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 Or are statutes like California's hopelessly outdated?"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...
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.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
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.
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.