Should California Have Banned Checking Smartphone Maps While Driving?

Nerval's Lobster writes "According to an appellate court in California, checking your smartphone while driving your Volkswagen (or any other vehicle) is officially verboten. In January 2012, one Steven R. Spriggs was pulled over and cited for checking a map on his smartphone while driving. In a trial held four months later, Spriggs disputed that his action violated California's Section 23123 subdivision (a), which states that a person can't use a phone while driving unless 'that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free driving and talking, and is used in that manner while driving.' In short, he argued that the statute was limited to those functions of listening and talking—things he insisted could have been followed to the letter of the law. But the judge ruled that operating a phone for GPS, calling, texting, or whatever else was still a distraction and allowed the conviction to stand. That leads to a big question: with everything from Google Glass to cars' own dashboard screens offering visual 'distractions' like dynamic maps, can (and should) courts take a more active role in defining what people are allowed to do with technology behind the wheel? Or are statutes like California's hopelessly outdated?"

Comments

Bad Ruling

[Noksagt]

If the judge's interpretation was the one the legislation intended, why would we have CVC 23123.5, that explicitly forbids texting. Why would the DMV note that it does "not prohibit reading, selecting or entering a phone number, or name" or the CHP advise safe ways to dial? The judge over-stepped in this case & is legislating from the bench.

In 2010, I was written a citation for using my phone when I had passed it to a passenger. I was (rightfully) found not guilty. Because merely "touching" your phone is not using it as a communications device. Nor is the cell phone magically more distracting than other objects in a car.

A stand-alone GPS or a paper map can be at least as distracting, so why is there no provision banning their use? Because, while distracted driving is a problem, navigation aids do more good than harm. It is easier to defend them than eating, applying makeup, listening to music, etc. that we permit.

Re:Bad Ruling

[girlintraining]

The judge over-stepped in this case & is legislating from the bench.

No. The judge isn't allowed to consider those other pieces of legislation and non-legislation that you provided. The judge is only allowed to look at the relevant law, and decide whether a given set of circumstances meets that or not. In this case, the judge is not over-stepping. The law, as written, doesn't account for other uses of a phone, possibly owing to the fact that the people who wrote it didn't have the modern phone in mind when they wrote it. The law is out of date, but the judge is correct in his interpretation. You can't blame the judge for this: It's on your elected representatives (you did vote, right?) to keep the laws current and relevant. The judge is only there to apply those laws, not question their sanity, relevance, or modernity. Remember, there's still laws on the book about horses on the freeway... even though a horse can't run as fast as the minimum posted speed. But should such a horse ever spawn, there are laws to cover it.

Because, while distracted driving is a problem, navigation aids do more good than harm. It is easier to defend them than eating, applying makeup, listening to music, etc. that we permit.

Here again you're trying to talk about the merits and drawbacks of the law using comparisons. The judge wasn't allowed that luxury. The judge can only consider the law and the legislative intent in making the law (within some parameters). If the law says you can't wash your horse in your driveway on sundays, it may be a stupid law, but if the police find a wet horse in your driveway, you still broke it.

Re:Bad Ruling

[interkin3tic]

While you're at it, talking on a handsfree set hasn't proven any safer. so why are we specifically allowing it?

A bit like saying you can't consume any vodka before driving, but it's perfectly legal to be drunk off light beer while driving.

Re:Bad Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

It might help to read the decision, http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/JAD13-02.PDF

The court closely analyzes the legislative intent.

Re:Bad Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The judge isn't allowed to consider those other pieces of legislation and non-legislation that you provided. The judge is only allowed to look at the relevant law, and decide whether a given set of circumstances meets that or not. In this case, the judge is not over-stepping.

Given the judge did look at non-legislation, one of you is wrong.

An ambiguity exists when words in a statute âoeare capable of beingconstrued in two different ways by reasonably well informed people.â(People v. Bostick (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 287, 295 (conc. opn. by Kline, P.J.).) âoeCourts may look to legislative history to construe astatute only when the statutory language is susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation.â ( Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v.Public Utilities Com. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 86, 92.)

Re:Bad Ruling

[CCarrot]

If the law says you can't wash your horse in your driveway on sundays, it may be a stupid law, but if the police find a wet horse in your driveway, you still broke it.

Unless it's raining...

Re:Bad Ruling

[jxander]

I agree, terrible ruling. Now if you'll excuse me, my Thomas Brothers guide says that this street is on paage ... 637 ... grid square ... umm F3, and I'm headed to pag***CARRIER LOST***

Re:Bad Ruling

[Noksagt]

No. The judge isn't allowed to consider those other pieces of legislation and non-legislation that you provided.

Not only can he, but he did. See pages 5-6 of the ruling, where the judges state (among other things):

Section 23123 applies only to use of a “wireless telephone” while
driving. Section 23123.5 more broadly applies to use of an “electronic wireless communications device,” which would include a cellphone, but would also apply to other wireless devices used for communication.

The judge then goes on to use the example of a Blackberry when considering devices that "could
not accurately be identified as 'wireless telephones'". This is laughable! We have an anti-texting statute because things like smart phones aren't phones? Well then, my map app is on a "handheld computer" and not a "wireless telephone" so 23123's prohibition on use doesn't apply to me.

The text of the ruling shows a flagrant ignorance for technology.

Re:Bad Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about you but I have to stop by the side of the road to use a map or road atlas as anything else is just plain suicidal. Or I don't read the map right, make wrong turns and get lost. The time taken to stop and properly consult a map or road atlas is time well spent.

Re:Bad Ruling

[LordVader717]

What a load of bullshit. All the link says is that having a conversaton on a handsfree set still impedes driving. Nowhere does it say it's as dangerous as driving one-hand on the wheel or looking at the keypad of your screen.

Re:Bad Ruling

[pesho]

The judge over-stepped in this case & is legislating from the bench.

No he did not. What he said was: “Our review of the statute’s plain language leads us to conclude that the primary evil sought to be avoided is the distraction the driver faces when using his or her hands to operate the phone,” and “because it is undisputed that the appellant used his wireless telephone while holding it in his hand as he drove his vehicle,”. So the person who got convicted was not merely using the phone as navigation aid, as the article would like you to believe. Instead he was holding in his hand, while driving. As the Judge rightfully points out this is prohibited by California law:

" The statute prohibits driving “while using a wireless telephone,”except when the phone is “specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving.” ( 23123, subd. (a), emphasis added). The term “using” is nowhere defined in the statute, but if the Legislature had intended to limit the application of the statute to “conversing” or“listening and talking,” as appellant maintains, it could have done so.".

So if you have your phone on a mount and use it as navigation aid, without operating it (as you should also do with regular GPS devices), it is perfectly fine according to California law and the current judgment has no bearing on such cases.

Re:Bad Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

While you're at it, talking on a handsfree set hasn't proven any safer. so why are we specifically allowing it?

Because we would then have to ban talking to the live passenger right next to you.

Re:Bad Ruling

[TheCarp]

A better question is.... if people who get in accidents while using cell phones don't get in less without them... (http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/08/why-cell-phone-bans-dont-work.html )

Its not that drivers using cell phones drive badly.... its self selection.... bad drivers use cell phones more (and still drive terribly without them)

Why are we going after fiddly individual behaviors like using a phone or texting etc?

Re:Bad Ruling

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

The judge could have said this: "He wasn't using the phone -- he was using the nav system. If the legislature wanted to outlaw using nav systems, they would have."

And don't give me this letter of the law vs. intent - legislators regularly discuss intent in published records of debate, and judges ignoring that , dumbly disclaiming "letter of the law only" have been a regular, and unfortunate, way for unintended, or intended consequences or uses of the law not discussed to creep in for hundreds of years.

I reject that argument out of hand, regardless of millions of reams of supporting precedence.

Re:Bad Ruling

[KiloByte]

Also, how exactly does using a pre-downloaded map on a smartphone differ from using the same map on a dedicated device?

Now change pre-downloaded map to one pulled live from OSM or Google. What's the difference?

I quite fail to see any point in looking at what else the device in question can do. If it's a map, it's a map -- it doesn't matter if it's on paper or AMOLED.

Re:Bad Ruling

[wubti]

So, does this mean if my Garmin GPS connects wirelessly to the cell network, that I am guilty under this law if I use it? What is the difference between turn by turn directions on my smart phone (not allowed by the ruling) vs a GPS device (Still allowed)? When is a device "an electronic wireless communications device" or not? And how will the average citizen know the difference?

Re:Bad Ruling

[tftp]

If the law says you can't wash your horse in your driveway on sundays, it may be a stupid law, but if the police find a wet horse in your driveway, you still broke it.

Not necessarily. For this evidence to be proof of breaking the law all the elements of the law must be in place. For example:

1. It must be you washing the horse, not someone else (not your neighbor, and not a diplomat from North Korea)
2. It must be your horse that you are washing, not someone else's horse
3. You must wash the horse, as opposed to cooling it with water or letting it walk into a stream of water from a garden sprinkler
4. It must be exactly a horse, and not a unicorn. Ponies may or may not fall under that legislation; zebras are right out
5. It must be your driveway, not your neighbor's driveway
6. It must be exactly a driveway, not a walkway and not a front yard - and not a public street either
7. The washing activity must happen over the driveway. It is not sufficient if you wash the horse on your lawn but horse's tail is casting a shadow onto the driveway.
8. It needs to be proven that the washing did not finish by 00:00am on Sunday. The horse can remain wet for hours after that (especially if it is or was raining, as another comment says.)

Re:Bad Ruling

[Obfuscant]

The judge is only allowed to look at the relevant law, and decide whether a given set of circumstances meets that or not. In this case, the judge is not over-stepping.

Did you actually read the law? Here's the primary prohibitive statement from that law:

23123.5. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text-based ( )1 communication, ...

Was the defendant using a device to write, send or read a text-based communication? No. Therefore, he cannot be guilty of violation of this section of the law. Period. End of consideration.

But he was doing something with text, right? Here's the relevant definition of "text-based communication":

(b) As used in this section "write, send, or read a text-based communication" means using an electronic wireless communications device to manually communicate with any person ...

Was he communicating with a person? No. He does not meet the definition of "text-based communication". Not guilty.

The law, as written, doesn't account for other uses of a phone, possibly owing to the fact that the people who wrote it didn't have the modern phone in mind when they wrote it. The law is out of date,

Now I know you didn't read the law. It was amended effective Jan. 1, 2013. That's three months ago, plus a few days. That's what you call "out of date"? You don't think they had "modern phones" four months ago? Maybe 12 months when they wrote the law or the amendments? I know, it is California, but I think they have reasonably modern technology available there. After all, we're talking about someone using a GPS in a phone, in California.

The judge is only there to apply those laws, not question their sanity, relevance, or modernity.

The law clearly covers text-based communication. This person did not perform text-based communication. When a judge says "well, text-based communication is against the law because it is distracting, and using a GPS is distracting too, so this law clearly covers using a GPS..." he's flat out wrong. He's writing law, not interpreting it. The legislature could easily have amended this law last year to include all kinds of things AND CHOSE NOT TO. And clearly the goal was not to keep everyone from touching a phone while driving, since the law allows touching the phone while driving.

Re:Bad Ruling

[0xdeadbeef]

Is there some legal principle that a narrowly defined law necessarily redefines a more broadly defined law it may seem to overlap?

No? Then from what hole are you pulling your legal opinion?

Re:Bad Ruling

[nanoflower]

Or it isn't your horse.

Re:Bad Ruling

[buybuydandavis]

It was raining. Uh huh. Heard it before "I wasn't washing my horse, it just rained." Sure, fella.

If the police notice that your horse is wet, you're guilty. Guilty guilty guilty. But if you rat on your neighbor, maybe they'll go easy on you. Does he smoke pot? You better hope so.

Re:Bad Ruling

[ZombieBraintrust]

Turn by turn directions or a dash mounted Garmin would count as hands free and is allowed under this ruling. This guy was holding the phone in one of his hands.

Re:Bad Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but it does so insanely poorly.

The authors rationale for Senate Bill 28, as stated in the comments submitted to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations,reflects that the bill was designed to reach those devices that could not accurately be identified as “wireless telephones”:

The author argues that hands-on use of electronic wirelesscommunications devices (Blackberries, etc.) while operating amotor vehicles [sic] is quickly becoming a factor leading tovehicle collisions in California. (Assembly Committee onAppropriations, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 28 (2007-2008 Reg.Sess.) as amended Aug. 4, 2008.

So let me get this straight..."Blackberries, etc." can't be "accurately identified as 'wireless telephones?'" Puh-lease.

Re:Bad Ruling

[mendax]

Actually, the judge is incorrect in this case. Judges are interpret the law according to the way is worded. It is only when there is ambiguity or other problems that make the law difficult to understand is he then to look at the intent of the legislature. The wording of the statute is clear. Fortunately, since this case will probably not be published because it was in a Superior Court appellate court and not the Court of Appeals, it won't be a precedent and future people so afflicted by cops who can't read the vehicle code can continue to take their cases to court. But if the cop had cited him for plain old distracted driving....

Actually, the fact that distracted driving is illegal as well, the whole cell phone/texting ban is probably unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. First Amendment rights usually cannot be infringed upon like this when there already exists a law that makes similar behavior illegal. It's the same idea as requiring a permit to solicit door to door in order to reduce the amount of fraud even though there are already laws on the books that made fraud illegal. Courts time and again have invalidated such laws for precisely that reason.

Re:Bad Ruling

[rnturn]

``Because, while distracted driving is a problem, navigation aids do more good than harm. It is easier to defend them than eating, applying makeup, listening to music, etc. that we permit.''

Does that map aid in your ability to safely drive your car? And don't try to claim that not getting lost or missing a turn is unsafe and that your cellphone map is helping you to be safe.

Any navigation aid that requires that you take your eyes off the road while the car is moving should be covered by the law (Even though IANAL, IMHO that was the intent of the law when it was passed). It shouldn't matter if that is a map on your cellphone or in the dashboard. (I would argue that it should cover paper maps or even printed Mapquest driving instructions though the law didn't mention those; I have seen idiots hurtling down the expressway with a paper map unfolded in front of them). People don't seem to get that their toys are compromising their ability to control a couple of tons of metal while driving at speeds where their reaction time could only be a second (or less). Most folks will argue that "No! Not me!. I can read the tiny map in the dashboard or on my phone, manage to stay in my lane, and keep an eye out for other drivers!" and that they are not distracted but they're wrong. They'll kill someone one of these days. If you need to refer to a map... pull over to the side of the road.

As for eating? If you have to look at your food? Yeah, it's a distraction. But most people don't need to look at their quarter pounder to eat it. Putting on makeup? Huge distraction. A good idea only if you want to risk jabbing that mascara brush into your eye. Listening to music? I fail to see how that's a distraction. Unless you are one of those people who has to read the cutesy little messages that appear on radio displays nowadays (radio stations ought to reconsider that feature) having music playing is not much more of a distraction than driving with the windows open and having to hear traffic. (Aside: If driving with headphones on isn't illegal in all 50 states, it should be. It used to be in Illinois but I've seen morons driving while wearing earbuds. You're supposed to be able to the sirens on emergency vehicles.)

If you need to drive somewhere and need a map, read the map beforehand. Or have a friend who can read maps give you instructions during the drive. Or get an in-dash navigation computer with voice instructions. But keep your damned eyes on the road.

Re:Bad Ruling

[irenaeous]

I can't see how this is correct. My understanding is that the court has leeway to use legislative intent to deal with cases that are either ambiguous or where it does not adequately address a particular area. The original California legislation (section 23123) was passed in 2007. The first iPhone was released in June of that year. The timing alone shows that use of GPA navigation was not addressed in the original legislation (let alone adequately addressed). It also seems that the core regulation in the law, "A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving" is ambiguous (unclear in-exact) when being applied to an activity that involves neither listening nor talking. Also, the examination of judicial intent does include a look at judicial history which seems to me would include amendments to the original law like section 23123.5. If the legislature had intended to ban activities other than traditional phone use, then amending the statute would have been superfluous.

So, no I don't buy that what you say applies in this case.

Re:Bad Ruling

[zsazsa]

Read the law in question, which was from 2009 and amended in 2012. It's made with modern phones in mind, and it was specifically written to combat texting:

As used in this section “write, send, or read a text-based communication” means using an electronic wireless communications device to manually communicate with any person using a text-based communication, including, but not limited to, communications referred to as a text message, instant message, or electronic mail.

Using GPS is not manually communicating with a person. The law does not apply to reading text on a phone in any context other than communications with another person.

Re:Bad Ruling

[evenmoreconfused]

Or if it's Tuesday

Re: Bad Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the way you the verb in that sentence.

Re:Bad Ruling

[stanlyb]

This judge is just crying a river to have this case sent to the appeal court, and having it solved once and for all.

Re:Bad Ruling

[russotto]

No. The judge isn't allowed to consider those other pieces of legislation and non-legislation that you provided. The judge is only allowed to look at the relevant law, and decide whether a given set of circumstances meets that or not.

What? Of course the judge is allowed to look at related statutes to interpret the statute in question.

As the ruling stands, it's legal to use a iPod Touch to check maps, but not an iPhone. In fact, it's legal to use the iPhone to check maps, as long as you're on a speakerphone call at the same time ("unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in
that manner while driving.")

This is an absurd result, and while I don't think it's "legislating from the bench" to interpret it that way, it's a bad ruling. It would not be inconsistent with the statute to rule that "using a wireless telephone" applies only to telephony functions of a multi-function device, and it would make for a less-absurd result.

Of course, the legislature should correct this by amending the statute so even the dimmest judge can figure out what is meant.

Re:Bad Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

While you're at it, talking on a handsfree set hasn't proven any safer. so why are we specifically allowing it?

because handsfree was considered a viable alternative when people raised the notion if their hands are not being used, how is it different from talking to a passenger?

A bit like saying you can't consume any vodka before driving, but it's perfectly legal to be drunk off light beer while driving.

You have zero tolerence alcohol limit over there? Over here we are allowed to drink SOME alcohol and drive. So yes, I can't consume a triple shot of whisky, but a couple of light beers is fine.

Re:Bad Ruling

[girlintraining]

Was the defendant using a device to write, send or read a text-based communication? No. Therefore, he cannot be guilty of violation of this section of the law. Period. End of consideration.

Was he reading something on the screen? Communication. Does his phone need a network connection to get the route to take? Communication. Is there text on the screen? Well then. Period. End of consideration. Sorry... but your interpretation is not the only interpretation here. Also, you're not a judge or a lawyer, you're just some guy on the internet with delusions that the world is fair and sane.

Was he communicating with a person? No. He does not meet the definition of "text-based communication". Not guilty.

You think a person is a squishy meat bag under the law, and nothing else? I've got some bad news...

Now I know you didn't read the law. It was amended effective Jan. 1, 2013. That's three months ago, plus a few days. That's what you call "out of date"?

I got some milk in the fridge from January of this year. I'm sure it's still good. Oh wait... "out of date" may be context-sensitive, like my curdled and foul milk in the fridge. For example, the "out of date" part may refer to the thinking behind the law, not the "use by" date stamped on it.

You don't think they had "modern phones" four months ago?

I try really hard not to make assumptions regarding my elected officials and their proficiency with modern technology. It tends to end in frequent disappointment.

I know, it is California, but I think they have reasonably modern technology available there.

Availability doesn't mean use. If that were the case, we'd all be using Windows 8 right now.

When a judge says "well, text-based communication is against the law because it is distracting, and using a GPS is distracting too, so this law clearly covers using a GPS..." he's flat out wrong.

Which is some fine and dandy logic on your part, and it's not as though I'm disagreeing on any of the particulars, your conclusion is totally whack. Look at it another way: If I'm texting an automated service to get today's lottery numbers and run over a bunch of nuns in the street, am I any less guilty of a crime than if I were texting my imaginary boyfriend? Of course not. Common sense goes both ways -- your steadfast refusal to acknowledge that there is some wiggle room to both sides, not just your side, is somewhat disappointing in this regard.

I stand by my original assessment: The judge is interpreting the law within reasonable parameters. You may disagree with the conclusion, but your argument is using logic that the law does not recognize and cannot consider. I happen to agree with your conclusion -- that this is something that should be fixed. I simply differ on my opinion of where the problem lays -- which is not with the judge, but with the legislators.

Re:Bad Ruling

[mark-t]

Actually, applying makeup would not be permitted, since the person's focus would be on their own face in a mirror and not on the road, and therefore just as culpable under distracted driving laws as a person who is reading a newspaper.

Re:Bad Ruling

[interkin3tic]

There are others, if that one isn't to your liking, and I have yet to come across one that suggests they DO improve safety. Furthermore, whenever I'm talking on a hands free set, I feel about as distracted as when I'm holding it up to my ears. The problem with cell phones isn't, after all, that you have one less hand you're using.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-he-cells30-2008jun30,0,2119996.story
http://ehstoday.com/safety/news/hands-free-phones-driving-5895
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/08/why-cell-phone-bans-dont-work.html

Re:Bad Ruling

[dgatwood]

The law is out of date...

It's not out of date; it is incompetently written, just like most laws written in the past several decades. The law in question is only about two years old, give or take. This was written well within the smartphone era. The lawmakers were just too clueless to know any better, and so they just passed whatever bill the activist lobbyists handed them. That said, even though the wording of the law sucks, it is fairly obvious that the passage was intended to regulate listening and talking (requiring that the device be configured for hands-free talking and listening), not non-voice use, and the mere existence of the very next section, added more than a year later, strengthens that assertion, because that passage would not be necessary at all under this interpretation, as texting with a cell phone would be presumptively illegal.

But the most hilarious part of this interpretation is how utterly arbitrary it is. Even with this overly broad interpretation, you can still legally use a cellular-equipped iPad as a navigation device, but not an iPhone. Apart from a slightly different UI, the only difference of consequence is that the latter can also make phone calls and the former (as shipped) cannot, and thus does not qualify as a wireless telephone. That's just batshit crazy.

And if you're changing songs on your iPod touch, you're fine, but if you do it on an iPhone, the police will write you a ticket. (Even the police officers readily admit that it's bulls**t, but they'll still write the tickets. Can you say "quotas"? I thought you could.)

No, this has nothing to do with the laws being out of date and everything to do with us having elected 120 California state assembly members who didn't know their asses from a potato. That and judges and police officers who are more concerned with raising revenue than making our roads safer.

Prove me wrong, California legislators. Take these laws and burn them.

Re:Bad Ruling

[rwa2]

Meh, laws don't necessarily have to be enforced, but they're convenient to have when you want to discourage particular behaviors.

Say one of those bad drivers runs over a baby carriage while texting. If there's no law against it, he can just go neener neener neener until you can get some court jury to nail him with something that will stick.

Now say you have a law against texting. Now when the guy runs over a baby carriage, you can slap him with the $140 fine as prescribed, and everyone can get on with their lives.

Re:Bad Ruling

[Pinky's Brain]

You clearly don't have enough confidence in your short term ability to avoid tail risk to convert in long term magical driving abilities.

Re:Bad Ruling

[dgatwood]

Just to clarify my first point, the law says that you cannot use a cell phone unless it is configured for hands-free talking and listening and you are using it in that way. Therefore, by this interpretation, you cannot use the phone to:

• Make a phone call (unless you're already talking on the phone)
• Answer a phone call (unless you're already talking on the phone)
• Scratch an itch (unless you're already talking on the phone)

Because all of those things typically involve using the phone while you are not talking or listening in a hands-free configuration. Clearly this is a prima facie absurd interpretation of the law.

Re:Bad Ruling

[Tastecicles]

I don't drive, I ride a bike, but one thing I do do if I'm heading into unfamiliar territory is to program the GPS *before* I set off and leave it on, high on the handlebar so the map is in view but not distracting. The volume is up as well so I get audio directions if I'm on a busy road so I don't have to look at the unit. I can pay full attention to other traffic. As for my phone: it's in my pocket, on silent. If it's urgent, they'll call back and keep trying until I'm in a position to answer (at a rest stop or at my destination).

Re:Bad Ruling

[ganjadude]

did the defense lawyer make this claim? if so I can see a total problem with the outcome because you have a pretty valid argument there. a smart phone is as much a "cell phone" as a PC loaded with skype is a "landline"

Re:Bad Ruling

[Tastecicles]

yes, driving or cycling with earphones or buds is completely illegal in the UK. Even Bluetooth headsets. If I'm a passenger in a car, I'm in the front passenger seat with the map/GPS. My driver has ONE JOB, and that's to make sure I get where I'm going in one piece. I'll do what I can to help him, and if that means I read the map, then I read the damn map.

Re:Bad Ruling

[isilrion]

The law is out of date, but the judge is correct in his interpretation.

Honest question: isn't this the point of having a judge interpret the law? I think it is pretty clear that laws don't adapt quickly enough with society/technology and that part of the "interpretation" was to adapt what is written to the circumstances where they are applied. (IANAL, I know nothing of this. In my home country, laws are prefixed with a long list of "because..." clauses, and I was always disappointed that the laws were still upheld even when none of the "because" was relevant any more... and I envied the judge-interpretation thing in the US).

Re:Bad Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

This is common sense, we're talking about.

We have one law (no "using" a cell phone) that can be broad or narrow, depending on the interpretation of the word "use".
We have a second law ("no texting") that is quite narrow. It was written by the same senator. It was written later than the first law.

If the senator intended the first law to be broad, why would he make the second law?

The judges in this decision argue that it is because the senator was trying to include mobile devices other than a cellphone. Given that the example in their text of a non-cellphone is a blackberry, I think this is a ridiculous train of thought. It is more likely that the senator thought the first law was narrow & wrote a second narrow law to cover something that was not forbidden by it.

Re:Bad Ruling

[Noksagt]

Does that map aid in your ability to safely drive your car?

It is a tool that can do this, yes. I am a safer driver because I have the right information in the right amount of time. It informs me in advance where I will have upcoming traffic lights, traffic, road hazards (such as stopped vehicles). It informs me of 1-way roads and advises me on which lane to be in.

And don't try to claim that not getting lost or missing a turn is unsafe and that your cellphone map is helping you to be safe.

Why not? If I can reasonably ignore street names and other bits of information that are not worth me knowing, doesn't that mean I'm able to pay attention to things that are more important? If I can spend less time driving because I get to my destination efficiently, doesn't that mean I'm driving less (and less likely to be involved in an auto accident from that alone)?

Even though IANAL, IMHO that was the intent of the law when it was passed

The congressional record doesn't agree with your reading and the judges that decided this case disagree as well too.

As for eating? If you have to look at your food? Yeah, it's a distraction. But most people don't need to look at their quarter pounder to eat it.

You are taking at least one hand off the wheel. Your concentration is divided between two tasks. And, yes, you will almost certainly glance at what you're eating.

Listening to music? I fail to see how that's a distraction.

Distractions are not only visual. As you point out, sound cues (such as sirens, horns, etc.) are useful too. Hearing sound over another is no different than a "heads up display". Yes, it's illegal to wear headphones in both ears while driving in California. Further, dividing your focus is what is distracting. It doesn't matter whether that is something you're looking at or hearing or tasting or smelling or just thinking about.

Re:Bad Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

A stand-alone GPS or a paper map can be at least as distracting, so why is there no provision banning their use? Because, while distracted driving is a problem, navigation aids do more good than harm. It is easier to defend them than eating, applying makeup, listening to music, etc. that we permit.

Well, this is an interesting point; I wonder if laws should simply be made in response to statistics?

Re:Bad Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. It's a victim-less crime. As a libertarian, i don't believe in victim-less crimes. I do however believe if you get in a car accident and kill someone and it is your fault, you should possibly get the death penalty (doesn't matter if you were drunk off your ass, or looking at that text from your idiot girlfriend), and at least lose your gas foot and maybe your shifting hand.

You see, as a libertarian, i also believe in personal responsibility. If you can't take the responsibility to not kill someone else, then you have to pay the harshest of penalties. Maybe if our laws were like this, it would lead more people to adopt a personally responsible way of life.

Drunk driving: Victim-less crime, right up until the point where you injure someone or their property. Remember folks, there are no victim-less crimes. Do you think less people would drive drunk knowing that if they killed someone while doing so, they would get the death penalty?

Re:Bad Ruling

[greenbird]

The judge is only allowed to look at the relevant law, and decide whether a given set of circumstances meets that or not. In this case, the judge is not over-stepping. The law, as written, doesn't account for other uses of a phone, possibly owing to the fact that the people who wrote it didn't have the modern phone in mind when they wrote it.

The law as written ("that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free driving and talking") is obviously intended to address "talking" on the "telephone" and doesn't address other uses in any manner. Judges can and do rule all the time on the intent of a law especially in cases where time and technology have changed the meaning of terms and phrases used in a law. Stretching this law to cover other uses of a "telephone" is an obscene case of legislating from the bench. The driver in question wan't even using a "telephone" much less talking on one. He was using a hand held mapping device which this nor any other law addressed until this judge made it so. Just because the words of a law can be stretched and twisted to cover things other than those intended by the law doesn't mean those things are or should be.

If the law says you can't wash your horse in your driveway on sundays, it may be a stupid law, but if the police find a wet horse in your driveway

By your interpretation this law would also cover washing your car in your driveway on Sunday since a horse is a means of transportation and so is your car. The guy in question wasn't using a telephone. He was using a mapping device.

Re:Bad Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

You are talking about a judge in California. The only interpretation that is done is determining how best to extract a fine and the maximum fee that can be levied. Remember the state budget is running on fumes.

Re:Bad Ruling

[Martin Blank]

Actually, judges usually don't ignore the intent of the law. I've read many decisions at all levels, and where there is an assertion of vagueness or ambiguity, the courts almost always look to debate, statute prefaces, and even public statements to determine what was expected. Lower courts do this because higher courts do, and judges don't like to get overturned on that point.

Re:Bad Ruling

[Roger W Moore]

Meh, laws don't necessarily have to be enforced, but they're convenient to have when you want to discourage particular behaviors.

Sounds like an excellent recipe for a totalitarian police state. If it becomes acceptable to only enforce laws against people whose behaviour you don't like then whoever gets to define what appropriate behaviour is holds a great deal of power over that society.

Re:Bad Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we would then have to ban talking to the live passenger right next to you.

A passenger knows when to SHUT THE FUCK UP when you need them to. They can see what is going on and know when the driver needs his or her full attention.

Re:Bad Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

In most states it is illegal under the same or similar rules that ban texting and cell phones without hands free devices to do things like enter data in to a GPS or use other portable electronic devices.

Maybe the rule in California is a bit to specific but standard distracted driving rules apply still when using a GPS device, applying make-up, etc.

Re:Bad Ruling

[BonThomme]

"while distracted driving is a problem, navigation aids do more good than harm"

if you're not looking at the road ahead, you are doing more harm than good. don't pretend otherwise.

Re:Bad Ruling

[mvdwege]

Oh yes, when people operate 1-2 tons of steel at moderate to high speeds in public, requiring some assurances of safe handling is the way to a police state.

Get a hold of yourself man. Histrionics like that is exactly why bans keep getting passed: if the opponents look like idiots, its an easy sell to the general public.

Re:Bad Ruling

[BonThomme]

well he does now...

Re:Bad Ruling

[mvdwege]

Lex specialis derogat legi generali

There you go. Took me all of 30 seconds Googling, so I must conclude that your spectacular display of ignorance is because you are a complete idiot.

Re:Bad Ruling

[BonThomme]

they also have a vested interest in the driver not dying.

Re:Bad Ruling

[BonThomme]

you never see a moving cyclist talking on his cell phone, either

Re:Bad Ruling

[Sique]

Hm. Don't the States in the U.S. have a chapter in their traffic codes, that states something similar to "drivers are required to use their vehicles in a manner that reduces the harm and the risk of harm to the unavoidable minimum"? It would make a lot of discussions about texting, phoning or checking maps while driving moot.

Re:Bad Ruling

[ArsenneLupin]

In 2010, I was written a citation for using my phone when I had passed it to a passenger. I was (rightfully) found not guilty. Because merely "touching" your phone is not using it as a communications device. Nor is the cell phone magically more distracting than other objects in a car.

Reminds me of the DUI citations for people sleeping in their car. Merely being in posession of the keys, and being physically in is enough to be considered driving.

So, instead tell your friend to grab the phone out of your trouser's pocket, instead of handing it to her...

Re:Bad Ruling

[ArsenneLupin]

The judge is only there to apply those laws, not question their sanity, relevance, or modernity.

Yes, because that's what the jury is for. Except, you don't get a jury trial for traffic violations. And then, the jury wouldn't be allowed to know this, in any case...

Re:Bad Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about where you are driving, but around here, stopping in the middle of the road is what's suicidal, and in many places illegal too. And the next designated rest area may be 10 miles after you should have turned.

The only place with room to stop along the road is on motorways, and there stopping is illegal unless your car breaks down.

Satnav units have improved road safety a lot compared to having a paper map over the steering wheel, which is the alternative in the real world. Some people argue for a fictional world, where everybody have photographic memory, but even I don't have that (even though I've been accused of remembering everything), and once I did try remembering the route instead of looking at a map. That resulted in getting lost for 20 minutes before I found a safe place to stop and pull out the map. That's what convinced me to buy a satnav unit.

Re:Bad Ruling

[ShakaUVM]

>No. The judge isn't allowed to consider those other pieces of legislation and non-legislation that you provided. The judge is only allowed to look at the relevant law

Uh, no. Judges have to look at all relevant laws, and adjudicate them if they conflict, and work to make sure no law is made to be pointless by another.

Read Bush v. Gore some time.

Re:Bad Ruling

[buybuydandavis]

Nice.

Re:Bad Ruling

[BasilBrush]

In 2010, I was written a citation for using my phone when I had passed it to a passenger. I was (rightfully) found not guilty. Because merely "touching" your phone is not using it as a communications device.

Some thing in that anecdote doesn't ring true. It doesn't sound like the whole truth. Because how did a cop actually see you passing the phone? Passing an object from somewhere easily reachable by the driver to a passenger is not only a non-notable event - it's a non-NOTICABLE event to people outside the car.

So what really happened? You were speaking on the phone first, then passed it to the passenger? You checked the screen first? You dialled? What?

Re:Bad Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

were you just... using a dial up connection while driving? how did you do that?

Re:Bad Ruling

[dywolf]

one handed or two handed, no real difference.
distracted driving is distracted driving.
some people are simply better at multitasking than others, but the law fails to take into account individual ability.

i say get rid of all these various laws and replace them with one simple one: do what you want behind the wheel, but if you get into an accident and negligence/distraction was a root cause go to jail, lose license, pay all costs.

other countries are far, far harsher on the at fault driver, and oddly enough they have far fewer problems with them.

Re:Bad Ruling

[LordVader717]

Funny, the only one that actually refers to a scientific paper looking into it (the middle link) seems to suggest that hands-free sets are an improvement (though they reason in their conclusion that because they slow down less they might be more dangerous. They don't substantiate this however).

The first link basically says that people who talk on their phones a lot are also simply bad drivers. And the third link simply establishes the obvious fact that conversations are distracting anyway.

Yeah, you probably *feel* as distracted when talking hands free, but when it comes down to a split-second evasive maneuver you'll find out why steering wheels are supposed to be used with two hands.

Maybe banning hands-free sets would indeed be a good idea too, but reasoning that we may as well not care about handheld phones because everything's a distraction is just wrong and stupid.

Re:Bad Ruling

[drinkypoo]

The judge has the right and opportunity to dismiss the case "in the interest of justice" and instead chose to issue a ruling that strengthens the court system. No surprise here, but pretending he had no choice is pure bullshit.

Re:Bad Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

i already know the answer to this ('exceptionalism' writ teeny tiny), but:
why is it donut-eaters can drive all day every day with a freaking LAPTOP mounted next to them ? ? ?
and -from what i've seen- they ARE looking/typing on that stuff WHILE DRIVING...
i don't for one nano-second believe that *most* kops are significantly better drivers than your average nekkid ape...

(in fact, i *KNOW* that apparently their turn signals have been disabled... like 99% of the nimrods on the road...)
just sayin'...

captcha = disarm

art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof

Re:Bad Ruling

[Talderas]

Omerta lets you do this when you get too much heat from all your gangster activities. If an independent illegal business has Warm relations towards you, you're allowed to rat them out to the police to stop the investigation against you.

Re:Bad Ruling

[LordVader717]

one handed or two handed, no real difference.

That seems like a dubious claim to say the least.

i say get rid of all these various laws and replace them with one simple one: do what you want behind the wheel, but if you get into an accident and negligence/distraction was a root cause go to jail, lose license, pay all costs.

Yeah, cause that will work really well when the burden of proof is on the state prosecutor. And who cares about road fatalities anyway?

Re:Bad Ruling

[eth1]

It's better than that... What about cars with built-in phones? If you can't use your phone's GPS functionality while driving, then you shouldn't be able to use your phone's driving capability while driving. Right?

Re:Bad Ruling

[doom]

Nor is the cell phone magically more distracting than other objects in a car.

They sure as fuck are, and you would know that already if you'd bothered to follow any of the news about the subject. The fact that we need research to presuade someone like yourself that using a goddamn computer while driving a car is a bad idea is evidence that you're in the grip of horrible denial (or an obnoxious troll, in which case, nice job).

The california law requiring handsfree gadgets is a completely ridiculous sop to the phone industry, that thought they'd use their public relations crisis to sell more gadgets to people, and succeeded.

Re:Bad Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

The law clearly covers text-based communication. This person did not perform text-based communication.

It seems to me the wrong law was being applied.

In the UK we have a thing called "driving without due care and attention" which provides a common-sense alternative to nit-picking over exactly what the driver was using his electronic gadget for.

Re:Bad Ruling

[dywolf]

spoken like someone whos never actually driven a car, or who does so afraid every moment of dying. look, if the car responds like you want it to, you're doing it right. end of story.

the accident report from the on scene officer (re: subject matter expert whose report goes to the court) is what matters. there is no case for the prosecutor to make. the report either says it or it doesnt. right now you're essentially trolling.

Re:Bad Ruling

[dywolf]

also: how nice of you to take the comment out of context. im pretty sure my one hand on the wheel other on the shifter (or on the window frame, or in your gf's lap) is more in control than someone at 10&2 with a phone between their thumbs. the point was about distraction.

Re:Bad Ruling

[MobyDisk]

The judge is only allowed to look at the relevant law, and decide whether a given set of circumstances meets that or not.

That isn't true. The judge can look at whatever he wants. Judges often use things outside of the law itself to help clarify the meaning of the law. In this case, the judge actually did that and justifies why:

Thus, although the words used by the Legislature are the most useful guide to its intent, we do not view the language of the statute in isolation.

Then later

The comments section in the analysis of Senate Bill 28, when it was before the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee, acknowledged this significant exemption:

The judge used the words of the legislators that were outside of the written statute. This it not uncommon.

Re:Bad Ruling

[interkin3tic]

Yeah, you probably *feel* as distracted when talking hands free, but when it comes down to a split-second evasive maneuver you'll find out why steering wheels are supposed to be used with two hands.

But again, that's not what's wrong with driving while holding a phone. The distraction is what is the issue.

Maybe banning hands-free sets would indeed be a good idea too, but reasoning that we may as well not care about handheld phones because everything's a distraction is just wrong and stupid.

That is indeed a wrong and stupid strawman argument, which is why I'm not making it. I'm only saying that hands-free is not an improvement, so carving out an exception for them while banning the other makes no sense.

Re:Bad Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

http://cellphonefreedriving.com/media/UNC%20Driving%20Study.pdf

Cell phones can be distracting, yes. But, from accident data, there are more than sevent times more accidents caused by adjusting the sound system, almost twice as many accidents caused by climate controls, and roughly the same number of accidents caused by eating.

Re:Bad Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

Head's up navigation allows you to do both. Audio cues allow even less visual distraction.

Re:Bad Ruling

[jxander]

Dial up connections use phone lines. My cell phone has a phone line ... problem?

Re:Bad Ruling

[TheCarp]

Solution implies a serious problem. We have already made HUGE strides in auto safety and seriously reduced the rate of fatalities (I have seen the claim that this isn't true but, I don't think its fair to look at an unchanging raw number in a vacuume when all of the indicators that should raise it... total number of miles driven, population size, number of cars on the road have all increased ...thats progress)

I would question whether we have really hit the point of diminishing returns on enforcement of laws, and the only really benefits will come from game changing technology (like driverless cars).

Of course, nobody making or enforcing laws would see it that way, since, their paycheck is directly at odds with the idea that we have enough enforcement or even more enforcement than is useful.

Re:Bad Ruling

[undeadbill]

FTA: Nonetheless, “because it is undisputed that the appellant used his wireless telephone while holding it in his hand as he drove his vehicle,” the conviction was allowed to stand.

This isn't about using GPS. This is not about using GPS mounted on a dashboard. This is not about using a phone's GPS in "car mode" while it is in a dash mount. This is about fumbling around for a phone when both hands should have been on the wheel. And the change in the law from a few months ago was plastered all over billboards and the Amber Alert signs all over the highway for several months. It isn't as if the consequences were unknown or sprung upon him by surprise.

I've talked with CHP who have pulled over and cited drivers regarding all of the other gripes you have listed. The CHP can't be everywhere all at once.

Re:Bad Ruling

[Obfuscant]

Was he reading something on the screen? Communication.

You know, sometimes, when you deal with the law, you actually have to read an entire sentence of words and connect them all together to get the real meaning of the law. You can't just look at the pages one word at a time. Sometimes, you even have to read two entire sentences. On rare occasions, an entire section. Like, sometimes, the law says "it is against the law to do A". And then the next subsection says "by 'doing A' we mean ...." and then they spell it out. You don't get to interpret what they mean by "doing A" when the next sentence tells you what they mean by "doing A".

And sometimes, you'll find a later section that says "the part about it being illegal to do A doesn't apply if ...", so even if you interpret the first two sentences together, you need the third sentence or fourth to know that someone isn't guilty of "doing A" because he's exempt from the prohibition. (That means, the law says he can do it.)

And then, sometimes, you have to realize that if the law doesn't say "it is against the law" to do what you just did, it really isn't against the law. So, if the law doesn't say "it is illegal to look at a navigation display on an cellphone", then it really isn't illegal to look at a navigating display on a cellphone.

So, maybe he was "communicating" when he looked at a GPS. Maybe the GPS was showing him text (probably not). But he was not communicating with a person, and the law is explicit in defining the action that it prohibits.

You may disagree with the conclusion, but your argument is using logic that the law does not recognize and cannot consider.

You're saying that "the law" cannot read "the law" and consider "the law" when determining guilt of an accused party. That's pathetic. "My argument" is based on reading the law; your's is based on reading word by word and saying that any word that fits means he's guilty.

I happen to agree with your conclusion -- that this is something that should be fixed.

Now I know you're making things up. I did not come up with the conclusion that the law needs to be fixed. I think the law is fine as it stands. It's the JUDGE that needs to smack with a two by four to get him to pay attention to his job and the law as it is written. Not just one word at a time, but the entire section.

Re:Bad Ruling

[Xylene2301]

In reality, I've seen that local judges 'craft' the laws the way an elementary school teacher applies rules to keep a playground under control. I live in The South and it's particularly that way down here.

Re:Bad Ruling

[Roger W Moore]

Oh yes, when people operate 1-2 tons of steel at moderate to high speeds in public, requiring some assurances of safe handling is the way to a police state.

I've no problem with having such laws - my problem is with the suggestion that you can choose whether or not to enforce them. Making everyday life illegal and then letting the police decide who they want to prosecute is a sure way to end up in a police state.

Re:Bad Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

The judge is only there to apply those laws, not question their sanity, relevance, or modernity.

When he takes a law and adds to it his own new definition, then that's creating a new law which is the same as legislating.
The judge should have found him guilty or not based on the wording of the law; not make up stuff as he goes along because he has a personal feeling about the issue.

Re:Bad Ruling

[LordVader717]

spoken like someone whos never actually driven a car, or who does so afraid every moment of dying. look, if the car responds like you want it to, you're doing it right. end of story.

Spoken like 90% of all the ignorant schmucks out there who've never lost control of a car before they have a crash. I bet you've never understeered a car going at speed have you?

the accident report from the on scene officer (re: subject matter expert whose report goes to the court) is what matters.

Whatever. The point is that it's impossible to prove distraction (where would you set the bar on this anyway?) in a way that would stand up in court. The sensible thing to do is to send a clear message to the people who think driving with one hand is a good idea that they need to stop that shit.

Re:Bad Ruling

[Tastecicles]

it would be a pretty fucking suicidal thing to do... that said I've seen this, all I could do from my vantage point is facepalm...

Judge was an ass

[Anonymous Coward]

appeal

Re:Judge was an ass

[Anonymous Coward]

This was an appeal. That's what an "appellate court" does.

Define "use"

[AmiMoJo]

Stand alone sat nav units usually don't let you operate them while the car is in motion. You have to stop before the touch screen is enabled. When moving you can only passively use them, looking at the display and listening to instructions.

I didn't RTFA but if all that the court is saying is that you can't be trying to use the touch screen then that seems reasonable.

Re:Define "use"

[hawguy]

Stand alone sat nav units usually don't let you operate them while the car is in motion. You have to stop before the touch screen is enabled. When moving you can only passively use them, looking at the display and listening to instructions.

I didn't RTFA but if all that the court is saying is that you can't be trying to use the touch screen then that seems reasonable.

My Garmin GPS allows me to use it while driving.

Built-in navigation units may not, but the standalone ones generally do, even if you have to specifically enable the feature. My GPS has some features (like "What restaurants and gas stations are at the next exit" that only make sense to use while on the road.

My built-in touch-screen stereo is much harder to operate while driving than the GPS. I'd welcome a law that requires that all car controls (air conditioning, radio, etc) have tactile switches and knobs for all common functions, a touch screen is impossible to operate without looking at it.

Re:Define "use"

[suutar]

the ones I've used all just have a "don't put too much attention on this while driving" screen with an "OK" button. I don't know whether that's a feature to let the passenger do stuff or slackness in not hooking the code to disable the screen if calculated MPH is nonzero (though I would tend to suspect it's a feature).

Re:Define "use"

[greenbird]

Stand alone sat nav units usually don't let you operate them while the car is in motion.

That would be moronic. Not sure about your world but in mine almost all cars hold more than one person.

Re:Define "use"

[Anonymous Coward]

My built-in touch-screen stereo is much harder to operate while driving than the GPS. I'd welcome a law that requires that all car controls (air conditioning, radio, etc) have tactile switches and knobs for all common functions, a touch screen is impossible to operate without looking at it.

This is so unbelievably true. Touchscreens are terrible for non-visual operation. No control in a vehicle should be a touchscreen.

Probably spot on ruling

[ackthpt]

Distracted drivers - you've seen them. Possibly you've been hit by them. They look away from the road, even for a couple seconds and BAM!

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[bsane]

Its a good thing nobody was distracted before cell phones!

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

But that doesn't address the question. Here is a good review of the case, which explains why the court decision was likely not the correct interpretation of the law. (As Prof. Martin points out, the defendant was pro se and probably didn't make the best arguments possible.)

It probably shouldn't be allowed to surf the Internet while driving, but it seems like that particular law doesn't actually forbid it.

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Distraction technology has advanced faster than the skill of drivers to deal with all of it at the same time.

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

How does that point speak to the validity of the judge's ruling? He's ruling on the law, not on whether or not distracted drivers are bad.

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

It's astonishing, what with all the various gadgets enticing people's attention in the 1970s and 1980s, that it's only now become a problem.

I wonder what changed between now and then that has dramatically increased the incidence of accidents caused by driver distractions. But I suppose we needed something to make up for all mechanic and doctor billing lost after seat-belts and crackdowns on drunk drivers. Those people have mouths to feed, after all.

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[alen]

there are dashboard mounts and bluetooth headsets to stay within the bounds of the law

you don't need a law to address every possible function of a smartphone in a car. either you can use it hands free or not

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

So because some bad things happened before, we should just ignore entirely avoidable bad things that have become possible with the introduction of new technologies?

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[ackthpt]

How does that point speak to the validity of the judge's ruling? He's ruling on the law, not on whether or not distracted drivers are bad.

Judges may rule on the technical aspect of the law or the spirit of the law, or strike a balance somewhere in the middle. This is why they are Judges, not computer programs which spit out a binary result of TRUE or FALSE.

In this case that the driver was using a phone to view maps is giving the judge considerable leeway with regard to the technical aspect of the law.

Were the driver viewing a hand-held dedicated GPSr with maps loaded in, it would have to be more in spirit of the law. Distracted driving has plenty of statutes from state to state and there's nothing new about it. Accidents have been documented from people taking their eyes off the road to dial (DIAL) a car radio. IIRC Michigan had a statute which barred in-dash television as early as the 1970's.

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[Em Adespoton]

It's astonishing, what with all the various gadgets enticing people's attention in the 1970s and 1980s, that it's only now become a problem.

I wonder what changed between now and then that has dramatically increased the incidence of accidents caused by driver distractions. But I suppose we needed something to make up for all mechanic and doctor billing lost after seat-belts and crackdowns on drunk drivers. Those people have mouths to feed, after all.

A few things here: other than things that impaired driving (and there were appropriate laws about that back in the 70's and 80's), what we have now are roadways designed for faster speeds, and vehicles with different safety standards (mostly significantly better). However, we also have significantly more vehicles on the road, and it is significantly easier to get your license and to afford a vehicle. Link this to a culture with isolationist tendencies, and you get a situation where something that would have been relatively safe in a 70's car can be incredibly dangerous today, even with improved standards. Plus, with the improved flow of information, people actually find out about all the bad stuff that goes on now, whereas back then, the problem wasn't assumed to be as big as it actually was.

Or something like that.

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[hawguy]

It's astonishing, what with all the various gadgets enticing people's attention in the 1970s and 1980s, that it's only now become a problem.

I wonder what changed between now and then that has dramatically increased the incidence of accidents caused by driver distractions. But I suppose we needed something to make up for all mechanic and doctor billing lost after seat-belts and crackdowns on drunk drivers. Those people have mouths to feed, after all.

You've obviously never tried to extricate an 8-track or cassette tape that's been partially eaten by the tape player while driving down the freeway if you think there was no distracting technology in the 70's and 80's. Though at least the 8-track player had only a single button and no playlist to manage.

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

Fatal Crashes, Drivers in Fatal Crashes, and Fatalities in Crashes, by Year

Overall
Year / Crashes / Drivers / Fatalities
2005 39,252 / 59,220 / 43,510
2006 38,648 / 57,846 / 42,708
2007 37,435 / 56,019 / 41,259
2008 34,172 / 50,416 / 37,423
2009 30,797 / 45,230 / 33,808

Caused by Distraction
Year / Crashes / Drivers / Fatalities
2005 4,026 (10%) / 4,217 (07%) / 4,472 (10%)
2006 5,245 (14%) / 5,455 (09%) / 5,836 (14%)
2007 5,329 (14%) / 5,552 (10%) / 5,917 (14%)
2008 5,307 (16%) / 5,477 (11%) / 5,838 (16%)
2009 4,898 (16%) / 5,084 (11%) / 5,474 (16%)

Source: Table 1 at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811379.pdf

Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/552/ (read hover text)

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[foniksonik]

So because some bad things happened before, we should just ignore entirely avoidable bad things that have become possible with the introduction of new technologies?

The law is unnecessary to begin with. It's only there to make writing tickets easier. We have laws about reckless driving which fully cover any and all distractions, but they require an officer to show up and testify that the behavior was reckless. Much more he said / she said. So they added a quick buck law that is black and white (supposedly).

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[Kaenneth]

Was anyone ever killed by someone playing with a Rubik's Cube while driving?

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[nametaken]

So have our cars. Now we rely on the ridiculous capabilities and crazy-effective safety mechanisms built into them.

This manifests as everyone driving like a fucking moron.

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

You've obviously never tried to extricate an 8-track or cassette tape that's been partially eaten by the tape player while driving down the freeway if you think there was no distracting technology in the 70's and 80's. Though at least the 8-track player had only a single button and no playlist to manage.

But to pick an album you had to physically shuffle through the cartridges laying, usually, all over the floorboard.

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[Hrrrg]

Distracted drivers - you've seen them. Possibly you've been hit by them. They look away from the road, even for a couple seconds and BAM!

Perhaps. However, I suspect more crashes are caused by bored drivers who are not paying attention to what they are doing. That is probably why the number of car accidents has gone down even while cell phone ownership has gone from 0% of the population to 91%. I think it also explains why studies of cellphone use while driving predict dire consequences, and those consequences fail to materialize in the real world. You have to pay attention if you're trying to use a cellphone at the same time you are driving.

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[blackiner]

Obligatory Mythbusters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vFcIpzF7pc

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[Hatta]

It doesn't have to be an electric device. Looking at a paper map is just as distracting as a screen. I would hope that troopers would pull someone over for reading a map while driving, careless driving is an offense in most jurisdictions. If you don't know where you're going, pull off at the next exit.

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I used to have a similar view: there ought to be only a handful of traffic laws, covering general offences like driving dangerously or inconsiderately, and it ought to be up to a court to consider each case on its merits.

The thing that convinced me otherwise was the reaction to our mobile phone law in the UK, which basically prohibits handheld but not hands-free phone use while driving. I've seen way too many arrogant people, many of them young and inexperienced drivers who are at higher risk of having an accident already, claim quite seriously that using a hands-free is safe and that's why the law only bans hand-helds. I even saw blatant, person-sized adverts in major stores right after the law was introduced, saying things like "Stay safe on the road!" while selling hands-free kits.

After seeing that sort of things for an extended period, I came to realise that legislation is important not only for its ability to prosecute in practice but also for the message it sends about what is considered acceptable behaviour. Specifically, if you have some laws but don't explicitly prohibit something else, a certain type of person will use that as an excuse to do the other things even if those things are well known to be horribly dangerous. Personally, I'd rather people like that weren't encouraged, even if actually getting them off the road is difficult in practice.

That's not to say that blanket bans and technical offences shouldn't be assessed critically and can't have downsides. The one I struggle with personally is the idea that by law I should wait at a red light even if an emergency vehicle is blocked behind me and I can see that it is definitely safe to advance; I understand the reasoning, and why the emergency services tend to support it too, but I suspect that if I were ever in that situation I'd find it hard to just sit there. But that sort of consideration doesn't tend to apply with using devices while driving; there is basically never a safe way to do that on the evidence to date, and there is already an exception in the law at least here in the UK if you really do need to make an emergency call but it would be dangerous to stop, which is the only time I can think of that the extra risk might be justified. That's a long way from getting lost but then taking your eyes off the road to read an electronic map, though.

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[TheCarp]

I feel this may have been tounge in cheek but, its a good point, and its a question that should always lead to.... is the only difference in how (or if) we are measuring? Clearly there will be no "cell phone related" accidents before the 90s (were there a few 80s car phones? Point is the same).

What is often missed is the question of self selection: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457512002734

Notice even here, the scientists can't get past the fact that using a cell phone shows measurable impairment, yet, it seems more that drivers getting in accidents choose cell phones and not the other way around.

My interpretation: I think we have too much of an innate desire to discount others ability to manage risk. Yes, using a cell phone is a significant impairment to driving. It is. I use one sometimes, I find it impairing. However, I drive differently, and much more cautiously on a cell phone than when not using one. A LOT more cautiously.

On the other hand, I think of the worst drivers I know. The people who not only get in accidents but, who I actually am scared to be a passenger in their car. They use the phone alot. In fact, they tend to be on the phone while driving more often than not.

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[Culture20]

It's astonishing, what with all the various gadgets enticing people's attention in the 1970s and 1980s

I remember a Goofy cartoon from the 50's where he was getting a full shave by some automated robot while he tried to drive. I'm sure it was a commentary on people shaving on their own while driving. Then of course there was this little gem of distracted driving from 1938: http://www.disneyshorts.org/shorts.aspx?shortID=270

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[yurtinus]

I suspect more crashes are caused by bored drivers who are not paying attention to what they are doing.

Save a life. Drive a Miata.

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[14erCleaner]

That article directly contradicts a Utah study that showed that cell phone users drive more slowly and change lanes less. Both of these behaviors should decrease accidents, but they violate the accepted dogma that "cell phones cause accidents", so they're ignored. In fact, the researchers concluded that driving slower and changing lanes less was actually bad, which shows that they wanted to demonstrate something that followed the dogma (probably because it's easier to get funding if you come to the "correct" conclusions).

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[SternisheFan]

One goofy distracted driver story was of a woman who was driving while her passenger boyfriend was shaving her 'bikini area' when they both got so distracted that she rear-ends a stopped truck.

http://hiphopwired.com/2010/03/08/woman-arrested-for-crashing-car-while-shaving-private-parts/

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[demonlapin]

... and hope there's a freeway entrance at it. Not a given with older roads or especially in urban areas - there are places you can get off the road but can't get back on in the same direction anywhere nearby.

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[camperdave]

The "playlist" was a bunch of tapes sitting on the seat, or on the dash, or in the K-Tel Tape Selector.

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[Aonghus142000]

Here in the States, particularly in the South where I live, there is an adage, "I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six." Boiled down I see at as reserving the right to break the law if I believe that it is a matter of life and death, and then take my chances with a trial afterwards. After all, there was a case (probably apocryphal,) in Texas where someone was found not guilty of murder despite the fact that he was found standing over the victim holding the murder weapon.

When the incredulous judge asked the foreman about the jury’s verdict he received the reply, “Well, Your Honor, Some folk just need killin’.”

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[Tastecicles]

affordable, advanced handheld mobile communications devices coupled with social networking websites.

The number of times I've left a bar full of ignorant arseholes who seem more interested in their fucking facebook accounts than actual, flesh interaction with real people...

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[Tastecicles]

driving too slowly (335 or 40 in a 50 zone) can actually get you a fail on your driving test, and for good reason.

While you're doing 10mph less than the traffic around you, you're a mobile chicane. On a multi-land highway, if you're occupying lane 1, and you're getting overtaken by trucks, they are moving to avoid a hazard and turning themselves into a hazard. IT ALL COMES BACK ON YOU. All it takes is for one of those trucks to not see you (he's ducking to retrieve a dropped cigarette or whatever) and BAM! You are street pizza.

Dogma be damned, slower != safer on a high speed road.

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[mjwx]

Dogma be damned, slower != safer on a high speed road.

We've known this since the 70's. It's the same risk as going faster in terms of likelihood of causing an accident (see: Solomon Curve), however a lower speed represents a lower severity of injury. The best thing to do is to keep the same speed as others. This is why speed limits are such an important safety feature, they're designed to get everyone going the same speed. People who go faster or slower are the ones who increase risk.

But the problem with MOP's (Morons On Phone's) is not that they're travelling slower or faster, nor that they change lanes less. The problem is that they aren't paying attention to what they are doing and what is going on around them. The root cause of a lot of road accidents are driver error (speed just makes driver error deadly) and inattention is a huge part of what causes error.

I see this all the time on roads where I live (Perth, Australia), especially from pedestrians. I drive a sports car with a modified exhaust, so it's not quiet yet moronic pedestrians with white earbuds stuffed in their ears still walk out in front of me and my shiny, black, loud car. People are too busy with their phones to watch where they are going or pay attention to what they are doing.

(335 or 40 in a 50 zone)

335 KPH in a 50 zone is a bit fast :)

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[Tastecicles]

haha yes, just noticed that... in the UK when you see a sign on a motorway that says "50" it's not a limit, it's a goal.

Because usually by that point you're doing 15 along with everybody else.

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[youngatheart]

It's astonishing, what with all the various gadgets enticing people's attention in the 1970s and 1980s, that it's only now become a problem.

I wonder what changed between now and then that has dramatically increased the incidence of accidents caused by driver distractions. But I suppose we needed something to make up for all mechanic and doctor billing lost after seat-belts and crackdowns on drunk drivers. Those people have mouths to feed, after all.

A few things here: other than things that impaired driving (and there were appropriate laws about that back in the 70's and 80's), what we have now are roadways designed for faster speeds, and vehicles with different safety standards (mostly significantly better). However, we also have significantly more vehicles on the road, and it is significantly easier to get your license and to afford a vehicle. Link this to a culture with isolationist tendencies, and you get a situation where something that would have been relatively safe in a 70's car can be incredibly dangerous today, even with improved standards. Plus, with the improved flow of information, people actually find out about all the bad stuff that goes on now, whereas back then, the problem wasn't assumed to be as big as it actually was.

Or something like that.

Actually, it hasn't only now become a problem. If anything, the other problems have decreased to the point that it's finally significant enough to focus on. Traffic fatalities have gone down at the same time as the use of gadgets have gone up. In fact, you're 5 times as likely to be in a distracted driving accident due to daydreaming as you are to be in one due to mobile phone use. The bans don't work, they just give lawmakers something to do that has the appearance of addressing the real problem while they ignore what really works because what really works doesn't get votes.

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[TheCarp]

Its only a contradiction if you assume that "Cell phone using drivers" and "drivers who get in accidents while using cell phones" are largely similar or the same groups.... which is exactly what that article would lead me to not assume.

Everybody uses cell phones while driving, Ok not everyone but most.

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[cdrudge]

We have laws about reckless driving which fully cover any and all distractions, but they require an officer to show up and testify that the behavior was reckless.

It also depends on what meets the legal definition of reckless. A recent local news story near my city reports that a guy who readily admits texting while driving and causing an accident killing 3 people in an Amish buggy won't face charges because while the grand jury found him grossly negligent, they didn't find it reckless. Indiana doesn't have a negligent homicide, reckless homicide is the lowest level for a homicide.

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[gottabeme]

I came to realise that legislation is important not only for its ability to prosecute in practice but also for the message it sends about what is considered acceptable behaviour. Specifically, if you have some laws but don't explicitly prohibit something else, a certain type of person will use that as an excuse to do the other things even if those things are well known to be horribly dangerous. Personally, I'd rather people like that weren't encouraged, even if actually getting them off the road is difficult in practice.

See, that's the fundamental problem right there: what is "considered acceptable behavior"!? I consider making stupid laws "unacceptable behavior!" I consider lots of things "unacceptable behavior!" If I were king, those things might be illegal. Since I'm not, they aren't--instead, things other people think are "unacceptable behavior" are illegal. What we have are foolish, self-serving politicians doing what they think will get them reelected--not doing what is right.

Laws should be based on principles. Laws are not for sending messages--that's what consequences are for. It's not good, necessary, or right to prohibit everything that could possibly cause a problem if some idiot did it. It's not necessary to outlaw inserting a knife into another person's belly--that's covered by laws against murder and assault. The point is the principle about harming or killing other people. It's not good, necessary, or right to prohibit every little behavior that could be performed by an idiotic driver in an unsafe manner which could lead to an accident--that's covered by laws against reckless driving and running into other cars. If those consequences are not strong enough or not enforced properly, making more laws is not the answer!

Here's a dose of reality: the biggest safety problem with driving is drivers who do not allow safe following distance. This is by far the biggest problem, period. If people got ticketed for this, accident and death rates would go down significantly. But too many legislators would get ticketed for that...

Here's another dose: There are many, many situations while driving a car in which it is perfectly safe to operate a device with one hand, and even look away from the road for a few seconds. An obvious example is when the car is stopped--a situation for which this law does not seem to recognize. Another obvious example is when there is no nearby traffic and no potential road hazards in sight. If the nearest car is 10-20 seconds away, and there is nothing but open fields around the road, it's perfectly safe to look at my radio or my GPS or my phone--or blow my nose!--for 2-3 seconds. But, of course, since the law was written by and for idiots, it doesn't account for the possibility of reason or intelligence on the part of the driver.

And, yes, of course, there are many idiotic drivers out there--maybe even more of them than the other! I see them every day! But we cannot outlaw everything that might be a problem if an idiot did it at a bad time! And this is probably where our fundamental philosophical differences will come to light. Life is full of danger. Getting out of bed is a risk. Taking a shower can be dangerous. Walking out your front door exposes you to many sources of risk. Staying in bed can be dangerous, because an airplane or a boulder could plow through your wall and squash you like a bug. (It has happened!) Not to mention the long-term risks of inactivity. It's not good for the human spirit for the power of choice and the needs for reason and responsibility to be taken away.

And the irony of your sig...it really gets me, man.

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[gottabeme]

I see this all the time on roads where I live (Perth, Australia), especially from pedestrians. I drive a sports car with a modified exhaust, so it's not quiet yet moronic pedestrians with white earbuds stuffed in their ears still walk out in front of me and my shiny, black, loud car.

Gee, I wonder why they are trying to block out sound... Maybe it's because of self-absorbed morons who make their cars unnecessarily loud at the expense of other people.

People like you make me want to buy one of those high-tech directed-sound systems and point it at your bedroom window when you're trying to sleep and blast you with some serious noise. Hey, I'm having fun with it, so it doesn't matter how it affects you or anyone else! You can't tell me what to do! I have a right to do whatever I want!

What people like you need are consequences, because the only thing you understand is a dose of your own medicine. I'm guessing you didn't get spanked as a child, or you did for the wrong reasons, because that's a prime time and method to teach about consequences and respect for other people. Otherwise people grow up and engage in sociopathic behavior like yours and are a blight on civilization.

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I want to agree with you, I really do. As I noted in other posts, I held a similar principled view for a long time, and obviously you've noticed from my sig that I have strong reservations about overstretched government authority.

But in the end, pragmatism won. Laws do not exist in a vacuum. Laws may not be intended to send a message, but as a practical reality, they do. This is demonstrated very clearly by the campaigns to use hands-free kits here in the UK that I mentioned earlier in this discussion. Advertisers latched on to the fact that an exception had been made and only hand-held devices were banned, even though the very same research that the government used to justify that ban also showed that using a hands-free was almost as dangerous. Since that time, it's not only people who don't care about safe driving who have been using them, it's also a whole generation of young drivers who've been convinced that it actually is safe, because look, the government said so!

Crucially, from an ethical point of view, we are also talking about activities that are reasonable to prohibit anyway. There is no doubt that driving while distracted by a phone is dangerous. The evidence is overwhelming. Almost everyone who uses a phone while in the driver's seat with the engine running really is a dangerous fool and really does deserve to be punished, whether you get them for a technical offence or you prosecute them under some blanket safety/consideration for others law. Laws banning things like driving while on a phone or drinking and driving are evidence-based and they are about genuinely dangerous and inconsiderate behaviour, and that is why I don't have a problem with them despite my concerns about overreaching government. (Technical offences that aren't based on clear evidence are a different matter, but that's a discussion for another day.)

Of course there will always be edge cases where you could argue that it does no harm to call from the driver's seat, like if you're stuck in a queue behind an accident and obviously not going anywhere for a while. That's always going to be a difficulty on some level with any law that restricts a general behaviour, and maybe it would be in the interests of justice to have an absolute defence against any technical driving offence that the behaviour was not unsafe/inconsiderate/insert other principle here. But please be honest, that's not really what people who object to these laws are talking about most of the time, any more than people who used to object to drunk driving laws were worried that they might get caught sitting in the driver's seat of their parked car with a cigarette at the end of the night.

In an ideal world, I really would prefer, as I'm fairly sure you would, that we had a much simpler set of laws on the books, based on principles and common sense, and then allowed courts to make decisions on merit in each individual case. But that requires an enforcement system that is very likely to catch offenders and deal with them efficiently, and just as importantly, very unlikely to catch anyone else and cause them extensive stress and disruption they don't deserve. That in turn relies on having many front-line police officers who all have perfect judgement. While I do have a lot of respect for most police officers I've met, that's a heavy burden to put on one individual making a decision in the heat of the moment, and given the burden that simply being pulled over or arrested carries in modern society even if no further action is taken, there are real ethical/legal concerns over allowing too much discretion to officers about what is and isn't worth imposing that burden on a member of the public.

So at this point, I'm not convinced that on balance such a situation would really be an improvement on an explicit prohibition for something that is, under most circumstances, very dangerous. The law isn't, and never can be, perfect, because there is always a cost to enforcement. I've been a witness in court, in a case where someone was trie

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[gottabeme]

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

You have some excellent points, however I'm not convinced that they are all relevant. For example:

In an ideal world, I really would prefer, as I'm fairly sure you would, that we had a much simpler set of laws on the books, based on principles and common sense, and then allowed courts to make decisions on merit in each individual case.

Maybe the differences between the US and the UK make our discussion a bit moot, but it seems to me that courts already make decisions based on merit. Judges often dismiss cases or suspend sentences for minor offenses, even if the defendant is guilty. For a frustrating example, here in my state, cars with loud, aftermarket exhausts are illegal by state law. I talked to the local police department about a recent increase in the number of extremely loud vehicles zooming past my home. The officer told me that when they give citations and go to court, the county judge throws out the case and tells them to stop wasting his time. The judge refuses to enforce the law, because he doesn't think it's important. (He lives somewhere where loud cars don't zoom past his home every day. How someone this shortsighted got to be a judge, I don't know.) In other cases, judges sometimes show mercy to citizens who admit their mistakes.

But that requires an enforcement system that is very likely to catch offenders and deal with them efficiently, and just as importantly, very unlikely to catch anyone else and cause them extensive stress and disruption they don't deserve. That in turn relies on having many front-line police officers who all have perfect judgement. While I do have a lot of respect for most police officers I've met, that's a heavy burden to put on one individual making a decision in the heat of the moment, and given the burden that simply being pulled over or arrested carries in modern society even if no further action is taken, there are real ethical/legal concerns over allowing too much discretion to officers about what is and isn't worth imposing that burden on a member of the public.

I think you're wrong here. Again, maybe this is due to living in different countries, but police officers here certainly have discretion about enforcing the law and giving citations. Not all laws, of course--murder isn't optionally enforced, and some states require by law that one party be taken to jail if the police are called for a domestic dispute--but many laws, like traffic laws, allow the police to choose whether to pull a driver over or give him a ticket. So I think the police already do this as part of their job. It's hardly a case of black-and-white-if-they-see-it-they-must-give-a-ticket.

And I don't think it would require perfect judgement on anyone's part. This is why we have courts and juries who already make decisions like these. I think you're painting a picture of a false dichotomy.

Laws may not be intended to send a message, but as a practical reality, they do. This is demonstrated very clearly by the campaigns to use hands-free kits here in the UK that I mentioned earlier in this discussion.

I think this is a case of opportunistic businesses taking advantage of the new laws to sell stuff. Sure, a law against murder "sends a message" that murder is not ok, but that's not the purpose of the law. I would argue, again, that laws aren't what really send messages--consequences are. There are many laws which are not enforced or whose consequences are minor which people do not obey. The law is ignored because the consequences are not sending a message--or they are sending a message that it's not a big deal.

Advertisers latched on to the fact that an exception had been made and only hand-held devices were banned, even though the very same research that the government used to justify that ban also showed that using a hands-free was almost as dangerous. Since that time, it's not only people who

Re:Probably spot on ruling

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

FWIW, I once again agree with, or at least sympathise with, many of your comments. This is getting quite long so I won't go point-by-point, but I wanted to follow up on a couple of specific issues.

My cautionary views about relying on the courts are not because there is anything wrong with the principle of allowing flexible laws and "having your day in court" to fix any mistakes. The problem is the cost of such an idealised process, in two very different ways.

Firstly, there's the literal financial cost. If everything is principled (which unfortunately tends to imply "vague") then it seems likely that a lot more people would challenge a minor charge when they are in fact guilty and have no realistic chance of succeeding in court. That results in an increased burden on courts that also have to deal with other matters, and usually on a higher effective penalty for the challenger. I am strongly of the view that for justice to be served, everyone must have a right to a fair hearing if they are accused by the government of any crime, but I don't believe it serves anyone's interests to encourage that path when it really has little if any chance of changing anything.

Secondly, my views are also coloured by my experiences of seeing courts in action first hand (as a witness, not a defendant or prosecutor). The defendant in the case that I mentioned before had her life turned upside down for something like a year before the matter was finally closed. She wound up having to go to court at least twice, as did the rest of us, because it wasn't possible to hear the case on the original scheduled day. This wasn't really the court's fault, because they couldn't know that an unusually high number of urgent matters that they were required to deal with first would arrive that morning, but it still meant that everyone involved lost another whole day at work, for which the courts don't pay much if any compensation, and the case didn't come back to court for several months afterwards, so just when the defendant thought it would finally be over they pulled a bait-and-switch. When the case was finally heard, the defendant was understandably distressed about the whole thing, and that was on top of having been involved in an accident in the first place. Should she have suffered all of this over what would most likely not have resulted in more than a few points on her driving licence and a relatively small fine anyway? It just seemed absurdly disproportionate to me; she went through far more of an ordeal than she would have just taking the points and fine, and in the end she wasn't actually found guilty of doing anything wrong. And of course the case also used up court time, police time, witness time, and so on.

The other point I just wanted to comment on quickly was the question of using a phone any time the engine is running. I think we probably do disagree here, because I very much think that just because you're stopped at lights, for example, that's not a good excuse to start a phone call. Obviously the lights can change, and anyone in the driving seat should always be aware of what's happening around their vehicle so they know how to react when that happens. Perhaps my view here is strongly influenced by living in Cambridge, where we have a lot of cyclists who will (rightly or wrongly) weave through between traffic to reach the front of the queue at lights. Sometimes they do that unwisely, and if as a driver you haven't been keeping an eye on your mirrors and blind spots while you're waiting, bad things can happen as a result. So while the guideline of "if the engine is running" might not be perfect, for the same reasons any of these technical offences isn't perfect, I do think it is reasonable. If you're not so sure you won't be going anywhere in the near future that you've turned your engine off, I think you probably shouldn't be risking a non-emergency call either, which brings us back to the same principle vs. pragmatism situation that we discussed before.

(FYI, I might not be around to reply again in the next couple of days, but thanks for an interesting discussion either way.)

and if it was paper?

[Anonymous Coward]

how about checking a real map?

UpDown

[lightknight]

Swap();

Why not just mandate that all cars have built-in GPS units? As well, as Bluetooth pairing for phones.

Re:UpDown

[EkriirkE]

No. Cost, forced licensing fees. You sound like a lobbyist for Navis.

Re:UpDown

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the logical end of the ideology that drives our government actions. Like all arbitrary mandates, the stated goal of these means has no connection to reality. Threatening theft against people who use phones while driving does not result in obedience, it simply produces a reaction. That reaction is that people no longer keep their eyes on the road facing forward with the device in front of them, now they are looking down into their lap to keep the phone out of view.

Threatening people who build vehicles into adding some technology is no different. It is the opposite of a solution. We know this is necessarily the case because of a simple bit of philosophy: an end cannot be achieved by means which contradict it. A problem in society cannot be solved through force, that merely introduces yet another problem.

What would likely happen is that this violent imposition by government would become delegated to lobbyists and other particularly invested parties who would then use the free evil of the state to serve their own ends. Any time a gun is offered as the solution to a peaceful problem, you know that evil people will be fighting tooth and nail to get their hands on it.

Re:UpDown

[yurtinus]

...because I don't use GPS navigation and would rather not pay for it?

And in other news

[azav]

operating a vehicle containing children, parents or a girlfriend constitutes distracted driving.

Re:And in other news

[interkin3tic]

Traffic laws are there to balance convenience of travel against an acceptable level of death on the road.

If banning cell phones saves a reasonable number of lives, I think most people would agree that's a fair trade off. Banning other passengers in the car though would basically be banning driving, which is not really reasonable.

Your comparison is childish:it's reasonable to say no cell phone use in the car, but not reasonable to say no passengers.

Re:And in other news

[Anonymous Coward]

operating a vehicle containing children, parents or a girlfriend constitutes distracted driving.

I guess if you stare at them instead of the road and feel them up with your hand while driving a car, that would certainly lead to distracted driving.

Re:And in other news

[viperidaenz]

It seems the vast majority of large passenger vehicles in the road never contain passengers though.

Re:And in other news

[Anonymous Coward]

The poor guy just wants feel smart by pretending he doesn't understand things that are hard to put to words, and you had to go and ruin it for him by explaining it clearly and reasonably.

Re:And in other news

[Anonymous Coward]

Feel up who? The children? The parents?!?! Never mind on the girlfriend...that part is just fantasy,

Re:And in other news

[Anonymous Coward]

"Traffic laws are there to balance convenience of travel against an acceptable level of death on the road."

No they aren't. There is no historical evidence or reasoning to support this; in fact, that claim is ex post facto justification to ease the knowledge that these inflicted controls are not just at all.

Like all laws outside of your typical locally derived common law, these are top down hierarchical controls serving the interests of the rulers and their dependents. Where arbitrary top down laws are not employed, actual solutions arise(because they are permitted).

One example of this (since my abstract ramblings may not convince the more practical reader) is to look at what kinds of solutions come about in the absence of rulers and how well they work compared to the 'solutions' provided by laws. Let us consider traffic laws. So the first thing to understand is that a law is not the same thing as a rule. A law is an opinion with a gun backing it. A rule is more general. It can describe laws but it can also describe standard accepted practices between some group of people. So when I say rule, I don't mean the fevered machinations of some corporate suit or a greasy politician backed by thugs in blue or camo costumes. Consider the following traffic rules of no stop lights, blunt stop and go instructions and so on where laws are not in enforced. Think of those massive fish like swarms of traffic in india and parts of asia. Far more efficient(if aesthetically chaotic looking) and fantastically safer. Experiments have been tried in western nations to remove law and let other solutions be tried. Even with the added overhead of confusing drivers with unfamiliar and different systems, they perform orders of magnitude better regarding safety and efficiency. Here is one example: https://www.google.com/search?q=european+cities+remove+traffic+signs

I cannot find the US example, but it was a similar case of a town doing away with the laws and finding a peaceful solution instead, which decreased total accidents by a fair amount but decreased fatal accidents by a factor of 10.

Re:And in other news

[meta-monkey]

Which is why /.ers only have hands-free girlfriends.

Re:And in other news

[BitZtream]

You seem to have a ridiculous definition of 'never' as the wouldn't be produced at all if they 'never' had passengers.

Re:And in other news

[interkin3tic]

Wow... a libertarian who has actually extended his philosophy to abolishing traffic laws? I'm simultaneously impressed and scared.

Re:And in other news

[Aonghus142000]

No, the word you're looking for isn't libertarian, it is anarchist.

Re:And in other news

[LocalH]

Don't you mean girlfriend-free hands?

Re:And in other news

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, now, my girlfriend helps keep me awake on te road, adjusts the radio, handles the maps, and helps me look for missed landmarks. It's only when she leans over and does things to my body with her mouth that she adds to my driving risks.

Re:And in other news

[viperidaenz]

You seem to have trouble comprehending English.
"the vast majority of large passenger vehicles" is not the same as "all of large passenger vehicles"

Re:And in other news

[BonThomme]

that should be distracted parking

Re:And in other news

[Uberbah]

No, that's not a given. Anarchists can be for rules and organizations - just not hierarchies. Libertarians, on the other hand, really are that crazy.

Re:And in other news

[parkinglot777]

It still doesn't make sense... If a "large passenger vehicle" never has passengers on at any time, why would the vehicle be bought in the first place? People buy "large passenger cars" on purpose. It is, however, very rare to buy them just to "show off." Besides, "vast majority" is still a lot more than 50% in total. The word "never" is too exaggerate to me still. If you said "most of the time," I would feel much more comfortable with it.

Re:And in other news

[nedlohs]

So you truly think that the vast majority of large passenger vehicles driven on the road will never have a passenger in them. Not even one passenger just one time?

Re:And in other news

[viperidaenz]

Judging by my commute - when the roads are most used, no.

Re:And in other news

[nedlohs]

You have a spectacularly bad sense of judgement then, not to mention logic.

Yes most people who drive to work do so alone. Maybe that's the only driving you ever do, but for most of those people they drive with someone else in the car at other times. Amazingly most people don't work with their families and hence can't travel to work together, unlike a lot of their other car uses.

The trivial example would be: most people test drive a car before buying it and that usually sees the car driven with a passenger putting that vehicle out of your "never" class.

Hands Free == Dash Mount

[ZombieBraintrust]

If your phone is in a dash mount then that might count as hands free.

Re:Hands Free == Dash Mount

[buchner.johannes]

not if you have your hands on it

Re:Hands Free == Dash Mount

[ZombieBraintrust]

appellant was cited for looking at a map on his cellular phone while holding the phone in his hand.

If your phone is mounted on a dash like a GPS and a GPS app is running then no cop is going to pull you over for glancing at it.

The first is the physical distraction a motorist encounters when either picking up the phone, punching the number keypad, holding the phone up to his or her ear to converse, or pushing a button to end a call. It is this type of distraction that is addressed by this bill.

So using GPS Navigate on your phone is ok as long as you entered the destination while parked. Messing with the phone while in motion is illegal.

Re:Hands Free == Dash Mount

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's not. Messing with the phone using your hands is illegal. Siri or other voice activated systems are perfectly ok as long as you don't touch the phone.

Re:Hands Free == Dash Mount

[Tastecicles]

I wouldn't trust Siri for setting GPS...

"I asked for the Hamptons! What the fuck am I doing in ROCHESTER!?"

good idea

[Chirs]

There is lots of evidence that talking on the phone (even handsfree) is very distracting. There is also evidence that operating a GPS unit is distracting...I remember a documentary where they showed people taking their eyes off the road for many seconds at a time while trying to set a destination on a GPS unit.

My reading of the law is that it implies that the phone must be used handsfree, even if he's not talking or texting.

Re:good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why here where I live it is illegal to set the destination while driving.

Re:good idea

[Grishnakh]

There is also evidence that operating a GPS unit is distracting

It's even more distracting trying to read a map and drive at the same time. If you don't know where you are, it's one or the other.

Re:good idea

[jxander]

It's even more distracting trying to read a map and drive at the same time. If you don't know where you are, it's one or the other.

"Honey, just pull over and ask for directions"

Re:good idea

[LordVader717]

That's why GPS units specifically advise you not to pull over to set a destination. Sheesh do people really need someone to tell them they'r being distracted?

Re:good idea

[Grishnakh]

Directions don't work. Random people can't give you accurate turn-by-turn directions orally. I remember trying this when I was young and giving up in frustration after too many sets of bad directions.

Re:good idea

[SternisheFan]

Some years ago an insurance company mounted cameras in cars to monitor the drivers habits while driving leading to a lot of video footage leading up to accidents. They found that an accident happened when the driver was distracted and not looking at the road for (on average) 2 seconds. That's it, 2 seconds of not looking where they were going then WHAM! The distractions were fumbling for something dropped, like a lit cigarette or a compact disc, tuning the radio, engaged in a phone conversation, etc.

The brain can multi-task 4 things at any one time, and driving takes up almost all of the brain's multi-tasking ability. Adding one more distraction is asking for an accident. I've driven taxis with Garmin gps units, and learned to just do a quick-glance at the screen for when the next upcoming turn would be. Forget texting while driving, that's just asking for an accident to happen.

Re:good idea

[russotto]

It's even more distracting trying to read a map and drive at the same time.

It ain't the reading the map that's so hard... it's UNFOLDING it. (thank you, ADC street atlas)

Re:good idea

[BitZtream]

No, it isn't one or the other.

The CORRECT answer is to PULL OVER WHEN YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THE MAP.

Re:good idea

[Grishnakh]

Ok, so you're going to drive a quarter mile, pull over, drive another quarter mile, pull over, etc.?

Maybe in someplace where the roads are all straight and orthogonal, this isn't necessary, you can just memorize the route to your destination. But try coming here to northern New Jersey sometime and trying to figure out how to get around in this crazy spaghetti-jumble of roads without a turn-by-turn GPS telling you where to go (and even that's not enough because there's so many places where the road has several forks in quick succession, or you have to turn right and take a weird little loop in order to take a left (because left turns aren't allowed on many roads, so they make special turn roads just for that purpose) etc, so you really need a graphical diagram to show you what turns you need to make before you get there.).

Re:good idea

[camperdave]

Get Mapart maps. For major cities, they publish books. For smaller towns, they fold them so that they open like books.

Re:good idea

[greenbird]

Directions don't work. Random people can't give you accurate turn-by-turn directions orally.

"Well you go down to where Billy-Bobs barn use to be." Actually had a guy tell us that once. We were laughing to hard to hear the rest.

Re:good idea

[Grishnakh]

Yep, this is pretty representative of what you'll get when you ask for directions from locals. While I never got anything that ridiculous, it was always stuff like "turn left at the second stop light..." and it was really the third light that I needed to turn at. All the extra driving around in circles that you'd do from following directions like this is surely more dangerous than just looking at a map.

Re:good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I absolutely hate it when people ask me for directions. I once gave these people directions, and after they took off I was like "oh wait, you need to take a left not right... Whoops."

Why do you question that ruling?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because nowadays everyone wants to use their Smartphone all the time doesn't make it safe to do so while driving a car.

Re:Why do you question that ruling?

[phobos512]

How about because there's no law to use your integrated vehicle GPS, radio, talk to folks in the vehicle with you, turn around to bat at the twins fighting in the back seat, etc., all of which are just as potentially distracting? The law is very specific in what is and what is not illegal. Enforcement outside the bounds of the law is not OK. As it's already been stated, the law was felt so initially specific to only speaking on a phone that they had to add another law to ban text messaging. That speaks to the specific intent of the law, not to ban complete use of phones, but only to ban particular functions.

Re:Why do you question that ruling?

[optikos]

The law is quite clear:

specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free driving

By the dictionary definitions of "hand" and "-free" and "driving":
If the smartphone's map functionality is hands-free, then permitted. If the smartphone's map functionality requires even the slightest single touch by a human "hand" while the driver is "driving", then prohibited.

Re:Why do you question that ruling?

[viperidaenz]

There's laws in my country to stop you batting at the twins fighting in the back seat.

Re:Why do you question that ruling?

[Aonghus142000]

A "Smart" phone does not automatically transfer that quality to the user.

Re:Why do you question that ruling?

[Tastecicles]

there's a simple answer to the fighting kids thing.

"Stop now or I'm pulling over and you're getting out and walking. This is your only warning."

All distractions while driving should be banned

[Anonymous Coward]

My take is that the law should become more generic and ban anything that can cause distraction while driving. Satnav, bluetooth, phones, paper-maps, "smart" car functions, anything.

I have caught my self being more distracted trying to figure out why the bluetooth is not working correct, than I would be if I was just holding the phone on my ear. And knowing how dangerous and distracting the later can be my vote is for forbidding everything that causes distraction.

Re:All distractions while driving should be banned

[BitZtream]

Its called reckless driving, and every state in America has some variation of the law on the books. This just makes it hard to argue with the judge about 'reckless' since a specific form of it is on the books.

This law just makes it so when the cop shows the judge his dash cam video of you talking on your phone, you can't argue about it being 'reckless' or not, as the action is illegal even without more arbitrary conditions.

$20 dashboard mount to the rescue

[alen]

i have even though i rarely use my phone other than to listen to music in my car
with voice turn by turn navigation why even check the map on your phone yourself?

Re:$20 dashboard mount to the rescue

[farble1670]

i have even though i rarely use my phone other than to listen to music in my car
with voice turn by turn navigation why even check the map on your phone yourself?

you think a dash mount is going to save your butt? dash mount is fine as long as you don't touch it in transit. if you allow even minor touching, the entire law gets thrown out the window because it becomes unenforceable if you require law enforcement to time how long you are distracted.

as for why even check the map? maybe you need to revise the address? set a new waypoint, such as for coffee or fuel?

also, while you are listening to music, i hope you don't adjust the volume or skip songs, or pause.

Re:$20 dashboard mount to the rescue

[yurtinus]

Hang on - are you arguing that using a dash mount is a bad idea simply because it doesn't entirely solve the problem of distracted driving? Enforcement isn't a big issue, depending on the wording of the law it's easy enough for the LEO to see if you're handling the device or not.

Can we PLEASE

[Anonymous Coward]

just DRIVE when driving? Honestly, it's already cramped out there, driving is a dangerous activity, can we, just for the sake of making a habit of it, JUST DRIVE the damn things, WITHOUT fidgeting around with phones, stereos, bluetooths, coffee cups, navigation systems and whatever the hell other distractions there are?

Re:Can we PLEASE

[pesho]

Where are my mod points when I need them. Please mod the parent up!

Re:Can we PLEASE

[camperdave]

Driving is boring. There's nothing to engage your mind, so you wind up falling asleep behind the wheel.

Re:Can we PLEASE

[Kozz]

just DRIVE when driving ... WITHOUT fidgeting around with phones, stereos, bluetooths, coffee cups, navigation systems and whatever the hell other distractions there are?

Now just HOLD ON THERE A MINUTE, cowboy. You can have my coffee when you pry it from my cold, dead hands. If those dead hands are the result of a collision, at least my last minutes will have been spent with coffee...

Re:Can we PLEASE

[BonThomme]

if you think driving is boring, that's not driving you're doing.

Re:Can we PLEASE

[rastos1]

Right. That's not driving. This is driving.

Offline Handheld GPS?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, using my always offline handheld Garmin GPS with the clumsy user interface is OK?

The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The law is out of date

Apparently so. Given the overwhelming evidence that many of the activities mentioned in this thread do dramatically increase the risk of having an accident, it appears that a lot more things should be prohibited than actually are.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[buybuydandavis]

Apparently so. Given the overwhelming evidence that many of the activities mentioned in this thread do dramatically increase the risk of having an accident, it appears that a lot more things should be prohibited than actually are.

Let's ban driving. That'll decrease car accident risk.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Let's ban driving. That'll decrease car accident risk.

There's always someone who says that. And then there's usually someone else who says, "But children are far more distracting than calling/texting/browsing Facebook while I'm driving!"

Both claims are correct, and both are irrelevant.

There are good reasons to allow driving in the first place, even though it carries risks. The total cost to society from banning driving would be horrendous.

However, there really aren't a lot of good reasons to accept people doing things while driving that increase the inherent risk several times over. If you passed your test, you know how to pull over somewhere safe for maybe 20 seconds to check a map or reconfigure your sat-nav, and you really ought to know how dangerous it is to unnecessarily take your hands off the wheel, your eyes off the road, or your mind off your driving. The fact that some people can pass their test apparently without knowing these things is why sometimes laws are needed to correct that oversight by revoking their licence.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[evenmoreconfused]

Yes, not to mention decreasing pollution, and diminishing the ubiquitous delusion that it is a good idea for all the space around our houses to be paved in asphalt and filled with large metal boxes, some parked, some moving, but all getting in the way of what I want outside my front door. I, for one, would prefer a park.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[Smallpond]

The law is out of date

Apparently so. Given the overwhelming evidence that many of the activities mentioned in this thread do dramatically increase the risk of having an accident, it appears that a lot more things should be prohibited than actually are.

If we should ban looking at a map, maybe we need to ban street signs also, since reading those distracts you from driving.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[Type44Q]

Let's ban driving. That'll decrease car accident risk.

And Kalifornia'll be the first to do it, too... :p

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently so. Given the overwhelming evidence that many of the activities mentioned in this thread do dramatically increase the risk of having an accident, it appears that a lot more things should be prohibited than actually are.

Let's ban driving. That'll decrease car accident risk.

Let's ban idiots. That will decrease the stupid post risk here. Like yours.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[CrimsonAvenger]

However, there really aren't a lot of good reasons to accept people doing things while driving that increase the inherent risk several times over. If you passed your test, you know how to pull over somewhere safe for maybe 20 seconds to check a map or reconfigure your sat-nav, and you really ought to know how dangerous it is to unnecessarily take your hands off the wheel, your eyes off the road, or your mind off your driving. The fact that some people can pass their test apparently without knowing these things is why sometimes laws are needed to correct that oversight by revoking their licence.

I read a different version of this tale earlier today. In that version, it mentioned that the driver in question was stuck in a traffic jam and not actually moving.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that you felt your post was worth making shows that you are not competent to judge what a stupid post is, and furthermore proves that a ban on idiots would affect you in the most personal way possible.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[girlintraining]

Let's ban driving. That'll decrease car accident risk.

Holy straw man argument, Batman!

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[ganjadude]

the "total cost to society" is one of those things that to me anyway, is no different than "wont someone think of the children!"

plain and simple, we should not outlaw "darwin awards", if people want to kill themselves by doing something stupid, good for them, in fact i encourage it, the planet has to many people on it as it. (and yes I know some will say they are putting others at risk.....but)

but plain and simple, we are allowed to do many things in the car legally we should not be doing, shaving, putting on makeup, hell even reading a map or newspaper! if the law says one cannot make calls and text, than thats what they cannot do. Do the logs show a call or a text send within 1-4 minutes of being stopped? if not, there is NO reason said driver should be charged guilty for breaking a law that he did not in fact break. a modern smartphone is just a computer, that has a radio in it. it not a phone that "can do other stuff" and should be treated as such per the law.

having said that, i am also a firm believer that GPS should not be able to be accessible while driving. meaning if the device is in motion, you should not be able to fiddle with the device, cell phone or standalone, set it before you leave the driveway/parking lot and be done with it.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[Miamicanes]

Yes, because it's *so* much safer to wrestle with a badly-refolded & unwieldy 3x5 foot sheet of wrinkled paper that has "AAA" printed on it and can't be pinch-zoomed to enlarge microscopic type...

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[TheGratefulNet]

screaming young kids in the back seat are more of a safety issue and distraction.

you gonna touch that third rail?

well, are you interested in safety or not?

answer the question!

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[Grizzley9]

it appears that a lot more things should be prohibited than actually are.

I'm going to disagree with you on the grounds that there are already laws on the books about distracted driving. That is specific enough. There doesn't need to be a new law for each and every possible distraction or variation thereof, else you are in a continual cycle of new laws as technology and culture changes.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[fenix849]

ad infinitum.... ;)

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[tlhIngan]

plain and simple, we should not outlaw "darwin awards", if people want to kill themselves by doing something stupid, good for them, in fact i encourage it, the planet has to many people on it as it. (and yes I know some will say they are putting others at risk.....but)

but plain and simple, we are allowed to do many things in the car legally we should not be doing, shaving, putting on makeup, hell even reading a map or newspaper! if the law says one cannot make calls and text, than thats what they cannot do. Do the logs show a call or a text send within 1-4 minutes of being stopped? if not, there is NO reason said driver should be charged guilty for breaking a law that he did not in fact break. a modern smartphone is just a computer, that has a radio in it. it not a phone that "can do other stuff" and should be treated as such per the law.

having said that, i am also a firm believer that GPS should not be able to be accessible while driving. meaning if the device is in motion, you should not be able to fiddle with the device, cell phone or standalone, set it before you leave the driveway/parking lot and be done with it.

Darwin awards are great. IF the person being killed is the doer.

The problem is with driving, the person MOST likely to get hurt from the driver's (in)action ISN'T the driver. It's the innocent third party - either a pedestrian or cyclist (who can suffer permanent life changes) - or another motorist (who now suffers the inconvenience of having to fix their car, the time lost making alternate arrangements, and the money lost because accident cars are valued much less than non-accident cars). And potential injury as well.

Most other activities generally only endanger the person partaking in the activity, so Darwin would be helpful here.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

plain and simple, we should not outlaw "darwin awards", if people want to kill themselves by doing something stupid, good for them

Sadly, in many accidents, it's not the idiot driving without paying attention who dies.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

If we should ban looking at a map, maybe we need to ban street signs also, since reading those distracts you from driving.

Actually, while I suspect you were being facetious, there is a real point there. Excessive street furniture and signage is now well known to increase the risk of accidents. As a result, highway planning authorities in various countries have been increasingly interested in this issue in recent years, and we're starting to see official guidelines explicitly consider the problem of street clutter and advocate reducing signage and prioritising essential information only.

However, the situations of using an electronic map vs. reading a road sign are not directly comparable. Most road signs give information that you act on immediately. By their nature, road signs also don't tend to take your eyes completely off the road ahead, and certainly not for several seconds.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

If it's legal where you are to mess around with a large format paper map while driving instead of paying attention to what's happening on the road, then I suggest that your law is broken.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I have a lot of sympathy with your position; I used to hold it myself. Please see my other post about why I changed my mind.

(In a nutshell, if the law is too generic or bans some cases but not others just because it would be hard to enforce the others, it seems that through some combination of ignorance and arrogance the kind of people who are most likely to have an accident in the first place often then believe highly dangerous behaviours are acceptable because "there's no law against it".)

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[stymy]

One does not need to use a smartphone while driving, it's easy to pull over. While one can definitely pull over and give kids a talking to, sometimes there's not much one can do about them. So ban the easy to avoid and easy to enforce one, it'll still save lives.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[Dare nMc]

> i am also a firm believer that GPS should not be able to be accessible while driving. meaning if the device is in motion, you should not be able to fiddle with the device, cell phone or standalone, set it before you leave the driveway/parking lot and be done with it.

I have been the passenger in a car that did exactly that (hertz rental car), what a pain, got stuck in a traffic jam causes by a accident, and wanted to know options, everytime traffic moved it kicked me out, as if it would be impossible for anyone but the driver to be in a vehicle.

> we should not outlaw "darwin awards"

I much prefer having these as unenforced laws, I thought when they made seatbelt laws that you couldn't be pulled over for that was ideal. It is very nice when things go wrong in a accident... to be allowed to investigate. IE without these laws if person A makes a mistake and a accident occurs, that if person B could have still avoided the accident had they not been on the phone, and if the accident would have been a $1000 accident had they been wearing the seatbelt, but it is now a 10,000 PI accident, that the officer should be able to check the phone, and seatbelt useage, and decrease the liability to person A. Without it being illegal, there is no cause for the officer to investigate these. As far as issuing seatbelt/phone use/ GPS use tickets without other cause, that I consider overreaching and not helpfull.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[miroku000]

If you passed your test, you know how to pull over somewhere safe for maybe 20 seconds to check a map or reconfigure your sat-nav, and you really ought to know how dangerous it is to unnecessarily take your hands off the wheel, your eyes off the road, or your mind off your driving.

So, by that logic, we should ban car stereos since they encourage people to take their eyes off the road and their mind off driving. And we would also have to ban GPS units since that map they show can only be seen if you look at it. If you ban GPS units, then people will use paper based maps they printed from online map services. This is far more dangerous than using your phone. Also, if you deprive people of good maps they will drive farther to get to their destination, which has a number of harms to society including more wear on roads, increasing global warming, and increasing the risk of car accidents.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[miroku000]

Most road signs give information that you act on immediately. By their nature, road signs also don't tend to take your eyes completely off the road ahead, and certainly not for several seconds.

No. Most road signs give you information that you don't act on at all. Your GPS tells you "Your exit is number 167 and it is in 0.9 miles." The road signs say things like "This is a random road that is not your exit" and "This is another random road that is not your exit." The GPS actually takes your attention away from driving for a much shorter time, especially on long trips on the interstate.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[Anonymous Coward]

By their nature, road signs also don't tend to take your eyes completely off the road ahead, and certainly not for several seconds.

I take it you haven't seen the danish "speed kills" campaigns. Designed to catch attention, so that drivers don't ignore them, and keep that attention long enough for the message to sink in.

One year, they used a font that was intentionally hard to read. From where I could see the sign, until I had passed it, I was trying to read it. That's a pretty long stretch of no attention. Not just once, I didn't manage to read it until the third time I passed the sign. And placed before an intersection, that's the most risky place to not be watching the road.

Still, it was just a couple of seconds, right? Nope, I was riding my bicycle, uphill. It was that hard to read. At least, I (being on a bicycle) got a few seconds from passing the sign until entering the intersection. Someone driving at car speeds would be in the middle of the intersection before his focus was on the road.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[buybuydandavis]

Actually, I think I led earlier on with how ridiculous this was, since screaming kids are a bigger distraction than your phone.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

It sounds like the campaign you're talking about is a great example of excessive signage causing problems, which ought to be removed as I mentioned in my previous post.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

So, by that logic, we should ban car stereos since they encourage people to take their eyes off the road and their mind off driving.

Messing around with the stereo while you should be driving is dangerous and does cause accidents.

Banning stereos seems excessive, as there is little evidence that they create the same kind of distraction effect as talking on a mobile phone. However, requiring that car stereos must have easily accessible controls that can be operated by touch alone would probably be a reasonable step.

Better yet, there are both wheel-mounted controls and voice command systems today that can do things like changing the channel without requiring either hands off the wheel or eyes off the road. You could also probably make a fair case on safety grounds for any touch controls that don't fit that criteria to be disabled while the vehicle is travelling above a very low speed, except perhaps for turning the thing off entirely if it's distracting.

And we would also have to ban GPS units since that map they show can only be seen if you look at it.

Again, that's not an absurd idea on safety grounds. Sat-nav systems already provide audible directions so you don't have to take your eyes off the road while using them. If you want visual aids, perhaps they should be projected HUD-style onto the windscreen where the driver doesn't have to shift their vision much to see them; this technology already exists. Alternatively, there could be some sort of certification requirement for visual navigation systems involving a practical, controlled demonstration that driver performance is not impaired when they are in use.

If you ban GPS units, then people will use paper based maps they printed from online map services. This is far more dangerous than using your phone.

Well, I'm not convinced that is actually true on either count. Some of us learned to drive before modern gadgets were available, yet remarkably we still managed to find our way from A to B without getting lost or waving vast amounts of paper all over the place. As I said, if you were following a tricky route or got lost, you would just pull over and quickly check the map. And of course there's no reason you shouldn't be able to do that using whatever better alternatives modern technology can offer, once you're no longer trying to drive at the same time.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[BasilBrush]

I read a different version of this tale earlier today. In that version, it mentioned that the driver in question was stuck in a traffic jam and not actually moving.

People say all kinds of things about court cases, depending on which side they support. I've looked at the court documentation, and being stationary, whether in a jam or otherwise, was not raised as a defense. So I think that's one someone made up.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[BasilBrush]

as if it would be impossible for anyone but the driver to be in a vehicle.

With built in sat navs, this can be dealt with. There is technology that means that the same screen can offer different images to people viewing from different angles. So, for an in-dash display it would be possible to have the sat-nav show only the map to the driver whilst the car is in motion, yet allow the passenger to see the UI for interacting.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[BasilBrush]

There's nothing wrong with following an already set GPS whilst driving. It's operating it that's the issue.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your logic is completely flawed. If children are more distracting than using a smartphone, then children are a safety risk. Period. You are trying to make a value judgment to excuse unsafe behavior. Specifically, somebody has to take children somewhere. That's fine, but, see, I don't have kids. I don't value your values. The last time I had a car damaged in an accident (while I was sitting still) was directly the result of a woman distracted by her two screaming brats.

So, we're either quantifying risks or we're not, and if we're not, then don't give me crap laws which basically mean "I don't like/don't want to/don't have to use a mobile device for any purpose, including getting me where I'm going, so therefore I don't think you should either."

Laws like this are the result of whiny dumbasses who had something bad happen to them and then take it upon themselves to make it a crusade or something. I don't know, maybe it makes them feel better. From that, we get crap organizations like MADD which have become so radical they kicked their own founder out, all these anti-technology laws which of course never include the built-in tech in high end cars, and the rest of the intrusions in our lives. So we end up with riduculous crap that essentially leaves one set of rules for certain kinds of tech and another for different kinds, when the difference is the form factor. Stupid. Most of these laws are too idiotic to make exceptions when your vehicle is at a dead stop, like at a traffic light. It makes no sense to make a law regarding dangers in a moving vehicle and then apply them to vehicles that aren't moving. Then again, thanks to MADD, we have people getting arrested for "drunk driving" who climbed into the back seat of their parked vehicles to sleep it off precisely so they wouldn't drive drunk. Again, stupid, and no different from this crap. (Impaired driving is impaired driving, and I don't really care what the cause is. The anti-alcohol crowd just can't suck that one up though.)

BTW, you do realize that entering and leaving traffic are inherently dangerous too, right? Very dangerous, in fact. So exiting traffic and re-entering it constantly actually increases your risk of getting in an accident too. Again, if we're quantifying, quantify. All of it. Not just the parts that some people like to whine about.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[tehcyder]

However, there really aren't a lot of good reasons to accept people doing things while driving that increase the inherent risk several times over. If you passed your test, you know how to pull over somewhere safe for maybe 20 seconds to check a map or reconfigure your sat-nav, and you really ought to know how dangerous it is to unnecessarily take your hands off the wheel, your eyes off the road, or your mind off your driving. The fact that some people can pass their test apparently without knowing these things is why sometimes laws are needed to correct that oversight by revoking their licence.

I read a different version of this tale earlier today. In that version, it mentioned that the driver in question was stuck in a traffic jam and not actually moving.

Even if that's true, it's not a good defence. You need to be aware of what is going on around you while you are in control of your vehicle whether you are going 0mph or 100mph.

The consequences of being distracted at 0mph are less severe than at 100mph, but they still exist.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[tehcyder]

the "total cost to society" is one of those things that to me anyway, is no different than "wont someone think of the children!"

In the words of the late Mrs Thatcher "there is no such thing as society". She was a sociopathic cunt too.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[tehcyder]

Ah yes, the good old libertarian fallback position that all human affairs should be settled by suing after the event. Anything else is "government" interference, no?

Presumably you wouldn't bother have laws against rape or murder, as they all just come down to paying damages to the victim/victim's family. American Taliban indeed.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[somersault]

You mean the consequence of having someone toot their horn at you when you don't move forward fast enough with the rest of the traffic..? Horrific..

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[tehcyder]

So, by that logic, we should ban car stereos since they encourage people to take their eyes off the road and their mind off driving.

Car stereos are designed so that you can pretty much operate them by touch. Modern cars have steering wheel controls. It is a similar story with the heating/ventilation system, indicators, wipers, light switches, gear lever and so on. Cars are designed so that you hardly have to take your eyes off the road or your hands off the steering wheel at all.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[kilfarsnar]

I've often suspected that it's idiots all the way down.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[dlingman]

Death of Burma Shave due to excessive driving deaths. Film at 11...

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[tehcyder]

No. Most road signs give you information that you don't act on at all. Your GPS tells you "Your exit is number 167 and it is in 0.9 miles." The road signs say things like "This is a random road that is not your exit" and "This is another random road that is not your exit."

If I'm looking out for exit 167, my brain is capable of scanning a sign that doesn't mention exit 167. It is also capable of seeing that a sign says "exit 166" and realising that the next sign wil say "exit 167". A quick flick of your eyes a few degrees away from straight ahead still focussed in the distance is not on the same level of distraction as looking down, refocussing and adjusting your eyes to the interior light/shade in your car.

This stuff is not hard, unless your road planners deliberately make it hard.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[tehcyder]

Yes, because it's *so* much safer to wrestle with a badly-refolded & unwieldy 3x5 foot sheet of wrinkled paper that has "AAA" printed on it and can't be pinch-zoomed to enlarge microscopic type...

That is a brilliant point, only slightly undermined by the fact that it is illegal to read a map (or book) as you're driving anyway. Well, at least where I live.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[tehcyder]

You cannot possibly hold as a sensible belief that laws are immutable and should never change.

Or do you think slavery should still be legal, women shouldn't be allowed to vote or own property, and if you steal a loaf of bread you should be hanged?

Technology and culture change and the law has to reflect this.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[tompaulco]

Actually, I think I led earlier on with how ridiculous this was, since screaming kids are a bigger distraction than your phone.

Surly screaming kids are not a distraction at all. i would assume the parents would just ignore them, just like they do when they take them to a restaurant.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[Anonymous Coward]

OR... now bear with me on this... you let people have a sip of coffee while driving with one-hand, and maybe GIVE FUCKING ADDITIONAL DRIVER TRAINING TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE INCAPABLE OF DOING SO IN AN IMPERFECT ENVIRONMENT!

News flash: The world is not a perfect place. The ROAD is not a perfectly flat, perfectly straight, empty, weatherless environment, and the vehicle is not a perfect piece of machinery that will drive absolutely dead straight if you let go of the wheel for half an hour. Maybe, just MAYBE give additional training to the people who clearly need those conditions in order to drive right now, and let me fucking drink my coffee or soda or change my radio station, because I'm not a complete doorknob behind the fucking wheel.

But no, you're right, everyone should have absolute dead silence with their hands at 10 and 2 on the wheel, being removed only momentarily for the sole purposes of putting a turn signal on or using other proper vehicular functions, excluding of course the radio, fan, or anything not explicitly related to the act of driving. Perhaps you should use your amazing intellect to invent a device which keeps our eyelids pried open and periodically applies a saline solution to keep them moist, so the distraction of blinking won't cause any accidents.

YES! BUYBUYDANDAVIS HAS SOLVED VEHICLE SAFETY! GIVE THIS MAN A FUCKING NOBEL PRIZE!

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds like the sort of reasoning that got Randy Travis arrested for drunk driving...while he was sleeping it off in his car, parked in a parking lot.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[Anonymous Coward]

After being hit by someone texting while driving five times three of which my car was parked and having two of the cars totaled. I am very glad that texting while driving is illegal where I live. These all happened since 2005 and I started driving in 1984 prior to 2005 my parked car was hit by a drunk driver once he also backed into the neighbor's house afterward and took out a fence on the opposite side of the road.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Your logic is completely flawed. If children are more distracting than using a smartphone, then children are a safety risk.

Of course. I don't know which part of my logic you think was flawed, because I said exactly that in the GP post.

You are trying to make a value judgment to excuse unsafe behavior. Specifically, somebody has to take children somewhere. That's fine, but, see, I don't have kids. I don't value your values.

And you're entitled to your opinion, and to disagree with me. But laws are, in general, about reconciling the different positions of two parties. There is no logical flaw in a law that says in some cases one party's rights take precedence and in other cases the other party's rights take precedence, because the relative costs are different in the two cases.

In this case, the cost of not being able to use distracting new technologies while driving is that if you're a relatively poor driver and can't follow a route without being distracted by navigation aids then you have to pull over for a few seconds to check your directions. This is hardly a great burden! For one thing, we did this before the gadgets were available, and as it turned out, most people did just fine without the modern gadgetry almost all of the time. And in any case, as we've discussed at length through this Slashdot discussion, there are plenty of ways to design modern navigation aids that don't require the level of distraction we're talking about. I don't see anyone arguing that modern technologies shouldn't be used, just that they should be used responsibly and not in ways that dramatically increase the risk of killing someone just to save a few seconds of the driver's time.

Meanwhile, the cost of not allowing children in cars if they might get upset would be that having a family and taking part in modern society would become very difficult for many people. That doesn't automatically change the argument, and I've never said it does, but it's a much higher cost than just pulling over for a few seconds if you're following a new route and don't have navigation aids that are safe to use while driving.

BTW, you do realize that entering and leaving traffic are inherently dangerous too, right? Very dangerous, in fact. So exiting traffic and re-entering it constantly actually increases your risk of getting in an accident too. Again, if we're quantifying, quantify. All of it. Not just the parts that some people like to whine about.

You know that traffic engineers and road safety researchers spend a lot of time investigating how to make junctions safer for precisely that reason, right?

You seem to be arguing against a position that distracting devices are the only problem. But no-one is actually taking that position, so you're just attacking a straw man. What we are saying is that distracting devices are a problem, and one we can trivially do something about.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[Dare nMc]

Not sure how you got that from my post, I was supporting the addition of laws for cellphone use, etc. Just that cops should be spending the time tracking down real crimes like rape/murder, not busting a person who uses a device at a appropriate time in a car, without endangering anyone.
The libertarian view that we don't have any laws laying down what your expected to do in society, then get sued into bankruptcy for missing something you never thought of, is complete BS. But also enforcing laws because we can, not because of a real danger is a waste of resources, and teaches the wrong message of "follow the rules no matter what" not to be considerate of others first, and yeah know the rules that exist to show who has the right-of-way.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[Anonymous Coward]

She was a sociopathic cunt too.

More sociopathic than the asshat calling her a cunt the day after she dies?

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[Cederic]

So, for an in-dash display it would be possible to have the sat-nav show only the map to the driver whilst the car is in motion, yet allow the passenger to see the UI for interacting.

Cue drivers leaning across to the passenger seat to see the UI. While driving.

You know it would happen.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[GigsVT]

You could move out to the country. But then you wouldn't be around all the other hipsters.

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[plover]

but plain and simple, we are allowed to do many things in the car legally we should not be doing, shaving, putting on makeup, hell even reading a map or newspaper!

Actually, no, you're not allowed to do any of those things while driving, and you've never been allowed to do any of those things. A cop can cite you for distracted driving, or even careless driving if you did something extra-stupid while distracted.

One of the problems with a smart phone is that it can do many things, including being a navigation aide, but a cop isn't in the car with you and can't tell what you're doing. To him, and to the law, it doesn't matter: it's a thing in your hand that's distracting you.

The "no cell phone" and "no texting" laws were passed to raise awareness of specific dangers, but people mistakenly think that it means "anything that isn't a call or texting must be OK." But it's not legal, and it's never been legal, it's just not explicitly listed as illegal. Otherwise, the books would be filled with out of date and nonsense laws like "No Angry Birds while driving. No Angry Birds Rio while driving. No Angry Birds HD while driving."

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[evenmoreconfused]

Well, I used to do that. But then I bought a house with a huge park across the street, and that solved many of the issues. The dog's been hit twice by cars -- why it's still alive, I don't know -- and the parties in the park sometimes get out of hand...

http://spacing.ca/montreal/2007/09/10/joining-the-medieval-battle-on-mount-royal/

Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes...

[gottabeme]

Holy sarcasm-detector fail, Batman!

These laws already exist elsewhere

[dmatos]

Several Canadian provinces (including Ontario) have "distracted driving" laws that basically state "no fucking around with electronic devices unless they're mounted to your vehicle somewhere."

If you have to hold your phone to look at Google Maps, and/or enter information into it, that's verboten. If you enter your destination before you start driving, and then mount it on your dashboard or windscreen, that's okay.

I like this distinction, and think it is a reasonable restriction on the use of electronic devices while driving. Note - hands-free phone operation is still allowed. Texting is pretty much right out (as it should be).

Re:These laws already exist elsewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much the same in Australia. The last thing I want to see coming at me on the wrong side of the road is some dickhead fiddling with his phone. Just buy a dedicated GPS and fix it to the dash. They're cheap and work better than any map app on a phone.

Re:These laws already exist elsewhere

[Buzer]

"no fucking around with electronic devices unless they're mounted to your vehicle somewhere."

So it's ok to solve rubik's cube, prepare & cook food (as long as you use gas stove) etc. as long as you don't press ignore on the call on your phone which you forgot to put on silent with sleeping baby on board?

Good law (which should be common sense) would just say "don't put others on risk".

Re:These laws already exist elsewhere

[martin]

the UK is the same, it's all about being distracted from driving, using a phone/txting etc is just a specific examples

https://www.gov.uk/using-mobile-phones-when-driving-the-law

I've seen people applying makeup, eating, even reading a book (I kid not) never mind reading instructions or a map... they'll still pull you if the officer thinks you're driving distracted.

Re:These laws already exist elsewhere

[dmatos]

Listen, just because I do not enumerate all of the things that you're not allowed to do while driving, it doesn't mean that they're okay. This article is about electronic devices.

If you really care, solving a rubik's cube, preparing and cooking food, or even just eating food while driving can ALREADY get you dinged under distracted driving or dangerous driving laws. Ontario explicitly ennumerated cell phones and other electronic devices because they were so prevalent in cars, and because they were new, and because it wasn't clear whether or not talking on the phone would qualify as distracted driving.

And feel free to press the "ignore" button on your phone, as long as it's mounted somewhere.

Paper Map Industrial Complex

[Tablizer]

I bet the paper map industry is lobbying for such bans. (Although, nobody's proven that paper maps are less distracting.)

Re:Paper Map Industrial Complex

[BitZtream]

Tell me how many LIVING people you know that viewed paper maps WHILE DRIVING?

Those people typically end up dead fairly quickly.

You pull over, look at the map, figure out where you are going, how to get there, remember those road names and turns, put the map away, then you go do it.

You did not, and DO not read the map WHILE driving. Thats just stupid and if you do it, I hope they revoke your license before you kill someone.

Re:Paper Map Industrial Complex

[Anonymous Coward]

I know quite a few.

Just because you do not know the skill, does not mean it does not exist.

Re:Paper Map Industrial Complex

[camperdave]

I did it all the time back in the day, usually while stopped at a red light (although, I suppose one could argue that when you are stopped at a red light, you aren't driving).

Re:Paper Map Industrial Complex

[Tablizer]

Who knows? Nobody seemed to bother doing stats back then. It's hard to know what's a real or a fake crisis these days.

Bullshit!

[Eugriped3z]

People who use a handheld computer while driving should have their license suspended, and the circumstances should be used to determine the amount of time they spend in jail... no exceptions should be allowed, in my not-so-humble and somewhat emotionally outraged opinion. There are very few people I know who are adept at utilizing the interface to most of the Apps or other built-in functionality of a complex device like a smarphone, without error or distraction, while they are concentrating on it alone. Doing it while operating a 2-4 ton vehicle jeopardizes the lives of others. Professional drivers shouldn't be excepted either. If Fedex or UPS needs GPS routing, it should be predetermined and the relevant segment should be set before it's begun. I see people, even truck drivers, almost every day who have their little plastic digital appendage hanging off the side of their heads, oblivious to some subset of the information around them. The only reason the law isn't severe in this regard is the whim ("interests") of the industrial heads who want to enhance so-called "worker productivity." By and large we just aren't equipped to split our consciousness effectively between the complex metaphorical representations of information processing commands and the tasks inherent to safely operating a vehicle while it's moving among other vehicles and pedestrians, while also trying to discern between irrelevant commercial signage and nearby road markers and traffic signage which might be critical for the lawful operation of said vehilce. It's hard enough to write a brief description of the variables, let alone executing the tasks in a timely fashion. There's plenty of research that's be done, and we've all been directed to it from time to time. Some of the latest indicts adults more than kids. (Not that this should surprise anyone since the distinction is arbitrary as far as brain science is concerned.) Whether that direction comes from television, newspaper reporting, academic journals or news aggregators like Slashdot doesn't really matter. The courts need to be empowered to stop punish people who use lethal devices under circumstances where it's not reasonable to expect due care and consideration are possible for your fellow citizens. People need clear rules as well as swift and sure punishment when they endanger others through lack of adequate concern.

Re:Bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is esentially it: you cant watch television and read a book at the same time, so why do people think they can look at a phone and drive at the same time?
The fact is you need two hands on the wheel and two eyes on the road. If your hands and eyes are on a phone, how can you control the car, much less with your full attention?
I have no problem with people taking phones in a car. Nor with GPS, using phones as GPS, messaging people etc. Just when people are supposedly OPERATING a vehicle that can kill people do I take offense to them using the equipment irrsponsibly - doubly so if I'm the one walking in front of them. It's not that hard to pull over to the side of the road, stop the vehicle, and do what needs to be done on the phone.

Driving with a phone against your ear, texting, reading emails, setting GPS locations should all only be done when your car is parked. Is there anyone with a sane arguement against this?

Re:Bullshit!

[johnlcallaway]

So .. you must then advocate that people shouldn't be allowed to change the temperature of their car then, because looking at the dash is distracting? Or change the radio? Or eat? Or even look at their odometer since they have to take their eyes off the road. Or for that matter, their mirrors???

If you claim it's OK to do those things, then please tell me what exact period of time am I allowed to turn away from the highway and look at my mirror or odometer? And if so, why can't I use that same amount of time to look at a GPS?

I can glance at my GPS on a 4 lane highway while traveling in a straight line with clear lines of sight for several hundred feet and if I'm following at a safe distance, just as I can change my radio or glance at my odometer. As the highway gets busier, or starts to curve, the need to stay more focused increases since more variables are changing or can change when I glance away. But I still glance in my mirrors if I want to change lanes, so there is still a window of time that is currently acceptable to be distracted. In fact, if I'm stopped at a stop light, there is no reason whatsoever I can't glance down and check emails since nothing is even moving, as long as I don't take too long and miss the light changing.

Conditions while driving change, and what is possible in one instance may not be in another. We constantly weigh risks while driving to determine appropriate responses. Some are better at it than others, it is not possible to come up with one rule to cover all circumstances. I have gone through a red light in full view of a police officer, because it was not safe to stop. He could see that I tried since the front of my motorcycle dipped when I braked, but I continued through because the car a few feet behind me wasn't slowing down (he slammed on his brakes just after I released mine.) The police officer didn't chase me down and give me a ticket, because I used common sense.

It is possible to make sure that if someone does not use good judgement, they are held responsible for their actions. Rules like you suggest are the same ones that get kids suspended from school because they point their fingers and say 'bang'. And, in the end, do nothing because police won't bother to enforce them anyway.

Re:Bullshit!

[TheRealMindChild]

I don't know what vehicles you have driven, but every vehicle I have ever operated had controls in predictable places, delineated by different textures and tactile feedback. I can change my radio station up and down, as well as toggle my AC and put down my windows without having to think or fiddle any more than having to zip up my fly

Re:Bullshit!

[buybuydandavis]

People who use a handheld computer while driving should have their license suspended, and the circumstances should be used to determine the amount of time they spend in jail... no exceptions should be allowed, in my not-so-humble and somewhat emotionally outraged opinion.

Oh, please. Let's send everyone with screaming kids in their cars to jail too.

Life is not perfectly safe. There are all sorts of things people do that reduce that safety. Get over it.

Re:Bullshit!

[Spy Handler]

The fact is you need two hands on the wheel and two eyes on the road.

Don't know about you but I do just fine with one hand on the wheel... *as long as I'm paying attention to the road and not some damn smartphone or mp3 player*

Anyone driving a manual transmission is going to have one hand off the steering wheel some of the time.

Re:Bullshit!

[uncqual]

without having to think or fiddle any more than having to zip up my fly

If you find it necessary to zip up your fly while driving, you may have been engaged in a dangerously distracting activity recently.

Re:Bullshit!

[__aaqvdr516]

This is exactly my position on the subject. Unfortunately, people put far too much faith in their own abilities right up to the point of injuring themselves or others.

Put the phone down. Don't panic.

Re:Bullshit!

[martinX]

Oh, please. Let's send everyone with screaming kids in their cars to jail too.

Can we just send the kids to jail? At least until they stop bugging each other and RESPECT THE INVISIBLE LINE DRAWN DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE CAR.

Re:Bullshit!

[stanlyb]

Good luck driving in unknown (translated: you did not spend the last 20 years driving there) area, with all the traffic jams, and funny signs, and funny way of switching to the highway crossings, yes, funny, in most cases, if you want to drive STRAIGHT forward, you must change from leftmost to the rightmost lane, without any clear indication when to do it, and when you finally see the sign, it is usually too late. Oh, and good luck avoiding such a good citizens, that are not using GPS and are realizing too late that they are in the wrong lane, so they do the funny lane change that causes a lot of fun time and sweating for the rest of the "bad" drivers.

Re:Bullshit!

[stanlyb]

You missed something very important: BLINKING must be forbidden too :D

Re:Bullshit!

[girlintraining]

So .. you must then advocate that people shouldn't be allowed to change the temperature of their car then, because looking at the dash is distracting? Or change the radio? Or eat? Or even look at their odometer since they have to take their eyes off the road. Or for that matter, their mirrors???

This argument isn't unlike saying that we should coat everything in foam rubber and ban liquor, cigarettes, sugary food, etc., because kids could be hurt. The thing that is missing in your argument is reasonableness (totally a word). Radios have been in cars for a long time, and while every now and then a police report comes up that says "and while they were distracted with the radio, they plowed through a bunch of nuns in the crosswalk", it happens far, far less often than "was using a cell phone."

And if so, why can't I use that same amount of time to look at a GPS?

Because your GPS needs you to focus and concentrate on it. Using your car's accessories can often be done without taking your eyes off the road, and if you do, it's only for a moment (such as looking at the odometer, rearview mirror, etc.) There is a certain threshold of attention at which a person's level of distraction reaches the point where the risk of an accident balloons. Cell phones (and GPS) clearly are on the wrong side of that threshold, unlike looking at your odometer.

It is possible to make sure that if someone does not use good judgement, they are held responsible for their actions. Rules like you suggest are the same ones that get kids suspended from school because they point their fingers and say 'bang'.

Sure, but then there's the reverse. Last week, little Tommy took his dad's gun and went outside where little Joey was playing on the swings, pulled it out, and said "If you ever give me a wedgie again, I'll use this!" ... and then he ran home and put it back. Now every day at school, little Tommy smiles and does a finger-gun at little Joey. Little Joey is terrified and pees his pants several times, but won't tell anyone why because he's afraid Tommy will shoot him. Doesn't seem like such an unreasonable rule now, does it?

You're beating around the bush; Let's cut the crap. The truth is, the laws are imperfect, but lines have to be drawn somewhere. And there will always be a debate about where to draw that line. But you're being intellectually dishonest here by only using the 'reasonableness' of a response when it supports your position, and not considering whether it could be reasonable to not have it go your way.

The life of the law is not knowledge, but experience. If there's a "stupid" law about finger-gunning getting kids suspended, it's because something happened that made the law seem like a good idea at the time. The law is necessarily reactive in nature, and does not immediately self-correct. It must learn from mistakes and failures, not by some enlightened intellectual process. If that seems terribly inconvenient, I'd have to agree. But it is what it is.

Re:Bullshit!

[rtb61]

I'll bet you attitude and comments would significantly change when you are on the life altering receiving end of somebody paying to much attention to their phone and misinterpreting a quick distracted glance at traffic lights. It really does happen and legislation attempts to balance what, hmm, that consequence with commercial convenience. How many altered lives are in the balance with how much cost is generated by the inconvenience. All seems fair and reasonable until the odds toss your life into that balance and you never get to choose when somebody else gets distracted you just get the consequences. One day you will get mown down by that distracted driver, regardless of how much attention you pay or not, the gamble is going each time you get on the roads and as you get older your body becomes far less capable of absorbing those impacts.

Re:Bullshit!

[ganjadude]

cant watch TV and read at the same time? maybe you cant but its really not that hard (well, if you are watching something you always watch its easy enough to not worry about the visuals and have the audio take care of the important stuff)

Re:Bullshit!

[ganjadude]

SOME people would actually make those claims. and they wouldnt be totally wrong. when one is driving they should be payig attention to driving. Driving has become very commonplace, and thats a good thing. However there is a reason that hi-po cars generally dont have cup holders or other distractions. the car, and the information pertaining to driving the car really are all that should matter to a driver.

but this is the real world, people do other things while driving. as such everyone should be driving as if the person in front of them, behind them, and driving towards them is going to kill them. defensive driving is the most important thing IMO when it comes to driving.

Re:Bullshit!

[ganjadude]

Sure, but then there's the reverse. Last week, little Tommy took his dad's gun and went outside where little Joey was playing on the swings, pulled it out, and said "If you ever give me a wedgie again, I'll use this!" ... and then he ran home and put it back. Now every day at school, little Tommy smiles and does a finger-gun at little Joey. Little Joey is terrified and pees his pants several times, but won't tell anyone why because he's afraid Tommy will shoot him. Doesn't seem like such an unreasonable rule now, does it?

well, to be fair, i see nothing wrong with what tommy did. If joey is harassing him, hes gotta do what hes gotta do. if that means instilling fear in his bully (because thats what joey is, in your story, a bully) to keep him from harassing him, good for tommy! Fuck joey, why do we care if joey is hurt by the actions of the person that he was being a bully to?

Re:Bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, you can close one eye at a time without interrupting your vision.

Re:Bullshit!

[inode_buddha]

It almost makes you wonder how we lived back in 1970. Hint: we pulled the fuck over and got out the map. Or asked one of the locals. Believe it or not, life went on *just fine*.

When you are on the road you should be doing only *one* thing, and that is driving: *all* of your attention should be on the road and the traffic around you no exceptions. Yes I got my license before cellphones were invented, and yes I'm pretty sure my insurance is *much* lower than yours ($60 /month for 50/100 full comp-collision glass and towing)

Re:Bullshit!

[fredprado]

Sure, but then again, in this situation when he would be completely emotional about the subject you can't really expect him to be reasonable. It is like saying lets institute death penalty for anyone who shoplifts because a couple of them killed my son when he caught them.

Re:Bullshit!

[TheGratefulNet]

look at the huge touchscreen in the tesla.

other cars also have TS's. no tactile cues that you can feel your way around.

so, lets sue the automakers who make those things.

if you don't sue them, then you are not serious about this 'law'.

either do the full thing or do nothing. if distractions is the issue, you can spend the next 10 years suing this and that. are you (mr. johnnylaw) ready to do that?

Re:Bullshit!

[Martin Blank]

You must be a lot of fun on road trips. By your words, there should be no talking with passengers, no radio, nothing at all.

You can actually get people killed that way because something to engage the brain to some degree aside from driving, people tend to zone out or fall asleep. There's been some research on this and it's been found that zero distractions from the road turns out to be as dangerous as driving while using a cell phone or being mildly drunk. Those minor distractions keep the brain engaged, particularly on road segments that don't change much.

Re:Bullshit!

[BigFrango]

License suspended? No exception? Really, no exceptions? Have you ever used Google Navigation? You don't even have to look at your phone - it speaks to you when you have to turn. And if you have a windshield mount, it is no different than a stand-alone GPS. No exceptions, huh?

Re:Bullshit!

[AceofSpades19]

I guess driving a car with a manual transmission should be illegal too because you take a hand off the wheel to shift, or failing that car stereos, window controls, environmental controls etc should be illegal

Re:Bullshit!

[BonThomme]

(manual transmission)

Re:Bullshit!

[BonThomme]

it is if Weeping Angels are near

Re:Bullshit!

[BonThomme]

"pull the fuck over and get out the map"

best bumper-sticker ever

Re:Bullshit!

[BonThomme]

if you have to "pay attention" to the radio, you're doing it wrong.

if you have to look at the passenger to talk to them, you're also doing it wrong.

Re:Bullshit!

[girlintraining]

well, to be fair, i see nothing wrong with what tommy did. If joey is harassing him, hes gotta do what hes gotta do. if that means instilling fear in his bully (because thats what joey is, in your story, a bully) to keep him from harassing him, good for tommy! Fuck joey, why do we care if joey is hurt by the actions of the person that he was being a bully to?

Well, you didn't know that little Joey had been bullied by Tommy for some time. Last week, Joey had enough and punched Tommy. Tommy got laughed at by all the kids, and Joey was feeling pretty righteous about fighting off the class bully. But bullies don't give up so easily. Tommy went and got his daddy's gun.

You still think it's all Joey's fault? Regardless, you've missed the point, which is that laws are invariably not a perfect fit. You don't ever have all the facts. So to jump back to the original point: laws are fundamentally based on assumptions. When they're made, they usually make sense, but as you know society is not static. It is in a constant state of change, and the laws don't always keep up. Even when they're brand new, they may already be out of date. And even when they're new, the assumptions are all correct, and everybody and their mother agrees it's a good law... there are unintended consequences.

This is why I say the life of the law is not logic, but experience. Let me be perfectly clear here: The law is not logical. It's not supposed to be. The law is about experience. It is only experience. There is nothing outside the law, but experience. It cannot look forward. The law is in the past. The law looks backwards. The law begins only after something has happened. So it will always be a few steps behind where society is. Always.

Re: Bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer, "God Loves Slow Drivers." :)

Re:Bullshit!

[LoztInSpace]

Actually, in my driving lifetime there's been a significant shift towards moving many if not all of these things to controls on the steering wheel. You would presume that's because it's safer. Not because to do otherwise is illegal, but it's obviously regarded by many as a good enough idea to spend quite a bit of money doing so.

Re:Bullshit!

[AceofSpades19]

Well my point was that there are some cases in the ordinary operation of the vehicle where you have to take a hand off the wheel, so you don't necessarily need both hands on the wheel to drive. In fact, because I drive a manual transmission vehicle, I have one hand off of the steering wheel a large amount of the time and thats just to operate the vehicle correctly, not even including stereo or environmental controls

Re:Bullshit!

[Roger Lindsjo]

What about the third kid sitting in the middle? ;-)

Re:Bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. I think people don't realize just how distracting even just changing the radio station is.

Just because your eyes are still on the road doesn't mean that your mind is. You're just seeing with your hands when you fiddle with the controls. The only things that truly aren't distracting are the things you do without even realizing that you're doing them, like using turn signals. Anything you're aware of, you're aware of because some portion of your brain that could be paying attention to driving is instead paying attention to something else.

I don't know why this isn't obvious to everyone else. Every time I adjust the radio, even though I continue to look straight ahead, when I'm finished I'm quite aware that I wasn't actually seeing anything on the road during that time since my visual system has to re-initialize when my attention returns to the road just as it would if I had actually looked at the controls while adjusting the radio. (...and forgive me for talking like Commander Data, but there's no good terminology for this sort of thing.) Similar things happen during phone calls, and even when simply talking to people in the car. As best I can tell, the visual processing portions of the brain are re-used for a whole hell of a lot of stuff, and so doing anything, even just thinking to myself, pulls brainpower away from the task of driving. It's pretty easy to recognize if you spend some time paying attention to what you pay attention to when you drive. (and it's certainly distracting as well, but I consider it a worthwhile distraction since it makes me aware of where the weaknesses are in my attention to driving)

Driving is by far the most dangerous thing people do, yet people don't worry about it at all. They worry about being murdered, but statistically speaking, they're simply not going to be murdered, they're going to die in a car accident. IIRC, the yearly death rate is such that, over a lifetime, everyone has a 1 in 100 chance of dying in a car accident, which is far higher than any other non-medical cause. However, rather than worry about that and put their fucking phone down, people want to worry about guns, completely ignoring the fact that you're 50% more likely to kill yourself than you are to be murdered (although other people killing you definitely wins if you include accidental homicide via car accidents) and that, as far as gun violence goes, if you're not a black male, you have virtually nothing to worry about since your suicide rate isn't just higher than your murder rate, it's insanely higher. However, I guess driving isn't scary enough for people to worry about, just like people don't worry about suicide, but both are worth worrying about if you care about your family and friends.

Re:Bullshit!

[MrTree]

If you claim it's OK to do those things, then please tell me what exact period of time am I allowed to turn away from the highway and look at my mirror or odometer? And if so, why can't I use that same amount of time to look at a GPS?

Less than 1.6 seconds does not increase your crash risk significantly. More than 2 seconds is right out.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv20/07-0082-O.pdf

Re:Bullshit!

[BasilBrush]

The point is of course having the other hand instantly available when needed. Try holding something with your other hand. Something you can't just drop. Not so easy now, is it.

One armed people can drive. But they need modifications to the car.

Of course this isn't relevant to operating fixed phones, GPSs or stereos, because those can be "dropped" to make the hand available.

Re:Bullshit!

[BasilBrush]

You can't either. You're kidding yourself that you can. You're not some special snowflake.

When you try, your attention is simply skipping between one and the other. It's not taking in both. You'll find that you either have no idea what that page you just read was about, or you don't know what happened for the last minute on the TV.

The point about "easy" is that if the reading material and TV programme are non-demanding enough, it doesn't matter if you miss chunks of it. You still get the gist of both. That doesn't mean you actually took them both in at the same time.

Re:Bullshit!

[BasilBrush]

Some are better at it than others

Right. And the laws are there to protect us from the people who suck at it, and end up having collisions, sometimes killing people. And this isn't in theory - people are dying on the roads every day because drivers are distracted or impaired.

it is not possible to come up with one rule to cover all circumstances.

Of course not. But you can cover the big, easy to define cases, such as not using hand held phones. And you can have generic laws that can apply based on judgement - such as the UK "Driving without due care and attention" law.

Re:Bullshit!

[BasilBrush]

There's nothing wrong with having a touch screen per-se. Obviously it has the Sat-Nav on there, and touchscreen is the best way to operate a sat-nav when the car isn't moving.

So the question is, do Tesla put functions on the touchscreen that you need to do whilst driving? If yes, then they are in the wrong. If no, then no problem.

Which is it? What particular functions on the Tesla are you making your case over?

Re:Bullshit!

[BasilBrush]

I know you're just being flip. But it's a good opportunity to point out that blinking isn't just a means to lubricate/clean the eye. It actually plays a positive function in vision. You blink in between looking at one thing and looking at another, then the eye move is significant. The flash of black seems to clear the context of the image for the brain's image analysis. So much so, that in experiments, significant items can be removed from your field of vision during blinks, and you won't even notice they've gone.

It is of course possible to consciously keep your eyelids open as you make a significant move with the eyes from one thing to another. But you'll probably feel like it's a bit weird and the kind of thing that would lead to a headache if you did it a lot.

Re:Bullshit!

[sincewhen]

But apparently, many cars are now being built with touchscreens. I shake my head in disbelief...

Re:Bullshit!

[Endlisnis]

Don't know about you, but I do just fine with zero hands on the wheel. On a straight stretch of highway, with good alignment, I can drive for miles without ever touching the steering wheel. In fact, I'm pretty sure I could drive the same highway while asleep. But, people should keep both hands on the wheel (as much as possible) for the obvious reason:
You can't react as fast or as well. If something unexpected happens, having both hands on the wheel and being conscience both greatly increase your ability to perform emergency maneuvers.

There are very good reasons to take one hand off the steering wheel: turn signals, transmission, using any of the car's features that are meant to be used while driving such as cruise control buttons. They all increase your risk of accident, but are all necessary in some way. Just driving around with one hand permanently off the steering wheel for no good reason is irresponsible.

Re:Bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yeah. Don't Blink.

Re:Bullshit!

[tehcyder]

Let me guess, you're one of those people who think they can "multi-task".

Take a tap from the cluebat: you can't. All you can do is flit between two or more things, badly. You're not a computer.

Re:Bullshit!

[tehcyder]

In fact, if I'm stopped at a stop light, there is no reason whatsoever I can't glance down and check emails since nothing is even moving, as long as I don't take too long and miss the light changing.

I can't believe that a motorcyclist could say something like that. You don't just "glance down" when you're reading texts or emails, unless you've got some magic photographic memory. It takes time, time during which you are not concentrating on what is around you.

I was on my 'bike at trafic lights once and a car came up behind me, and I could see in my mirrors he wasn't going to stop in time, so I nipped out of the way smartish. He hit the back of the car I'd been behind, presumably he was half asleep or pissed or something.

The point is, if I'd been reading my emails or fiddling with my GPS, I'd have had a bent/scratched motorcycle at best and a broken neck at worst.

Re:Bullshit!

[tehcyder]

I would not be impressed with a car whose controls were all on one giant touchscreen, and indeed wouldn't drive one.

Satnav is fair enough, and maybe a clock. But if it has the air vent/AC controls, light switches, radio, music player or whatever then it is a bad idea.

Re:Bullshit!

[tehcyder]

Sure, but then there's the reverse. Last week, little Tommy took his dad's gun and went outside where little Joey was playing on the swings, pulled it out, and said "If you ever give me a wedgie again, I'll use this!" ... and then he ran home and put it back. Now every day at school, little Tommy smiles and does a finger-gun at little Joey. Little Joey is terrified and pees his pants several times, but won't tell anyone why because he's afraid Tommy will shoot him. Doesn't seem like such an unreasonable rule now, does it?

well, to be fair, i see nothing wrong with what tommy did. If joey is harassing him, hes gotta do what hes gotta do. if that means instilling fear in his bully (because thats what joey is, in your story, a bully) to keep him from harassing him, good for tommy! Fuck joey, why do we care if joey is hurt by the actions of the person that he was being a bully to?

That is the completely bullshit line that wankburgers like Jon Katz used in his legendarily bad "hellmouth" series about Columbine. No, being bullied does not give you the right to cold-bloodedly murder your tormentors even assuming the bullying took place and was purely one-directional.

Re:Bullshit!

[tehcyder]

but this is the real world, people do other things while driving. as such everyone should be driving as if the person in front of them, behind them, and driving towards them is going to kill them. defensive driving is the most important thing IMO when it comes to driving.

It is the single most valuable lesson you get from riding a motorcycle. If as a 'biker you don't use defensive riding, you're unlikely to last very long unscathed.

Re:Bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we just send the kids to jail?

No. Then we'd have to spend more money on them.

Re:Bullshit!

[hypergreatthing]

You know what distracts me the most while driving?
Looking for speed limit signs, looking at my current speed limit on my dash. I'd say those two activities far outweighs just about everything else other than watching where i should be going and other drivers. Sometimes i look at my gps to figure out the road's speed limit because i'm unfamiliar with the road or i haven't seen a sign in a while.
That's my biggest distraction. If someone thinks when i'm stopped at a light if i touch my phone if that's somehow going to contribute to someone dying, then they're insane.

Re:Bullshit!

[drsquare]

Since when is it acceptable to eat whilst driving????

And why do you need to look at the odometer? Or fiddle with the heating and radio? You can do all those things before you set off.

Re:Bullshit!

[Martin Blank]

Paying attention to something doesn't necessarily mean looking at it. When I want to figure out what the traffic guy is saying, I have to pay attention to it even if I'm not staring at the radio. I don't pull over to the side of the road to do it. Likewise, I can converse with a passenger, paying attention to what is being said without staring at them.

Re:Bullshit!

[gottabeme]

Well, you didn't know that little Joey had been bullied by Tommy for some time. Last week, Joey had enough and punched Tommy. Tommy got laughed at by all the kids, and Joey was feeling pretty righteous about fighting off the class bully. But bullies don't give up so easily. Tommy went and got his daddy's gun.

This silly, made-up story proves nothing, but it's the kind of pseudo-reasoning that passes for logic among many people nowadays. Let's deconstruct your hypothetical scenario:

1. Tommy bullies Joey.
2. Joey finally stands up for himself.
3. Tommy steals his father's firearm.
4. Tommy takes it to school.
5. Tommy threatens Joey with it.
6. Later, sometime in the future, Tommy makes a "finger gun" gesture at Joey.

Which of these actions are wrong? Numbers 1, 3, 4, and 5. Number 6 is not inherently wrong; only in the context of his making a threat with a real gun is it even an issue. The problem is not with #6, the problem is with 1, 3, 4, and 5! How utterly foolish it would be to punish Tommy for #6 when his actual crimes are far more serious!

And how utterly irrational it would be to punish any child who points a finger gun at another child on the basis that some random wacko at some time in history made a threat with a real gun and then made finger guns to scare people he threatened. Oh, obviously then, any child who says "bang!" is a sociopath and must be suspended or expelled--or worse!--to "protect the children." Nevermind the child who is irreparably harmed by this mindlessness.

This is the kind of messed-up thinking that is taking childhood away from children. It's taking away their imaginations, their creativity, their dreams, their innocence...it's taking away their future as lively, intelligent human beings. Conformity is enforced. Any action that could potentially, possiblly be interpreted as a symptom of a bigger problem is immediately cracked down on, whether or not the child is actually guilty of any real wrongdoing. If a child does something, and anyone ever did anything wrong before or after doing what the child did, the child is punished, suspended, or expelled, "just to be safe." "Think of the children!"

Yes, think of the children! Think of the ones whose futures are being destroyed by this mindless, dogmatic enforcement of idiotic rules and laws!

The law is not logical. It's not supposed to be. The law is about experience. It is only experience.

What an illogical statement! Who are you to say what law is "supposed to be"? What kind of absurd lawmaking bases laws on experience but not reason? Such a process would outlaw using lawn sprinklers because after someone did that, there was a flood...nevermind that there was a horrific rainstorm with flash flooding; experience shows that after Mr. Thompson watered his lawn, the whole county flooded, so we must outlaw sprinklers. It's perfectly justified based on our experience.

Laws aren't supposed to be logical? Are laws supposed to be illogical? They are either one or the other, and you cannot justify the latter.

You're simply not making any sense, but you think that by writing fancy stories you are proving your ideas.

Re:Bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably haven't driven an older BMW with iDrive - talk about needing to look at the screen when making changes. One can change the temperature without looking - there are knobs for that, but selecting an audio source and station, although it can be done from the steering wheel controls, requires pressing switches and buttons located on the console between the front seat passengers while watching the large display.
I'd mutter about the stupidity of the built in GPS software, but that isn't applicable here, though its shortcomings clearly indicate the user interface for iDrive was designed either by engineers with perfect eyesight, perfect eye hand coordination, superb proprioperception, and under 30 years old. In my 60s, and needing bifocals I find it about as easy to use as early text oriented versions of dungeon. One of the "amazing" features of the GPS is if an address could be in several zip codes you need to select the zipcode to search; this is a real PITA in San Francisco with many streets running through several zipcodes.

This version of iDrive is on a 2011 BMW 335D - a great car to drive especially on twisty roads like Sir Francis Drake Boulevard from Lagunitas to the Point Reyes National Seashore, or when a drunken driver is headed straight at you.

When driving my car I use my iPhone with google maps. It is mounted using a suction cup and bracket.

I believe the judge in this case did not interpret the law correctly.

Baby on Board signs = distracted driving

[Lashat]

Driving with a toddler or baby in the car is 10x more distracting than my cell phone map.

Were his eyes on the road?

[Anonymous Coward]

The important question is: were his eyes and his concentration mainly focused on the road ahead, or did he look away to check his smartphone?
GPS systems in cars are mounted on the dashboard (and include spoken directions) so you only need to glance very briefly at them while drive, similar to checking your rear or side mirrors. Taking a smartphone in your hand and checking then would be longer distraction, and those 2-3 seconds (instead of half a second) might be enough to cause an accident (car in front of you suddenly breaks hard; some idiot decides to cross the street cause you will slow down for him etc.)

Simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Stay out of Commiefornia. Take your dollars elsewhere and let the liberals nanny state themselves in the ground even more.

Re:Simple solution

[BonThomme]

you're a Californian, aren't you?

What's with all the...

[thestudio_bob]

What's with all the articles asking me questions, lately?

I got an idea, why don't you form an opinion on an article and then post that in your summary so I can take the opposite position an attack you with witty comments. Sheesh. Slashdot sure has changed...

Re:What's with all the...

[BonThomme]

in Soviet Russia, slash dots you

How about something helpful instead of Ban Ban Ban

[Moppusan]

Really any distraction is bad, but absolute zero distractions is almost impossible. Our minds just aren't *that* focused all the time. OOH LOOK KITTY but what I'm tryin to say here is maybe free nation-wide turn-by-turn GPS with a soothing voice and occasional personal compliments. A calm mind can more easily focus. That, and occasional free Cadbury eggs. Ohhhh Cadbury my anti-drug.

Yes and No

[mordred99]

"Should California Have Banned Checking Smartphone Maps While Driving?"

This is not a simple question. There is a preponderance of evidence that checking a cell phone, playing with a dash mounted (or cheesy suction cup mounted) GPS, eating, talking, doing makeup, shaving, or anything that takes the drivers eyes off the road is a distraction. Anything that makes for more distracted drivers in my opinion should be banned.

However I am also a Libertarian, and I agree that the government should not be getting into these nitpicky arguments, and should be left to the people and free market to decide. I personally will never pay for the option of having an in dash navigation in a car. Nor will I purchase an external GPS. I pull off to the side of the road, and use my street atlas and figure how to get anywhere. Why is this the case? Simple, I don't want to be distracted from driving.

At the end of the day, because California is so socialist, and anyone who chooses to live there wants to live in the Nanny state, then let them live in their own spoils. I just keep being being reminded of the quote, "You cannot legislate stupidity, as there will always be a more stupid idiot created tomorrow."

Re:Yes and No

[Anonymous Coward]

Libertarians sure are bad at recognizing externalities.

Re:Yes and No

[Uberbah]

However I am also a Libertarian, and I agree that the government should not be getting into these nitpicky arguments, and should be left to the people and free market to decide.

So what does the Free Market Fairy do to discourage a guy from texting while driving his car through your t-bone at 50 miles an hour?

Re:Yes and No

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like your common sense is conflicting with your political ideals...

Most of the libertarians I know are responsible, honest, and motivated people. They often recognize in day-to-day life when others are irresponsible, dishonest, and/or apathetic. And, in theory, they believe that a government should defend its citizens against fraud, embezzlement, and pollution. But, in practice, they seem to favor policies that would make it hard to detect, prevent, or prosecute these crimes.

Re:Yes and No

[mordred99]

There is no free market fairy. The discouragement should come from the law that is already on the books for willful destruction of another's property, and all the bevy of injury (and manslaughter if it were a bad accident) laws on the books. Technically it should not matter if one if one t-bones me because he does not like my silver car, is distracted picking their nose, or texting their spouse - at the end of the day, they were at fault, and caused damage and injury. The discouragement should come from the punishment of that crime, not the slap on the wrist we give criminals typically in this country.

Re:Yes and No

[jareth-0205]

I pull off to the side of the road, and use my street atlas and figure how to get anywhere. Why is this the case? Simple, I don't want to be distracted from driving.

And while you're not quite sure where you are, and looking around at street signs rather than at the road or the people crossing it, do you still think you're so undistracted? A GPS is a far less distracting way of navigating than trying to keep up with a piece of paper, especially in complex street layouts (ever driven in London?). The mental effort required to follow a 3D positionally updating map is much lower than remembering what you saw on the map 5 minutes ago when you last checked it.

Re:Yes and No

[ImprovOmega]

However I am also a Libertarian, and I agree that the government should not be getting into these nitpicky arguments, and should be left to the people and free market to decide. I personally will never pay for the option of having an in dash navigation in a car. Nor will I purchase an external GPS. I pull off to the side of the road, and use my street atlas and figure how to get anywhere. Why is this the case? Simple, I don't want to be distracted from driving.

That's all well and good, but the law is rather less about stopping people from hurting themselves and substantially more about stopping them from hurting others. It's like how its a misdemeanor for getting popped for a DUI, but if anyone is hurt because you caused an accident while drunk it jumps to a felony. The decision was made that it is in the public interest to have fewer distracted drivers. Not to play nanny state and protect people from themselves, but so that Mr. "lol omw ttyl brah" doesn't wipe out a family of four trying to text his friends that he's on the way.

Re:Yes and No

[Uberbah]

Does the Rational Actor Fairy have a reason why this would be better than the status quo, where people are already held accountable for negligent driving that results in an accident? Either through civil courts, criminal courts, or rising insurance costs. On the flip side, you'd lose the reinforcement effect of law enforcement, the way a second time drunk driver is slapped with heavy fines, even if he's never hit anybody...

Or, alternatively, if Rational Actor Fairy has a spell that makes people think of the consequences of their actions first and "I'll be okay I'll get away with it this time" later. As opposed to every person who's ever committed a civil or criminal infraction.

I have a right to live.

[SuperBanana]

I have a right to use the road as a pedestrian or cyclist.

You do not have a right to endanger me or anyone else by looking at your cell phone while piloting 2-3 tons of metal.

Driving is a responsibility nobody seems to take seriously, and it's no great surprise.

• Societal attitudes: people still call them "accidents", even though they're almost always everything but; nearly every crash is the result of driver error.
• Financial risk: Insurance companies essentially nullify most of the financial risk (and at least one company advertises "accident forgiveness")
• Criminal punishment: police and prosecutors rarely even try to apply what little negligent driving statutes are available, and rarely investigate collisions unless there's serious injury or death. With the pedestrian or cyclist being carted off to the hospital or dead, it's the driver's word.
• Injury risk: even if you hit another car, modern safety features are such that you're extremely likely to walk away unharmed from a crash you caused, particularly if you're well-off enough to afford a new-ish, expensive car; drive a BMW, Audi, or Mercedes, and you can pretty much drive like a complete asshat and unless you slam into a tree or bridge pillar at 60-80mph, you're going to be fine. Per-mile safety has improved for passengers; it's plummeted for pedestrians and cyclists. Our roads are MORE dangerous, not less.

Your text, tweet, or phone call is not worth my life. Your laziness (ie, pulling over and THEN looking at a map or phone to figure out where you are) is not worth my life. You being 4 minutes late to wherever you're going is not worth my life.

The paper map analogy is bullshit, because few people tried to read maps while driving; you pulled over, noted the cross-streets, looked them up, then figured out your next 2-3 turns. I remember being a teenager and trying it once and scaring the crap out of myself, and not trying it again...and people seriously want to argue that an INTERACTIVE map is less distracting?

European countries have by and large solved this problem by making pedestrians and cyclists protected road users; hit one, and you're presumed by police to be at-fault, instead of here in the US, where the pedestrian or cyclist is. "Innocent until proven guilty", I hear you say. I say "Don't blame the victim." They also investigate road crashes more seriously.

Re:I have a right to live.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know how to solve the problem. Every vehicle male and model has metadata about weight, horsepower and other features that make such vehicles attractive to persons of certain backgrounds that are high-strung. Usually these originate from the Mediterranean coasts and Southwest Asia.

As for the wonders of Europe, I suggest viewing the YouTube® video titles "Why That Sport Sucks". The fellow is spot on.

Re:I have a right to live.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where does this right that you have to use the road as a pedestrian or cyclist originate? And why does my right to use a cellphone while driving not originate from the same place?

Rights are purely ideological.

When you start justifying the oppression of others with violence (creating a law and using armed police to enforce it) with what you believe you are entitled to, you are just another immoral sociopath.

Re:I have a right to live.

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, in European countries (some, if not all, I don't have the full list) you can't use a bluetooth on-ear hands-free set. The rule of thumb is "it can't touch any part of your body". So you either get a car that has bluetooth integration to the stereo, get a system installed or buy a little bluetooth speaker/mic thing that you hang on the visor or wherever.

Sure, you can't have a "private" conversation if there are other people in the car with you, but it's kind of equivalent and not much more distracting than to just talking to another persone who's also in the car with you.

Same goes for standalone GPS devices (or other accessories), you can't manipulate them while driving. Same thing with the radio, they have controls in the steering wheel to help you maintain your hands on it at all times (except for shifting the manual, of course). The thing I don't like about these controls on the steering is that they move (in most car models anyway), while the volume knob on the stereo is always in the same spot, don't even need to look at it to use it.

Note: I prefer my car's stereo volume control be a physical knob and not buttons for up/down or anything else.

Radio's remote to control Pandora on phone?

[whoever57]

If I stream Pandora (or music on the device) from my phone to my car's radio and I use the car radio's remote control to skip tracks, increate or decrease volume etc., where does this law put me?

Re:Radio's remote to control Pandora on phone?

[ZombieBraintrust]

This ruling was about a guy holding a phone in his hand while driving. He didn't argue that he was operating the phone hands free. He argued that he could play angry birds on his phone whine driving because the law only mentioned texting and phone calls. This ruling doesn't rule on the situation you described. (I am not a lawyer)

Re:Radio's remote to control Pandora on phone?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I stream Pandora (or music on the device) from my phone to my car's radio and I use the car radio's remote control to skip tracks, increate or decrease volume etc., where does this law put me?

Jail. Or under a truck. No wait. The law doesn't put you under a truck, it's the distraction from fiddling with your toys while diving that does that.

so pull over if necessary

[Chirs]

I have no problem with following voice directions from a GPS or requesting directions via voice recognition.

Glancing at a map (electronic or paper) on a dash-mounted holder is probably okay.

Looking at a map (electronic or paper) on the passenger seat is getting iffy.

I have a problem with typing in a destination on a GPS while driving, or flipping through a map book trying to find the right page. If you need to do that, pull over and get off the road first.

Re:so pull over if necessary

[Grishnakh]

That makes perfect sense, but I have little doubt that the authorities will still prosecute people for simply using GPS as it can be construed as being against the letter of this stupid law.

Dumb interpretation of the law by the judge...

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on the letter of the law, and his interpretation of "using a phone" as anything done with the device, it would seem to be illegal to use the "phone" for anything other than hands free talking while driving, including hands free automatic map functionality, since such use would certainly be "use" under this interpretation of the law, and is NOT "hands-free listening and talking" which is the only "use" exception allowed by this law... In my opinion if the device isn't being used as a telephone (i.e. on an iPhone you're not using the "Phone" app or an equivalent function") you aren't "using the phone"... You are using a device that also happens to include telephone functionality... This interpretation is completely square with the legislative history of making a distinct law to prohibit texting while driving, and this should be appealed further.

Re:Dumb interpretation of the law by the judge...

[Anonymous Coward]

... In other words if they want to prohibit "non-hands free 'electronic device using' while driving' then they need to make a law to do it... Making a lame distinction based on whether the device is called a "phone" and/or has the capability of being used as a telephone is arbitrary and unfair (and under it I guess I just need to setup my phone to be a WiFi hotspot and use my iPod for maps while driving.)

Re:Dumb interpretation of the law by the judge...

[Anonymous Coward]

... or just keep a charged iPod in the car and if you get caught say you were using the iPod not your phone... The cop can't tell from a distance, and this is apparently the pivotal fact on which the judge based this ruling.

Maybe they should just ban driving

[Freddybear]

Because some people don't need cellphones or other distractions to be bad drivers. If it saved one life...

hands-free voice calls should not be allowed

[Chirs]

There's lots of evidence that they're not really any safer than handheld calls.

Incidentally, many modern smartphones allow hands-free texting using voice recognition.

Re:hands-free voice calls should not be allowed

[dkf]

There's lots of evidence that they're not really any safer than handheld calls.

Incidentally, many modern smartphones allow hands-free texting using voice recognition.

You've got to balance ability to enforce as well. Banning things that you can't prove are happening (or at least not without disproportionate effort) is a way to bring the law into disrepute. Not that this stops some legislators. In any case, there's also a general "don't drive distracted" rule too; it's more difficult to prove, which is why other laws like the anti-texting ones are also present, but it is the real rule that people want enforced. After all, a moving car has a lot of momentum and kinetic energy, so failure to keep it under control can have bad consequences for many people.

The weird thing is that electronic devices are so extremely distracting, and good at holding our attention...

Re:hands-free voice calls should not be allowed

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends. Example my primarily focus is car and surrounding (driving, traffic etc) and secondary is the phone/radio/passanger etc.

When I am driving and I come to crossing section from where I need to turn, I stop talking and I listening and I focus driving. After I have passed the situation, I can continue discussion saying "Sorry, I was hold a sec, what you were saying?"

False Equivalence

[Anonymous Coward]

The blogger says "[i]n the old days, the guy would have pulled out a huge paper map -- potentially blocking his view -- and been fine." "But while he can still look at a paper map, under the Appellate Division's view, if he looks at the same map on the screen of his smart phone, that's suddenly a violation."

I remember the olden says. People weren't driving around at 30+Mph with huge maps unfolded in front of their faces. That's was and is ridiculous... just as ridiculous as staring at your phone while driving.

In the "olden" days you looked at a map before you pulled out into traffic. You knew where you were going, or you wrote down turn-by-turn directions on a small piece of paper, most of which you already memorized.

The problem these days is some people hop in their car without a clue about where they're going, glancing up-and-down at the map on their phone constantly why they're in heavy traffic. They should either being doing it the "old way"--study the damn map before you begin driving--or use the audio directions all smart phones have.

As for the dash-mounted maps... those are pretty damned dangerous, too. Most people don't comprehend how long their eyes are off the road while reading those displays. Their eyes are off the road for far longer than it takes for an accident to happen.

But these people will never learn, because accidents are relatively rare, so they have no feedback to tell them that what they're doing is reckless.

Re:False Equivalence

[yurtinus]

The problem these days is some people hop in their car without a clue about where they're going

This, this, this, and this! If you know where you're going, you will be far more attentive and active about looking for street signs and determining what traffic is doing so you know when you need to be in whichever lane. Turn by turn GPS makes driving a passive experience. You're no longer in command of your car - you're simply operating it in the way the GPS tells you to.

He was holding the phone in his hand

[Anonymous Coward]

What was not clear in the original post, was he was holding the phone in his hand while driving. (see PDF ruling)

I think that must have made the difference.

In addition, how is the cop supposed to know whether the person is using the phone as a phone or a map or whatever?

I'm ok with this ruling. I use a dash mount for my phone.

Re:He was holding the phone in his hand

[yurtinus]

According to other posts here (lord knows I didn't RTFA), he was using the phone in his hand - hence the ruling which references the "hands-free" language in the law. So yeah, non issue. Next topic please?

Good Ruling

[ZombieBraintrust]

He looked at intent in the ruling. The law wasn't designed to discourage conversations in a car. It was designed to force people to keep both hands on the wheel. Holding the phone with one of your hands and pressing buttons on the touchscreen is what the law is trying to prevent.

Re:Good Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

If that was the intent of the law, why does the texting provision (written by the same senator at a later date) explicitly exempt looking in your addressbook and dialing?

Re:Good Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's what it was trying to prevent then it should have stated it. This judge is overstepping his job bounds as laid out by constitutional law.

What about...

[FuzzNugget]

What if you mount it to the windshield and use it as and like a GPS device?

It essentially *is* a GPS device in this case, though I would hardly be shocked to find that courts and LEOs are too technologically unsophisticated to understand this simile.

Re:What about...

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as you keep your grubby hands off of it while driving it should be fine.

Re:What about...

[Anonymous Coward]

What if you mount it to the windshield and use it as and like a GPS device?

It essentially *is* a GPS device in this case, though I would hardly be shocked to find that courts and LEOs are too technologically unsophisticated to understand this simile.

California bans mounting the GPS on your windshield, too. Has to be dash mounted.

This is going one of those laws that nobody follow

[mapkinase]

It has been that way since the dawn of times. 13 years ago two of my buddies bought luxury SUVs, one of them got it with GPS that would not even allow you to touch itself unless you turn off your vehicle. The other one got GPS that could not care less.

This is going one of those laws that nobody follows and hard to enforce...

Safety is the tyrant's tool...

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch for federal mandates that states pass a uniform distracted operation statute under pain of loss of highway funding.

Re:Safety is the tyrant's tool...

[EzInKy]

How else do you propose that the innocent be protected from distracted drivers?

unsafe at any speed

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is you need two hands on the wheel and two eyes on the road.

My grandfather was missing an eye and wore an eyepatch.

Also how do you drive a stick shift with two hands on the wheel? Using your feet to shift seems unsafe.

If the police officer can tell you're doing it

[BitZtream]

Then you deserve to be pulled over and ticketed. I don't really give a fuck WHAT your doing. If a cop can tell you're doing something other than driving, you deserve a ticket.

The law here is perfectly fine. The guy trying to skirt around the letter of the law in order to avoid the spirit of the law got exactly what he should, beat down.

You can not possibly be paying proper attention to your driving if a cop can tell you're fucking with something in your car. He doesn't have to pull you over for fucking with your phone, every state in the union has a reckless driving type law he can smack you with if he wants.

No California doesn't need to ban it specifically, we just need to hang some fucking lawyers up by their balls so this kind of shit never goes to court.

The only actual fix for the problem is to not make it possible. The end result is going to be that because Americans have zero self control, a law will need to be passed that anything with a GPS connected to it will disable its input controls and displays over a certain speed, with exception for critical features such as gauges and warning lights. Thats the only way this problem will be resolved.

This doesn't just apply to cell phones, but all sorts of devices that may end up distracting the driver. Its not what should happen if we humans acted only slightly less selfishly and waited a few minutes to take a phone call or text message. You aren't that important, I assure you. The people that ARE that important, have someone else driving them AND someone else to answer their phone, email, all other shit.

This prick needs to have his license revoked for life because he doesn't understand how serious driving a car is. We're talking about banning guns because of a couple isolated incidents, but we don't say a fucking thing over the rate of shitty drivers. Fact: War, Suicide, Murder, and all other 'intentional deaths' account for 2.8% of the deaths per year roughly. Automobile Accidents are ranked at 2.1%. You're only slightly more likely to die in War than you are driving your car. And thats US stats, not some country who is actually at war (like being in syria or kenya). The more ignorant drivers we can spank/take off the road, the better.

Again, if a cop can figure out that you were fucking with your phone, it doesn't matter what you were doing, you shouldn't be allowed to drive a car. You do not understand or respect the physics involved and shouldn't be allowed to share the road with those of us who do and do want to continue living. My life is far more important than your retarded SMS, phone call, or map.

Re:If the police officer can tell you're doing it

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound a lot like my friends Hitler and Obama. Would you like to be given the title of Czar of transportation?

Mount it low and next to the radio.

[Howitzer86]

Mount it in your car and let them try to cite you for that. Mine is a cupholder mount (located low in the center console), its the perfect location for a GPS and no one can see it from the street. To the outside observer, it might as well be a radio - which sometimes it is. Cops will have to go to greater lengths to get you for that, and if they are going to try, make them work for it.

Manufacturer OEM Equipment is Exempt

[EmagGeek]

The manufacturers' lobbyists got California to carve out an exception for OEM equipment, so you would have to spend $3000 on the OEM NAV system if you wanted maps.

stupid submitter

[Tom]

That leads to a big question: with everything from Google Glass to cars' own dashboard screens offering visual 'distractions' like dynamic maps, can (and should) courts take a more active role in defining what people are allowed to do with technology behind the wheel? Or are statutes like California's hopelessly outdated?"

Flamebait?
Troll?
Clueless?

It is not the courts job to take an active role in defining things. Read up on this nifty little thing called seperation of powers. There is a thing called the legislature. It is their job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislature

Two, there is a huge difference between visual distractions in your field of vision and things that require you to take your eyes off the road and re-focus on something else. If you don't immediately understand that, then you've never driven a car at speed and frankly, you shouldn't be allowed to.

Three, are the statutes hopelessly outdated? Crazy pills? There's not much of a difference between reading on your smartphone and reading in a book while driving, just because one of them is new and fancy and electronic. I don't think the kid you run over will care if you were checking your Twitter account or your hand-written shopping list. You didn't have your eyes on the road and that's what matters.

Hands Free

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who was rear-ended recently - traffic stopped on Freeway, he had plenty of time to stop but still plowed right in to me....
It should not matter what the phone is being used for, if it is not used hands free, then it should violate the law.
I drive Hwy 17 through the mountains, and I see people hit the center divider constantly. That thing is covered with tire tracks, right up to the top. Last friday my commute was graced with two 180 spinouts, each up against the center divider in the fast lane, one in each direction.
    You may think you can drive and F with the phone, but the guy behind you will tell you otherwise.

Re:Hands Free

[Skapare]

Dashcam pics or it didn't happen.

Ahem

[Anonymous Coward]

" I pull off to the side of the road, and use my street atlas and figure how to get anywhere. Why is this the case? Simple, I don't want to be distracted from driving."

This is FAR more dangerous than using a GPS device.

Re:Ahem

[mordred99]

I normally don't respond to AC posts, but I have to ask. How is pulling off the road, into a gas station, or onto a median more dangerous than fiddling with buttons on a phone/GPS/whatever application you are playing with while barreling down the highway at 50 MPH?

Re:Ahem

[jareth-0205]

I normally don't respond to AC posts, but I have to ask. How is pulling off the road, into a gas station, or onto a median more dangerous than fiddling with buttons on a phone/GPS/whatever application you are playing with while barreling down the highway at 50 MPH?

I imagine what he is talking about is when there is nowhere to pull off, when you basically have to park. Any city would have this problem, you would become a non-moving object in a moving stream of traffic, not fully on the road but not out of the way either, with traffic trying to get around you, probably having to pull halfway across another lane to do so.

You know damn well that the most common use of GPS is to set it to your destination and then not touch it, just follow it. If your argument is it's dangerous to fiddle with it while moving then the same could be said of reading a map.

Google Nexus Android Maps sucks!

[CuteSteveJobs]

Yes. It is dangerous to check it while driving. You can only set the root when you leave your house, and the stupid thing only loads voice prompts for the first few stops. After that all it does is chime? Turn left? Turn right? CHIME! The stupid thing is designed so you must pick it up and look at it. It is no substitute for a proper GPS. And insult to injury: When you want to return home, it needs a wifi connection or it can't compute the route back. Ok. You are calling me cheap and telling me to get a SIM. It doesn't even have a SIM slot. It's wifi only. It's really dumb.

Free Market Failure or just an interation?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the courts are doing is making the point that the free market hasn't done enough to ensure that the use of devices "compliment" the driver instead of creating a "negligent driver" e.g. folks that follow map instructions to the point of driving through homes and business.

Just because its cool technology, doesn't mean it's well thought out.
Do regulations banning the use of devices on airplane take off and landing make sense? They might have before the device makers added the options needed to keep their radio interference restricted.

For California, it does make sense to put pressure on the device makers to do better. e.g. does the Corvette with it's head's up display which shows on the driver's window come in range of this ruling or would that be the solution - a HUD projected map?

Is Califonia hopeless?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. It's the Nanny State run amok. Sure, you can run off the road or hit and kill someone. Distracted driving.
Let's outlaw every form of distracted driving. I've told my wife we should all wear motorcycle helmets while
driving our cars. Why not? If it prevents hundreds of traumatic head injuries each year and saves insurance
companies millions in claims, why shouldn't we? How's that for a Nanny State idea!
By the way, put down that Big Gulp, it causes obesity - thanks!

Nanny States.. I could puke. You folks that live where the libtards haven't taken over yet - we salute you!

Attention point

[Todd Knarr]

My rule's simple: if you can't do it without taking your attention off the road for longer than the time it takes to check your rear-view mirror, you shouldn't be doing it while driving. To me, electronic maps are the same as physical maps: they take too much of your attention off the road for too long to use safely when you're the driver. There's a few things they can safely be used for, but if you need them for navigation then you usually have to concentrate on them at the expense of the road for too long.

Re:Attention point

[Jedi Alec]

I have my GPS mounted on the windscreen, slightly left of center just above the dash. It takes me less time to glance at it than it does to check the rear-view.

Not that it's even necessary, considering the spoken instructions suffice 99% of the time, the 3D map is just a bonus.

Configuring the damn thing while driving on the other hand would be insane. On occasion I'll select a preprogrammed destination while waiting for a red light, but that's pretty much it, anything else I'll pull the car over to do it.

Heck, I got my license about a year and a half ago, and being able to drive by GPS was already a required part of the exam. Knowing the difference between using and configuring it while driving featured rather prominently.

Re:Attention point

[guacamole]

I find the GPS navigation ok. Actually very helpful and safe, as long as you input the destination address while parked.

Ham Radio and CB

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is one for you, Why is it then that driving while operating a CB or HAM Radio is completely legal?

 

Re:Ham Radio and CB

[BonThomme]

you never have to look at it. conversations are much shorter, as well.

who in the hell operates a HAM radio while driving?

Remove their fingers

[YrWrstNtmr]

My car was recently destroyed by a texting teen. Blew through a long stale red at 50+mph, and broadsided me. Her car destroyed, mine on the roof.
I say remove 5 fingers the first time, victims choice. Second time they cause an accident, remove the rest.

I'm only partially joking.

Re:Remove their fingers

[Skapare]

Removing 1 is sufficient if you have the method of removing them be pulling them off with pliers and no anesthesia.

I'm only fully joking.

the rule needs to be...

[Anonymous Coward]

...like the british one "driving without due care and attention". I don't really care why you are not paying attention; cell-phone, video-game, make-up, newspaper, it matters not a jot. Stop doing it and pay attention to the road and what you're doing with the lethal instrument you're in charge of. Don't make specific rules for every possible distraction; just rule that you must not choose to do something that distracts.

Re:the rule needs to be...

[Anonymous Coward]

... because the British one leaves no ambiguity or disclarity about what "due care and attention" means?

Seriously. The law was written specifically to address situations where in the past it would have been difficult to prove whether or not "due care and attention" was being paid. It is being addressed as almost a strict liability criminal statute (which are exceedingly rare) because it was so hard for LE to prove you were not paying enough due care and attention without an accident as proof. Therefore, just like speed limits, they don't care *why* you were messing with the phone. Just messing with it is enough to get a ticket. Hardly the most fair solution.

It is the same with DUI cases. The (in California) 0.08% BAC threshhold (for adult, non-commercial drivers) was established to create a presumptive case for DUI, but you can be DUI with far less actual alcohol than that on board. LE needed a bright line rule to take the guesswork out of the issue but it still hasn't completely. I've seen cases where the driver with a BAC > 0.20% was far more competent than the average motorist, but the bright line jumped up and smacked them. On the other hand, we all have stories about people who are not safe to drive no matter how stone cold sober they are.

Everyone agrees distracted driving is a bad idea if it gets bad enough to cause problems for others. Based on the comments above, there is quite a bit of disagreement as to how much distraction is "bad enough" to draw a legal line. And, of course, everyone wants to beat up the ones who draw the line without having a clue how hard it actually is to draw. I think the real benefit of the attention is it will actually start a real dialogue about what the law *should* be.

Yes, IAAL in California, but I am not YOUR lawyer.

Technical question

[Tastecicles]

Why don't GPS units or GPS-equipped phones have projector heads for windshield HUDs?

DUI is Illegal

[rahvin112]

There have been several studies that have shown accident and reaction time slowing worse than drinking for operating a mobile phone while driving.

I know in particular of one doctoral thesis that showed operating a mobile phone and driving caused 3x more accidents than drunk driving (including accident severities that were several magnitudes worse than alcohol induced crashes).

Drunk driving slows reaction times, but only at the absolutely highest blood alcohol levels do you see the complete elimination of reaction (near pass out levels). Phones related accidents frequently involve a complete lack of reaction because the driver isn't even looking at the road at the time. Reactionless crashes are very very dangerous because no effort is made to prevent the accident and the other party often never even sees it coming because they don't expect people to run stop lights at 50 MPH 10 seconds after it's been red and there is cross traffic in the intersection. Texting and cell phones have created situations where you essentially have a driverless car for 10+ seconds at a time. I expect at some point in the future we're going to treat it just like Drunk Driving (a highly avoidable and dangerous form of bad judgement that can result in vehicular homicide).

Police

[Anonymous Coward]

The police use entire computers while driving.

Re:Police

[Tastecicles]

highway cops usually drive with a shotgun passenger who operate both the radio and the computer. At least, in the UK.

Re:Police

[Anonymous Coward]

highway cops usually drive with a shotgun passenger who operate both the radio and the computer. At least, in the UK.

How do they both fit in those tiny cars? Have you seen how much electronic crap is installed in a typical CHP (California Highway Patrol) cruiser? It is amazing they still have a back seat.

Re:Police

[Tastecicles]

haven't seen inside of a CHP cruiser, but the Volvos they have here have vast dashboards; plenty room for a ruggedised notebook or tablet on a clamp, a radio, a dash cam and the other bits of crap. No shotguns tho, the armed response units have those and they're kept in the boot (or trunk, to you) next to the MP5 and the stopstix.

Re:Police

[BonThomme]

and the shotgun

California should ban everything while driving.

[John Hasler]

It should be a crime as serious as burglary or smoking in public to not keep your mind on your driving, keep your hands on the wheel, and keep your snoopy eyes on the road ahead.

And no playing footsie, either.

Law isn't out of date....

[guevera]

The state hands free law was only passed in 2007, went into effect in 2008. The law banning texting while driving was passed a year later. It's not that the law is out of date...this is another example of the incredible incompetence of the California legislature. I mean, these guys make congress look good. There was, around the same time, a bill passed specifically permitting window mount gps units, because otherwise anything mounted on the windshield was against the CVC. Worth mentioning, the hands free law had been proposed for at least five years before it was passed. It was passed only when the wireless industry stopped opposing it. A capitol staffer told me that a lobbyist told her that the industry opposed a hands free law as long as it was likely to cost them customers, but eventually figured they'd reached market saturation for handsets, and would now make a few bucks on selling headsets once the law passed. Take it FWIW, but said staffer is reliable enough that I've cited her as 'capitol sources' several times and haven't had it bite me yet....

Re:Bullshit! Calm down there big guy...

[icebike]

Your comments make sense for hand held devices, but most cell phones used for navigation have window mounts,
and offer spoken turn by turn guidance. There is no reason one can't select the destination at a stop sign and return it to a
window mount or just put it on the seat and listen to the directions.

This judge does over step his authority, and you equally over state your case.

When you actually start digging into cell phone accidents while driving you find the problem is over stated,
and over reported. (Police will often list it as a contributing factor if they even see a cell phone in the wrecked vehicle just as they will report a bicyclist as not wearing a helmet after they pull his body out from under the 18 wheeler that ran over him.)

Why do people do this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I just too scared to be allowed behind the wheel or something?
When I'm driving I don't like to look away to turn up the heat or mess with the radio or whatever.
Forget about looking at my phones screen.
What do you do if the car in front of you brakes? Just hope that doesn't happen? Or do you keep a 10s space to the next car?
When I'm in the car with other people and they start eating behind the wheel, or looking around in a purse the size of a duffle bag I start getting nervous too.

Re:How about something helpful instead of Ban Ban

[Tastecicles]

haaaa! No, I don't want a soothing voice, I want my GPS to have Brian Blessed's voice.

"No! Turn LEFT, you fool!"

Re:Judge was only for Fresno County

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but fortunately, it was only the appellate division of the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno, not the 5th District Court of Appeal. See California Appellate Districts map and Fresno County specifically [courts.ca.gov]. As such, it only has binding authority in Fresno County, not the rest of the state (although it may very well be persuasive in other jurisdictions.)

Stating "California has banned checking smartphone maps while driving" gives this court's opinion way too much authority. I'm pretty sure it would take a California Supreme Court decision to do that...

And yes, I am a lawyer in California, just not yours.

Judge shouldn't have even been in this position

[Logger]

I'm a bit of a literalist when it comes to laws, so I don't like this judges ruling. That said, he should have never been put into this position in the first place.

We shouldn't have laws specifying cell phones and driving. Distracted driving laws should be sufficient. If the penalties for distracted driving are two weak, then fix that. There's no need to specify exactly what distracted driving is. I'd rather leave that up to the cop and a jury.

Re:Judge shouldn't have even been in this position

[Skapare]

Jury or judge ... NOT cop.

Re:Judge shouldn't have even been in this position

[MuhammadAsad]

I like it thank you i help full http://www.toursuae.com/

Good Ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear, hear!

- TomTom & Garmin

Lies, damn lies and statistics

[youngatheart]

Lie: Texting is making the roads more dangerous than they used to be. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, "In 2011, traffic deaths fell 2% to 32,367 from the previous year, making traffic deaths in 2011 at the lowest level since 1949 -- and a 26% decline since 2005."

Lie: Texting is causing the majority of distracted driving accidents. In the news today, "According to the report, which was published earlier this week, 62 percent of the drivers studied were 'generally distracted or lost in thought.' Conversely, the study found that only 12 percent of those examined were using their cell phones - either texting, talking, or dialing.

Lie: The solution to texting accidents is a ban A "study by researchers at the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) finds no reductions in crashes after laws take effect that ban texting by all drivers. In fact, such bans are associated with a slight increase in the frequency of insurance claims filed under collision coverage for damage to vehicles in crashes."

Opinion: We're focusing on the wrong problem. I spend about two hours a day commuting and get to observe both great and courteous drivers and and also dangerous and rude drivers. People like to focus on banning gadgets because it gives a false sense of hope, they hope that the answer is simple and safer roadways can be had by stopping people from doing something. My opinion is that safer driving comes by education, training, testing and enforcement. I believe that gadget bans are as ineffective as the distracted driving laws that are ignored already. Focusing on a specific detail like a phone causes people to do the same thing they would without the ban, but they do it in a more clandestine way which actually makes the real problem, distraction, worse.

Don't take my word for these facts. Search for statistics about traffic fatalities and for the study done by Erie Insurance Group. Here are a couple links to get you started:

• Wikipedia - List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year
• Daily Mail - Keep your mind on the road
• Highway Loss Data Institute - Texting bans don't reduce crashes; effects are slight crash increases

Re:Lies, damn lies and statistics

[BonThomme]

I've been rear ended three times by people on cell phones. I actually saw all three in my rear view (I was stopped), before they hit me. Want to guess what EVERY SINGLE ONE failed to mention in the police report?

Re:Lies, damn lies and statistics

[vakuona]

No, no and no. Nice little strawman you have created there. If you had read all three sentences, you would have realised he was stopped too.

If you are driving behind another car, and you rear end them, then you were driving too close. You were tailgating. If you are distracted by a cell phone, then your total braking distance increases quite substantially, so what would have been a reasonable following distance becomes an inadequate one. Nothing causes me more discomfort than someone driving too close behind me. If something happens, and I have to brake suddenly, they will hit me. If you have more people in the road behind, you get the stupid 100 car pileups.

Re:Lies, damn lies and statistics

[BasilBrush]

And that rape victim shouldn't have been wearing a short skirt, eh?

Re:Lies, damn lies and statistics

[youngatheart]

I'm not particularly surprised and after being rear ended myself, I now drive much differently and pay a lot more attention to what's going on behind me. Several times since that accident, I've avoided having others because I changed the way I drive. In particular, I take a LOT longer to slow down than I used to. If you stop on our freeways when the cars in front of you stop, there is a good chance the person behind you won't. The trick is to slow down for a while before you have to stop so that they have time to look up and start paying attention again while your brake lights are on. Maybe you're already doing that, but a lot of people assume that having accidents that aren't their fault also means they don't need to change their behavior. (Sometimes there is nothing you can do to avoid it, and I totally get that, but ... three times?)

Besides, I can't tell if you're just sharing your story or actually trying to disagree with something. The number of crashes? That doesn't have anything to do with what people report. Maybe the number of deaths? That doesn't have anything to do with what people report. The only thing left is the Erie study, but I get the feeling you didn't read it. I suspect you didn't even read the simple article about it that I linked to. You can just say "I don't care, the facts don't support my fantasy" or maybe you can specifically explain what about the study is wrong.

Re:Lies, damn lies and statistics

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing causes me more discomfort than someone driving too close behind me.

Then change lanes.
Keep right, pass left.
Stop trying to enforce the speed limit. You're not a cop.

Re:Lies, damn lies and statistics

[tehcyder]

I've been rear ended three times by people on cell phones. I actually saw all three in my rear view (I was stopped), before they hit me. Want to guess what EVERY SINGLE ONE failed to mention in the police report?

If you have been rear ended 3 times, then you should probably stop cutting people off, or slamming on your breaks.

If you rear end someone, it is your fault, simple as that. You were driving too close. You shold always allow adequate reaction/stopping time. The fact that a lot of people don't is irrelevant. No on ever said there aren't a lot of bad drivers around.

If someone has to make an emergency stop, they can't factor in the fact that some stupid, irresponsible, feeble-minded wankstain is driving too close to their rear.

Re:Lies, damn lies and statistics

[tompaulco]

I think people are entirely too comfortable with the safety of their cars. They don't worry about rear-ending you because they know their airbag will go off and save them. You, on the other hand are likely to get whiplash because there is not an airbag in your headrest.
I think instead of putting an airbag in the steering wheel, they should put a rusty iron pike. I believe this will promote safer driving.

Re:Lies, damn lies and statistics

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that anecdotes are evidence. But: presumably this was in your statement? And you did flag down witnesses, right?

Re:Lies, damn lies and statistics

[scot4875]

Not really a very good analogy, because if you cut people off and cause an accident, you *are* at fault.

However, GGP wasn't cutting people off, so GP's suggestion was a non-sequitur anyway.

--Jeremy

Re:Lies, damn lies and statistics

[BasilBrush]

If you are hit from the side it might be your fault. But he said he was rear ended. That's never your fault. ...unless you were reversing.

People are supposed to drive at a speed where you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear. If you hit someone who is driving away from you or is stationary (as they must be if you hit them in the rear) then you were driving too fast.

Insurance companies won't even give the case a second look. The guy who hit the back of someone's car with the front of his is at fault. Unless there was reversing involved.

Just use Waze

[Skapare]

... because it speaks to you. You have your destination already set, and it's hands from from there.

I do it all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

Because traffic remains at 0mph anyways.

They should just ban driving.

[Anonymous Coward]

They should just ban driving.

CA is a POS - just more proof of its DEATH KNELL

[Anonymous Coward]

CA is DEAD. Soon to be followed by all of the other Liberal controlled states. All I can say is good riddance...

Specific legislation = bad legislation

[jandersen]

OK, maybe it isn't called "specific legislation", but that was the best I could come up with. The problem is, when you make a law that bans a specific practice or action, it very often doesn't address the real issue: here, not keeping your attention on your driving. It would have been better to be more general - like banning anything that is likely to distract your attention from driving.

NO!

[Anonymous Coward]

"...can (and should) courts take a more active role in defining..." Absolutely not. Courts are not for defining anything. They are for interpreting laws. Bounce this back up to the legislature.

Well done that judge !

[Anonymous Coward]

When cars fully drive themselves and have sufficient sensors to do proper collision detection then, and only then, should people be able to play with their phones whilst in the car.

Cars are a multi ton speeding pile of death and sadly the vast majority cannot control them properly.

Driving must be illegal

[gelfling]

Finally California can employ all the illegal aliens by only allowing them to drive your car while you mess around w your phone. All Hail

re: Google Glass

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? Why not wait until things actually stand some chance of becoming a real problem before clogging up the rulebooks with yet more laws. And why not use existing laws to cover new situations?

I mean "Wreckless driving" means whatever a judge says it means, and if everyone knows that includes playing with your phone in unnecessary ways while driving, that will be good enough. What we don't need is new laws targeted specifically at every new gadget that comes along, especially those with zero market penetration.

Also, I don't think checking a map is the worst thing in the world.

Post-crash concerns

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind you can be convicted for vehicular manslaughter if you kill someone while driving distracted. It has been successfully done in California. No violation of a cell phone law required. Just convincing a jury you were negligent.

Most states have that.

[T.E.D.]

Didn't you know? That's part of the Garmin Market Protection Act of 2011.

Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Make a test that correctly asses ones ability to drive distracted (everyone varies from no ability to quite a bit), and those that can't handle it over a threashold (based on actual safety statistics), must get a self-driving car with better safety statistics than themselves. Also, to ease the burden in a society so heavily dependant on car travel, promote teleworking. We need to move on as a society and get rid of these 100 year old notions about travel and communication.

captcha: customs

Better idea...

[Patent Lover]

How about we just ban shitty driving and stop going through hoops to find each little factor that might contribute to shitty driving.

Re:Bullshit! Calm down there big guy...

[alva_edison]

The case is explicitly about holding the phone in your hand while using it.

California Highway Patrol Officer Jack Graham and appellant each testified that, while driving, appellant was cited for looking at amap on his cellular phone while holding the phone in his hand.

The argument in this case (which is an appeals case) is over how broad the law is, and whether it applies.

subdivision (a).Section 23123, subdivision (a) provides:A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving.

Some choice statements from the judge:

The term “using” is nowhere defined in the statute, but if the Legislature had intended to limit the application of the statute to “conversing” or “listening and talking,” as appellant maintains, it could have done so

The judge also addresses section 23123.5 which makes it illegal to text (specifically) on a wireless communications device. He indicates that he thinks this was passed to catch non-cellphones, not because the previous section was limited to listening and talking. Throughout he uses some of the legislative notes as context (I think incorrectly - specifically there is a note for 23123.5 by the author of both sections that indicates he believed the first section is only enforceable when holding a cellphone up to your ear, and the second section was added to catch people using devices in a different way). In the end he says that someone should probably bring it up to the legislature if they think 23123 is too broad and 23123.5 is too narrow in illogical ways.

Better stop it soon

[slapout]

Lets just get rid of California

That conclusion seems a bit over reaching.

[Anonymous Coward]

I was given a ticket recently for operating a mobile phone. I picked it up and moved it to a more secure location, but didn't activate it in any way.
The phone had moved a location in my vehicle due to road quality. The sheriff gave me a ticket for operating a mobile phone while driving.
Shouldn't the law enforcement agent need some proof, some kind of radio signals emanating from my specific mobile phone, that I was indeed using the thing?
I think the law is outdated when the technology available can provide proof of infringement, rather than assumption based on visual observation. Is that far fetched?
Especially, when the infringement is not visually observable with the naked eye, I can not yet see radio waves. But there might be a few devices available to detect and record them as proof of infringing a law. Just a thought.

overlooked?

[Anonymous Coward]

was the guy just looking at the map on a cellphone which was mounted in some reasonable place, or was he actually fiddling with the thing? i strongly suspect the latter. does anyone have any facts on this?

i find it odd that in the many posts i've read on this piece, no one seems to be asking this question. am i missing something?

bye the bye, i hang mine with a thin wire from my rearview frame and keep it an inch or so above the level of the instrument panel. a cop stopped me for a bad left turn a few months ago and after advising me on my faux pas, asked me to lower the phone's position. "it's blocking yr vision where you've got it." this was in s.d. admittedly, where oddly a lot of the cops seem to aspire to being peace officers. (is the term "peace officers" even understood anymore? it was part of the standard vocabulary when i was a kid in the 60s. since then it seems to have disappeared. true enough, cops are in objective terms representatives of an occupying power -- the international corporations -- but a lot of them have admirable intentions however benighted their views on certain issues.)

tickted driving while holding electronic device

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in California; my girlfriend recently got a ticket for holding her cellphone while using the GPS -- the officer cited a law which forbids the use of electronic devices while driving, in this case the law was meant to cover the use of a laptop or similar by a driver. frankly it seems there are enough laws