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

[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.

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?

[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: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.

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: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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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: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: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.

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.

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.

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

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

[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 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).

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.

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: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.

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?

No law was needed

[xtronics]

Inattentive driving is already against the law. Why do they keep making needless laws?

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.