California Legalizes Some Texting While Driving, Sort Of
from the will-it-reduce-accidents? dept
A few years ago, California outlawed texting while driving. On the whole, this is one of those things that certainly seems like a good idea. I'm still amazed that anyone -- law or no law -- thinks that texting while driving is a reasonable thing to do. It's a clear death wish. That said, like many laws, there appear to be unintended consequences. A few studies have suggested that states that put in place anti-texting while driving laws actually saw an increase in accidents compared to nearby states that had no such ban. How does that make sense? Well, it's because the law doesn't seem to actually get everyone to stop texting while driving. Instead, what it does is make them hide what they're doing, which generally means putting it down in their lap. Before that, they could hold it up and still see the road, even if they weren't paying close enough attention to it.None of this is defending the ridiculously dangerous practice of texting while driving, but merely acknowledging that the law intended to make the roads safer could actually do the opposite.
With all that said, it's interesting to see that California quietly legalized some forms of texting while driving last week with very little fanfare. Basically, it allows totally hands-free texting -- such as dictating messages via a bluetooth headset or a car service like OnStar. Of course, unsurprisingly when dealing with lawmakers and lawmaking, there's a lot of confusion over the new rules -- with some wondering if it meant that something like Siri was now legal while driving. That resulted in the following amusing passage in the SJ Merc article about this, in which the staff of the sponsor of the bill is left to admit that no one there has an iPhone, so they didn't even really think about Siri:
On Friday, after much head-scratching and acknowledging nobody in Miller's office owns a Siri-equipped iPhone 4S, the assemblyman's aides concluded it will still be illegal to use your actual phone to text behind the wheel -- even by speaking the message directly into Siri.Either way, this seems to suggest, once again, the difficulty in regulating any particular technology in a rapidly changing technology market. I still don't understand why we don't just do the simple thing: make dangerous and distracted driving illegal, and just teach people the human consequences of doing something moronic like texting while driving.
The California Highway Patrol confirms that just the act of turning on the phone or selecting the phone's hands-free text app, like pushing the Siri button or Google apps on Android phones, is enough to warrant flashing lights in your rearview mirror and a $100-plus ticket. The same thing goes for using your phone to read texts.
"The phone can't be in your hands," said CHP spokeswoman Jaime Coffee. "Hands-free is the key."
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, sms, texting, texting while driving
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The stupid thing is they already made this law. I am pretty sure "reckless driving" is illegal everywhere. That pretty much covers anything you can think of. It even includes morons that can't drive even if fully focused on the road.
So the real question is, why don't we just enforce the rules that we have and quit adding stupid nit picky ones on top of them?
For some people talking on the phone while driving is a major distraction. For others it is not a big deal and no worse than talking to a passenger.
That brings up another point that really bothers me. Here it is these people are trying to say I can't use a phone while I drive because it is distracting. Well, I would say a screaming 2 year old throwing cheerios around the car is also distracting, where is the law banning them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or people beating their kids in the back, while driving. Very common where I live.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because our representatives are paid by the law. They have to justify their existence, and the more laws they introduce, the more they can use that to "prove" to their constituents they are doing something about the problem, unlike the other guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Satellite Navigation is Dangerous
It happens, it could just as easily have been a kid asking a question in the rear seat, or any number of other distractions. It's a matter of being prudent/responsible while driving, not outlawing anything that might be too much of a distraction...
Separate compartments for every passenger, people. Then your hands strapped to the steering wheel, with your head in a bit of a vice... only safe way to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Satellite Navigation is Dangerous
Then they will have to require tacks in the seat or something to make sure you can't fall sleep while driving.
I have more than once done something "distracting" because it was safer to be slightly distracted and awake than to try and be totally focused and pass out going 70.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cherios are nothing ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the 1990s, Montana changed its rural daytime car highway speed limit to "reasonable and prudent". This, incidentally, reduced highway deaths significantly. But in 1999, someone got a ticket for 100+mph, fought the ticket, and won, on the grounds that "reasonable and prudent" was so vague that it violated the state constitution's due process clause. A few months later, the state legislature enacted a conventional numerical speed limit, and highway deaths went back up.
It would be pretty easy to see a court throwing out a distracted driving statute the same way, even though it would be both more sensible and safer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Once I was driving way up the speed limit on a road that had no surveillance at all like the limit was like 70 mph and I was at 90 mph. However, it was broad daylight, the road had very few vehicles (none in the left lane which is the one to drive at the limit speed), the road was in incredibly good conditions (no holes or cracks) and most important I felt the car in my hands. When I noticed I was speeding I slowed down. When I came back through the same road it was already getting dark so I was actually driving slower than the speed limit, I don't like to drive during the night.
On another example I was driving to the seaside and the road isn't that good and there are very sharp curves. On top of that it was rainy at the time. So the speed limit was something something near 50 mph and I was driving at 30 mph.
You see, those were speeds I found to be reasonable and prudent at those conditions. The issue is, not everybody does what's reasonable and prudent and put themselves and others in danger. That someone that fought the ticket was speeding on purpose and knew he/she was way beyond the safety limits. It is unfortunate that you need to make explicit laws that penalize the majority because of a few who are immature and irresponsible. Here in Brazil it's actually the opposite lmao, you have to write laws for the majority that's immature and irresponsible and the few reasonable and prudent just have to go along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:Wally's German Friend
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem with "definitional" rules
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's very easy to get a conviction in court by having a police office stand up in court and say "I saw this individual operating a motor vehicle while using a cellphone"
It's much harder to get a conviction if all the police officer can say is "in my opinion, this individual was not paying proper attention to operating the vehicle"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
phone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've had conversations with loved ones only to discover later that they were driving and texting me for a god damn hour on the highway.
If I knew they were driving I would have said "text me when you aren't driving."
And it doesn't even help when I tell them "don't text me while you are driving." because they just ignore it and do it anyways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why? It's not your job to police the people you're talking with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AC #8
If you don't have a smart-phone, perhaps your initial text should include the phrases, "Are you driving now?" and, "Text me when you are safely parked."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What was that noise? It sounded like an point flapping over me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What was that noise? It sounded like an point flapping over me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What was that noise? It sounded like an point flapping over me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What was that noise? It sounded like an point flapping over me...
The decision that your hands being off the wheel as the root cause of the danger from texting while driving is absurd and is just...really sad. It IS what they are saying when it is the act of touching the phone that makes it illegal/legal to text and drive. By being that specific in the law, it implies that if your hands are on the wheel, you eye could be closed for all they care, because it has no effect on how well you drive. There are good reasons why some laws are vague and outline the intent of that law and the appropriate use of it, which is sadly ignored in modern times in place of always going with the 'letter of the law' mentality thinking, which in itself is not bad, it just has own it's place and uses as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What was that noise? It sounded like an point flapping over me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about having Siri docket in the dashboard and you reaching to tap it, like when you are reaching to change radio channels, or click some button elsewhere?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can outsmart a stupid person. But you never win trying to outstupid them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can outsmart a stupid person. But you never win trying to outstupid them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You can outsmart a stupid person. But you never win trying to outstupid them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A hypothetical
On a related note, some of our well meaning nanny state legislators are in favor of requiring all cel phones and mobile devices to be automatically disabled when you get in a car. Stupidest idea I've heard in a while but that's a real proposal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A hypothetical
> nanny state legislators are in favor of requiring
> all cel phones and mobile devices to be automatically
> disabled when you get in a car.
How does it know you're in a car?
If it works by motion, how does it know you're not on a train or a bus?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A hypothetical
> nanny state legislators are in favor of requiring
> all cel phones and mobile devices to be automatically
> disabled when you get in a car.
How does it know you're in a car?
If it works by motion, how does it know you're not on a train or a bus?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And if "just the act of turning on the phone or [...] pushing the Siri button is enough [...for] a $100-plus ticket", then what if I use the button on my Jawbone to enable Siri or voice dialing? Is that any more illegal than pushing the button on my steering wheel to enable voice commands that are built into my Honda?
This is all a big mess with lawmakers that don't understand the technology they're legislating. That's a sweet job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> CHP spokeswoman Jaime Coffee, then what if
> I'm not using it as a phone or text device but as
> a GPS for navigation. Is that any more illegal than
> holding a handheld Garmin or TomTom car
> navigation system?
California, yes, it is.
I know people who have gotten tickets in CA for illegal use of a cell phone while driving when all they were doing was using the navigation app on the phone. They weren't even holding them. One person had it wedged in the space between the dashboard and the steering wheel. The other had it attached to a special clip he bought to hold the phone.
Both were told that even though using a GPS app on a phone is no more distracting than looking at the same thing on a dedicated GPS device, the way the law is written, it's still illegal because the app is on a phone and using a phone while driving is prohibited even if you aren't actually using the telephone part of the device.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So how does that square with the operation of all these menu-based interfaces like BMW's iDrive? How can these be legal if pushing one button to activate Siri isn't?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Common Sense
Great idea! No law is going to fix stupid!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parental Control
It disables your teen's ability to text while operating a vehicle, so they stay safe!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
KALIA SMS COLLECTION
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://shayaristation.com/
I still don't understand why we don't just do the simple thing: make dangerous and distracted driving illegal, and just teach people the human consequences of doing something moronic like texting while driving."
Great idea! No law is going to fix stupid!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]