Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Duer 157099

(17,742 posts)
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 02:16 PM Apr 2013

Judge says cellphones can't be used for GPS, music while driving

Source: THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Most people know it's against the law to talk on a cellphone while driving a car.

But what about looking at a GPS map on a phone or adjusting music with one?

A Fresno County appeals court answered the question in a recent ruling that appears to expand restrictions on cellphone use.

The three-judge panel upheld a ticket issued to Steven Spriggs, a Fresno State University fundraiser, who pulled out his phone while stopped in traffic to study a map.

Read more: http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130410/ARTICLES/130419978



Wow. And what about using the old fashioned paper maps? An mp3 player that isn't a phone?
77 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Judge says cellphones can't be used for GPS, music while driving (Original Post) Duer 157099 Apr 2013 OP
He can't have my Spotify. shenmue Apr 2013 #1
What about a GPS device? Bennyboy Apr 2013 #2
Nope.... no can do with this ruling. SamReynolds Apr 2013 #9
When I was in the Army, even watching the Gauges was NOT the Driver's responsibly. happyslug Apr 2013 #24
Yeah ok. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #32
Thanks HappySlug. truedelphi Apr 2013 #35
You got that right, stupid stupid overreach. Exultant Democracy Apr 2013 #20
my wife is going to love this judge .. srican69 Apr 2013 #3
You sound sensible, and that srvival technique will help others survive as well. we can do it Apr 2013 #55
Really, though, kentauros Apr 2013 #65
A requirement in Houston - a Key Map. Manifestor_of_Light Apr 2013 #72
Oh, and it's kentauros Apr 2013 #73
I always wondered if that was female plural of "Bison". Manifestor_of_Light Apr 2013 #74
I just want to know where they get the 'r' sound in kentauros Apr 2013 #75
It's Dutch. Manifestor_of_Light Apr 2013 #76
Californias new cellphone law is pretty darned clear. Xithras Apr 2013 #4
But what about my mp3 player? Duer 157099 Apr 2013 #5
Those are covered by another law. Xithras Apr 2013 #8
Ipod ok, iPhone not ok. Paul E Ester Apr 2013 #12
My dashboard radio isn't hands-free. SamReynolds Apr 2013 #11
The person in question was not driving -- stopped in traffic. Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #14
Legally, he was driving. Xithras Apr 2013 #19
There has been at least one instance of someone being arrested for DUI LiberalFighter Apr 2013 #25
Pulled off to the side can also be considered the roadway. I know that's... Hassin Bin Sober Apr 2013 #27
Not using the GPS in a moving vehicle defeats the entire purpose of having a GPS in the first place. Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #39
Supposedly you're allowed to use it for GPS if you have a dashboard mount. woodsprite Apr 2013 #6
It already is illegal ripcord Apr 2013 #68
I got a ticket for checking my gps program on my phone at a red light. n/t ellisonz Apr 2013 #7
Common sense and law have nothing to do with one-another. SamReynolds Apr 2013 #15
Its not the law, imo, elleng Apr 2013 #22
To your questions, the answer to all of them would be YES, if I was the person being asked. happyslug Apr 2013 #26
Then you agree. SamReynolds Apr 2013 #31
No such a head brace would restrict a person range of view, and thus illegal happyslug Apr 2013 #37
Nonsense. SamReynolds Apr 2013 #43
No, I believe the driver should be in his own cocoon, where interaction with anyone is impossible happyslug Apr 2013 #59
Imagine all the butterflies! SamReynolds Apr 2013 #64
"Yes, it takes at least two seconds for something you see for you to react. This is how long it tak" AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #34
Oh, not so.... SamReynolds Apr 2013 #44
There are studies out there, the most interesting ones show a 2 second delay happyslug Apr 2013 #58
For simple driving (interfacing with other cars, not hazards like pedestrians) 2-5tenths of a seco AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #63
To play devil's advocate, yes your driving is hampered while sitting at a light if... Hassin Bin Sober Apr 2013 #29
Ummm... we're talking about a RED light. SamReynolds Apr 2013 #45
Duh. Really? I sit at green lights. Hassin Bin Sober Apr 2013 #47
My, such blind angst. SamReynolds Apr 2013 #48
Some of us hold the phone UP where we can still see the road. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #50
It'll be appealed and then the reversal will come from the appellate court Tender to the Bone Apr 2013 #10
This is the Court of Appeals, which upheld the trial Judge happyslug Apr 2013 #36
Brain dead decision. Buzz Clik Apr 2013 #13
Nope. SamReynolds Apr 2013 #16
This Was a Judge Rewriting the Law From the Bench AndyTiedye Apr 2013 #17
How so? SamReynolds Apr 2013 #18
Here's the law as written. How did he rewrite it? Xithras Apr 2013 #23
Phoning while driving, GPSing, texting while driving is WORSE THAN GUNS. truedelphi Apr 2013 #21
But I have a mount in my car for my gun Blandocyte Apr 2013 #40
My fave bumper sticker in the last few years - truedelphi Apr 2013 #56
Just mount it. I have a mount for my iPhone in my car. onehandle Apr 2013 #28
not illegal in Texas KatyMan Apr 2013 #30
That's the law in most of Texas from what I've seen. Although, I think Arlington bans all octothorpe Apr 2013 #70
what world does this guy live in? RedstDem Apr 2013 #33
Many people don't own maps anymore. kentauros Apr 2013 #67
Former Californian MorganaSeawalker Apr 2013 #38
They should pass a law cartach Apr 2013 #41
"Most people know it's against the law to talk on a cellphone while driving a car. " FiveGoodMen Apr 2013 #42
I use my phone for navigation and audio books while driving Marrah_G Apr 2013 #46
The texters have caused this problem. Blame them....and pull over to read your map, gps, etc. we can do it Apr 2013 #49
the gps on my phone d_r Apr 2013 #53
Using the steering wheel when driving is a major distraction! n/t RKP5637 Apr 2013 #51
Good. Drivers need to keep both hands on the wheel and both eyes on the road. kestrel91316 Apr 2013 #52
No- he "pulled out his phone while stopped in traffic to study a map" we can do it Apr 2013 #54
I can't wait until we have remote computer driven cars. former9thward Apr 2013 #57
I was about to post that this all seems like further evidence kentauros Apr 2013 #66
The morons here who supported banning talking while driving deserve what they got from this judge Ter Apr 2013 #60
That's the law in Alberta TrogL Apr 2013 #61
Maybe we should have manditory background checks when purchasing a cellphone.... Mr.Pain Apr 2013 #62
Clearly the judge is an idiot Larrylarry Apr 2013 #69
I have a navigation system in my car. MissB Apr 2013 #71
No GPS? Herlong Apr 2013 #77

shenmue

(38,503 posts)
1. He can't have my Spotify.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 02:19 PM
Apr 2013

Listening to the black metal station was all that kept me sane on the way to work.

 

SamReynolds

(170 posts)
9. Nope.... no can do with this ruling.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 02:36 PM
Apr 2013

Adjust radio?

Uhn-uh.

Defrost windshield?

Hell no.

Talk to passenger?

Too distracting.


Nope, from now on all cars will be equipped with a harness to keep the driver's head facing forward, and bindings to keep their hands on the wheel at 10 and 2.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
24. When I was in the Army, even watching the Gauges was NOT the Driver's responsibly.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 03:13 PM
Apr 2013

Driver's job was to drive, he could operate the windshield wiper (I would add Windshield washer, but the M-35s 2 1/2 ton trucks I drove had none), the lights and that was it. The Speedometer was in the center of the cab so technically the driver could see it, if he did not have a co-driver, but he was suppose to ALWAYS have a co-driver AND it was the Co-Driver's job to watch the gauges including the Speedometer.

Sorry, everything you mentioned is distraction for the driver and in any GOOD driving School, the driver will be told to keep them off or to have any co-driver perform that function. This was known by the 1920s, things have NOT changed on the roads since then to change that basic rule.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
35. Thanks HappySlug.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 04:30 PM
Apr 2013

I guess that Atheist Crusader wouldn't mind if a loved one was killed for the ability of someone else to use these devices.

All I know, after having my purse and my hand slammed by a mini van while the driver was attempting to use her GPS, no human being should have their life affected for the sake of someone else being able to use a device.

srican69

(1,426 posts)
3. my wife is going to love this judge ..
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 02:21 PM
Apr 2013

she always screams her head off if so much as glance in the direction of my phone

My survival technique is to enter the address on the GPS before I start the car and make sure the car bluetooth light has come on. My phone goes into my pocket and stays there until I have gotten out of the car.

I don't try to argue with ( that phone maps are more current) ..because I know I'll come off as second best in that fight.




kentauros

(29,414 posts)
65. Really, though,
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 08:45 AM
Apr 2013

the "mapped landscape" doesn't change much. Sure, you'll have new roads out in the suburbs as more communities are created, but in the city, it's all pretty much the same as it was last year, and the year before. You're unlikely to get lost because you found yourself on a "new" road in your average city. So, paper maps remain "current" for many years.

I don't own a GPS device, even on my phone. I still use my Key Map, studying it before I go into unfamiliar territory, even making notes on a post-it if I need to. Often the very act of making those notes ingrains my instructions and I don't look at them again.

However, I do love Google Maps Street View, when it's available. I was a bit miffed recently that it wasn't available so I could see in advance where the parking entrances were for Terminal-C at Houston Intercontinental Airport. I guess it's now a security concern to not make that function available...

 

Manifestor_of_Light

(21,046 posts)
72. A requirement in Houston - a Key Map.
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 11:14 PM
Apr 2013

It's a big ring binder book with Harris County cut up into squares that are each a one page map, about 8 x 10 inches. I have two well worn ones.

I should pass out the Street Secrets of Houston. All those name changes that nobody told me about.

Wheeler turns into Richmond going west.

Tuam turns into Fairview going west.

Elgin turns into Westheimer going west.

Vermont turns into San Felipe going west.

Binz turns into Bissonnet going west.

Holcombe Boulevard turns into Bellaire Boulevard going west.

Shepherd splits into Shepherd and Durham to the North, and Shepherd and Greenbriar to the South.

Studemont becomes Montrose Boulevard.
Heights Boulevard becomes Waugh Drive and Yoakum Boulevard as it goes South.

I grew up it Houston but did not get a license until I was twenty-one. I knew I would get killed if I started driving before I was ready.

I have to go to Houston and drive like an asshole, just to keep my Native Houstonian Card in effect.

kentauros

(29,414 posts)
73. Oh, and it's
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 12:01 AM
Apr 2013

"Bisson-net", not "Bisson-nay"

Kind of like in Austin, Guadalupe is "Guadaloop". Was there recently and noticed how E. Cesar Chevez St reminded me so much of the drive down Allen Parkway. Our version is just longer, with Memorial Dr on the other side of Buffalo Bayou.

 

Manifestor_of_Light

(21,046 posts)
74. I always wondered if that was female plural of "Bison".
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 12:21 AM
Apr 2013

Nobody pronounces Chenevert correctly. It's Sheh-neh-vair.
I assume it means green something.

And then there's Saaan Fill-uh-pay.

When Jessica Savitch was a news anchor at Channel 11, she pronounced "San Jacinto" correctly and was criticized severely.

It's NOT Saan Ja-Sin-toe. It means "Saint Hyacinth" in Spanish.



kentauros

(29,414 posts)
75. I just want to know where they get the 'r' sound in
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 12:46 AM
Apr 2013

"Kuykendahl" (pronounced here as "ker'ken-dal&quot

And why didn't they build W Alabama to go under the W Loop like all the other major crossings on that side? So what if it's one-way eastbound on the west side of the loop. At least you could go that way instead of taking Richmond, or worse, Westheimer through the Galleria

going to bed now...

 

Manifestor_of_Light

(21,046 posts)
76. It's Dutch.
Sun Apr 14, 2013, 03:28 AM
Apr 2013

Did some google.
Also it's near Klein, Lyle Lovett's town, so there was Dutch/German settlement.
Nearest word I can find is "Kuiper" which means cooper (barrelmaker).

Xithras

(16,191 posts)
4. Californias new cellphone law is pretty darned clear.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 02:24 PM
Apr 2013

"A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving."

It doesn't matter what you're using it for. You cannot use your smartphone to talk, text, use your GPS, listen to music, play Angry Birds, or do ANYTHING ELSE while you're driving your car, unless you can do it hands-free.

FWIW, looking at a GPS map on your phone is perfectly legal, so long as you have it mounted somewhere and don't have to touch it. LOOKING at your GPS is fine...picking the phone up and surfing through menus to get to the mapping software while driving is NOT. You want to use your phone for GPS? Buy a dashmount and set your destination before you pull onto the road.

Duer 157099

(17,742 posts)
5. But what about my mp3 player?
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 02:25 PM
Apr 2013

It isn't a phone, but it also isn't hands-free. What about that?

And a paper map. Also not a phone, but also not hands-free. Hmmm?

Xithras

(16,191 posts)
8. Those are covered by another law.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 02:32 PM
Apr 2013

Under California's distracted driving law, you can be ticketed for changing the radio station or yelling at your kids in the back seat, if the officer determines that it was interfering with your ability to drive. Mobile phones get a special law with a stiffer penalty because they're such a common cause of problems. MP3 players, GPS devices, and everything else falls under the more general distracted driving law.

 

SamReynolds

(170 posts)
11. My dashboard radio isn't hands-free.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 02:41 PM
Apr 2013

Neither is my heat control console.

If you must hold/touch something and look at it, then it's identical in operation to a hand-held device in this instance and should therefore be illegal.

This isn't a 'slippery slope'. We're clean off the cliff edge with stupid laws like this.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
14. The person in question was not driving -- stopped in traffic.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 02:53 PM
Apr 2013

This is just silly -- regardless of how clear the law is, it's dumb. And the cop was a bit overzealous in his enforcement of it.

Xithras

(16,191 posts)
19. Legally, he was driving.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 03:07 PM
Apr 2013

Under California law, driving does not mean moving. Driving means operating a running vehicle on a roadway. Having the car at a full stop, with your foot on the brake, still counts if the car is running and you're on the road.

FWIW, there have been tons of people arrested and charged with DUI's over the decades who weren't "moving" either. Simply sitting in the drivers seat of a running car is enough to get you prosecuted.

NOT breaking the law is simple. Just pull off the roadway. If you want to play with your GPS, or text, or talk with your phone to your ear, just pull to the curb and stop your car. Doing it in the roadway where you should be paying attention is illegal. Doing it on the side of the road doesn't break a single law in this state.

LiberalFighter

(50,504 posts)
25. There has been at least one instance of someone being arrested for DUI
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 03:26 PM
Apr 2013

Even though they were in the car while turned off in their driveway.

Hassin Bin Sober

(26,273 posts)
27. Pulled off to the side can also be considered the roadway. I know that's...
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 03:29 PM
Apr 2013

... the case for DUI. I remember reading about it in one of these previous cell phone stopped at a light threads.

As you said, "operating" a motor vehicle does mean, in some jurisdictions, in control of a vehicle - in the driver's seat with the engine running (or keys in the ignition? - I forget).

It depends on how the particular state words the law - some are (or used to be) worded as driving. Some say operating.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
39. Not using the GPS in a moving vehicle defeats the entire purpose of having a GPS in the first place.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 05:07 PM
Apr 2013

I guess the key is hands free.

woodsprite

(11,854 posts)
6. Supposedly you're allowed to use it for GPS if you have a dashboard mount.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 02:26 PM
Apr 2013

But if you try to reprogram it while driving or stopped at a stoplight, that's breaking the law. You have to pull off the road for that. I hadn't heard about the music thing -- that's just stupid. How is listening to music through your phone any different from an ipod, other mp3 play or the darned radio/cd players in the car. I've seen people swerve out of their lane when they're messing with the electric windows or the air blowers, are they gonna make adjusting them illegal too?

ripcord

(5,084 posts)
68. It already is illegal
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 09:45 AM
Apr 2013

A cop can site you for anything you do that distracts you from driving even if it is just using the radio.

 

SamReynolds

(170 posts)
15. Common sense and law have nothing to do with one-another.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 02:53 PM
Apr 2013

Was your driving hampered by looking at your gps? No.
Did it put anyone in danger? No.
Did it offend other drivers? Who cares?

It's perfectly legal to turn and scream at your kids in the back seat while doing 55 mph on most highways, but look at something in your hand while at a full-stop? Hell no!

Fucking. Stupid. Law.

elleng

(130,156 posts)
22. Its not the law, imo,
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 03:09 PM
Apr 2013

its the enforcement. There are always 'unintended consequences' of rules and regulations, which is why 'enforcers' have and must use discretion.

There may be no LAW against turning and screaming at your kids in the back seat while doing 55 mph on most highways, but such should be strongly discouraged, by other drivers and any cops in the area.

Law is NOT simple; neither is life.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
26. To your questions, the answer to all of them would be YES, if I was the person being asked.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 03:27 PM
Apr 2013

Was your driving hampered by looking at your gps? Yes, your eyes are OFF THE ROAD, given the speed involved in Auto traffic, by the time you return your eyes to the road, you could very well have run over a pedestrian or anyone else who stepped in front of your car. Remember the law is quite clear, unless there is a sidewalk OR the road is a limited access Highway Pedestrian have PRIORITY over Motor Vehicles as to the paved highway. Drivers hate this rule and do not accept it, but it is the law in every state, pedestrian have the same right to use the paved sections of the road (through they must keep to the right) as any vehicle.

Did it put anyone in danger? Yes, it takes at least two seconds for something you see for you to react. This is how long it takes your brain to process that information and to hit the brakes. If your eyes are off the road that is additional time to that two seconds for you to react as to what is happening on the road. Given you are in a ONE TON KILLING MACHINE (Which is what a car is) just taking your eyes off the road us putting other people in danger, if you are NOT willing to accept that unpleasant fact, your license should be revoked as a hazard to others on the road.

Did it offend other drivers? YES, when someone does something that ENDANGERS ME OR OTHER offends me, for me not to take offense is to say, it is all right for you to kill someone due to your carelessness. I reject that it is all right for you to endanger someone and thus when you do something that endangers others that offends me.

Who cares? I do, I want myself, my family AND other members of society to get home safely, and thus I care when someone endangers others.

 

SamReynolds

(170 posts)
31. Then you agree.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 03:49 PM
Apr 2013

All cars must be installed with a head brace to keep the eyes forward and bindings to keep the hands at 10 and 2 on the steering wheel.

How else can we be sure no one is acting as dangerously as you have described?

Another solutions to make sure you and your family are safe? Stay in your home.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
37. No such a head brace would restrict a person range of view, and thus illegal
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 04:37 PM
Apr 2013

Remember you are LIABLE for anything come in ANY DIRECTION, thus such a head brace would be illegal, as is use of a radio or other device that affects your ability to control your vehicle.

 

SamReynolds

(170 posts)
43. Nonsense.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 05:29 PM
Apr 2013

It could easily be designed to allow for 45° rotation left or right.

Does that solve the problem to your satisfaction?

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
59. No, I believe the driver should be in his own cocoon, where interaction with anyone is impossible
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 10:16 PM
Apr 2013

Like a bus driver, he ignores the riders for he is in his own cocoon. It is only when he is stop to pick up and drop off riders that people can interact with him.

 

SamReynolds

(170 posts)
64. Imagine all the butterflies!
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 06:49 AM
Apr 2013

So, it is your opinion that any driver that interacts with any one or thing that is not immediately related to or required for driving is an irresponsible driver?

Okay. Glad you're not a legislator... the system would crash.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
34. "Yes, it takes at least two seconds for something you see for you to react. This is how long it tak"
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 04:00 PM
Apr 2013

BS. Let's see a peer reviewed source that states a full two seconds.

(I'll save you the trip, reaction times vary from 0.15 seconds to MANY seconds, depending on cognitive load, the signal intensity, Etc)

 

SamReynolds

(170 posts)
44. Oh, not so....
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 05:31 PM
Apr 2013

I usually count to two, "One Mississippi, Two Mississippi...", before I react to any sudden change in traffic or other emergency. Reacting too fast might be hazardous! (We have to have driving standards, don't you know!)
 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
58. There are studies out there, the most interesting ones show a 2 second delay
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 10:11 PM
Apr 2013

Most studies have concentrated on athletes or other people doing repetitive tasks, i.e. no need to mentally think that something is happening, just react. In such experiments the tendency has been around 350 milliseconds (or .3 of a second). Please note these experiments relied on the subject KNOWING something would occur and react to it. Nothing new or unexpected and all they had to do is react, the reaction was simple and required no thinking.

http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/medical/issues/sag-09-39-6/sag-39-6-8-0809-44.pdf

When movement time was decreased to fewer than 350 ms, eye—hand synchronization switched from continuous monitoring to intermittent control

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3200/JMBR.41.4.294-304

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11145302

http://www.shapefit.com/calculators/physical-reaction-time-calculator.html

The reaction time of a person changes depending on where the eyes are when a reaction is needed (i.e. In an experiments involving arm movements, the 350 mini-second delay ONLY starts once the eyes themselves move to where the and that eye movement is a 200 mini-seconds delay in itself:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kornblum/files/journal_exp_psych_HPP_16-2.pdf

A further delay was seen in situations where the objected be reacted to was at an extreme of the eye, not right in center of the eye (as if you are looking at your GPS, and a person runs in front of your car):

In general, responses to keys positioned anywhere that was both within the reach envelope and also within the visual cone took approximately the same time, from 371 to 420 ms. Movement time increased with distance moved, but disproportionately so, up to 595 ms, when movement was required to positions that were at one or more of the extremes of height, angle or radius.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7729394

Training in eye hand coordination helps reduce the time needed to react:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21378575

Training (in this case stacking cups) decrease the hand-eye time lag (and by implication lack of training would increase the time lag):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15141904


At this point I have to define "Saccade" which is the rapid movement of the eye and the head independent of input from the brain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade


A study on target acquisition made the following observation:

Five of seven subjects initiated target interception an average of 1.71 1.02 s after target motion onset (i.e., approximately one-third of the way through the first cycle), with a range of 0.700.26 to 2.450.76 s. Only occasionally (6% of trials) did they wait until the second cycle of the target motion to initiate target interception.

The remaining two subjects (one male and one female) began to move the finger immediately or very shortly after the target began to move (0.07 0.10 and 0.38 0.33 s). These two subjects were also less successful than were the others in intercepting the target on the first try, with success rates of 58 and 68%.


http://www.jneurosci.org/content/27/27/7297.full.pdf

Notice this study, the test subjects who were MOST successful at intercepting the target waited almost 2 seconds before interception and then went to where they thought the target would be not where it was when first spotted.

The subjects who started the quickest, tend to have LOWER levels of interceptions, going to where the target WAS not where it was going to be.

but the probability of saccades decreased substantially shortly after the onset of finger motion.


The above sentence is important, Saccades of the eyes are the fastest movement in the body, this achieved by sending no messages to the brain, Saccades is all eye and head movement, the brain is NOT involved. Once the brain comes into play, the level of such fast eye movements (the Saccades) decreases significantly, this reflect the need for time to transmit to the brain and then to the hand.

Notice, while it appears to take only 1/2 second to transmit messages from the eye to the brain to the hand (Longer if the object being reacted to is NOT right in front of you AND if you have NOT been trained in reacting to such objects). Better RESULTS are achieved if the body DELAYS and get enough data to determine where something will be NOT where its at. That process takes just less then 2 seconds in people set up for rapid response.

In simple terms, you can react within 1/2 second to what is occurring in front of you, but only if it stays right in front of you. If it moves, even if the movement is by the movement of your car, to effectively react to the object takes just under 2 seconds, and again for test subjects expecting the object. For people who are NOT expecting such an object, it will take longer.


AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
63. For simple driving (interfacing with other cars, not hazards like pedestrians) 2-5tenths of a seco
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 01:18 AM
Apr 2013

nd is the average, per the Ohio university study, and following distances increased by 2-5 meters. Meaning that the drivers texting were slightly slower in reaction time, but also automatically followed at a greater distance. (I would expect a truly distracted driver to decrease or fail to maintain consistent following distance)



http://kb.osu.edu/dspace/handle/1811/53718

I'm afraid I don't see that level of impairment as warranting 'taking people's licenses away'.

It's a risk. A fairly small one at that, in my estimation. Personally, I don't recommend it in residential areas, but on a dedicated thoroughfare like a freeway with a big straightaway, and maybe light traffic, I have no qualms with at least reading a brief text (if you can read quickly, there's another factor to control for. I can read a page on my phone at a glance, some people cannot) and I can type out a 'Kk' or 'Ty' or even 'driving' without staring at the phone while typing.

People need to be adults about it, and that means knowing their limits, and not being reckless, and that includes ALL secondary tasks to driving. And enforcement needs to be, in my opinion, predicated upon actual distracted driving, not 'do you have a phone in your hand'.

Hassin Bin Sober

(26,273 posts)
29. To play devil's advocate, yes your driving is hampered while sitting at a light if...
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 03:41 PM
Apr 2013

... you are playing with your phone.

How many times have you been behind some clown diddling his clacker and not noticing the light turned green? Happens all the time.

There are other common situations that I encounter while sitting at a light that need my attention.

Emergency vehicles approaching from behind (or ahead) that require drivers to pull as far to the right as possible. That happens to me on a regular basis - I live in a crowded city. I'll see an ambulance approaching from behind and have to honk at the guy sending emails ahead to pull up and over so I can pull over.

Large trucks swinging wide and needing cars in the middle lane to scoot over. If you are playing angry birds you might not see this. Then the light changes and cluster-fuck ensues. Happens all the time because some d-bag in the center or turning lane isn't paying attention or too constipated to move.

Less common but not impossible - old lady or kid walking in the crosswalk falls in from of a car/suv. Driver is checking emails and doesn't see. Light changes. Squish.

If your car is running and in the road. You should be paying attention to what is going on outside the car.

Not that I'm not guilty or anything.

 

SamReynolds

(170 posts)
45. Ummm... we're talking about a RED light.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 05:33 PM
Apr 2013

And you're assuming that looking at your phone means you're NOT paying attention to what's going on outside of the car. Some of us really can walk and chew gum. As difficult as it is for those that cannot to believe.

Hassin Bin Sober

(26,273 posts)
47. Duh. Really? I sit at green lights.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 05:38 PM
Apr 2013

Yeah, you and every other tosser looking down at his phone diddling his clacker when the light changes can walk and chew gum. You just operate a vehicle and play angry birds.

 

SamReynolds

(170 posts)
48. My, such blind angst.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 06:03 PM
Apr 2013

I do no such thing as 'operate a vehicle and play angry birds'. Nor did I say that 'everyone diddling his clacker' is a good driver. It is the resort of a very limited imagination to deliberately mischaracterize someone's argument as you have done here.

Your willingness to use ridiculous hyperbole, perceive anyone who might glance at their phone, or radio, or anywhere else while the light is red as 'tossers' , and your inability to imagine that someone can indeed distinguish 'bright red' from 'bright green' in their peripheral vision only tells me what an incompetent driver YOU must be.

You seriously cannot look away from a red light for even a moment without causing a traffic jam? Are you really that incompetent? That limited?

It would seem that there are plenty of people that shouldn't even get behind the wheel of a car to begin with, let alone be allowed to use a phone, or a radio, or their heater...

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
50. Some of us hold the phone UP where we can still see the road.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 06:54 PM
Apr 2013

So uh, no, I don't get caught unawares when the light changes. Somewhat risky of course, because this makes it more likely I get a ticket for using the phone. Oh well.

A case where the law drives bad behavior (Holding the phone down out of line of sight)

 
10. It'll be appealed and then the reversal will come from the appellate court
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 02:37 PM
Apr 2013

with a big smackdown to the moronic judge.

Hell, just throw him in the middle of Australia outback with a 1960s map, a bottle of water and a half-assed compass that's misconfigured.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
36. This is the Court of Appeals, which upheld the trial Judge
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 04:33 PM
Apr 2013

The only court left is the Supreme Court of California.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
13. Brain dead decision.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 02:51 PM
Apr 2013

Stopped in traffic?

Can you look at your watch? Chat with passengers? Change the station on your car radio? Read traffic signs?

Jackass.

 

SamReynolds

(170 posts)
16. Nope.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 02:55 PM
Apr 2013

Like I said, the only way to be sure that the problem this law 'addresses' is addressed is for every car to come installed with a head brace to keep the head up and eyes forward, and bindings to keep the hands at 10 and 2 on the steering wheel.

Xithras

(16,191 posts)
23. Here's the law as written. How did he rewrite it?
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 03:10 PM
Apr 2013
CVC 23123 (a) "A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving."

The law does not limit itself to particular uses. You can't USE a wireless phone while driving. Period. Doesn't matter what you're using it for.

Sounds to me like the judge applied the law exactly as it was written.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
21. Phoning while driving, GPSing, texting while driving is WORSE THAN GUNS.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 03:08 PM
Apr 2013

While almost everyone on DU is opposed to guns, the fact is you are far more likely to die or be seriously injured as result of being distracted with these devices. Or if some other driver is distracted.

Something like 550 times more likely!

If you need to do any of these activities, pls pull over safely and do these things.

In last four years, I have been involved in two separate incidents of one car driver hitting my car, and a car driver hitting my person,. In the case of being hit in person, the lady who did this was on her GPS unit. She didn't even realize she hit me - at the corner down the hill from where she hit me, as she said her GPS was not working correctly, and could I give her directions.

Blandocyte

(1,231 posts)
40. But I have a mount in my car for my gun
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 05:10 PM
Apr 2013

Kidding. Sorry.

I agree you with you 100%. My car was rear ended by a driver texting. She thought our line of traffic had a light that had just turned green. It had not turned. Bam!

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
56. My fave bumper sticker in the last few years -
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 07:54 PM
Apr 2013

I was following this little foreign sedan into town. It had every kinda liberal bumper sticker ever imagined: "World Peace" "Whirled Peas" "War is not healthy for children and other living things" etc.

Hardly a spot on her car that didn't have some leftie message.
And the kicker for me, that had me LOL, was this one "IF I am driving too slow, so you think you can tailgate: Think AGAIN-- I am re-loading!"

onehandle

(51,122 posts)
28. Just mount it. I have a mount for my iPhone in my car.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 03:35 PM
Apr 2013

Places it outside the 2 o'clock position, above my steering wheel/dash, so that I can keep my eye on the road.

Safer than changing the radio or adjusting the AC.

KatyMan

(4,147 posts)
30. not illegal in Texas
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 03:43 PM
Apr 2013

only in school zones (at least in Harris county (Houston)- even then it is ok if phone is hands-free

octothorpe

(962 posts)
70. That's the law in most of Texas from what I've seen. Although, I think Arlington bans all
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 03:37 PM
Apr 2013

phone use anywhere, not just school zones.

kentauros

(29,414 posts)
67. Many people don't own maps anymore.
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 09:00 AM
Apr 2013

The technology has replaced the standard fold-up map, and most don't even know about key maps (maps in ring-binders, often used by taxi-drivers and surveyors.) I suspect most wouldn't know how to use an "oldstyle" map these days, much less understand what they were looking at when confronted with a topo map

MorganaSeawalker

(22 posts)
38. Former Californian
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 05:03 PM
Apr 2013

Okay I'm old...when driving in California using GPS on my cell phone I put it on speaker, cheap android phone. Old fashioned maps, if alone pulled over, otherwise whoever was riding shot gun did the map reading. Haven't seen anything about women applying their makeup in the rear view mirror as they drive to work...snort, or eating breakfast and drinking coffee to wakeup. It's a money maker for California, what's the fine for that a few hundred dollars?

cartach

(511 posts)
41. They should pass a law
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 05:21 PM
Apr 2013

against passengers in a vehicle talking to the driver. This might stop my wife from distracting me by her nagging. Though really I doubt it.

FiveGoodMen

(20,018 posts)
42. "Most people know it's against the law to talk on a cellphone while driving a car. "
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 05:26 PM
Apr 2013

I don't believe that's true here in Minnesota.

You can't text while driving, but you can talk.

Marrah_G

(28,581 posts)
46. I use my phone for navigation and audio books while driving
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 05:35 PM
Apr 2013

I set it all up before I leave and never have to touch it. It hooks right into the speakers.

we can do it

(12,118 posts)
49. The texters have caused this problem. Blame them....and pull over to read your map, gps, etc.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 06:52 PM
Apr 2013

I doubt he would have been pulled over if the music was just playing, not him fiddling around with his phone.

d_r

(6,907 posts)
53. the gps on my phone
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 07:18 PM
Apr 2013

talks to me, it tells me when to turn. It wouldn't do much good to pull over and do that. The purpose of it is to have it talk while you are moving. He was stopped at the light, probably entering the place he was going.

we can do it

(12,118 posts)
54. No- he "pulled out his phone while stopped in traffic to study a map"
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 07:30 PM
Apr 2013

They sit there when the light changes playing with the idiot box........or cut across 3 lanes with out looking cause tomtom go said so. and god forbid you are a pedestrian near the idiots.

former9thward

(31,805 posts)
57. I can't wait until we have remote computer driven cars.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 07:57 PM
Apr 2013

They are being tested on the roads now. Since there will no longer be mistakes we will be able to fire tens, if not hundreds of thousands of cops who enforce silly laws like this.

kentauros

(29,414 posts)
66. I was about to post that this all seems like further evidence
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 08:56 AM
Apr 2013

for the absolute need to automate our vehicles. I'll be an extremely happy person when that's the norm and fully accepted by all (the auto manufacturers are still as against such things as possible, because they see driving in stop'n'go traffic as part of the "fun" of driving overall.)

Maybe then enterprising individuals will make racetracks and "closed courses" available to all those that must have their driving "freedoms". Then they can recreate the hazards we all put up with today, just away from the rest of us

 

Ter

(4,281 posts)
60. The morons here who supported banning talking while driving deserve what they got from this judge
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 10:39 PM
Apr 2013

Restricting freedom is never a good thing. They take one thing away today, and they will expand on it tomorrow.

TrogL

(32,818 posts)
61. That's the law in Alberta
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 11:53 PM
Apr 2013

If you're using one for GPS, you must set the destination before leaving and it must be voice, like Apple's latest Google Maps. Same with music - that's way playlists and random are for. If I cop sees you with a cellphone in your hand for whatever reason it's something like a $CAN250 ticket.

 

Larrylarry

(76 posts)
69. Clearly the judge is an idiot
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 09:50 AM
Apr 2013

Time to close drive through windows at fast food joints

Imagine how powerful the fast food Lobby is

If you can't look at your GPS on your phone and you certainly can't look at your GPS on your Garmin unit

His judgment is so flawed that he really shouldn't be on the bench

MissB

(15,800 posts)
71. I have a navigation system in my car.
Sat Apr 13, 2013, 10:38 PM
Apr 2013

It's pretty fancy-schmancy. Apparently it won't let me give inputs while the car is in motion. Wen I come to a stop, I can use the mouse-like device to select something.

However, if I have a front seat passenger, the nav system will take inputs. But just me? Nope.

My steering wheel has the ability to dial the phone, change radio stations, or let me see what street I'm driving on. Buttons or voice prompts.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Judge says cellphones can...