Should California Have Banned Checking Smartphone Maps While Driving? 433
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 Or are statutes like California's hopelessly outdated?"
Bad Ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
If the judge's interpretation was the one the legislation intended, why would we have CVC 23123.5 [ca.gov], that explicitly forbids texting. Why would the DMV note that it does "not prohibit reading, selecting or entering a phone number, or name" [ca.gov] or the CHP advise safe ways to dial [ca.gov]? 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.
Probably spot on ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
Its a good thing nobody was distracted before cell phones!
And in other news (Score:5, Insightful)
operating a vehicle containing children, parents or a girlfriend constitutes distracted driving.
Re:Bad Ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Bullshit! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Bad Ruling (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Bullshit! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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:The law does seem to be out of date, yes... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Bad Ruling (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Bullshit! (Score:2, Insightful)
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! Calm down there big guy... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.)
Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes... (Score:4, Insightful)
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.