California Court Rules It Illegal To Check Maps On Your Phone While Driving
from the judging-distracted dept
For years, we've discussed the problematic nature of "distracted driving" laws that seek to outlaw things like talking on your phone or texting while driving. It is not that we don't think these behaviors are dangerous. It seems clear that those activities can take one's attention away from driving and potentially increase the likelihood of an accident by a significant amount. However, the laws are often broad and inconsistent -- and, worse, they can have serious unintended consequences. As we've noted there are lots and lots of things that can distract a driver which are still considered perfectly legal, such as changing the radio station, talking to passengers, eating, etc. Trying to ban each and every distraction one by one is a ridiculous and impossible task. In fact, studies have suggested that bad distracted drivers will often just find a different distraction to occupy their time. And, thanks to these laws, those drivers are often still texting while driving, but are simply holding their phones even lower, taking their eyes further off the road, so as to avoid detection... actually making the roads more dangerous. The real answer is to focus on stopping bad driving, not trying to call out specific activities.Anyway, all of that is preamble to a new court ruling in California, found by Orin Kerr, saying that using a mobile phone to check a mapping/GPS program violates the state's law against distracted driving. The driver had argued that the laws are about talking on a phone and/or texting/surfing the internet, but that clearly using a mapping program should be allowed. The court disagreed, even as it acknowledged some of the oddities of what that meant, and said it's really the job of the state lawmakers to figure out what they want to do.
The ruling doesn't totally rule out using a phone's mapping program, but does suggest it needs to be set up in a manner where it is done handsfree, where the driver does not need to hold or touch the phone. Basically, the ruling suggests that it's mostly illegal to touch your mobile phone while driving. The driver noted that this interpretation didn't make much sense, since the legislature had felt the need to add a specific clause to outlaw texting/messaging on phones, but if the overall bill banned any non-hands-free operations, then that would have already been covered. The court disagrees, claiming (oddly) that the added provision also served the purpose of banning non-telephone mobile devices. That may be true, but doesn't explain why that provision also called out messaging services for telephones.
All that said, I generally agree that if you are using mapping software it is probably a hell of a lot safer to somehow have it mounted on your dash, rather than in your hand -- but still this ruling seems to once again highlight the oddities of these particular laws, and how confusing and ineffective they can be.
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, distracted driving, gps, laws, maps, mobile phones
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Driving Distracted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Driving Distracted
Now before you decide to cite GPS Units, GPS units by default carry a voice prompt and usually come with a dashboard mount.
The other sad reason why this law came in is because you have idiots using there phones like GPS units in this world. Most cellphones use cell tower triangulation to figure out where you are and not satellites so even then, it can be a bit unreliable compared to a dash mounted GPS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Driving Distracted
Pot - meet kettle!
Next time check what he actually said.
Tell me how tracking where to go next by looking down on a PAPER map isn't distracting as you drive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Driving Distracted
In an even more exhaustively and exaggerated way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Driving Distracted
You missed the sarcasm in that.
In spite of your blatant attack towards me over something you clearly did not pick up on, and that the comment was sarcastic snarking with a side of strawman, I will answer your question brought upon by your blatant stupidity.
When you LOOK DOWN AT YOUR CELL PHONE, you are looking at the virtual piece of paper that is the map. Back in the day, when we actually used trip ticks from the AAA....we either memorized the route form point to point using landmarks and resetting the odometer...or had a navigator reciting it for us. They were typaically small and were mapped out by res areas so you could easily do calculations, write them down if you wished and get going while you were
Now we have GPS units on a phone...with a maps app...and data is not typically stored locally unless it is web cache...that is how Google Maps works. The simple fact is that when you just have a GPS unit there is a lot less fiddling around. When they came out, accidents were reported because people were either A) Not used to the technology and followed each instruction extremely literally and at an OCD level (because the treated them like Trip Ticks rather than navigators or navigation devices), or B) blamed the software int he GPS unit to cover their own dumb ass.
Now that you have a history lesson here is the point to this. Using a dash mounted built in GPS and adjusting it is physiologically the same action as adjusting the radio while you are driving down the road...just more distraction. People (likely those such as yourself) lack the common sense of actually pulling over and adjusting routes. You take your eyes off the road and then adjust it....then again adjusting the radio often involves little to no effort in basically switching stations. Using a GPS is a lot more involved than that because unlike FM or AM radio, it takes a longer time to enter in commands that have it calculate a route between point A and point B. That amount of involvement means more time off the road.
So how much time do you spend looking at the road when you have to pick up your cell phone? It certainly takes more time than reaching over and sacrificing a bit of only one motor skill to adjust your GOS unit by hitting the "Detour" button...at least with mounted GPS units you can keep an eye on the road easier.
When you grab your phone to adjust your map...you have to first take your eyes completely off the road to figure out whew your phone is. Some people have the common sense to actually pull over to do that...but most cell phone owners don't pull over. The risk is too great when your vision on the road is completely distracted while fumbling around on the phone.
"VERY puffed up and exhaustively exaggerated way"
Isn't that an indication of my understanding of the sarcasm??
"Pot - meet kettle!"
But at least I can call you kettle black dumbass...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Driving Distracted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Driving Distracted
I guarantee there are people who have looked at paper maps while driving, and some people who still do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Driving Distracted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Driving Distracted
Most of modern smartphones (save, probably, cheapest ones) have true GPS sensors and are able to combine positioneing data from several sources (GPS, trangulation, ...), such provideing more precise and reliable location data than classical GPS units.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Driving Distracted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Driving Distracted
Well that may be a worst case scenario, but it is a sad fact that we have to make a common law out of an absolute lack of common sense. Still, you make a good point about reckless driving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: tons of people being dumb on cell phones
Every time a new hand-held device gains popularity, the cagers become less aware of the outside world.
Driving while dialing/yakking/texting/map-gazing has been proven to be at least as dangerous as DUI, and should be treated in the same way: handcuffs and a tow to the impound lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: tons of people being dumb on cell phones
And bees! Ever get a bee in the car? Pandemonium!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: tons of people being dumb on cell phones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: tons of people being dumb on cell phones
I've had bees in the car (sister sat on one during a trip when we were kids). Also had to do a high-speed highway pullover when what I thought was my own hair touching my face turned out to be a fricken spider. And the sweet early summer evening drive that went nearly crashing into a closed gas station when a stag beetle zoomed into my hair.
Gah! Bug ban, hurry!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: tons of people being dumb on cell phones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: tons of people being dumb on cell phones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: tons of people being dumb on cell phones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: tons of people being dumb on cell phones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: tons of people being dumb on cell phones
There shall be random DWDYTMG check points put in place to cross check vehicle black box logs with cell phone tower logs in order to verify compliance with vague and ill conceived laws. If convicted, one will face mandatory fines, community service and possible jail time. This is obviously a much more heinous crime than crashing the global economy and must be snipped in the bud so to speak. As a bonus, your privatized prison stocks will see a boost. Over all it is a wonderful proposal as certainly nothing can possibly go wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: tons of people being dumb on cell phones
> gazing has been proven to be at least as
> dangerous as DUI, and should be treated in
> the same way: handcuffs and a tow to the
> impound lot.
Problem is that if you want to legally treat them the same, you have to meet the same standards of proof. With DUI it's relatively straightforward science-- blood-alcohol level proves impairment.
With a phone, it's not nearly as easy to prove someone was weaving because they were using their phone. If they were chatting with someone or sending a text, the time stamp and phone records might be able to prove that, but if there was anyone else in the car, they could easily say the passenger was using the phone, not the driver and the time stamps become meaningless. Things like web surfing or using a map app don't even generate time stamps, so the state would be at a loss to prove the criminal complaint, certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt, to the point where they could seize a vehicle or imprison someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: tons of people being dumb on cell phones
Question of....conduct violates section The 23123, subdivision (a).
Section 23123, subdivision (a) provides:
A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a
wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically
designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and
talking, and is used in that manner while driving.
When the underlying facts are undisputed, issues of statutory
construction are subject to independent review on appeal."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: tons of people being dumb on cell phones
Except the judge is wrong. The underlying facts *were* disputed. He just declared them undisputed so he didn't have to deal with them.
> A person shall not drive a motor vehicle
> while using a wireless telephone
Ah, but this defendant wasn't using a wireless telephone. He was using the map app. They are two separate devices encased within one container.
If I take an old-style flip-phone and put it in a plastic bin alongside a Garmin GPS, the bin and everything in it doesn't suddenly become a 'wireless telephone' merely because one of the items inside it is a wireless telephone, nor would powering on the Garmin be 'use of a wireless telephone' merely because it's sitting in the same bin as a wireless telephone. It's the same thing with iPhones and Androids and the like. The bin is just a lot smaller, thanks to the wonders of technology.
The fact that a judge either doesn't understand this (or is willfully ignoring it) hardly changes the fact that use of the map app on an iPhone is *not* use of a wireless telephone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: tons of people being dumb on cell phones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://gps.about.com/b/2008/09/30/windshield-mounting-of-gps-legalized-in-california-but-the res-a-catch.htm
Basically, it must be in the lower left corner of your windshield.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He was holding it in his hand constantly, instead of having 2 hands on the wheel. If he had simply had it down and tapped it once and then immediately went back to 2 hands on the wheel, he would have been fine according to the judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There should be a law then. We can not have individuals running around thinking they can do what ever they please. Keeping your hands at 10 and two is the best policy and therefore everyone should be forced into 10 & 2 zero tolerance compliance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Card games are legal on 2nd tuesdays when it's raining.
In other words it has to be by law in the most disruptive place possible. You've not really refuted the other guy. Useful GPS mounts are still effectively illegal in California.
They really get you coming AND going in the People's Republic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Card games are legal on 2nd tuesdays when it's raining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Card games are legal on 2nd tuesdays when it's raining.
> in California.
I'm lucky that my dashboard configuration is coincidentally perfectly designed to hold an iPhone. The spot between the seedometer and tachometer is exectly iPhone-sized and the raised sides of both gauges hold it in place so it doesn't slide around. And putting the phone there doesn't cover up any of my other dasboard indicators.
No mount needed and it's invisible to any cop eyes from outside the car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dumb law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "That is also the law in Oregon"
I live in Oregon, I've never heard of this law. I routinely use the mapping function of my phone without a problem, and I have discussed the handsfree requirements (Bluetooth sends out radio signals BTW) with the cops I know & this has never come up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "That is also the law in Oregon"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "That is also the law in Oregon"
Here is the Oregon law in question: ORS 811.507
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Some GPS units are called receivers. This is because they receive RF signals but do not transmit. As you stated, these receivers can be used in conjunction with a transmitter given they have an appropriate output.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The average receiver will only track and store routes of the user locally....that information can be downloaded on the fly through connections to a transciever....the transmitter. So by themselves, most civilian GPS units such as a Garmin Nuvi or a TomTom are receivers. The point is the data where the use's route can be tracked and stored locally on the device. Computers are capable of communicating with modern vehicle GPS units.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the same in BC...
So if your phone/GPS/blender is in a dashmount and you are using voice control you are good.
But there is Also separate distracted driving laws that cover driving while distracted by anything.
I think this is perfect and makes complete sense (despite the fact that I use my phone to text/surf/etc while driving).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's the same in BC...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's the same in BC...
Did I touch it twice? Once? Does throwing it on the passenger seat count?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't think, must drive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So if you hit a person, and in court it was determined that you were trying to read a paper map while driving, and while driving over someone and killing them.. you would be charged with reckless driving causing death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you think if you can make excuses for these people that somehow makes it ok?
To suggest these measures do not help makes driving safer, you are a fool. No wonder you don't do a real job, no one in their right mind would hire you for ANYTHING !!!
To change the radio, or the gears, or talk to a passenger does not require extended periods of time with your eyes away from the road, gee, you can even eat and drink and NEVER take your eyes of the road..
But try to read or write a text or LOOK AT A FUCKING MAP, and see if you can do that 'at a glance'.
Most people (with at least half a brain) when they know something is illegal (particularly something important) will simply stop doing it.. NO, they will not continue to do it but hide it.. They will STOP DOING IT..
Would you like an airline pilot texting his girlfriend during a landing ?
You have children right Masnick ?? how would you feel if one of them was hit by a car where the driver was using his phone and trying to read a map instead of looking out for people running on the road ??
If you were a normal person, and responsible parent you would nail his balls to the wall.
I'm sure you would not say:
'it's ok you killed my child, I don't believe you looking at a map on your phone contributed to you not seeing my child run onto the road'.
Of course statistically there are SO MANY people causing accidents by eating a pie while driving compared to using a phone !!! /sarc
So are you saying you have to take your eyes off the road for an extended period of time to take a sip from a can of drink ? or to say something to your passenger ?
I love it when you tramp out statistics when they 'sort of' support your argument, and say stupid things (your opinion) when the statistics indicate your a dick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unless my sarcasm meter is broken you need to go sit in the corner and STFU.
Nigel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: GPS phones?
My wife has a Samsung Andriod SCH-R720 with skyvi and google maps, she talks to it, it talks back it not only gives directions but street names as we pass, she Never touches her phone. and those apps are FREE. the phone came out 3-4 years ago. she can even message me without touching it, let alone call me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: GPS phones?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: GPS phones?
Who said that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how much is a GPS that talks to you, that can give you directions hands free, and without you having to look away from the road.
What's wrong with just pulling over for 2 mins, if you don't know where you are and have to refer to a map, then what is the point of continuing to drive ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How much
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you cause an accident in your car due to reckless driving, it shouldn't matter the details of how you are being reckless.
In short, this is already covered in the law, and amounts to CA politicians pointing at nothing and demanding thanks for all their hard work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So with the above suggestion: Look at a billboard? 3 years in jail! Have a kid in the back clamoring for your attention? 3 years in jail! Glance at your phone to make sure which road you're supposed to turn on? 3 years in jail! Hell, look down to read the directions you've written down for yourself so you don't have to use your phone's GPS? You guessed it, 3 years in jail!
Yeah, sounds pretty reasonable to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Gambling with you own life i high risk pastimes is one thing, gambling with other people lives as well is a very different matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"
yes, KILL SOMEONE by driving like a moron,, 3 years in jail.. SHOULD BE MORE...
your not spending 3 years in jail for trying to find out what road you need to turn on.. you go to jail FOR KILLING SOMEONE !!!!!!
SO you not missing your turn off, is more important that NOT KILLING SOMEONE !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
oh, and I think you missed the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patchwork of state laws...
Where is it legal to make a left turn? A U-Turn? Talk on a cell phone while holding your phone? Talk hands free? Not talk at all?
Does it vary by state? County? City?
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but some places make knowing the laws inconvenient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For one, when one checks their phone's map app...they have to manipulate through menus to check it. IF the passanger was checking the maps for you and relaying the information then there would not be any issue. I live in Ohio Mike...our interstate highways here have a slightly larger lane girth than those in California. That being said, traffic patterns can average roughly 70 to 80 miles per hour. At that speed, there is no way any average person can concentrate fully on driving while manipulating a phone to check where they are.
Secondly, it is equally dangerous as a driver to alter your destination on a GPS unit while driving at any given time.
Just to demonstrate this for a GPS unit, I have a couple of images for you.
This is the typical view I get on my dashboard:
http://i.imgur.com/KlXU2fH.jpg
Notice the GPS unit mounted via suction cup on the far right? That is the average placement for dash mounted GPS units. In order to reach it:
http://i.imgur.com/R3pzjAn.jpg
I have to lean over. Now, when you bend over to reach for these things, certain leg muscles that are meant to be extending upon the break or gas peddle automatically contract to balance your torso out. It is common sense that when you wish to adjust something on a drastic scale on one of these things, to pull over and do it then.
Now you should note that the GPS unit is placed just outside my peripheral vision so I do not get distracted by it. The only time I adjust it is for detours, otherwise it recalculates the route. The point is that this thing is meant to automatically adjust directions on the fly from within the unit. The only data being exchanged between this device and satellites are a few numbers indication where you your avatar should be on the map which is stored on the unit itself...which locally stores maps.
Now imagine using Google Maps....on your phone. This data is constantly updated and when there is no signal, GPS chip or not...the map information is not stored locally, but is stored in temporary cache. It constantly updates the map based on where you are now and due to limited space of the devices you are using, the device will only show a certain portion of the map at any given time. The issue is that when there is no signal...you have no map.
So does this have a point to what I am saying? Hold on and let me you my point. It is far more distracting to navigate through a maps app on a phone when you deviate from course...because the alternate route is usually not uploaded to the phone as quickly as the GPS unit can use with its locally stored data. You have to manipulate your phone more than you do a GPS unit.
Granted it is distracting adjusting a GPS unit, but it is far more distracting reaching down or glancing at a phone to do it. It makes me sad to see these rulings. Not because of how the law interprets them, but the simple fact that people lack the common sense not to check out and manipulate their maps app while driving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The reason they want to outlaw phones is the cops can't tell what you were doing on them (texting, making phone call...) or if it was always just a map. Simple as that. It is not because the capability of the GPS is better than a phone, in fact it is just the opposite.
The problem with all these laws is "You can't fix stupid!", which was Mike's point.
When you try to idiot proof anything, all you do is create a bigger idiot. Mike's point is very valid. Rather than holding their phone on the steering wheel while texting (where they may see something on the road out of the corner of their eye), they now hold it in their lap (where the cops can't see it and thus can't site them for it, unless they have an accident and the cop looks at the time stamps of texts). The law does not prevent texting while driving any more than a speed limit prevents speeding. In fact the law makes in more dangerous, by causing people to attempt to hide the activity.
I text when I drive all the time. I have an app that reads texts to me and allows me to speak the reply. I also send emails, command navigation, take and make phone calls, read emails (app reads them to me). That said, I also take into account how much traffic there is, if I am familiar with the area...
In other words, my primary focus is always on driving, that is true even when talking to passengers, adjusting the radio, talking on my amateur radio, using my phone or gps, or whatever. Traffic is heavy, or road conditions are bad and my focus goes 100% to the road. I drive a lot more than most people do (about 50K a year). I haven't had an accident in more than 35 years, which was a one car accident from black ice (25Yrs X 50KYr = 1.25 Million Miles, actually more than that because I have been driving closer to 36 years). Why haven't I had an accident? Because my focus is always where it needs to be. I always know how many cars are around me and where. Who is gaining on me, who I am gaining on... I always see that idiot weaving in and out of traffic many cars behind me and know I need to keep an eye on him.
If you are going to pass laws, then pass laws that matter. Test peoples ability to handle their vehicle under adverse conditions, while distracted... don't give licenses to bad drivers.
Passing laws like 'No texting while driving', 'no phones for navigation'... do NOTHING to solve the problem of distracted driving. Stop treating the symptoms, and treat the disease, which was exactly Mike's point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is purely strawman because they are combating those who do not use hands free phones.
"If you are going to pass laws, then pass laws that matter. Test peoples ability to handle their vehicle under adverse conditions, while distracted... don't give licenses to bad drivers."
How many people text during the actual driving test?
"In other words, my primary focus is always on driving, that is true even when talking to passengers, adjusting the radio, talking on my amateur radio, using my phone or gps, or whatever. Traffic is heavy, or road conditions are bad and my focus goes 100% to the road. I drive a lot more than most people do (about 50K a year). I haven't had an accident in more than 35 years, which was a one car accident from black ice (25Yrs X 50KYr = 1.25 Million Miles, actually more than that because I have been driving closer to 36 years). Why haven't I had an accident? Because my focus is always where it needs to be. I always know how many cars are around me and where. Who is gaining on me, who I am gaining on... I always see that idiot weaving in and out of traffic many cars behind me and know I need to keep an eye on him."
Good for you....problem is not everyone is like you and the people involved with these incidents involving cell phones do not have the same motor skills. Even if you are in a remote area you still have to watch for local large wildlife crossing the roads.
" And, thanks to these laws, those drivers are often still texting while driving, but are simply holding their phones even lower, taking their eyes further off the road, so as to avoid detection... actually making the roads more dangerous. The real answer is to focus on stopping bad driving, not trying to call out specific activities."
Sorry Mike, but calling out specific activities is the only way we can establish whether or not something is illegal to do. You cannot punish people for what a few have done by giving other the universal boot for things they have not done. This ruling is cut and dry...the defendant had looked down at the phone taking their eyes off the road for a significant enough amount of time.
"Passing laws like 'No texting while driving', 'no phones for navigation'... do NOTHING to solve the problem of distracted driving. Stop treating the symptoms, and treat the disease, which was exactly Mike's point."
It is a disease. The issue is that this person was lowering their eyesight to get around the no non-hands free phone handling rules already in place in California. The bottom line is that the person looked down at their phone to navigate through the menus on the phone to see where they were going. They did not glance at it from a well placed mount. They looked down.
"The reason they want to outlaw phones is the cops can't tell what you were doing on them (texting, making phone call...) or if it was always just a map. Simple as that. It is not because the capability of the GPS is better than a phone, in fact it is just the opposite."
Except when you don't have a cellular signal.....that means you do not get the map. Google maps and Google Earth both rely on a certain amount of cache to download the maps to your phone. Once you leave a certain range or area on the map that cache is deleted and the new data is loaded. That data is downloaded to the phone in browser cache...the entirety of those maps are not stored directly on the device.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No the disease is "Distracted Driving" The symptom is looking at the phone, or putting on lipstick, trying to retrieve a CD from the floor, or yelling at your kids in the back seat... It really isn't a difficult concept. You couldn't possibly outlaw every activity that constitutes distracted driving. Cherry picking them only encourages the other behaviors which are as distracting or more distracting. "Well it isn't illeagal to retrieve that CD from the floor" or "Not illegal to read a book while I drive" (You would be surprised how many times I see that on the road). The laws should simply state it is illegal to drive distracted, if you do you can be sited. Police cars have cameras and they can be used to show a driver was distracted pretty easily. No need to outlaw a specific activity.
Stop saying that, it is factually incorrect. You can instruct Googles Navigation to download maps for your entire route. In addition there are apps that load maps for the enter US. As I previously stated they want to outlaw phones for navigation because there is no real way for a cop to prove you were reading a text not looking at a map, that is the reason for the law, not because the map might not appear.
Problem is none of this takes into account the built in screens in many cars, that allow not only maps and navigation, but phone calls, texting, selecting music, both radio sat radio..., and running most of the vehicles auxiliary controls. Those can be far more distracting if not used appropriately.
The whole texting while driving mania is just that a knee jerk reaction to the latest problem, but it does little to correct the real problem of "Distracted Driving" It is a farce and it causes more problems than it solves.
By the way, my name isn't Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As mentioned by Mr. Applegate, there are other mapping apps out there that load entire countries onto the phone. Similarly, there are apps like the aforementioned Skyvi that can give you voice control. And if you have your map & navigation pre-loaded then there should be no real reasons to touch your phone, or only to give it the briefest touches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
23123. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving.
(b) A violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a base fine of twenty dollars ($20) for a first offense and fifty dollars ($50) for each subsequent offense.
(c) This section does not apply to a person using a wireless
telephone for emergency purposes, including, but not limited to, an emergency call to a law enforcement agency, health care provider, fire department, or other emergency services agency or entity.
(d) This section does not apply to an emergency services
professional using a wireless telephone while operating an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and scope of his or her duties.
(e) This section does not apply to a person driving a schoolbus or transit vehicle that is subject to Section 23125.
(f) This section does not apply to a person while driving a motor vehicle on private property.
(9) This section shall become operative on July 1, 2011.
23123.5. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text-based communication, unless the electronic wireless communications device is specifically designed and configured to allow voice-operated and hands-free operation to dictate, send, or listen to a text-based communication, and it is used in that manner while driving.
(b) As used in this section "write, send, or read a text-based communication" means using an electronic wireless communications device to manually communicate with any person using a text-based communication, including, but not limited to, communications referred to as a text message, instant message, or electronic mail.
(c) For purposes of this section, a person shall not be deemed to be writing, reading, or sending a text-based communication if the person reads, selects, or enters a telephone number or name in an electronic wireless communications device for the purpose of making or receiving a telephone call or if a person otherwise activates or deactivates a feature or function on an electronic wireless communications device.
(d) A violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a base fine of twenty dollars ($20) for a first offense and fifty dollars ($50) for each subsequent offense.
(e) This section does not apply to an emergency services
professional using an electronic wireless communications device while operating an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and scope of his or her duties.
23124. (a) This section applies to a person under the age of 18 years.
(b) Notwithstanding Section 23123, a person described in
subdivision (a) shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone, even if equipped with a hands-free device, or while using a mobile service device.
(c) A violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a base fine of twenty dollars ($20) for a first offense and fifty dollars ($50) for each subsequent offense.
(d) A law enforcement officer shall not stop a vehicle for the sole purpose of determining whether the driver is violating subdivision (b).
(e) Subdivision (d) does not prohibit a law enforcement officer from stopping a vehicle for a violation of Section 23123.
(f) This section does not apply to a person using a wireless
telephone or a mobile service device for emergency purposes,
including, but not limited to, an emergency call to a law enforcement agency, health care provider, fire department, or other emergency services agency or entity.
(g) For the purposes of this section, "mobile service device" includes, but is not limited to, a broadband personal communication device, specialized mobile radio device, handheld device or laptop computer with mobile data access, pager, and two-way messaging device.
(h) This section shall become operative on July 1, 2008.
23125. (a) A person may not drive a schoolbus or transit vehicle, as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 99247 of the Public Utilities Code, while using a wireless telephone.
(b) This section does not apply to a driver using a wireless
telephone for work-related purposes, or for emergency urposes, including, but not limited to, an emergency call to a law enforcement agency, health care provider, fire department, or other emergency service agency or entity.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a violation of subdivision (a) does not constitute a serious traffic violation within the meaning of subdivision (i) of Section 15210.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.adslogistics.com/Portals/77106/images/distracted-driving.jpg
http://www.examiner.c om/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/driver_distractions.jpg
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/me dia/2009/12/distracted-driving.jpg
That last one is a fucking pair phones mounted within the peripheral vision within 45 degrees of the left eye from the driver's view. This is not only the wrong way to mount your devices, it is also blocking a vital sot that is not usually a blind spot. Worse yet...most people living in the US read left to right. That place makes it much more difficult to track any activity going from left to right...when it happens even remotely neat that spot. So not only is it a matter of tracking, it is also a matter of focus and depth perception being affected as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The others, all prove my point. "You can't fix stupid" Is it illegal to apply lipstick, or drink coffee while driving? Does it need to be?
The law should simply state 'Distracted driving may be cited and fined X for the first occurrence and Y for each subsequent one.' Of course then people would cry that it was too vague...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So, it is still way too close to the steering wheel....by the way...that wiper blade in the picture...points right.
" So the GPS and phone ARE properly positioned! "
That is only milking your argument for every penny you think it is worth. If they were properly positioned, they would be centered away from the driver's focus..whether the steering wheel is to the left or to the right, you cannot have those objects A) That close to you, and B) within a 45 degree range of depth of field of your line of forward sight. They are within the immediate line of site where the rotation of the eye allows the iris to focus on them without adjustment..
"The others, all prove my point. "You can't fix stupid" Is it illegal to apply lipstick, or drink coffee while driving? Does it need to be?"
So let me get this straight......you would rather have these people lose their licenses to text and drive...yet when they try to ban a new behavior that is also threatening (looking down at your phone for navigation purposes rather than mounting it like you do) to human life as texting while driving without a hands free set......you would rather just let them be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I would rather not try to outlaw every possible thing that makes up distracted driving. It isn't illegal to read a book and drive, just a text message, how stupid is that. Simply pass a law outlawing distracted driving and allow police and video evidence to cite each instance as appropriate.
Furthermore what constitutes distracted driving in bumper to bumper rush hour traffic is not distracted driving on a freeway where there is no traffic within a half mile of you. I frequently drive in both situations.
The point is you can't possibly outlaw every action that could make up distracted driving by making a list, it is a waste of time and money to try. Simply outlaw distracted driving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm confused. Are you saying it should be outside the driver's field of vision? But isn't the whole point that the driver can see it WITHOUT looking away from where they should?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Although I have been witness to scrolling dot matrix electric signs on the side of the road causing drivers to slow, I assumed it was in order to read the entire message. If our esteemed law makers feel inclined to regulate activities whilst driving, they should not be selective based upon nebulous criteria. The line item restriction mentality is simply stupid and inefficient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pretty funny huh. But yeah, let's continue down this road to hell paved with good intentions. It'll get great they said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hence the comparative slap on the wrist they got. The person might have known it was illegal to text while driving with one hand on the phone and the other on the wheel, but what is the difference if you have to look down at a non-hands free non-mounted phone acting as a GPS....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mwahahahahah Mwahahahahaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Look at the way the US Constitution is written, It says volumes without getting into specifics.
IF our politicians were to try to write that today it would be a 40 page document written single spaced in 8 point type.
It doesn't say: You can be a Jew, Muslim, Catholic, Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Baptist, Lutheran,...
You can look at a driver and tell instantly if they are distracted or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Strain on Court System and my Brain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Strain on Court System and my Brain
Why, mostly because it is a hobby, but also so there is a record in case of that accident, I hope never to be involved in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Strain on Court System and my Brain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't worry about it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So you don't know how to get to point C, but you know how to get to point B, do you not have the brains to look at a map BEFORE you start to drive and work in IN YOUR BRAIN how to get from Point B to point C, you destination ?
as for the quality of voice recognition, sure it was not reliable 15 years ago, but today, unless you are Stallone in Rambo ranting about pushing your mates guts back in, most GPS units have NO problems at all in understanding voice commands. Most humans also have little problems in understanding them.
MOST people even with half the intelligence of an Amoeba can create a mental picture of a map in their heads prior to going for the drive, and not require a GPS at all.
Sure, lots of people do lots of things that are not legal, but only an idiot would try to use that as an excuse to say 'well I can do something illegal too'.
so unless your brain dead, have no memory at all, and cannot work out where you are and where you need to go, then you have no right to even attempt to get there.
what do you do when you need to go somewhere and you don't know where that place is.. do you just get in your car and start randomly driving ?? waiting to find out what direction you need to go AFTER you are already going in some "random" direction ?
these are the same brain dead people you trust with guns !!!
for example, I live in Australia, but I could drive from Monmouth to New York, without a MAP at all, and I have never driven that rout, I have been driven that rout twice 15 years ago(one in each direction).
So either Americans are very, very stupid or Masnick is.
you also do not need voice recognition, you enter the location before you start the trip, and IT TALKS TO YOU. It does not have to recognise your voice to talk to you.. although you do have to understand English to recognise it.
Did I hear someone comment that masnick was misrepresenting this case ?? we'll welcome to Mansicks world...
Masnick is not interested in facts !!! he is interested in pushing his bias, facts just get in the way in Mansicks little pea brain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Apparently you either have a photographic memory, or don't drive very far ever. One of the points of GPS/maps is to help you find places that you don't know, or that are a long way away and which may not have simple routes. If people could just look at any map and 'memorise' the route easily, we wouldn't *need* GPS/maps - but we generally can't, especially if they are complicated. And what happens when you have to pick another route for whichever reason? Obviously you've never hit bad traffic or a blocked-off road.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm sorry to have to tell you this but... you just replied to darryl.
;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is a double standard at play here.
So it doesn't matter if the cop's claim is absurd. Your word against his and he's the cop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Very misleading. . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
distracted driving
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: distracted driving
I think you're nuts. Most people hate low speed limits. The only time a politician would try to win votes by lowering speed limits is if a particular road is noticeably dangerous, like weekly high speed accidents. In the normal case, if a politician makes a name for himself as the guy who's reducing speed limits around town he'll just get hate mail and probably, not even kidding, death threats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think you misunderstood. Mike didn't say it's safe to use your phone while driving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Handfree ban
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speaking of distracted driving laws being inconsistent...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So if you hit a person, and in court it was determined that you were trying to read a paper map while driving, and while driving over someone and killing them.. you would be charged with reckless driving causing death.
clearly the courts and law makers have agreed that texting or reading a map while driving is defined as SOME of the possible actions that are considered reckless. There are many others, some defined some not.
I you hit and killed a person when driving because you were trying to tie up your shoe laces, you would be charged for the same thing, as if you hit that person while texting.
you were driving in a reckless and careless manner resulting in death. Go to jail.
Is there a written law that say you cannot tie your shoe laces while driving ??? Probably not.
end result is still the same, the law just says that reading a map or texting 'is one of those things' from a very long list of things that WILL result in you getting a reckless driving charge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]