Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Using Handheld Phone GPS While Driving Is Legal In California

Posted by Soulskill on from the now-just-wait-for-somebody-to-make-a-GPS-bejeweled-mashup dept.

jfruh writes "Steven R. Spriggs was ticketed and fined $165 for violating California's law on cell phone use while operating a motor vehicle, which states that you can only use a phone while driving if you have a hands-free device. But he appealed the judgement, arguing that the law only applied to actually talking on the phone, whereas he had been caught checking his GPS app. Now an appeals court has agreed with him. The law in question was enacted in 2006, before the smartphone boom."

142 comments

  1. Yes, that's obviously safer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Looking at the screen and interacting with it is obviously safer than holding the phone to your ear and talking to someone. Don't be an idiot. You're operating a two ton machine at speed. Keep your eyes on the road.

    1. Re:Yes, that's obviously safer by StatureOfLiberty · · Score: 5, Informative

      Looking at the screen and interacting with it is obviously safer than holding the phone to your ear and talking to someone. Don't be an idiot. You're operating a two ton machine at speed. Keep your eyes on the road.

      Steven R. Spriggs, the appellant, held his mobile phone in his hand to use the mapping application to find his way around the congestion when STOPPED in heavy traffic

      This person was not moving at the time. On top of that, if the phone had been a Garmin GPS instead of a phone the ticket would never have been issued even though the user would have been using both devices in the same way.
      This kind of stuff is just stupid.

    2. Re:Yes, that's obviously safer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Stop and go traffic is among the most accident prone situations.

    3. Re:Yes, that's obviously safer by Joce640k · · Score: 0

      This kind of stuff is just stupid.

      That's lawyers for you...

      One law saying "don't drive like an ass" should be good enough, but nooooooo, we're lawyers.

      (I know, I know... there are asses with far more road sense than many drivers around here... )

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:Yes, that's obviously safer by Wycliffe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Stop and go traffic is among the most accident prone situations.

      This might be true. But accidents are not all equal. You are MUCH more likely to die
      or seriously injure someone while driving at high speed than in slow stop and go traffic
      because of both the speed of collision as well as reaction time.

    5. Re:Yes, that's obviously safer by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This person was not moving at the time. On top of that, if the phone had been a Garmin GPS instead of a phone the ticket would never have been issued even though the user would have been using both devices in the same way.

      I think that's giving more credit to the cop than is deserved. As you said, the guy was stopped. The cop is already ignoring the spirit of the law. I doubt the cop would pay attention to the specific lettering of the law which would draw a distinction between GPS only and cell phones.

    6. Re:Yes, that's obviously safer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cops behaving badly? Huh...

    7. Re:Yes, that's obviously safer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Correction:
      You are much more likely to die if you hit MY car in stop-and-go traffic.

    8. Re:Yes, that's obviously safer by suutar · · Score: 2

      The danger of inattention, though, is linked to the speed of the vehicle. No movement, no extra danger. A stopped car is a stopped car whether the driver is checking his mirrors every second or asleep. If the situation changes and he doesn't notice that he can become un-stopped, I'm sure the drivers around him will be sure to let him know, but until then, his behavior does not affect anyone's danger level.

    9. Re:Yes, that's obviously safer by icebike · · Score: 1

      I think that's giving more credit to the cop than is deserved. As you said, the guy was stopped. The cop is already ignoring the spirit of the law. I doubt the cop would pay attention to the specific lettering of the law which would draw a distinction between GPS only and cell phones.

      Had the motorist spent 10 bucks for a generic window mount, there would't have been an issue.

      However, the judges ruling doesn't specify that you can mess with your phone if stopped, it just says you can mess with your phone as long as you are not "listening and talking" on the phone other than hands free .

      Now the law has to be amended, to make it clear that you can't be fiddling with a phone while driving, and that includes while stopped at lights
      or in heavy traffic. Because as it stands, playing Angry Birds, or watching porn is ok.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    10. Re:Yes, that's obviously safer by bughunter · · Score: 1

      At least he was engaged in the act of driving, which includes both navigation and piloting.

      I see way too many drivers doing something other than driving while driving, beyond just texting or chatting on their phones. I've seen people applying makeup, shaving, eating with two hands, and even reading a book.

      Even with a handsfree device, holding a conversation is a distraction from driving.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
    11. Re:Yes, that's obviously safer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Driving while lost can also be insanely dangerous. I'd prefer people check their GPS to know when to start moving over to exit a freeway or know which lane to be in rather than reacting at the last minute when signage alerts them.

    12. Re:Yes, that's obviously safer by kimvette · · Score: 1

      It's certainly safer than navigating using a paper map.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    13. Re:Yes, that's obviously safer by FunkDup · · Score: 1

      You are MUCH more likely to dieor seriously injure someone while driving at high speed than in slow stop and go traffic

      This doesn't invalidate your point, but most motorcycle deaths occur on 60 km/h roads

      --
      Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds -- Albert Einstein
    14. Re:Yes, that's obviously safer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But don't we feel so much better criminalizing the touching of a phone and getting $161 for the general slush fund? Aren't the streets generally safer? A driver can pay attention to his legal paper map, or the change the radio dial, or glance away at the speedometer, or the looking in the rearview mirror --- or the billboards ---or the business signs... But wait! Let's get some new laws on these too. Any deviation from keeping your eyes on the road could be criminalized and more importantly, capitalized. Imagine the possibilities. Stopped two ton machines operating at a speed of zero are so dangerous

    15. Re:Yes, that's obviously safer by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Stop and go traffic is among the most accident prone situations.

      This might be true. But accidents are not all equal. You are MUCH more likely to die
      or seriously injure someone while driving at high speed than in slow stop and go traffic
      because of both the speed of collision as well as reaction time.

      This is true.

      But fixing a polyurethane bumper because Dopey Doris was too busy on their phone to notice traffic had stopped (or to keep her foot on the brake pedal) is an expensive PITA.

      There are a lot of stupid drivers out there with no insurance and even if your insurance covers you at no cost you still lose your car for 3 or so days (if you want the job done properly).

      So you're not likely to die from a little shunt in peak hour traffic, but that doesn't make it OK.

      If you're in the car, you're off the phone. I live in WA (Western Australia) and the rules here are clear, you can only touch the phone if you're parked.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  2. Still should be hands free by Cidtek · · Score: 2

    No reason why a windshield or dash mount cant be required for using the phone as a gps.

    1. Re:Still should be hands free by pr0fessor · · Score: 3, Informative

      No reason why a windshield or dash mount cant be required for using the phone as a gps.

      A cell phone mount is required in some states to use it for gps including the one I live in. I had three cars totaled while they were parked by cell phone users two before they passed a no cell phone law and once after.

    2. Re:Still should be hands free by macraig · · Score: 3, Funny

      Except ironically that would require repealing laws in California since windshield mounts were made illegal many years ago. I can't recall whether dash mounts were similarly criminalized. California became a nanny state a long time ago and that nanny is a German fraulein bitch.

    3. Re:Still should be hands free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      that nanny is a German fraulein bitch.

      Kinda like Senator Dianne Feinstein?

    4. Re:Still should be hands free by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      You are correct, but that is not what the current law DOES.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    5. Re:Still should be hands free by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Interesting.

      What states ban cell phone talking while driving? GPS while driving?

      My state really only recently made it an offense to text while driving, but everything else in most states I move about it don't restrict cell phone use for talking etc...nor do they require hands free.

      Is it mostly just CA and NY that ban all things cell phone while operating a vehicle?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re:Still should be hands free by BradMajors · · Score: 3, Informative

      Windshield mounts are legal in California in the lower left hand corner of the window.

    7. Re:Still should be hands free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      that nanny is a German fraulein bitch.

      Kinda like Senator Dianne Feinstein?

      That is correct. We also would have accepted Nancy Pelosi.

    8. Re:Still should be hands free by pepty · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except ironically that would require repealing laws in California since windshield mounts were made illegal many years ago. I can't recall whether dash mounts were similarly criminalized. California became a nanny state a long time ago and that nanny is a German fraulein bitch.

      Oh the horror of not being allowed to put your GPS where it will block your view or get launched into your skull by an airbag. You can mount it to the windshield, but it has to be in a corner.

      (12) A portable Global Positioning System (GPS), which may be mounted in a seven-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the driver or in a five-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest to the driver and outside of an airbag deployment zone,

    9. Re:Still should be hands free by BattleApple · · Score: 2

      No states ban all cell phone use while driving. Some states ban cell phone use under certain conditions - novice drivers, school bus drivers, commercial vehicles, etc.

    10. Re:Still should be hands free by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I find that would be more obstructive than top-left or tucked against the mirror.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    11. Re:Still should be hands free by PRMan · · Score: 2

      Windshield mounts were made legal about 4-5 years ago, as long as they fit in the lower left corner of your windshield.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    12. Re:Still should be hands free by pr0fessor · · Score: 2

      Kansas did about five or six years ago you can talk on the phone but texting and apps are a $60 fine. if you are using it for GPS it needs to be in some kind of mount.

      Same in Colorado and Nebraska but I'm not sure how much the fine is.

      Missouri bans texting for driver under 21 years old.

      Oklahoma bans texting or cell phone use for intermediate or learner permits and a distracted driving law that a cell phone could fall under if you are in an accident while using it.

    13. Re:Still should be hands free by crankyspice · · Score: 2

      Except ironically that would require repealing laws in California since windshield mounts were made illegal many years ago.

      Whatchotalkin' 'bout Willis?

      Cal. Veh. Code 26708(b)(12): “A portable Global Positioning System (GPS) ... may be mounted in a seven-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the driver or in a five-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest to the driver ...”

      --
      geek. lawyer.
    14. Re:Still should be hands free by parkinglot777 · · Score: 4, Informative

      What states ban cell phone talking while driving?

      Here you are http://www.ghsa.org/html/state...

    15. Re:Still should be hands free by gnick · · Score: 2

      I don't know about state laws, but you'd better be "hands-free" in Santa Fe. Personally, I find someplace to pull over should I need to talk because I find myself distracted but am safer looking at a GPS-focused map than craning my neck to figure where the hell I'm going. My wife's just the opposite - She talks on the phone just fine while driving, but looking at a GPS unit could endanger herself and others.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    16. Re:Still should be hands free by macraig · · Score: 1

      Or, as other folks have corrected me, in a 7-inch square in the opposite corner,

    17. Re:Still should be hands free by macraig · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I didn't know. Did laws change or did I hear it wrong in the first place?

    18. Re:Still should be hands free by UnanimousCoward · · Score: 1

      >>German fraulein bitch...

      Talk about the Dept of Redundancy Dept. Tell us how you really feel :P

      --
      Twelve-and-three-quarter inches. Unyielding. This wand belonged to Bellatrix Lestrange.
    19. Re:Still should be hands free by asylumx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's an argument to be made that putting it nearer the center of the windshield helps you keep your eyes on the road, whereas putting it off in a corner makes you take your eyes off the road to look at it. Yes, it may block part of your vision beyond the windshield in that spot, but like I said, there's an argument to be made. If there weren't at least two sides to it, it wouldn't be much of an argument now would it?

    20. Re:Still should be hands free by icebike · · Score: 1

      Is it mostly just CA and NY that ban all things cell phone while operating a vehicle?

      How did you get this deep into the conversation and not realize CA does NOT ban all things cell phone?
      The story is about CA.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    21. Re:Still should be hands free by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      New york

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    22. Re:Still should be hands free by bob_super · · Score: 1

      Letter of the law says that mounting your cellphone, even used as GPS, qouldn't be legal.

    23. Re:Still should be hands free by ripvlan · · Score: 1

      So very inconsistent. I drove cross country a few years ago. My GPS came with a suction-cup window mount, and for a variety of reasons I also purchased a dash-mount. Good thing because one upper-mid-west state requires dash mount. They had a big sign as I crossed the border announcing that requirement along with their cell-phone rules. I think I Googled something like "GPS mounting laws" while prepping for my trip.

      I now travel on business and bring the dash-mount with me everywhere I go because of that one restriction. Plus some rental car windshields are too short to use the suction-cup (angle too great) - such that the GPS hits the dash - or I have to place the suction-cup so high that it blocks my view.

      Nobody stopped me in CA last week - I put the dashmount right in the middle of the dash above the radio.

    24. Re:Still should be hands free by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

      I don't know about state laws, but you'd better be "hands-free" in Santa Fe. Personally, I find someplace to pull over should I need to talk because I find myself distracted but am safer looking at a GPS-focused map than craning my neck to figure where the hell I'm going. My wife's just the opposite - She talks on the phone just fine while driving, but looking at a GPS unit could endanger herself and others.

      In California stopping on the shoulder to talk on the phone will also result in a ticket. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    25. Re:Still should be hands free by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      From your link: No state bans all cell phone use for all drivers, but 37 states and D.C. ban all cell phone use by novice drivers, and 20 states and D.C. prohibit it for school bus drivers.
      Which makes the OP's point.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    26. Re:Still should be hands free by gnick · · Score: 1

      Finding a place to pull over doesn't necessarily mean the side of the freeway. And, from my experience in CA having lived in the Bay Area for ~6 years, I'd feel safer walking through Oakland wearing a KKK robe/hood than sitting at the side of the freeway. Thank the gods for BART.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    27. Re:Still should be hands free by BattleApple · · Score: 1

      it's not a complete ban

      Exceptions to the Laws

              When the driver uses a hands-free mobile telephone, which allows the user to communicate without the use of either hand.
              Using a handheld electronic device that is affixed to a vehicle surface.
              Using a GPS device that is attached to the vehicle.
              When the purpose of the phone call is to communicate an emergency to a police or fire department, a hospital or physician's office, or an ambulance corps.
              When operating an authorized emergency vehicle in the performance of official duties.

      http://www.safeny.ny.gov/phon-...

    28. Re:Still should be hands free by ripvlan · · Score: 1

      Handsfree does not lead to less-distraction. The very conversation, hands-free or not, is still a problem. How much of a problem? I don't understand yet.

      Most states that I've traveled are hands-free. Although a few are anti-texting only. Fewer yet have no restrictions. I haven't seen any that restrict usage in all-forms (except for specific classes of drivers, such as young/new).

      Personally - it's the pushing of "buttons" that causes me pain. Using Google maps on my iPhone is a PITA (finding the "start route" button generally is hard). When hands-free I use Siri and Apple maps (for good or bad) - or having to Unlock the damn thing to make a modification (Siri, stop route, "sorry Dave, I can't do that") I bring my Garmin GPS with me whenever possible as it has the best UI - purpose built for in-car use (actually - navigation in general). I only use my phone for looking around or finding something very specific [planning phase]... then plug it into my Garmin and go. Plus, I tend to find myself in No-signal zones a lot. And of course - Siri has failed me multiple times with bogus routes or wrong address locations (arggg, sorry - breathe, breathe, take a slow breath)

      NY has a rule that the driver may not operate a hand-held phone (although observationally few adhere to the law). When I went to CA last week the airport announcement was that CA restricts using any device that was not *specifically designed* for hands-free operation (or in car use?). I just remember the Specifically Designed statement.

      VT has an anti-texting law (after a spate of joggers being run down & killed by folks texting and driving). Although they are currently considering upgrading that to hands-free because the Police have said that they can't tell if people are texting or dialing their phone, or using some GPS app. It all looks the same to them so enforcement is complicated. People under a certain age (17?) already may not use a cell phone at anytime in any manner while driving.

      And WI or MI has restrictions on where the GPS unit may be mounted (must be mounted on the dash - not on the glass, I assume to keep it low in the field of vision). I can't remember which state - I just know that it caused me to buy a dash-mount for my GPS.

      My null position is that I assume every state has a hands-free rule. Keeping with the spirit that Distracted is distracted. But commanding my phone to do my bidding seems like a fair risk to take.

    29. Re:Still should be hands free by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      From my understanding, "What states ban cell phone talking while driving?" != "Is there any state that bans all cell phone use for all drivers?"

    30. Re:Still should be hands free by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Oh the horror of living as an adult who is capable of making decisions which impact only him.

      Next they should pass a law only allowing buying things on credit terms when the first 24 months are no interest and the interest rate is under 2% thereafter; and perhaps we can ban the consumption of buttered popcorn.

      If you want the government to make all of your decisions for you, you could move to North Korea or Cuba. Otherwise kindly mind your own business.

    31. Re:Still should be hands free by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      I often use my phone to watch for cops with radar or breath checks using the phone app Trapster. I watch it and post when I see cops so other's can avoid the traps.

      But it isn't texting....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    32. Re:Still should be hands free by JeffAtl · · Score: 3

      Unless the law explicitly excludes it, being pulled over anywhere while sitting in the driver's seat with the keys accessible is considered "driving".

      A person can get a DUI while sleeping in their car in a parking lot.

    33. Re:Still should be hands free by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      I had three cars totaled while they were parked by cell phone users ...

      That's what you get for letting cell phone users park your cars. :-)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    34. Re:Still should be hands free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your decision to obstruct your windshield and use a GPS simultaneously infringes on my safety when I drive and walk. Pull over and use your GPS away from the flow of traffic. Don't let your GPS obstruct your windshield where your vision is directed 90% of the time. The other 10% should be for looking at the mirrors and doing head checks.

    35. Re:Still should be hands free by immaterial · · Score: 1

      This is not true in California. "Driving" requires that they prove you had your car in motion while you were drunk and at the controls.

    36. Re:Still should be hands free by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      I'm not disagreeing as California law does seem to be better in this regard than other states, but the police don't really have to prove anything to arrest a person for DUI. A person may get lucky and avoid a conviction, but the arrest is still on their record which can be enough to ruin their life.

      I did a quick search and California DUI attorneys warn about having the car running even if parked - they advise sleeping in the back seat.

      To be clear, I think that all of this is absurd. If MADD, cops and the anti-cell phone league really cared about safety (like they claim), they wouldn't go after people when they try to do the right thing.

  3. GPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    kinda off-topic but: the article reminded me to find an Android app that allows me to save waypoints and that will display longitude, latitude and altitude. Or maybe I should buy a real GPS receiver.

    1. Re:GPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think OsmAnd does all of that. I'm just not 100% sure whether it can show the longitude/latitude (you can search for places by lat./long., but that is different).

      worst case scenario, it's open source, submit a bug/new feature report or fix it yourself...

  4. Dumb ruling by Yold · · Score: 0

    I think that a smartphone mount should be mandatory so that the device isn't in your hand. Texting and driving is a huge safety issue, and I'd imaging that screwing around with a GPS (entering text) is similarly dangerous. It's unfortunate that the court isn't willing to uphold the spirit of the law here.

    1. Re:Dumb ruling by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      Dumb ruling, or accurate ruling on a dumb law?

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    2. Re:Dumb ruling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it is not unfortunate but the way justice is supposed to work.

      Change the law to make it fit to reality, that's what's needed because it's a bad one irregadless of the rise of smartphones. Obviously too specific and not to the real point.

    3. Re:Dumb ruling by Yold · · Score: 2

      Read the article, there is a relevant clause of the legislation that is open to interpretation. This is why we have courts, so that the interpretation of laws can progress with changes to technology, society, etc.

      How are police supposed to distinguish between drivers texting and drivers using their GPS? Texting requires hands-free operation, so should using a GPS.

    4. Re:Dumb ruling by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Informative
      If you want to uphold the real spirit of the law you outlaw any use of any phone - mount or not.

      Studies have shown that hands free mountings do NOT reduce accidents.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    5. Re:Dumb ruling by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I think that a smartphone mount should be mandatory so that the device isn't in your hand.

      Even better: Make the navigation app stop responding to input whenever the phone is moving.

      --
      No sig today...
    6. Re:Dumb ruling by Talderas · · Score: 1

      They should just pass a law that states that you must be hands free while driving. Problem solved because that's the obvious reason for the cell phone law.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    7. Re:Dumb ruling by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even better: Make the navigation app stop responding to input whenever the phone is moving.

      The phone can't distinguish between the driver using the phone while it's moving and a passenger using the phone while it's moving. I, for one, would be very annoyed if my phone stopped working whenever I was riding in someone else's car, or on public transportation. There's also the fact that this misfeature would actively prevent a passenger from assisting the driver with navigation functions.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    8. Re:Dumb ruling by Kryptonian+Jor-El · · Score: 2

      So you suggest people stopping on the freeway and waiting until they can make changes to their device? How about we just make the driving test harder so not every shit driver can get one

      --
      All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
    9. Re:Dumb ruling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hands free driving! Bring on the autonomous cars so I can finally talk and drive at the same time.

    10. Re:Dumb ruling by nugatory78 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is exactly the issue I have with my Subaru BRZ. If the car is moving, you can't enter information into the GPS. Thats all well and good when there is only me in the car, but stopping my passenger from using it is asinine! I hit this issue on a road trip, I wanted my passenger to try and find somewhere up ahead for us to eat (in the country with no decent cell data connection). I ended up having to pull off the highway and pull over just to find a nearby restaurant... not impressed.

      --
      The beginning of knowledge is the discovery of something we do not understand. - Frank Herbert
    11. Re:Dumb ruling by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      This. So damn annoying.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    12. Re:Dumb ruling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets just skip right to hands free flying!
      http://tech.slashdot.org/story...

    13. Re:Dumb ruling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Studies have shown that hands free mountings do NOT reduce accidents.

      Wouldn't that also mean that holding a phone in your hand does NOT increase accidents?
      Studies have shown a lot of things. Fortunately we usually ignore them.

    14. Re:Dumb ruling by InvalidError · · Score: 2

      Except many studies have shown that hands-free phone operation is about just as bad as hands-on.

      Most of the distraction-based accidents are caused by people picking the wrong time to do something, even simple things like changing radio station, heating/AC settings or checking their speedometer.

      Hands-free does not prevent people from letting themselves get distracted by or otherwise focusing their attention on the wrong things at the wrong time. Some people have suggested locking out non-essential controls while vehicles are in movement so drivers have no choice but to focus on the road but going to such an extreme would likely become a grievance for many people and cause its own lot of problems such as passengers being unable to access those controls either.

      Ideally, people should be able to gauge circumstances and their own abilities to decide the most appropriate moments to do something safely but most people grossly over-estimate their abilities and the safety margins around them so we end up with stiff restrictions to eliminate most variables.

    15. Re:Dumb ruling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fortunately you can just pull out your cell phone, and use the GPS on that. Clearly Subaru thinks this is much safer.

    16. Re:Dumb ruling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it is not the judiciary's job to create new laws for changing times. That's judicial activism, and changing laws is the job of the legislature. The Judiciary should rule according to the constitution, laws, and case law. Often, judges have to rule about ambiguous situations and they should rule with the language and spirit of the laws, not with what's progressive at the time.

    17. Re:Dumb ruling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The true spirit of the law is a compromise. They didn't bad all forms of cell phone usage, because if they had, then it would never have been voted for. A judge's interpretation of that law as totally banning all cell phone use would be an affront to the very rule of law on which our society is based. It would be rule by king or oligarchy. Very bad idea.

    18. Re:Dumb ruling by suutar · · Score: 1

      Then you should also ban GPS units. Or is there some significant difference between a phone GPS app in a handsfree mount and a Garmin GPS appliance? The studies I've heard of that address your point are still talking about conversation, not GPS usage.

    19. Re:Dumb ruling by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      I think that a smartphone mount should be mandatory so that the device isn't in your hand. It's unfortunate that the court isn't willing to uphold the spirit of the law here.

      Would it be against the law to have a paper map sprawled out all over the console? Is this any less distracting than a device which automatically tells you where you are at all times? If referencing paper maps is legal it is not clear to me "spirit" of law is consistent with your interpretation especially given GPS maps on cell phones didn't exist at the time this law was enacted.

      Texting and driving is a huge safety issue, and I'd imaging that screwing around with a GPS (entering text) is similarly dangerous.

      There is no information to suggest from ruling any inputting or screwing around was occurring at the time. "Spriggs was cited for looking at a map on his cellular telephone while holding the telephone in his hand and driving"

    20. Re:Dumb ruling by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Most of the distraction-based accidents are caused by people picking the wrong time to do something, even simple things like changing radio station, heating/AC settings or checking their speedometer.

      ...and not maintaining a safe following distance under the conditions. It's perfectly safe to do those things if you give yourself enough reaction time.

      ...most people grossly over-estimate their abilities and the safety margins around them so we end up with stiff restrictions to eliminate most variables.

      Except speed limits. The 85th percentile rule says that, if 100 cars are clocked along a road, the speed limit should be set at the speed of the 16th fastest car.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    21. Re:Dumb ruling by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Personally, i dont touch my phone while moving. I *might* look at the phone at a stoplight to see who called, and pull over to call back if its important, but i wont even talk on the phone while driving.

      I also dont yak up a storm with passengers, for the same reason.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    22. Re:Dumb ruling by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

      This is exactly the issue I have with my Subaru BRZ. If the car is moving, you can't enter information into the GPS. Thats all well and good when there is only me in the car, but stopping my passenger from using it is asinine! I hit this issue on a road trip, I wanted my passenger to try and find somewhere up ahead for us to eat (in the country with no decent cell data connection). I ended up having to pull off the highway and pull over just to find a nearby restaurant... not impressed.

      Same with Lexus. They have blocked input to the Nav system if the car is not in Park. So now it's just a nice screen to show where you are since the input in vehicles kinda sucks anyway compared to dedicated GPS or phones.

    23. Re:Dumb ruling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be consistent we would need to ban radios, in-car navigation, food, pets, and children.

    24. Re:Dumb ruling by liquidsin · · Score: 1

      On a recent trip I rented a Hyundai Elantra. The bluetooth-enabled stereo wouldn't let you sync a phone while the vehicle was in gear, which kind of frustrated my passenger who wanted to sync up his phone and listen to some tunes.

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    25. Re:Dumb ruling by Yold · · Score: 1

      From the statute:

      23123. (a) 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.

      "Using a wireless telephone" is the part that is open to interpretation. I never said anything about any other object (map, etc.). The person had the phone in their hand. The vehicle was running and on a roadway (i.e. "driving"). I disagree that using smartphone functionality doesn't fall under the "using a wireless telephone" part of the statute.

    26. Re:Dumb ruling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you should ban looking at paper maps while driving, or really touching anything besides your steering wheel or car controls. Or, here's a radical idea, you can just punish the people that actually cause accidents, severely.

    27. Re:Dumb ruling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do not operate a GPS while in the flow of traffic. You can use your GPS outside the flow of traffic at the side of the road. You can also program your GPS to vocally dictate your route. When you're driving, it's OK to hear your GPS speak but don't program it while you're driving.

    28. Re:Dumb ruling by InvalidError · · Score: 1

      Trying to set maximum speeds based on 85th sounds like a futile thing to do: if that causes the speeds to rise, the 85th will likely rise when it gets re-evaluated at some future point until speeds are high enough that people do not dare go any faster and no matter what the maximum speed is, people still need to have the common sense to adjust speed based on driving conditions - people who fail to slow down when driving into fog, wet/snowy/icy roads, etc. is where/when monster pileups tend to start.

      There is a road where I used to drive on a regular basis where the speed limit is 70km/h but people often drive through there at over 120km/h. With the number of blind corners and hills on that road, I would be nervous driving at over 90km/h there - I totaled a car on that road once due to a traffic jam backing up all the way to one of those blind hills and I was only going at the 70k limit. I would not want to find out at what speed people would drive through there if the speed limit was raised to 100km/h and prefer not thinking about how much nastier that crash would have been with twice the kinetic energy involved.

    29. Re:Dumb ruling by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      Most people don't look at the GPS, they listen to it. Big difference. Personally, I think they should put them so that the driver can't see them, just the passenger in the shotgun seat.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    30. Re:Dumb ruling by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      "Using a wireless telephone" is the part that is open to interpretation. I never said anything about any other object (map, etc.). The person had the phone in their hand. The vehicle was running and on a roadway (i.e. "driving"). I disagree that using smartphone functionality doesn't fall under the "using a wireless telephone" part of the statute.

      I think I was making an argument in the broader context of what is effectively allowed by law not limited specifically a single law.

      Lets say instead of a phone the object in hand while driving was a Garmin for the sake of argument assume the interface is materially similar to that of a smartphone mapping application. How does one being illegal when they are the same make any sense? In 2006 most people only made calls and sent text messages via their wireless telephones. Very few had access to smart phones and mapping applications at that time.

  5. Why was he pulled over? by Dareth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If he was only pulled over because the officer observed him using an electronic device then the driver was correct. If he was pulled over for dangerous or reckless driving while using a device then the office wrote him the wrong ticket.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
    1. Re:Why was he pulled over? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he was using a handheld electronic device while driving, then he was driving recklessly.

    2. Re:Why was he pulled over? by H0p313ss · · Score: 4, Informative

      Spriggs said he was stuck in traffic at the time, and therefore it would have been impossible to be driving recklessly.

      He has also said that he opposes phone calls and texting while driving and would support reckless driving charges for mobile phone users where appropriate, but this was not one of those cases so he challenged the ticket.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    3. Re:Why was he pulled over? by kamapuaa · · Score: 3, Funny

      If he didn't get into a car accident, then he was driving wrecklessly.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    4. Re:Why was he pulled over? by Kryptonian+Jor-El · · Score: 1

      no

      --
      All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
    5. Re:Why was he pulled over? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, if we was swerving and running into things, then and only then was he driving recklessly.

      If his driving was as if he was unimpaired, then he was unimpaired, regardless of how much you think his other activities could have impaired him.

    6. Re:Why was he pulled over? by BattleApple · · Score: 1

      That's driving crashlessly

    7. Re:Why was he pulled over? by InvalidError · · Score: 1

      You might want to re-check your definition of reckless driving.

      By most states' definition, a reckless driver must display *wanton* (violent, intentional and unprovoked) disregard for the public's safety and traffic rules. As long as your electronic-device-using driver sticks to his lane in traffic, maintains safe speed and distances, follows signs, etc. reasonably well, there is no reckless there. Distracted and potentially dangerous, sure. But not reckless.

      Weaving through traffic, ignoring speed limits, road signs, tailgating, street racing, etc. are reckless driving - deliberately ignoring safety and putting others at significant risk.

      BTW, which one do you think is the most dangerous driver on the road:
      1- a lost driver getting flustered from having no clue where he is
      2- a lost driver using a GPS to pull a map and directions

      From my experiences getting lost both with and without GPS as a backup, I would say having the GPS is safer: yes, the initial setup has potentially higher risk but once that is done, it immediately removes the stress from having no clue where I am and allows me to get off the road much quicker than driving around in a flustered state until I reach a road or highway I'm familiar with, continue on my way from there and hopefully not get lost on my next attempt.

    8. Re:Why was he pulled over? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can drive recklessly in stop and go traffic. And from my experience, that's when most road rage occurs with people lane jumping while trying to get ahead of every body else.

    9. Re:Why was he pulled over? by asylumx · · Score: 1

      If he was using a handheld electronic device while driving, then he was driving recklessly.

      Exactly! This is why we should ban all electric razors from use whilst driving! Oh, you were talking about cell phones only? Why? What's the difference?

    10. Re:Why was he pulled over? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If he was pulled over for dangerous or reckless driving while using a device then the office wrote him the wrong ticket.

      Dangerous and reckless driving are subjective judgements. If there is any debate, the debate can become expensive. Talking on your cellphone is illegal whether you're driving badly or not, and it can easily be proven from records. So they go for the ticket which requires less paperwork and less potential time in court.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Why was he pulled over? by WiiVault · · Score: 2

      Totally agree with the verdict. But to suggest that being stuck in traffic makes it impossible to drive recklessly isn't realistic. That said any distinction between a Garmin or inbuilt mapping and using a mobile is absurd and the court thankfully agreed.

  6. This doesn't make much sense. by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

    Arguably, simply holding your phone to your ear and talking on it is a lot less distracting than LOOKING at the phone and tapping to find map directions.

    Why is the former illegal, while the latter is okay? Either make them both illegal, or make it okay to *talk* on the phone as well.

    1. Re:This doesn't make much sense. by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Kind of moot since he was not moving at the time (see TFA). But you don't have to be tapping to find map directions in order to use a mapping app. Often the app itself doesn't allow that.

      The navigator built into my vehicle will give you turn-by-turn while you're moving, but won't let you program an address unless the parking brake is on. The Garmin that we rented twice on trips back east would not let you program it if it sensed that you were in motion. This makes it kinda difficult when you have a navigator riding shotgun manipulating the device, but it is a technical way to avoid "looking at the phone and tapping to find map directions" while in motion.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:This doesn't make much sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, not really true. While I agree that looking at a map and tapping things certainly is distracting, I disagree that it's worse than talking to someone. It's been shown repeatedly that the act of processing speech takes a huge amount of high level brain power. That, combined with the fact that the person at the other end of the phone call doesn't know when dangerous situations are cropping up, and can't STFU appropriately is what makes it dangerous.

    3. Re:This doesn't make much sense. by minogully · · Score: 1

      Sounds just like when my 3 year old is asking me questions while I'm driving. He has no idea how to STFU. Yet, nowhere is it even remotely considered illegal to have talking children in the car while you're driving.

      I honestly don't know how a person driving and talking on the phone who approaches a dangerous situation can't (and doesn't apparently?) just STOP TALKING, deal with the situation, then continue the conversation when the danger has passed.

  7. in other news by nimbius · · Score: 1

    speaking as an angelino, using a cellphone in los angeles is arbitrarily legal depending on class and social status. Are you a police officer? Do you have diplomatic plates? were you Justin Bieber? then rev up those angry birds on the 101 and get ready to snapchat your next novel.
    if you're one of the unwashed masses then be prepared for an almost entirely random enforcement experience. is today a warning day? or is it our legendary MANDATORY ENFORCEMENT ZONE policy where you'll be fined no matter what. Did you use your cellphone at a red light in a school zone? double fine. Was there construction? double fine. Did you just rear-end someone while on a cellphone? that piece of technology will never be considered in the accident report and is as good as having never happened.

    dont get me wrong. im not here to defend cell usage in a moving vehicle but there is nothing about LA that precludes you from setting your 4-ways, pulling over, checking the phone, and safely entering traffic again. Or hell, plan the route before you get in the car. The trouble i find is the LAPD is like a magic 8-ball when it comes to enforcing this law. if you can make it to court, if you have the money and the time, then 60% of the time you'll get out of it every time.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:in other news by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      I was rear ended at a stop light coming off an interstate by a woman talking on her cell phone. She got out of the car and came up to my car window before I had even managed to collect myself. She was still talking on her cell phone, trying to carry on two conversations and beg me not to call the police because it didn't do any damage, it's her boyfriend's car, and she doesn't know if he has insurance.

      The only response I could get out was "uhhm" and to point at the sheriff standing behind her. Apparently they had been following her for a while because she kept drifting into the other lane or onto the shoulder of the road.

      I have no idea what she was charged with but they took her away in handcuffs.

    2. Re:in other news by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      I have no idea what she was charged with but they took her away in handcuffs.

      was she able to continue her conversation per hands-free feature on cellphone?

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    3. Re:in other news by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      No, but I wouldn't have been surprised if she had tried.

    4. Re:in other news by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

      ...there is nothing about LA that precludes you from setting your 4-ways, pulling over, checking the phone, and safely entering traffic again.

      That's also illegal, at least on the freeways. http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vct...

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    5. Re:in other news by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      I have no idea what she was charged with but they took her away in handcuffs.

      was she able to continue her conversation per hands-free feature on cellphone?

      I was going to say something to the affect of, "there wouldn't have been an accident if she used handsfree"; but no, I doesn't sound like she even had the mental capacity for carrying on a conversation with someone in the vehicle and driving either.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    6. Re:in other news by bughunter · · Score: 1

      60% of the time you'll get out of it every time.

      How frequently will you get out of it the other 40% of the time?

      --
      I can see the fnords!
  8. SB 28 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I actually preferred the wording in SB 28 that was introduced in 2006. It not only made it illegal to text while driving, but the wording covered anything that took a significant portion of your attention from driving. This includes doing your makeup, shaving, eating. It got vetoed. Likely because the wording was a bit too broad and open to interpretation.

    1. Re:SB 28 by pepty · · Score: 1

      It not only made it illegal to text while driving, but the wording covered anything that took a significant portion of your attention from driving.

      If it could have potentially precluded lawyers from billing hours on the phone while commuting then I'm surprised the bill even made it to the veto phase.

  9. Being stupid legal in CA by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Being stupid legal in CA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because something is illegal, doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

  10. It's all rumors by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    California cop: Hafta make my quota...hafta make my quota... Hey you! Is that a phone?

    Driver 1: No, it's a handheld GPS device.

    Cop: Oh. Hey you over there! Is that a phone?

    Driver 2: No, it's a handheld navigation system.

    Cop: Oh. Hey, you, is that a phone?

    Driver 3: No, it's a handheld telescoping built-in pleasure device.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  11. paper maps? by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    They are still around but soon they will be no more. You will have to subscribe to a cellphone service and have a connection (lots of luck in rural areas). There is nav systems built into cars that contains maps in memory (but have to pay I heard a few hundreds every year to upgrade). Call me a luddite but I liked the Thomas Guides (map page and grid). Unlike large foldout maps, these are like a book. With paper maps I can quickly look at general spot of my destination, then do an overview on how to get there, then zoom in with my eyes to see specifics and cross streets. But the Thomas Guides are now out of print, I heard new versions are all screwed up.

    These days you address by GPS coordinates (great for flying a helicopter or firing a cruise missile) but give me an address. These car nav systems are kind of dumb if you ask me. Ok so you key in the address and it will speak specific directions. But geez I don't want it to say, "turn on El Camino, drive 1.73 miles, turn right to enter hwy 85. turn left to 280, turn. " I know how to get on freeway to SF, it is the specific address in the big city I am interested in seeking.

    I don't like using maps such as http://quickmap.dot.ca.gov/ on smartphones, screen too small to see detail unless I zoom in but then lose the overview.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
    1. Re:paper maps? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      No one prints them around my parts.

      But regardless, it doesn't really address the issue here, as you could always look at your digital map before you left the house so you know where you are going before you get there. Your map being on paper doesn't matter. In the old days when i traveled a lot, i have seen people trying to read maps 1/2 folded in their passenger seat weaving all over the place.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    2. Re:paper maps? by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

      A couple points:

      1) You do not need a data connection to use GPS navigation. You do need to obtain offline maps and an app that can use them. I typically use OSMAnd with OpenStreetMaps when I'm traveling internationally to avoid data roaming charges.

      2) I'm old enough to have grown up with Thomas Guides, and then printing out directions from MapQuest after that, and trying to figure out your next turn with them is far more distracting than using a GPS nav app. Looking at a paper map while driving should be considered at least as dangerous, if not more so.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    3. Re:paper maps? by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

      Edit: Total cost for OSMAnd and OpenStreetMaps for offline navigation: $0

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

  12. Full text of the opinion by crankyspice · · Score: 1

    Here's the full text of the opinion: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/F066927.PDF

    --
    geek. lawyer.
  13. Re: Dumb rulling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This could easily be remedied by programming the car's computer to unlock the GPS (assuming manufacturer installed) whenever the passenger airbag sensor in the seat indicates someone is sitting in it. Its not fool-proof but it would work in your scenario.

  14. actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    it is not illegal to have a windshield mounted GPS provided:

    per CA Vehicle Code 26708 (a)(12)

    A portable Global Positioning System (GPS), which may be mounted in a seven-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the driver or in a five-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest to the driver and outside of an airbag deployment zone, if the system is used only for door-to-door navigation while the motor vehicle is being operated.

    its stupid, but there is a lot of confusion about this by both LEOs and drivers.

    1. Re:actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      indeed, it is very stupid, but par for the course for brainless cali politicians; i mount mine just beneath the rear view mirror so that i can maintain upright forward vision, and it's a natural reflex to glance at the mirror at the same time.

  15. Just simplify the rule by mark-t · · Score: 0

    Heres an idea, make it illegal to hold or manipulate *ANYTHING* with either of your hands that is not actually part of the vehicle (ie, headlights, signal lights, gear shift are all okay), while the vehicle is in motion.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    1. Re:Just simplify the rule by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

      How about a simpler idea: it's illegal to take your attention off the road and the act of driving. Doesn't matter why, only matters whether you're paying attention to your driving or not. That simplifies enforcement, if the cop sees you looking down inside the car rather than out the windshield at the road he doesn't have to worry about finding the right law for what you were looking at or even figuring out what you were looking at and you can't weasel out of it.

    2. Re:Just simplify the rule by bob_super · · Score: 1

      I can't handle a long drive without picking my nose and releasing some endorphins, you insensitive clod!

    3. Re:Just simplify the rule by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I agree... but that really, that rule already exists, and is impossible to actually enforce in practice because even daydreaming can take your attention off of the road. Simply by observing externally, unless a person's driving is already visibly erattic, you cannot tell if a person is thinking about other things than driving their car. The point behind my suggestion is an objective metric by which you can unambiguously observe that a person is breaking the law and they will have absolutely no reasonable defense when they do such things.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    4. Re:Just simplify the rule by mark-t · · Score: 0

      Then pull over... or do it at a stop sign or something... just not while the vehicle is in motion.

      Yep... I'm insensitive.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    5. Re:Just simplify the rule by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

      How about a simpler idea: it's illegal to take your attention off the road and the act of driving. Doesn't matter why, only matters whether you're paying attention to your driving or not. That simplifies enforcement, if the cop sees you looking down inside the car rather than out the windshield at the road he doesn't have to worry about finding the right law for what you were looking at or even figuring out what you were looking at and you can't weasel out of it.

      Distracted Driving is already a law on the books in most/if not all states. That's partially why there was pushback to start being specific about types of distractions. Just enforce what laws you already have.

    6. Re:Just simplify the rule by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I get the pushback about laws pertaining to specific types of distractions but the problem is that "distracted driving" is not an unambiguous enough concept that you can definitely say, by simple observance, "that person is distracted"... they have to be actually doing something that obviously distracts them and the problem is that every single person is going to think differently about what they are or are not capable of. By drawing a hard line somewhere, you make what they are doing unambiguously illegal when they are breaking the law.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    7. Re:Just simplify the rule by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      That simplifies enforcement, if the cop sees you looking down inside the car rather than out the windshield at the road he doesn't have to worry about finding the right law for what you were looking at or even figuring out what you were looking at and you can't weasel out of it.

      "License and registration, please. Do you know how fast you were going?"

      "I have no idea, it is against the law to look at my speedometer while driving, and it always says '0' when I'm stopped. Was I going '0'?"

  16. Bad summary, as usual by jklovanc · · Score: 1

    All the ruling says is that particular law does not apply to smart phones displaying maps. It says nothing about the law that deals with devices that can display video and do not have a vehicle interlock. The driver was just charged with the incorrect offence.

  17. Distracted driving by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Don't care if its a 'real' gps, phone, radio or just looking at your passenger's tits. If you take your eyes of the road for any amount of time at all you *are* distracted, and a hazard to others.

    Tragedy can happen in a liberal blink of an eye at road speeds, if you are not looking at what is going on around you, it can happen before you even know it was going to.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Distracted driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you take your eyes of the road for any amount of time at all you *are* distracted, and a hazard to others. Tragedy can happen in a liberal blink of an eye at road speeds

      I take it you blink one eye at a time? Still dangerous; it's affecting your peripheral vision.

    2. Re:Distracted driving by minogully · · Score: 1

      If you take your eyes of the road for any amount of time at all you *are* distracted, and a hazard to others.

      And yet you are supposed to check your mirrors, and blind spots (while changing lanes) so as not to be a hazard to others.

    3. Re:Distracted driving by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      That is such a stupid comment it doesn't deserve a direct response.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    4. Re:Distracted driving by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Actually i do due to lazy eye, smart ass.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  18. Re: Dumb rulling by bob_super · · Score: 2

    people would quickly learn to drive around with a bag of potatoes.

  19. Pleased to hear this by Ethanol · · Score: 1

    A friend of mine was ticketed a few months ago for checking the map on her cell phone while she was stopped at a red light. Some things are just absurd.

    1. Re:Pleased to hear this by koan · · Score: 1

      She should have been arrested, not just ticketed.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    2. Re:Pleased to hear this by juniorkindergarten · · Score: 1

      In Ontario you cannot touch a phone while driving, red light or not.
      Period.
      The fine is going from $140.00 to $280.00 on March 18.
      There are no points, but the insurance company WILL surcharge your insurance if this shows up on your abstract.
      You must use a bluetooth handsfree device. Simply touching the phone to mute the ringer will result in a fine.
      A motorist challenged the law and lost where he did just that.
      Its absolutely the right thing to do. If you are driving, them drive; not eat, preen, read, or pick your nose.

      --
      "Every security scheme that is based on secrets eventually fails." - Steve Jobs
    3. Re:Pleased to hear this by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      That's why I like my Pebble.

      It's a watch, not a phone :-)

  20. And now... by koan · · Score: 1

    Everyone pulled over for a phone violation has an out, and with Google lobbying to make sure their Glass isn't targetted what becomes of public road safety?

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."