http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/27/dv....ap/index.html

Do you still think it's OK to have a DVD player/Playstation/etc. in the dash where the driver can see it?

 

I don't think it matters much what an individual driver think's. It is what the lawyers think and how much money or publicity they think they can get.

It is obviously irresponsible to be playing GT 3 while driving.

This sort of case has only one person who knows the truth and he has suspect credibility because he wishes to avoid a criminal conviction.

 

depends on your state...CA forbids but here in Minnesota there are no statutes specifically addressing it.

Seeing a story like that could sure spook people out but if you look into the case there is an overly ambitious prosecuter and a not so intelligent driver. This is a case of a DISTRACTED DRIVER (suspected) and will be the same as a case with a cell phone user/food eater/sleepy driver and is NEGLIGENCE...they prosecuter will have one hell of a time pushing 2nd Degree Murder...as this clearly wasn't the case (I would even susupect that the charges were blatantly misfiled). 2nd Degree murder recquires malice aforethought...there was no malice...only stupidity.

If this driver was watching negligently he will at most get a Manslaughter Charge...which is bad but it is no murder charge.

Moral of the story...have a remote (hidden if you can) that allows an easy and quick switch from video to Off or Navi if you live in states that forbid them...also as a driver DON'T WATCH IT while you DRIVE...simple...I'm adding video to the Navi screen for my passengers to view while I drive and for when I have to wait around for someone, PARKED. Oh and get a good lawyer!

Good luck everyone.

 

In SC you are not supposed to have a video monitor within view of the driver. like truemagellen said, it all depends on the state.

 

The prosecutor has said that the malice was when the driver installed the unit and intentionally modified the unit's installation so that he could watch movies while driving, and then did so. Intentionally doing something that a reasonable person knows will likely cause a dangerous situation is what they are calling malice.

---jps

 

I disagree with the malice case. They said that it is not against the law in Alaska. I'm sorry, but given that, even though he did bypass the need to be parked to show video, even if he was watching a movie during the accident (which is implied by the wifes tesomony), he did nothing against the law. Point being, even if he was distracted by the playing movie, according to the law, it is nothing worse than a case of talking on the cell phone, reading the newspaper, etc, all of which they mention are already many causes of accidents. READING THE PAPER...come on.

As for me, I myself plan on having a system in my car with this capability, but obviously not for me. Those who know and drive with me, know when it comes to driving, I'm nearly impossible to distract...even if on the phone or in conversation with a passenger, everything else comes second to driving, and plenty of people will attest to my nature of seemingly dropping a conversation in the middle, when I'm driving. Point being...just know better. This is truly a case where the few ruin it for the many, and that really pisses me off. It's the same with tinting...Is tinting really going to inhibit your or my ability to see out of my car? I think not. Do you and I plan on packing anything? Again, I think not. Its a simple case of be respectful, be curtious, and use common sense, which there is an abundent shortage of in the world.

Again, he didn't break the law, so charging him with 2nd degree murder would open up a whole can of worms. If found guilty of watching the movie, they'd be able to charge people on cell phones, and reading the paper, and doing their makeup, or shaving in the car in the same matter. Think about it..."did you buy the newspaper with the intent of reading it in the car, did you purchase the cell phone with the intent of being able to use it in the car? Then you surely showed malice and forethought." Its cry for attention from the prosecutor, and I hope they get laughed out of court trying to claim 2nd degree murder. Though its no laughing matter that people died and this is obvious neglagance, but no way is it murder!

 

My girlfriend knows the lawyer in that article.

-JiM

 

wow what a hot steaming load....
that guy may have been watching the movie.. but how can they prove it !!! thats like saying becasue the lcd on my 8 is out showing a mapscreen that i am watching a movie...


I mean come on.. the guy crashed his car while driving . He was not High, or drunk. he could have just as easly been picking his nose. ~~~ sure hes guilty of bad driving.. but not of muder...

 

in my state its illegal but doesnt stop everyone from doing it
and the cops sometimes look the other way.hell we can get pulled over by p.d just
for the pop up navi while its switching screens in destination mode.
either way i cant wait to mess with my oem navi to watch dvd and such.
wont stop be, but it doesnt mean that i will watch movies and such while driving
why ?
simple cause i cant afford to crash my car or kill someone.

 

moral to my story
please drive responsible

 

here here ...

in fact it does not bother me at all.. I still look at the road, the mirrors, My guages ...


i dont have time to look at the lcd

 

I just think the idea of claiming that such a "distraction" could warrant 2nd degree murder. I mean really...hell, if they win this case, why stop at video in the front of the car, really...why not sue the hell out of car manufacturers for navigation screens, or better yet, all those do dad guages they seem to have in cars now-a-days, like a speedometer, or a tachometer. I mean, heck, the law tells me I better pay attention to that speedo gauge. I would love it...Hello officer. Well, I guess I could have been going 124 mph, I really don't know. I was paying attention to the road and didn't want to get arrested for being distracted by my speedo.

The fundamental problem here is this should not be 2nd degree, b/c it opens up way to big a can of worms. It should simply be said, this was the typical manslaughter, or whatever the typical charge for talking on the cell phone, reading the newpaper, putting on your makeup, etc.

Again, I say, just use common sense and drive responsibly. There is no way to elivate distractions when driving...that's the difference between good and bad drivers, is they don't let themselves get distracted. So until the days of I-Robot and cars driving themselves, driving is prone to human error.

(I'm sorry I've ranted twice about this, but the idea of 2nd degree murder just drives me nuts as to how crazy that is. )

 

So true. And I LOVE the "abundant shortage" bit. :D

 

You guys are all missing the point here -- the point is not whether this case warrants a murder charge (clearly it doesn't, and the case will probably get thrown out because of the prosecutor's stupidity in going for murder 2), but rather that it's just plain irresponsible to install such a distraction in a vehicle, whether intended for the driver's use or not!

 

IMO it doesn't warrant the murder charge. As for not watching TV while you drive, well thats just common sense ( a trait sorely lacking in many people nowadays). Cases like this, sensationalized by the media, are what causes lawmakers to make brash decisions which could lead to other things to be banned. Next thing you know they'll be asking to ban the NAV unit from vehicles because it could "distract" the driver. Or the cellphone, pager, food, drinks, etc. etc. They might as well ban women from wearing tight or skimpy clothes while in plain sight of other drivers because that sure as hell distracts the hell out of me (Just drive down Ocean Drive any day of the week). Its real easy to place the blame on the Monitor when the real problem was the idiot behind the wheel. Just like my new favorite quote, courtesy of RotaryGod himself...

"Saying guns are responsible for killing people is like blaming spelling errors on your pencil."

 

I don't think it should go as far as malice...but indeed deserves manslaughter charges...negligence...how dumb can you be watching movies while driving especially the way traffic is these days, with everyone zigzagging through lanes like it's Indy 500...It shouldn't result in cracking down on DVD and NAV usage in a car but it should put a stipulation on using while driving....kinda like they should on CELL PHONES...either hands free or a ticket...DVD and NAV - either passengers use it during driving or you pull over to view, if not then a ticket should result...it's simple,...

 

A thought..

MAzda should make our Nav Screens Piviot to the Right so the Pasanger could swing it over .....


Anyway.. To say its erresponable to install such devices is really kinda out there.. Thats like saying that you cannot look at a Nice view while driving.. "anyone cought enjoying the scenery will be Fined.. !) sheet.. the is the USA ... we die in wars for the freedom to be stupid idiots that watch t.v. and play Driving games in the car.. !!! to dink beer, to have this web site, to even have this dissicussion about laws !!! ...

Be carefull what u wish for. !

 

Ohh BTW have you seen the inside of a PD unit. ? they are like rolling Offices.. 2 computer screens as well as a radar read out , Radio, Shot Gun ~~!

they have lots of major distractions. Have you ever heard of a cop going to jail for crashiing into a car while using his Electronics... I know its happend. But they are trained to to it.. "we hope" anyway the point is ..its not the fault of the Gear.. its the idiot driving.. WE cant protect ourselves from our selves anymore unless we give up more freedoms. !! its not worth it.

 

Nah, I don't think anyone's missing the point... people are just enjoying discussing the stupid charge and stupid drivers. :D

Great analogy, thew! But I can tell you for a fact that cops are NOT trained on how to drive and use all the gear in the car at the same time. It's something they pick up over time.

 

well i was trying to be respectful

 

cleared of death charge

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/08/1....ap/index.html

 

That's not surprising, they played a weak hand. Prosecuters are getting too political. It seems like public outcry or percieved public opinion drives a lot of high profile cases. If prosecuters want to make laws they should get a job that allows them to do so. The law exist to ensure civility, not to grind axes or get revenge.

As for why he crashed, it could really be because he was reaching for a can of soda. Nobody knows but him. Without being at the trial and seeing all the evidence can anyone say whether or not this is true. He may have been negligent, He may have been unlucky.

One more thing. Common sense is quite common, only in its absense do we notice it.