Calif. bans text-and-drive. Crazy people sad?
Common sense has prevailed in the Golden State. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday signed a law banning texting or reading text messages while driving. The law takes effect on January 1.
We say common sense because, well, texting while driving is about as sane as shooting wolves from airplanes is sporting. Nonetheless, it seems that Schwarzenegger, who successfully pretended to be firing and reloading a shotgun while driving a big motorcycle in the second Terminator film (and I'm pretty sure that was him in those shots, not the stuntman who jumped into the Los Angeles River basin), shares an enthusiasm for preventing people from doing very silly things.
The new law may seem a bit redundant to one that took effect in July that banned holding a cell phone while driving. Using headsets and the like is still OK, of course. But we've had a good argument going in our office here since the Governator signed the texting measure: how, exactly, could people have been legally, if foolishly, texting while driving if it's already illegal to hold a cell phone while driving?
Blame it on a loophole big enough for the good governor to drive a Harley through. The initial law proscribed holding that cell phone up to your ear in order to make or take a call. It didn't block setting the phone on the passenger's seat or on the dashboard and pecking away while you drive (this, of course, is where that whole common-sense thing comes into play again).
Declan McCullagh, our in-house legal guru and general ridiculer of flawed legislation, describes the initial cell phone law like this:
It's riddled with loopholes. It doesn't apply to dialing a phone number (often the most distracting part). It doesn't apply to checking your e-mail while driving. It doesn't apply to browsing the Web. It doesn't apply to playing a handheld video game. It doesn't apply to writing a novel. It applies only to the "telephone" features of your handheld gadget. Basically, it's kind of ridiculous.
So there you go. Let's hope that someone bans playing video games while driving before there's a major Spore-related pileup on Highway 101.
Jim Kerstetter has been writing about the high-tech industry for more than 13 years, as a senior editor at PC Week, a Silicon Valley correspondent at BusinessWeek, and now an executive editor at CNET News. He moved back to Boston because he missed the Red Sox. E-mail Jim. 
How people can even consider doing something that takes their eyes off the road for extended periods of time... it just amazes me.
Will this stop those inconsiderate fools who text while they drive from doing it? I doubt it. But at least there's a painful fine on the books that might, just might, make them reconsider their foolish activity when behind the wheel after that CHP patrol car flashes his brights.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-10050817-39.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0
An actual example of the impact of careless driving.
Come on? Are we going to outlaw hamburgers, soft drinks, (I've already eliminated tacos for the obvious reason-they spill on my shirt.), handkerchiefs, note-taking implements like pen and paper?
Reasonable people know when they can successfully accomplish two tasks at the same time and shouldn't be subjected to over-zealous support for these crazy laws.
Don't we already have laws on the books to cover this - Inattentive Driving? Reckless Driving?
Don't LE Officers know how to charge people under the current laws? Heck, I saw the other day where an officer in West Virginia charged a DUI Suspect with BATTERY for farting in the officer's direction!
Ok now imagine trying to write those comments again in the condition I just described. I hope you rethink your comments because I don't want to go through that again.
That as probably the final straw, but I am not sure that the cell phone while driving law applies to railroads which is covered by other legislation. Anyway, when our "hands free" law went into there was a lot of uproar as to why it did not include texting. From what I heard on the news the law was written a number of years ago before texting was a phenomenon and if there is one class of people without foresight it is politicians.
"the police don't have enough time or personnel to patrol for texting drivers."
In California law enforcement is exempt from the cell phone hands free law. They usually already have an earpiece in for the their police communication radio. As to enforcement it is probably one of those things where you are in even more trouble if causing an accident if your were texting. That being said on day last month there was a police "surge" in my neighborhood and both my son and I think that they were looking specifically for cell phone violations. You could tell that they were looking at driver's behavior more than watching for expired tags or something.
Now this law with text messaging. What about most of the new vehicles with guidance systems, and touch screen radios/online units? How hypocritical of the nuts in California! What's the next law that these loser politicians are going to pass, just so they can smile in the camera???
Tell me!?!?!?!
-Mister Winky
Like Mr. Winky says, the word 'dangerous' is too ambiguous a term that can be interpreted to mean too many things depending a particular person's point of view. Ambiguity is one of the reasons WHY we're inundated with laws.
Just because it's common sense, doesn't mean people will do it. After the cell phone law passed, I totally noticed people were driving better (IMO) for about 2-3 weeks after. It was so nice! Now 2 months later, I see a few jacka**es every day driving holding their phones against their ears once again.
I still fail to understand how this is debatable by so many people. Maybe wait until you or someone you know/love are almost injured/killed by another driver doing this trivial activity and you'll understand it is a real danger. As a motorcyclist, I'm acutely aware of how often cell phone jabbering drivers coming in the opposite direction have made a left turn right in front of me without turn signals or even noticing there are other drivers on the road, nearly clobbering me or making me almost t-bone them, or have changed lanes right into me without using signals or even looking. As a cyclist, when you see someone on the phone driving half-way in the car lane and half-way in the bike lane and then swerve to avoid you or another cyclist at the last second, it makes you wanna throw a rock through their window.
Try driving while sitting on one hand and wearing headphones and tell me you're still driving as well as you would without doing that... and I'll say you must be a pretty bad/inattentive driver to begin with.
Doing two things at once while driving = NOT the problem. That's a baseless assumption.
The problem with the cell phone law is that most people hold the phone up to their left ear with their left hand - the ear closest to the window. Because you're holding the phone, you tend not to do things nearly as fast as you normally would...things like turning your head to make sure nobody's in your blind spot. Additionally, you can't see on your left hand side with a phone up to your ear.
Keep in mind that, irrespective of the phone, people don't signal before switching lanes, drive slow to "save gas", cut others off, chat with buddies in the car and take their eyes off the road, sing to loud blasting music, etc. All of these various activities, if you're not good at multitasking, are just asking for trouble.
The answer is simple: Force people to follow the letter of the law. If I'm a cop and I'm behind someone who drifts lanes without signaling, that should be a ticket. "California stops" should always be a ticket. Turning without a signal should be a ticket. Not using mirrors to see if someone's next to or behind you before acting should be a ticket. Cutting across lanes to get to a turn that you knew was fast approaching but you chose to stay in the outside lane so you could speed, should be a ticket. Unsteady driving (random lane drifting) should be a ticket. Tailgating should be a ticket. Backing out of a parking space or lot without checking mirrors and over shoulder first for oncoming cars should be a ticket. Driving forward out of a driveway or lot and looking right first instead of left first like the book says, should be a ticket. I could go on and on - but the bottom line is that people have to be made to follow the letter of the law. The cell phone issue is just making an existing problem worse.
"Doing two things at once while driving = NOT the problem. That's a baseless assumption."
You couldn't be more wrong. Many of the major studies on cell phone use while driving have conluded that driving while talking on the phone leads to inattentive driving, regardless of whether the person is using a handheld or hands free device. The studies largely conclude that the conversation dominates the driver's attention -- they can't focus on doing two things at once.
From that perspective, the current cell phone laws don't go far enough -- talking on a phone while driving should be banned outright, hands-free or not.
For more, please read up:
http://safety.blr.com/news.aspx?id=88705
http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/11589
http://www.insurance.com/article.aspx/Study_Shows_Cell_Phone_Users_More_Prone_to_Accidents/artid/319
-Mister Winky
We have it both ways in California. You can not use two earbuds/headphones while driving, you must leave one ear free.
And now you can't even use headsets because if you touch the phone for dialing, how are you going to prove that you weren't trying to text someone. You still look at the phone and touch the same keys.
Remember when one of the CNet editors got pulled over for scratching behind his ear because it looked like he was using a phone? Was it Rafe or Brian Cooley?
As for looking at your phone's screen for GPS data...that's what double-stick tape and Velcro are for. Slap that sucker to your dashboard and then you have no more excuses for holding the stupid thing while driving.
This means that people won't be able to use maps on their phone.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Awww. Let's have a pity party for all the idiots who can't think to LOOK AT THE MAP BEFORE LEAVING. Gee, are people REALLY THIS stupid?
- by PzkwVIb September 25, 2008 1:27 PM PDT
- Why do they need this law. Isn't reckless driving already illegal. Testing while driving is certainly reckless so this law is a stupid waste of time and a dumb stunt to make politicians look good.
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Mister Winky September 25, 2008 4:08 PM PDT
- Laws need to be specific to hold up in court, especially if you expect the police to cite people for recekless driving. Reckless driving is a serious misdemeanor in CA (2 points on the license) and it can rise to a felony in some circumstances. Texting while driving can result in reckless driving, but if the police tried to cite all texting drivers as reckless, they would lose a lot of court battles.
-
-
- by make_or_break September 26, 2008 7:05 AM PDT
- Since "reckless driving" was LEGALLY defined long before the advent of cell phones, a rookie trial lawyer wouldn't have to break a sweat to get a case tossed on that loophole technicality. You'd at least have to get a new law that redefines "reckless driving" in order to make texting or cellphone use inclusive in that. If you're going to have to do that anyways, why not just write a whole new law that (presumably) takes away the ambiguity? (as long as the industry lobby is kept at bay...)
-
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (60 Comments)Specific laws target specific unwanted behaviors -- that's a good thing.
-Mister Winky