In California, the decisions of the state appelate courts (for levels below California's Supreme Court) are elective. That means, any lower court in the state can select to follow the decisions of any appellate state court. In practice, this means that the decision potentially applies to all of California, or to none of it.
Moreover, consistency is not required among the choice of precedence among lower courts, so a judge could theoretically select to follow the law of one appellate court in one case, and the law of an differing appellate court in another case (but in practice is rare, since it is a potentially actionable cause for dismissal from the bench).
The decision does not bar the use of GPS for navigation...it's still okay to have it on, showing you which way to go.
The decision specifically relates to the interactive use of a GPS device or software while driving. Meaning, i.e,. that you are inputting data with your hands while driving. Such acts were deemed to fall under the distracted driving laws. *And they're right: you should not be interacting with your screen while your car is not parked.
The only way forward to a sane future is to ban all humans driving all cars. Increase funding and scale of self-driving car efforts to get them on the road as quickly (and safely) as possible, then ban all the humans. I can see no other reasonable end to this insanity. 30,000 to 40,000 Americans die every year in car accidents that are pretty much all human error. Ban the human drivers.
I like driving / motorcycle riding too much to agree with this, but it really is ridiculous that some people are afraid of computers driving on public roads. When I see a Google self-driving car on the road, I am relieved.
They're not going to be able to legislate safe driving. Drivers are oblivious to the danger they wield with two-ton blocks of steel. It's not just distractions, it's a total lack of care.
Piling on more conditions and limitations on phone usage will create further contempt for these laws. Light-up road signs that threaten fines as consequence -- ignoring the dangerous consequence of distraction -- don't help.
All of the people saying: "why a law against this specifically?" should read the fine article. The court didn't "ban" checking smartphone maps while driving. It interpreted that California's distracted driving law could be applied to checking maps on your phone while driving, not just texting while driving. That's how these things work. The law is general, courts apply it to the specific circumstances to set a precedent for similar circumstances.
As someone who would have been ran into multiple times by texting drivers, had I not been paying full attention to what was happening around me, I wish these sorts of laws were rigorously pursued.
However, I think policing of this really only makes sense in some areas, those where there are a high number of pedestrians or cyclists who are at far greater risk of serious injury.
Are paper maps illegal too? What about having someone in the passenger seat check the map and then tell me what to do? Can they hold the phone in front of my face for me so I can see the map?
I honestly just wish they'd settle for a simple, concrete description of what's acceptable while driving and what isn't. Like, you must always keep your eyes on the road, or you must always have both hands on the wheel, or whatever. Of course, this would have collateral damage - reaching over to change the radio station becomes illegal. But that's a distraction too, isn't it?
I think about this occasionally since I use my phone to play music in the car. When I reach over to tap 'next track' on the incredibly broken Bluetooth hands-free kit (that CA law requires me to have) to change tracks, I'm technically distracted. Is it any different from reaching over and tapping the next track button on my phone? If anything, it's more distracting because Bluetooth (at least for cars) is a complete nonfunctional clusterfuck of a spec that never, ever works right and when it breaks in new and exciting ways I end up more distracted than I would have been if I just tapped a button on my phone's screen.
No, but using them while driving could be. Why are you trying to figure out where to go on a paper map while you are driving? If you don't know where to go, pull over, park, and figure it out safely so that you're not a danger to everyone else on the road. It's fine to have the map on your dashboard so you can use it for reference, but if you have to manipulate the map, you've probably fallen under the auspices of the distracted driving law.
I honestly just wish they'd settle for a simple, concrete description of what's acceptable while driving and what isn't.
They do: no driving while distracted. It is at once simpler, broader, and more useful than defining specific activities that must be performed.
When I reach over to tap 'next track' on the incredibly broken Bluetooth hands-free kit (that CA law requires me to have) to change tracks, I'm technically distracted.
In such case, your kit is no longer hands-free and is no longer the hands-free kit that CA law requires you to have. Get a new kit, or invest in steering-wheel compatible kits (generally requires a trip to an auto shop).
If anything, it's more distracting because Bluetooth (at least for cars) is a complete nonfunctional clusterfuck of a spec that never, ever works right and when it breaks in new and exciting ways I end up more distracted than I would have been if I just tapped a button on my phone's screen.
Simple solution: use the radio. Nothing requires you to consciously distract yourself so that you can select the next track. Indeed: it's your playlist. You should have thought about that ahead of time.
Don't worry, the days of this sort of thing are numbered.
There is exactly one way it is acceptable to operate a motor vehicle: Input a destination for the computer to drive to, and release the controls. Anything less is a tragedy that hasn't happened yet.
You shouldn't be looking away or tempted to do so. As a bicycle rider I'd appreciate it.
You know darn well you study a map far more and require far more brain distraction checking the screen than hitting the next button on your media player.
I guess this invalidates what I've been used to for the last 4 years about using phone mapping. [1] I've always wondered what would happen if a police officer thought you were texting but you were actually using a GPS, or changing a song on your iPod (does it matter if it has cellular connection or not?) Presumably we would need to exclude dash-mounted or built-in GPS manipulation as well. This makes everything with phone use more consistent (and restrictive), which may be the right thing to do.
I was pulled over for this exact reason in CA. I went to court, showed cell phone logs that I had not made or received any calls or texts, and the case was dismissed. The judge said specifically that "I'm not convinced that using maps is any less dangerous than texting, but I have to rule as a matter of law that if you were not communicating with anyone, then it is not illegal." Apparently angry birds would have been okay too.
(note that this happened in 2012, before the ruling in this article)
"Driving without due care and attention" is a catch-all violation that covers everything. There is no need and it is a waste of legislative resources to define all these specific things you can't do while driving.
Frankly I don't even see the point of explicitly banning drunk driving. All of the other laws covering reckless driving should more than cover any drunk driving scenerio.
I guess pointing out that laws already cover things is not as politically savy as passing new laws.
I think the idea is to prevent the reckless behavior before it becomes reckless driving, the same way that drunk driving is illegal even if you're not driving recklessly. For example, if you get pulled over for a busted tail light and the officer smells alcohol, you're going to jail.
Not saying I agree with it, just trying to expound on their logic.
Thanks. This is what I was looking for when I read the article, yet it didn't specifically mention that "manual operation while driving" is what's going to be illegal.
I got a ticket in DC about three years ago for using my blackberry maps app while driving. Citation said "improper use of a phone while driving" didn't matter what app I was using. It was like $100 too.
[+] [-] gamblor956|13 years ago|reply
In California, the decisions of the state appelate courts (for levels below California's Supreme Court) are elective. That means, any lower court in the state can select to follow the decisions of any appellate state court. In practice, this means that the decision potentially applies to all of California, or to none of it. Moreover, consistency is not required among the choice of precedence among lower courts, so a judge could theoretically select to follow the law of one appellate court in one case, and the law of an differing appellate court in another case (but in practice is rare, since it is a potentially actionable cause for dismissal from the bench).
The decision does not bar the use of GPS for navigation...it's still okay to have it on, showing you which way to go.
The decision specifically relates to the interactive use of a GPS device or software while driving. Meaning, i.e,. that you are inputting data with your hands while driving. Such acts were deemed to fall under the distracted driving laws. *And they're right: you should not be interacting with your screen while your car is not parked.
See the case below at the direct link, rather than the multiple blogspam links: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/680893-jad13-02.html
[+] [-] lsiebert|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cryptoz|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MRSallee|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MRSallee|13 years ago|reply
Piling on more conditions and limitations on phone usage will create further contempt for these laws. Light-up road signs that threaten fines as consequence -- ignoring the dangerous consequence of distraction -- don't help.
[+] [-] rayiner|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Swannie|13 years ago|reply
However, I think policing of this really only makes sense in some areas, those where there are a high number of pedestrians or cyclists who are at far greater risk of serious injury.
[+] [-] kevingadd|13 years ago|reply
I honestly just wish they'd settle for a simple, concrete description of what's acceptable while driving and what isn't. Like, you must always keep your eyes on the road, or you must always have both hands on the wheel, or whatever. Of course, this would have collateral damage - reaching over to change the radio station becomes illegal. But that's a distraction too, isn't it?
I think about this occasionally since I use my phone to play music in the car. When I reach over to tap 'next track' on the incredibly broken Bluetooth hands-free kit (that CA law requires me to have) to change tracks, I'm technically distracted. Is it any different from reaching over and tapping the next track button on my phone? If anything, it's more distracting because Bluetooth (at least for cars) is a complete nonfunctional clusterfuck of a spec that never, ever works right and when it breaks in new and exciting ways I end up more distracted than I would have been if I just tapped a button on my phone's screen.
[+] [-] gamblor956|13 years ago|reply
No, but using them while driving could be. Why are you trying to figure out where to go on a paper map while you are driving? If you don't know where to go, pull over, park, and figure it out safely so that you're not a danger to everyone else on the road. It's fine to have the map on your dashboard so you can use it for reference, but if you have to manipulate the map, you've probably fallen under the auspices of the distracted driving law.
I honestly just wish they'd settle for a simple, concrete description of what's acceptable while driving and what isn't.
They do: no driving while distracted. It is at once simpler, broader, and more useful than defining specific activities that must be performed.
When I reach over to tap 'next track' on the incredibly broken Bluetooth hands-free kit (that CA law requires me to have) to change tracks, I'm technically distracted.
In such case, your kit is no longer hands-free and is no longer the hands-free kit that CA law requires you to have. Get a new kit, or invest in steering-wheel compatible kits (generally requires a trip to an auto shop).
If anything, it's more distracting because Bluetooth (at least for cars) is a complete nonfunctional clusterfuck of a spec that never, ever works right and when it breaks in new and exciting ways I end up more distracted than I would have been if I just tapped a button on my phone's screen.
Simple solution: use the radio. Nothing requires you to consciously distract yourself so that you can select the next track. Indeed: it's your playlist. You should have thought about that ahead of time.
[+] [-] charonn0|13 years ago|reply
It is unacceptable to divide your attention when hurtling down the road in a ton and a half of steel.
[+] [-] Cushman|13 years ago|reply
There is exactly one way it is acceptable to operate a motor vehicle: Input a destination for the computer to drive to, and release the controls. Anything less is a tragedy that hasn't happened yet.
[+] [-] ck2|13 years ago|reply
You know darn well you study a map far more and require far more brain distraction checking the screen than hitting the next button on your media player.
[+] [-] jacoblyles|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hkmurakami|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1SaltwaterC|13 years ago|reply
There aren't any folks driving manual in your area?
[+] [-] exue|13 years ago|reply
[1] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2008/12/illegal-a...
[+] [-] platypii|13 years ago|reply
(note that this happened in 2012, before the ruling in this article)
[+] [-] Evbn|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ams6110|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlgreco|13 years ago|reply
I guess pointing out that laws already cover things is not as politically savy as passing new laws.
[+] [-] viveutvivas|13 years ago|reply
Oh wait.
[+] [-] intopieces|13 years ago|reply
Not saying I agree with it, just trying to expound on their logic.
[+] [-] Swannie|13 years ago|reply
However, put a dangerous situation in front of me, and I'm going to be in trouble if I was not paying full attention.
It's much better to provide a disincentive for bad behaviour, than attempt to prove that this bad behaviour was a contributing factor in an accident.
Much like speeding.
[+] [-] radley|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hkmurakami|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nvr219|13 years ago|reply