German Judge: If Sex While Driving Is Legal, Why Isn't Driving While Phoning?

from the those-deep-philosophical-questions dept

Six years ago, we noted in passing that a court ruling found that driving while having sex is perfectly legal in Germany (separately, it’s apparently a popular practice in Russia). Part of the point was in discussing the troubling trend to try to pick off each and every “distraction” to outlaw — and it seems like a judge in Germany is wondering the same thing. The judge, issuing a fine for a driver talking on his cell phone, started questioning whether it was legal at all to fine drivers for talking, noting how many other driver distractions were perfectly legal — including sex, masturbation, shaving, changing the radio station and others. The judge isn’t necessarily saying it’s good to do those things (in fact, he notes the opposite), but he’s questioning the constitutionality of banning just one of many distractions, and has apparently sent the issue to Germany Constitutional Court to examine the issue.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “German Judge: If Sex While Driving Is Legal, Why Isn't Driving While Phoning?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Ryan says:

Re: Re: The Future

there would be little point to the massive income that is driver’s licenses, the under X age restrictions

Umm…since when did licenses and restrictions have to make the slightest inkling of sense? I wouldn’t worry about driver’s licenses losing utility, they could just require car licenses. I don’t think it is humanly possible for a license to ever be more completely asinine and pointless as T.V. licenses in the U.K.

boost says:

Re: Re: The Future

Clearly, most “drivers” are too busy talking on their cell phones and checking their e-mail to be bothered with actually operating their vehicles. So, I really don’t know why people would mind at all giving up the responsibility of navigation and control to the “hands” of an adaptable, multi-sensory, failure reduntant control system? The benefits would be immediate profound as collision rates would plummet and fuel efficiency would climb.

You’d only need the driver to be made aware of situations in the event of a mutliple system failure. In which case the vehicle would be able to communicate to other vehicles nearby that the vehicle is now in human hands. Electronics are going down in price all the time, so I don’t really see this being too far out there.

Obviously, you’d have some obsticals to over come in terms of data security, but nothing that couldn’t be overcome.

RD says:

Obvious, really...

Because….its TECHNOLOGY! See, talking to a person sitting next to you, someone who can point, nudge, or otherwise distract you in a very literal way, is not NEARLY as HORRIBLE as that devious and evil device…the CELL PHONE. Technology makes EVERYTHING an act of EVIL. Sex while driving? OK! Sex while driving on a cell phone? BAD! EVIL! BAN! See kids, you can talk to a person in the seat next to you, no matter how distracting it is. Hell, you can even stick your tongue in the ear of your GF/BF while they are driving, and thats OK! Just dont even THINK about COMMUNICATING with another human being verbally over an electronic device! That is WRONG and will lead to the destruction of society as we know it, and turn the highways of our great nation red with the blood of innocents! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: Re: Obvious, really...

I wonder what he got caught doing as a child … to even bring those images to the forefront… ROFLMAO ….

… Oh god …. Oh God …. Oh … YES…YES!!!! … wow that was fun … technology is really evil … I just had thoughts of phone sex while driving with a Nun, or was that driving into a Nun … just the thought should get me arrested … And I really liked the way she wiggled her finger ….

… Big Ole Grin

zcat (profile) says:

Re: Obvious, really...


Because cellphone conversations (handheld or handsfree) are an external distraction. When you’re talking to your passenger and they see a pedestrian step out in front of you or some other thing that you need to focus on, they’ll instinctively stop talking and let you focus on driving. The person talking to you on the cellphone has no idea of your driving environment and will keep talking, and will expect you to be listening to them.

I am particularly aware of this because my wife doesn’t drive, has never learned any driving skills and therefore frequently keeps talking at times when I need to concentrate, and it’s bloody distracting.

Jeffrey Nonken (profile) says:

Re: Obvious, really...

“Because….its TECHNOLOGY! See, talking to a person sitting next to you, someone who can point, nudge, or otherwise distract you in a very literal way, is not NEARLY as HORRIBLE as that devious and evil device…the CELL PHONE.”

Don’t be ridiculous. It takes a lot more of your focus and concentration to talk on a cell phone than to talk to somebody next to you. And if my passenger starts poking me while I’m driving they can freakin’ walk home. I may even stop the car before I let them out, aren’t I nice?

baditup (profile) says:


I never really understood the whole banning cell phones in the car thing. Do you think that a crop-duster gives a shit about the cars beneath him? It’s still just as much of a distraction (if not LESS of one) than a cell phone. Some people look at “ooh, shiny” things and just can’t help it. Might as well ban car stereos, drive-thru EVERYTHINGs, transporting children, spousal arguments, THE SUN, bright lights, all sound everywhere, CBs, HAMs, etc, etc….

While we’re at it, let’s start handing out citations for talking during a movie because, after all, you’re supposed to be concentrating on the movie and if some jackass is talking during it, it’s distracting, right?

Bureaucracy is bull$#!T

Paul Hobbs (profile) says:

Where will it end?

I realise that my comment is slightly off topic, but given our increasingly litigious society (I live in Australia and we are way behind the US in the litigiousness department, but we’re slowly catching up), it seems likely to me that this will one day end up with a driver suing someone for distracting them (if it hasn’t happened already). If someone can spill their coffee on their lap while driving, and then successfully sue McDonalds for making the coffee too hot, how long before someone sues Toyota/Sony/Apple/ for a billboard on the highway that was so effective it caused the driver to take their eyes off the road?

I have long believed that billboard advertising by the side of roads should be banned. The whole purpose of a billboard is to take your attention AWAY from driving, even if only for a few seconds. But it is just another example of how commercial interests are placed ahead of those of the community. As far as I am concerned my “right” to drive in a relatively distraction-free environment (ie: the roads) trumps a company’s “right” to stick yet another ad in front of me.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...