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
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.
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.
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.
It is unacceptable to divide your attention when hurtling down the road in a ton and a half of steel.
>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.
Can we at least get billboards banned with this mentality though? Put it to some good use at least.
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 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.
There aren't any folks driving manual in your area?
[1] http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2008/12/illegal-a...
(note that this happened in 2012, before the ruling in this article)
I guess pointing out that laws already cover things is not as politically savy as passing new laws.
Oh wait.
Not saying I agree with it, just trying to expound on their logic.
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.
