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 Or are statutes like California's hopelessly outdated?"
The law does seem to be out of date, yes... (Score:5, Interesting)
The law is out of date
Apparently so. Given the overwhelming evidence that many of the activities mentioned in this thread do dramatically increase the risk of having an accident, it appears that a lot more things should be prohibited than actually are.
These laws already exist elsewhere (Score:5, Interesting)
Several Canadian provinces (including Ontario) have "distracted driving" laws that basically state "no fucking around with electronic devices unless they're mounted to your vehicle somewhere."
If you have to hold your phone to look at Google Maps, and/or enter information into it, that's verboten. If you enter your destination before you start driving, and then mount it on your dashboard or windscreen, that's okay.
I like this distinction, and think it is a reasonable restriction on the use of electronic devices while driving. Note - hands-free phone operation is still allowed. Texting is pretty much right out (as it should be).
Re:And in other news (Score:4, Interesting)
If banning cell phones saves a reasonable number of lives, I think most people would agree that's a fair trade off. Banning other passengers in the car though would basically be banning driving, which is not really reasonable.
Your comparison is childish:it's reasonable to say no cell phone use in the car, but not reasonable to say no passengers.
Re:Define "use" (Score:5, Interesting)
Stand alone sat nav units usually don't let you operate them while the car is in motion. You have to stop before the touch screen is enabled. When moving you can only passively use them, looking at the display and listening to instructions.
I didn't RTFA but if all that the court is saying is that you can't be trying to use the touch screen then that seems reasonable.
My Garmin GPS allows me to use it while driving.
Built-in navigation units may not, but the standalone ones generally do, even if you have to specifically enable the feature. My GPS has some features (like "What restaurants and gas stations are at the next exit" that only make sense to use while on the road.
My built-in touch-screen stereo is much harder to operate while driving than the GPS. I'd welcome a law that requires that all car controls (air conditioning, radio, etc) have tactile switches and knobs for all common functions, a touch screen is impossible to operate without looking at it.
Yes and No (Score:4, Interesting)
"Should California Have Banned Checking Smartphone Maps While Driving?"
This is not a simple question. There is a preponderance of evidence that checking a cell phone, playing with a dash mounted (or cheesy suction cup mounted) GPS, eating, talking, doing makeup, shaving, or anything that takes the drivers eyes off the road is a distraction. Anything that makes for more distracted drivers in my opinion should be banned.
However I am also a Libertarian, and I agree that the government should not be getting into these nitpicky arguments, and should be left to the people and free market to decide. I personally will never pay for the option of having an in dash navigation in a car. Nor will I purchase an external GPS. I pull off to the side of the road, and use my street atlas and figure how to get anywhere. Why is this the case? Simple, I don't want to be distracted from driving.
At the end of the day, because California is so socialist, and anyone who chooses to live there wants to live in the Nanny state, then let them live in their own spoils. I just keep being being reminded of the quote, "You cannot legislate stupidity, as there will always be a more stupid idiot created tomorrow."
Re:Bad Ruling (Score:4, Interesting)
A better question is.... if people who get in accidents while using cell phones don't get in less without them... (http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/08/why-cell-phone-bans-dont-work.html )
Its not that drivers using cell phones drive badly.... its self selection.... bad drivers use cell phones more (and still drive terribly without them)
Why are we going after fiddly individual behaviors like using a phone or texting etc?
Re:Bullshit! (Score:5, Interesting)
People who use a handheld computer while driving should have their license suspended, and the circumstances should be used to determine the amount of time they spend in jail... no exceptions should be allowed, in my not-so-humble and somewhat emotionally outraged opinion.
Oh, please. Let's send everyone with screaming kids in their cars to jail too.
Life is not perfectly safe. There are all sorts of things people do that reduce that safety. Get over it.
Re:The law does seem to be out of date, yes... (Score:4, Interesting)
If we should ban looking at a map, maybe we need to ban street signs also, since reading those distracts you from driving.
Actually, while I suspect you were being facetious, there is a real point there. Excessive street furniture and signage is now well known to increase the risk of accidents. As a result, highway planning authorities in various countries have been increasingly interested in this issue in recent years, and we're starting to see official guidelines explicitly consider the problem of street clutter and advocate reducing signage and prioritising essential information only.
However, the situations of using an electronic map vs. reading a road sign are not directly comparable. Most road signs give information that you act on immediately. By their nature, road signs also don't tend to take your eyes completely off the road ahead, and certainly not for several seconds.
Re:Lies, damn lies and statistics (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been rear ended three times by people on cell phones. I actually saw all three in my rear view (I was stopped), before they hit me. Want to guess what EVERY SINGLE ONE failed to mention in the police report?
Re:Lies, damn lies and statistics (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not particularly surprised and after being rear ended myself, I now drive much differently and pay a lot more attention to what's going on behind me. Several times since that accident, I've avoided having others because I changed the way I drive. In particular, I take a LOT longer to slow down than I used to. If you stop on our freeways when the cars in front of you stop, there is a good chance the person behind you won't. The trick is to slow down for a while before you have to stop so that they have time to look up and start paying attention again while your brake lights are on. Maybe you're already doing that, but a lot of people assume that having accidents that aren't their fault also means they don't need to change their behavior. (Sometimes there is nothing you can do to avoid it, and I totally get that, but ... three times?)
Besides, I can't tell if you're just sharing your story or actually trying to disagree with something. The number of crashes? That doesn't have anything to do with what people report. Maybe the number of deaths? That doesn't have anything to do with what people report. The only thing left is the Erie study, but I get the feeling you didn't read it. I suspect you didn't even read the simple article about it that I linked to. You can just say "I don't care, the facts don't support my fantasy" or maybe you can specifically explain what about the study is wrong.