Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
alias uptime="echo '5:33pm up 22342352324 days, 6:28, 2124315623 users, load average: 2432.40, 12312.31, 123123.19'"
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.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
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.
>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.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
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.
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.
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