Finally, California drivers can read a cell phone map (iPad too?)

Davoud:
> > Joe Simitian deserves an award for his concern for public safety.

Liam O'Connor:
> They said the same thing about Senator Joe McCarthy.
> Until people came to their senses.

Ridiculous, and a non sequitur. Not the same subject, not the same
league.

> > I don't care if Satan supports it.
> He does. His name is Senator Joe Mcc... I mean Simitian.

Also ridiculous.

> > You are unlikely to convince me that
> > it is safe to drive while attempting to read a complex map display.

> You're joking right? At this very moment, Simitian's office is preparing a
> bill to outlaw anything in a driver's hands other than the steering wheel.
> That means no cigarettes, no coffee, no portable GPS, not even a pair of
> sunglasses. (http://www.senatorsimitian.com)

> You think that's sane?

Quite sane. Anything that takes a driver's attention away from the task
at hand is a threat to public safety.

> It even includes paper maps, I might add.

Paper maps--clumsy to use, difficult to read--should be near the very
top of the list of items forbidden to use while driving.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

In article >, Davoud >
wrote:

> > > You are unlikely to convince me that
> > > it is safe to drive while attempting to read a complex map display.
>
> > You're joking right? At this very moment, Simitian's office is preparing a
> > bill to outlaw anything in a driver's hands other than the steering wheel.
> > That means no cigarettes, no coffee, no portable GPS, not even a pair of
> > sunglasses. (http://www.senatorsimitian.com)
>
> > You think that's sane?
>
> Quite sane.

not even close to sane. it's ludicrous.

> Anything that takes a driver's attention away from the task
> at hand is a threat to public safety.

then all cars must be single passenger, because a second passenger can
take away one's attention, particularly children.

no radio, cd player, cupholders and quite a bit more.

> > It even includes paper maps, I might add.
>
> Paper maps--clumsy to use, difficult to read--should be near the very
> top of the list of items forbidden to use while driving.

what about written directions, the kind someone might have given before
there were gps devices?

or do you expect everyone to memorize how to go before embarking?

the problem is bad drivers, who will remain bad drivers whether or not
you remove distractions.

On 2014-02-28, nospam > wrote:
> In article >, Davoud >
> wrote:
>
>> > > You are unlikely to convince me that
>> > > it is safe to drive while attempting to read a complex map display.
>>
>> > You're joking right? At this very moment, Simitian's office is preparing a
>> > bill to outlaw anything in a driver's hands other than the steering wheel.
>> > That means no cigarettes, no coffee, no portable GPS, not even a pair of
>> > sunglasses. (http://www.senatorsimitian.com)
>>
>> > You think that's sane?
>>
>> Quite sane.
>
> not even close to sane. it's ludicrous.

Maybe in your black & white world. Or perhaps you are one of the
assholes we see gripping their phones blabbing to who-know-who while
recklessly speeding in the fast lane.

>> Anything that takes a driver's attention away from the task
>> at hand is a threat to public safety.
>
> then all cars must be single passenger, because a second passenger can
> take away one's attention, particularly children.

Second passengers (especially adults, but also children) come with a
second set of eyes watching the road around you, along with bodily cues
that communicate hazards and so on. Last I checked cell phones, tablets,
coffees, hamburgers, salads, and makeup containers are missing these key
features. As with any issue, this is not black & white; but there are
surely some distractions that are worse than others.

> the problem is bad drivers, who will remain bad drivers whether or not
> you remove distractions.

Minimizing distractions on the road is a good thing. Only a dummy would
argue this. But since you are clearly the authority on this, I guess we
should just take your word on it.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2014-02-28, Arif Khokar > wrote:
> On 02/27/2014 11:55 PM, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Too many people are too distracted by things in their cars while driving
>> as it is - a problem that seems to get worse year after year. Every
>> single time I drive, I see people talking on their phone, drinking,
>> eating, digging for things on the passenger floor or glove box, putting
>> on makeup *and* eating or drinking at the same time, scolding their
>> brats in the back seat, and all sorts of other things that are decidedly
>> *not* driving
>
> So why not make this simple and get rid of all laws that define
> victimless crimes such as using a hand held GPS while driving, Simply
> put, if a particular driver ends up crashing an injuring or killing
> someone, then charge him based on the results of the crash (property
> damage, injury, death, etc.). I don't care whether he was drunk,
> reaching for something on the passenger floor, using a hand held GPS,
> fell asleep or whatever else might of happened. If he ends up killing
> someone in a crash, then charge him with vehicular manslaughter.

So your solution is to change nothing. Got it.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 22:08:35 -0800, Savageduck wrote:

> As long as you don't hold it up to your head.

I think the law states only that you pushed a button.
It says nothing about holding it to your ear.

On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 19:36:17 +1300, Your Name >
wrote:

>In article <201402272208359605-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
> wrote:
>> On 2014-02-28 04:36:04 +0000, Susan Sage > said:
>> > On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 20:07:52 -0800, Liam O'Connor wrote:
>> >>
>> >> You're joking right? At this very moment, Simitian's office is preparing a
>> >> bill to outlaw anything in a driver's hands other than the steering wheel.
>> >> That means no cigarettes, no coffee, no portable GPS, not even a pair of
>> >> sunglasses. (http://www.senatorsimitian.com)
>> >>
>> >> You think that's sane?
>> >
>> > Nothing in California is sane.
>> >
>> > But what I want to know is whether an ipad with cellular is considered a
>> > cell phone?
>>
>> As long as you don't hold it up to your head.
>
>Apparently, until they change the stupidly restrictive wording of the
>law, you are currently "allowed" to play Angry Birds and other games
>while driving ... no doubt some idiot will now try playing a driving
>game while driving.

An appeals court has ruled, not that the California law is too
restrictive (stupid or not), but that it is no specific enough. From
the LA Times:

[Start]
By Victoria Kim

February 27, 2014, 5:20 p.m.

Talk or text you may not, but it is legal for drivers to look at maps
on their cellphones while on the road, a California appellate court
ruled Thursday.

The 5th District Court of Appeal sided with a Fresno man who received
a $165 ticket when he consulted a map application on his phone,
looking for an alternate route around a traffic jam. Steven Spriggs
had unsuccessfully fought the ticket in traffic court and later in
Superior Court, arguing that the law only prohibited talking on the
phone, not looking at a map.

Judges on the appellate court reversed the lower court, writing that
the law was not intended to impose a blanket ban on any use of a
cellphone. They noted that when the law was enacted in 2006, no one
used their phones for much other than conversation. (The first iPhone
debuted in 2007.)

Attorneys for the state argued that the law, which prohibits “using a
wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and
configured to allow hands-free listening and talking,” makes any
“hands-on" use of a phone illegal.

The judges disagreed, writing that such a broad interpretation of the
law would lead to “absurd results.”

“Then it would be a statutory violation for a driver to merely look at
the telephone’s display,” they wrote in the 18-page opinion. “It would
also be a violation to hold the telephone in one’s hand … and look at
the time or even merely move it for use as a paperweight.”

http://tinyurl.com/1zt
--
Don Kirkman

On 28 Feb 2014 16:58:50 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> So your solution is to change nothing. Got it.

You have to remember, there are already a dozen or so laws that legislate
unsafe driving (e.g., reckless driving, unsafe lane changes, crossing the
imaginary barrier, speeding, unsafe weaving, not staying in your lane,
etc.), each of which probably contributes to an accident in one out of a
few thousand cases.

(That is, you can make an unsafe lane change about a thousand times before
it causes an accident - these are guesstimates to help you understand the
point that we already legistlate possibly unsafe actions.)

Would adding another two dozen laws for specific acts where only one in
five hundred thousand cause an accident make any difference?

(Here, I assume using a cellphone to make a phone call contributes to
acccidents in something like one out of a half-million cases.)

We can argue about the statisticks, but the answer is obvious.

On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 09:51:24 -0500, Davoud wrote:

> Quite sane. Anything that takes a driver's attention away from the task
> at hand is a threat to public safety.

So, we should make everyone a criminal who twists the dial on their
dashboard radio or who sneezes into his hands, taking them off the steering
wheel (and closing their eyes to boot!).

Surely you don't want to make everyone who smokes in their car a criminal.

Or do you?

On 28 Feb 2014 16:56:31 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Maybe in your black & white world. Or perhaps you are one of the
> assholes we see gripping their phones blabbing to who-know-who while
> recklessly speeding in the fast lane.

You need to calm down the hysteria.
Fear creates hysteria. Rightousness creates problems.
Remember the retired captain who shot a guy for texting?
Don't be like that guy.

The "fear" is that use of cellphones can contribute to an accident in, oh,
I don't know, let's say one out of a half million cases.

But, your ire against someone using the cellphone happens in, I'd say, 1
out of 1 case that you see, which, if you average across the entire state
of California, is something like one in 30 million or so.

So, we're arguing over a law that is aimed at preventing, what?
Two? Three? Five? How many accidents in a year?

Compare that to the number of accidents daily.
The result will be astounding.

Let's end the fear and hysteria and rightousness with fact.

On 2014-02-28 14:51:24 +0000, Davoud said:

> Davoud:
>>> Joe Simitian deserves an award for his concern for public safety.
>
> Liam O'Connor:
>> They said the same thing about Senator Joe McCarthy.
>> Until people came to their senses.
>
> Ridiculous, and a non sequitur. Not the same subject, not the same
> league.
>
>>> I don't care if Satan supports it.
>> He does. His name is Senator Joe Mcc... I mean Simitian.
>
> Also ridiculous.
>
>>> You are unlikely to convince me that
>>> it is safe to drive while attempting to read a complex map display.
>
>> You're joking right? At this very moment, Simitian's office is preparing a
>> bill to outlaw anything in a driver's hands other than the steering wheel.
>> That means no cigarettes, no coffee, no portable GPS, not even a pair of
>> sunglasses. (http://www.senatorsimitian.com)
>
>> You think that's sane?
>
> Quite sane. Anything that takes a driver's attention away from the task
> at hand is a threat to public safety.
>
>> It even includes paper maps, I might add.
>
> Paper maps--clumsy to use, difficult to read--should be near the very
> top of the list of items forbidden to use while driving.

What should be against the law is driving without due care and attention...

....and it already is.