Meandering through the rural roads of Martinez recently, this author spotted a man on horseback talking on a cell phone and couldn't help but wonder: Does this count as "distracted driving"?
The definition of "distracted driving," although a fairly new term, has been quickly expanding. Initially, it meant cell phone gabbers. Then texters. Now, it could mean anything from applying lipstick to changing the CD. According to distraction.gov, "distracted driving is any activity that could divert a person's attention away from the primary task of driving."
That includes:
- Texting
- Using a cell phone or smartphone
- Eating and drinking
- Talking to passengers
- Grooming
- Reading, including maps
- Using a navigation system
- Watching a video
- Adjusting a radio, CD player, or MP3 player
This means from every A to every B, we not only regularly pass drivers indulging in at least one of these activities, but we are more than likely participating in a "distracting" activity ourselves. Drinking coffee, for example, counts as a distraction. So does changing the radio station. So too does chatting away to our carpool buddy.
Cyclists are also being looped in on distracted driving regulations, with proposed legislation in California that would fine cyclists $20 for talking on their cell phones.
And if driving is considered an activity one can be "distracted" from, and so does cycling, then shouldn't horseback riding be also?
UPDATE: Martinez Police Commander Eric Ghisletta confirmed that "horseback riders are subject to all rules of the road (assuming they are on the road)," adding that, "yes, they would be subject to citation for talking on the phone while on the road."
As to what constitutes distraction, Ghisletta said that cell phone use and texting is the principle concern.
"No, applying makeup or eating is not a citable offense in and of itself, but it definitely can be distracting and lead to other vehicle code offenses," said Ghisletta. "Obviously the intent is for the safety of the citizens on the road."
Do you have questions about "distracted driving" or a story to share? Let us know in the comments.
Get a daily digest of Martinez Patch stories by signing up to our email newsletter. Follow along live on Twitter, and join us on Facebook.
GIVE ME A BREAK! How Orwellian can we be? (I know, just keep listening to these crackpots who come up with this garbage). Can adjusting a radio (et al) be worse than say, adjusting a mirror, or changing the setting on the heater or AC? Talking on a cell phone (hands free) isn't any different for most than talking to people in the vehicle. Some people are more easily distracted (I won't mention gender here) than others. Ages are a factor too. ONE "shoe" DOES NOT FIT ALL and this "blanket" set of proposed "laws" is not right. Imagine a parent with an unruly or noisy child in the back seat --- talk about a distraction! Will children be banned from cars as "distractants"? Maybe drivers should be isolated in their own little sound proof compartment - aren't sirens a distraction? And to point fingers at a horseback rider talking on a cell phone - that's PURE LUNACY! There's entirely too many people with too much time on their hands worrying about how to BOTHER other people... to them: crawl back under your rock!
Some people talk to themselves... if their lips are moving while they are driving; is that "distracted"? What if a person is NOT talking to them self but merely moving their lips? Would LISTENING while driving be considered a distraction? With that mindset (and I use the term "mind" very generously) then LISTENING to music while driving could be a distraction... and at the volume levels some clowns have, it's a distraction to drivers in OTHER vehicles! So.. now we have the "sterile cockpit" (aviation term applied to highway vehicles) - can BOREDOM also be a distraction? What I think is really happening is certain legislators are trying to DISTRACT VOTERS with their subterfuge in order to sneak OTHER garbage past us. LIFE IS NOT RISK FREE and cannot ever be made as such. Some cures are worse than what they try to correct, and this "distraction" idea is just too broad of term to be useful (except by over-zealous prosecuting attorneys and judges).
In addition, the seriousness of the distraction is in direct proportion to the speed traveled. At 60mph, a three and a half second distraction occurs over the length of a football field. At a leisurely equestrian pace, that same few seconds distraction occurs over the length of...the horse. As usual, the legislature does what is politically doable, regardless of net effect on safety. If they really wanted to saves lives based on credible research, they would require the same helmets on all vehicle passengers that they require on motorcycle riders.
One easy solution is to ban bicyclists from the roads entirely since bicyclists don't pay road taxes (paid for ONLY by gasoline taxes) anyway. They either need to be taxed for use of the roads or banned completely from the roads. Not my first choice but what they do off the road is their business - when they get in the way of the paying public, then that's a problem.
Otherwise- if a horse and rider are on a trail going a leisurely pace, the rider has the luxury of letting the horse do the 'driving'. I never let my car do that.
As to the topic, horses do not go 75 mph and also have a mind of their own I believe. And, bicycles do not go 75, and even though riding a bike or horse distracted is not good, it is nothing like a car or truck which is way more lethal. There should be a fine, but nothing like that of an impaired driver would get. I would rather have a 1000 drunk bike riders on the road than one drunk driver, and no, I do not want drunk bike riders, just saying you cannot compare the two.
Emily, thanks for the article and please write more. Don't let Withmar intimidate you into not contributing. I am amazed and disappointed that there is actually a federal government website on distraction.