Slashdot Mirror
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 Or are statutes like California's hopelessly outdated?"
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.
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!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
operating a vehicle containing children, parents or a girlfriend constitutes distracted driving.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
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.
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.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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.)
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
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.
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.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.