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

[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

[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.

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.....

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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...

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

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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...

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.

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.

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?

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

[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

[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

[_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.

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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

Obligatory Dave Barry link

[Darth23]

Dave Barry Gift Guide

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...

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.

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...

[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.

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."

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.

Too Bad

[Gudlyf]

Looks like the sales of this doohickey are just about shot now. Shucks.

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

[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.

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.

[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.

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

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.

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: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 :)

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: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.

"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.

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.

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 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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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: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

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.

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: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!

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?