California Court Bans Checking Smartphone Maps While Driving | Hacker News Reader

California Court Bans Checking Smartphone Maps While Driving

techcrunch.com

34 pointsNateLipscomb45 comments

Just a clarification guys:

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

Thank you, both the way appellate decisions work and the fact that it refers to input not viewing were unclear.

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.

The Google cars aren't really so powerful yet. They defer to humans in anything but perfect highway conditions or a completely closed area with other cars banned. Without an accurate map, they can't drive. I think they don't even change lanes independently.

> They defer to humans in anything but perfect highway conditions

What do you mean by this? The Google car can negotiate stop signs properly, for example. It's limited to good conditions in a lot of ways, but it's no train.

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.

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.

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 are putting a lot of faith in technology that doesn't exist nearly how you imagine it.

I feel pretty comfortable putting my faith in experimental technology rather than average human beings.

Nothing against human beings of course, just when it comes to operating motor vehicles it ain't much to beat.

When the infrastructure becomes available, I have a hard time imagining how "self-driving" cars could possibly be any worse than humans driving cars.

Well, their is always the possibility that self driving cars could get hacked.

Although, even in that respect it would be pretty difficult to do worse than current cars. [1]

[1] http://www.ted.com/talks/avi_rubin_all_your_devices_can_be_h...

> I honestly just wish they'd settle for a simple, concrete description of what's acceptable while driving and what isn't

It is unacceptable to divide your attention when hurtling down the road in a ton and a half of steel.

Not to argue, but attention is not the blocky thing we like to think that it is.

That's not what CA law says.

>> I honestly just wish they'd settle for a simple, concrete description of what's acceptable while driving and what isn't

>It is unacceptable to divide your attention when hurtling down the road in a ton and a half of steel.

That's not an answer.

Of course people should pay attention while driving. But the question is: what should the law be? Should looking at paper maps while driving be illegal? Changing the radio station? Eating?

In the late '80s a driver killed 4 bicyclists on two-land highway outside of Silicon Valley (CA-152) when she bent down while driving to retrieve a fallen cassette tape. Should we ban music systems in cars?

The problem with taking banning "distractions" to its logical conclusion is that we'd end up with an absurd law that the people would never accept. The law, and driving culture, has always accepted some level of distraction. If that needs to change, then we need to decide how, and the advocates for any particular position need to advocate for their position, including addressing their position's logical inconsistencies.

The question asked for a description, not a law.

People overestimate their skills. I heard of someone, when hearing how far you travel before you realise you need to brake, said they could have braked and come to a stop in that same distance.

No talking to the driver in California then I guess.

Can we at least get billboards banned with this mentality though? Put it to some good use at least.

I read big physical books in the car, while driving, when at a red light. I wonder if I'll get a ticket for this.

If you are at a red light, you aren't driving.

Actually, in California, you are. CA distracted driving laws don't distinguish between stopped cars and cars in motion. Reading a text (or, now, checking a map) while stopped at a red light is legally the same as doing so while driving down the highway.

It is the same way in Alabama. If you are stopped and are sending messages then that is just as illegal as if you weren't.

I think the idea is, if the light turns green, you might hurry to put down your phone and begin to accelerate. Meanwhile, someone may be in front of your car, and in your rush, you do not notice this and plow into them (pedestrian, traffic got jammed up in the intersection, whatever).

What do you need to do to not be legally driving? Park the car? Turn off the engine? Get out of the car?

I believe you need to move out of the travel lanes of the public roadway. Pulling onto the shoulder, for instance.

Are paper maps illegal too?

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.

New things that distract you are bad. Old things that distract you are just the way things are.

> you must always have both hands on the wheel

There aren't any folks driving manual in your area?

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.

[1] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2008/12/illegal-a...

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)

Built in GPS should probably disable input when the car is moving, to discourage distractions.

Many of the newer units do.

"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.

Just ban "reckless driving" and be done with it.

Oh wait.

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.

Plus, it's something that the state can theoretically prove even if no one was there to witness the reckless driving. And even if there was a witness, witness testimony is almost comically unreliable.

I can drive perfectly "non-recklessly" whilst operating a phone, etc.

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.

It appears the issue is around "hands-free use", so it appears maps are still fine if you use a dash dock.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com