Decius:

Do you think it ought to be illegal to look at a map while stopped at a red light?

Have you seen the GHSA brochure? It says "Reading a Map" right on the cover page! I imagine they believe the scope of the Georgia law is far less than what is really needed to ensure the safety of America's roadways.

Reading a map is a Category Three ("Combination") Distraction, because it distracts you both physically and intellectually.

In the Future, vehicles will be remotely piloted by professional drivers located in regional "drive centers". They're a cross between taxi drivers and chauffeurs, except that they don't physically travel with you. You just get in the car, dock your phone, start up the app of your favorite drive center, and speak your destination.

Verlyn Klinkenborg:

Every now and then I meet someone in Manhattan who has never driven a car. I used to wonder at such people, but more and more I wonder at myself.

Driving is the cultural anomaly of our moment.

noteworthy wrote:
Have you seen the GHSA brochure? It says "Reading a Map" right on the cover page!

It also says "thinking" on the front page. Case closed.

Decius wrote:
I do not think that there is a rational explanation for this law as passed.

Again, I don't think its possible to explain this law rationally, because I don't think that there is a rational explanation. The people who wrote this law did not take care to craft it in a reasonable way. It is intentionally overzealous. Prove me wrong.

Do you have a link to the actual bill that Georgia passed? I didn't see one in the linked article, but I'm getting old, so I sometimes miss things.

Generally speaking, I support bans on using any handheld devices/materials while driving on public roads, whether they be cell phones or folding paper maps. If you have a GPS or stereo mounted/integrated in or on the dashboard, that's not going to impair your driving like operating a separate device, to which you must dedicate one hand and turn your attention away from the road.

If the new Georgia law singles out texting, as opposed to having a voice conversation (among other activities), then I agree that it would seem "unreasonable" to focus on that one thing.

noteworthy wrote:
In the Future, vehicles will be remotely piloted by professional drivers located in regional "drive centers".

Ugh. That's a rather pessimistic view of the future.

Stefanie wrote:
Generally speaking, I support bans on using any handheld devices/materials while driving on public roads, whether they be cell phones or folding paper maps. If you have a GPS or stereo mounted/integrated in or on the dashboard, that's not going to impair your driving like operating a separate device, to which you must dedicate one hand and turn your attention away from the road.

Do you include "stopped at a red light" in your defenition of driving.

Stefanie wrote:
Generally speaking, I support bans on using any handheld devices/materials while driving on public roads...

Decius wrote:
Do you include "stopped at a red light" in your definition of driving.

In theory, no. In practice (in the application of law in the real world), yes.

Decius wrote:
I have a phone that happens to have my email, the web, sms messages, and maps on it. Occasionally I will glance at my email, or sms, or the map, or the mobile compatible web page the state runs to inform people about traffic accidents and traffic conditions, while waiting for a light to change, or while stuck in traffic. I fail to see what is dangerous about this and I fail to see how it differs from looking at a map. I don't understand why I should be pulled over and fined $150 for this. I don't know what arguments to present to defend that position as I have no idea what could possibly be dangerous about it or why anyone would think that it was dangerous. Hence my list of questions.

I drive the I-24 Nashville-Murfreesboro rush hour on a daily basis, so I know something about being stuck in traffic. Yesterday, there was a wreck, and it took me ninety minutes (4:30 to 6:00) to drive ten miles. That happens quite often. Also, Nashville and Murfreesboro have their share of traffic lights, especially Murfreesboro. I understand, as well as anyone else, the concept of "down time" while operating a vehicle. Your frustration is not lost on me.

If you're at a complete stop because of a red light, a train crossing, a wreck that has traffic backed up, etc., it might seem, on the surface, that it's really not dangerous to make a phone call or send a text message, read a map, eat a hamburger, fix your makeup, etc. Maybe in a fantasy scenario with responsible operators who will never screw up, it might even work. The reality is that, even when your vehicle has stopped, it's still on a public road, the engine is still running, and it's still (supposed to be) in gear. Another reality is that many humans, many of which are licensed drivers, can often be careless, easily distracted, and/or just plain stupid.

Sometimes, the act of starting and stopping, often with other vehicles directly in front and behind yours, is when you need to be paying the most attention. If you're distracted between the red and green lights, you might not notice some important things going on during your down time.

For example, if yours is the first car at a red light, and you aren't paying attention because you're texting, applying mascara, trying to tame your unruly kids, or whatever, you might look up, see that the light has turned green, and punch the gas pedal, before you even notice that a pedestrian is still crossing, or that another driver ran the red light, or any number of other things. Maybe Decius or Stefanie wouldn't be that distracted ... [ Read More (0.1k in body) ]

Stefanie wrote:
That's why we're hampered by speed limits on interstate highways.

Its worth pointing out that in Germany there are no speed limits in certain areas on the open highway. Now, there is a different set of rules for passing, there are different liability rules, it is generally harder to get a drivers license there and because of a mature public transportation system fewer people there own cars - in general I'd prefer a system that biases toward freedom and personal responsibility rather than a system that biases toward regulation of everyone based on the lowest common denominator or worst case scenario.

Stefanie wrote:
That's why we're hampered by speed limits on interstate highways.

Decius wrote:
Its worth pointing out that in Germany there are no speed limits in certain areas on the open highway. Now, there is a different set of rules for passing, there are different liability rules, it is generally harder to get a drivers license there and because of a mature public transportation system fewer people there own cars - in general I'd prefer a system that biases toward freedom and personal responsibility rather than a system that biases toward regulation of everyone based on the lowest common denominator or worst case scenario.

Agreed.

Decius wrote:
Again, I don't think its possible to explain this law rationally, because I don't think that there is a rational explanation. The people who wrote this law did not take care to craft it in a reasonable way. It is intentionally overzealous. Prove me wrong.

No. Not only is it not my job, that's not how argumentation works. One is not correct by default. You've given nothing but a few blanket statements and made no attempt to support your argument.

...as to how sloppily the law was written is concerned, cry me a tear. We've long since established that the people responsible for writing the things are generally incapable of doing so correctly.

You're dangerously close to arguing that people should be allowed to SMS while they drive, and that's not likely to be a correct determination. Joe Average can barely drive correctly without any distractions. Give 'em a tiny phone and a squishy little keypad and try to get them to redirect their attention in mid-sentence and just watch what happens... There's more to this than "just" that a phone keypad is interactive... There's also the issue that people have real and serious problems leaving some things incomplete. If they've got a map in their hand and out of the corner of their eye catch something happening up ahead, they'll have no problems dropping the map. If they're in the middle of spelling "peaches" in T9-speak and they're only as far as "peac" it's not going to be so easy for them.

Think a moment... when was the last time you were asked to get up from your computer in a hurry and you stopped in mid-word. I'm sure they didn't watch you so that they could ask only when you were between words... Oh but wait, this wanders into the issue of how immersive the activity is, which is something you pre-disqualified and why I'm not actually going to bother arguing with you about it.

Dagmar wrote:

Decius wrote:
Again, I don't think its possible to explain this law rationally, because I don't think that there is a rational explanation. The people who wrote this law did not take care to craft it in a reasonable way. It is intentionally overzealous. Prove me wrong.

No. Not only is it not my job, that's not how argumentation works. One is not correct by default. You've given nothing but a few blanket statements and made no attempt to support your argument.

I live in Atlanta. Atlanta has lots of annoying traffic lights that aren't timed. If you live here, you spend a lot of time sitting at traffic lights. One, after another, after another, after another, after another. Frankly, we also have a lot of freeways that get very backed up. When you drive here you tend to spend a lot of time in your car when it is not in motion.

I have a phone that happens to have my email, the web, sms messages, and maps on it. Occasionally I will glance at my email, or sms, or the map, or the mobile compatible web page the state runs to inform people about traffic accidents and traffic conditions, while waiting for a light to change, or while stuck in traffic. I fail to see what is dangerous about this and I fail to see how it differs from looking at a map. I don't understand why I should be pulled over and fined $150 for this. I don't know what arguments to present to defend that position as I have no idea what could possibly be dangerous about it or why anyone would think that it was dangerous. Hence my list of questions.

Please explain to me what is dangerous about glancing at email while sitting in the drivers seat of a car that is not moving.

So far your point seems to be that I should be fined $150 for this because its important to fine other people who are doing something different and can't do it responsibly. I fail to see what that has to do with me, and its particularly annoying given that other states have been able to distinguish these two kinds of activities in their legislation.

Decius wrote:

Please explain to me what is dangerous about glancing at email while sitting in the drivers seat of a car that is not moving.

So far your point seems to be that I should be fined $150 for this because its important to fine other people who are doing something different and can't do it responsibly. I fail to see what that has to do with me, and its particularly annoying given that other states have been able to distinguish these two kinds of activities in their legislation.

I would argue that a text message can be safer than taking a voice call. My girlfriend and I text each other if we're running late, etc. I hear the ding, but I know I can leave it alone for a few minutes as opposed to fumbling for the phone while changing lanes, trying to see who is calling, then answering before it goes to voicemail.

According to http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/fulltext/hb23.htm , the law is:

40-6-241.
A driver shall exercise due care in operating a motor vehicle on the highways of this state and shall not engage in any actions which shall distract such driver from the safe operation of such vehicle, provided that, except as prohibited by Code Section 40-6-241.1, the proper use of a radio, citizens band radio, or mobile telephone, or amateur or ham radio shall not be a violation of this Code section.

40-6-241.1.
(a) As used in the Code section, the term:
(1) 'Engage in a wireless communication' means talking, writing, sending, or reading a text-based communication, or listening on a wireless telecommunications device.
(2) 'Wireless telecommunications device' means a cellular telephone, a text-messaging device, a personal digital assistant, a stand alone computer, or any other substantially similar wireless device that is used to initiate or receive a wireless communication with another person. It does not include citizens band radios, citizens band radio hybrids, commercial two-way radio communication devices, subscription-based emergency communications, in-vehicle security, navigation, and remote diagnostics systems or amateur or ham radio devices.

Further down, it does say it is legal to text while "lawfully parked."

As is often the case with technology laws, there's a lot of ambiguity and work-around-potential. If I call someone and dictate a text message, is that "sending a text-based communication?" If I had a program on my phone that used a voice synthesizer to "speak" incoming text messages, would that be illegal?

And if I send a text message to a person I know is driving, am I encouraging them to break the law - which in itself could be illegal?

Furthermore, it sounds to me like the law says you can't make voice calls either ("talking" "listening").

In the end, I think you can't regulate stupidity. I think text messages are safer than voice calls. Just like I speed, I intend to continue using wireless devices when it is safe to do so (I do let it go to voice mail if it's not safe and I do pull over to talk... I realize this makes me weird and atypical.)

The $150 fine is just an other "Random Tax".

Decius wrote:

On July 1 it will be illegal in Georgia for anyone to read, type or send a text message while driving.

Sigh.

And “driving” includes being stopped at red lights or awaiting an arrow in a turn lane.

I do not think that there is a rational explanation for this law as passed. Prove me wrong.

Do you support this law?

If so, do you think it ought to be illegal to look at a map while stopped at a red light?

If yes, then please explain why there is a national movement to ban reading text messages but there is no national movement to ban reading maps or other things and there has been no such movement over the long decades that maps have been available to drivers.

If no, then do you think it ought to be illegal to look at a map on a phone while stopped at a red light?

If yes, then please explain the difference between reading a map on paper and reading a map on a phone.

If no, then please explain the difference between reading a map on a phone and reading a text message on a phone. Please keep in mind that this question is longer than the maximum text message length.

In addressing these questions please avoid delving into a discussion about the amount of concentration involved in sending a text message while driving a car that is in motion. That is not at issue here. While the law in question banned that behavior, it banned a whole host of other behavior as well. If you support this law, you must endorse banning all of the behavior that it banned, and you must be able to rationally explain its scope.

Different states have passed different text messaging while driving laws with different wording, and the language in Georgia's law is among the most broad. Supporters of this law must be able to articulate why this language is preferable to more narrow language passed in other states.

Again, I don't think its possible to explain this law rationally, because I don't think that there is a rational explanation. The people who wrote this law did not take care to craft it in a reasonable way. It is intentionally overzealous. Prove me wrong.

Just wanted to add to the conversation that apparently the governor took a very long time in deciding to sign this, and only signed it under the condition that as soon as the next session starts, this law must be reworded to be less vague. He apparently had many qualms about the wording of this law, but I am guessing he just wanted to go ahead and deter people from texting while driving (especially inexperienced drivers) until they could iron out better wording/more clear law. There is a family in Georgia who lost their son because he ran off the road while texting and accidentally killed himself, and that family is lobbying big time for this law to be passed. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how they reword the law when the new session starts.