Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 27, 2014, 06:56 PM   #1
MacRumors
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
California Appeals Court Rules State Law Doesn't Prohibit Driver Use of Smartphone Maps




A California appeals court has ruled that a driver cannot be convicted of distracted driving for using a smartphone mapping application under current state law that prohibits the use of talking and texting while driving.

Because the law is so narrowly tailored -- it prohibits "listening" and talking on a phone without a hands-free device, as well as sending and receiving text-based messages -- it does not specifically apply to using smartphones in other ways.
Quote:
The 5th District Court of Appeal reversed the case of a Fresno man who was ticketed in January 2012 for looking at a map on his iPhone 4 while stuck in traffic. The driver, Steven Spriggs, challenged the $165 fine and won.

Spriggs was caught up by road work and grabbed his cellphone to find an alternate route when a California Highway Patrol officer on a motorcycle spotted him and stopped him to write the ticket.
It is possible that the California state legislature will address the issue in a future session as the law was likely intended to ban drivers from playing Angry Birds or making changes in a smartphone mapping app while driving, though a strict reading of the law doesn't explicitly make those activities illegal.

The decision reversed the ruling of a lower appeals court from last year.

Laws in other states may or may not cover the use of smartphone mapping apps, and this ruling will have no impact in states other than California. In addition, California drivers can still be cited for distracted driving, but could point to this case when fighting their ticket in court.

Article Link: California Appeals Court Rules State Law Doesn't Prohibit Driver Use of Smartphone Maps
MacRumors is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2014, 06:59 PM   #2
macs4nw
macrumors 68020
 
macs4nw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: On Safari…..
I'm almost certain that 'vacuum' won't last; too much at stake with lives lost due to distracted driving.

Having said that, there should be a clear distinction between such cases whether you are driving, or stationary due to traffic lights or construction, etc.
__________________
Due to my aversion to bragging and clichés, no words of wisdom to be found on this line.....
macs4nw is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2014, 07:00 PM   #3
goobot
macrumors 601
 
goobot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: long island NY
So is there a list of states that do allow it like California?
__________________
Unibody Macbook |iPad|Apple TV 2|Black iPhone 6
goobot is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2014, 07:01 PM   #4
ThisIsNotMe
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
It is possible that the California state legislature will address the issue in a future session
What issue?
ThisIsNotMe is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2014, 07:07 PM   #5
clayj
macrumors 604
 
clayj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 1123,6536,5321
MOST "distracted driver" laws are idiotic.

And it's not because distracted driving is OK. The problem is that most of these laws concentrate on SPECIFIC distractions: Texting and e-mailing are NOT OK, but scrolling through your list of contacts to find a number to dial or using a map IS OK? That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Here's a simple suggestion: Write a law that says ANY distraction is punishable, IF it causes you to cause or be involved in an accident. I don't care if the distraction is your cellphone, your desire to apply makeup while you are driving, your trying to fish a CD case off the floor on the passenger side, or you turning around because your kids in the backseat are misbehaving -- if you take your hands off the wheel or take your eyes off the road, YOU ARE A DISTRACTED DRIVER.

So, eyes front and DRIVE.

----------

"No, officer, I wasn't distracted when I caused that accident; I was looking at porn on my iPhone. Pretty sure the law doesn't cover that."
__________________
mac pro 2.8ghz 8-core 24gb ram 16tb hd 30" acd | 2014 macbook pro 2.8ghz 16gb ram 256gb ssd | mac mini 2.4ghz c2d | ipad air at&t 128gb space gray | ipad 2 | iphone 6 at&t 128gb space gray
clayj is offline   15 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2014, 07:10 PM   #6
joecool99
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: USA
awesome!
idiotic police giving tickets L and R to substantiate their own meaningless existence!

MOST cops don't think, he should have moved on, obviously the drives was not endangering the traffic in anyway doing what he did.
__________________
lightimagination.net
joecool99 is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2014, 07:11 PM   #7
bushido
macrumors 603
 
bushido's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: España y Germany
Quote:
Originally Posted by clayj View Post
MOST "distracted driver" laws are idiotic.

And it's not because distracted driving is OK. The problem is that most of these laws concentrate on SPECIFIC distractions: Texting and e-mailing are NOT OK, but scrolling through your list of contacts to find a number to dial or using a map IS OK? That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Here's a simple suggestion: Write a law that says ANY distraction is punishable, IF it causes you to cause or be involved in an accident. I don't care if the distraction is your cellphone, your desire to apply makeup while you are driving, your trying to fish a CD case off the floor on the passenger side, or you turning around because your kids in the backseat are misbehaving -- if you take your hands off the wheel or take your eyes off the road, YOU ARE A DISTRACTED DRIVER.

So, eyes front and DRIVE.

----------

"No, officer, I wasn't distracted when I caused that accident; I was looking at porn on my iPhone. Pretty sure the law doesn't cover that."
yep thats how its done over here, you arent allowed to be using your phone while driving no matter what
__________________
¡No hables a menos que puedas mejorar el silencio!
Don't judge me by my user name - I was young and stupid xD
bushido is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2014, 07:20 PM   #8
Antares
macrumors 68000
 
Antares's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Milky Way....a little place called Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by macs4nw View Post
I'm almost certain that 'vacuum' won't last; too much at stake with lives lost due to distracted driving.

Having said that, there should be a clear distinction between such cases whether you are driving, or stationary due to traffic lights or construction, etc.
The problem is, how do define "distracted driving?" Most new cars now have built-in GPS. If you glance at the built-in screen, like intended, is that distracted? If you use a phone gps, how is that any different than looking at the built-in screen? How is any of this different than when we had paper maps or printed turn by turn directions? How is manipulating a gps any different than manipulating a radio or other controls on a car?

The real problem is caused by people texting or talking on the phone, one-handed and not paying attention. But drivers get just as distracted by talking with other people in the car. A mother with her kids can be equally distracted while driving as someone who is texting while driving.

Where are all the lines drawn?
__________________
Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. - Steve Jobs
An Apple a day keeps the PC's away
Antares is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2014, 07:21 PM   #9
luckydcxx
macrumors 6502a
 
luckydcxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
This isn't gonna fly in NY. The Vehicle and Traffic Law doesn't allow you to use ANY electronic device while driving.

1225-d. Use of portable electronic devices. 1. Except as otherwise
provided in this section, no person shall operate a motor vehicle while
using any portable electronic device while such vehicle is in motion;
provided, however, that no person shall operate a commercial motor
vehicle while using any portable electronic device on a public highway
including while temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic
control device, or other momentary delays. Provided further, however,
that a person shall not be deemed to be operating a commercial motor
vehicle while using a portable electronic device on a public highway
when such vehicle is stopped at the side of, or off, a public highway in
a location where such vehicle is not otherwise prohibited from stopping
by law, rule, regulation or any lawful order or direction of a police
officer.
1-a. No motor carrier shall allow or require its drivers to use a
portable electronic device while operating a commercial motor vehicle as
provided in this section.
2. For the purposes of this section, the following terms shall have
the following meanings:
(a) "Portable electronic device" shall mean any hand-held mobile
telephone, as defined by subdivision one of section twelve hundred
twenty-five-c of this article, personal digital assistant (PDA),
handheld device with mobile data access, laptop computer, pager,
broadband personal communication device, two-way messaging device,
electronic game, or portable computing device, or any other electronic
device when used to input, write, send, receive, or read text for
present or future communication.
(b) "Using" shall mean holding a portable electronic device while
viewing, taking or transmitting images, playing games, or, for the
purpose of present or future communication: performing a command or
request to access a world wide web page, composing, sending, reading,
viewing, accessing, browsing, transmitting, saving or retrieving e-mail,
text messages, instant messages, or other electronic data.
(c) "Commercial motor vehicle" shall have the same meaning as such
term is defined by subdivision four-a of section two of the
transportation law.
(d) "Motor carrier" shall have the same meaning as such term is
defined by subdivision seventeen of section two of the transportation
law.
3. Subdivision one of this section shall not apply to (a) the use of a
portable electronic device for the sole purpose of communicating with
any of the following regarding an emergency situation: an emergency
response operator; a hospital; a physician's office or health clinic; an
ambulance company or corps; a fire department, district or company; or a
police department, (b) any of the following persons while in the
performance of their official duties: a police officer or peace officer;
a member of a fire department, district or company; or the operator of
an authorized emergency vehicle as defined in section one hundred one of
this chapter.
4. A person who holds a portable electronic device in a conspicuous
manner while operating a motor vehicle or while operating a commercial
motor vehicle on a public highway including while temporarily stationary
because of traffic, a traffic control device, or other momentary delays
but not including when such commercial motor vehicle is stopped at the
side of, or off, a public highway in a location where such vehicle is
not otherwise prohibited from stopping by law, rule, regulation or any
lawful order or direction of a police officer is presumed to be using
such device, except that a person operating a commercial motor vehicle
while using a portable electronic device when such vehicle is stopped at
the side of, or off, a public highway in a location where such vehicle
is not otherwise prohibited from stopping by law, rule, regulation or
any lawful order or direction of a police officer shall not be presumed
to be using such device. The presumption established by this subdivision
is rebuttable by evidence tending to show that the operator was not
using the device within the meaning of this section.
5. The provisions of this section shall not be construed as
authorizing the seizure or forfeiture of a portable electronic device,
unless otherwise provided by law.
6. A violation of this section shall be a traffic infraction and
shall be punishable by a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more
than one hundred fifty dollars upon conviction of a first violation;
upon conviction of a second violation, both of which were committed
within a period of eighteen months, such violation shall be punished by
a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than two hundred dollars;
upon conviction of a third or subsequent violation, all of which were
committed within a period of eighteen months, such violation shall be
punished by a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than four
hundred dollars.
luckydcxx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2014, 07:32 PM   #10
nostaws
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
So, I'm totally cool playing words with friends while driving again?

Awesome.
nostaws is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2014, 07:33 PM   #11
Keithnteri
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Your quote doesn't fly for most drivers.

Your quote is for <em>commercial drivers,</em> NOT most drivers that have a simple class C license.

I do understand your point. I also wish that those people that have that simple class C license would have to take the tests and go through the training that I had to go through to both get and keep my class A license but that is a topic for another day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by luckydcxx View Post
This isn't gonna fly in NY. The Vehicle and Traffic Law doesn't allow you to use ANY electronic device while driving.

1225-d. Use of portable electronic devices. 1. Except as otherwise
provided in this section, no person shall operate a motor vehicle while
using any portable electronic device while such vehicle is in motion;
provided, however, that no person shall operate a commercial motor
vehicle while using any portable electronic device on a public highway
including while temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic
control device, or other momentary delays. Provided further, however,
that a person shall not be deemed to be operating a commercial motor
vehicle while using a portable electronic device on a public highway
when such vehicle is stopped at the side of, or off, a public highway in
a location where such vehicle is not otherwise prohibited from stopping
by law, rule, regulation or any lawful order or direction of a police
officer.
1-a. No motor carrier shall allow or require its drivers to use a
portable electronic device while operating a commercial motor vehicle as
provided in this section.
2. For the purposes of this section, the following terms shall have
the following meanings:
(a) "Portable electronic device" shall mean any hand-held mobile
telephone, as defined by subdivision one of section twelve hundred
twenty-five-c of this article, personal digital assistant (PDA),
handheld device with mobile data access, laptop computer, pager,
broadband personal communication device, two-way messaging device,
electronic game, or portable computing device, or any other electronic
device when used to input, write, send, receive, or read text for
present or future communication.
(b) "Using" shall mean holding a portable electronic device while
viewing, taking or transmitting images, playing games, or, for the
purpose of present or future communication: performing a command or
request to access a world wide web page, composing, sending, reading,
viewing, accessing, browsing, transmitting, saving or retrieving e-mail,
text messages, instant messages, or other electronic data.
(c) "Commercial motor vehicle" shall have the same meaning as such
term is defined by subdivision four-a of section two of the
transportation law.
(d) "Motor carrier" shall have the same meaning as such term is
defined by subdivision seventeen of section two of the transportation
law.
3. Subdivision one of this section shall not apply to (a) the use of a
portable electronic device for the sole purpose of communicating with
any of the following regarding an emergency situation: an emergency
response operator; a hospital; a physician's office or health clinic; an
ambulance company or corps; a fire department, district or company; or a
police department, (b) any of the following persons while in the
performance of their official duties: a police officer or peace officer;
a member of a fire department, district or company; or the operator of
an authorized emergency vehicle as defined in section one hundred one of
this chapter.
4. A person who holds a portable electronic device in a conspicuous
manner while operating a motor vehicle or while operating a commercial
motor vehicle on a public highway including while temporarily stationary
because of traffic, a traffic control device, or other momentary delays
but not including when such commercial motor vehicle is stopped at the
side of, or off, a public highway in a location where such vehicle is
not otherwise prohibited from stopping by law, rule, regulation or any
lawful order or direction of a police officer is presumed to be using
such device, except that a person operating a commercial motor vehicle
while using a portable electronic device when such vehicle is stopped at
the side of, or off, a public highway in a location where such vehicle
is not otherwise prohibited from stopping by law, rule, regulation or
any lawful order or direction of a police officer shall not be presumed
to be using such device. The presumption established by this subdivision
is rebuttable by evidence tending to show that the operator was not
using the device within the meaning of this section.
5. The provisions of this section shall not be construed as
authorizing the seizure or forfeiture of a portable electronic device,
unless otherwise provided by law.
6. A violation of this section shall be a traffic infraction and
shall be punishable by a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more
than one hundred fifty dollars upon conviction of a first violation;
upon conviction of a second violation, both of which were committed
within a period of eighteen months, such violation shall be punished by
a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than two hundred dollars;
upon conviction of a third or subsequent violation, all of which were
committed within a period of eighteen months, such violation shall be
punished by a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than four
hundred dollars.
Keithnteri is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2014, 07:34 PM   #12
JoeG4
macrumors 68020
 
JoeG4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Bay Area, Ca.
Send a message via ICQ to JoeG4 Send a message via AIM to JoeG4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antares View Post
The problem is, how do define "distracted driving?" Most new cars now have built-in GPS. If you glance at the built-in screen, like intended, is that distracted? If you use a phone gps, how is that any different than looking at the built-in screen? How is any of this different than when we had paper maps or printed turn by turn directions? How is manipulating a gps any different than manipulating a radio or other controls on a car?

The real problem is caused by people texting or talking on the phone, one-handed and not paying attention. But drivers get just as distracted by talking with other people in the car. A mother with her kids can be equally distracted while driving as someone who is texting while driving.

Where are all the lines drawn?
You're really not supposed to interact with your GPS while you're driving. Many cars (including mine) have radios that will not let you use certain features if you're driving for that reason.

Most car companies have tried to make it a little easier with voice commands and steering wheel controls, but yeah.. you're really (in theory) not supposed to be screwing around with your dashboard while driving.

As for talking to others in the vehicle, the thing is they're also watching where you're going and their lives are at stake, so they're aware of the situation. Driving with kids is a different matter, but somewhat unavoidable unfortunately.

As far as using the phone while driving, tbh I can't deal with it - the times I happened to have someone on handsfree I didn't pay attention to more than half of what they said because my mind was on the driving.

Guess I'm a crappy multitasker, but at least I acknowledge that and don't do it lol.
__________________
I've been a huge fan of Mac OS X since 2001!
JoeG4 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2014, 07:38 PM   #13
C DM
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by clayj View Post
MOST "distracted driver" laws are idiotic.

And it's not because distracted driving is OK. The problem is that most of these laws concentrate on SPECIFIC distractions: Texting and e-mailing are NOT OK, but scrolling through your list of contacts to find a number to dial or using a map IS OK? That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Here's a simple suggestion: Write a law that says ANY distraction is punishable, IF it causes you to cause or be involved in an accident. I don't care if the distraction is your cellphone, your desire to apply makeup while you are driving, your trying to fish a CD case off the floor on the passenger side, or you turning around because your kids in the backseat are misbehaving -- if you take your hands off the wheel or take your eyes off the road, YOU ARE A DISTRACTED DRIVER.

So, eyes front and DRIVE.

----------

"No, officer, I wasn't distracted when I caused that accident; I was looking at porn on my iPhone. Pretty sure the law doesn't cover that."
The problem is that it's more of a reactionary policy then--how would anyone know if that action would lead to any of that until after the fact?

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antares View Post
The problem is, how do define "distracted driving?" Most new cars now have built-in GPS. If you glance at the built-in screen, like intended, is that distracted? If you use a phone gps, how is that any different than looking at the built-in screen? How is any of this different than when we had paper maps or printed turn by turn directions? How is manipulating a gps any different than manipulating a radio or other controls on a car?

The real problem is caused by people texting or talking on the phone, one-handed and not paying attention. But drivers get just as distracted by talking with other people in the car. A mother with her kids can be equally distracted while driving as someone who is texting while driving.

Where are all the lines drawn?
That's pretty much it unfortunately.
C DM is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2014, 07:38 PM   #14
Yoshi Yogurt
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
How does this work with music?

I always have my iphone or ipod classic hooked up with cassette adapter in my old truck and I usually choose an album before I start driving but on long rides I obviously must select a new album when one finishes...
Yoshi Yogurt is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2014, 07:39 PM   #15
IJ Reilly
macrumors P6
 
IJ Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Palookaville
Quote:
Originally Posted by clayj View Post
MOST "distracted driver" laws are idiotic.

And it's not because distracted driving is OK. The problem is that most of these laws concentrate on SPECIFIC distractions: Texting and e-mailing are NOT OK, but scrolling through your list of contacts to find a number to dial or using a map IS OK? That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Here's a simple suggestion: Write a law that says ANY distraction is punishable, IF it causes you to cause or be involved in an accident. I don't care if the distraction is your cellphone, your desire to apply makeup while you are driving, your trying to fish a CD case off the floor on the passenger side, or you turning around because your kids in the backseat are misbehaving -- if you take your hands off the wheel or take your eyes off the road, YOU ARE A DISTRACTED DRIVER.

So, eyes front and DRIVE.
Sorry, too late. Distracted driving is already illegal, certainly in California, and probably in every other state in the Union. The other problem with your theory is that it tries to put the cow back in the barn after it has already escaped. A distraction could only be ticketed as the cause of or contributing to some other observed violation.
__________________
*The season starts too early and finishes too late and there are too many games in between.
Bill Veeck
IJ Reilly is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2014, 07:47 PM   #16
Swift
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Quote:
Originally Posted by macs4nw View Post
I'm almost certain that 'vacuum' won't last; too much at stake with lives lost due to distracted driving.

Having said that, there should be a clear distinction between such cases whether you are driving, or stationary due to traffic lights or construction, etc.
There should be a number of traffic tests and studies of this before they write any more laws. What's the difference between a "smartphone map app" and an old standalone Tom-Tom?
Swift is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2014, 07:50 PM   #17
rjlawrencejr
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: LA/OC/IE
Quote:
Originally Posted by clayj View Post
MOST "distracted driver" laws are idiotic.

And it's not because distracted driving is OK. The problem is that most of these laws concentrate on SPECIFIC distractions: Texting and e-mailing are NOT OK, but scrolling through your list of contacts to find a number to dial or using a map IS OK? That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

... if you take your hands off the wheel or take your eyes off the road, YOU ARE A DISTRACTED DRIVER.
I agree with most of what you said.

Part of the problem is prior to the specific no mobile phone use while driving laws came into being we already had unsafe driving laws on the books. Let's be honest and understand this is also a revenue generating ploy (I don't care if some say otherwise) since as I think has been pointed out before, if he had consulted a paper map to get around the traffic, this would not have been an issue.

I really wish the laws were repealed, not so that I could use my phone with impunity, but because too many officers see things in black and white (I guess it's the training, amazingly though, they expect nuance when it pertains to them) and don't evaluate the situation in its totality. But I think if you follow the money, you can imagine there are pressures placed on them by higher powers demanding more traffic stops and citations.

I'll go a step further. One can can be a distracted driver even while one is supposedly looking at the road as there are plenty of distractions to be had - other cars, billboards, street signs, businesses, people, drowsiness. I think you get the point.
rjlawrencejr is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2014, 08:02 PM   #18
ArtOfWarfare
macrumors 603
 
ArtOfWarfare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Send a message via Skype™ to ArtOfWarfare
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRumors View Post
the law was likely intended to ban drivers from playing Angry Birds
But not Disco Zoo, Flappy Birds, or Cut the Rope. Angry Birds is much more distracting than any other iOS game that ever has or will exist.
__________________
Don't tell me Macs don't last: 2007 iMac, 2007 Mac Mini, 2008 MacBook Air, all Vintage.
(iMac obsoletion: April 28, 2015, MBA: October 14, 2015, Mac Mini: March 9, 2016)
ArtOfWarfare is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2014, 08:07 PM   #19
thatoneguy82
macrumors Demi-God
 
thatoneguy82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Beach Cities, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi Yogurt View Post
How does this work with music?
My concern as well. I have BT audio streaming, so no wires, but I do grab my phone to change music (never while driving though).
__________________
- Christian
"Pain demands to be felt."
17MBP(6,1), iP6 (128GB), iPad3, ATV, TC, APE AmazonFTV
thatoneguy82 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2014, 08:10 PM   #20
taptic
macrumors 65816
 
taptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: California
Great. Now can we decide on Google Glass once and for all?
__________________
If you want a cool new feature on a Samsung phone, just suggest it to Apple.
taptic is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2014, 08:13 PM   #21
clayj
macrumors 604
 
clayj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 1123,6536,5321
Quote:
Originally Posted by C DM View Post
The problem is that it's more of a reactionary policy then--how would anyone know if that action would lead to any of that until after the fact?
The answer to that is obvious: You shouldn't be handing out tickets to anyone JUST because they are distracted. The distraction must lead to actual harm. We shouldn't punish people for what might have happened; we should punish them for what DOES happen.
__________________
mac pro 2.8ghz 8-core 24gb ram 16tb hd 30" acd | 2014 macbook pro 2.8ghz 16gb ram 256gb ssd | mac mini 2.4ghz c2d | ipad air at&t 128gb space gray | ipad 2 | iphone 6 at&t 128gb space gray
clayj is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2014, 08:17 PM   #22
paradox00
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by clayj View Post
MOST "distracted driver" laws are idiotic.

And it's not because distracted driving is OK. The problem is that most of these laws concentrate on SPECIFIC distractions: Texting and e-mailing are NOT OK, but scrolling through your list of contacts to find a number to dial or using a map IS OK? That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Here's a simple suggestion: Write a law that says ANY distraction is punishable, IF it causes you to cause or be involved in an accident. I don't care if the distraction is your cellphone, your desire to apply makeup while you are driving, your trying to fish a CD case off the floor on the passenger side, or you turning around because your kids in the backseat are misbehaving -- if you take your hands off the wheel or take your eyes off the road, YOU ARE A DISTRACTED DRIVER.

So, eyes front and DRIVE.

----------

"No, officer, I wasn't distracted when I caused that accident; I was looking at porn on my iPhone. Pretty sure the law doesn't cover that."

What's funny is virtually every place already had such a law, before these distracted driving laws came into effect. Where I am, it's called driving without due care and attention.
__________________
"This is not open to debate, is not part of some cute imaginary world where everyone's opinion is equally valid or whatever. Windows 8 is a disaster. Period." -Paul Thurrott, Windows Supersite
paradox00 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2014, 08:21 PM   #23
clayj
macrumors 604
 
clayj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 1123,6536,5321
And yes, the punishment for careless/distracted driving that leads to injury or death should be harsh.

Enough with tickets that really don't deter anyone from driving while distracted and which mostly only serve as revenue enhancements for the police -- let's say that if you were looking at your phone and, as a result, caused an accident that killed someone, you'd be charged with something like aggravated vehicular manslaughter and face a LONG prison term and a LIFETIME ban on being able to operate a motor vehicle.
__________________
mac pro 2.8ghz 8-core 24gb ram 16tb hd 30" acd | 2014 macbook pro 2.8ghz 16gb ram 256gb ssd | mac mini 2.4ghz c2d | ipad air at&t 128gb space gray | ipad 2 | iphone 6 at&t 128gb space gray
clayj is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2014, 08:36 PM   #24
joecool99
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by clayj View Post
And yes, the punishment for careless/distracted driving that leads to injury or death should be harsh.

Enough with tickets that really don't deter anyone from driving while distracted and which mostly only serve as revenue enhancements for the police -- let's say that if you were looking at your phone and, as a result, caused an accident that killed someone, you'd be charged with something like aggravated vehicular manslaughter and face a LONG prison term and a LIFETIME ban on being able to operate a motor vehicle.
that's BS. punishments as you propose ruin people's lives and create a lot bigger clusterfuk in the society. eye for eye is such BS. does not solve anything.
the punishment is the ACT of it happening itself.
__________________
lightimagination.net
joecool99 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2014, 08:45 PM   #25
C DM
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by clayj View Post
The answer to that is obvious: You shouldn't be handing out tickets to anyone JUST because they are distracted. The distraction must lead to actual harm. We shouldn't punish people for what might have happened; we should punish them for what DOES happen.
Most tickets wouldn't apply then if something could be done only after something actually happened. Tickets for going over the speed limit wouldn't apply. Tickets for broken/non-working lights. Tickets for DUI even. That doesn't seem to make much sense really. The whole point of sticking to the laws/regulations and making sure that people stick to them is to avoid all those those bad things, not to wait for them to happen so that then people can be punished for them.
C DM is offline   4 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Appeals Court Rules Judge Must Reconsider Banning Samsung Devices for Apple Patent Violations MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 85 Nov 24, 2013 09:42 AM
California Court Rules Anti-Texting Laws Apply to Checking Maps While Driving MacRumors iOS Blog Discussion 106 Aug 21, 2013 04:20 PM
Appeals Court Overturns Sales Ban on Samsung Galaxy Nexus MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 240 Oct 19, 2012 01:48 AM
Appeals court reverses sales ban on Samsung smartphone samcraig Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion 1 Oct 11, 2012 12:58 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:38 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC