digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at gizmodo.com

Dangerous Things You Can Still Do While Driving

gizmodo.com — The big day has now passed for California drivers and cell phones are effectively banned on the road. It's a big deal, but also, this law is a joke: the fine is only $20. The most stupid thing, however, is that there is a laundry list of far more distracting tasks that are still perfectly legal while behind the wheel of a car.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ironeus, on 08/01/2008, -1/+26You can legally use a laptop while driving??
    • jimmaculate, on 07/01/2008, -2/+8That's fantastic. although the people texting on their cell phones are a more likely hazard.
    • eengineer, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6Did not know this. Awesome, I can now digg while driving.

      Or, Yes Officer I was on my laptop reading an article on digg about how it is legal to drive while using a laptop when I hit this person.
    • PabloMac, on 07/02/2008, -2/+13If it's ok for cops, it should be ok for the rest of us.
    • thebigbradwolf, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5didn't there use to be a law where you were required to pay for car insurance and if you hit someone, they paid the damages, and increased your premium and then people were just personally responsible for what they did in their cars?
      • davidrools, on 07/02/2008, -3/+1doesn't really work when someone dies
      • flameboy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3Uh yes it does. It's called vehicular manslaughter and it carries stiff penalties.
        Support personal responsibility and reject the nanny state.
      • Lewiji, on 07/02/2008, -2/+1Stiff penalty to the driver... Slightly stiffer to the victim. If a "nanny state" saves one life, it's worth it.
      • flameboy, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1nanny states can also kill. by prohibiting the use of talking on a cell phone they have inadvertently increased the odds a driver might text message instead. when deaths result, who is to blame now?

        that is just one example of how a state can run afoul attempting to "nanny" its constituents. there is no way to know all the repercussions for everybody in the state every time you ban something that is not inherently dangerous/

        you cannot legislate responsible behavior, the more you try, the more people will assume less of their own responsibility.
    • Rahodeb, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4I've used a laptop with a GPS dongle and MS Streets & Trips before. I wonder where that falls in terms of "GPS device" for under 18 drivers.
    • davidrools, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3A cop can always pull you over if you're driving erratically or unsafely. People talking on the phones are way too common while being both dangerous and annoying. Making laws against these other things would be pointless.
      • flameboy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4Except they didn't ban talking on phones. They banned holding the device up to your ear. Too bad its the actual conversation that is distracting and not holding the headset. Pointless you say? Our legislator doesn't care about pointless.
    • xxcheesexpuffxx, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1I once played a few games of gunbound with a verizon evdo card whilst driving from san diego to phoenix, it's like 5 hours of straightaway. no one said a thing, not even the border patrol that looked inside my car and chuckled.
  • numb, on 07/01/2008, -0/+41How about rolling a joint while driving with your knees... I mean if they intend to legalize it there.

    Seriously though, there are a million reckless things you can do while driving, and it's just not feasible to make a specific law banning each and every one of them. Sometimes you need to be a little more general about it, like making "reckless driving" illegal.
    • WiseWeasel, on 07/02/2008, -3/+6Exactly, the rule should ban looking away from the road for more than a second at a time, and no more than once every three-five seconds while operating a moving vehicle. Basically, keep your eyes on the road, people! It would seem like common sense that a driver would want to keep their eyes on the road, and NOT get themselves killed, but if we need a law, then that's what it should be.
      • susilou, on 07/02/2008, -0/+8We could install eye cameras and watch what every driver watches while they drive. Not the ones who don't break the law of course, only the ones who need to be monitored.

        Good idea.
      • GRTWHT, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3Cell phone users don't look away from the road, they just don't "see" the road any more....your idea wouldn't fix that.
      • WiseWeasel, on 07/02/2008, -2/+1Even if it's not practically enforced, you can still include it in the DMV handbooks, and have it on the driver's test, just so people are aware of the rule, similar to the two-second rule. Education is also an option for improving safety, not merely enforcement. Agreed with GRTWHT that it's actually paying attention that's required, not merely looking...

        If there was an implementation of an eye or neural sensor capable of telling if you're paying attention to the road, it could simply be tied into your gas pedal, so that each time you look away from the road for more than a second, the car lets off the gas and you start decelerating, which would encourage people to get their eyes back on the road. That would also help for people who fall asleep at the wheel.
      • flameboy, on 07/02/2008, -2/+1Are you ***** insane?
        You want to make it illegal to GLANCE away from the road for more than a second? Does anyone really even need to articulate a response about why you are an idiot?
      • WiseWeasel, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2Yes. About a second is how long you can safely look away from the road before some unseen obstacle enters your path without enough time to respond to it. Obviously, it's far from being precise, and it will vary according to speed and driving environment, but as a general rule, I have found that looking away from the road for more than about a second every three seconds while the car is cruising at high speeds "feels" dangerous, in that I am no longer aware of my current surroundings beyond that point. You can glance away all you want, and one second is actually a significant amount of time to be glancing away at something, but you probably should be paying attention to the road at least two of every three seconds that pass.

        Obviously, it would be completely unenforceable, but I'm just speaking in ideal terms here, to get at the root of the problem and solution. Then we can work back from there to determine what's actually practical to implement.
      • flameboy, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1You are bat-***** insane if you think we should make a generalized LAW making somebody incapable of looking away from the road for more than 1 second. This must be the most retarded legitimate viewpoint I have ever seen on digg.

        Clearly you fail to realize the infinite number of legitimate reasons why somebody would want or NEED to look away from the road for over a second.

        In ideal terms? In ideal terms, humans are not robots. You cannot make humans into robots. You cannot legislate human attention. As long as humans are the ones driving vehicles there will continue to be accidents and there are infinite number of causes for these accidents and continue to be deaths. Most of them simply cannot be "fixed" by any law, they happen because we are all human.

        And what about the idiocy in proposing a law you know is completely unenforceable? "Why don't we make a law dictating you can't THINK about murdering anyone! If you can't think about it, that means you can't do it, right?!"

        In conclusion, I categorically reject your infeasible, poorly thought out, and unenforceable "law". Adult human beings should have as much freedom as possible when driving so that they can make correct and responsible decisions contingent on their circumstances at hand.
      • WiseWeasel, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1"Clearly you fail to realize the infinite number of legitimate reasons why somebody would want or NEED to look away from the road for over a second."

        Well, if the reasons are infinite, then you shouldn't have a problem coming up with one example then... I'll wait. Keep in mind we're talking about when your car is moving at high speeds. We can have a discussion here without resorting to insults; no one in government is going to make some law based on what we discuss here on Digg, so it's all just philosophical. I'm a pretty libertarian guy, but even I recognize the need to protect drivers from other drivers if they're not capable of driving safely. So if one second every three seconds is unreasonable, then what do YOU feel to be reasonable to address this problem?
      • flameboy, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1I apologize for the insults, I am just so stunned that I actually am having this discussion and you aren't just a troll.

        I don't quite understand what you need clarification on. Do I need to list every possible thing that could draw your attention away from the center of the road to the sides of your car? Are you purporting drivers should not look out their side windows? Surely you cannot really think that. What about through the rear view mirror?

        Here are a few things I can think of:
        1. Person next to you starts screaming about something
        2. Something prevents your stick shift from moving
        3. You hear a thud from the side of the vehicle
        4. Somebody is honking at you
        5. An accident occurs next to you

        How many theoretical situations do I need to imagine for you to be convinced that restricting a drivers vision in any way would not be a good idea? Besides, this entire concept is misguided because talking on a cell phone doesn't even hinder vision or prevent the drivers focus on the road.

        It has been proven that the distraction comes from the mental process of engaging in conversation. And guess what? You cant legislate away mental distractions, just like you cant legislate where people look. People who want to will choose to daydream or zone-out at the wheel and there is nothing you can do about it except punish them afterward.

        As for my solution... well I don't feel we currently have a problem. 300 cell-phone related deaths a year simply does not bother me. Partially because there's no way to tell whether those deaths were a *result* of a cellphone or happened to *involve* a cellphone, and partially because I realize that as long as human beings drive cars there will be accidents. Trying to reduce accidents by taking away human freedom is simply a fallacy. You don't even know how many accidents might be CAUSED simply by restricting that freedom.

        You can't think you are in a position to judge where any human being should be LOOKING at any given time better than that person.

        And finally, why even propose such a radically law that is not only questionable in its theory, results, and ethics but is also completely unenforceable?
      • WiseWeasel, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Well, just like we tell student drivers to keep two car lengths or two seconds of space between your car and the car ahead of you, even if that law is rarely enforced, I think we could also tell them to keep their eyes on the road, and never let their attention from the road lapse more than one second in three (or whatever), and then you could test them for that fact on the written exam. Even if it is never enforced, it's a helpful concept to keep in mind for those that might need that pointed out to them. It could be part of driver's training as well, maybe. There is a difference between what is enforceable, and what makes a good driver, and if a little extra education can make people better drivers, then what's the problem?

        The eye or neural sensor thing is obviously going overboard, but I was just responding to susilou's facetious remarks at face value. If there WAS to be some kind of ideal futuristic solution to the problem of driver attention, then I don't think the one I suggested would cause a problem in any of the cases you mention. If you're traveling at freeway speeds, and any of the events you suggest were to happen, then what's the problem if the car lets off the gas after a second (or whatever reasonable time) of not watching the road?
      • flameboy, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1The problem with "letting off gas" is that it is unnecessary and possibly dangerous. What if there is somebody tailing you but nobody in front of you?

        If the HUMAN thinks that they should ease off the gas, then they will do so with their foot pedal. Driving is a fluid and dynamic environment. No machine or computer is qualified to make critical decisions against the will of the human while driving.

        I find it funny you equate your new "law" to driving school. It is if you are admitting you believe the government should be treating its citizens as children. There's a huge difference between explaining why a driver should always watch the road, and making it LAW.

        Most human adults have the self interest to not get into accidents on the road and will do their best to avoid them. Any extra superficial restrictions will hinder the human's ability in ways you can't even imagine right now.

        And the most "futuristic ideal solution" would be one where all cars are controlled via computers that can coordinate with each other, taking humans out of the equation. There will never be an "ideal solution" that forcefully regulates a human's attention.
    • hapax, on 07/02/2008, -2/+2I think it's wrong to generalize that they will now start to legislate every single reckless thing you can do. They can focus on the most common things for emphasis and make those less ambiguous for legal interpretration (BTW, IANAL), and leave the rest under "reckless driving".

      As for penalizing people not looking on the road, that's not exactly enforceable. The "compromise" is to penalize the most common behavior that leads to being distracted from the road.
      • flameboy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2They should not be legislating any specific reckless behavior when they already have laws against reckless driving.

        Besides, things that make me a reckless driver might not necessarily make somebody ELSE a reckless driver.
      • hapax, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1The difference betwee reckless driving and banning "call and drive" is that the latter is preventive of accidents. Whereas apprehending the reckless driver who gets into a crash may be a bit too late.

        To show benefit, it's not necessary that cellphone use makes all drivers reckless, only the majority.
      • flameboy, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1If an officer cannot OBSERVE recklessness then how can it be reckless? If cellphones really make the majority of drivers reckless, as you say, then the officer should be able to observe the recklessness and pull the driver over for that.
  • ispeakasian, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4ooh boy im in trouble now, arent i?
  • skizzy, on 07/01/2008, -1/+14You can give birth while driving.
    • PabloMac, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5Yes, just not the "first two stages of producing a child."
      There are TWO stages previous to giving birth?
      • meruru, on 07/02/2008, -0/+7If you thought the sex was good you should try stage 2
      • Lukesed, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Maybe he thinks everyone has to cook up GHB first?
  • dougvfr750, on 07/01/2008, -0/+25I thought most guys would be interested in what their female passenger can do while they are driving.
    • hapax, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6Ask directions for them?
    • GRTWHT, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5Read "The World According to Garp" and then decide how good an idea you think that might be.
      • dark1587, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Oh God... now you've brought back bad memories of that book! dammit!
  • HisVaderness, on 07/01/2008, -1/+21Road Head?
  • akey, on 07/02/2008, -3/+4funny :)
  • YoWhatDaFuxUp, on 07/02/2008, -0/+11pat your head and rub your stomach
  • YouGotDugg, on 07/11/2008, -5/+1Very Funny!
  • VipperOfVipp, on 07/02/2008, -1/+4I've been calling the blackberry thing 'thumbing and driving'

    I don't know how you'd do it with an iPhone, now that would be dangerous.
  • Sluglas, on 07/02/2008, -1/+6Jerk the shifter?
  • psykiv, on 07/02/2008, -1/+11In other news. Blackberry sales up 300% in California.
    • hapax, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3And Apple sales down 30%.
      • rayraym0fucka, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4Where they should be!

        Oh snap! I went there.

        ;p
  • pbone, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1hey. gizmodo looks different.
  • Ex3poo, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4I communicate with people, while in my car with smoke signals.
  • Tenlow, on 07/02/2008, -2/+2actually the fine for the first offense is $91 or $93, I forget which.
    • rhoVsquared, on 07/02/2008, -1/+8It's not quite that bad, but it's more than just $20..

      "The base fine for the FIRST offense is $20 and $50 for subsequent convictions. According to the Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedule, with the addition of penalty assessments, a first offense is $76 and a second offense is $190."

      Source: http://www.chp.ca.gov/pdf/media/cell_phone_faq.pdf
      • Tenlow, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Well all of the news stations in the los angeles area have been reporting the $90 figure for the first offense.
  • dupswapdrop, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5I drive with my knees while eating and drinking coffee.
  • thatsoccerkid, on 07/02/2008, -0/+7you can play with your banana!
  • mrzeero, on 07/02/2008, -1/+9I find it interesting that police officers can operate a laptop while driving, but a CITIZEN is incapable of talking on a phone.
    • hapax, on 07/02/2008, -2/+2Don't worry sir, we're highly trained professionals.
    • nittanylion06, on 07/02/2008, -3/+3It's not as if police officers receive specialized training in driving or anything...
      • mrzeero, on 07/02/2008, -0/+6While they receive specialized driving instruction, the only training that would make using a laptop safer would be training that teaches them to move their eyes independently and see in two different directions at the same time, like a chameleon. Last I checked that was impossible.
      • nittanylion06, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1And yet, I've never heard of a police officer being involved in a car accident because his laptop was a distraction. While I will grant that you might be able to dig up a handful of inattentive police officers out there, I can dig up thousands of accidents caused by idiots talking on their cell phones.

        I'm fine with state legislators concentrating on ACTUAL causes of accidents, rather than "potential" causes of accidents....
    • ldkronos, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2Is your next complain going to be about how police officers are allowed to drive above the speed limit when responding to a call?
      • PakoBedejo, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4If it's safe for a police officer to speed through slower traffic...why is it not just as safe for said traffic to normally move at the speed which the officer is going?...is his car MAGIC?

        Instead of banning unsafe items...just ***** ban stupid/inattentive drivers...
      • mrzeero, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3That is a silly comparison. One involves looking at the road while driving, the other does not.
      • flameboy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Nobody will complain about that because it is really not unsafe to drive over the speed limit in many legitimate circumstances.

        Let me say that again:

        It is NOT always unsafe to speed. Your driving teacher lied to you.
  • mrzeero, on 07/02/2008, -0/+16This law has been brought to you by the Bluetooth headset alliance.
    • PopcornDave, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Yeah it's going to be interesting to see the sales figures on new phones for the next month. It may prove you correct.
  • erichw1504, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1I drive with one knee while texting with one hand, drinking with the other and playing hacky sack with my free leg... while head banging to scream-core.
  • UnleashX, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2I'm sorry but using a laptop while driving is just as distracting where ur 16, 18 or 90.
  • URnotheonly1, on 07/02/2008, -0/+61 more reason for them to pull you over and look in your car, then they are going to charge you $20 for the look
    • flameboy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1It's $76 with the administrative fees. This article is inaccurate.
  • diggydougie, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4The main reason for laws such as these is to give the cops a reason to pull you over and (hopefully for them) find drugs or something else. These "behavior" laws give the cops Carte-Blanche to pull anyone over without probable cause.
    • Adamlite, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3Well... unless you use a hands-free device or pull off the road to make a call. I don't like it, but given that this is now legislated, it's in a person's best interest to follow the law if they've got something to hide, kind of like when I don't speed on the way home with freshly-purchased contraband
      • flameboy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3Right. But what about the people who don't have anything to hide who have to endure getting pulled over and possibly searched for no other reason except talking on a phone?
  • sandiegodude, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Guy buzzed by me at about 85 MPH on the freeway last night. He was reading a newspaper. It was spread out in front of him on his steering wheel. He was weaving like he was drunk, but I'd imagine his fingers were slippery from the black newspaper ink... Jackass.
    • flameboy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Ah!
      What we need is some anti-newspaper-reading legislation! Yes sir-ee that'll teach them drivers to keep their eyes on the road!
  • mrzeero, on 07/02/2008, -0/+10I like to arc weld on the way to work. It really helps relieve the rush hour stress for me.
  • samuelmcm, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Commenting on digg..
  • cien750hp, on 07/02/2008, -1/+5"dig into some obnoxious book by Ron Paul about why making cellphones (or anything) illegal is totally illegal"
    Just for the record, this is a state law which means Ron Paul is fine with it so long as it doesn't violate the constitution (which it doesn't). Now if it were a national law, gizmodo might actually be right that he would be opposing it. /end rant
  • ShadowFoxxx, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0Nothing like writing a novel while driving on the 95 highway...
  • dlm85, on 07/02/2008, -1/+4Getting a BJ
  • acbrimm, on 07/02/2008, -1/+3Stupid article, worthless read.
  • Blitzwing84, on 07/02/2008, -0/+5Rest assured California teenagers, you can still use your desktop while driving.
  • SFJoe, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4$20 doesn't sound like much of a fine until you tack on "court costs", then it becomes much less funny. Also, since this is a moving violation, you'll have to go to traffic school to keep your insurance company from jacking your rates. You're not going to find many people laughing off a fine that's "only" $20.
    • lennybird, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2that $20 will not last.

      It's the same thing that happened with the seatbelt law.

      $10 fine AT MOST, and you couldn't be pulled over just based on your seatbelt. Well, once the law passed, that quickly changed, didn't it?

      Soon, the cellphone ban will be $100+ a fine. And cellphones aren't banned - you're still allowed to use a bluetooth device with one. Must be hands free.
    • flameboy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1I live in California, it is $76 with all the administrative fees.
  • galvo, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2I can talk on the phone, smoke a cig, get road head, sip a drink, all while still drive manual transmission perfectly fine.
  • KillsTheWeak, on 07/02/2008, -2/+4Shouldn't be even an issue with guys, but it is, cellphone turned guys into girls, yapping there ***** lips all the time on the phone.
  • kungfoolou, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Actually, a few years ago, Cali banned the use of ANY video device including laptops by the driver except for navigational purposes. So if you run nav software+gps, it's fine, but you can't play games or check mail. Interesting note, here in Atlanta a few months ago, I noticed a cop stopped at an intersection checking yahoo mail.
  • jnordb, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Funny....I guess keyng Morse Code messages on your vacuum-tube powered 1963 vintage Heathkit ham radio set while driving is A-O.K. with The Man.
  • IPublius, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1I rather doubt that a kitten held up to your ear and talked into will feel terribly affectionate.
  • murlox, on 07/02/2008, -2/+1I saw a car that drove slower than usual, and when I decided to pass the car, it turned out that the driver was holding a cellphone to her ear. I agree that the penalty is not harsh enough to deter the use of cellphone while driving.
    • Raz0rEdge, on 07/02/2008, -1/+0After being fined the $20 repeatedly, and with gas prices being the way they are, I think people will quickly realize that they could take all that fine money and get a bluetooth headset and an iPhone..:)
    • flameboy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Right, because anything that makes people drive slower should be banned. Maybe you would agree we should ban all the slow old lady drivers?
  • defektiv, on 07/02/2008, -2/+1i'm still surprisingly cool with this law. $20 is $20 and it will start adding up on you. there are some people who just put their primary focus in their phone conversation instead of driving. i'm more than happy to make this small sacrifice if it means i don't have to swallow my pride next time i get behind some idiot in the HoV lane going 45 and having a dandy little conversation.
  • backseatchris, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0Just buy an iPhone and when you are questioned by the Police, just show them that you were using the google Maps feature, not texting, duh.
    • Raz0rEdge, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0What are you talking about?
      • backseatchris, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0if you are ever pulled over for texting while driving, just show the cop that you were actually using a map feature on your phone instead of actualyl texting, they cant prove thats what you werent doing
  • LogicBomB, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Hands free or not there is no difference in driving ability. It's a matter of using your brain for two things at once - which it can't do. Either you are taking in info from the conversation or focusing on driving. Holding a phone, a bannana or the car roof has no impact on driving ability, talking and listening on the phone or to a passenger does.

    The only thing the hands free law does is make it impossible to spot & avoid the idiots on cell phones now...
  • Mookie5, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2I couldn't answer a call while driving yesterday, and it was important. Soooo, I sent a text message. (I'm a bad driver, I know)

    After the fact, I thought about it and realized it was more dangerous, though less expensive. I realized that plenty of people will make the same decision, and in essence, this law has just increased driving while texting by at least an order of magnitude.
    • flameboy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1I have been trying to tell people this. They estimate 300 cellphone related deaths a year in California. If that number goes up because people decide to text instead, who will hold the legislator responsible for passing incomplete garbage laws?
    • flameboy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Adding to my comment above, it is completely unreasonable to think that you can somehow legislate away deaths caused by human inattention. Some people will think text messages should be banned also, but in the absence of texting who knows what people will choose to do instead? (never mind the effectiveness of something so difficult to enforce)

      The correct way to handle it is to make laws against the outcomes not the behavior (which is what we have now, and what has worked since our government was formed). Reckless driving is punishable. Causing an accident is punishable. Killing somebody is VERY punishable. Let these consequences do their job and stop trying to usurp the importance personal responsibility.
  • shagg187, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Another tip, never keep your cellphone in your pocket while driving and make sure it's in the cup holder. Nothing is annoying than watching someone pick up the cellphone out of their pocket while driving. If you really have to attend the call, keep the conversation 5 second long. "Mom/Honey/Bro/Sis/Dad/Darling, I am driving. Talk to you later." If they bitch at you for not picking up the phone while driving then they need to stfu.
  • JRSouth, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0That article was FAIL. No fapping listed.
  • teethandeyes, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0Giving road head to the passenger whilst the passenger steers is my favorite.
  • greenvortex, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Use your digital camera to take pictures of all the people talking on their phones. When they notice you, pretend to take a shot of their license plate. The look of panic on their faces is priceless.

    They've had the cell phone ban in New York State for a few years now, and no one I know has ever been cited for it, and more people talk on their phones while driving than ever.
  • Xzn31, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3Inaccurate. It's $76.

    Here's the biggest thing: It's a moving violation. Gotta sit your ass through traffic school or get your insurance dinged with a point.
  • Nipplelesshorse, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Californian here... spent about 10 minutes behind a car doing 10 under the speed limit... talking on his phone via headset... I of course couldn't pass him because there was another bluetooth jockey pacing with him.
    • flameboy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Hopefully there will be enough of us that realize this law doesn't do anything and it can be reworked or repealed.
  • MavRevMatt, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1One to add to the list: http://www.flickr.com/photos/therift/2628393283/
    Watching Diggnation while driving.
  • Brassbud, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0Sorry, but none of those things are as distracting as a cellphone call. There's a big reason its easier to talk to someone in the car with you than on the phone. I won't even talk to some if I call them while they're driving, unless its an emergency.
    • flameboy, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Sorry, but you are wrong.
      There are plenty things far more distracting than a cellphone call. Texting, shaving, reading, eating, and doing makeup.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.