traffic, the roads are wide enough for two vehicles. Two vehicles hugging the shoulder - hoping their side view mirrors aren't the same elevation. I didn't get in an accident, I didn't see any accidents.

One thing that was really refreshing, is when on the faster roads that have 'passing zones' - i.e. fewer lanes than one would prefer when stuck behind a slow vehicle - people routinely calmy wait for you to move aside for them, or calmy move aside for you (depending on who's going faster). Afterwards, the passer blinks their emergency lights as a "thank you" and goes on their merry way. That's right - motorists working together, and THANKING one another afterwards. I curse a storm in the states when I drive, I ENJOYED driving in Ireland - and not just on the scenic routes. Note: roundabouts kinda suck though, imo. They're good for low traffic, but damn they are pretty annoying in high traffic.

Also: Get off your goddamn cellphone, it's sure not helping your driving. That's the bottom line - it's not helping, so unless it's a huge emergency and you're using a handsfree or a passenger is handling it - stfu.

palm / visor screen illumination

[timothy]

Agreed! I like to have directions on my Visor for the exact same reason. Of course, that doesn't help much if you're lost ;)

timothy

Police Cruisers

[atriel]

I know for a fact that ALL police cruisers in California are fitted with a Laptop computer... in the front seat!!!!

but... it is installed... in a mount.... I know, because I used to work with a company which manufactures and installeds the mounts and lightracks...

so... I wonder... are law enforcement officers above this (almost blatantly unconstitutional law) ???

I mean... there has to be a limit somewhere... perahps specifying that the law only applies to laptops in the direct line of sight of the driver... but... still... this is insane as it is... The one thing that didn't surprise me was that California vated it in...

Legal?

[Atragon]

Have you heard of 'keeping up with traffic'? Apparently not buddy. Driving at 40km/h when the limit is 120 is fucking STUPID. You should have been ticketed for that, it's assholes like you who cause fucking traffic jams.

simple

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that you interpret speech without being aware of the effort is not a sign that it is "simple".

Agreed. The standing assertion is that recognizing speech is relatively effortless for humans. Nobody in this discussion has made the claim that recognizing speech (or anything that is effortless to humans) is "simple".

Food safety.

[Atragon]

As a note, food safety requires food reach 180 deg F, and depending on the item as well as chain, must remain at either 160 deg F (burger king meat for example), or 180 deg F (new york fries gravy for example).

Also, coffee is brewed at above 190 deg F at both Starbucks and Timothey's. Serving temp is lower, but the brewing temperature is required for proper quality.

Re:Food safety.

[laird]

"coffee is brewed at above 190 deg F at both Starbucks and Timothey's. Serving temp is lower, but the brewing temperature is required for proper quality"

McDonald's brews at 195 to 205 degrees, and serves at 180-190 degrees.

cops

[CAIMLAS]

What about the computers many cops have in their vehicles nowadays to do ID lookups, vehicle checks, as well as check GPS traffic?

Such things will be (are?) illigal for a civilian to use. YOu can bet your damned life on the fact that they won't be illigal for cops. How's that for freedom.

Re:Horribly written law. Period.

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't need to define anything. Drive like an asshole and you're busted. Simple as that.

You have no idea how fast 60mph really is

[tjstork]

What you are saying is simply not true. The margin that people differ by is actually not that significant. Does the world's fastest sprinter run a mile 10 times faster than the average person? No. Does the world's strongest man lift ten times the weight of an average man? No. So, we don't make laws assuming the existence of supermen because there aren't any.

It can be readily shown that multitasking even effectively disadvantages you as a driver. Let's assume you can multitask at the level of flipping between driving and dialing a cell phone at one tick per second.

During the second you have driven the car, assuming you are going 60mph, your car has travelled 88 feet. A good sedan can stop in 120 feet, but, you've nearly doubled your necessary stopping distance to 208 feet! To maintain safe vehicle distance, you need to have the 3 second rule, not the 2 second rule, and, what if you get emotionally distracted during the conversation. Does that slow your reflects down by another second?

But let's assume you have PERFECT reflexes and can react to something in 1/10th of a second. That's not just vision, that's seeing, processing, and reacting. Even if you spend 1/10th of a second paying attention to a cell phone, the car has driven 8.8 feet somewhere where you ain't looking.

8.8 feet doesn't sound like much, but, if the guy in front of you suddenly stops, or a tire blows off of a truck, or anything happens, 8.8 feet is sufficiently long of a distance to crumple the front end of your car, drop your engine onto your lap, and probably see you wind up dead.

does this go for law enforcement as well?

[huckda]

hrm...I wonder...damn cops with computers...

You got the joke wrong

[bluGill]

It goes like this:
On my way to work today I saw a man reading while he was driving. I was so shocked I droped my razor into my cereal.

I don't advocate any of that. People are not designed to drive cars, and do not have the proper ability to do it safely without distractions. Ad in distraction and it is hopeless. (we only get by because of various rules that allow us to assume a lot of real dangers won't happen)

My mom's mercedes.

[JThundley]

What about my mom's Mercedes? It and many other cars have a computer built into the car! It's used for GPS navigation, playing CDs and the radio. It's designed so that you barely have to look at it while driving. This is such bullshit.

Good

[Cranx]

Cars are to be driven as the PRIMARY activity, not one of many things you can do from the driver's seat of your moving vehicle. Eyes on the road. GPS/cell phone/computer/etc. later, when the car is safely parked.

Don't read books, either

[one-egg]

I guess if I can't use my laptop to read a scientific paper while sitting in the passenger seat, I shouldn't be able to read a book, either. Especially if it has pictures in it.

I don't think many people object to bans on drivers using laptops. But writing the law so that the passenger is also banned, that's just stupid.

Yes, I most certainly do.

[pla]

Does the world's strongest man lift ten times the weight of an average man?

World record in clean/jerk lies somewhere around 1050lbs. I'd consider that better than 5x average.


Let's assume driving and dialing a cell phone at one tick pe you can multitask at the level of flipping betweenr second.

Under that assumption, yeah, all that you said would apply. Humans however, unlike computers, don't have a single CPU. We can do more than one thing at a time. I don't claim we do so all that well, but some people really do multitask better than others. Most people can actively do one thing and keep track of two or three other tasks. Some people can actively do two things at once. I personally have a great-aunt who can actively engage in four attention-demanding tasks simultaneously.


the car has driven 8.8 feet somewhere where you ain't looking.

Humans have an interesting ability... Under the normal physical laws applicable to macroscopic objects on Earth, we predict future locations of everything around us for several reaction time periods into the future with quite a good bit of accuracy (This phenomena has experimental proof (I'll go into detail if you request it), not just mere conjecture). So, taking all the large objects around us while driving into consideration, a car really can't suddenly change course. Yes, it can start spinning - And continues going forward. It can get hit - And the two bodies maintain the same combined momentum. A car can start slowing down (which without breaklights counts as one of our "weak" areas of prediction), but even that can only occur at a finite rate. So, while you speak the truth, a car at 60mph moves 15-20ft forward before the best of us can react (even primed reactions take at least 100ms, more like 250-333ms for (central)reflex reactions, and 700ms-1500ms for a basic conscious response), you ignore the fact that the cars nearby also moving at that speed have also continued along their previous course by (almost) the predicted distance. They cannot instantaneously stop or even radically change direction; those actions require several seconds (at least), by which time anyone even remotely paying attention would have time to react.

(As an aside, during my research on periodicity in sustained attention, one of our subject had a sustainable non-primed reaction time on the order of 50-60ms... That comes as close to "amazing" as you see in the real world).


So, not exactly "supermen", I never claimed that. But so far beyond "average" as to make applying standards meaningful to the average person's ability seem absurd? Most certainly yes.

In any case, you'll notice I agree with laws like this one in CA, because I do not trust most people to recognize that they lack the ability to drive well while tyring to do several other things at the same time. Myself, I try to recognize my faults (as I mentioned, I do not consider myself a good driver), and work around them; I by no means trust others to do the same.


8.8 feet is sufficiently long of a distance to crumple the front end of your car, drop your engine onto your lap, and probably see you wind up dead.

I agree completely, though for what you will consider the "wrong" reason. For the most part, people do not die in car accidents because of things they could have recognized but had too little time to react - They die from things they had no way whatsoever of predicting. If, hypothetically, the car immediately in front of you at freeway speeds somehow stopped over the course of a whopping 3 seconds, you'd still hit it very, very hard, no matter how sober and focused, even as a "superman" at the upper fringe of every imagineable human ability. People die from the unexpected, or because they've drifted off. Not because an extra 150ms would have made all the difference in the world. Obviously, exceptions to this exist, but I would consider them, by far, just that - Exceptions, not the rule.

typo?

[UltimateZer0]

I realize that a typo isn't out of place here in the world of /. but Assemblymember? Sounds like a digital penis or something.

Androids

[Frisky070802]

(Quite) a few years from now I can see a new civil rights drive, from androids complaining about being forced to the back of the bus^H^H^Hcar.

Will the madness never end?

Not so in Illinois

[Anonymous Coward]

The state of IL just put a new law into force (as of this week) stating that you cannot stay in the left lane of a multi-lane highway-the left-most lane is for passing ONLY in most circumstances. This means that the driver you mentioned in your post would be committing a moving violation for not going fsat-enough in the left lane... The only sad thing about this is that the police are supposedly not going to heavily enforce this law...

Re:it's about time some one did this -YOU SUCK

[Pieroxy]

It's something called PERIPHERAL VISION

Well, when you drive and you look in front of you, your peripheral vision allows you to see a little bit of what's going on at your left and right. When you look at the passenger seat, your left side is effectively blinded. How hard is that to understand?

my window control, my mirrors, heck I can't even look at my speedometer or gas guage
All these objects are IN FRONT OF YOU. So there, the peripheral vision is working fine. Plus, all these are extremely simple: Looking for an indicator, a car, something simple.

On the other hand, you woudn't read a novel while driving, right? Even if it is in front of you, right? That's because a novel will need more than a few milliseconds to be perceived, unlike a mirror, fuel gauge, speedometer.

A map has been categorized in the category of the books, computers, etc.. as an object that does require too much attention to be perceived.

Deal with it.

Re: opposite sex not allowed in front seat

[Anonymous Coward]

the only thing that got this up from -1 was some metamods screwing around...

This will die.

[C10H14N2]

Not the least because every major and many minor law enforcement agencies have installed dashboard laptops for years, but because of the massive commercial use (read:FedEx, UPS etc.) to say nothing of the implications for systems like BMW's IDrive, which is arguably a more complex computer (or, rather, LAN) than an average laptop

Car MP3 players as a safety device

[solprovider]

Is this a good reason to require all cars to have mass storage units for the music?

The music can be loaded from a regular CD or one filled with MP3s or OGGs while the car is stopped. Do not allow anything to be loaded while the car is running. If you listen to the entire 160GB hard drive in your car, then let the radio play until you can pull over. 160GB should hold over 12 days of continuous play even if the files are in uncompressed WAV format, and you will quickly make certain that it contains every one of your favorite songs. Even a 10GB hard drive should provide entertainment without repeats for more than 8 hours, and most cars cannot be driven 8 hours without stopping to add gasoline.

My car has music controls on the steering wheel so I do not have to look away from the road to adjust the volume, change radio stations, or change to the CD player and choose a track. I drove a rental car recently and had to pull over to find the volume and station switching controls. (No, they were not obvious. The volume control was a tiny toggle, and station choosing was a few other buttons, and the abbreviated labels could not be read from more than 12 inches away without a magnifying glass.)

---
I read a report about causes of car accidents back when they were first outlawing cell phones in cars. Cell phones were still new, and most phones did not have voice-dialing or hands-free abilities, so the statistics were probably worse than they would be today, although cell phone usage has increased. According to the report, distractions from cell phones caused slightly more accidents than fiddling withe radio. This may have been because we have had decades to learn how to use a radio, or because it is more difficult to prove the driver was touching the radio, while the cell phone (or phone companies) can prove that the cell phone was in use at the time of the accident. Each caused only slightly more accidents than drivers distracted (or mesmerized) by scenery. Passengers distracting the driver was the largest cause of accidents by a large margin, but nobody has suggested outlawing passengers, and many areas still encourage carpooling.