California Bans Front-Seat Computer Use 804
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.
Many times (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Many times (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Many times (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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:Many times (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Back to what I said
Re:Many times (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Many times (Score:3, Informative)
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,
Re:Many times (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Just a slight inconvenience. (Score:2, Funny)
Now, I guess I'll just put it in the back seat.
it's about time some one did this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:it's about time some one did this (Score:5, Interesting)
just a portable.
Scared the hell out of me, although it was not the stupidest thing I'd seen on that road (I635, Dallas).
Re:it's about time some one did this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:it's about time some one did this (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Turists (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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:it's about time some one did this (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:it's about time some one did this (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Fuel Control Systems and engine monitoring (Score:4, Insightful)
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:
- Concentrating on something other than driving decreases driving skill by distracting you.
- Distracting yourself endangers everyone around you.
- 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!
Re:it's about time some one did this (Score:3, Informative)
When it is a helmet mounted HUD, he has a screen in front of his eye, he can no
Re:it's about time some one did this (Score:5, Interesting)
Not if you are doing everything correctly. Your eyes should be moving about identifying possible problems and you should be constantly working out how you would handle those problems. You should be glancing at mirrors to identify traffic and keeping track of people around you.
Putting your foot on the gas and keeping between the lines is driving but it isn't proper driving (as I have learned it).
I see horrible drivers daily and they are horrible because they are self-centered and they believe that driving is simple.
I do not ask that everyone take driving as seriously as I do. I rarely play music in my car because I think it is a distraction. I do however feel that you should respect the fact that if you don't pay attention and identify those hazards that are on the road you and your family have a much greater possibility of getting harmed by those hazards. Yes in most cases an individual driving mindlessly down the road doesn't cause allot of problems but we do not normally have an individual doing that. We have a large group of people driving mindlessly and that causes accidents daily.
With that said, I believe that this law goes overboard. Laptops and such are valuable if properly used. The problem they are trying to prevent is the inevitable misuse due to people thinking they can do multiple things at once because driving is simple.
And yes books and newspapers should not be read during your morning commute into work unless you take a plane or train.
Re:it's about time some one did this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:it's about time some one did this (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to say that I don't believe that you know much about the mental processes that are actually involved in driving. Have you ever studied it? Here's the first clue: if it was really so easy, why do people who are intoxicated have such a hard time with it?
Also, when you say "a rather simple mental process", what, exactly, are you comparing it to?
Let me put this another way: if driving is so simple, why can't robots do it as well as humans? Sure, racing games exist, and computers do well, but the data is very different.
Driving is quite complicated, and it is getting more so every time you add a gadget to your car. As a note, reading a book while you are driving is EXTREMELY stupid, but reading a computer screen is equally so.
So, while no offense to you "diablobynight" is meant, I respectfully disagree with everything you have said in this post, except that I too see lots of people reading in their cars. It should be banned too.
As a note, one of my professors has extensively studied the use of cell phones in cars (he has a driving simulator here at clemson), and guess what? It is a bad idea--a very bad idea. Now, I would guess that looking at a laptop (for mapquest or what have you) is more complicated than that.
Re:it's about time some one did this (Score:5, Insightful)
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:it's about time some one did this (Score:5, Informative)
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:it's about time some one did this (Score:3, Insightful)
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 b
Re:it's about time some one did this (Score:3, 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
Re:it's about time some one did this (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:it's about time some one did this (Score:5, Insightful)
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:it's about time some one did this (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:it's about time some one did this (Score:3, Insightful)
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 migra
Re:it's about time some one did this (Score:3, Insightful)
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, th
Re:it's about time some one did this (Score:3, Insightful)
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 th
Re:it's about time some one did this (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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
good,bad and the ugly (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:good,bad and the ugly (Score:3, Funny)
dunno, cops, emt's, yuppie scum. .
but then what kind of idiot reads a bok while driving, watches TV while driving, puts on MAKEUP WHILE DRIVING????
everybody freaking else.
Re:Origins (Score:3, Funny)
Uh...
Wooo, tits and beer and guns! These colors never run! It's got a Hemi, go Yankees! Matrix rulez! Let's shop at Wal-Mart's, Wooo!
And yes, I do ocassionally refer to my trunk as a "boot," but that results in my wife kicking my ass.
heh. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:heh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:heh. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:heh. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll make your neurosurgeon aware of that when the attending tries to call his cell for advice re: the catscan of your shattered neck.
Re:heh. (Score:3, Funny)
EXACTLY.
I can't tell you how many times I've seen near misses because some woman was doing her makeup on the way to work while driving, or some guy was fishing fries out of the McD's bag while pulling into traffic.
<MarvinTheMartian>And it makes me angry! So very angry!</>
Re:heh. (Score:4, Interesting)
That way, if I get in a traffic backup, I can call someone and tell them I'll be late.
Otherwise, I'd be going nuts worrying about people wondering where I was. This is distracting.
Just a data point.
Re:heh. (Score:3, Insightful)
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 f
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
making a law that is already a law (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:making a law that is already a law (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:making a law that is already a law (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:making a law that is already a law (Score:5, Insightful)
"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:making a law that is already a law (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Proactively punishing negligence (Score:5, Interesting)
Because they would like to empower the police to put a stop to dangerous behavior before it causes an accident. The prior law you cite only accounted for assigning blame after an accident had already occurred...it did little if anything to prevent accidents ahead of time, or to allow the police to do so if they observed someone behaving dangerously (like half the cell phone users on the road).
Now, this particular form of negligent driving (fiddling with a laptop while driving) is punishable, without the need for twisted metal and carnage first. 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. However, fiddling with the thing and looking up names/numbers on the phone while driving is rightly prohibited.
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). One can reasonably expect future revisions of the law to refine this, particularly as virtually every automobile gets sophisticated computer equipment and "glass cockpit" style displays installed in future models.
Re:Proactively punishing negligence (Score:3, Informative)
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 us
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Funny)
A good thing, right? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
remove vanity mirrors (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:remove vanity mirrors (Score:3, Funny)
Whoa now buddy! dont get too out of control here...
nothing is better than riding with a friend in a Semi truck and being able to see down though a sunroof to that blond wearing a miniskirt and open top.... do you realize how far up those skirts ride when on the highway for a couple of hours?
I'll gladly go off the road and end up in a roll over for that distraction... Hell probably still have the smile on my face w
Nav systems are OK (Score:5, Informative)
If you're driving (Score:3, Informative)
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?
so this means (Score:2)
Rus
Big Deal (Score:2, Insightful)
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, et
Re:Big Deal (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Text of the law (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Text of the law (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Obligatory Dave Barry link (Score:2, Funny)
New Product: USB or Bluetooth interlock (Score:3, Interesting)
I would expect some clever peripherals maker (or hacker) to create an interlock device for computers that appropriately locks the computer when the car is in motion. The easiest design would simply blank the screen (a screen saver would not suffice as it might be construed as entertainment). A more complex design, tied to some navigation app, would force the display of the nav app (which is explicitly permitted under this law) and lock out all other apps and distractions. The device could connect wirelessly via bluetooth or via USB. The only obstacle is the hack into the vehicle system to detect the state of the transmission and engage the interlock when the vehicle is shifted out of the "Park."
Too Bad (Score:5, Funny)
I'll make a deal with you (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'll make a deal with you (Score:5, Interesting)
At a certain number of points on a license, drivers will not be able to use air bags. A few more points, and no seatbelts. And then after that, the doors and front windshield will be removed. And finally, after a whole lot of points, a big spike gets installed on the steering wheel. Drivers can wait the time it takes for their points to expire, or they can choose to drive very carefully.
What about the police? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about the police? (Score:3, Funny)
Of course they are. Hell, where I live they are exempt from using turn signals and making full stops at stop signs, apparently.
"well meaning but overly broad"? I think not (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Cabs & cops often have computer displays (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, the only two supposed advantages of the computer system were that dispatching through it didn't take as much skill as radio dispatch so dispatchers could get paid less; and drivers who didn't speak English well enough for fast radio conversation could supposedly take radio calls more easily, but in the end everyone we knew who installed the systems found that these advantages never really materialized, because drivers who had trouble with English had trouble reading onscreen maps, and dispatchers still needed strong radio skills for emergency situations.
We heard that local police departments (this was in Maryland) that installed mobile dispatch terminals also had higher accident rates, although for both cops and cabbies the increases leveled off as drivers got used to splitting their attention.
I feel using a computer while driving is far more distracting than using a cell phone or other audio communication device. Most sensory input needed to drive safely is visual. But I don't think laws against computers in the front seat make sense. I've had both friends and cab/limo passengers use laptops in the front seat while I was driving, and found that this was lots less distracting than female passengers getting naked in the rear seat and shoving their breasts out the windows or over the seat onto my neck.
- Robin
It's amazing we need laws for common sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Granted, some people are soooooo talented and they can talk on the phone, chew gum, read a map, drink coffee, compose a musical, write a novel, read a map, and go to the bathroom all while driving. But the other 99% of humanity finds that when you take your eyes off the road, especially for extended periods of time, and requiring the use of your brain to comprehend things other than driving (or swerving cars, kids running in the street, other people not paying attention, etc), their driving becomes severely impaired.
The part that REALLY gets me about this is that it shows how selfish and ignorant some people are. Fine, maybe you're a good driver. But you're out ther with thousands of other drivers. And other sudden hazzards and obstacles. Pay attention to the other drivers and keep everyone on the road safe.
Re:It's amazing we need laws for common sense (Score:3, Insightful)
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,
Re:It's amazing we need laws for common sense (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with you here. Without liability, I'm sure there would be a lot of dangerous products on the market. I don't dispute that at all. I am however disheartened by the rediculous nature of some of these lawsuits. Suing fast food places because you got fat and didn't know you'd get fat by eating fast food three times a day for 20 years. Some are just rediculous. As f
Actually, that's not what it says.... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Great (Score:4, Funny)
Now all of our programming jobs will be outsourced to non-Frontseat-Computing-Ban countries like India, where carpooling engineers can get in than extra hour of programming each day.
Taking away more liberties (Score:4, Interesting)
It also reminds me a time where I was passenger in my friend's car (who was driving). We were on our way back from a small local Apple trade show. I was playing Falcon, the F16 flight simulator on our way back--I was quite an addict of that game back them.
Quite suddenly, I lost control of the plane and the computer, an Apple PowerBook 160, was yelling at me "Pull up! Pull up!".
The car crashed on the center girder of the highway at precisely the same time the F16 crashed on the ground. The plane was a total wreck. The car was considerably dammaged and both my friend and I were totally surprised to realize what had just happend, while massaging our sore necks.
When the computer started yelling at me, it distracted my friend some more, wich was peeking one in a while at the screen. When he finally pulled up his eyes from the screen, he saw the traffic ahead in a dead stop, stomped the brake and steered the car clear of the cars in front of us, steering right into the girder.
Stupid laws that take away our liberties also take away our chances at being total idiots and maiming ourselves the fun way. Never had Falcon been that dramatic before.
Less people - more oxygen (Score:3, Funny)
Let the bill's author know what you think (Score:3, Interesting)
Carpooling passenger can't use a laptop or pda??? Do these people even live in the same world as those of us trying to make a living?
Re:Let the bill's author know what you think (Score:3, Informative)
Assemblymember.Reyes@assembly.ca.gov
This law illustrates the PROBLEM with our Govt! (Score:3, Insightful)
an important point seems to be lacking ... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Don't read books, either (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Androids (Score:3, Funny)
Will the madness never end?
Re:Laptops while driving (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Police (Score:2, Redundant)
RTFA before posting.
Re:Police (Score:2)
Re:Police (Score:5, Interesting)
Since when do we simply assume that cops are better drivers than other people? The only point I'll concede to that is that they are trained to handle higher speeds. That doesn't automatically mean that they can still handle their front-seat gadgets better. If anything, driving at normal highway speeds can lull a trained person into a false sense of "normalcy".
In any case, I'm not buying the notion that cops are any better at typing while driving than the rest of us. If anything, because they are vested with more power than Average Joe, they should be distrusted more.
Re:Police (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand if you have made sure any cops driving cars have had advanced driving instruction and are well versed in when and when it's not OK to use the computers and other jiggery pokery then you should be confident that they are capable of operting safley and effectivley. If you aren't confident of that then they shouldn't be driving.
"If anything, because they are vested with more power than Average Joe, they should be distrusted more."
That's just amusing, you certainly shouldn't trust them with badges, or guns, or cars at all - just let them wander around in a bright yellow suit so everyone can see what they are doing !
I think what you might mean though that their actions are subject to more scrutiny than the average Joe, the only way you can trust them to be doing their job effectivley is after all is make sure you test them and train them enough so you are sure about their competence.
Again I don't know about US police forces ( although I have seen them in action on "The 100 most violent car chases in the world" often enough to be sure I don't ever want to be arrested by them ) but I would certainly hope that they are highly trained and well managed.
Re:What about passengers? (Score:5, Funny)
Why shouldn't I be allowed to have my wife, sitting passenger side, connect to MapQuest to help me with driving directions?
Because that's the male code:
Rule 387: Never admit to your wife that you are lost or need directions. You know exactly where you are, and even if it does not appear that you are going anywhere useful, you are certain that you haven't passed that building twice already.
your parents must have been proud (Score:3)
Re:When traveling... (Score:3, Redundant)
Sorry about your accident, but what harm would it be for a passenger to be some work on thier laptop while you are driving? I don't think keyboard clicking is too distracting.
I think this is a problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:I think this is a problem. (Score:3, Interesting)
With a lot of things, I'd agree with you, but driving is one of the most dangerous things an average person does every day, and people are not properly trained at it. If the government isn't going to step up and require proper training, severely limiting what they can do while driving is an acceptable alternative, because someone who is properly trained and understands what they are doing wouldn't be doing tho
Re:I think this is a problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Front seat passenger (Score:3, Funny)
*looks at road*
*looks at laptop quickly*
Driver: Whoa, man. Is that a typedef!?
Passenger: LOOK AT THE ROAD LOOK AT THE
*crash*
Moral of the story? Use java