Support NeoGAF

[XiaNaphryz]

New Jersey bill would ban snacking while driving, other activities

You can soon be ticketed for snacking while driving if a New Jersey law gets passed.

The state Assembly is moving forward with a bill that would impose fines for “any activity not related to the safe operation of the vehicle.”

The broad-reaching bill could include eating, applying makeup and other actions that take away from driving. It sailed through the Assembly’s transportation committee by a 12-0 margin, according to reports.

The bill’s sponsor, John Wisniewski, said in a statement that the measure is common sense to prevent deadly crashes.

“Year after year reports are issued that describe the dangers of driving distracted, whether it's texting while driving or using other handheld devices,” said Wisniewski, D-Middlesex. “Yet, horrific car accidents with distracted driving as the root cause continue to occur on New Jersey roadways. That has to change.”

The fines levied would be identical those busted for texting while driving. The first offense would cost a driver between $200 and $400. Subsequent infractions tack on an additional $200 and after the third strike, the driver’s license could be suspended.

The officer would have to describe exactly how the motorist was driving distracted.

Local advocates have pushed for stricter laws on driving distracted following the tragic death of motorist Nikki Kellenyi last year.

But some have bashed the bill’s unclear language.

“I can’t adjust the radio anymore? I can’t change the CD? I can’t look at a map?” Steve Carrellas, a local representative of the National Motorists Association told the Star-Ledger. “This is a whole set of undefined behavior that someone could perform in the car that could be considered not driving.”

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/11/bill_would_ban_all_forms_of_distracted_driving.html

A state lawmaker wants to expand New Jersey’s ban on using hand-held cell phones while behind the wheel to include anything that could be considered distracted driving.

The Assembly transportation committee today voted 12-0 to approve a bill (A4461) sponsored by committee chairman John Wisniewski (D-Middlesex) that would ban drivers from engaging in "any activity unrelated to the actual operation of a motor vehicle in a manner that interferes with the safe operation of the vehicle on a public road or highway."

The activity could include eating, applying makeup, playing a video game or any number of a hundred other things (use your imagination here). The bill does not go into specifics, but leaves it up to police.

"Certainly there’s no law against having a video screen installed on your dashboard and watching movies," Wisniewski said. "All of the examples are ridiculous, except you see them happening, and you read about them having happened."

The penalties would be the same as for cell phone use: $200 for a first offense, $400 to $600 for a second and $600 to $800 for a third. After a third offense, a judge would also have the option of suspending the driver’s license.

The bill’s prospects for becoming law are uncertain. With less than two months left of the legislative session, no companion bill has been introduced in the state Senate, which would also need to pass it in order to send it to the governor’s desk.

Wisniewski, who said the bill is modeled after New Hampshire’s law on negligent driving, said police can already pull drivers over for many of the behaviors that would be covered under the bill and write them up for careless or reckless driving. But, he said, police might be hesitant to cite those violations if they felt it might not stand up in court.

"If you create an offense of distracted driving, it’s pretty easy to define what distracted is: not watching the road," Wisniewski said.

Wisniewski said it makes more sense to create a wider category of distracted driving than legislate individual distractions as they arise as problems.

"Twenty years ago, there were people in the Legislature who could not contemplate what we’re talking about today," he said. "And 20 years from now there will be a whole different set of distractions. Using your transporter beam while driving, for instance."

The first article even used the pic I would've posted, lol.

 

[John Kowalski]

That's not in place already? Over here even smoking while driving can be considered illegal.

 

[CarpeDeezNutz]

Always trips me out seeing people on the highway driving and texting.

 

[Alucrid]

Are we sure that's not really a hot drink?

 

[shadyspace]

The activity could include eating, applying makeup, playing a video game or any number of a hundred other things (use your imagination here). The bill does not go into specifics, but leaves it up to police.

Always a hallmark of a great law.

 

[tbm24]

Good, hope they enforce it as hard as they enforce the not texting thing. NJ doesn't play around compared to NYPD when it comes to that.

 

[sangreal]

Always a hallmark of a great law.

oh, for fucks sake

 

[Sol..]

Are we sure that's not really a hot drink?

I'm 73% certain that container cannot hold hot or warm drinks.

 

[Chairmanchuck]

i dont understand what this Steve-Guy is saying.

I am quite sure you can still change the radiostation or change a CD. But looking at a map while driving with 40 mp/h isnt such a good idea...

 

[CarpeDeezNutz]

Are we sure that's not really a hot drink?

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle!

 

[Devolution]

oh, for fucks sake

Well he's not wrong. The justifications cops use to harass people should never be broad.

 

[Lamel]

I like the idea, but I don't like that cops are given a free pass on "interpretation".

 

[smokeandmirrors]

“I can’t adjust the radio anymore? I can’t change the CD? I can’t look at a map?” Steve Carrellas, a local representative of the National Motorists Association told the Star-Ledger. “This is a whole set of undefined behavior that someone could perform in the car that could be considered not driving.”

SLIPPERY SLOPE

If I can't look at my maps whilst driving what will they ban next?!?!

 

[jb1234]

I like the idea, but I don't like that cops are given a free pass on "interpretation".

That worries me too. Still, anything that cuts back on people being complete fucking idiots while driving can only be a good thing. Sometimes, you just need the threat hanging in the air.

 

[Fury Sense]

RIP road head

 

[sangreal]

Well he's not wrong. The justifications cops use to harass people should never be broad.

No, I agree with him, my reaction was to the quote from the article

 

[MIMIC]

Eating? Really? How much food does it take to equal to "distraction"? How much of my mouth should I be devoting to the operation of my vehicle?

EDIT: I mean, I "get" it; legit distractions should be prohibited....but this has "slippery slope" written all over it.

 

[way more]

Getting rid of radios is the only thing that will appease the anti-DUI crusaders that show up in each thread. I guess this will make them happy as it's a step in that direction.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

I like the idea, but I don't like that cops are given a free pass on "interpretation".

You looked down and away from the road for a second. You were obviously distracted and need to be fined!

 

[Devolution]

No, I agree with him, my reaction was to the quote from the article

Oh sorry my bad. Yeah "leaves it to police" ugggh.

 

[UnluckyKate]

make up while driving ?

...Seriously ?

Fucking automatic cars. You need two hands on a manual to drive, so no make up, no burger eating, no texting shit behind the wheel

 

[Desi]

make up while driving ?

...Seriously ?

Fucking automatic cars. You need two hands on a manual to drive, so no make up, no burger eating, no texting shit behind the wheel

not quite true. i've done at least a few of those with a manual.

 

[SamVimes]

 

[XiaNaphryz]

not quite true. i've done at least a few of those with a manual.

Plus people could also just enable cruise control.

 

[zma1013]

I like the idea, but I don't like that cops are given a free pass on "interpretation".

Yeah, I can see that leading to fines for listening to rock music or something.

 

[teruterubozu]

It's a conspiracy to integrate self-driving cars.

 

[malyce]

This just gives cops a free pass to fuck with people, as if it wasn't bad enough already.

 

[NEOPARADIGM]

Next they'll be forcing people to wear seatbelts!

 

[Hoo-doo]

This makes sense.

 

[freenudemacusers]

what if they're trying to navigate their way on google maps out of new jersey?

 

[gutshot]

Wouldn't this fall under the already existing violations of careless or reckless driving?

 

[Josh7289]

Good.

 

[Rockandrollclown]

It does make sense, in theory. A lot of things people do behind the wheel are distracting on a level that is as dangerous as drunk driving. In practice though leaving it to police interpretation will end up how it always does; an excuse to pull over minorities or other abuses of power.

 

[lethial]

Ive always been a believer that people should be ticketed for dogs on their laps while driving.

 

[Red Pencil]

One point that I hope the bill clarifies is what constitutes "driving." Does the distraction only count while the vehicle is in motion or would it also count if the vehicle is stopped at a light? What about parked with the car still running? If memory serves, the current New Jersey law for texting while driving doesn't count stop lights but I think there are proposals to expand the law. Common sense would state that the two similar laws would be defined to a similar extent.

 

[wenis]

Good. If you're attention isn't 100% on operating your deadly vehicle then you should be fined. Harshly.

 

[Neuromancer]

Always a hallmark of a great law.

Well he's not wrong. The justifications cops use to harass people should never be broad.

I like the idea, but I don't like that cops are given a free pass on "interpretation".

As long as the person getting fined has the opportunity to counter it before a judge I have no problem with this. If the cop has no justification, the judge will throw it out.

 

[TheBrain76]

RIP road head

This was my first thought as well. lol

 

[Gentleman Jack]

As long as the person getting fined has the opportunity to counter it before a judge I have no problem with this. If the cop has no justification, the judge will throw it out.

What a coincidence, people currently getting harassed by cops abusing ambiguous laws are also beset with problems that make proper advocacy hard to find and free time to attend court nigh impossible. It shouldn't get that far, why not just save everyone a headache and explicitly spell out the offenses cops can pull you over for?

 

[Blader]

My parents text while driving, which is fucking frightening because they type on old-school phones and are slow about it.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Maybe good in theory but it relies 100% on cops not abusing their power, so I don't like it.

 

[CornBurrito]

Always a hallmark of a great law.

I await when cops argue that being black while driving is a distracting activity because of the constant worry black people face about being arrested by racist cops for nothing.

 

[Akuun]

“I can’t adjust the radio anymore? I can’t change the CD? I can’t look at a map?” Steve Carrellas, a local representative of the National Motorists Association told the Star-Ledger. “This is a whole set of undefined behavior that someone could perform in the car that could be considered not driving.”

Adjust the radio? Small volume stuff or single button presses without looking? Okay maybe, as long as it's fast and you don't need to look.
Change the CD? You have to look away to do this. Don't do it while moving.
Read the map? Fucking hell man, pull over before you do this.

 

[ratcliffja]

As long as the person getting fined has the opportunity to counter it before a judge I have no problem with this. If the cop has no justification, the judge will throw it out.

In my experience, the judge will agree with the cop 99.9% of the time, and the only times that the judge doesn't agree is if the defendant presents irrefutable evidence and even then, the cop will typically drop the charges in such a case. For pure judgment calls, you're not going to win.

 

[Madness]

Doesn't New Jersey have a law against pumping your own gas? This seems like such a tax grab. I mean any police officer under pressure to get more 'tickets' can claim you were driving distracted, saw you playing with the radio, eyes off the road.

 

[nilbog21]

Seriously, driving should not be taken lightly and you should really put forth your full undivided attention... However, not being able to manipulate your phone/radio seems a little harsh.. I've seen people read books on the highway...

 

[EsotericManiac]

The only problem i have with this is it will ultimately come down the officer's discretion that pulled you over.

 

[Blader]

Doesn't New Jersey have a law against pumping your own gas? This seems like such a tax grab. I mean any police officer under pressure to get more 'tickets' can claim you were driving distracted, saw you playing with the radio, eyes off the road.

yes, and consequently, I've never done it in my life. :lol

 

[Evolved1]

On the one hand I do not trust drivers to operate their vehicles responsibly, and support this proposal.

On the other hand I do not trust police officers to enforce it responsibly, and so do not support the proposal.

I think the only compromise would be that officers are required to have dash-cam footage... which isn't really a reasonable or realistic requirement.

So... yeah... idk.

It's one of those things that will help some people while hurting others. The ratio, I have no earthly idea.

 

[luso]

So late... Years ago in Portugal a guy was fined for blowing his nose while driving.