California Bans Front-Seat Computer Use

An anonymous reader submits "As of January 1, 2004 the State of California has banned the use of notebook computers used anywhere in the front seat (PDF) of a moving vehicle. Previously, the ban applied just to TV sets. Even if your car-pooling front seat passenger is just doing some programming, you can be charged with a crime (AB 301). Thanks go to CA Assemblymember Sarah Reyes for this well meaning but overly broad piece of legislation." The text is mercifully short, but still contains some tricky language; probably the meaning of "installed" at the very least needs to be clarified. Would a laptop affixed to a installed bracket count? Considering the complexity of modern automotive navigation/control systems (now sneaking into budget vehicles, too), it seems like a very fine distinction. The law would seem to ban handheld computers being used as navigation aids, too, or GPS devices with games, and very soon, nearly all cell phones.

Re:Police

[z-kungfu]

RTFA. It is allowed in authorized emergency vehicles.

A good thing, right?

[ksheka]

This is a good thing, right? I mean, if someone's using a computer in the front seat, chances are the driver's more likely to be distracted by it than if no one were using such a device. In addition, the banning of cell phones by the driver is probably a good thing. Yes, even those ones installed in cars. Haven't you noticed that you're less focused on a hands-free cell phone compared to when your not using one?

While the law is a little broad (no cell phones by the passenger seat occupant), given the hair-splitting going on in courts, it's probably better for the law to be a little broad.

Nav systems are OK

[G4from128k]

The second page of the PDF [itsa.org] clearly exempts navigation systems from the ban (it also exempts veiw-enhancing monitors like rear-veiw TVs). What it does not exempt are those ever-enlarging screens for audio systems.

If you're driving

[Tim C]

Then you shouldn't be doing anything that takes your attention away from the road - watching TV, consulting a map/navigation computer, changing the channel on the radio, using a phone, anything.

That said, the linked text specifically exempts global positioning, mapping, vehicle information and vision enhancement displays. I would imagine that GPS units that include games would be covered, as long as you're not playing the game. Let's try to exercise some common sense, shall we?

Text of the law

[john82]

For those who might not make it to the link...

Existing law prohibits any person from driving a motor vehicle that is equipped with a television receiver, screen, or other means of visually receiving a television broadcast, if the device is located in the motor vehicle at any point forward of the back of the driver's seat, or is visible to the driver while operating the motor vehicle. This prohibition does not apply to a mobile digital terminal installed in a law enforcement vehicle.

This bill would recast this prohibition and, additionally, would prohibit any person from driving a motor vehicle if a video monitor, or
a video screen, or any other, similar means of visually displaying a video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at any point forward of the back of the driver's seat, or is operating and visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle. This prohibition would not apply to specified equipment or to a motor vehicle providing emergency road service or roadside assistance. Because a violation of this prohibition would be a crime, the bill would establish a state-mandated local program.

So to answer some of the existing questions, law enforcement vehicles do not apply. However, if your co-working is wardriving while in the passenger seat, that's a vi-o-lation.

This just means we need to do some app redesign.

[iainl]

Many people (myself included) have raised a point about wanting the front passenger to run mapquest/autoroute/whatever. Well, here is the exemption info from the bill:

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when
installed in a vehicle:
(1) A vehicle information display.
(2) A global positioning display.
(3) A mapping display.
(4) A visual display used to enhance or supplement the driver's view
forward, behind, or to the sides of a motor vehicle for the purpose of
maneuvering the vehicle.
(5) A television receiver, video monitor, television or video screen,
or any other, similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast
or video signal, if that equipment has an interlock device that, when the
motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a
visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive.

So, as I see it, what we really need then is some sort of Knoppix-alike that boots straight into the map application of your choice. Either that, or your navigator is going to have to sit in the back.

Dispatch Laptops in Service Vehicles??

[Anonymous Coward]

I happen to work for a major power company in the Southeast US. We have pretty much all our fleet trucks that make service calls outfitted with a laptop and southernlinc radio (like nextel) for recieving orders and service calls from dispatchers ... It's a full featured laptop that's mounted in the vehicle... I have to wonder if companies in California have anything like this. I'm sure they do somewhere ... It's not clear to me if the law would make this type of use illegal or not.

Re:Many times

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

In Britain you are not allowed to be controlling a vehicle while using your hand with a phone. I don't know what the law is wrt computers. This seems a lot more sensible and workable than banning cell phones/computers from the front seat(s); as long as your hands and eyes are free to drive, you can pretty much do what you want.

Re:Police

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it is a problem. I work in the gas utility business. 99.99% of my work is non-emergency; you'd read about the few emergencies in the newspaper. We use laptops and gps to see maps of the mains and services, find previously located gas leaks, and find our way in neighborhoods we're unfamiliar with.

Looks to me like Kalifornia needs to modify their new law just a little. Did anyone see an exception for delivery vehicles? What about insurance adjusters? Realtors? Lame-ass law if you ask me.

Re:Proactively punishing negligence

[anthony_dipierro]

I too agree that it is overly broad: a passenger navigating should be able to use GPSdrive (more effecient and really no different than using a map), and anyone should be able to use a cell phone provided they are using a handsfree set with voice-tagged numbers.

The real issue is that the law hasn't looked at the technology close enough, or drawn the line finely enough, between legitimate, enabling technology (e.g. getting directions on a handsfree phone while driving, or having a navigating passenger use a computer to avoid getting lost) and stupid, moronic, negligent use of technology (browsing the web while driving, watching tv whilee driving, manually tuning the radio while driving, fiddling with one's cell phone while driving, or driving one handed while holding the cell phone up to one's ear).

Or maybe you just haven't looked at the law closely enough (if at all). GPS and mapping applications are explicitly exempted.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[GoofyBoy]

>It has nothing to do with driving being a complex or a simple thing. Some people have the ability to context-switch quickly.

Travelling at 55 miles per hour, in one second you have travelled 80 feet.

Even with perfect context-switching, thats a large enough distance for lots to happen.

Actually, that's not what it says....

[iamhassi]

"The law would seem to ban handheld computers being used as navigation aids, too, or GPS devices with games, and very soon, nearly all cell phones. "

Not exactly. At the end it says: "does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle:
1. A vehicle information display
2. A global positioning display
3. A mapping display
4. A visual display used to enhance or supplement the driver's view forward, behind, or to the sides of the motor vehicle for the purpose of maneuvering the vehicle.
5. A television receiver, video monitor, television or video screen, or any other, similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal, if that equipment has an interlock device that, when the motor vehicle is driven, disables the equpiment for all uses except as a visual displaay as described in paragraphs 1 to 4 (above), inclusive

So to me it sounds like it only applies to playing games or watching TV while the vehicle is moving. If you have your laptop and it's displaying a GPS map you're fine.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[DaveOke]

How many of you people actually read the PDF file? The ignorance posted on the front page is skewed of to what is the law.

It clearly states if the screen is used for
1) vechile info display
2) a GPS display
3) a MAPPING DISPLAY
4) display used to enhance driving
5) any display (television, monitor, computer) that is when the vechile is in motion, the display can be only used for the purposes of 1-4.

Maybe some people should read everything before basing their judgement on ignorant (get-your-attention) slashdot articles.

Re:Many times

[gvc]

It is intuitively appealing to believe that the problem with mobile phones is the use of your hands. It isn't. A number of studies have shown that there is no difference in accident rates between users of hand-held and hands-free phones.

Here's one reference [accidentre...uction.com]

A second point is that the risk of using a cell phone, perhaps a factor of 4, is less than other risks we consider acceptable, like driving at night, or driving in bad weather, or driving unecessary distances.

For that matter, it may be that pulling over to use a phone is more risky than using it while driving. First, there is the risk of the act itself and of parking at the side of the road. Second, the same studies noted above show that risk persists for 10-15 minutes after the phone conversation is terminated. So the driver pulling back into traffic or otherwise manoevering in an unfamiliar situation may be at extreme risk.

Re:Many times

[homer_ca]

"Yet on multilane freeways I frequently observe cars crawling along, well under the speed limit"

That's a different problem. The laws for slower traffic keep right are rarely enforced. Most drivers generally follow that rule, but all it takes is one slow driver in the left lane on a crowded freeway to back up traffic for a 1/4 mile behind him. Some of them are just oblivious to their surroundings, but some actually do it deliberately as their way of enforcing the speed limit. Never mind that in most states, the slower traffic keep right laws apply whether you're exceeding the speed limit or not.

Re:Many times

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

Interesting. I've long thought "pulling over" might be more dangerous than continuing. This stdy, however, examines responses to road signs, not ability to respond to crisis situations. Though I can see that failure in the former may lead to the latter. The problem with banning all mobile phone conversations is that it is unenforceable (link below), and not sufficiently different to normal conversation, at least in the popular mind, to be accepted as fair.

A friend of mine worked for a British governmental institution that examined road safety. They found that mild cannabis improved the safety of drivers (less fast driving, more awareness etc).

Relevant articles: BBC1 [bbc.co.uk] BBC2 [bbc.co.uk]

Re:it's about time some one did this

[alexq]

That is countless times better than looking in no directions at all, especially given that fact that you CANNOT properly steer the car while not looking out through the windshield. Do not even argue this fact. You CANNOT. You have NO point of reference for determining where your vehicle is on the roadway or how fast it's traveling, much less where it is in relation to moving objects around you. If you try to argue against this point, you are arguing against some of the very principle laws of physics determining human understanding of position and speed in an environment with no reference points.

When changing lanes, one is required to look over the shoulder and check to see if there are any cars in the blindspot. This can take half a second or more. During that time, the eye is not on the road, and indeed the untrained driver will swerve because they don't know how to drive on a road while glancing away momentarily. A trained driver will _not_ swerve, they will stay more or less on the road. Likewise glancing at a map, a fuel gauge, a rear-view mirror, a clock, a radio tuner, a cd player, any of the things that one does while in a car. I agree that for any extended period the likelihood that you are properly on the road decreases with time, I think that any reasonably good driver can glance away for a few seconds - indeed, HAS TO glance away for a few seconds occasionally - and still be in their lane, even if it's curved somewhat (although that's tougher).

What's really the issue for driving safety isn't the lack of looking at the road (although if your eyes aren't on the road for more than, say, two seconds, then you may not see something that's happened in front of you and may end up in a lot of trouble). The real issue is lack of attention span. To drive safely you should really be aware of what's going on - looking in front, side, back, etc, with regularity. If your mind is on reading the news, discussing stocks on a cell phone (forgive the stereotype), or anything like that, then you may not be fully attentive and may not notice the car slowing down in front of you. I think this is MUCH more of an issue.

and, just for the heck of it, i'm going to point out that there aren't principal laws of physics determining human understanding of position and speed in an environment with no reference points. at least not in any meaningfully precise definition of 'physics'.

and also that just because some people say they can handle something and cannot does not mean that nobody cannot handle it.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Avihson]

You obviously have never flown a helecopter. It requires constant attention, there is no cruise control, it is not like the games you play on your PC. I take it you never watched TV and noticed that the Apaches and the Blackhawks fly in close formation, and if you are daydreaming, you don't have a fender-bender, you fall out of the sky and die! There is no pulling over onto a cloud and getting a spare rotor out of the trunk.

When it is a helmet mounted HUD, he has a screen in front of his eye, he can not look away, but has to concentrate and look through the screen image.

It is funny how fast the surface to air missles (SAMS) can change lanes in front of you! Parallel parking those Apaches are a bitch also. I spent 2 years of my career in the 101st Airborne and witnessed some spectacular incidents at the FARP (forward arming and refueling point) in daylight. They didn't permit nonessential people around the FARP at night or during inclement weather

It is true that the helecopter and fighter pilots are a breed apart. They are not your average slashdot reader, and far from your average countryman. Their testing and training is designed to weed out the average, the above average, and select only those who are above the best.

I met the mental and physical requirements, and was selected for Rotary Wing Flight Training at Ft Rucker Alabama. I just didn't have what it took to fly those contraptions with the finesse and grace required to share the sky with other 'copters, so I was washed out. I could fly if I was the only one on the field, but was a liability in formations.

We had exercises to train our minds to focus on changes at the periphery of our vision, so I guess you are accurate when you said:
you can see what other cars are doing with your mind focus

I became an aerial surviellance specialist instead, and rode around taking photos, and collecting radar imagery in fixed wing aircraft.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[boarder]

RTFA, it states clearly that the info display devices for law enforcement and emergency assist vehicles are legal and allowed.

Re:Let the bill's author know what you think

[0WaitState]

Sigh. The email address on her contact page bounces. Looking around at other assembly-persons' pages, the correct format for the email address appears to be:

[e-mail]

Re:Many times

[homer_ca]

Wrong. In most situations, "slower traffic keep right" isn't a law but a social custom

No it's the law [mit.edu]. The wording varies, but in most states drivers must keep right if they are going slower than the normal flow of traffic regardless of the speed limits. Only two states, Missouri and Arkansas, refer to obstructing traffic, and only Missouri's law is not specific about driving slowly in the left lane.