Taking Suggestions: What Else Should We Ban While Driving?
from the we-obviously-need-a-list dept
With California's law banning driving while talking on a mobile phone without a handsfree device set to take effect next week, the author of the original bill is already working on a followup to ban driving-while-texting as well. He says this is necessary because driving-while-texting "wasn't an issue" when the original bill was put forth. Of course, there are an unlimited number of different driving distractions -- so if we really need to come up with a law for all of them, why don't we put our heads together to come up with a list. After all, we've already heard of worries that involve driving while using a laptop, driving while using OnStar, driving while faxing (which also includes something about driving while playing a video game). And, of course, everyone's favorite: driving while having sex.Rather than coming up with all these laws banning each particular action, why not recognize that you can't ban stupidity, and just focus on already existing laws against reckless driving? If you're doing something other than driving that puts others at danger, that should be plenty. We shouldn't need a list of "banned" activities while driving. We should just be focused on teaching people to actually drive when they're driving.
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
Filed Under: california, driving distraction, laws
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kids
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Driving distractions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hmmm, how do I put this?
Honest ... True Story! But EVERY TIME I come across these very specific "YOU CAN'T DO SO-AND-SO WHILE DRIVING!" I think of that short time and wonder how they would codify THAT one!
Never done it since but it really was NOT proper driving procedure. But there are a MILLION things you can do which qualify for that title. Do we expect for the corresponding million nuances in the law? I hope not!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ban Lawyers Instead
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I got it. It's the greatest idea ever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What else?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Jury's job
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oh, and Asian women.
But but banning sex? What is this nation coming to?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
- Makeup
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Monkeys
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
...old news
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dry Cleaners
3rd. world.....thats what we getting to be.
Fools
[ link to this | view in thread ]
UK
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hmmm, how do I put this?
I shudder just thinking about you thinking about posting that.
Anyways, this does not seem like a huge deal to me. I realize that by specifically banning things they are implying other things are okay; but, the lawmakers are probably just as worried about an ambiguous law such as "driving while distracted", a ticket for which a mentally disabled sixteen year-old driver could easily argue his way out of in court. At any rate, today must have been a slow news day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Dry Cleaners
What are "Ballons"?
What are "Librales"?
Why are they in Fresno?
Whom do they seat?
Please name just 10 more important things to do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If they want to make a difference they probably should ban using mobile phones while driving period, main problem such bans aren't really enforceable.
Enough with the don't bother thinking we will think for you what should be done instead of creating new laws to ban what is deemed bad, they should consider something called common sense.(or am i asking for too much?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Kids
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Simple
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
N.C.
I wonder what the hell is wrong with the people that pass these laws, wonder what they were thinking, and I am also very worried because the idiots that passed this law also operate motor vehicles on the streets of N.C. and are probably breeding as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
We could ban coffee shops, and fast food joints as contributors. Remove the drivers seat, as an empty milk crate will do. Maybe we could just tatoo a warning label on the drivers forehead! That would solve everything. Did I forget to mention Attention Deficit D-D-D-Disorder?
Honey... Where's my Prozac!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What Else Should We Ban While Driving?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Retarded laws like this will continue to be passed until we can do nothing at all but rot in our one-room boxes. This is not progressive; it's not improving anything; it's just worthless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ban Lawyers Instead
Surrender your driver's license and return to grade school.
The roads are safer now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Start by banning officials setting a bad example:
>
The unfolded paper reached from about the tops of his legs to about the ceiling of the car, and as he jiggled the paper, I could tell that he was holding a section that was several -- as in maybe 8 or more -- pages thick.
>
There's no way he could have seen where he was going or what was going on around him. I'm guessing he used his legs to steady the wheel and blindly trusted his car would go in a straight path.
>
Others moved out of his way, but what if he had rear-ended someone? Cops set the bad example; bad monkeys follow their lead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Hmmm, how do I put this?
What? You don't know? Surely you're more sophisticated than "a mentally disabled sixteen year-old driver," aren't you?
Hah! No answer? Go back to watching Faux News and listening to What-a-Rush Limbaugh! Your fetid garbage "facts" are the worst form of BS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Want to talk about conflict of interest? In some jurisdictions, the judge is an actual employee of the Chief of Police. In many jurisdictions, the "Justice Court" is denominated as a "Police Court," often in the same building as the PD.
There isn't a jury. The court can get up to 33 percent of its *entire* budget from speeding tickets alone without triggering an audit (which, under the Bush administration, would be a sick joke, anyway).
The ticket is a sworn affidavit respecting the alleged offense. The cop issuing the ticket is a sworn officer. The prosecutor for the jurisdiction is an attorney that works with the judge on pretty much a daily basis.
Even if you're an attorney and you have obtained separate legal counsel, odds are that anything you say will be disregarded by the judge unless the prosecutor actively affirms the veracity of your comment.
It has been truthfully said, "Justice Court is neither just nor court." The judge expects honest guilty people to confess, and dishonest guilty people to contest either their guilt, the severity of their respective sentences, or both.
Perhaps some small fraction of the blameless are acquitted, maybe a few others receive reduced sentences, but the vast majority of people not genuinely guilty are unrighteously accused, adjudicated and processed as though they were guilty.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Simple
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Prime Example
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Jury's job
If someone is injured as a result of that person's negligence -- *oh heck yeah!* I want the victim to sue the proverbial pants off the offender and, to the extent they are culpable, the offender's enablers.
That means either arbitration, a bench trial or a jury trial.
Generally, arbitration means the offender decides how much it thinks it should pay the victim it hurt (either nothing or next-to-nothing). Court-recommended arbiters specialize in minimizing losses suffered by the worst offenders.
A bench trial is generally decided on motions; the party not prevailing is ordinarily subject to liability somewhat greater than that associated with arbitration. However regarding proof, the victim has a much greater burden in a trial than at arbitration. Judges tend very strongly to minimize losses suffered by the worst offenders.
Only upon prevailing in a jury trial does the victim stand a reasonable chance of seeing the offender held accountable in any meaningful way.
"Tort reform" has gutted the ability of juries to render judgments proportional to the culpability of the worst offenders, but jury verdicts still come closer to justice than either bench verdicts or decisions of arbitration.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Talking to anyone,
Having children in the car,
Day dreaming,
listening to the radio,
channel surfing,
phone calls,
mirrors,
books,
sleeping,
eating,
thinking -- big one,
pissing in a jar,
sex,
masturbation,
reading road sides,
looking at other cars,
looking at the scenery,
looking at the road - can get mezmorized by the lines,
scratching,
makeup application,
singing,
How's that for a starter list of things we have to ban while driving?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WTF what else are they gonna ban. Those idiots should ban themselves for dreaming up bans. Seriously speaking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I've got one !
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Things to ban while driving
Children will die if every state's rules on safe driving don't include the following:
- no eating of hard shell tacos
- no eating of soft shell tacos
- no eating of any taco with cheese grated or lettuce sliced so finely that it can fall into your lap
- no eating of tacos with meat that is cut or ground in a way that allows it to fall into your lap
But that isn't specific enough, so:
- no eating of tacos with a ground beef filling wherein the viscosity of the ground beef/sauce/spice mixture is lower than a limit to be determined by the [jurisdiction's highway safety authority]
- no eating of chicken tacos wherein the chicken pieces are cut to smaller than one inch along their longest dimension
- no eating of tacos with a "spicy fiesta" sauce or other sauce wherein the viscosity of the sauce is lower than a limit to be determined by the [jurisdiction's highway safety authority], except that a low-viscosity sauce may be used if its quantity does not exceed 2.5% of the total mass of the taco at manufacture or if the low-viscosity sauce is combined during manufacture with other ingredients sufficient to fix the "spicy fiesta" sauce or other sauce to the taco, the ratios among the surface area of the other ingredients, the amount of the sauce, and the viscosity of sauce meeting a standard to be determined by the [jurisdiction's highway safety authority].
I could go on. The astute reader has noted that I failed to address the shredded beef issue. (What can I say? I got hungry.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Many things that distract you while driving
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BAN
18 wheeler's
Left hand lane drivers............. and most of all
Asia women
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Deaf people
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Its amazing how the world got by for years without the need to be jabbering away on your little toy nearly every waking moment. Its like obsessive masturbation for some of you.
Knock it off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: specific?
I recall years ago there were some bullets called "cop killer" bullets. If I were to go around shooting people but used "regular" bullets...well, then I damn well should go to jail (at least). I should not be set free because I followed the specific law forbiding "cop killer" bullets.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What the hell changed in the past 10 years that dumb laws like this have to be necessary?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmmm, how do I put this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Jury's job
If they've caused enough injury and/or property damage to justify being charged, yes; either a jury or a panel of three or more magistrates depending on the procedures of that jurisdiction. But I stand corrected on the relative roles of judge and jury.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
There's no key, either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Point system works across the board.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You know, it's all those cupholders...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Too today
No driving while...
-manipulating the holographic GPS navigational system
-video-conferencing with anyone
-watching a movie on the heads-up display
-watching a holographic game on the heads-up display. Note: in the future, baseball and hockey will no longer exist since both of these associations will have sued so many news organizations that no one will broadcast their games any more.
-playing a holographic video-game on the heads-up display
-the car is in automatic mode. It knows where it's going, so don't touch the steering wheel.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Because People Love Their Cell Phones More Than 5 Year Olds, Food or Even Sex
Think. Hand held cell phones require full attention - it is a several hundred dollar ego symbol that owners treasure more than their children. If they have to take an evasive maneuver, they are NOT letting go of that $400 iPhone.
Talking on hands free, listening to the radio, and a few other things - dont involve the same problem - - because if I the driver need to give full attention to driving, I *can* just stop paying attention to the hands-free phone or radio. For the 15 seconds it takes to get through a crazy intersection, I can pay attention fully to driving and not the toy.
I can never do that with an hand held. What's more, I wont. It is my toy and my ego. As the erratic driver, my iPhone means more to me than your life.
Hand held cell phones creates a bright line rule of people who are engaged in reckless driving - they are alway engaged in reckless driving because they will not let go of the phone when they have to.
This does not mean other areas are not reckless - it does not mean that where I *can* pay attention to my driving that I will - this just clearly delineates one class of darwin award winners.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hmmm, how do I put this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Talking on a CB is okay
I talk all the time to truckers on my way to work - beats listening to the same crap on the radio. Plus, some of those guys (and gals) are a riot.
Same argument goes for watching movies while driving - thats completely illegal but its okay to watch your little car on your GPS move along the virtual highway :rotflmao:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What to get home from work faster? You would if people were more concerned about driving the speed limit instead of whatever they have to be having that conversation about at right that moment.
Next time you pass someone who is driving slow; it's either someone old, a family with young children in the car, or someone on their phone.
Most traffic problems are caused by the cell phone and people not paying attention to keeping the flow of traffic constant.
Look it up!
Science of Traffic Jams.. or something
[ link to this | view in thread ]
However, they are completely useless bans if states arent going to enforce them.
Many states that have no talking on your cell phone while driving laws can only pull you over for "regular" violations and can only cite you AFTER they have pulled you over if they notice you on your cell phone. In other words, cops cant pull you over just for talking on your cell phone - what the heck is the point then of that law?
If states are going to put these types of laws on the books, then enforce them as primary violations. If a cop sees a teenager talking on her cell phone while driving, pull her over. If someone is shaving while driving, pull them over.
Dont just cite them for those things after you first had to find someone to pull over for having a broken tail light.
Lame.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Loves these laws
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hand drumming on the steering wheel
Flossing
Changing clothes
Changing the song on your iPod or radio
Drinking coffee
Masturbating
Flipping people off
Yelling at bad drivers
Driving with fewer than 2 passengers
Hell, let's just ban driving all together and walk everywhere. Then at least we'd save money on gas...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You know, it's all those cupholders...
Whether or not Germans tend to use them, I couldn't tell you. But, don't try to tell me that no German has ever answered their phone/eaten a schnitzel/drank a dunkel/hassled Jews/etc, while driving their fine automobiles.
How dare you make generalizations about Americans.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
List
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What else should be banned?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Fuck.... I don't like can's because they cut my pecker.
But if I can't use jars, then I'm out of luck.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The mom driving her kids home will have to ignore the bickering, fights and such that her spawn get into on the way home from school. Let's see, how many times do arguments break out in a car during a boring drive between siblings? I'm sure this has caused as many or more accidents as any cellphone conversation.
The guy that is smoking and accidentally drops his cigarette. You don't want a hole burnt into the interior so 10MPH or 100MPH really doesn't matter to the instant instinct to pick up the offending item. Oh, now smoking while driving should be banned. (Put any bets on how well that will go over?)
Pick something up and accidentally drop it. Building on the above idea, I pick up a lighter and for some reason drop it. It should be illegal for me to search for that lighter because I'm in a moving vehicle. With common sense though, if I'm all alone on the road, search away, if I'm in traffic, wait and/or pull over to perform my search. Oh my god, common sense.
Mike has been pretty blatant about how stupid it is to make specific laws which are covered by other laws. What I believe is lacking in coverage is the fact that every law made, enforceble or not, ends up usually "reducing" the application of the common sense laws.
If I go out and cause a 50 car pileup, I can claim I was distracted by the cell phone. The fact that I caused this wreck through stupidity doesn't matter, a good lawyer will pick the best law and fight for that as the result. As such, limiting the punishment I receive and also probably avoiding the most appropriate punishments.
So, in addition to saying these new laws are stupid, I would add that they are dilluting the ability to enforce the common sense laws. I'm driving along and get pulled over, I've been driving like a madman and deserve a ticket. The question is which ticket do I get now? I can now claim I was on the phone so give me that ticket rather than the more nasty ticket for reckless driving.
The more options available in terms of how you describe a "moral responsibility", the worse this mess gets. The simple answer should be: "You were driving unsafe and you get a ticket for it". Grey areas and lots of additional laws should not be part of the system in the pristine world.
On the other hand, "what is" driving unsafe? I see it everyday, people who are distracted by this and that and effectively running me off the road. Folks in SUV's just don't see someone driving something as small as a 350Z. In some cases, it's just flat out they didn't and can't see me due to vehicle size, in others though it is absolutely based on the fact that they are distracted by other things.
Do I need laws to honk at someone though? Nope, I honk and usually the titans back off my little go cart because they reasses their surroundings. In the middle of traffic, where this mostly happens, where is the COP to give them that ticket for talking on the phone, not paying attention etc.
We only really need the "reckless driving" law because even when folks are on autopilot they respond to external stimulus and mostly avoid issues. Anything not related to inability to drive is simply stupid and redundant.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Driving while ______ bans
Why not just ban driving completely on alternate days? We could start out with even numbers one day, odd numbers the next. Then, after six months or so, ban driving completely on alternate days. No. Driving. At. All.
Why not just take the police out of their cars and let them go back to walking? Mobile cameras do a better job patrolling speeders anyway. And a redlight camera sure does cut down on running red lights.
But ... ban driving while having sex? Why not just ban having sex while you're at it? This would suit the sorry asked totalitarians among us just fine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
get the fuck off your phones. youre a fucking danger to me and other drivers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why do people pause their Tivo when they get a phone call?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Excellent here....1st is to ban.....
is to ban people like yourselves who bashed others here ON THIS POST.
All of you trying to make up bans while ALL of you break/have broken every single rules you tried to ban....WTF???!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How about driving
I view people who do these things in the car like second hand smoke. Talking on the phone does not put me at immediate danger but puts me in indirect danger because they have lost focus and they are somewhere close enough to me that when they do realize a mistake they have made, by not paying attention to the road, and have a knee jerk reaction, that can be detrimental to both of us.
Just put your eyes forward, be safe, and when you get to your destination, rest stop, half way point, etc.. engage in all the activities you want.
My 2cents
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
- Makeup"
NOW is *SO* going to be all over your sexist butt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Dry Cleaners
Actually I like "liberales"... sort of the opposite of "federales".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Dry Cleaners
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
They stopped teaching common sense about 2 decades ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ...old news
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just to be clear
Getting a blow job while eating a big-mac, while useing a hands free device = legal.
They have laws on the books for this, it's called reckless endangerment, or failure to stay in your lane, or failure to signal, or in the worst case vehicular manslaughter.
We don't have laws that say, it's illegal to stab someone to death,and it's illegal to hatchet someone to death, it's illegal to beat someone to death...It's all conveniently wrapped up with a nice little bow in a MURDER charge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Also, what does one do if trapped in their car in, say, a snowstorm if cars are built like a Faraday cage and no signals can get out?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What about the huge billboards?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
iPods!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Jury's job
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: iPods!
your responsible for maneuvering a piece of machinery around pedestrians and other "soft" targets that weighs in excess of 2 tons folks, once again, put the fucking toys away and pay attention to the road. If it is so important that you need to talk on he phone, pull over and finish the call. End of story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reckless Ops
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hmmm, how do I put this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Get ready at Home for pete sake!
Every one of them involved a teenage girl. She was either driving her friends around, putting on makeup, or blasting her radio & changing her ipod selection.
Now, we are literally afraid for our backyard and our children because we are waiting for that one teenage girl, with a car loaded with friend, putting on makeup, talking on the phone, smoking a cigarette, and changing the radio station all at the same time. Oh! and let's not forget drinking her BFC monster!!
How can we get these kids to just simply DRIVE and get where they're going in one piece?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Hmmm, how do I put this?
Seriously? Did you really just post that?
When I read your concluding "lol" I just wanted to shoot myself to take my mind off the pain that was your joke.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Limiting Driving
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What else?
Geez, I guess you probably think I should stop doing the drugs too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Just think of all the guys that will be so relieved to be pulled over, and have an officer tell their wife to shut the hell up while their husband is driving.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Kids
[ link to this | view in thread ]
People are stupid
Anyone who says you can't outlaw stupidity is right. And you can't have a law for each stupid act. But when there are so many STUPID PEOPLE driving potentially lethal machines, maybe that outlawing cell phones should be put into law.
Just my opinion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Texting while driving
I also agree with the poster who said it is the conversation, not the physical phone that is causing problems. The plastic brick itself isn't a problem, it is the conversation which is taking away the focus from the road.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How this law makes us safer...
Now, when the phone rings, I have to:
1. Take out my phone.
2. Take out my Bluetooth headset.
3. See that my phone has greyed out the Bluetooth icon...again.
4. Click the Bluetooth icon and two checkboxes and OK.
5. Turn on my Bluetooth headset by holding the button down for 2-3 seconds.
6. Hit Answer before they hang up.
7. Switch hands.
8. Figure out how to get the Bluetooth headset on my ear.
9. Throw the phone on the passenger seat.
10. All this while driving!!!
Thanks, California, I feel much safer now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmmm, how do I put this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Best Idea ever
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What about the huge billboards?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Best Idea ever
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Driving slowly in the left lane?
Now that I think of it seeing traffic pile up behind a highway patrol car is also looks pretty dangerous so they should be kept off the roads as well ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Driving slowly in the left lane?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Techdirt
[ link to this | view in thread ]
driving
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Is there a law?
[ link to this | view in thread ]