Touching Your Earpiece Violates Driving-While-Yakking Law?
from the define-hands-free dept
There are plenty of places that have so-called "hands free" laws, requiring drivers to use a hands free kit with their mobile phone while driving. Leaving aside the debate (and there is a big one) over whether or not using an earpiece instead of holding the phone is any safer, it appears that in some areas, they take the "hands free" part extremely seriously. A man who was using an earpiece while driving, but who was touching the earpiece was fined for violating the law. After all, he was holding the phone piece up to his ear. At least that's what the judge decided in the latest appeal to the fine. The judge noted that the guy "was using a mobile telephone which was hand held," thus violating the wording of the law. The guy in question isn't particularly happy, and is thinking of appealing again.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Touching Story
They too increase risks. The law could be less techy targetted.
Still, what obscures vision is not the ear piece, but the talker's flapping mouth piece.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legislate My A$$
Common sense is what is needed but unfortunately some people need a little help in this area!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legislate My A$$
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legislate My A$$
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Legislate My A$$
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legislate My A$$
Having fallen asleep on a moving horse, I can personally attest that the real difference here is that the horse is smart enough not to run into stuff and follow a trail.
Now, technology is slowly but surely moving in the same direction for cars as well. Right now it's just smart cruise control that beeps at you. Eventually cars will drive better than people. But will we trust them? *shakes 8ball* Outlook not good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legislate My A$$
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legislate My A$$
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2 Hands Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2 Hands Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 2 Hands Law
However..... I and each and everyone else needs both sides of their brains thinking about driving and not talking on a cell phone.......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2 Hands Law
What's next. Requiring an "invisible cone of silence" to divide you from any passengers so you won't be "distracted" by talking to them?
Most of the problems I've seen come more from people doing stupid things like trying to dig a ringing phone out of a purse or pocket or trying to dial or text while driving. Once the call is being made I don't see how talking on a phone, whether hand held or not is really any different from what we usually do while driving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 2 Hands Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 2 Hands Law
It is not the cell phones, more crashes are caused by over aggressive drives like you. Based on your comments (pylons) you are the one zipping in and out of traffic causing others to avoid you.
That is the general problem with this entire topic. Everyone thinks that their way is the correct way to drive. The law needs to be adjusted but not abolished (not quite sure how), it is relative to the driver. We need some method of finding the stupid drivers (i.e. lane shifters, lap dog drivers, or just plain bad drivers), and revoke driving privileges until further training is done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 Hands Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 Hands Law
There's a reason I don't let myself be anywhere close to BMWs, Hondas with coffee-can exhausts, or Black SUVs with Blond female drivers... you never know what these inconsiderate, self-important jackasses are going to do next. Is that a bit prejudiced? Sure it is, but I'd rather be a bit prejudiced in picking who I ride near on the road than picking bits of asphalt out of my posterior or pushing up dasies.
Thanks for making the roads more dangerous to all around you... and I hope I'll never have to use my bike's FAR SUPERIOR acceleration capabilities to save myself from a delusional fool like yourself (but I'm glad they're there just in case).
If you want to really be a better driver (not in the track sense, but in the "not going to kill fellow citizens" sense) get a bike and ride it for a month. You'll be amazed at just how quickly you can pick out the "dangerous" people on the road (like yourself). Once you recognize this, you'll surely become a more considerate, safer and yes BETTER driver.
Plyons are for the track...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 2 Hands Law
Sounds like YOU are the accident waiting to happen. I hardly doubt that you or anyone else can give driving their undivided attention.
Pick you nose, scrath your balls, talk to your passengers, think about work, think about those retarded cell phone users, etc. while driving? I bet you do, you hypocrite!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2 Hands Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the future...
This is the world we have created by allowing our country to evolve towards a Nanny State, and it's just getting started.
Our legislators are trying to legislate common sense (as stated in an above comment) which is about as likely and feasible as real AI. They won't stop until they have us legally reduced to robots following a script to do everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In the future...
as has been stated some people lack common sense( or have an abundance of common stupidity), so those of us that understand if you 65 mph while trying to look up granny's phone number on that 2" screen is bad, what should we do? get mowed down by the idiots? Unfortunatly laws sometimes have to be passed to protect the stupid people from them selves as well as saving others.
The laws however need to be more specific and distinct so the police officers, (some of whom have an abundance of common stupidity) don't get caught tryng to understand a law beyond thier capability.
PS. just we all understand each other...I THINK THE JUDGE WAS RIGHT. HOLDING AN EARPEICE WHILE DRIVING IS THE SAME AS NOT USING ONE AT ALL. PERIOD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whatever
Wait ... if it's the wife or mother'n law AND they could get fined too... oh silence...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree...
I also agree about other causes of crashes, but the law should really focus on dangerous drivers. If you can't drive while smoking, then you either haven't been smoking long, or you're aleady a horrible driver.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I agree...
You can be a lifetime smoker and still drop your cigarette in your lap... THAT will always be a major distraction.
I think that the person who brought up common sense was dead on. It is my opinion that in 99.9% of cases none of the folks in this conversation who obviously display some social insight and self-awareness have the ability to exercise common sense. I doubt you will ever fall victim to these laws. These laws are intended for the 0.01% of the population that doesn't have this built in already. That is what laws are for. To make sure that the few do what the many already understand is common sense.
Yes, there are folks that think that a vehicle is 1) a makeup counter 2) a reward for a teenager 3) a pet store or 4) home away from home but some of us actually use it for transportation and, if necessary, business. I'm not worried about adults with phones as much as I am teenagers with phones... they need to learn how to operate a car responsibly before trying to do both... Anyway I digress... Common Sense and moderation... If you have to put on your makeup do it at a stoplight. If you need to check your map pull over. If the conversation is taxing your ability to concentrate on what you are doing either pull off the road or end the conversation. Put the pet in a carrier. Put a GPS in your kid's car that tells you their speed - or e-mail's you if they exceed a certain MPH. (link) Moderation. Common Sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Concentration while driving?
Have you ever had a child throw their mcdonalds toy down by your feet while you drove?
I have, and I also think about my day and what I'm going to be doing with my day while I drive. Am I completely aware of my surroundings? Yes. I've never gotten in a wreck nor had a ticket in my 10 years of driving. I can walk and chew bubblegum.
I concentrate on driving, but unless someone told me that my parents had been murdered over my bluetooth car headset, my driving would not be affected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Concentration while driving?
Thinking about your day, planning, those actions take place mostly in our subconcious and normally do not have an impact on our conscious thoughts(driving).
I am not sure about you guys, but casual talking never seemed to take much of my concentration(unless I can't hear properly or Im taking notes or something). But holding a earpeice and trying to hear to the other end(I assume thats why he holding the EARPEICE, cuz he couldnt hear properly)
most likely would affect my concentration on driving.
And there will be exceptions to the norm, but do you want to be the guy rear ended by some fool who couldn't do both?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Concentration while driving?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silly Rules - for things already covered by other
this is more a 'we must be seen doing something' law, oh and typically a nice way of having a fine as well.
at the end of the day govs should focus on effects not cause, i.e. if you do something that has an effect on your driving *thats* a problem, as opposed to trying to write rules to cover specific causes, e.g. mobile phones, while trying to word them not to catch other things.
at the mo in th UK its apparently legal to use a calculator while driving, well there is no law banning it... which is almost the way it should be, do what you like if your driving is ok.
as an aside this allows idots who can't drive to be pulled and handled without needing to witness them breaking a specific rule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're all forgetting one important part
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're all forgetting one important part
By your logic we shouldn't have ANY new laws until the current ones work. No laws on clean air. Why? People are still speeding. No laws on arson. Why? People are still getting murdered.
Get real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're all forgetting one important part
This isn't a Republican/Democrat issue. Its a bureaucrat issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're all forgetting one important part
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Investigation vs Prevention
We give the police the authority to enforce stupid laws by looking inside people's vehicles to see what is happening. Now, I agree that idiots using cell phones are distracted, but I argue that the police themselves are being distracted by having to look inside each and every vehicle for a number of possible violations (not just cell phones, but whether or not people are using seat belts, if the person driving may or may not be old enough to drive, etc.). Doesn't this requirement on our police make the police themselves a danger to other motorists?
For that part, why have I never seen a policeman pull another police car over for speeding or using a hand-held device to communicate on their radio? The police are not above the law, and they only have the authority to ignore such safety laws when they are in hot pursuit... which means they need to have their lights on. However, it's a fact of life that our police will not pull over a fellow officer (and even if he does when the person is off-duty, a single wave of a badge will let the off-duty officer off without even a warning), just like a Republican congress will not censure a Republican president that willfully breaks the law.
Welcome to Real Life.
"Hey, you! Wearing that paisley shirt while driving is a distraction. Fork over the $100 fine..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Investigation vs Prevention
As to phone usage, it's laughable. I've seen more reports of people in accidents droping their food and drinks, burning themselves with cigarettes, and playing with their cd's. So why isn't the government going after the fast food drive-thru people and the IRAA for makeing driving distractions. I still feel safer driving next to someone who is on the phone then someone who is talking on the phone, eating a burger, drinking a soda, smoking, and putting on lipstick at the same time. It still comes down to paying attention. People that do too much at once shouldn't be on the road... Bring on the computer driven cars!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no real subject, just a rant
My conversation consisted of "Hey anna I gotta call you back I'm drivi--OMFG I hit something *muffled through airbag* I have to call you bac-*hangup pull over*"
Reguardless, I am still wary of using the cellphone while driving but that taught me the lesson that most of the time you're in more danger from other distractions or freak accidents then a cell phone conversation..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's some general stats for you...
Annually, 6 million accidents happen in which 3 million involve injuries (2 million of those being permanent).
A large percentage is because of eating or drinking while driving, and 25% of car accidents are caused due to talking on the mobile phone while at the wheel of the car.
http://www.lawcore.com/car-accident/statistics.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "hands free" laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rip on republicans all you want...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: rip on republicans all you want...
You must be living in a hole somewhere. All registered Republicans I know, and I know a few, agree that the CURRENT Republican party can't be farther from conservative.
We have the biggest budget deficit ever and the national debt is skyrocketing again. And Republicans want to cut taxes and have me and my children pay for it when the Democrats get into the office? Is that it? For all the bad that happened during the Clinton administration, they managed to pull out a surplus and halt the growth of national debt. So the correct statement is the Republicans want ME to keep MY money NOW, but I'll have to pay THAT SAME MONEY with compound INTEREST tomorrow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: rip on republicans all you want...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: rip on republicans all you want...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: rip on republicans all you want...
Someoine has to pay bills. Just not the R's I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: rip on republicans all you want...
Um, excuse me, but my name does not appear on any currency in the U.S.A. I've never claimed it was my money. We need a government to do things that the citizens cannot no on their own. We need to have people watching out for us, whether it be by providing a strong military to defend the country, providing police and a judicial system to find criminals and put them to justice, and providing the people that make sure that the food we eat and the medications we take are safe. To do this, we also need a treasury department to provide the currency for which we do our commerce and to collect money from the citizens to provide these essential services.
For this reason, I have no desire the repeal those tax laws. The only ones that want this are the people that have a lot of money and refuse to do their part in participating in running of this country. These people are so into themselves that they refuse to see that they have themselves benefited from the services that they claim to despise in getting their money in the first place. It is not YOUR money at all, and claiming that it is only shows a fundamental ignorance or disregard for civics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ban em all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stress the hands free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stress the hands free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just use common sense
When you're eating, changing the radio, shaving, etc in the car, these activities can be temporarily suspended to attend to matters of traffic that require attention. Not so with cell phones. How often do you hear, "Hang on a second, I've got to merge on to the highway?"
I use my cell phone in the car, but I also use common sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Literal interpretation, eh?
Give me a break, I know "holding the phone" is dangerous, in fact I feel less in control when I use the phone that way, rather than with my hands free headet.
But come on, what's the difference then between having a headset on and touching it while speaking, and scratching your ear while talking to someone in the passenger seat. Next there will be a fine for that!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But in all seriousness, I had my cellphone on speakerphone and I picked it up off my lap for just a second to adjust it, and a cop in an SUV happened to be looking down inside my car. He pulled me over and was seconds away from writing me a ticket, when he got called away on an emergency. I thought I was obeying the cell phone law, but apparently, I wasn't. So I can kind of relate to this guy.
I think they should outlaw having passengers next.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what other types of phones are there?
Does anyone know of a portable phone that is not handheld? Even a "hands free kit" requires "hands" at some point to dial or answer unless you enable auto answer, but then who wants to auto answer everyone that calls. Most women don't like to answer unknown numbers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The law is wrong, the judge is right.
(a) the person on the other end doesn't have any idea what kind of driving situation you're in and can't quiet down if things get hairy.
(b) we feel a social obligation to maintain the conversation that would not usually be present for reasons similar to a. It would not be rude to stop talking while negotiating a particularly dangerous intersection but because the person on the other end doesn't know what we're doing we avoid the pause.
But, the judge was right. If a law is passed (however stupid) that prohibits hand held phones, holding a device, whether attached to the phone or the phone itself is a violation of the spirit of that law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Women
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Women
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shut up and drive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Driving
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Driving
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hypocrisy
Either ban cellphones completely or don't. This middle ground is just a way for the cellphone makers to keep making money on phone calls and hands-free devices and local communities to clean up with $150 cellphone tickets that usually don't even cost points on your license.
It's a sham!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's laughable how that's exactly the response one should expect from a BMW driver! Not suprising that when I'm out riding they're (BWM riders) the only ones that won't shoot the "biker wave" back at me. It's the same "I'm better than you" mentality manifesting itself.
I also hope that "professional driver" means something other than "Chicago cabbie." Besides, your alleged ability to get around a racetrack has nothing to do with the saftey implications of overly-aggressive driving on the public roadways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Haywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why might this be the case?
Most human beings have little insight into what their brains do during communication. Since we evolved to speak with people in our immediate environment, our brains have a dependence on the non-verbal information that such contact offers. We automatically search for facial expressions, body language, gestures, and even clues about context from the environment. (For example, contrary to most people's intuition, human emotions are fairly generic states of excitation that even the experiencing individual names according to the situation's context.) Deprived of vital context by the telephone's voice-only interface, our brains take up the slack by generating an internal context. In other words, we create an internal simulation of what the person on the other end of the line is doing while he or she is speaking.
This should come as little surprise, since the basic nature of human intelligence is the creation of internal simulations. These simulations may take the form of pre-planning, daydreaming, empathy, mental arithmetic, or countless other commonplace examples. An especially pertinent example here is the internal simulation we create while driving. While we drive, we maintain a internal image of where our car is in relation to the road, where other cars are in relation to us, where we are in relation to our destination, the positions and speeds of potential obstacles or pedestrians, and so on. Although we need to update the information behind this simulation constantly (looking through our windshield and mirrors), this internal simulation is still vital to preventing accidents.
Now, is it any great surprise that one complex internal simulation (the context of someone on the other end of the phone) might INTERFERE with another complex internal simulation (driving)? If you're giving 50% of your attention to the telephone, you're only giving 50% of your attention to the road. In which case, you are endangering your own life and the lives of everyone around you.
If you really want to commit suicide, there are far more effective ways to accomplish it. If you really want to commit homicide, you should be captured and imprisoned like the criminal you are. As such, all telephone use while operating a motor vehicle should be prohibited, with penalties equivalent to those used for those who drive while intoxicated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can I ... while driving, officer?
All of these use my brain and/or hand(s). Does that mean we should ban them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This freaks people out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Put the damn phone down and drive!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BMW, bikers, SUV's -- who cares!!!
Personally I don't care for SUV's but I don't think that ALL people that drive them are bad drivers. I own a sports car and yeah, if I have to merge into traffic I am more CONFIDENT in its capabilities than I would be a 4 banger, but that doesn't mean automatically that I zip in and out of traffic cutting people off and causing wrecks. I don't own a BMW but it wouldn't matter if I did. That isn't the point. I've seen plenty of beat-up cars whose drivers drive worse than owners of BMW or Lexus or equivalent. The car does not make the driver. Period.
Biker wave? I know about the Jeep wave... Only because I used to have a Jeep. Could it be the ones who didn't wave back had no idea what you were doing or why you were doing it? If you had waved at me I would have thought you had mistakened me for someone you knew and to save you the embarrassment of being wrong I would have simply looked away.
The comment of "same 'I'm better than you' mentality manifesting itself.' suggests you have issues with successful individuals who can afford such a car and display it with their choice in vehicles. Hell, I can't afford it but I don't think they are better than me. I think that they paid their dollar and got what they wanted no different than my choosing my vehicle of passion or the SUV owner or the Lexus owner or the Buick owning Grandma.
It is just sad that instead of discussing the issue everyone is too busy tearing down each other... Issue: Does Touching Your Earpiece Violate The Driving-While-Talking Law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And Back to the Initial Topic...
Rounding it back up to the topic at hand, though, I don't have a very hard time seeing arguments from all sides. Of course, I can only speak for my own experience, but I know that if I'm talking in my cell phone, I find I concentrate less on driving than I would if I weren't on the phone. I use my hands free set whenever I'm in the car, but I can still see where folks are distracted. However, I don't think I should be babysat by my local police and end up at the wrong place at the wrong time if I decide at that very moment to change CD's and I look down for a second. On the other-other hand, what an excellent source of revenue for local governments... just as good as putting the cameras at intersections to catch the red-light runners. No one likes a tax hike, so governments need to come with other more creative ways to generate revenue. Not advocating for the legislation, just food for thought. Consider also the litigious society we live in- people sue everyone for everything. We have laws for everything to prevent tort suits. This is just another one. Its clear that "use your common sense" isn't a viable option in the U.S., unfortunately.
I don't believe we should put blame on the cars people drive or whatever the item of distraction is (or their gender, car preference, or assumed political affiliations for that matter- correlations between driving ability and party affiliation have not yet been established). A distraction is a distraction. For some people, just thinking is distracting enough. Some of us have better reaction times than others, and can avoid accidents better, whether we're in a Fiat or a BMW. Even the best drivers goof up sometimes. That's what insurance is for.
If your'e looking for a refreshing display of "use common sense," visit the Aztec temples around Mexico City. There you can climb all the way to the top with only a tiny little hand rail and up at the top, there are no signs that say "stay away from the edge. Maybe we can start sending folks there to apply for driver's licenses? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And Back to the Initial Topic...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MythBusters Episode...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MythBusters Episode...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
driving under the influence of a phone
This is what he did:
Left hand on wheel, phone to ear in right hand.
Yakety yak
Let go of wheel with left hand in order to reach over to his right side and the gearstick to shift gear
Yakety yak...
And from what I've seen he's far from alone in this behaviour...
And back to the original article, if they pulled him over for holding his earpiece, maybe he actually was distracted enough for them to notice. I find it hard to believe the police drives around looking closely at each and every driver out there. More likely they intervene when the driver is clearly distracted or in any way dangerous to himself or his surroundings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]