Atherton, Menlo Park: Cops focus on distracted driving

Changing Cd's or the Radio station?

Why isn't distracted driving enforcement a priority every day?

Even a coffee? That seems HARSH!

I can't see how this kind of enforcement plan can have any lasting effect on the driving public. It seems it will site good drivers due to aggressive enforcement and leave the police with a bad reputation of being overzealous.
Better would be a steady and fair enforcement of all traffic laws and continued public education of unsafe driving.

This article implies one can get ticketed for more activities than most of us are aware of. I tried searching the vehicle code and couldn't find anything on what distracted driving activities can generate a citation. Can we truly be cited for changing our music or eating? Have also wondered what the difference is between looking at a smartphone map and a paper map, since it seems with hands-free laws we could be cited for looking at a smartphone map. Lots of room for drivers and cops to interpret/misinterpret.

According to an LA Times article, they're relying on the Reckless Driving code section 23103 (Web Link
"(a) A person who drives a vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving."

Don't even think of turning on your air conditioning or fan (the cop might think you're changing the radio station) and if small children are in the car, be sure to muzzle them, since children can present the biggest distraction to any driver. This week, they'll still allow drivers to cough or sneeze, but best to kick that habit before the next patrol comes to town and starts adding to the list of unacceptable driver behaviors.

If you've ever had the experience of re-seeing something, of suddenly seeing it as if for the first time, perhaps you can re-appreciate what it means to be behind the wheel and controlling the rapid forward momentum of a multi-ton object on wheels.

If you're paying attention, driving is a full time occupation most of the time.

Joe's right, because defending one's self from distracted drivers, clueless peds and law-breaking cyclists is pretty demanding. Put on soothing music, adjust your fan/AC and/or nav while still in your driveway and if you need to check a map while driving, pull over somewhere safe. This of course means giving yourself plenty of time to arrive at your destination so that you don't have to speed.

There have been so many incidents of drivers running over pedestrians in crosswalks or even on the sidewalk recently that I cannot believe you people are still defending distracted driving. If you need to adjust your radio or whatever, do it while your car is parked. Pay attention to the road when you are driving, especially on streets with sidewalks and pedestrians.

Why don't you just drive safely and you'll have nothing to worry about?

Pay attention to what you are doing. It's important.

Thank you pogo and parent and others who support this enforcement. Unfortunately some of the letters protesting the enforcement are just plain silly.

Having been hit by a distracted driver (who was on the phone) while I was stopped at a light on the Alameda, I definitely appreciate this traffic enforcement.

I'm all for safe driving also, and bristle when I see people holding a phone to their ear when driving. But…

Changing a radio station is "in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property"?

No, it's not. And this type of pre-announced cop show doesn't increase safety, nor more than pre-announced roadblocks. It's simply an advertisement for police services at taxpayer expense.

The real improvements to safety happen on a day in and day out basis, when real safety violations (like non-hands-free cell phone use) are warned and/or ticketed.

A much better use of taxpayer money would be to invest in a county-wide warning system where officers would ticket some of these violations if a warning were already on the books.

Put cops ON THEIR FEET at stop light intersections and let them light up everyone checking their smartphones that they see. They'll get writer's cramp

Warning is on the books. Hang up your phones. Driving requires your full attention1

Responding to "Gimme a Break"

The police always show up randomly just after a "ticket event" to reinforce there message about obeying the law. And it works.

BTW -- You can change your radio station when your car is at a stoplight and not moving. When your car is moving, all of your attention should be on the road....period.

Seems like their are 2 factions: Those who say - you should always pay attention to your surroundings and those on this board that say Cops are out to get you - BEWARE!.
As an outside looking in, this is pretty simple. Driving is a privilege, not a right as many still believe it is a right. Our families, our neighbors and those simply you have never had the chance to meet deserve your full attention when you are driving. It really has nothing to do with enforcement. Enforcement in this case is simply someone willing to ticket with you (argue with you) and discuss with you why you did not pay attention. Once you have a close friend or family member killed by a inattentive driver, I would like to see any of you 'challengers' make that argument.
@ neighbor: The police always show up randomly just after a "ticket event" to reinforce there message about obeying the law. Really - what stats or study do you have to back this up. I am surprised the almanac allowed a comment without a factual citation. I am pretty certain their is not citation on this matter

@Gimme a break
"
A much better use of taxpayer money would be to invest in a county-wide warning system where officers would ticket some of these violations if a warning were already on the books."
Ah, really - I would love to sit in the court room as you express that defense. The warning, sir/madam, is on the books. The posted speed limit and/or other laws are not random. They are supported by multiple violations. Then as I am sure you have researched, each city must substantiate prior to enforcement to the court so that they can demonstrate how many motorist do abide by the law. If most violate it, it will fall under Spirit of the law versus letter of law, thus not enforceable. Again, I am sure you are aware of this prior to tossing out a random comment. Please provide your 'source' to make the following comment: No, it's not. And this type of pre-announced cop show doesn't increase safety, nor more than pre-announced roadblocks. It's simply an advertisement for police services at taxpayer expense.
Otherwise i would recommend the almanac delete this as a unsubstantiated comment

Robert, to answer your question, it's been reported they are relying on the Reckless Driving code section 23103 "(a) A person who drives a vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving."

Unlike going over the speed limit on a highway (*), using a cell phone while driving (i.e., objective criteria) there's a lot of grey area in what can constitute "willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property." In fact, typically first time DUI offenders are often allowed to plea to this lesser charge instead of DUI, which is of course a very serious offense. Someone pushing a button on their dashboard to change a radio station does not fall into this definition as a practical matter, and it should not be cited as such.

If you feel strongly about it, you can petition the legislature to make changing a radio station illegal when driving. It's not. Nor is talking to a passenger, which could be argued in the same way by some hard line posters here, or the cops, as distracting the driver, and constituting "willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property." That would be similarly ridiculous.

(*) actually going over the posted speed limit on a street is not per say illegal unless it is unsafe to do so.

ROBERT
While we seem to agree about obeying the traffic laws, I'm surprised at your strangely rude footnote to me.

You asked how I know that the police show up after a "ticket event." I drive the Alameda from Atherton to Palo Alto 4-6 times a day 7 days a week (10+ years now), and I have witnessed --yes, I'd testify to it in court -- the enforcement pattern following each special ticketing event.

I hope the police ticket much more on this road.

Most of the time when I check my rear view mirror on the Alameda the driver behind me is on the phone. Since such a driver hit me several months ago, I am worried this could happen again at any time.

So, at rush hour I take Atherton side-streets rather than make another Alameda trip. Yup, I go at 25 mph, never faster. I'd rather go slowly than deal with the folks who are on the phone and distracted in the rush-hour line up on the Alameda.

Responding to Gimme a break: You may be right in terms of what the law says, but how does that figure in an accident in which your distraction is a key factor, regardless of whether that distraction is "legal" or not?

I wonder how many accidents there are in which the person behind the wheel, though at fault in the eyes of witnesses and/or authorities charged with making that determination, is judged to be not at fault?

Is that a good outcome? Or is that -- and the behavior in question -- simply standing on ones rights to the detriment of the public good?

A legalistic view of things doesn't seem to hold much water as a way of living one's life.

There was a major injury collision at Bayfront Expressway & Chilco Street at 11am today. One car driver rear-ended another. Who wants to bet the 2nd car driver was distracted? Both drivers were hospitalized.

Joe: obviously common sense applies. If I'm simply pushing a preset radio station button on my car, that can't reasonably be considered causing distraction. If I'm fumbling around with the controls, taking my eyes off the road for extended periods of time, etc., that would. (And that's why most newer cars won't allow the navigation system to be used, for example, while driving).

But coming back to my example, if you're keeping your eyes on the road, but chatting with your wife while you're driving, and a cyclist goes through a red light and collides with you before you can react, is that your fault? Should you be sued for driving while distracted? Or be criminally charged with it? (Note: a few months ago in Palo Alto, I was alone in my car, eyes on the road, not talking with anyone, and not pushing any buttons, and a teen cyclist did this exact maneuver and thank God I missed him by literally feet; he shot out like a cannon from the intersection and wasn't looking).

By the way, last December, a California police officer killed a cyclist in Calabasas while using his laptop computer going around a dangerous curve in the road. This police officer wasn't criminally charged. Take a look:

Web Link

And lest anyone believe I'm defending distracted driving, I'm not. To the poster who ridiculed me for suggesting warnings before tickets, I believe that a well-intentioned warning can often do more to rehabilitate careless behavior than a ticket. It's really just basic human psychology. But then again, my goal is to create better driving behaviors, not to punish immediately, or to generate municipal revenue.