Earlier today I was driving to Google for a product briefing, minding my own business, talking on my Google phone with Google PR and trying to figure out what Google building I was supposed to be driving to. I stopped at a crosswalk for a bunch of Googlers to pass. And this guy, who’s wearing a Google employee badge, decides it’s time to take a stand against cell phone use in cars. So he stands in front of my car and won’t move. That’s right, it was his Tiananmen Square moment.
Cars behind me start swerving. I back up to go around him. He steps forward, vigilant in his defense of the law. I’m off the phone now, and snapping this picture didn’t help getting him to move on. The light changes. The light changes again. Cars are now backed up behind me.
I’m not sure what comes next in a situation like this. I can either drive over him or park my car. So I put the car in park, open the door to get out and discuss the situation with him. That’s when he ran away. His mission, apparently, accomplished.
I’ll note for the record that I was absolutely violating the law. California is one of a handful of states that bans cell phone use while driving, and I was flaunting that law with careless abandon. I am now subject to a $20 fine.
Whereas blocking a street and creating a traffic hazard is a $220 fine.
And the cell phone ban hasn’t actually resulted in less accidents.
And I’ll end with this. If this Googler feels smug enough about cell phone usage to stop traffic and nearly cause an accident, then of course he’ll be quitting his job at Google soon. Because, frankly, how can he work for a guy who does the same thing that I did?
If anyone knows who this is, please let me know so we can send him a TechCrunch tshirt.
he must have really pissed you off to dedicate an article about incident.
it was the smugness that put me over the top.
I think you are both idiots, but you in particular because you didn’t even read the law that you cited:
“(g) This section does not apply to a person while driving a motor vehicle on private property.”
Google Campus is private property as far as I am aware.
With regards to the report you cited -that is an industry commission/authored report. If you would like I can can dig up some counter reports that can show you that, that report is basically BS.
Even Nokia -who wants to sell you the hands free kit- says that any sort of talking while driving is the dangerous -it is in their terms and conditions- Bottom line is that your argument that he is a worse law breaker than you is a bit disingenuous.
In your defense the guy came across as having a bit of a smarmy look on his face. Just chill a bit baby on the attitude. I heard a joke years ago that applies to you.
So Steve Job’s dies and goes to heaven -stay with me- and St Peter meets him at the gate, St Peter orientates him with the rules and the best hangout spots, next of all Steve, see’s Michael Arrington and says to St Peter “wtf Arrington is dead?”, St Peter Replies, “No Steve, that is God, he just thinks he is Arrington”
ZING
Look at the background, they are in the middle of the campus but on public streets.
Old and lame joke, dude.
FWIW, it looks like MA is on Charleston Rd. While its in the middle of ‘Google land’ its still not private property.
OK my bad
Ok, but if he was making a citizens arrest, then surely any ruckus is attributed to the party with original sin that was obviously resisting the said arrest. I rest my case.
Hrm, I believe you should of rolled down your window and yelled “Screw You Michael Arrington! err I mean Google Goon” to coin a phrase and confuse the dim witted employee. Most likely he is a top custodial engineer. No toilet unconquered.
Don’t use the bloody phone while driving! Simple.
You say the law has made no difference to the accident rate, well that may be because arrogant fools such as yourself are ignoring it!
“And I’ll end with this. If this Googler feels smug enough about cell phone usage to stop traffic and nearly cause an accident, then of course he’ll be quitting his job at Google soon.”
Yes, I’ve run into the smug types in past. I recall strolling down a NYC street very late at night having a conversation with a friend when some garbage was thrown out of a parked vehicle filled with beefy guys. Without missing a bit, my friend picked up the trash and threw it back into the car and continued the conversation. I braced for the worst, but I think the guys were so shocked they failed to respond.
Re the google guy, I’ve heard studies indicating driving while texting or on cell phone (even hands free) as dangerous as driving while drunk. Certainly some can do it without being distracted etc., but its a nationwide problem in view of the growing number of accidents. In the LA Times article cited, the reports author also states:
“Lund was quick to point out that the study does not suggest that driving with a cellphone, hand-held or hands-free, is safe. “No one should kid themselves that this isn’t a distraction, because it is,” Lund said.”
Moreover, who knows what he’s experienced in the past (a friend or relative hurt in an accident).
In short, we all need to stop driving while texting or on phone.
Wait, aren’t you a smug person by nature? (I’m not saying that it’s a bad thing, just trying to see where everyone stands).
First of all, how do you confirm that this guy is a Googler?
I have a bunch of those Google Tee’s and jackets bought from the Google store.
Arrington, Welcome to the “Googler attitude”.
The Tiananmen analogy does not quite fit. This obama bot douche would be the kind that would be driving the tank taking away freedom. Steve Jobs was right about Google and this guy demonstrates why.
http://twitter.com/shields
http://www.msrl.com/blog/
Hey, free publicity for you Mike Shields.
His Twitter bio is “Person of interest”
How’s that for smug?
What a Wanker
I say this whole thing is a staged diversion to take attention away from the techcrunch-intern-gate drama.
think about it …
“And the cell phone ban hasn’t actually resulted in less accidents.”
Because of the lack of enforcement, the above may be true right now as it was when DUI laws were passed but not enforced. Whenever we start getting serious about distracted driving, we will have fewer crashes (not “accidents”) related to cell phone and other similar uses.
Smug face, douchey move, and running away — hope this guy gets a lot of ridicule or fired.
Are you kidding me. This dude is a nerd folk hero right now. “The man who stopped Arrington (for a minute)”
Waiting to see if the Internet Hate Machine (TM) gets activated over this and tracks this guy down…
that only happens when a kitten gets killed…
did you tell him who you were? is that why he ran away?
Dude, the guy was just trying to get a date. Does everybody have to wear daisy dukes to get you to notice?
I’m sure that this used to be a blog about technology, not breaking the law.
That is the kind of people Goog hires!!
Racist talk.
God, that guy looks like such a smug prick.
You should’ve run him over. Typical acting the big man until you went to get out of the car. I hope someone names this penis.
How are those RSU’s working out for you Googldouche. Oh wait, too late, none for you.
@yup hmm, actually goog is at about what $530 or thereabouts. Those RSUs are doing quite well I’d imagine. This of course presupposes you actually know what RSU’s are.
he really looks like “that guy,” doesn’t he?
He is definitely “that guy.”
I like this part best : “So I put the car in park, open the door to get out and discuss the situation with him”
Using a cell phone whilst driving negatively impacts your ability to drive safely in much the same way as drunk driving.
Just because the fine in that state is only $20 doesn’t mean that it is clever to ignore that law.
The law is there for the safety of other road users and pedestrians.
There are several people killed each day through drivers being distracted by something else they are focused on inside the car rather than looking at the road.
To make light of this and treat it as though it doesn’t matter as you can easily afford to pay $20 is highly socially irresponsible.
Using your logic … if you have $2000 dollars you are entitled to keep flouting this law 100 times, which might perhaps lead to 5 people being hospitalised and 1 killed.
Do you really think that having $20 in your pocket to pay the fine somehow entitles you to break the law and put other people’s lives at risk?
I linked to the fines to illustrate that his solution to the problem was much more dangerous than the problem itself.
What’s the fine for putting the car in park and getting out to, umm, clear the obstruction in the road?
And pointing out that someone else has broken the law excuses you breaking it?
Should we let out all the rapists cos at least they didn’t murder someone?
Have you even thought about the impact / consequences of making light of this?
- Your blog is one of the widest read on the net.
- You are endorsing and encouraging readers to break this particular law.
- You could well influence a very high number of people to take the same approach.
If you multiply up the huge people who read this blog and the negative impact it could have on the safety of their driving, then this blog could directly lead to one or more extra road deaths.
I would be interested in any geeks out their running the numbers on this.
Here is another thought…….
How many of YOUR readers will have had a family member or close friend killed by a driver who wasnt concentrating!!! ??? <<< I am willing to bet that this number is into the hundreds.
As I said …… seriously NOT a smart blog.
Maybe this guy had a family member killed by a distracted driver !!??
You have so not thought this through.
A blog with no point and one HELL of a high potential for seriously backfiring.
Let me guess. You are the boyfriend of the douche pictured at the top of this page? LOL!
You two seem like a match made in heaven.
and maybe you should be a cop to enforce the law!
douche…
I see cops all the time using the cell while driving.
what’s the difference of using the cell phone while driving and eating while driving? are we to make drive thrus unlawful too?
I see more people creating accidents without using the cell than with it.
I don’t make the excuse that breaking the law is correct, but you’re not the enforcer and stopping traffic like that can cause more accidents.
Mike, I think you’ve found your guy.
Not a smart comment.
I don’t know anyone who died in a cell-phone related injury.
I *do* know people who have died and been severely injured because some jack-ass decided to ignore the rules of the road and caused an accident.
As I said …… seriously NOT a smart comment.
Get a grip mate.
When it wasnt against the law to drive on a mobile, people were driving around on phones and not killing every pedestrian in sight.
Now that it’s against the law, suddenly pedestrians are likely to die from the use of a mobile in a car? … Get a grip.
It probably takes more concentration for someone to fiddle with their radio or sat nav, than it does having a phone up to your head when driving.
Uhm, did you folk even read the fine article? There is no evidence, as of yet, that the banning cell phone use improves safety.
Asking “Should we let out all the rapists cos at least they didn’t murder someone?” isn’t right. A more correct analogy would be “Should we let out all the innocent people cause at least they didn’t murder someone?”
To which I would reply, “Yes.”
According to the Human Factors quarterly journal, “Cell phone distraction causes 2,600 deaths and 330,000 injuries in the United States every year” (2005). The same study reported that motorists who are engaged in cell phone conversations while driving are less capable than drunk drivers with blood alcohol levels exceeding .08. These statistics are frightening considering how pervasive cell phones are in our society.
Michael admitted breaking the law so how in your analogy does he suddenly become ‘innocent’.
He plainly disregards that particular law as it is inconvenient for him to comply with it and the punishment for being caught is laughably low.
Actually, there’s no evidence that using **Hands Free** phones improves safety.
When you are on a cellphone, there is significant evidence that it is indeed dangerous.
Or do you seriously expect us to believe that you’ve never been behind a driver — said to yourself “WTF?” and then found out later that they were on a cell???
$5 says you were in the audio visual club.
Listen I am not trying to say you are a virgin, ok that is a lie, that is EXACTLY what I am trying to say.
Might I suggest you knock the box of some hot chick, guy or goat -whatever really not judging you…much- and lighten up.
It is not like this is venture beat or anything lol
I am just trying to point out that based on the number of readers there WILL BE a lot of people who read this blog who have had family killed by drivers not concentrating and will have to read that Michael thinks its no issue cos he can afford the $20.
As for the ‘less accidents’ link :
Well duh – a cell phone ban isn’t gonna reduce accidents if everyone ignores it cos $20 is nothing to them.
It seems that the logic is “you will only get caught 1 in 200 times and the fine is only $20 so that works out at only a cost of 10 cents a call – bargain!!”
I guess the only answer seeing that no one on this thread is at all bothered by this would be to raise the fine to $2000.
On second thoughts – i doubt that would bother Arrington either. He could still easily afford to run over people.
“Should we let out all the rapists cos at least they didn’t murder someone?”
Worst analogy ever…
“And pointing out that someone else has broken the law excuses you breaking it?”
He never said that. Did you even read the article? He admits that he was wrong. All he is saying is that two wrongs don’t make a right.
That said, I am sick of people playing police officer. If you see someone breaking the law, then call the cops. That Googledouche is not a law enforcement officer and someone having a bad just might kick his head in next time he wants to make a statement.
I think it’s pretty clear that he wasn’t making light of the severity of distracted driving. It is abundantly clear that the point Michael is making is that smug pricks who think they are doing a service for society are actually putting more people at risk. It is not much unlike someone driving the speed limit in the fast lane, which is incredibly dangerous.
The statistic on the lack of safety improvements does add to the sense of defiance of the law though, especially since it is not pointed out how flawed that statistic is.
The CA law only applies to handhelds, but hands-free cell phones are no better than handhelds in terms of driving safety (google it if you missed this news). Also, the CA law cannot be effective as long as people willingly flaunt it since the penalty is so low.
If you’d read the links in the post, you also might have noticed that the cell phone bans haven’t resulted in fewer accidents in California.
On the other hand, standing in front of a car, blocking a lane of traffic, in the middle of the day, is clearly dangerous — not to mention, a self-righteous di**-move. It isn’t Smug Hipsters’ Perogative to enforce the laws they like so they can feel better about making a difference in the world.
Once again – the cell phone ban wont work if EVERYONE ignores it cos you all have $20 to pay if you ever got caught.
This doesnt change the fact that thousands get killed each year by drivers on cell phones but it seems that no-one in the US sees this as an issue as you can all easily afford to keep killing people.
*Any* distraction in a car is going to reduce drivers’ awareness of the road. I’ll take the cell phone ban seriously when this guy agrees to stop talking to his carpooling passengers, listening to music, and drinking his mint tea on the road.
Meanwhile the smug ranks of the Right-Thinking Enforcement Police deserve to be ridiculed. This guy is 2010’s version of the 50’s hall monitor.
So Michael’s justification for breaking the law is that the other guy broke it too.
Your justification for continuing a very dangerous driving behaviour is that other people are doing other dangerous things in the car.
Meanwhile 330,000 people a year are injured because of attitudes like yours and 2,600 killed.
Very clever.
“So Michael’s justification for breaking the law is that the other guy broke it too.”
No it isn’t… you are clearly an idiot.
You’re leading an awfully impassioned crusade for a law that is not proven to be effective. I guess you gotta believe in something.
Btw, the fine is not $20 for violating cell-phone usage while driving. I paid frigging $175 for this violation. Mind it when you do next time.
Are you frakking kidding me? Hi Google goon from the pic! Did you not get your mocha latte this morning or what?
Actually, driving with a cell phone and / or texting is worse than drunk driving. Drunks usually pay more attention to the road than those who are on the phone or texting. Many people take their eyes off the road for as long as 5 seconds when they are using the cell phone. Many studies have proven this over and over again. So, GET OFF THE FRAPPING PHONE and drive please!!!!
heh, I know who it is. Free shirt if I reveal?
Haha… My 7 years old, used to name is WoW characters like you chose yours. Until he got a message from Blizzard ordering him to change it because gibberish is not allowed.
The picture looks like he is trying to pull a gun or something. Quite funny he ran away. I guess you’re a tall hunky guy then michael. That maybe scared him off.
Hunky!!! LOL.
Oh, My!
What was he reaching for in his waistband? Looks like he is either getting ready to write you a ticket or draw a gun or maybe it’s just his Google-cuffs and he was getting ready to arrest you.
LMFAO@Google -don’t be evil- cuffs! Thanks for that.
Self Righteous, Douche! You should have run him over. I will say you perfectly captured his smugness.
Seriously. This twerp is a douche bag of the highest order. I’m glad Arrington kept the “run him over” as an option.
I find satisfaction in the fact that Arrington WOULD have run him over, but was simply deterred by the criminal code.
I think you are the douche here. I find it pretty admirable that he stood his ground. WTF is with this arrington-is-god-and-we’re-his-fanboys attitude on TechCrunch?
Arrington is WRONG and even if the guy is not entirely right in his stand, at least he did something. What if Arrington had run this guy or someone else over while being distracted over the phone (or having a heated argument)??? Would we be having the same discussion then?
I could not have imagined such a response to this act on the part of this guy. I applaud his guts and his taking a stand.
Is everyone here seriously so stuck up and over their head in upholding the wrong?
I agree. And of course our hero can no longer stand to work for the evil Google, whose CEO blatantly disregards the no-cell-phone-while-driving laws. right?
Just end the argument, dude. You know you’re simply pissed off because he stood his ground and you were on the wrong side of the law.
Stop getting so defensive, you have nothing to defend and it’s making you come across as a weak and sore loser.
You should have actually had a chuckle about it, let it go and written a light hearted post about it.
i’m not feeling very pissed or defensive. but maybe I am.
Vin you know you are condoning vigilantism right? You are making a terrible point.
Imagine the next time you go jaywalking (very dangerous) some guy stands his ground right in front of you and wont move. How would that make you feel?
This kid is lucky he didnt stand in front of a car down in Florida with his hand in his pocket like that, he could have justifiably been shot and killed.
This is only a light hearted story because MA kept it that way. Someone could have easily been freaked out by some dude crazy enough to stand in front of a car motionless while the lights changed over and over again.
Ah come on Michael, you are completely pissed off and that is perfectly fine. I think but putting the guys pic on the internet on a site with a bunch of traffic is way, way, way out of order.
You and I both know the nut bars that are out there i.e. for every french scum bag that spits on you, there is a lunatic that will do something to garner your approval i.e. stalk the google campus on shoot the guy.
I know that is not likely to happen, but you have to admit you are a polarizing figure. For example, the french guy is one, then there are the guys that broke into your house.
All I am saying is that I think you could be playing with fire. I have already said that the guy seems like a smarmy prick, but if there is a .0001% chance some nut will harm this guy, is that actually worth the risk?
“Stood his ground?” What part of running away now passes for standing your ground?
$167 in British Columbia for same offence.
Right. So about $20 USD
I kid, I kid
Closer to $200 USD. Not kidding.
hilarious posting – what complete and utter pansey
obvious PR stunt. he’ll call you tomorrow about his startup.
a mear $20.00 for talking on your cell while driving. In BC it’s a $275.00 fine and there are no excuses or reasons to be talking on the phone while driving.
Im glad someone took the time to make you stop. You should be thanking him, not making little of what he did, and I find it very distasteful what other’s are saying. Good luck to you, oh and have you seen the damages driving while on the cell phone causes? Never mind texting.
Oprah has a great heads up for this one.
I’m surprised Google doesn’t have words for you on this one.
I stand corrected it’s a mere $167.00 fine in BC
the obvious thing to say is what would you say if it was a policeman instead? it’s OK to break the law as long as the police is not looking?
“yea i have a blog. I ‘m gonna tell that maggot alrite!
plus it’s friday, need some eyecatching title to raise some eyebrows”
plus this article might be breaking the record for mentioning the word “google” 6 times in the 3 first sentences.
How do you know your cell phone had anything to do with why he was standing in front of your car?
Ditto. Apparently, he never bothered to say anything to you. Perhaps he was mentally disturbed.
This is awesome.
I wonder if he walked by and thought “OMG Theres Michael Arrington!! I wonder if I can get on TechCrunch today?” or if he just made an ass out if himself in front of one of one of the mod popular bloggers on the net.
If you think he doesn’t know you work at TechCrunch you must be the most naive person in the world.
This was clearly a stunt.
I did far worse when I was at Google and nobody said anything. And I’ll do it again this year.
Of course I look like a programmer nerd. MArrington on the other hand looks like an attorney.
Very easy to spot at Google. Had it been somebody else from Techcrunch it would not have happened.
Micheal, I myself own a large website – and often ask this question – “is it a journalistic right to vent out my personal experiences on a public platform I control” – the fellow however wrong or right has now been ridiculed by you in a major tech platform.
You should have sent this photograph and incident to Google HR – where he could have been warned or even fired. This will probably destroy his life.
i kind of doubt this will destroy his life. But it may stop him from causing an accident in the future.
Michael is completely in the right here. If this happened on the Google campus, he should be fired.
You seem to enjoy acknowledging the danger that the employee was causing by blocking a lane of traffic while conveniently ignoring the danger you were creating talking on your phone while driving.
I didn’t ignore it, I admitted to it.
Considering Google’s academic workforce, I think they would likely laugh at the folk science going on in this article. It isn’t really news to the research community that cell phone usage while driving impairs one’s ability to react and it has nothing to do with holding the phone (hands-free phones are just as bad). Sure messing with the radio or having riders in the car that are not cooperating with the drive (think about a crying child as many riders actually help the driver instead of hinder) are dangerous too, but that doesn’t magically make your cell phone usage safe for people crossing the street.
I believe the best solution is to get auto-piloting cars if we really want to make the roads safer. Otherwise we are just going to have silly rules that are unenforcible anyway. Putting this article up on Techcrunch is making me consider un-subbing from your feed.
And for good measure the first research paper hit I found backing up my points, instead of just leaving you with folk science.
http://www.hfes.org/Web/Pubpages/celldrunk.pdf
Hate to be the grammar police here, but you were “flouting” the law, not “flaunting”.
Anyway, I probably would have chased after him and left my car there, only to return to see that it was towed.
I sure hope our education system is good enough that people know Tienanmen Square without requiring a link to Wikipedia
Check your spelling before wondering if our education system is good enough.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/shields
That was quick. Nice reveal/find.
Haha it’s Michael vs Michael. I say it’s a draw due to the same first name cause.
really does look like him, assuming he’s lost some weight.
Is this because you know him? Or did you just find a linkedin photo that looks like him?
This guy’s got the perfect name to get into law enforcement. He should start his own Citizen’s Arrest show (a la Cops).