Discussion
  • Read More
    BairyhallsGabrielle Bluestone
    2/27/14 10:55pm

    Sooo what's the point of banning communication on your phone if you can use a map? I thought the whole idea was to keep drivers from being distracted.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Cherith CutestoryBairyhalls
      2/27/14 10:59pm

      No, the purpose was to give lawmakers an excuse to not call people they had sex with the night before. "Sorry, baby, I wanted to text back but I was stuck in traffic and I didn't want to get arrested."

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Búho se PierdeBairyhalls
      2/27/14 11:02pm

      But is using a map on your phone more distracting that using a paper map? It seems more efficient than a paper map, actually. I thought there were studies that determined that the communication issue was less about looking at the device and more about the way your brain focuses differently when you are interacting. There are people now arguing that even hands-free texting shouldn't occur at all.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Tucker973Gabrielle Bluestone
    2/27/14 10:59pm

    This is a specific tenet of the PA texting and driving law. It prohibits texting and driving, not using a phone. States looking to properly word their legal statutes are adopting language like prohibiting "operating a handheld device" while driving. Of course, we could avoid all these loopholes by creating legislation against "distracted driving," but that would naturally be considered too broad and open to about a million slippery slopes. I mean, we've all complained about people swerving around while changing the radio, smacking their kids, shaving, applying makeup, eating a big mac, whatever - so "distracted driving" would seem to be the catch-all. But then we have to give cops, who we also complain about overstepping their bounds, interpreting what "distracted driving" actually is. And we need to start applying standards of evidence in those cases, and standards of evidence in texting-and-driving cases are already tricky. So once again, we have a situation where actually taking a moment to think about how the legal system works, it gets a lot more complicated than a knee-jerk reaction to the headline related to a single court ruling. And I'm not even a damn lawyer!

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Cherith CutestoryTucker973
      2/27/14 11:05pm

      The law bans “using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking,”

      It clearly says that using a phone is banned. It doesn't say using a phone is banned if you are talking or texting. And courts have never been bound so narrowly by specific intent when wording is not so limited.

      Also, it is absurd for these judges to think that in 2006 the legislators couldn't see the writing on the wall. By then we had mp3 players, games and a lot of other functions on our phones. Games have been on cell phones forever and blackberry had been around for awhile. So, it isn't even necessarily true that that is what they meant.

      They knew that phones had other purposes. We all did in 2006. There were internet phones before the iPhone, they just weren't as good. And they could have limited their wording if they chose to.

      At the very least, it was a close enough question that the lower court ruled the other way.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Tucker973Cherith Cutestory
      2/27/14 11:18pm

      Well, again, I am speaking specifically to the law with which I am familiar and talking generally about how the laws are often flawed as written and subject to the legal system of interpretation of those laws. Since we're talking specifics now, though, here is what the law in Pennsylvania says:

      The law prohibits as a primary offense any driver from using an Interactive Wireless Communication Device (IWCD) to send, read or write a text-based communication while his or her vehicle is in motion.

      There is literally no other way to interpret that other than it applying to texting only. They are at least proactive enough to extend that to reading a text, but it is texting and solely texting. We had a test case early on where the case was dismissed because the defendant claimed he was not texting, but using the phone at a red light to select a contact from his address book. Since there was no record of a text sent or received at the time of the traffic stop, there was no way to prove whether he was composing a text or actually doing as claimed.

      ...but again, you shouldn't be fucking around on your phone while driving, so limits of the statutes and the way courts interpret them are the real issue at hand here.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    kiptGabrielle Bluestone
    2/27/14 11:02pm

    You're allowed to look at a paper map so why would you not be allowed to look at an electronic map? All you're doing is glancing at it to see if your next turn is coming up. Whats the point of having GPS if you're not allowed to use it?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Cherith Cutestorykipt
      2/27/14 11:14pm

      He was looking for an alternate root which means he was typing in his destination address, choosing between the three options they usually give you, and then trying to figure out how that blue dot related to his position in reality.

      There is definitely more involved in digital maps than a paper map.

      ETA: I don't really feel passionately about this. I'd be a liar if I said I never ever used my phone while driving. But I do think there is more interaction with an app than a paper map.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      kiptCherith Cutestory
      2/27/14 11:32pm

      It also says he was stuck in traffic which means he could even have been in the stop part of stop and go…

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ : Riot GRRR is RUNNING WILDGabrielle Bluestone
    2/27/14 11:31pm

    But what about sexting? I need to know if I can send titty shots on the Long Island Expressway.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      apeshapedmanʕ•ᴥ•ʔ : Riot GRRR is RUNNING WILD
      2/27/14 11:45pm

      Who needs technology? Just share them with your fellow commuters.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ : Riot GRRR is RUNNING WILDapeshapedman
      2/27/14 11:46pm

      In New York, everything is intended as an insult to your fellow drivers. Even tits.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Cherith CutestoryGabrielle Bluestone
    2/27/14 10:55pm

    only ban using phones to communicate

    So I can read Gawker on my phone while I am driving but I just can't comment?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      apeshapedmanCherith Cutestory
      2/27/14 11:02pm

      Then I see no reason to ever drive.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Tucker973Cherith Cutestory
      2/27/14 11:38pm

      To reference our other thread, yes, as long as you're in Pennsylvania. I would not classify most of what goes on here as "communication," so I think we're in the clear.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    flamingolingoGabrielle Bluestone
    2/27/14 10:54pm

    Way to follow the exact letter of the law while undermining its intent.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      adsfsadfasdfadsfadffsdflamingolingo
      2/27/14 11:29pm

      Welcome to America.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    GregoireGabrielle Bluestone
    2/27/14 11:30pm

    Thank God, because I am literally never driving in Los Angeles unless I am lost and frantically trying to figure out where the fuck I am. In fact, I actually associate my memories of LA with that annoying female Google map voice: "In 500 feet, turn right onto Sepulveda Boulevard. *pause* Turn right on Sepulveda Boulevard."

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      sui_generisGregoire
      2/28/14 2:40am

      *pause* "Why didn't you turn right on Sepulveda Boulevard...?"

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Question_of_FactGabrielle Bluestone
    2/27/14 11:31pm

    Can I still look at a paper map? Eat a salad? Eat a bowl of cereal? Read a book? Turn around and yell at my kids? Just checking.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Question_of_FactQuestion_of_Fact
      2/27/14 11:34pm

      Are crossword puzzles and word searches still legal?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Question_of_FactQuestion_of_Fact
      2/27/14 11:36pm

      Do make up? Tie a tie?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ExtraExtraGabrielle Bluestone
    2/27/14 11:11pm

    Is talking on a phone really distracting people? Texting and driving absolutely, but hands free talking is a problem? Even with a phone in your hands people can't handle it? I'm asking seriously here, I didn't realize that was a problem to anyone. It's no different than talking to a passenger if you're not messing with buttons.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      raypawExtraExtra
      2/27/14 11:35pm

      Actually studies have shown that talking on a phone — even a hands-free one — while driving is much more distracting than talking to a passenger. The theory is that when your brain only has a disembodied voice at the other end of the line, it has to spend power calculating (moment to moment) where the other person is, what they are doing, etc while talking to a person sitting right next to you is much less taxing. The additional brainpower required to have a telephone conversation comes at the expense of attention to driving.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ExtraExtraraypaw
      2/27/14 11:39pm

      Really? That seems insane to me, can you link one of those studies?

      This study is weak because it doesn't differentiate between hands free and holding a phone for example.

      http://www.cbsnews.com/news/distracte…

      This one says it's less dangerous than texting, which seems obvious. Overall it seems about as dangerous as doing anything that isn't focusing 100% on driving, which makes it kind of pointless.

      http://www.nydailynews.com/autos/car-cras…

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    DailyTrixGabrielle Bluestone
    2/28/14 12:49am
    Reply
    <