[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.

[gamblor956]

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.

[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.

[michaelfeathers]

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

[tobylane]

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.

[jlgreco]

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.

[Evbn]

That's not what CA law says.

[Cushman]

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.

[Evbn]

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

[Cushman]

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.

[arthulia]

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

[gizmo686]

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...

[ck2]

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.

[jacoblyles]

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

[hkmurakami]

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.

[geon]

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

[mtviewdave]

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.

[hackmiester]

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).

[geon]

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

[freiheit]

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

[1SaltwaterC]

> you must always have both hands on the wheel

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