

California Court Bans Checking Smartphone Maps While Driving - NateLipscomb
http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/06/california-court-bans-checking-smartphone-maps-while-driving/

======
gamblor956
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>

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

------
cryptoz
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.

~~~
MRSallee
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.

~~~
Evbn
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.

~~~
Cushman
> 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.

------
MRSallee
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.

------
rayiner
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.

------
Swannie
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.

------
kevingadd
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.

~~~
charonn0
> 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.

~~~
mtviewdave
>> 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.

~~~
charonn0
The question asked for a description, not a law.

------
exue
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...](http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2008/12/illegal-
and-tex.html)

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

~~~
kelnos
Many of the newer units do.

------
ams6110
"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.

~~~
jlgreco
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.

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

Oh wait.

~~~
intopieces
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.

~~~
mpyne
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.

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

~~~
hkmurakami
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.

------
nvr219
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.

