Legality/Morality of Watching TV While Driving?

Yeah, so unplug your MFDs because those consumption/energy/climate/gps/radio screens may distract you into a crash!

 

What derogatory term did I use?
DH stands Dan Hinkle, a storied character from a childhood book with a moral theme on using bad terms.
Wait... you didn't think I meant something else did you? Something mean like...

 

Come on! Do people really need another distraction while driving? Seems most people can barely keep there minds on driving, let alone all the other things that they can do in their cars! Cell phones, GPS, the touch screen options in the Prius, lap tops, PDA's, changing CD's- DVD's- tapes (for those of us who still have them). Now add eating, drinking, putting on make up, shaving, reading, smoking, yelling at the snot gobblers in the back, and what ever else people think they can do while driving.
No TV's! Most people get fixated when watching some thing on a screen, you should be watching the road and paying attention to what's around you!
Law: New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law
Title 7, Article 33, Sections 1212, 1213, 1225-c
1212: Reckless Driving
1213: Obstruction
1225-c: Cell Phone use

 

So how about we eliminate one of the aforementioned distractions and let the TV be in it's place. That way we are not adding another distraction.

And the study proving this as the only possible way to watch a TV is where?

Keep it real. Keep it substantiated.
.

 

Can you find reputable documentation that supports your point of view, Chris? You want the naysayers to provide documentation, so it's only fair that you provide some documentation that says watching TV is no more of a distraction than watching the wheels go round.

 

I'll agree, prove you don't get fixated when watching TV!
Ask anyone with small children if they don't get fixated while watching the TV!
I quoted the laws in my state, because so many people say something is breaking the law and have no friggen clue what they are talking (posting) about!
Since the "legality" of something this incredibly stupid was part of the topic question; I though someone might like a little background into the subject. So instead of the usual "Yeah it's not legal" bulls#!+, I posted information on what are known as facts. The reader if he/she cares to look them up can draw their on conclussions.

I don't feel I have to nor the need to legitimize every sentence I post. :nono: But for those who want to critique every word that is posted, here's some information:

"Watching TV puts your brain in an alpha mode. – which is proven by how many people say I like to watch TV to veg, chill, or relax. This is the brain wave of relaxation."

"TV Causes Stress:
TV is actually a cause of stress. By watching the violence and stressful situations on TV, you actually produce the stress response in your body.
But since you know it is not logical to “act†on the stress response because it is just TV, you suppress the response.
You go through cycles of impulse, suppression, impulse suppression. Which later comes out as frantic behavior associated with ADHD and ADD.
Your body can only handle so much stress. Once it reaches the limit, things break down. If you have stress from your job, your family, and life in general, then the added stress of TV only makes it worse."

 

Quit being such a Dan Hinkle then!

(sorry, I couldn't resist)

... Brad

 

Some of these links substantiate the driving distraction of TV and some are just interesting:

"A University of Utah study released in February found that 18- to 25-year-old drivers talking on a cell phone with a headset reacted as slowly as 65- to 74-year-old drivers without cell phones. Older drivers also reacted more slowly while talking on cell phone, the report said."

Connecticut's State Insurance and Risk Management Board has information about TV prohibited in commercial vehicles.

Watching a DVD in someone else's car while you drive?

Dubai police warn of the hazards for watching TV while driving

"...people are as impaired when they drive and talk on a cell phone as they are when they drive intoxicated at the legal blood-alcohol limit†of 0.08 percent, which is the minimum level that defines illegal drunken driving in most U.S. states" - Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Summer 2006

“However, over the last decade many new electronic devices have been developed, and they are making their way into the vehicle,†the researchers write. “Drivers can now surf the Internet, send and receive e-mail or faxes, communicate via a cellular device and even watch television. There is good reason to believe that some of these new multitasking activities may be substantially more distracting than the old standards because they are more cognitively engaging and because they are performed over longer periods of time.†- Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Summer 2006

Multitasking in the Automobile by David L. Strayer and Frank A. Drews, University of Utah Department of Psychology

 

Tooshay!
.

 

That's fair. I'll look
.

 

Heh. Good luck. I married a lovely woman with three great kids, but wow, they run me ragged.

I'm still digging, but so far I'd say that he's as guilty of killing those people by watching the DVD player as OJ Simpson was of killing his wife. That is to say, he's pretty damned clearly guilty, but not 100% past "a reasonable doubt".

So I shouldn't use that word, should I? I believe that he and his passenger were watching a movie while he was driving, and that contributed to the accident happening. Apparently the jury disagreed that this was the major / contributing cause, so he was acquitted. I do wonder if there is a pending civil suit, though. ("a preponderance of the evidence" vs. "beyond a reasonable doubt").

A few more links:
Dashboard DVDs and Death
Local Man Distracted by DVD player, on trial for murder!!! - Mazda Forums
2nd degree murder charge watching dvd during accident! - Page 4 - 3000GT/Stealth International Message Center

That last one is pretty significant.
1. the jury mentioned that they were swayed by the defense [strategy]
2. the prosecution [apparently] never established that it was the DVD playing at the time.

Finally, I suspect that you got a young, wide-eyed kid in there on "murder 2", and the jury acquitted because they felt it was too harsh -- not because they don't feel the kid made choices that made the accident more likely.

 

since its already against the law in most places, as soon as it becomes an issue, it will be against the law just about everywhere. i can only hope that violators see penalties on the level comparable with DUI's (driving under the influence of TV)

 

Congratulations!

 

I don't think the prosecution can prove murder 2 to the alleged imbecile supposedly watching a dvd while driving; they will lose unless they change the charge to criminally negligent manslaughter or just plain manslaughter. However, this case will set a precendence and anyone who thinks they are such good drivers they can watch a dvd (or tv in this case) best beware.

 

Awesome!!! Way to go Jack66!!! :yo:
.

 

That is fantastic! she is a big girl, mum's all good I trust?
Look, things are a bit hectic right now but we can call a national holiday a month from Caitlyn's birth date to celebrate it properly, hope that's OK?

 

Yes, congrats Jack66.