"any activity that could interfere with the safe operation of a motor vehicle"

you mean, like, blinking?
keith y | 02.08.07 - 6:21 pm | #

Yes. Sneezing as well, since it involves a blink. Legeslature is pushing through an emergency bill requiring all cars for the model year 2010 and later to have an automatic engine kill-switch to turn off your car if you sneeze in order to prevent unsafe operation. The in-dash breathalyzer will have a built-in microphone that can distinguish a sneeze from the vs. a sneeze from a passenger, thereby preventing any unwarranted interruptions in the safe operation of your vehicle.
Area Man | 02.08.07 - 7:26 pm | #

well they didn't rule out jerking off, getting head or talking so i guess i am safe. seriously, don't these folks have better shit to legislate upon?
Philip Dawdy | Homepage | 02.09.07 - 12:33 am | #

Well there is a certain logic to a comprehensive ban on distracting activities, rather than cherry-picking the moral outrage of the moment (i.e., cell phones or smoking).

Not saying I support it, but at least it's more consistent with the stated intent.
B | Homepage | 02.09.07 - 9:11 am | #

At least they have the balls to follow the line of reasoning (of cell phone bans) to it's logical conclusion and be honest about it.
Greg | 02.09.07 - 10:17 am | #

I can understand how people interact with pets, but unless you're driving around with an android, how does one interact with cargo?
David | 02.09.07 - 10:42 am | #

Here's how you interact with cargo:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/d...? term=auto+suck
Area Man | 02.09.07 - 1:37 pm | #

OMG this in vindication but I wish I had been wrong.
Leonardo | 02.09.07 - 6:27 pm | #

I got an idea, let's get rid of the useless DUI laws, the smoking bans in cars, and all these crazy laws. Let's just hold people responsible if they cause a crash. If you harm someone or their property, you must be held liable for it. End of story.
Dale | 02.14.07 - 11:59 am | #