What is Digg?115 Comments
- surfthemind, on 10/12/2007, -1/+48I'm pretty sure there are bylaws in many municipalities that make it illegal to wear headphones while driving. I recall a high school teacher of mine getting fined for that particular offense.
- danglerman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+36it is already illegal in many states and provinces to wear headphones while driving. I'm pretty sure you can still listen throuhg the speakers.
- andyshep, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21Sorry to hear about your friend but....
We cannot legislate against stupidity. If your friend was mucking around with his ipod while driving and not paying attention to the road, is that the ipod fault or your friends fault? My point is, you can be distracted by anything while you're driving, be it eating a cheeseburger, changing the radio dial, track on a CD, looking at a map, dialing on a cellphone, reaching around in your car looking for a lost item, whatever. If you're dumb enough not to give full attention to the road while driving, whatever happens to you is your own fault.
I use my ipod all the time while driving. I get in the car, find a track/playlist, and start driving. Yes, its very difficult to change songs/playlists while driving because of the interface on the ipod and what not. But that doesn't take away from the fact that I should be devoting all my attention to driving, and not changing songs on the ipod.
As you point out above, your friend was not so smart. I'll take it a step further and say your friend is downright stupid. But why should people who are capable of using an ipod while driving have to pay for your friends stupid mistake? We shouldn't.
Stupid people exist in this world any no amount of draconian legislature is going to prevent that. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22There are plenty of reasons why people should not obscure their hearing ability while driving, and no reasons why they should.
If it isn't illegal already it should be. - Slayback, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@AdamFitz
Just FYI: You use more gas, especially at higher speeds, from the loss in aerodynamics by having the windows down than by using the AC. I have the windows down at that speed all the time because I enjoy it, but just know that you're not saving any money that way.
Unless of course your AC is broken. Then you may have the windows rolled down for a long time before it would cost more than getting it fixed. ;) - fozzy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9In many parts of Canada there is a graduated licencing system. In Ontario (where I live) it takes at least one year eight months to get your full licence (and for most people it takes at least two years). Durning that time you have additional restrictions placed on your driving habbits.
What I heard on the news last night is that this proposed law would (at least initially) target people in the graduated licencing system and not people will their full licence. The main argument being that diving can be hard and very dangerous (espesially in large cities) and people learning to drive need to focus on the task at hand.
Even without cellphones and other distractions young drivers are the most likely to be in an accident, this is aimed to trying to keep both drivers and everyone else safer (in theory).
The main target are cellphones.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/06/14/novice-drivers060614.html - Vitaliy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10If you are driving with headphones on listening to your iPod... well you are an idiot.
- andyshep, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@RadiantBeing
I couldn't agree more. The idea that people are stupid, cannot make choices for themselves, and need to be protected by draconian laws so they do not hurt themselves is infecting this country (and apparently others). This is the same idea with laws requiring the use of seatbelts, laws requiring the use of a helmet while riding a motorcycle (except in NH), and laws banning the use of cellphones (or handsfree only, such as NY/NJ, if I recall). I agree with the validity of each of the aforementioned laws, but I do not support them because we "save [the] idiots from themselves" If you want to be stupid and ride a motorcycle without a helmet (read: Ben Roethlisberger) then when you crash, its your own fault! - RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Darwin sorts them out. We need to get away from the notion that it is possible to save idiots from themselves with the right combination of laws and regulations. People need to get smart or get Darwinated. 95-99% of all people can figure out for themselves that fiddling with things or listening to music on headphones makes it harder to pay attention to the road. It only takes a modest amount of brainpower and responsibility to understand that. If someone is so stupid that they need the government to tell them it's a bad idea, then maybe they are in the fringes of humanity and beyond help anyway.
- webcrumb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Definitely illegal to wear headphones in the UK, whether while driving or cycling as it does impear hearing.
As for using it while driving, it will likely come under the same legislation as mobile phones; when you are operating the device you are no longer in full control of the vehicle. So, far example, you cannot hold a mobile phone and/or text while driving. - kowgod, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7By comparing mp3 player use while driving to cell phone use while driving (along with "other" portable media devices), I think it is pretty clear that the intended effect of the law would be to ban ALL mp3 player use while driving, not just the use of headphones. In fact, nowhere outside of the user comments on that page does it ever mention headphones. I don't see how this could be easily misunderstood...
All that said, I don't see how use of an mp3 player while driving is any different than operating your car stereo, other than that your mp3 player may require you to look at the menues and controls and whatnot, whereas most people can operate their stereo without looking. - Sababaaa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6To clear up some obvious confusion, this law would make it illegial to OPERATE an ipod or similar mp3 player while driving, not wearing headphones while driving (which is already illegal in many places, as it should be)..
But to be on topic, I was having this exact coversation with my friends the other day. It is easily ten times more disracting to operate an ipod (which involves choosing a song out of a library that is potentially thousands-thick, also requiring you to take one hand and eyes off the wheel/road for 5 seconds minimum... and many people would be doing this every few minutes, to change from song to song or artist to artist) than it would be to say, dial a friends number or look through your phone book of 100 people, or your recent calls list which is 20 names long at most.
I completely agree a law like this should be made, as operating an ipod, zen, or any other mp3 player is not only dangerous to you and your passengers, but everybody else on the road. I only take my MP3 player with me if I already have a playlist setup, or a passenger in the car to operate it for me. Otherwise I just stick to my mix Cds and deal with the limited song selection, as i find it to be extremely unsafe to sift through my massive library while driving on a highway or such. - Pogue_Mahone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Headphones are no more distracting than car stereo speakers. Both can be used too loudly to distraction, but both can also be used safely and won't appreciably affect your driving.
Mucking around with playlists, well, that's different. There's an amount of distraction in that, no matter what you do. Though I would argue its less distracting to use an intuitive wheel in your hand that you don't need to look at (like the ipod has) than to have to reach over and have to use the faceplate on your car stereo to do the same thing. - kuroaisu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5That's what bothers me. Zero Tollerance laws based on the lowest common denominator. It's rather glib, but the guy who said let darwin sort it out had a point. How could you tailor a law to work for everyone though? Can you?
- codahale, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@AdamFitz:
Playing loud music, especially via in-ear buds, impairs your ability to hear emergency vehicles and the horns of other cars on the road. This may come across as mean, but people who voluntarily deaden their powers of perception while hurtling along in a ton of steel, glass, and plastic just because they're bored? Yeah, I think of them as idiots. - stubadub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yeah, operating my Ipod while driving is way more distracting than looking up a number on the cell phone. I've started setting it up before leaving the driveway (which drives my wife crazy while she waits for me to take the care out of park) or quickly doing it at a red light. Sometimes I'll put it on random so I won't have to worry about it the rest of the ride.
I'm probably in the minority here but I don't see what the difference is between listening to music via earbuds and listening via car stereo speakers. I'll wear headphones while driving at night sometimes so my music won't keep my wife or child awake. While wearing the headphones I can hear my wife speaking to me, cars honking, music from other vehicles, etc. If someone can spend $1000 on a car system that they are blasting so loud I can hear it in my car and that's not illegal, why can't I wear my little earbud headphones? - kuroaisu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I can see it both ways. Sure, iPods are distracting, but are they any more distracting than changing a CD or the radio station? Lighting a cigarette? Eating McDonalds?
- 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5> surfthemind wrote: "I'm pretty sure there are bylaws in many municipalities that make it illegal to wear headphones while driving."
True. But it'll be interesting to see how this proposed law is written. For example, will they outlaw iPod use even if the device is hooked into the car stereo?
By the way, sorry I didn't properly reply. I thought I clicked the "reply" button but I guess I didn't. - Zero82z, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"What about deaf people? Not that iPods have anything to do with being deaf (well maybe if you listen to it too loud), but hearing impairment should not be a restriction on driving."
Deaf people (and other sense-impaired people) usually or always have overdeveloped other senses, to adapt from their lack of hearing. For drivers who are not hearing-impaired, one of the senses they rely on while driving is their hearing, and anything that interferes with that should be removed or regulated. Banning iPods would be a step in the right direction, but there should also be laws imposing volume caps on car audio systems, so noise won't prevent drivers from hearing outside sounds. - jo42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Every time I see someone doing something stupid in their vehicles on the roads in the GTA, they are flapping their gums on a cell phone. In more civilized countries, i.e. some EU nations, there already are laws that prohibit this.
- kuroaisu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Of course Bingo, Nudie Bars and Beer at the Couche-Tard is still 100% legal. :)
- sancho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Exactly. We can't just let "Darwin"[1] weed out bad drivers because they can and often will cause harm to others in the process. Seatbelt laws have the same intent, too. If you get bumped by someone else and you aren't wearing a seatbelt, you can actually get jarred right out of the driver's seat. But just because you aren't "driving" anymore doesn't mean that your car suddenly loses all momentum--it's still going, and you have zero control. Compare to a person who is wearing the seatbelt, probably still in the driver's seat, and can slam on the brakes.
Motorcycle helmet laws also have a use, albeit it's more subtle. When you get in a motorcycle accident and you don't have health insurance, you still get treatment. Guess who pays for the treatment? The less damage done, the better for the taxpayers and everyone in general (so that hospital beds aren't taken up, supplies aren't used up on you, etc). Obviously there must be limits--we can't legislate that everyone walk around with helmets and padded vests and such /just/in/case/, so obviously there's going to be room for debate.
[1] Darwinism requires that the entity die /before/ reaching sexual maturity and thus is capable of breeding. Most drivers have reached sexual maturity. Although few brand new drivers may have children due to social constructs, Darwin no longer applies in this case. The person's biological makeup has seen them to the age where they /can/ procreate. - angelp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@AdamFitz - I think driving with headphones does make you an idiot and a danger to everyone else on the road.
- MegaSilver, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3GTA = Greater Toronto Area
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Toronto_Area - comrademikhail, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I listen to my Nomad while in the car. I just set it to random and click the skip button on songs I don't want to hear. Doesn't distract me from driving at all because I don't have to navigate the menu system.
Also keep in mind I'm doing it through a cassete adapter that allows me to play it over my car's speakers. - Avengelist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I'm just using the guy as an example, as to illustrate why they would consider such legislation. I don't drive, so either way, I really don't give a fig.
I will ask - how do you sort the good "I can drive with headphones on/ talking on cellphone/excellent driver" people from the "I shouldn't be allowed on the road, 'cuz I'm a dumbass" people? - Criterion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This has nothing whatsoever to do with driving while wearing headphones. Headphones are not even mentioned in the article.
On that note though, driving with headphones on is NOT a good idea, and certainly doesn't make you the sharpest tool in the shed. - Odweaver, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@AdamFitz
Yes, yes it does make you an idiot. You seriously impair your senses in addition to the speeding that you mentioned. - NoahK, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I would support that law. Too many times have I been stuck behind some slow ass driver talking on his or her cell phone, or listening to an ipod w/ earbuds. Ugh!!
- 16x9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2> brandizzle wrote: "You probably did click reply...Digg just doesn't like to reply sometimes"
I think you might be right. This has happened to me more than once and on a few of those occasions I was darned certain I'd clicked the "reply" button. Oh well. What are are ya gonna do? The world's an imperfect place. Screws fall out all the time.
> brandizzle also wrote: "...you have to be paying attention to your ipod to change the song, so you aren't paying attention to the road."
You're correct, of course. It's a balancing act between people's right to behave "normally" while driving a car and the right of the rest of us to not get creamed by someone who is driving while trying to reach that donut that popped out of the box and fell on the passenger side floor. - Poco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2First, this title is WAY over the top. There are no laws being written up to make iPods illegal in cars. This is an article quoting the CAA (The Canadian version of AAA) president. If the AAA president said the same thing would anyone be concerned that iPods would be made illegal in cars in the US? No digg.
Second, the problem with any sort of law like this is that it is being very specific about what can cause you to be distracted. Distractions are bad when you are driving. But how do you define what is distracting? As others have said, you can be distracted by many things beyond iPods and you can use iPods in a way that is not distracting.
It should be the act of what you are doing in the car that is the subject of law, not what you are doing it with. It doesn't matter if I'm using an iPod or a rear view mirror, if what I am doing is a distraction then that is the problem.
This would be like banning rear view mirrors because checking your makeup in the mirror is a distraction. - nilsonsfj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wearing headphones while driving is already illegal here in Brazil.
I think it's pretty stupid, since it's perfectly legal to play deafening loud music through your car stereo. Even those cell phone earphones are illegal - despite being one-sided. - tycurtis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, I'm gonna have to agree with Flashboca here. I also hate laws like this that "legislate against stupidity." But in this case, that stupidity could hurt somebody else. I think the law is justified.
- larfus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1 Highway driving I use my headphones. A good driver is always checking mirrors anyway. When there is congestion or city driving in general I usally turn everything off anyways. I drive for a living and refuse to talk on the phone in traffic or be distracted by changing radio stations, phones etc. The biggest problem I see on the road are cell phones and reading. Yes reading I can not tell you how many times I have been ridding at 70 mph to look over and someone is reading the paper or even scanning over thier map.
- astrosmash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Total BS.
There have been rumblings of a cell phone driving ban, as usual, but anyone who is trying to rope MP3 players and other gadgets into this as well is someone who simply doesn't want a cell phone driving ban.
Personally, I'd love to see a cell phone ban. Of all the times I've been nearly run over in past few years, all occurred because some jackass was lost in his own world gabbing on a cell phone instead of driving. - tsuroki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm surprised that this isn't illegal already. The iTrip exists for a reason.
(I'm assuming, of course, that they're referring to using MP3 players w/ headphones.) - Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1because earphones muffle your ears and often cancel noise from outside... even with loud music on speakers, you can hear ambiant noise like sirens... I could be stark-raving mad, though.
- dielawn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1dugg down for trying to make a point.
- bs0l, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1why ipods? anyone heard of mp3 players? there are others, such as creative. i know ipods dominate the mp3 player world, but lets not forget the little people
- hankyone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1iPod != Personal Music Player
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I didn't know that Canada could make laws
- vernsan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They should make cell phones illegal to use while driving, even those bluetooth headsets don't help any. I almost got hit today because a cell phone user couldn't read signs and doesn't know how to stop for a stop sign.
- Pogue_Mahone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Please explain how wearing headphones and listening at a reasonable volume is any different than listening to your car speakers at the same volume?
- andyshep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@LocoMan
"Well, to play devil's advocate, I think this law could also be less to protect the people stupid enough to get distracted like that when driving, and more to protect the people around them. Following the same example, your friend totaled his car, but very well could have hit another car or someone walking in the process."
So now you want laws to protect yourself from stupid people? Isn't this taking things a little far?
The world is a dangerous place and you can get hurt/killed doing a number of everyday things. I know for a fact that everytime I get behind the wheel and drive in this crazy traffic (Boston, no less) that I am putting myself at risk and need to be aware of the stupid people out there. Yes, smart and innocent people could be killed by stupid people while driving. But is that reason enough to legislate draconian laws to protect 'us smart people'? How far do you want to take this? Can't you see the ridiculousness of the statement you make regarding the laws in Spain when you say "it's forbidden to do or have anything that distracts you from the road or the car"?
If you want protection from the stupid people out there then you better accept a police state. The world is dangerous, so surrender your freedoms, and the government with legislate laws to protect you!
Thanks, but no thanks. - skidooer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"but you have to find the artist and song you want on an ipod."
But the iPod itself doesn't have to be the only interface to the iPod. The car's stereo could have an interface designed to better suit the needs of a driver, which then controls the iPod, which is stored out of sight (such as the glove box). The law should not deny iPod use under such a scenario, but it very well could if worded improperly. - bdwoolman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good law. Distraction is the #3 killer. Alcohol and tiredness are #1 and #2 in that order. Radios and mobiles are bad enough, but a fiddly Digiplayer menu is a clear menace. I have an MP3 capable CD player and bung in a disc with a long playlist. I don't even like futzing with a radio.
- Trublmakr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Guilty,.. with an FM transmitter I mess with my ipod all the time driving,. and it IS prety damn dangerous. I've got into the (slightly smarter) habit of prepping the playlist I want to listen to before I actually start my car. It's surprisingly easy to take your eyes off the road just one second too long,...I've never had an ipod-related accident but definately a couple late reactions that scared the crap out of me,..
- Flankk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Do you really think a law will change that?
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Apparently these law makers haven't seen the latest car stereos on the market. An iPod is nothing compared to these radios, which have dozens, and dozens of buttons, and other distracting elements (slide out TV anyone?).
- Flankk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you rear-end someone, it's your fault regardless of why the person ahead of you hit the brakes. If you don't maintain a safe following distance then *you* are the unsafe driver who is tailgating. Assuming the unsafe driver was wearing an iPod, this should make them automatically at fault because there is a law? Or since it is law, then it *must* be unsafe?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 114 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is