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.

it's about time some one did this

[unclefungus]

I almost wrecked into a guy with an LCD screen mounted in his passenger seat. some things are not meant to do while driving. If you "think" you can do it while you drive, then you should pull the car over.

good,bad and the ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

In one respect I'd sad that such a law has to be passed... What kind of idiot would use his laptop while driving? but then what kind of idiot reads a bok while driving, watches TV while driving, puts on MAKEUP WHILE DRIVING????

we all must remember.... over 50% of the population has an IQ below 100. so I guess such laws need to protect the rest of us from the complete morons that are just a inch away from being drooling idiots. now we have to deal with the retards that drive BMW's 3 inches form the rear bumber. why is it that the more you spend on your car the smaller your brain get's behind the wheel?

heh.

[pb]

Although some of this does sound overbroad, at least having less drivers using cellphones (especially while driving) is not necessarily such a bad thing, IMO.

Actually, they should just enact a law that states that while driving a car, your attention should be focused on (duh!) *driving the car*, and if you weren't, and you get in an accident, then you should be held responsible for your negligence.

Re:Laptops while driving

[Darth23]

I've seen people reading the newspaper while driving. The idea of having someone driving while working on a laptop is MUCH more frightening that the ida of someone driving while a passenger dows the same thing. Plus, everyone knows that when someone in on the computer is dead tot he outside world. Ever try to talk to someone who's surfing the web? Passengers with laptops would probably be LESS distracting to drivers than passengers WITHOUT laptops.

So what?

[cnelzie]

Really, what's the huge deal? The driver's job is to keep the vehicle on the road and going from point A to point B as safely as possible.

I have seen some real morons driving around the state I live in, fiddling with their cell phone, playing with the radio and many other things. I have also witnessed a number of accidents because some nut was to busy doing everything else instead of driving their car.

I say kudos to legislation that will force drivers to drive, instead of fiddling with all of their electronic gadgets. I am also a little guilty of that myself, I have a cell phone and I really should be using one of those hands free devices and I do intend on getting one.

Re:heh.

[garcia]

pretty difficult to prove that you were not paying attention... First thing most people do after an accident is get on their cell phone to their insurance companies or to 911.

Re:Police

[Anonymous Coward]

We should have a "-1, RTFA" moderation option :-)

Big Deal

[filtersweep]

Cell phone use while driving has been banned in many european countries for years. People actually respect the law and no one complains.

I have no issue at all with any distracted driver laws. And yes, a GPS system can be a hazard while driving.

I think it is a bizarre US issue that driving is somehow a god-given right... it is legal to drive a five times the legal intoxication limit of many european countries, while shaving, watching TV, reading a book, fiddling with the GPS, talking on the phone, etc... meanwhile we have a realitively high road mortality rate?

It seems many people regard any laws aimed at safety to somehow be inconvenient (even seatbelts). We do not even have mandatory vehicle safety inspections (closest thing are emissions tests).

Safety is a low priority in the US.

Resist change!

Keep the government out of our vehicles!

(sorry the sarcasm font did not properly display in your browser)

remove vanity mirrors

[diablobynight]

lets make all cars remove vanity mirrors too then they are distracting for women putting on their make up in the morning. And make women where less revealing clothes so I don't get distracted looking at them. And remove all billboards, they distract me. Hey listen, I pay taxes, I pay for insurance, and I have never been in an accident. So don't be my mother and tell me a bunch of little small things I can't do, because something might happen if I do them. Lets have a little self government. Lets not make a thousand oppressive laws that just replace laws already in place. Like the laws that say you can't hit other vehicles on the road, those laws cover this inherently because if I am not paying attention and hit someone, I get in trouble. Simple as that, no more specific law needed.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[GoofyBoy]

>Some of us have the ability to do two things at once,

I really hate people who think this way. "I am above average and don't need to be treated like the rest of you." Just like people who still drink and drive.

>considering the fact that driving is a rather simple mental process

At best you can say that this is the case most of the time. Its that rare time which its a pretty complex thing which could have serious consequences. Thats the part you don't want to get into.

When traveling...

[dcordeiro]

it should be forbidden to do ANYTHING else but drive. And it also applies to other car passengers.

God damit!! It's not a fucking game, it's your life you're betting.

I had a terrible car accident last year because a moron driving at 200km/h crashed into my car after (without knowing) changing lanes in the highway because HE WAS TRYING TO FIND A PARTICULAR CD to play (looking at the back seat).

You should drive, not listen to music, check your appointments, answer a call, watch TV or even check the map. If you want to do any of this thinks: STOP THE CAR FIRST.

Re:Big Deal

[CmdrGravy]

I think people just resent being told what to do because everyone almost automatically considers themselves to be "probably the safest driver on the road" so when they are eating their breakfast, grooming their dog, practicing their golf swings etc whilst driving they are sure that they are "doing it responsibly and safely"

The problem is of course that in reality they are no where near as perfect as they like to think they are and even if they are perfect 99.9% of the time they spend driving it's the 0.1% when they aren't concentrating that they end up crashing.

That's why laws like this one are so important, it's a way of impressing on people the actual definition of responsible driving as opposed to their perceived definition of responsible driving e.g. "it's me doing playing quake on my laptop and I sure don't want to kill anyone on the road so I must be playing quake responsibly".

The fact is that cars and driving are a part of almost everyones daily routine and it's also a fact that it's very easy to kill a lot of people through a lapse of concentration in a car so any law which helps promote the idea that when driving a car you should be concentrating properly on the job in hand is a good thing in my opinion.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[akedia]

I sure hope you never drive around where I live, lest you get distracted while you are reading and driving and crash into me. Can you say 'lawsuit'?

Driving is NOT a simple mental process. If it was, don't you think we would have built a robotic system based on a series of simple algorithms to do the driving for us? (Yes I know the military has a few prototypes but that's not my point.) Driving is the process of several visual, audible, and physical processes. You have to be able to see down the road and around your car, you need to hear other drivers' warning and emergency vehicles, and you need to be able to properly physically operate all the controls of your car. In addition, there are many other variables to account for. Weather conditions, traffic conditions, other drivers, animals, children, police and other emergency vehicles, and there are NUMEROUS others. By reading your book, or yapping on your phone, or poking at your laptop, you are taking mental ability AWAY, for whatever duration and capacity, from a particular task for driving. Operating a vehicle SAFELY requires most, if not all of your attention span, and skills that are only acquired with years of experience.

By the way, does anyone here live in the DC Metro area? I moved here from the Philadelphia area a few months ago and the FUCKERS AROUND HERE CANNOT DRIVE! Good Lord, people, get off your phones while you're driving your minivans full of nine kids! Only in northern Virginia do I have to watch the traffic IN FRONT OF ME while I do a high-speed merge onto the Beltway! JESUS, people, find a hole and stick yourself in it! OK I'm done.

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[Malachi]

I just wish we had more license levels. Those who can use devices, those who can speed, those who can't do anything but putter, and have special plates that show it (you know like the proposed RED plate for DUI ppl)

I drive to my capacity which is determined by both physical and enviornmental circumstances. I am not unsafe, I just use those variables to my opportunity and advantage. I'm tired of blanket rules for all the buffoons of the world.. If you're a buffoon, fail a test, get a buffoon sticker and stop fudging with those of us who are able.

When driving began they said that if you went over 35mph you'd go insane.. well that clearly didn't happen.

-M-

I'll make a deal with you

[droleary]

I'll allow you these laws that limit my freedom (however justifiably) if you relax other laws that limit my freedom. To wit, for every communication device that I don't carry in my vehicle, let me go 5mph faster, since I would clearly be less distracted and therefore more able to drive at higher speeds (slower traffic move right, damn it! :-). Given that I have a motorcycle with no possible distraction from radios, cell phones, TVs, computers, massage seats, kids, or anything else to take my attention from the road, I would finally be able to open this baby up! As it stands, I'm expected to putter through traffic at the same speed as a soccer mom on her cell phone with 4 screaming kids in the back watching TV. TANJ!

Re:So what?

[EasyTarget]

String them up I say.. I got sideswiped off my bike last week in Amsterdam by some total dork watching hardcore rap video's in his little toy BMW, via a front mount DVD player. THere are a lot of total twats doing that in this town.
Mostly my pride injured but I was not amused.

Watching anything other than the road is just an idiotic thing to do. Full stop. End of discusion. If you think you can drive and also focus on a VDU then you're an arrogant twat who puts your own pleasure before the safety of others.

What about the police?

[ruiner13]

I assume law enforcement is exempt from this? Have you seen lately all the computer equipment in the front seat of a police car, aimed directly at the officer driving? Doesn't seem fair that they are allowed to use that stuff and the average joe isn't. Most of the time around here, I see the police driving far worse than anyone else on the road.

I think this is a problem.

[djupedal]

Laws like this should be encouraged.

ouch...

Next it will be the way you hold the steering wheel or the shoes you wear while driving. You'll be forced to buy state mandated fire proof clothes and install halon systems just to leave your driveway.

When your car has a cage to keep you from interacting with your passengers, you'll be free to wonder what happened to your rights as a human. Think I'm kidding? Watch this law die soon.

Re:Big Deal

[ClioCJS]

What you established europeans don't realize is that in america, there is not really public transportation. If you cannot drive, in many places, it means you cannot work or put food on your table. In the few places where there are public transportation, it is expensive. Plus, who wants to ride with all the poor people?

Re:making a law that is already a law

[grahamtriggs]

Obviously because you want to stop accidents from occurring, rather than just punish people after the event.

It makes sense that drivers are banned from doing things that affect their ability to drive the car. But does that really need all these explicit laws about phones, laptops, etc.? There is a concept of 'dangerous driving' / 'driving without due care and attention'. Surely that by definition covers using phones, etc. I guess that the law is really only passed to bring attention to the fact that you can't do it, whereas previously it may have been considered that you could - that and to clarify the penalties imposed.

But the blanket 'front seat' ban is bizarre. How is a front seat passenger using a laptop causing more of a distraction than - say - having a conversation with the driver?

The legal principle has always been. . .

[kfg]

that no TV or such like device be visible to the driver. They can be there, but they have to be angled in such a manner that only the passenger can see them.

In other words, when driving a car your eyes belong on the road.

If you are driving alone and need to consult a gps unit for directions there is a simple first step to follow:

Park the frickin' car.

Honestly, it won't kill you, but not doing so just might. . .

as well as some other poor schmuck whose only transgression was to be anywhere near you.

KFG

Re:Text of the law

[CmdrGravy]

"Why on earth to legislators think you need a new law to deal with every permutation of idiocy. Just enforce the !#$#% laws on the books for the new situation."

Because laws like this one make it easier to enforce laws like dangerous driving laws, if you have already classified using a computer on the front seat as driving dangerously then it's very easy to enforce the law.

Secondly when new methods of driving dangerously are invented e.g. cell phones, laptop computers it's a good idea to update legislation to recognise these new developments.

I really can see anything bad about this law at all, no privacy issues, no pandering to corporations, no dilution of rights etc.

How is it more of a distraction?

[cnelzie]

Have you ever noticed that your eyes can be drawn to a screen, particularly one that has moving images on it? A large portion of the populace has this 'issue', a driver that is having a conversation is more likely to be keeping his/her eyes on the road then a driver that has a screen of moving images close by in the periphery of their vision.

Personally, I have some trouble with going to places that have televisions on in the background, my eyes are constantly drawn to them, even taking me out of conversations, it's not something I enjoy and is one of the reasons that I rarely watch television at home, I like to focus on the things that are in front of me and it is difficult to do that with the distraction of television.

I can see it being just as distracting to have a passenger with a laptop or other moving image device directly in my peripheral vision. Now, if there is some kind of 'curtain' that keeps the device from my view, that's okay with me. However, who wants to really risk damaging their delicate electronic device by having it fly off your lap when the driver slams on the breaks?

Re:good,bad and the ugly

[Anonymous Coward]

The IQ curve is not symmetric. As a result the average person's IQ is over 100.

Example: consider 5 people, where one is a complete moron with an IQ of 60. The other people would have IQs of 110 for the average to be 100, yet 80% of the sample size have IQs over 100.

The assymetry happens because IQ can get almost arbitrarily low due to things like brain damage, which extremely high IQ is rare.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Zathrus]

Or are you implying that your drive to work requires more mental capacity than my buddy piloting an apache. Where he has a whole eye devoted to a computer screen.

Yeah, and he can stare THROUGH that computer screen and focus both eyes on the terrain in front of him. Better yet, he has one eye on the terrain the entire time.

When you're looking at your laptop, exactly how many eyes do you have on the road?

I don't care that you can multitask. Whoop de do. You cannot, physically, look in two different directions at once. You are not a gecko. And you're driving a multi-thousand pound vehicle that's moving at some velocity (if you're stopped then I really don't give a crap what you're doing, as long as it's not impedeing traffic). It's a bloody weapon when used improperly.

Look, if all you're doing is using mapquest to guide you then that's probably not a huge deal. Odds are you're not staring at the screen for any longer then you'd stare at printed directions. You are not the problem. The problem is all the utter dipshits out there that think that reading the news, some blog, watching a movie, or playing a game while driving is acceptable. It isn't.

Re:Police

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it can be considered an interesting post. I think he meant, "Why is it safe for emergency vehicles and not for the rest of us?"... technologies only allowed by the government is kinda scary... He raises a valid point, even if he didn't RTFA

The average (and I know some people do actually go far beyond this) driver has had several hours of very basic on-road training. This hopefully can allow them to handle basic crisis situations, but it's certainly not perfect.

Emergency Service types (police, ambulance, fire department, etc.) get a lot of additional training, but are held to much stricter standards.

I have a friend who is a policeman, and he's had training in a lot of precision high-speed maneuvering, dealing with very bad road conditions and similar. I got him to go to an autocross event and run, and he did pretty well, because he had a lot of background experience. This training, I believe, does include practice in multi-tasking between driving and radio work, for example.

However, the bad side is that if he wrecks his squad car, there better be a good explanation for it, or he's screwed. He could lsoe his job if it's for something stupid that might not be a concern for us 'regular' drivers. If his car has to be replaced, that's taxpayer money.

Now, as far as I know, the in-car laptops aren't used while driving, at least locally. They are in a position to be used from the driver's seat, but that doesn't mean it's at all procedure for the local cops to run tags while driving 70 mph.

Different standards.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

books should be outlawed too if laptops are

Yes, in fact, they should. Do you honestly believe it should be legal to read a book while driving?

I agree with many of the other posters who stated that the laws should specify that anyone driving a vehicle should maintain the focus of his or her attention on the road-- yes, this means that the driver should not be allowed to have access to books, laptops, newspapers, DVD players, makeup kits, cellular telephone screens, CD changers or anything else that could potentially distract him or her.

Note that many of these information tools have handsfree options:

-as a replacement for books, there are books on tape
-nearly all cellular phones have handsfree kits
-CD changers allow you to preload 1, 2, 3, however many CDs you want for the trip (yes, I have a friend who actually does change out CDs from his backseat 6-CD changer while driving, which is pretty dumb)
-newspapers have the web version you can read at work on your desktop or PDA, or the paper version you can get delivered before you leave the house
-laptops have passengers who can look up your directions or read your e-mail for you (the one part of this law which seems stupid to me is its failure to allow for this)

The problem, as I see it, is that the no-fault accident insurance laws (where the driver who is at fault pays for the accident) aren't sufficient enough disincentive for people to stop driving with these dangerous behaviors. People are stubborn and and will continue to do stupid things, much like people refused to wear seatbelts for a long time until they became mandatory in all vehicles and most states enacted laws requiring their use (and a massive PR campaign finally took root). Laws prohibiting this kind of behavior will provide the kind of incentive people need to stop these dangerous behaviors and make the road safer for everybody.

"well meaning but overly broad"? I think not

[fw3]

I have an acquaintance at whom (or whose behavior) this is directly aimed; who routinely drives a 3 ton pickup truck, often with his laptop affixed to a installed bracket playing DVDs. Dumb.

Thankyou, because I expect there are a lot of people doing this crap I'm perfectly glad if the law wants to also restrict the front-seat passenger also watching DVDs which would likely distract the vehicle operator.

Toys are toys, if you want to play with your car rather than drive it then buy a big enough piece of land that you can get in a wreck without killing anyone else.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Elvisisdead]

As someone who used to do psychological testing on this very subject, I can say to you that driving is not a simple mental process. We conducted experiments using driving simulators to discover the information threshold at which point drivers begin to become overwhelmed. It's been about 7 years since I worked on that project, but I seem to recall that the presence of 3-4 other vehiles produced a marked degredation in performance. The research was done for the USAF. Sorry I can't provide a reference.

Re:Big Deal

[_UnderTow_]

Safety laws are fine when they're meant to protect people on the road from other people. Examples of this are: drunk driving laws, vehicle safetly inspections, not using a computer while driving. But laws like this, that say a computer can't even be used by a passenger are overly broad.

I recenly moved from california back to New Hampshire, where I grew up. New Hampshire has no mandatory seat belt laws, or mandatory helmet laws (except for children), but they do have yeary vehicle inspections. I wear my seatbelt when I am in a car, but I like that I'm not forced to. I can unhitch my seatbelt to get my wallet out of my pocket without having to worry about some over-zealous police man giving me a ticket.

Do you feel safer because the government has told you to wear your seatbelt? Are you too stupid to wear it on your own?

I completely agree with you on the driving while intoxicated stuff. I don't think we're hard enough. I think vehicles shoule be siezed and auctioned off for DUI offenses.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[bwalling]

Some of us have the ability to do two things at once, considering the fact that driving is a rather simple mental process, books should be outlawed too if laptops are, I see lots of people reading books on the road, and it takes more concentration for me to read in my car than glance over at mapquest on laptop.

The reason that certain distractions are being outlawed is that they avert your eyes from the road. It's not about mental complexity, it's about constant monitoring. When you are using a laptop or television, your eyes are not on the road. When the car in front of you hits his brakes or the car next to you cuts you off or the car on the side road pulls out in front of you or the deer runs in front of you or the cargo falls off the truck in front of you or the car in front of you blows out a tire, you need to be watching the road instead of looking at porn.

Maybe you're only 16 and haven't been driving long or maybe you live in an area with no other cars, but you need to recognize the fact that your driving environment can instantly and dramatically change. It doesn't take a smart person to avoid an accident, it takes someone who is paying attention. It's not myslef that I worry about while driving - it's all of the other people (and things - deer are pretty stupid).

Re:making a law that is already a law

[duffbeer703]

Because different judges/juries/lawyers/etc have different views regarding what is distracting and what isn't.

Some judges would pull your license for picking your nose while driving. Others share the idiocy of some of the posters here and would dismiss a reckless driving case against a driver reading the paper and playing with a laptop while driving.

Explicitly stating that using a phone or computer is distracting behavior makes enforcement possible and consistent.

Once upon a time, there was no standard speed limit. A policeman would arbitrarily decide that you were travelling too fast for conditions and ticket you. The obvious problems & abuses of that system led to the absurdly low, but consistent posted speed limits that we have today.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

It has nothing to do with driving being a complex or a simple thing. Some people have the ability to context-switch quickly. These people can immediately remove their divided attention from a distracting object and shift it entirely towards driving.

I always say people should be allowed to talk on a cellphone while driving -- they can just take the driving test while on a cellphone. If they score perfectly, they can do it. (Although this isn't very realistic anyway because these people only get into trouble during emotional conversations plus difficult driving, which overwhelms their presence of mind.)

But anyway you can't tell me there's no difference between people. No one should drive after drinking. That's a physical impairment and affects reaction time adversely. Some people really CAN drive while on a cell phone. If you can't, you should be responsible enough to refrain.

Re:I think this is a problem.

[CmdrGravy]

well yeah, if you just take any old law and then extend it randomly with the paronoid mutterings of your subconcious then it probably will end up being a bad thing.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[fitten]

Some people really CAN drive while on a cell phone. If you can't, you should be responsible enough to refrain.

This is exactly the point. Very few people will honestly admit to themselves that they can't - especially when they see other people doing it. This would be an honest admission that they are somehow inferior to others, which is a difficult thing for many people to do. The vast majority of people think that they can, even despite evidence to the contrary. I know plenty of people who think they are the best drivers on the road even though many of their friends are nervous about riding in a vehicle they are driving.

In the end, what you have is almost everyone driving and doing these things and being a hazard on the road. The only fair way to do this, to many folks, is to universally ban it. If you start making tests to allow some and not others, you will get lawsuits of descrimination, racial profiling, and all of those similar garbage things.

Not only that, but how would you enforce the law? Stop everyone and see if they are allowed? or simply not stop anyone for it unless there is another reason (speeding/wreck/suspicion of chemical influence/etc).

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Stugots]

The issue here is all wrong. Our society has taken to demonizing certain kinds of specific behavior, without thinking the general problem.

We shouldn't be demonizing laptop use (or even cell phone use) in the car. Instead, we should be legislating and talking about drivers who don't pay attention, or who are impaired. To wit, using your rear-view mirror to look at your two darling children in the back seat, or fiddling with your radio controls, or unwrapping and feasting on a Quarter Pounder while you drive is just as or more hazardous as using a laptop in the front seat. And I'll bet you these situations happen far more often.

There's a subtext to some of these demonization statutes to "get the yuppie". I can't believe there's an epidemic of drivers using laptops and getting into accidents.

Do we NEED another law for this???

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but isn't the real problem covered by a law regarding "driving without due care and attention"???

Or is the issue that that is a subjective law, too open for interpretation? It does seem to address the real problem though - which I see to be driving a vehicle and not paying attention.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Burnon]

It doesn't matter how quickly you can context switch if your eyes aren't on the road when something happens in front of you.

As long as a driver is using a handsfree kit and speech recognition or steering-wheel mounted controls, a cell phone's fine, but only under those conditions. If you can reduce the use of the cell phone to an activity like talking to someone in the passenger seat or back seat, with no other distractions, your in good shape. But as soon as hands start coming off the wheel, or eyes migrate to the LCD screen on the handset instead of the road, you (and everyone aroung you) has got a problem.

What about diagnostics?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have driven around with a passanger with laptop stuck into OBDII port or BRC LPG diagnostics port to see what happens with the car and adjust things accordingly. What about tuned cars with custom chips that allow some tweaking? So that is gonna be illegal, too?

As people said, what about giving directions to the driver based on mapping software in computer?

There are perfectly good uses for laptop in a car, and they don't cause more distraction or accident risk.

I'm happy I don't live in California.

--Coder

Re:it's about time some one did this

[the_mad_poster]

Your brilliant analytical mind sure has felled the opponents in this thread, hasn't it?

That was sarcasm, kid. You know, over on Sitepoint, where I no longer participate because it's full of morons like you, there was an idiot named "Darryl" who thought it was oooohhhhh so hilarious that he got a ticket for driving some 115 mph up the freeway in a Sunfire. His infallible "logic" for why this was perfectly acceptable behavior"?

I can handle it.

Well guess what, shithead, I don't think you can. And, until you can show me that you've passed some high-speed driving test that says "we have verified that this guy can drive as safely at 115 mph as everyone else can at 65", Darryl is nothing more than a total fucking moron.

Much like yourself.

First point: navigational equipment is an integrated part of flying a helicopter or airplane. It is meant to be there and it is meant to be viewed while flying. In addition, other systems are handling the small possibility of a midair collision. None of this exists in your mapquest-enabled vehicle which has, effectively, three navigational tools: the steering wheel, the brakes, and the accelerator. Your comparison was illogical, irrelevant, and the shelter of someone who knows they've been called bullshit on and can't keep up the fight, but doesn't want to admit they're wrong.

Second point: Looking in two different directions is not an issue, because the parent poster was pointing out that, while viewing mapquest, you are not looking in ANY direction that is relevant to driving the vehicle. When looking left, right, forward, or back, however, you are covering a path of travel. 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. Unless you're psychic, you simply cannot - it is IMPOSSIBLE. You may be able to steer it well enough to keep it in your lane and infer a very rough estimate of speed based on pressure on the gas pedal and current gear, but if you're already close to the double yellow, all it takes is minor drifting and you've gone head on with a van full of schoolchildren.

To put it quite bluntly: I don't care if you THINK you can drive and look at a computer screen at the same time. I'm not going to put my life or the lives of my loved ones in the hands of a marauding moron who THINKS they can do something. There are a lot of idiots like you out there who THINK they can drink five beers and drive home. They kill a lot of people. There are a lot of idiots out there like you who THINK they can talk on a cell and drive at the same time. Coincidentally, those idiots are typically all over the road.

You CANNOT effectively drive a vehicle by NOT looking at the road. It really is that simple, and if you can't get that through that thick chunk of bone you call a skull, then the only thing that's even simpler is YOU.

I bid you good day and will be praying that you drive into a telephone pole on the way home so you don't hurt any innocent people when the time comes that you cause an accident while trying to concentrate on something other than driving.

Turists

[sacrilicious]

While I abstain from offering an opinion on whether driving while computing is good or bad or something else, I take issue with the following:

Driving is NOT a simple mental process. If it was, don't you think we would have built a robotic system based on a series of simple algorithms to do the driving for us?

Whether a process has been implemented in software is not a good indicator of whether that process is effortless vs impossibly hard for humans. Humans recognize speech without even thinking about it, while computers still are in the dark ages when it comes to speech recognition. Computers render 80 fps full motion game video on the fly, while humans can barely scratch out a crude line drawing of something taking minutes for a single frame.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[enigma48]

I don't have the links anymore, but there is a good amount of research saying cellphone use is cellphone use, regardless of handsfree or other 'aids'.

When you use a cell phone in a car, you are distracted. As a previous poster said, at 55MPH, you are moving 80 feet per second.

A Ford Taurus is not a small car and comes in at 16 feet. You need at least another full second to brake.

How many people do you know give themselves 10 car lengths on a highway?

Cell phones are dangerous to use, period. Sadly, this hasn't stopped me from using a cell phone while driving but I minimize it and don't kid myself that handsfree = safe. Be careful.

Re:Many times

[ackthpt]

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.

Last January 1 (2003) A state law went into effect banning the talking on cell phones while driving. Consider that I can wait at a light and see every other driver crossing the intersection blathering away while one-handed-driving, I don't think this is going to be any more enforced.

In the USA you drive on the right hand side. Drivers going slow are to remain to the right lanes, leaving the left for passing. Yet on multilane freeways I frequently observe cars crawling along, well under the speed limit, while the driver gesticulates (why do people even do this while on cell phones?) and ignores all the traffic having to pass on the right because they can't be bothered with merging traffic while they concentrate on their phone call.

Just one day of the police rigidly enforcing the ban on cell phones while driving would be a good thing to get the message across, too bad they don't. I see patrol cars pass drivers chatting away. There's no enforcement

Re:it's about time some one did this

[HairyCanary]

That same research also indicates that in-car conversations with a passenger are just as distracting as cell phone conversations on speakerphone. Maybe we should ban passengers, too.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[BoomerSooner]

Lol, every police car I've seen has one for the driver. ABOVE THE LAW!!!! Of course if the law says it only is when the car is moving then that's different.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[evilad]

Oddly, I find it much easier to simply stop talking to a passenger when driving requires my full attention.

Perhaps it's because a passenger is more intimately acquainted with the fact that I am doing something a little more important than talking to them -- and has something invested in my safe driving.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[JawFunk]

Yeah, and he can stare THROUGH that computer screen and focus both eyes on the terrain in front of him. Better yet, he has one eye on the terrain the entire time.

Not only can he see the terrain all the time, but these pilots develop a form of tunnel vision attributed to oficers with extensive experience in shooting. While they see the dataa on the screen, they are concentrating on the field past the window, the real world. The brain learns to interpret movement on the screen in front of the eye like we woulda movement in our peripheral view, like second nature, but not as a distraction. If you are driving, staring ata laptop means you are not staringat the car in front of you.

Why prevent a passenger from navigating?

[dara]

I live in California, and I just recently purchased a GPS for use with my laptop. It worked very well while traveling over the holiday in San Diego. I had my father run the program and give me directions. I guess in the future if I want someone to navigate for me in the car, I have to have them sit in the backseat (luckily I have one, some don't).

In a funny way, my laptop is safer than my Thomas Guide (printed map) since it can be programmed to use a large font, center my location, and give voice direction (my program doesn't, but they are available). But it isn't illegal to have a Thomas Guide lying on your passenger seat when you get pulled over. Absurd.

Perhaps one of the overpriced in-dash GPS navigation system companies has been making some large donations. Time to write my representative - I had no idea this one was coming.

Dara

Re:it's about time some one did this

[jasonbw]

When they make laws like this, its based on the idea of lowest common denominators. Its how speed limits are *supposed* to be determined, an average vehicle in good repair can take a corner safely at a certain speed. Sure, a Porsche may be able to take the corner at twice the speed, not everybody has a Porsche, and not everyone can drive one correctly.
So, worst case scenario, you can't use a computer in your front seat while you're driving. you get a little less work done on a long trip.
Someone else in the same situation: a multicar accident with fatalities is prevented.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Cruciform]

Some people really CAN drive while on a cell phone. If you can't, you should be responsible enough to refrain.

But do they react as quickly to emergency situations? Until you can prove that you do, pull over and park to take that "important" call.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[pla]

I really hate people who think this way. "I am above average and don't need to be treated like the rest of you." Just like people who still drink and drive.

Why the hell did a sarcastic snipe from a PC-drone that believes we all have the exact same level of ability in everything get modded to 5:Insightful???

We all (at least in the US and most "Western" countries) have legal equality. But that doesn't make us literally equal... Some people have better reaction times than others; Some people multitask better than others; Some people just seem to have more CPU power in their head. Similarly, some people can run faster than others, or lift more weight, or jump higher. Some people have better eyesight than others, or better hearing, or sense of smell.

People differ in ability by a HUGE margin. Pretending otherwise wastes time.


Relating back to the actual topic, I do not consider myself a "good" driver. I have great reaction times, I multitask well, have passable eyesight, but just don't feel comfortable while driving. So I limit my distractions. Other people drive very very well. A friend of mine in highschool could make a car do anything he wanted - Twisty back roads at 60, no problem. Flat spin on ice, no problem (if he encountered such a situation, he deliberately caused it in the first place). People with exceptional skills in various areas exist, and we need to accept that.

That said, I do support legally restricting the number of distractions available in a car. I know, this sounds hypocritical, but I support laws like this (and more usefully, against cell phones) for one very simple reason - Not everyone will admit to themselves and others that they drive poorly (or only average) to start with. As someone else pointed out, most people believe they have a higher level of skill than they actually do. When out for a highway ride, watch the other drivers - You can spot the ones on a cell-phone from a mile away. They make long slow swerves from one line to another, sometimes drifting slightly out of their lane, then make a quick jerk on the wheel to correct their drift. Some people can talk and drive. Enough exist that can't to count as a threat to my safety. Screw that - If we need to ban major distractions from the car, fine.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Ralph Wiggam]

I'm not above average and I should be treated like everyone else. That being said, I'm still fully capable of driving properly while using my cell phone.

If I'm driving unsafely, give me a ticket. Please, If I'm swerving out of my lane, kick my ass for it. But if I'm driving a safe speed, a safe distance from the car in front of me, and staying in my lane, then why can't I talk on the phone, watch a DVD, and make a smoothie on a little blender?

The legal problem is that driving isn't a basic right. They can make any crazy ass law about driving. I dare anyone to live in Atlanta and say that they don't NEED to drive.

-B

Re:it's about time some one did this

[merlyn]

I'll give up my cell phone and laptop when you give up:

• Fast food eating
• Coffee mugs even in cup holders
• "baby on board"
• Putting on makeup
• Car pools
  • Etc etc. I'm tired of being singled out because I'm doing things that are useful during otherwise useless times.

  • Yes, I realize that these things are a distraction. But let's be sensible. Either ban them all, or let the results be the judge . That is, cite a person for "driving while distracted" when they get into the wreck. Not if they're just doing things that might not necessarily cause an accident.

Re:making a law that is already a law

[grahamtriggs]

"Funny, I thought law was to protect our freedoms. You suggest law should pre-emptively limit our actions? How odd."
"Punish crimes that actually occur not ones that might (or might not) potentially occur. If someone was intentionally distracting himself when he should have been fully absorbed in guiding a half-ton of speeding metal down a roadway and he hurts somebody, throw the freakin' book at him! Until them, leave him alone!"

I hope you find that of great comfort when you are lying in a hospital bed for months unable to move because someone thought the importance of their phone call and car journey were both higher than that of your health.

I have two problems with your comment. Firstly, it's the idea of 'justice'. We are supposed to have a system of 'justice'. If you can't put right the wrong after the event, then no amount of punishment can give 'justice'.

Secondly, you fall in to the same problem of many other drivers - "if I'm the only car in sight for miles" - do you really know what is around the next bend, over the next hill, approaching the next junction? And that is just dealing with cars. Of far more concern, what about the pedestrians that may be around, or other people's livelihood that you may have a devastating impact on (for example, if you crash into a farmer's field)? I am sick of drivers that think the only thing that matters are other vehicles on the road - I've lost count of the number of times I've nearly been run over by cars that have failed to indicate that they are about to turn when there are no other cars around.

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Rasta Prefect]

Why the hell did a sarcastic snipe from a PC-drone that believes we all have the exact same level of ability in everything get modded to 5:Insightful???

People differ in ability by a HUGE margin. Pretending otherwise wastes time.

Because it's a common sentiment, and largely a correct one? Yes, people differ hugely in ability, but that doesn't excuse them from the rules. The problem is that those who are least competent are also the least capable of judging their competency. So you get what I used to deal with every day on the way to work - people who think they're just great drivers, so they have no problem talking on their cell phone while piloting their SUV in bumper-to-bumper traffic at 70 mph. Or what I see every night here at college - people who think _they_ can drive safely when they're drunk, cause they're big tough men and they can handle their liquor. You don't get to arbitrarily exempt yourself from the rules because _you_ think you can handle it.

Re:making a law that is already a law

[virg_mattes]

> Funny, I thought law was to protect our freedoms. You suggest law should pre-emptively limit our actions? How odd.

Not odd. Some laws protect rights, and other laws abrogate them. But by definition, laws restrict actions. The only question is whose actions.

> No, I prefer not to live in a police/nanny state. Punish crimes that actually occur not ones that might (or might not) potentially occur.

There are too many situations where this doesn't work because the risks are too high, based on potential outcomes. Also, there are situations where the outcome of a failure in judgement might not be a crime, but still has repercussions that are unacceptable. Take for example prohibitions against personal ownership of high explosives. If it was legal for me to keep dynamite in my garage, and because I stored it wrong I blew my house off the foundations, the result wouldn't be a crime but could certainly have repercussions for others. By the same token, it's accepted that driving under the influence has unacceptable risks, and it's been deemed insufficient to charge people only with crimes based on what happens after they crash, because innocent people die too often. So, we charge people for the behavior, not just the consequences. There are those who think that operating these devices is too dangerous to let people do it and only punish when it causes grief, because the grief is too high to wait for it to happen.

> Also, why target computer use? Or TV viewing? Or whatever? Tuning the radio, applying makeup, talking on the phone, eating McDonald's...these are all distractions, as others have mentioned. I don't think we any of them should be banned outright. If I'm the only car in sight for miles, darn right I should be able to do any/all of these in my car, and I'll make that judgment, not the cop hiding in the median trying to make his ticket quota.

The problem is that statistics show that too many people are not capable of making this judgement call rationally. Yes, it's true that some of the people are spoiling it for the rest of you, but the numbers don't lie. If everyone did these things only when no other cars were in sight, then it wouldn't be such a big deal (it would still be dangerous, but less so to bystanders). The problem is that people still do it in traffic, so it stands to reason that if they won't stop themselves, someone has to do it for them.

> Freedom is like fire: a wonderful and powerful thing that can harm if used unwisely. But I don't think we should restrict freedom for everyone just because a few morons can't cope with it.

Good idea in theory, but as stated above some of those morons are doing things that involve external effects, so they need to be restricted to protect those innocent bystanders. You and I may not need a law that says to stop at red lights, but there are those who do.

Virg

Re:it's about time some one did this

[Anonymous Coward]

This argument is like saying that "well, some people who buy handguns won't use them to murder people. but some will! so we should ban all handguns"... except that using a cell phone is perhaps more useful than using a handgun to the average person.

Actualy that is a very poor analogy. It is more akin to. Some people who bring handguns on aircraft will use them for malicious uses so we should ban them on aircraft. Hmmm... well we do!

Re:it's about time some one did this

[2short]

"I'm not above average and I should be treated like everyone else. That being said, I'm still fully capable of driving properly while using my cell phone"

Statistical evidence indicates that the average person is not fully capable of driving properly while using a cell phone. But I'm sure the average person would, like you, assert that they are, much as the vast majority of people say they are above average drivers.

"They can make any crazy ass law about driving"

Going with the assumtion that alien invaders have not yet secretly taken over, WE can indeed make any crazy-ass law, or even any sane law, about driving.

"I dare anyone to live in Atlanta and say that they don't NEED to drive"

I'll take your word for it. I used to live in DC, and I certainly NEEDED to drive, even though driving near DC basically sucks. Then I realized I didn't NEED to live in DC. You need to drive because most American communities are designed on the assumption that everyone does drive, and will drive whenever they go anywhere. Hence suburban sprawl: Vast tracts of dense residential space with nowhere to work, shop or play for miles around. So people move there and then complain about the traffic. OK, I'll quit since I'm deep into rant mode now...

Re:Fuel Control Systems and engine monitoring

[the_mad_poster]

Gee, for one thing, you didn't say anything about watching your car's internals on a laptop, you said:

I see lots of people reading books on the road, and it takes more concentration for me to read in my car than glance over at mapquest on laptop.

So EXCUSE me if I took "glance over at mapquest on laptop" to mean you were glancing at mapquest on a laptop (barring the fact, of course, that if you're using mapquest you're getting directions and that means you need to break concentration on the road to either read the directions or analyze the map). I can't imagine where I got THAT idea from. We'll also ignore for a moment that that's like saying "I see lots of people lifting 400 lb. weights. It takes a lot more strength for me to lift a 400 lb. weight than it does to pick up a baseball". That is: it's totally irrelevant and, in context, doesn't even make a point of any kind. Besides, other people being incredibly stupid doesn't justify your behavior. Other people are out there raping, murdering, and stealing. Does that make it okay for me to beat a kid up and steal his lunch money?

And for another thing, WTF are you doing with your car that requires you to monitor it like that and why don't you have analog guages mounted? Assuming you're monitoring a turbo/super setup, I can't imagine how much crap you'd have to be monitoring to have no way of placing analog guages and if you're car is so tuned that you need the pinpoint accuracy (relatively speaking, mind you) of a digital setup, you need to get a life and stop driving a near race-tuned car on the street like you were, well, in a race.

If it's a NOS setup you're monitoring, you're still out of your mind because if you're firing off shots of nitrous ON THE STREET, you SERIOUSLY need to lose your license (and, almost certainly will if you get caught). Assuming you were watching the canisters for a leak, all you need is a warning signal, you don't need to actually monitor it yourself continuously.

Sorry, but I can't picture any situation where, under normal driving, you'd need to monitor the detailed internal workings of your engine with a laptop. Race? Yes. However, if you're racing on the streets, or you're driving a race-tuned car on the streets, you're really in trouble in this discussion as far as your credibility on safety matters goes.

What amazes me most about people like you is that my point is very simple:

1. Concentrating on something other than driving decreases driving skill by distracting you.
2. Distracting yourself endangers everyone around you.
3. Intentionally endangering other people is stupid and you shouldn't do it.

And you're STILL arguing with me! How self-centered can you possibly get when you'd argue against the fact that if you distract yourself while driving, you increase the risk of an accident? Not only that, you argue that it's okay for you to do this!

And, I swear to god... the next moron that says something like "looking over your shoulder is distracting".... LOOKING OVER YOUR SHOULDER IS A LEGITIMATE PART OF DRIVING, DUMBASSES! If you can invent something that eliminates this occasional need, you'd make a fucking fortune! Stop trying to use regular driving tactics as justification for doing dangerous things unnecessarily!

This law illustrates the PROBLEM with our Govt!

[Newer Guy]

See, our well intentioned but clueless lawmakers truly believe that they can establish a law to deal with every possible circumstance. Got a problem? Pass a law. Find another variation of the same problem? No sweat, pass another law! If I recall, even GOD only had TEN of them for us to follow. These clowns likely pass fifty times that amount every hour of every day! Look, there are certain things that can't be legislated only LEARNED. For one, you can't legislate morality. Nor can you legislate common sense, nor basic safety. Our government treats too many problems like crimes without even trying to really find the reason. For example, suicide is a crime. If you survive, they have no problem with arresting you and putting you in jail, even though 9999 times out of 10,000 there's an underlying reason. same thing with drug use. For some reason, we seem to always want the 'quick fix' and that means passing another law or rule. In a way, it's too bad that not having common sense isn't a crime; most of our lawmakers would wind up going to jail!

Re:It's amazing we need laws for common sense

[Mr Smidge]

If it's not a series of common lense laws that the government thinks is the best way to go about solving the problem about complete idiots doing completely idiotic things whilst driving, then the best alternative would probably be a public education campaign.

Now I live in the UK, so my opinion may not be particularly brilliant here, but how difficult is it to pull off a huge-scale public education campaign in the US? I would have thought it would be quite difficult indeed.

So it's either public education, which is:
* Great for people who may or may not have the common sense, but are willing to learn.
* Good for intelligent people who have the common sense, but might find a few new things to learn anyway, without being patronised.
* Useless on idiots who don't want to learn, or arrogant people who think they are brilliant, or can't possibly accept they may be wrong about something.
* Expensive.
Or it's going to be common-sense laws, which are:
* Patronising, or freedom-inhibiting.
* A wider net that will hopefully bash the stupid people into shape (not going to be educating? then we'll slap a law for it on yo ass).
* A catch-all, albeit one that will be difficult to enforce.

It's all about the compromise.

an important point seems to be lacking ...

[Cyn]

None of the comments I've read (and perhaps I missed the all important one) seem to address the real issue.

It's not that the average person can't drive well while talking on a cellphone or otherwise distracted.

It's that the average person can't drive well.

PERIOD.

Too many people assume driving is a simple task, when in reality your well being becomes the task of those around you who are busy anticipating your sudden lane change, noticing you drifting into their lane and backing off or changing so you don't sideswipe them, or noting that while their light just turned green - you don't seem to give a rats ass and are going to run a red light 3 seconds late.

Drivers licenses are given out way too casually, and people aren't tested under real situations. I drove around in Ireland this summer - and while it's not nearly as much traffic, the roads are wide enough for two vehicles. Two vehicles hugging the shoulder - hoping their side view mirrors aren't the same elevation. I didn't get in an accident, I didn't see any accidents.

One thing that was really refreshing, is when on the faster roads that have 'passing zones' - i.e. fewer lanes than one would prefer when stuck behind a slow vehicle - people routinely calmy wait for you to move aside for them, or calmy move aside for you (depending on who's going faster). Afterwards, the passer blinks their emergency lights as a "thank you" and goes on their merry way. That's right - motorists working together, and THANKING one another afterwards. I curse a storm in the states when I drive, I ENJOYED driving in Ireland - and not just on the scenic routes. Note: roundabouts kinda suck though, imo. They're good for low traffic, but damn they are pretty annoying in high traffic.

Also: Get off your goddamn cellphone, it's sure not helping your driving. That's the bottom line - it's not helping, so unless it's a huge emergency and you're using a handsfree or a passenger is handling it - stfu.

Re:heh.

[jc42]

The biggest problem with this legislation is the simple fact that you can't legislate common sense,

Nah; the biggest problem is that applies to the passenger as well as the driver.

On a recent vacation trip that included California, my wife and I took along our cute new Garmin iQue, a GPS-enabled Palm Pilot that was loaded with lots of maps. One of us would drive while the other navigated. This Garmin gadget was a great aid in navigating. It can show the street system at any scale, and can find routes for you (and modify them on the fly when you go off route). It's a huge improvement on printed maps, mostly because you can't carry detailed printed maps of the entire continent in your shirt pocket or purse.

This law would outlaw such useful gadgets, for no good reason. We do have the sense to not try to use it while driving. But with two people in the car, that's not a problem. And with separate driver and navigator, we didn't have to try to pull off on major highways, a risky operation in many situations.

Granted, a driver trying to use complex electronic gadgetry is stupid. But navigation equipment in the hands of a non-driver is emminently sensible. This law bans it, so it's an idiotic law.

Don't read books, either

[one-egg]

I guess if I can't use my laptop to read a scientific paper while sitting in the passenger seat, I shouldn't be able to read a book, either. Especially if it has pictures in it.

I don't think many people object to bans on drivers using laptops. But writing the law so that the passenger is also banned, that's just stupid.