DVD-Watching Driver Charged with Murder

joke-boy writes "CNN reports that a driver in Alaska is being charged with second-degree murder for allegedly causing a fatality accident by driving while watching the movie 'Road Trip' in an in-dash DVD player. The driver contends he was just listening to music. Alaska has no laws prohibiting drivers from watching DVDs, although many other states do."

Comments

Keeping Up With Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Driving laws have not kept up with technological changes, Weiser said.

They don't need to, because technology hasn't changed anything. Manslaughter is still manslaughter. Negligence is still negligence. Careless driving is still careless driving. When laws address general principles, ephemeral trends don't make any difference.

What, is the "keeping up" going to change what is obviously totally irresponsible negligent manslaughter, into murder? That's not keeping up, that's perversion. The crime is manslaughter.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Hognoxious]

Careless driving is still careless driving. When laws address general principles, ephemeral trends don't make any difference.

Well said, Sir. The UK government passed a law against using a mobile phone while driving - totally unnecessary,there was already the offence of "driving without due care and attention". The Belgians passed a similar one and they can't even enforce traffic lights.

If you drive, you concentrate on the road, and if you don't do that, you face the consequences when the inevitable happens.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[acroyear]

Or the cops have been following the example of Law & Order -- you know, charge them with Murder 2 in order to get a plea bargain on Manslaughter.

but yeah, the idea that you need "special" laws for "special" cases, like killing a pregnant person, or driving with a cell phone (as opposed to the general "distracted driving" laws that every state has), or "killing a fellow teen as a gang-related crime" vs "killing a teen", or any of those damned things.

all it does is complicate things and make the lawyers very happy for the higher amount they can charge their clients...

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[TWX]

That's something that I've never understood about laws that make for exacerbated charges if a crime is committed with X implement. If laws against armed robbery, assault, murder, causing a fatal accident, and the like are enforced the way that they ought to be then use of a gun, or of a knife, or of being in some altered state short of being stupidly out of control of one's faculties (drunk, high, etc) wouldn't need extra charges or laws.

I'll leave DUI laws alone for the most part, due to the extreme and immediate potential for harm that driving while intoxicated causes, but this 'DVD watching' isn't any worse than oogling pretty women along the side of the street and having an accident. The driver gets in trouble for the level of the damage, not the reasons he or she caused the damage. That's the driver's responsibility to handle on his or her own, and the driver made a bad decision that contributed to the accident that's called being stupid. I'd argue that specifically legislating things to be illegal will leave legal "that's allowed!" holes that can be used to counter in court. "But Your Honor, I was just changing my shoes, there's nothing against that! Everything that we're not supposed to do while driving is on the books as being illegal! This wasn't on the books!"

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[jhunsake]

You're only looking at the small picture. There are *many* people that believe that, unless something is expicitly illegal then it is legal. While they are wrong, as you point out, they do happen to sit on juries all the time. Some of these people are so dense that it doesn't matter how much the prosecuter or judge explains the law, unless they can read the "no DVD players in cars" law themselves, they won't convict.

What really needs to happen is to have a minimum IQ for serving on juries.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Dizzle]

You're only looking at the small picture

So was the driver.
Sorry about that.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Bi()hazard]

Clearly manslaughter is not enough. If a measly slap on the wrist like "manslaughter" were enough, would that driver have killed those innocent people? Would he have been so careless? The purpose of the law is to deter crime. If it is not a sufficient deterrent, it must be strengthened.

Murder is defined as killing another person, is it not? Isn't that what this driver did? He killed a person. Therefore he is a murderer. Trying to water it down with "manslaughter" only confused the subject and enables the sort of behavior that leads to the deaths of our children. Think of the children!

Once the precedent is set and killing people via automobile is commonly punished as murder, drivers will be more careful. They will drive in fear, knowing that carelessness will carry grave consequences. But that will still not be enough: non-fatal accidents will still not be deterred sufficiently by such a system. Therefore, it is essential for the security of our nation that all reckless driving be punished as attempted murder, with long prison terms with the convicted criminals can use to reflect on their mistakes. Reckless drunken driving and weaving in and out of traffic at triple-digit speeds is so dangerous that it can only be considered attempted murder.

Likewise, all other death-defying driving attacks must be dealt with the same way. Running red lights. Tailgating. Running stop signs. Excessive speeding. Cutting people off. Failing to use your turn signal. Flashing the brights inappropriately. Speeding at all. Driving too slowly on a busy road. Playing loud, distracting music. Parking in a no-parking zone. Excessive honking.

All of those crimes must be deterred with punishments fair enough that the murderous criminals will not dare to threaten our children's lives. Those bastards who threaten our very way of life by driving at 26 miles per hour, letting the parking meter expire, and honking near moving vehicles must be stopped. Lock them away, and throw away the key. Any argument against the plain fact that those actions are attempted murder is merely a two-faced attempt to hide one's own crimes.

But there is still one problem-how can we support such a large prison population? Strained by the war on drugs, our prison system is near the point of failure. Therefore, instead of breaking the system with a flood of vicious murderers, we must expand use of the death penalty to rid our society of its most violent, remorseless criminals. The murderers plaguing our roads must all be put to death. Only when anyone who drives 26 miles per hour on an empty residential road is shot on sight will we be able to live free as our forebears intended.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[allism]

There's a difference between driving down the road and getting distracted by a pretty woman vs. having the pretty woman in your car giving you a hand job while you drive...

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[MBraynard]

If only it were that simple. Unfortunately unless the law is explicit, it becomes unenforcable. You can lawyer/weasel your way around being "distracted."

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[allism]

It's not IQ related, it's a certain mindset. It's the same mindset that got us 'It depends on what the definition of is is'. (I'm not meaning this as a political statement, btw - it was just the first example that came to mind.)

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[JamesTRexx]

Same here in the Netherlands. In my case though I didn't so much get distracted from the road, as from following the conversation because I kept my focus on driving, heh. Try talking someone through a sudden breakdown of the network that way. I was always glad when I could park somewhere safely to finish the job.
I'm not sure if they want to enforce it on the use of laptops as well, even if it's the passenger in the front using one instead of the driver. But there are many more things they should outlaw that drivers do, like reading newspapers or other papers, shaving, applying makeup, constantly looking sideways at the passenger while talking. Drivers should focus on the road, whatever it is that draws their attention. (and that includes road accidents!)

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[joke-boy]

Actually, you're wrong. It doesn't complicate things - it simplifies them. In order to prove second-degree murder (as the article mentioned), the prosecutors have to prove that his actions were reckless, and that he knew they were reckless at the time. An explicit law prohibiting viewing of DVDs by drivers encodes into law that behavior as reckless by definition. That way, every prosecutor doesn't have to prove for every future defendant that such actions are reckless - a separate law already says they are. The law serves two purposes - it hopefully lessens the number of instances where this occurs, and it makes it easier to prosecute stupid people who violate the law and kill someone. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it really isn't clear that he was watching a DVD at the time of the accident.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll leave DUI laws alone for the most part, due to the extreme and immediate potential for harm that driving while intoxicated causes

Well...because this is such a sensitive, PC issue -- I'll sound off. Our DUI/DWI laws are just plain stupid. They're based on emotion and revenge, not logic and/or a "greater good". The following is a position paper that I am (for the most part) in agreement with. OK...now that that's out of the way.

The driver gets in trouble for the level of the damage, not the reasons he or she caused the damage. That's the driver's responsibility to handle on his or her own, and the driver made a bad decision that contributed to the accident that's called being stupid. I'd argue that specifically legislating things to be illegal will leave legal "that's allowed!" holes that can be used to counter in court.

Ultimately, the issue here is that Americans tend to avoid taking any responsibilty for their actions. We've developed a culture of no-fault and entitlement. So if I slip and fall on your property...or spill hot coffee from your shop on my lap -- the blame for these things somehow shifts from me to you. In most cases, the money will be followed -- your insurance company, your business, etc.

We have to have dumb laws like this on the books mostly to protect us from ourselves. We're all ready to blame someone else for these problems, but not willing to accept any responsibility. It's incredibly lame -- especially because most states have a driving-while-distracted law already on the books (which is why the no-cell-phone laws are extraneous as well).

Here's the thing. If I am talking on the phone/watching a DVD/picking my butt/changing the radio station/talking to a passenger/rubbernecking/having sex/turning up the AC/whatever while I'm driving and my lack of attention causes an accident, I'm responsible. It doesn't matter what I'm doing...I'm responsible. Do we really need more laws to strictly define what distraction is? What's negligent is negligent.

What needs to be done to help other Americans take responsibility for their actions? What do we do to stop feeling like we deserve money from everyone who has more than us?

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[CatLord42]

What really needs to happen is to have a minimum IQ for serving on juries.

Unfortunately, it seems that the potential jurors with IQs above a certain point are either removed by one of the legal teams for some reason or they can figure out how to get out of jury duty.

I'm eligible for jury duty, but I've never been asked to serve. It's a civic duty, just like obeying the driving laws while driving. However, many people have come up with many ways to get out of jury duty. Everyone wants the other person to take responsibility for their actions, but few want to make sure it really happens by participating in the process, and those who do are rejected for many different reasons.

Sad, really, but it's still a system that mostly works.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[RodgerDodger]

Murder imlpies intent; manslaughter implies negligenece. That's the difference.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[winwar]

No, what he is really saying:

"Because there is no specific law against this (or it is not mentioned specifically in a current law), I (or my staff) will actually have to do some work to convict someone of a crime"

It has nothing to do with not having applicable laws, which as you pointed out, they do. It is all about making it EASY for them to convict people. It should never be easy to convict people of a crime, as guilty as they may appear to be.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[shaitand]

Absolutely, this is how the whole DMCA catastophy was excused.

By claiming new laws were needed to cover things that were already against the law. The result is that no legitimate copyright violation is now illegal that wasn't before and many legitimate uses are now illegal.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

> Murder is defined as killing another person, is it not?

Actually, no, it's not! Check out your local statute someetime.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[CatLord42]

Clearly manslaughter is not enough. If a measly slap on the wrist like "manslaughter" were enough, would that driver have killed those innocent people? Would he have been so careless? The purpose of the law is to deter crime. If it is not a sufficient deterrent, it must be strengthened.

The purpose of law is not to deter crime. The purpose of law enforcement is to deter crime. The purpose of law is to define what crime is.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[krem81]

This is what case law is for. All that needs to be done is for one court to deem that behavior illegal. There's no need for "special" laws like that, as others have pointed out.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Lord Kano]

unless they can read the "no DVD players in cars" law themselves, they won't convict.

BS. People will convict on this, all the prosecutor needs to do is remind them that it could have been THEM on that road. It could have been their mother, father, sister, brother, husband, wife or child that was killed because someone was too busy watching a movie to pay attention to the road.

If the prosecutor fails to get a manslaughter conviction in this case, that prosecutor needs to get fired.

LK

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[CVaneg]

What really needs to happen is to have a minimum IQ for serving on juries.

Great. Like I don't already get called for jury duty enough. Of course, maybe I have too high opinion of myself. Maybe this would exempt me from jury duty forever.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the point of that law in the UK was to really get the point across that using a Cellphone and driving at the same time is unaccpetable.

Without the law, people wouldn't be bothered as much by the Law (fuzz), as much as perhaps they should be. Hence they passed the law to leave no room for argument: ****Getting caught talking on the cellphone whilst driving will ensure that you get ticketed!!!!****

Well, officer!!!! I wasn't driving THAT badly! *sob*--Here's your ticket, bitch.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[DarkMan]

To be fair to the UK parliment, they knew that. As did the police. Some forces were for a new law, some were against.

In principle, the offence was covered under 'driving without due care and attention'. In practice, most people felt that they were in full control of the vehicle, whilst chatting on the phone (in spite of studies to the contrary) [0]. Mobile phone use was endemic, so the legistlative decided to make it perfectly clear that is was not accpetable, by a specific and clear new law.

I understand that, although there have been very few prosecutions, there has been a marked decrease in mobile phone use whilst driving. This may be considered a sucessful law, in that it has reduced the dangerous behaviour significantly.

In short, the aim of the law was to educate the driving public, rather that create a new offense. It has a achieved that aim.

[0] I'll note that techincally driving whilst intoxicated falls into exactly the same catagory. Sepcific laws allow for specific limits and additional penalties, but that is, in principle, all they add.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Lord Kano]

Anyone can "get out of" jury duty. It's just that some of us view it as a responsibility. I am a citizen, I am a voter, I am a member of the jury pool. I served on a jury once. I would do it again. It's a responsibility that goes along with citizenship and voting.

If you want to get out of jury duty, wear this shirt from www.tshirthell.com.

LK

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Oh great. Let's just let people drive like morons and wait until after they've had an accident to deal with them.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that judges and lawyers don't want intelligent people on juries. Juries that know what the heck they are doing just "get in the way of justice" according to most judges and lawyers. Justice being, of course, a combination of whatever the judge thinks the law is and what misrepresentations the lawyers can foist off on a gullible jury.

Try wearing a Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) T-shirt to jury selection and see how many times out of a million you get picked. My money is on zero.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[dabraun]

Actually no - unless something is explicitly illegal it IS legal. That doesn't mean that if you do something irresponsible and as a consequence kill someone that the irresponsibility should somehow absolve you of the crime of killing someone ...

It is manslaughter - it is not murder. Murder requires intent - unless you want to prove that he consciously decided that he would watch DVDs while driving with the intent of upping his chances of killing someone then there is no argument for labeling it as murder.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[GlassHeart]

What really needs to happen is to have a minimum IQ for serving on juries.

Then how would you get a jury of peers to judge those who are not "intelligent" enough to serve on a jury? I understand your frustration, but like voting in better political leaders, some goals have no shortcuts. In both cases, the answer is to improve the citizenry as a whole, not exclude those we deem unworthy.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[thenextpresident]

"unless something is expicitly illegal then it is legal"

That's because that's pretty much how it works. If their is no law that says it's illegal to speed, than guess what? I can't be charged with a crime of speeding.

This doesn't mean this guys isn't guilty, but it doesn't mean watching a DVD while driving is illegal. Laws aren't their to tell us what we can do. Quite the opposite.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Daniel Ellard]

There are *many* people that believe that, unless something is expicitly illegal then it is legal.

I doubt it... you'd be hard pressed to find a jury that devoid of sense. Most laws in the criminal code are defined with quite a bit of interpretation built in. For example, the definition of homicide does not contain an enumeration of all the possible ways that one person can cause the death of another (because there would always be a new one...). Instead, it's just defined in terms of, well, causing death.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[csplinter]

OHHHHHHH! I thought Microsoft wrote a driver that caused DVDs to explode in to flying shards of plastic.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[joke-boy]

The purpose of the legislature is to create laws. The purpose of the court is to interpret laws. If you want something to be expressly illegal, which one should be responsible? Hint: the answer isn't "one court".

Precedence is a great thing. But there are three problems with legal precedence. First, you're depending on some jury being smart, which they're often not. Second, you're depending on some future judge not choosing to create an entirely different precedence. Third, it can take ten years for precedence to be upheld. If you want something to be illegal in your lifetime, you pass a law. You don't hold your breath and hope that the courts eventually do the right thing.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[dedalus2000]

You are a smart ass and have done much to further the rhetorical arts.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[rokzy]

and he intended to watch the DVD didn't he? he intended to not watch the road.

if you went to a firing range and DECIDED not to watch where you fired and shot someone, wouldn't that be murder?

you are DECIDING to put yourself in a situation where you can easily kill people***, and DECIDING to SYSTEMATICALLY not pay attention, therefore as far as I'm concerned your INTEND (unless you can prove insanity or severe learning problems) to put lives at risk.

This may be indiscriminate murder, but that's still murder isn't it?

The law should recognise the danger of careless driving more. Driving without due care and attention/drunk/using mobile etc. should have very harsh penalties. Driving is a priviledge, not a right.

***the law should recognise the danger of cars. Like with guns etc. death comes naturally from them unless you act responsibly. To not recognise this is like saying "I intended to push him off the cliff and for him to fall 1000ft but not to die". Death comes naturally from falling 1000ft, just like it comes from wreckless driving so IMO this is not an excuse.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[CatLord42]

Good for you! I'm glad there are other people who feel taking their responsibilities and civic duties are good things.

But, your tshirt suggestion for getting out of jury duty is just another example of the many ways people have dreamed up for avoiding something that's inconvenient to them.

It's a bit brazen, and I'd never wear that to a courtroom, mostly because I'd imagine doing so would be considered contempt of the court, but then, I don't want to get out of jury duty. I don't particularly want to serve on jury duty, especially if it's one of those long, drawn out boring (though probably significant) cases, but if called, I would serve.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Tsiangkun]

/**off topic rant
unless something is expicitly illegal then it is legal.

This is the mindset that keeps legal firms and accountants busy sifting through the books to find "loopholes" around the obvious intent of the laws.
It happens at both extremes, we have rich people searching for loopholes to get out of paying their fairshare. We have people finding loopholes to get a free ride off taxpayers through what few social programs are provided in the USA.

Why is it that one of these two extremes is regarded as intelligent and saavy, while the other is exposed as a parasite on society. Are they different ?

Is there anyway to burn all the books and start over with an intent based law system. Seems like it would easier for everyone. Isn't the current legal system all about proving intent anyways ?

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[gl4ss]

yes, because the laws are good enough they just need to be enforced.

I believe it is illeagal to drive a car in alaska too if you're distracted in _any_ way. the driver is responsible for stopping the car and not driving if he can't concentrate on driving, no excuses, no "i was tending the baby" or "making my makeup" or "writing email".

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[PaulBu]

It's the same mindset that got us 'It depends on what the definition of is is'.

I assume that you mean "the definition of *it* is", and yes, this mindset can called "analytical", "scientific", "logical", etc., as opposed to the "emotional", "gut feeling" one. And I do not oppose an idea of asking what a definition or "murder" is and how it differs from "manslaughter".

Paul B.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Poseidon88]

Murder is defined as killing another person, is it not? Isn't that what this driver did? He killed a person. Therefore he is a murderer.

Actually, it's much more complicated than that. The legal definition of murder requires that there be an intent to kill. Killing someone on accident is considered manslaughter. There are also varying degrees of each depending on the circumstances. First-degree murder, for instance, requires that the killer have planned out the act ahead of time. For second-degree murder, you only need prove that they acted with the intent to kill, even if it was only momentary during extreme emotional stress. The degree of manslaughter usually depends on whether you intended any harm towards the victim, or if you showed reckless disregard for their safety. Deciding which description applies in any particular case is, of course, the subject of many legal arguments.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[krem81]

Of course then you run the risk of creating too many stupid laws (which the states are known for). Don't just assume that the legislators are all that smart. In this particular case, nothing about watching DVDs is inherently bad; surely, you can have the DVD player running and not watching it. What was illegal was careless driving.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[wtansill]

"Everything that we're not supposed to do while driving is on the books as being illegal! This wasn't on the books!" As a former associate once roared when I tried a defense like that: "It doesn't say don't piss on the carpet either, but you know it's wrong!"

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[teraph]

'DVD watching' isn't any worse than oogling pretty women along the side of the street and having an accident.

Yes it is. DVD watching is intentionally creating an environment where you can be distracted. Oogling a woman is not. The level of distraction may be the same, but the DVD is making an effort to be distracted.

Or, to put it another way: The cause is distraction. The effect is an accident. Those are the same. It is the intent that is different. If a prosecutor could prove that someone went driving with the intent of oogling women rather than watching the road, they might try for murder on that too. But they can't. When a guy installs a DVD player that plays while driving and then watches a DVD, it is much clearer that he intended to be distracted.

Once you show intent, you can call show implied malice ("my DVD is more important than your safety").

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[iamacat]

Even a very good driver can have an accident with fatality because of normal lapses of human attention, motor control or health. Should we lock up or even financially ruin people for plain bad luck?

The real issue here is if the driver made a reasonable effort to drive safely. Have a DVD player on is certainly suspicious. He should still have a chance to prove he was looking at the road from the facts of the accident itself.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Sloppy]

There are *many* people that believe that, unless something is expicitly illegal then it is legal.

And that's fine. I happen to hold that view. But the alleged events, even without a watching-movies-while-you-drive law, are explicitly illegal: 1) Operating a motor vehicle without paying sufficient attention 2) Killing someone through carelessness.

You can't have laws that list all the ways that a person can fail to pay attention. There would be tens of thousands of them, and then I would just find a loophole anyway. "Aha, it's only against the law to drive while having sex with a sheep. If I use a goat, I'm in the clear." If you solve the general case, then it works. It'll even address my goat deviance (at least while I'm driving).

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[mingot]

Yes, the latter is MUCH, MUCH better.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[localhost00]

I have to agree. Quite frankly, I think some of the laws I have heard about should be modded -1, Redundant. As an (offtopic) example, I saw this John Kerry-bashing commercial, saying he voted against the Laci Peterson Law, designed to "protect pregnant women from violence," as if it weren't already illegal. Unfortunately, laws do not stop criminals, especially laws that outlaw a specific crime that has already been outlawed to begin with.

So if lawmakers stopped passing all these useless, redundant laws, we might just save some resources to perhaps ENFORCE the laws we already have.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[EvanED]

"Death comes naturally from falling 1000ft, just like it comes from wreckless driving so IMO this is not an excuse"

Wreckless driving is desirable. It would be wonderful if everyone drove wrecklessly.

You're looking for "reckless"...

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[joke-boy]

Sure, no question about it. There is a trade-off here. I agree that fewer laws is good, from an elegance of design point of view. But you can also have too few laws. If a law isn't explicit enough, you get potentially bad court rulings, aggressive prosecutors who unfairly target defendants, lenient prosecutors who refuse to prosecute scumbags, and activist judges making new law by way of precedence. If you get too explicit, you get too many laws, as well as loopholes. *Someone* has to decide these things, and there are a *lot* more cops, prosecutors, and judges than there are legislators, so I have a little more faith in any group of legislators than in any generic cop, prosecutor, or judge.

I dunno, but I think that expressly saying "having a DVD display in plain view of a driver is bad" as a matter of law is a fine thing.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[MBCook]

By and large I agree with you. I especially hate the laws that legislate what you think. By that I mean "hate crimes". I'm white. Let's say I killed a black person. Why is it a worse crime if I kill him because he's black (hate crime) than if I kill him because he bumped into me (some pointless reason, this is normal murder). That kind of thing is a dangerous line to start crossing.

The one thing I would like to point out in your post is the "killing a pregnant person" law (ignoring the fact that the politically correct "person" in that statement is pointless as with the exception of Governer Arnold, there are few pregnant men). That law (I assume you refer to the so called "Lacy Peterson" law) serves a specific purpose. If a pregnant women is killed who was going to have her baby (not abort it) then two people die. The problem is that current law doesn't recognise that. The point of the law is to make killing a pregnant women two counts of murder, instead of one. I think that's a great idea.

But as to the other "special" laws for "special" cases, I agree. And the worst part is that things are only going to get stranger. As you start "protecting" more and more special classes, we're going to start seeing stranger laws ("It's illegal to punch people in the stomach on a tuesday unless they just ate a single hamburger with pickles, in which case it's legal; unless the month is November or the victim has green tattoo on her left side".) Now thing obviously won't get THAT bad, but things are going to get worse and more complicated untill people wise up.

And it's not like most of these things (driving while watching a DVD) aren't covered by current law (not paying attention while driving).

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[tonyr60]

"That's because that's pretty much how it works. If their is no law that says it's illegal to speed, than guess what? I can't be charged with a crime of speeding."

No, you could not be charged with the crime of speeding. But you could be charged with dangerous driving, driving with reckless disregard, or what ever other relevant laws your environment has.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

There are *many* people that believe that, unless something is expicitly illegal then it is legal. While they are wrong,

They aren't wrong.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[allism]

No, I meant what I said. Look here.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Basehart]

"Same here in the Netherlands"

That reminds me, how come a country as small Finland is capable of producing two world class Formula One drivers (Mika Häkkinen and Kimi Raikkonen) and a world class rally car driver (Tommi Makkinen) among others?

This is all the more amazing when a country the size of the USA produces, erm, none!

What's that all about?

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[recursiv]

There are *many* people that believe that, unless something is expicitly illegal then it is legal.

Yeah. Many people. Like me. The purpose of laws is to set out which are prohibited activities. If what you say was true why would we even need laws?

According to your post, if something is explicitly illegal, then it is definitely illegal. Otherwise, it still might be illegal. How, in your system, do you think we can determine if a given action is legal? (short of attempting it, and waiting to see if we get arrested)

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Not paying attention at a firing range would also be manslaughter.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[tomhudson]

Lord Kano posted:

If the prosecutor fails to get a manslaughter conviction in this case, that prosecutor needs to get fired.

... which brings up the question - Why wasn't the driver charged with manslaugher, instead of murder 2?

1. Murder 1 : premeditated, intentional and unjustifiable killing of another human being
2. Murder 2 : intentional and unjustifiable killing of another human being, without premeditation
3. Manslaughter : accidental and unjustifiable killing of another human being

Seems to me they're going to have a hard time showing intent.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[dorsey]

Because most Americans just aren't aware of any racing beyond NASCAR. Sad really...

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[EvanED]

No, it wouldn't. It'd be second degree murder in jurisdictions that distinguish degrees (most or all of them).

The killing would be committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life (the ALI's language in the Model Penal Code), and would be murder.

Reckless killing without the indifference would be manslaughter.

(Recklessness appears to about correspond to gross negligence in some jurisdictions)

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[The_K4]

The prosecutor is not going for manslaughter, the prosecutor is going for murder 2. Hence why this is an interesting article/conversation/case.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[notasheep]

In the article it stated the other person in the car didn't know how the accident happened because he was spacing out watching a movie. That makes me believe a movie was playing.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[midav]

I'm eligible for jury duty, but I've never been asked to serve.

Really? What state are you living in? I had been living in New York for less than a year when I received my first summon to serve the jury duty (On which I wrote 'No sitizen. I not speack English.') and still I received two more summons during next two years. Now I live in New Jersey and every 3 years and 3 months (works as a chime - by a court clerk advice I keep undeposited checks as a proof of service) I am receiving these things from my County Court.

PS. Perhaps, undeposited checks is what makes them think that I would make a good juror.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Lord Kano]

It's strategy, going with a murder 2 charge puts the prosecutor in a better position to finesse a plea bargain, and if it goes to trial the prosecutor knows that it's not murder, but a jury may choose manslaughter as a compromise verdict.

LK

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[wankledot]

Intending to watch the DVD was not intent to kill someone, likewise for the firing range (although that's a little tougher).

Knowledge that what you do might hurt someone is not intent to hurt them. If that was the case, you couldn't do anything dangerous at all without the intent to kill, and that's just not the way it works.

Doing it for the express purpose of hurting them is intent, anything else is negligence. By your rules, any time you drove anywhere you would be commiting attempted murder because you know that someone might jump in front of you.

Simply put, not paying attention to what you are doing is never murder, unless you went out of your way to make sure that someone was hurt by it, in which case it's not indiscriminate at all, it's very deliberate.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[shawn(at)fsu]

First why the hell is this on /. this site is quickly falling in to posting stories that will cause a flaim war. it's becoming the Jerry Springer show of the internet

Now to my $0.02

people should know that you shouldn't be watch a movie while driving we should but some of us don't. I'd like to think that a reasonable person wouldn't try to justiy watching a movie while driving. Since some people have a problem with this then they need to make laws that spcificcly spell it out, and now that it's speciflly spelled out I see no problme with making the punishment higher. I think more states should be like NYC and expand their practice of siezing a persons car who is DUI to situations like this.

Driving is a privelige not a right, I think too many people have forgotten that.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[The Vulture]

I would serve for jury duty, but unfortunately, because I'm not a citizen of the United States (I'm a resident alien), I'm ineligible to serve.

I was actually sent a summons for jury duty about a month ago, and I was prepared to go. However, since the notice did say that I had to excuse myself if I wasn't a citizen, well, that's what I did.

I think that if they didn't have this requirement they'd get quite a few more people of better than average intelligence (especially in California, where there's lots of legal aliens, like myself). They pull the records from the DMV, why not just have everybody who has a drivers' license eliglble?

As for the reason why the lawyers would remove the smarter people - well, it seems that the way that jury trials go now, there's more emphasis placed on emotion than logic. If the case tends to be weak, the attorneys need to add a bit of emotion to shock/enrage the jury.

-- Joe

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Stinky Cheese Man]

Actually, showing signs of intelligence seems to be a rather effective way of getting out of jury duty. For reasons I can't fathom, both prosecutors and defense seem to prefer easily-led individuals of average intelligence.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[localhost00]

Even a very good driver can have an accident with fatality because of normal lapses of human attention, motor control or health. Should we lock up or even financially ruin people for plain bad luck?

The real issue here is if the driver made a reasonable effort to drive safely. Have a DVD player on is certainly suspicious. He should still have a chance to prove he was looking at the road from the facts of the accident itself.

That is what the Jury is designed to do, isn't it? Driver A may have had a lapse of attention because he was looking at a street sign to see if it was the street he needed to turn on. I would reasonably expect a jury to rule that he wasn't grossly negligent. However, driver B, who was watching a DVD would be the negligent party.

I definitely believe that anyone who decides to watch DVDs while driving should have severe sanctions placed on him, while the driver who was innocently distracted trying to find a street sign shouldn't. However, I still think that innocent driver should take action to prevent an incident like that to occur again.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[notasheep]

From Findlaw:

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

The drivers actions in the article clearly fall under #2 above.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[rokzy]

no, someone jumping in front of you is not a crime and you probably would not be prosecuted at all.

the law says you are not allowed to drive without paying attention. he went out of the way to break the law in a persistent way.

if you intend to drive responsibly, that is not a problem. this is worse than drunk driving because at least then you're not thinking straight. this is like intending to go get drunk so you can drink-drive. a deliberate plan to not watch the road, a deliberate plan to break the law, a deliberate plan to put lives at risk. this is not negligent, it is deliberate.

if a message is not sent that this behaviour is unacceptable, cold-blooded murderers will just install DVD players and automatically get off with a much lighter sentence?

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[acroyear]

yeah, i can (through your argument) see the Lacy Peterson Law as being a good balance between acknowledging/protecting the unborn child and at the same time avoiding making any particular statement as to the "rights" of the child as a person or citizen (which can open itself up to interpretations that can affect the great Abortion debate in this country and cause undue duress in the system).

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Jardine]

Then how would you get a jury of peers to judge those who are not "intelligent" enough to serve on a jury?

The US Constitution doesn't say anything about a jury of peers, just an impartial jury.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[notasheep]

From Findlaw:

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

"Intent" is not a necessary ingredient for murder 2. The drivers actions could easily fall under #2 above. The prosecuter is using the correct charge.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[recursiv]

I agree that it *shouldn't be done*. But that's different from *illegal*.

You shouldn't cheat on their spouses. But that doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Anyway, I don't oppose such a DVD law. I was simply replying about that specific point about explicit illegality. If I am apprehended for committing some illegal act, I certainly hope there is a law on the books that I broke, not just someone's version of "common sense."

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[atlantis191]

How many basketball stars does Finland produce? Sure the United States maybe large, but Formula One isn't very popular compared to other sports (Basketball, Football, Baseball). Of course, I dont know how popular it is in Finland, but thats my theory anyways.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Grym]

I agree with you with regard to "hate crime" legislation, but I'd like to go further. The real problem with these laws is how they will be enforced. For instance, if I, a white person, were killed by a group of black people who murdered me because of my race, I can almost guarantee you they wouldn't be charged with a hate crime. In fact, some lawyers might even try to make the case that the group was merely venting "social frustration", like some declared after the L.A. riots.

This problem of enforcement exists with all of these "specific" laws, because many crimes don't fit even the broad laws perfectly. For instance, the Laci Peterson law is a mess too. Of course the law fits the test case (i.e. Laci Peterson--8 mos. pregnant; did not want an abortion), but how does it fair for all cases? More aptly, how do you define "pregnant" and a dead person's intentions? Is "pregnant" the moment after conception? If so, what if the mother didn't know she was pregnant? Are we to assume she would or would not have had an abortion? What about embryos or babies with genetic defects who would not have survived gestation anyway? If "pregnant" is not the moment of conception, when exactly is it and is it non-arbitrary (i.e. "looks like a baby", etc.)?

None of these questions can be answered by the Laci Peterson law, because they aren't as emotionally divisive and require a bit more thought than baby-kissing politicians want to put-forth.

-Grym

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[EvanED]

As notasheep said, you can quite easily be responsible for murder without intent.

As an alternate definition, the American Law Institute defines murder in their Model Penal Code (off of which many state crimes codes and legal decisions are based) as a killing that is done purposely, knowingly, or recklessly under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life. The latter does not include intent.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[WIAKywbfatw]

Actually, for the benefit of the wider audience, I would like to clarify that.

The law actually prohibits drivers from using hand-operated mobile phones whilst driving: the use of a totally hands-free phone is still permitted, although dangerous driving whilst using a hands-free phone can still be penalised.

The facts about mobile phone usage whilst driving are pretty clear though. Studies have shown that your attention is far less focused on the road, and your reaction times are slower, whilst talking on a mobile phone than it would be if you were driving whilst drunk. But, of course, everyone who regularly drives and chats away on a mobile at the same time doesn't think that this applies to them, because they're a "good" or "safe" driver.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, although it's not specifically illegal to watch a DVD in your car in Alaska. It is illegal to drive carelessly and kill people. Watching a DVD while driving does show gross negligence and I'd like to think that would be enough to take care of this guy.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[PsiPsiStar]

I don't know how effective minimum IQs would be for serving on juries.

A jury is, by definition, a group of people too stupid not to be able to get out of jury duty.

You'd just be throwing in another loophole.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[wideBlueSkies]

So if you're driving with a cell phone, you're guilty of driving without a cellphone and guilty of driving without due care and attention.

Double the crime...double the penalty. I don't see a problem with that. MIght make someone think twice before calling their bookie while on the way to the pub....

wbs.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[agurkan]

intention does not mean that in this case. he was not watching the DVD with the intention of killing someone. the same thing in a shooting range, but there it will be much harder to prove that you were not paying attention. i can see an idiot watching DVD while driving w/o thinking of consequences. if someone is not looking where they shoot at in a shooting range, first thing comes to my mind is they committed murder and are trying to get away.
that being said, i agree that there should be special treatment of car accidents where there is negligience. i hate it when i realize that i pay more attention to the traffic as a pedestrian than the drivers on the road.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[jadavis]

If you drive, you concentrate on the road, and if you don't do that, you face the consequences when the inevitable happens.

I agree, but consider the implications.

We have a speed limit law because people felt that there should be some objective criteria for determining reckless behavior before an accident.

Your attitude is: "Do whatever you want until some harm is done, then we sort it out in court."

I think that's a reasonable position, but one problem is that often the harm can't be undone by any court. You can't deter someone from speeding if they die in the accident anyway (since that's pretty much the maximum deterrent already). You can't bring the other person back to life.

So, as with many laws there is a compromise. If an officer is given objective criteria to deter, he can deter you from the (supposedly) dangerous practice by citing you. The practice may or may not be dangerous in that particular case, but the officer doesn't really need to prove that, since the law lists the objective criteria itself as illegal.

Now, we run into conflict-of-interest problems when the fine is paid back to the same people who issue the ticket, but that's another issue.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[corngrower]

What really needs to happen is to have a minimum IQ for serving on juries.

Yes, but that would violate the constitutional guarantee of a right to trial with a jury of ones peers.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Inthewire]

...yet the last time I was on a jury, the newscaster next to me in the pool was struck...

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[corngrower]

Murder 2 also includes killing a person while acting in a manner that is likely to cause someones death, whether intentional or not.

For instance, by Minnesota law, if you're driving while drunk, and a police officer sees and is in persuit, and you accidentally run into someone and kill them, it's second degree murder, not manslaughter.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[jadavis]

My advice is to not kill women, and then you're pretty surely not going to be charged with a double murder.

If it was barely conceived, it would probably take an autopsy to even find out, and most likely it would just be a single count.

The "didn't know" argument is worthless. If a women was holding a baby and you shot and killed both it doesn't matter whether you thought the baby was just a shopping bag.

I would say any time after conception it's fair game for the double murder. The argument that "maybe it was going to die anyway" doesn't go very far with me either. It's sort of like if you kill someone at 40 saying "well, his life was about half over anyway, so really it's just a half murder".

The arguments for abortion rights usually revolve around the body belonging to the woman. Well, her body certainly doesn't belong to some 3rd party murderous psychopath.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Minna Kirai]

Murder requires intent

Not quite. If you accidently kill a person in the commission of another felony, that is murder 2. "I didn't think there was anyone inside when I set the fire..."

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Minna Kirai]

For reasons I can't fathom

Laziness.

Although the lawyers on both sides want to win, they also want to finish. Intelligent, principled people lead to non-unaminious hung juries, forcing the lawyers to go through the whole case again. Someone who's "easily-led" will decide to vote with the majority of the jury, regardless of his own interpretation, just so they can all finish up and everyone can go home (possible exception of the defendant).

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[trewornan]

Perhaps most people can talk on the phone without compromising their driving - it may sound unlikely to anal retentive road safety "experts" but a lot of things are counter-intuitive (the Montana Paradox for example).

And why is it OK to talk to a passenger, smoke, eat, drink, read billboards, scratch your ass, etc, etc, but not to talk on a cellphone whilst driving . . . because it would be politically inexpedient to ban the former but you can get some tasty sweeteners from lobbyist for the latter.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[gcaseye6677]

This is the way it should be, as a complete ban on driver cell phone use would be unenforceable. How would they see the little wire running up to your ear? Although I don't agree with the study that equates cell phone use with intoxication, I do think that if someone causes an accident while they were distracted, they should be punished rather severely regardless of the distracting device. I don't know why multitasking is such a serious problem for some people. If I am talking on a handsfree phone while driving, I have absolutely no problem paying attention to the road. I've had people pull out in front of me really close and been able to hit the brakes in time even while talking. It's all about focusing on the priority at hand.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Minna Kirai]

Why is it a worse crime if I kill him because he's black (hate crime) than if I kill him because he bumped into me (some pointless reason, this is normal murder).

Because statistical sociology has found "hate crimes" to be a greater risk to the public at large. However, your example of a "bump crime" is not realistic. That type of thing is insigificantly rare- a different comparator would be required to discuss it seriously.

More accurately, crimes committed against a category of people ("I hate blacks" "I hate cops") present a greater risk to the public than do crimes against a known individual ("I hate Tommie Simmons"). In the latter case, the victim probably had some chance to anticipate the attack and take precautions.

It's not really "hate crimes" vs other crimes, but random or impersonal crimes versus others.

(ignoring the fact that the politically correct "person" in that statement is pointless as with the exception of Governer Arnold, there are few pregnant men)

A point that biotechnology will make obselete within 50 years. In 20 years lesbians will start to bear each other's children- gay men will take a while longer (and realistically, most will use external incubation-tanks)

The point of the law is to make killing a pregnant women two counts of murder, instead of one. I think that's a great idea.

It's "Laci". And that's not quite what the law does. It doesn't say "killing a pregnant woman is two murders" (although that is what Pres Bush and others have claimed) but instead says "causes the death of, or bodily injury to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense"

So harming a pregnant woman can be 1 assault and 1 murder. This means that if you trip a woman who's 1 month pregnant, and she later miscarries, you can face life imprisonment.

If a law was passed allowing for heavier penalties for attacking a pregnant woman on the grounds that it harmed HER more than a typical assault, that's one thing (the US Congress considered such a law, sponsored by Feinstein D-CA, but ignored it because the Republican majority wanted something that would undermine RoeVWade). But declaring that the fetus is a separate victim is inconsistent with the idea that abortion is legal.

The legality of abortion rests on the idea that the fetus is a body part, without any rights of its own, and only existing for the mother (as her property, in a way).

An inconsistent position has been created:
If a 6-month old child is killed, it is murder regardless of whether the attacker was a stranger, or her own mother. But killing a 6-month old fetus is legal if the mother does it, but murder for anyone else.

The law has declared "Fetuses are people with rights- except that their mothers can kill them".

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[kannibal_klown]

You've apparently never had an accident (or serveral very-near misses) because the other driver was on the cellphone.

My MAIN concern with talking on the cellphone is most don't use the earbud / headphone things.

Talking normally cuts peripheral vision by A LOT.

Think of it, you have your hand and phone on the side of your head. While this doesn't matter if you're just drive straight (or not an idiot), the instant you start turning / changing lanes / or entering a street, you're a dangerous weapon.

On one hand, it sounds stupid, especially when you consider all of the items you mentioned (billboards, talking to passengers, smoking, etc).

But on the other hand, not enough people know how much it cuts on their peripheral vision, and they drive as if nothing was out of the ordinary.

I support the law to ticket people using cellphones without headphones / ear pieces / speakers.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Zugok]

actually, Formula 1 is the third most watched sport on television after the Olympic Games and World Cup Soccer.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Finland small?
It has almost the same area as Germany!

Ah, you mean in population...
It must be the climate, or the vodka, or both

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[UniverseIsADoughnut]

I belive in a few places it is ilegal to drive and eat at the same time. Since that is probably more dangerous then talking on a phone since people tend to take hands off a wheel a lot to do it and balance things and so forth, or look for that missing buritto. I don't want people smoking and driving either. Once again less hands on the wheel, plus the fuckers throwing the buts out the window. Or when in traffic you have their smoke coming back and having to breath it.

These laws are good. No matter how good you think you are a cell phone is a distraction. For one, it means you don't have both hands on the wheel in most cases, and the other hand tends to suck at do the rest while your talking. Plus your brain is simply thinking harder when dealing with a phone. Way more so then when a person is in the car talking to you, since you tend to pause and take care of the driving first. Also people are plenty of a distraction when driving. I know people who shouldn't be allowed to opperate a car when other are in it, and shouldn't be allowed to be a passenger since they don't know when to shut up and pay attention.

Every minor little accident or close call I have seen in the last 5 years had one common theme, a cell phone. I've been nearly hit by people 3 times in the last 5 years while walking, all were talking on cell phones. I was near clipped yesterday when a person switched lanes at the last second cause they were to distracted talking on a cell phone (not the first time that has happened). I've watch many people pop over curbs making aturn while talking on a cell phone cause they couldn't see do to the phone blocking head movement and vision, plus they couldn't turn the wheel right with one hand wheel apparently. One dragged her car across a telephone pole. Now it's nice and flat on the side, that was an expensive call.

There is no possible way talking on a phone does not impair you in some way, the fact it is one more thing you are doing proves that. Now some people probably can fully well deal with a phone and drive at the same time, well great. They also tend to be the ones that are smart enought to pull over to talk, or keap it short instead of yaking about what they did today.

Even if you can drive just fine talking on one, you should be happy to see action being taken since people obviously can't handle it at once. This really won't effect many people unjustly. I for one would gladly not be allowed to talk on a phone while driving if it ment the mass population who can't do this now can't do it. Less people to fear.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Eric Damron]

I disagree that technology shouldn't be addressed via new laws.

Cellphones come to mind. Did you know that people who talk on cell phones (that aren't hands free) while driving have an accident rate roughly equivalent to drunk drivers? Even so, most states do not have laws which prohibit the use of cellphones while driving.

New laws are needed to address technology. Not to punish people more severely after someone gets killed but rather to hopefully save lives.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

YEs and no. Depends on the case.

If there is no specific law against driving while on cell phone, there is a law against driving without due care, or unsafe driving, or similar. So it may still be illegal, just not explicitely.

You'll find a lot of things and actions are illegal, but not explicitey, and no one prosecutes them.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[tombeard]

Same bullshit again. This is nothing more then penalizing an act that causes no one any harm. If you have a wreck because you were negligent then you should pay the price. If no one was hurt then no one should pay. There are risks associated with liberty, get over it.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Minna Kirai]

oiding making any particular statement as to the "rights" of the child as a person or citizen

But the law, as passed, does intentionally make such a statement. They could've applied the same penalties without declaring that the fetus is a "child", but they chose not to.

It says:

• (C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

It has stated that an unborn fetus is a "child", meaning it's a person... which means, according to Roe V Wade section IX A:

• If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the
• (14th) Amendment.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Minna Kirai]

This is the way it should be, as a complete ban on driver cell phone use would be unenforceable. How would they see the little wire running up to your ear?

COMINT. Communications Interception. They can monitor the radio frequency to see if a cellphone is in use, and then they can look in the window to see if the car has only one occupant.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[tombeard]

The Lacy Peterson Law was an obvious attempt to undermine abortion rights.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Minna Kirai]

Double the crime...double the penalty.

Wrong. In the USA at least, you can't be tried for the same crime twice (the Double Jeopardy provision).

By your argument, someone guilty of Murder 1 could also be convicted of Murder 2, Attempted Murder, Manslaughter, Assault, and finally Unsafe Operation of a Firearm. But sorry, no can do.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[tombeard]

And this hinges on the meaning of "likely". If he had ever driven while watching a DVD, or knew od someone that had, then it was obviously note "likely". Likely != Possible.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Minna Kirai]

Since that is probably more dangerous then talking on a phone since people tend to take hands off a wheel a lot to do it and balance things and so forth, or look for that missing buritto.

It isn't. Cellphones are much more dangerous than eating. (This has been proven by counting crash sites for phones, crumbs, and alcohol). Of course, the safety of food depends on the shape of the particular edible item- spagetti is more dangerous than sandwiches.

But the real reason cellphones are more dangerous that other small items the driver might handle is that the impose another time constraint. Someone on the other end is listening to you or talking to you. Prehaps you don't want to ask her to pause or repeat- maybe you don't even want it to seem like you're driving! If the phone starts to slip down, you will be under more time pressure to grab it up before missing words. Food, you're ready to stop eating at any instant and pay attention- the telephone is more engaging.

It has been scientifically measured on test courses that talking on a totally hands-free phone is only a little safer than using a handheld phone, which itself is approximately as bad as 5 beers.

(Another, lesser reason is that people are more likely to need to look closely at a cellphone to dial than they need to look at food)

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[tombeard]

Finally! Well said!

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[drinkypoo]

You're only looking at the small picture. It's already illegal to kill someone in a car through negligence. It should be irrelevant whether you are watching a DVD or programming your air-fuel ratio controller or masturbating at the time (except insofar as indecent exposure is a separate crime, so if someone saw you doing the latter, you could get busted for two things at once.)

More laws costs us more money and further complicates the legal landscape, which means we have to have more lawyers, which costs us more money; then the lawyers "grow up" to be politicians and they make still more laws, and the cycle repeats itself. Is this really what you want?

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

Driving wrecklessly or while impaired/distracted is explicitly illegal, and that is all that needs to be explicitly illegal.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[trewornan]

There are *many* people that believe that, unless something is expicitly illegal then it is legal

Me for one!

I don't know all that much about american law but certainly in the UK, if there isn't specifically some law that you're breaking then you can do whatever you like.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[trewornan]

This may be true in America but I doubt it. UK law considers "recklessness" sufficient mens rea to convict for murder.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

• unless something is expicitly illegal then it is legal.

Prove it.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[DavidTC]

You're obviously not a lawyer, because case law doesn't work like that.

To charge someone with reckless driving, it has to be proven they were, in fact, acting in a reckless manner. Just because you proved someone watching a DVD was doing so recklessly does not, in any way, mean that everyone who ever watching a DVD was automatically reckless, that's nonsense and completely violates due process.

There have been people driving in a reckless manner because they were tuning the radio, and arrested for reckless driving. Hell, there have been people driving recklessly for no apparent reason at all. Teenagers are very fond of that. In your universe, we'd all automatically be guilt of reckless driving, because if someone who drove with no distractions can be guilty of reckless driving, all people who drive with no distractions are guilty of reckless driving. That's patent nonsense. The only people guilty of reckless driving are people driving in a reckless manner, regardless of anything else, or engaging in a behavior that is defined by law as reckless.

Having a law specifically defining watching TV as reckless while driving allows the prosecution to not have to prove the driver was driving in a manner that it was reckless, and instead just prove they were watching TV, which is then automatically reckless. And, just as importantly, it allows them to arrest people who are doing so but aren't driving in a reckless manner at that exact moment in time. Because, frankly, I don't care if you're driving down a straight highway, and managing to keep the car in the correct lane, while watching TV...you need to be stopped, period. That's not acceptable behavior.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes driving in circles for hours is quite complex.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Fallen_Knight]

i would hope the hands-free phone is legal, bceause what diffrence between a conversation with people in the car and on the phone is there at that point??

And with handheld cellphones i would almost go as far as it is almsot just like haveing a conversation with someone in the car...

So shall we outlaw talking in the car?

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Tassach]

Manslaughter is still manslaughter. Negligence is still negligence. Careless driving is still careless driving

And an election year is still an election year. Dollars to doughnuts says that this is all about some over-eager DA grabbing some headlines to help increase his chances of getting (re)elected.

On a more basic level, you are correct. There is a tendancy among lawmakers to pass a new law for every new social ill which comes down the pike, even when there's a perfectly good existing law to cover it. Look at the whole terrorist panic: it's already illegal to hijack airliners; it's already illegal to conspire to kill people. We don't need special laws to cover things which are already illegal. In fact, passing special anti-terrorist laws is the worst thing you can do, because it gives the terrorists special legal status. Remember that these people WANT to be martyrs. The best way to deal with terrorists is to treat them like ordinary street criminals; giving them a special label only helps to legitimize their actions and give them and their cause the attention they crave.

Unfortunately, our political system is rigged so that it works this way. The only things a congresscritter can do is spend money and make new laws. If spending money and making laws doesn't solve the problem, their only response is to spend MORE money and pass MORE laws. Doing nothing wins no votes and generates no headlines.

The teeming masses of sheeple out there demand that their congresscritters "do something" about the crisis du jure. So, in order to insure that they can continue to feed at the public trough, the politicians oblige them by passing redundant laws. Doing nothing, while it's usually the correct thing to do, generally does not win a politician any points with Joe Sixpack.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Fallen_Knight]

someones bitter...

If going by your view if you ACCIDENTLY kill someone while haveing a conversation in a car, looking at people around you, going over the speed limit, running a red light, throwing rocks, throwing a stick for your dog, running donw the stairs into someone, hitting a baseball into someones house and into them, haveing someone on baley and the rope breaking/them falling because you didn't check it or the knotes, leaveing a knife out, leaveing a gun out, leaveing a bottle out (can be used as a weapon), would be murder.

In short when doing ANYTHING AT ALL that could resort in the death of someone is murder... now thats just silly. And don't say cars are diffrent, they are not. You kill someone by a car or kill someone with a gun, its the SAME THING, you may thing its not, but it is.

Your actions have resulted in the death of someone and that will result in 1 of 3 things, accidental (shit happens), man slaugher (you did something really stupid and should have known better), murder (you intended to kill for whatever reason).

There are plenty of dangerous activities. a cars no diffrent. Accidents happen.

Sure he intended to watch that DVD, and that was driving without due care and damn stupid, But he did not intend to kill anyone and no matter how stupid it was to do that it doesn't change the fact he didn't mean to kill anyone. So manslaughter it is.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[BeaverCleaver]

I think you were on to something there. Talking on the phone _is_ dangerous, because it's distracting. So is talking to someone in the back seat of the car, especially if you are one of those people who has to make eye contact while speaking.

The only obvious difference between these activites is that one of them involves taking a hand off the wheel. Shit, so does driving a manual transmission (stick). So does drinking a can of Coke. Oh dear, car manufacturers actually encourage this dangerous practice by putting cupholders in their new vehicles! And Ashtrays! Now they are encouraging the danerous practice of smoking a cigarette with your other hand!

So, (as the above stated) I can drink a Coke, smoke a cigarette, eat a hamburger, all whilst trying to check my mirror, use the indicator, and change lanes, but I can't talk on the phone. This is the problem with such specific laws. All they need is the previous law against driving like a dazed dumbarse, and some intelligence in enforcing it.

Besides, I know of many people who, far from avoiding phone use because of the new laws, just send texts instead, because it's "harder for the police to see"

Dumb laws can also just encourage dumb behaviour.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[zanderredux]

Heh.

Paraphrasing the parent, neither has the human body.

I agree, negligence will always be negligence, no matter how technology advances.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Noticeably absent from your post would be references.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[thenextpresident]

That's all fine. But the parent poster was making it seem like people are stupid and will not convict because their is no law that covers what the person did.

That's actually smart! It's the prosecutors job to levy the correct charges. You can't charge someone with watching a DVD in a car if their isn't a law against it. However, you are right in saying that their could be other laws that cover it, but I never argued that.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Bob Uhl]

You really don't get it, do you? Murder is the intent to kill: when one stabs a man with a knife in a bar fight (2nd degree murder) or snipes one's wife's lover from a tree stand (1st degree murder), one intends to kill; when one drives with a DVD player, or drunk, one does not intend to kill: it may happen, but that is not the intent.

They are different cases; that's why our legal system distinguishes between them. The man who sets out to kill another, and does so, has done worse than he who kills another on the spur of the moment; the man who kills in the heat of the moment has done worse than one who never meant to kill, but did anyway.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Bob Uhl]

Would you prefer to live in a police state which deals with people before they have done anything wrong? Very probably, I imagine. Most sheep would trade every single one of their rights for the illusion of safety. People like you make me sick.

The law should only punish actual misdoing, not potential misdoing. Or do you believe you should be fined $0.007 for every mile you drive?

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[0x0d0a]

Tell the cell towers to notify cops ahead on the road of cell signals that are travelling rapidly along a road, so that they can keep an eye out for drivers using them.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[UniverseIsADoughnut]

I'll go with that. I frankly thing they are just as bad. Doesn't matter which is worse they are both bad.

That said I have fond memories of trying to eat hamburgers and have a drink while driving our truck which was manual and had no cup olders so the drink was between my legs and such. Not a great idea. But at least I was willing to accept a mess in the truck verse wrecking. I think many would rather risk a wreck then have to tell the person they will call back when they get in traffic.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[WIAKywbfatw]

There's still a huge difference between a hands-free mobile phone conversation and one with a passenger. For one thing, a passenger knows when not to talk to the driver because s/he can see that the driver is busy negotiating a difficult manouvre, etc. For another thing, people's expectations of what's an acceptable pause in a telephone conversation are different to a face-to-face conversation.

If you think that the two can be done without compromising the attention given to one or the other, just try this experiment: play a game that you're familiar with (RTS, FPS, whatever) that requires real-time input whilst having a telephone conversation with a friend about a different topic. See how long it takes you to screw up in your game and/or for your friend to realise that your attention is focused elsewhere.

This isn't an issue about drivers talking. It's an issue about drivers being sufficiently distracted from the road that they become a danger to themselves, their passengers, other road users and pedestrians.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[canajin56]

This is true. As a note, there is such a thing as felony reckless endangerment

To be reckless endangerment, you need the following:

1. Substantial, Unjustifable, and Grave risk to another
2. The person must be aware of this risk and disregard it (Or be intoxicated, and as such, oblivious to the risk. In either case, it must be an obvious risk)
3. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard is a gross deviation from the standard conduct to be expected in that situation

In addition, to be FELONY RE, you need to demonstrate "depraved indifference towards human life." This means that, when viewed objectivly, the defendants conduct is found to be so callous, uncaring and inhumane, that is demonstrates a total disregard for the human life he/she is endangering.

So, I would say reckless endangerment, although others on /. have already argued that since there are few DVD-related accidents, the risk is obviously not substantial (I disagree). I would also argue that a person of any competence should be aware that not paying attention to the road is dangerous...and I should hope that it is a gross deviation from the norm...However, I do not believe it is depraved indifference. I would expect that he wasn't trying to have an accident, and therefore is a dumbass, but not cruely and calously indifferent to death. A person driving on the wrong side of the road to laugh at the people swerving...that would be a felony, because they KNOW people may/will crash as a result, and simply don't care.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[drsmithy]

[...] but this 'DVD watching' isn't any worse than oogling pretty women along the side of the street and having an accident.

Yes, it is - the DVD player is in the car, constantly on while the woman is passed by in a matter of seconds.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[timonak]

I've driven on the section of road this happened on 20-30 times. That section of road, hell that whole highway from the time you pass Potter's Marsh to when you enter the main drag in Seward, Ak is hard enough to drive without a cellphone glued to your ear; or worse yet a dvd taking all your up attention.

I think the 10 years per life the prosecutor wants is appropriate.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[EvanED]

You really don't get it, do you? Murder is the intent to kill

If someone is not getting something here, it's you. Murder is usually an intentional killing, but it can also mean causing a death through extreme negligence in roughly half the states. ("Extreme negligence" is my term; one common formulation is "recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life"; Model Penal Code, section 210.2(1)(b).) A sample of murder statutes across the nation:

Alaska (the jurisdiction in question:

AS 11.41.110. Murder in the Second Degree.

(a) A person commits the crime of murder in the second degree if ....(2) the person knowingly engages in conduct that results in the death of another person under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life; ....

Alabama:

Section 13A-6-2
Murder.

(a) A person commits the crime of murder if: ....(2) Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to a person other than himself, and thereby causes the death of another person; ....

Arizona has a clause almost the same as Alabama

California does not have a clause for recklessness (they are still using an old-style crimes code not based at all on the MPC); Georgia also does not have a clause for reckless murder (they do seem to be using a modern crimes code); Massachusetts also has no reckless murder; Nevada too;Missouri; Ohio; Texas

Maryland statutes don't define murder and use the English common law definition; I do not know if this includes reckless murder; Virginia too apparently

Wisconsin has no murder charge, and divides homicides up into intentional homicide and reckless homicide (and others)

Florida:
782.04 Murder.-- ....
(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. ....

Kentucky:

507.020 Murder.
(1) A person is guilty of murder when: ..(b) Including, but not limited to, the operation of a motor vehicle under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, he wantonly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person and thereby causes the death of another person.

Maine 1. A person is guilty of murder if the person: ....
B. Engages in conduct that manifests a depraved indifference to the value of human life and that in fact causes the death of another human being

New Hampshire uses the MPC definition almost word-for-word, which includes recklessness

New York:
Section 125.25 Murder in the second degree

A person is guilty of murder in the second degree when: ....2. Under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person....

North Dakota:
12.1-16-01. Murder.
1. A person is guilty of murder, a class AA felony, if the person: ....b. Causes the death of another human being under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life;....

To sum up: based on this hopefully representative sample, in roughly half the states, extreme negligence will suffice for a murder conviction; intent is not needed.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[ryanwright]

That's not keeping up, that's perversion. The crime is manslaughter.

Agreed. You ACs have been making some very intelligent statements lately. I'm surprised.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[ryanwright]

It isn't. Cellphones are much more dangerous than eating. (This has been proven by counting crash sites for phones, crumbs, and alcohol).

Reference?

It has been scientifically measured on test courses that talking on a totally hands-free phone is only a little safer than using a handheld phone, which itself is approximately as bad as 5 beers.

That's so much bullshit. I've seen these studies, and I doubt they are unbiased studies by people in a neutral position on the issue. I've never swerved into other lanes or otherwise found myself in a bad position while talking on a cell phone. Have a few beers, though, and I guarantee you I'd be unable to stay in my lane, maintain the speed limit, avoid other vehicles, etc.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[leenoble_uk]

Slightly OT here butalso in the UK we have lots of drivers and tv celebs openly whining about speed cameras catching people and fining them for going 4 mph over the prescribed limit. It's reaching the point where it's now becoming socially acceptable to speed again because it wasn't your fault it was the stupid camera.
Well my attitude is this. If the camera really was genuinely hidden from view and you couldn't see it coming up in time to slow down then you are guilty of speeding because the road is obviously not suited to driving at that speed.
If the camera was preceeded by warning signs, which is the case in the majority of instances, then quite frankly you must not have seen the warning signs so you should automatically be charged with driving without due care and attention.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[KjetilK]

The UK government passed a law against using a mobile phone while driving - totally unnecessary,there was already the offence of "driving without due care and attention".

IANAL, but I can't agree.

When it comes to criminal offences, it is a long standing and well founded tradition that laws should be as specific as possible.

This is to avoid situations where the accuser uses some badly formulated law to harass individuals: "Uhm, like, yeah, er, we think this is rather, er, bad, and we'd like to lock this guy up".

The Jon Johansen DeCSS case is an excellent example: He was accused of breaking a law that specifically stated it is illegal to open other people's letters. The law wasn't specific enough in it's exact wording, and should never have gotten to court.

Another part of why this tradition is important is that people should know exactly what they can be drawn and quartered for.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[RSevrinsky]

Actually, I prefer to drive wrecklessly, but I try to avoid reckless behavior (or spelling, for that matter).

- Richie

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[FireFury03]

Perhaps the point of that law in the UK was to really get the point across that using a Cellphone and driving at the same time is unaccpetable.

Hasn't really worked though. And part of the problem is the huge amount of confusion surrounding the law - some media were reporting that any handsfree kit was legal, others were reporting that you had to get a professionally installed handsfree system in your car.

It is infact the case that all handsfree kits are legal under the new law, but they were seriously considering banning them too despite there being no evidence that a wired or bluetooth headset is any more dangerous than a proper car handsfree system (and why would it be?).

I'd also love to know why chatting on a cellphone is more dangerous than hanging onto a lit cigarette while driving (and then inevitably not paying attention while attempting to extinguish the burning ask that you just dropped in your lap). I've got no problem with banning hand-held cellphones while driving, but I'd also like to see bans on that sort of thing too.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[CmdrGravy]

Basketball, Baseball ? Does anyone outside the US play those games much ?

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Hognoxious]

no evidence that a wired or bluetooth headset is any more dangerous than a proper car handsfree system .

Wrong.
And wrong.

You're falling into the trap of assuming that driving is merely a physical activity. Good drivers also employ their brains.

(and why would it be?)

Learn something about cognitive psychology.

I'd also love to know why chatting on a cellphone is more dangerous than hanging onto a lit cigarette while driving

Because the human being has evolved to talk face to face. Take away the subtle cues of facial expression, body language and conversation requires a great deal more mental effort.

P.S. And listening to music is a passive, not an active task - much less taxing.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Scudsucker]

Dollars to doughnuts says that this is all about some over-eager DA grabbing some headlines to help increase his chances of getting (re)elected.

Like the DA in the Kobe case who made an announcement to the press that he would make an announcement to the press the next day, in prime time, on his decision on wether or not to press charges. The only reason not to have announced his decision then and there was so he could get more press. Which is something I'm sure the defense attorneys will use.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[AC5398]

Canada. And Cuba.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[FireFury03]

Wrong.
And wrong.

You're falling into the trap of assuming that driving is merely a physical activity. Good drivers also employ their brains.

Yes, there's plenty of evidence that talking on a handsfree kit is dangerous because you're not concentrating on the road. But I wasn't arguing that in the first place - reread what I said: "no evidence that a wired or bluetooth headset is any more dangerous than a proper car handsfree system" - i.e. yes, talking on handsfree may be dangerous, but using a bluetooth headset or wired headset is exactly as dangerous as using a professionally installed handsfree kit.

Why is using a headset any different to using a proper car-kit? In both cases you're concentrating on the phone conversation and in both cases your hands are free, so they both seem to be as safe (and as dangerous) as eachother. The concept of making one system legal and another system illegal when both systems have the same result (the only difference being the price) would seem rather stupid.

However, I think the UK law is too lax in one respect (the evidence shows that talking on your handsfree kit while driving is dangerous... although not as dangerous as holding onto a handheld phone), but too strict in another respect (if I'm going at 5mph in a traffic jam, is it really dangerous for me to pick up my phone and use it to tell someone I'm going to be late?)

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a fucking idiot.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

In attempting to prove that you can't be tried for the *same* crime twice, you list a set of *different* crimes.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Noticeably absent from your post is any wothwhile content.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never swerved into other lanes or otherwise found myself in a bad position while talking on a cell phone.

No, you've just never noticed that you did. A bit like the elderly drivers who've never been in an accident, but seem to see a lot of them.

Have a few beers, though, and I guarantee you I'd be unable to stay in my lane, maintain the speed limit, avoid other vehicles, etc.

Can't take your beer, what a surprise.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Hognoxious]

So, (as the above stated) I can drink a Coke, smoke a cigarette, eat a hamburger, all whilst trying to check my mirror, use the indicator, and change lanes, but I can't talk on the phone.

Beaver cleaver? More like Shiva, I count at least five arms there!

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Hognoxious]

IANAL, but I can't agree.

I'll give your opinions appropriate weight, then.

When it comes to criminal offences, it is a long standing and well founded tradition that laws should be as specific as possible.

Don't know where you live, but English common law is principle based. That's quite the opposite.

Under your system you could drown someone in beer and get off, either because drowning isn't specified as a method of murder, or because it defines it as "to hold a person submerged under water such that they cease breathing". So they amend it to read "water or beer", and then it's legal to drown someone in malmsey.

I don't think it's a coincidence that principle based systems (UK, US) go hand in hand with trial by jury, and 'cover every case' ones (France) don't. I'd rather trust "twelve good men and true" than one judge.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[frankie]

The crime is manslaughter

There's a second crime here that should also be prosecuted: installing a car TV display in a location that can be easily watched by the driver. It should be contributory negligence, or reckless endangerment, or accomplice to manslaughter, or something like that (IANAL).

Seriously, how stupid is that? It's like selling a children's pinata game that has a pattern-folded katana instead of a padded stick. You're just asking for trouble.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[CmdrGravy]

Do they play in the World Series as well ?

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[malsdavis]

"Hasn't really worked though"

I disagree, the law has been in place here in the UK for about 9 months or so now and wheras A year ago it was quite common-place to see drivers using mobiles and often (although not always ofcourse) I would notice a large decrease in the driver's ability to control the car (persuming they won't all just really bad drivers).

Also, you say smoking a cigarette is more dangerous, which it may or may not be, but I remember regularly seeing people doing both!

Also in the UK most people still buy stupid manual cars for some reason and then every 100 metres when they have to change gear, one hand needs to operate the gearstick, one hand is holding the phone... whats going on with the steering wheel?

Sure, there was a bit of confusion over what type of hands-free kits were legal but it was a bit silly really as we were all bombarded with informatry ads in the month or so leading up to the ban. All that really occured in my opinion was a bit of your usual media scare-mongering.

I think the ban has been a success as there are a lot less people swerving about wildly on the road due to them making a call and basic hands-free kits are very cheap (and are starting to be inbuilt in most new cars).

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[armb]

The UK also has an offense of "Causing death through careless driving when unfit through drink" because careless driving while drunk isn't usually bad enough to count as "Dangerous driving". (And "Causing death by dangerous driving" itself isn't bad enough to be manslaughter.)

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[malsdavis]

surely though the decrease in driving ability due to use of a hands-free kit would be pretty much the same as say talking to a passanger, which itself is meant to be less dangerous than driving even slightly tired, driving while under anxiousness or stress is meant to also be dangerous at times.

My point is that many factors contribute to decreasing driver ability, none however (apart from drink-driving, which is obviously also banned) are nearly as bad having to hold a phone to your ear while talking/listening to it.

You make a good point about traffic jams though, I guess however it would be hard to police, and slow-moving, packed-in jams are meant to be quite dangerous in terms of small bumps etc.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[FireFury03]

Also, you say smoking a cigarette is more dangerous, which it may or may not be

I don't think I suggested that smoking a cigarette is more dangerous - as far as I can see they're probably as dangerous as eachother - in both cases you have one of your hands full.

Also in the UK most people still buy stupid manual cars for some reason and then every 100 metres when they have to change gear, one hand needs to operate the gearstick, one hand is holding the phone... whats going on with the steering wheel?

I for one would never like to drive an automatic - maybe it's a control thing, I want to tell ym car what to do instead of it guessing for itself... but I dunno about you - I don't change gear every 100 metres while cruising down the motorway :) In any case, driving with no hands on the wheel is dangerous driving and should be treated as such nomatter what the reason.

we were all bombarded with informatry ads in the month or so leading up to the ban

I don't remember seeing any actual TV ads (maybe they only bothered to run them on terrestrial TV? I don't watch that coz it's full of crap). I do remember lots of conflicting "informational" news reports though.

Before you ask: I only use my phone while driving very infrequently, IMHO using it all the time and treating your car like a "mobile office" is a really stupid idea, and yes I have a bluetooth headset for the occasions I do use the phone. I can see very legitimate reasons for using a phone while you're driving though: "I'm stuck in traffic, I'm going to be late", "They've closed road XXX, don't come this way", "I'm completely lost can you give me directions please?", etc.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

That, or playing at the PS2 he had installed.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[FireFury03]

surely though the decrease in driving ability due to use of a hands-free kit would be pretty much the same as say talking to a passanger, which itself is meant to be less dangerous than driving even slightly tired, driving while under anxiousness or stress is meant to also be dangerous at times.

I've heard research that suggests using the phone is more dangerous because a passenger will see that there's a problem on the road and shut up whereas someone on the phone won't. Talking to a blind passenger or a chile (who won't be caring about what's going on on the road) is probably as dangerous as using a phone though.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[tomhudson]

notasheep wrote

From Findlaw:

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.

"Intent" is not a necessary ingredient for murder 2. The drivers actions could easily fall under #2 above. The prosecuter is using the correct charge.human life

Actually, intent is necessary for murder.

You know the old saying - always go to the source. Findlaw has it wrong. Here's the actual text of the law http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1111.html Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 51, Section 1111

(a)

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree. Any other murder is murder in the second degree.

The prosecutor in this case is going to have a hard time showing mens rea (the "criminal mind", the "malice aforethought" specifically towards the victim) that would qualify this as murder.

Now read the definition of manslaughter:

Sec. 1112. - Manslaughter (a) Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of two kinds: Voluntary - Upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. Involuntary - In the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or in the commission in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection, of a lawful act which might produce death.

As the story states, there was no law against watching a dvd, but such an action could result in someone's death. Involuntary manslaughter is the correct charge.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[tomhudson]

I've posted the relevant links to the US Criminal Code that sets out the law in another response.

It states that involuntary manslaughter is the correct charge when a death is the result of an act that, while lawful, results in the death of someone. Watching DVDs is lawful in the jurisdiction where the accident happened. The driver was committing no crime before the accident.

It makes the distinction between killing someone while you are committing another crime, and at other times.

Hope this explains things :-)

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[nharmon]

Not all of the states have felony murder statutes. My home state of Michigan does not.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[brainburger]

I don't think it was such a bad idea to ban talking on mobiles while driving with specific law.
What happens when people claim they were on the phone but still applying due care and attention to driving? - There was an ambiguity which has now been removed.
- The truth is many, many drivers had formed a habit for using phones while driving and it needed to be stamped-out.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

You must not drive very much.

I only have a 10 mile commute to work and I see countless morons every single day. I would speculate that a large majority of said morons are violating some law, such as reckless driving, etc. Do they get tickets? No. Not until they've proven that they're morons (typically by ramming some poor hapless soul) do they get tickets.

The police just don't have the manpower or time to write "moron tickets".

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[CrimsonAvenger]

and Italy, Japan, most of Latin America.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[CrimsonAvenger]

Canada does, because its teams are members of the AL/NL. The others don't, because they're not.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Altus]

canada would if the jays or the expoes could get to the world series.

come to think of it... with the expoes moving out of montreal, the only major leage team in canada will be the blue jays.... wow... its a shame that monreal couldnt produce enough revinue to run a team.

if we could just get better trans pasific jets then we MLB could expand into japan. I belive that this will eventualy happen.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[gcaseye6677]

Yes, this would be a very productive use of law enforcement. I'm sure some revenue minded city council has considered this, but all it would really do is distract cops from doing what they were hired to do, you know, protect society from real problems. And if there is a passenger, then the driver would apparently be able to use that as an excuse to be on the phone? No wait, we would have to ban absolutely all cell phone use from the vehicle because it would be too hard to tell who was using it. Cars would be getting pulled over because of some back seat passenger talking on the phone. But I'm not too worried about this, because too many people would oppose it for something like this to actually become law.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

Oh. That's nice.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you prefer to have sex with barnyard animals? Very probably, I imagine. Sicko..

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[radja]

also, I have control of my DVD player. I do not (unfortunately) have control of pretty women on the street.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[parksie]

Also in the UK most people still buy stupid manual cars for some reason and then every 100 metres when they have to change gear, one hand needs to operate the gearstick, one hand is holding the phone... whats going on with the steering wheel?

That's what your knees are for ;)

I don't know about anyone else, but for when I'm using the first 3 gears I'm either negotiating something complicated (narrow two-way road), or accellerating up through them. By the time I hit 45mph or so I'm in 4th gear, then up to 5th for cruising. If you need to use the gears, you don't have the mental capacity to even drive an automatic and use a phone (horrible generalisation, but there's some awful drivers round here so I wouldn't put it past them).

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[ipv6_128_lgwb]

You said

What really needs to happen is to have a minimum IQ for serving on juries.

What about the fact that the jury is suppose to be a jury of peers? Given that most people are idiots, having a minimum IQ would make the jury no longer peers of the defendant.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[the grace of R'hllor]

Technically correct, yet not very practical. It's a difference of deterrance vs. guilt-appointment after the fact.

In Holland, if someone's using a phone (in a non-handsfree manner) while driving, he now gets a minimum 136 euro ticket. Even if he was driving perfectly with the phone to his head. I know plenty of people who've made the switch to handsfree calling because of this.

Spelling these things out helps clarity. It also increases police revenue (always a good thing) and actually has a discernible effect.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

A point that biotechnology will make obselete within 50 years. In 20 years lesbians will start to bear each other's children- gay men will take a while longer (and realistically, most will use external incubation-tanks)

Without addressing all of your post, I can tell you that the future you are envisioning will never come to past.

There are hundreds of millions of people out there who would rather die than live in the monsterous world of your nightmarish dreams. See, you are not committed to your ideals, you merely find it fascinating and intriguing, the sheer possibility man can create monsters. There are those out there who have ideals people like you can never understand, they realize life is a battle, an eternal struggle to achieve a more beautiful world.

Yes, in the future the law will declare people like YOU have no rights and that the state is obligated to segregate you from the general population in order to preserve our genetic heritage.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

The question is what does "driving without due care and attention" mean in relation to using a cellphone? Is it any use of a cellphone, or not using a headset, or dialing, or texting?

It's the kind of charge that's too vague for a citation on its own, and is really only useful if you've already caused an accident. A law specifically banning cellphone use allows police to cite people for using the cellphone before they cause an accident, and there is much less chance of the charge being thrown out if its contested.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[CatLord42]

I've lived in Texas, Maryland and California, have been eligible and still never had a summons to serve. My wife, on the other hand, has been summoned two or three times in the last three years, although she's never been selected to actually be on a jury.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[The Grey Mouser]

Learn something about cognitive psychology.


Ah, you must have read a book about cognitive psychology once. Does cognitive psychology also explain why some people feel the need to be condescending, pretentious twats? That could be some fruitful research.


Because the human being has evolved to talk face to face. Take away the subtle cues of facial expression, body language and conversation requires a great deal more mental effort.


So, should there be a law against my speaking to people in the back seat? After all, if I look into the rear-view mirror to see them, I'm not paying attention to the road. If I *don't* look at them, obviously my brain simply isn't equipped to both imagine what kind of faces they're making at me, *and* drive the car. If one of them should accidentally make a joke, for example, my mind could easily become locked in a fatal rigor sardonicus: "was he trying to be funny? is he laughing at me? I don't know, god damn it, I CAN'T SEE HIS FACE!". And then I would probably drive into a concrete pylon or something.

Of course, I *have* chatted with folks in the back seat without my car exploding, so perhaps these cognitive psychologists are full of shite.

By the way, I disagree with your assertion that driving is not merely a physical activity. In my own experience, I find that eyes and reflexes comprise the bulk of my driving experience. This is especially true in urgent situations, where excessive use of higher brain functions would probably get me killed :-)

Cheers,

M.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[CatLord42]

As for the reason why the lawyers would remove the smarter people - well, it seems that the way that jury trials go now, there's more emphasis placed on emotion than logic. If the case tends to be weak, the attorneys need to add a bit of emotion to shock/enrage the jury.

I suppose that as a legal alien, you aren't considered a peer. This is not an insult, it's more a legal status.

If you go with the belief that criminals are basically stupid, or at least not smart enough to keep from getting caught, then perhaps the jury members with lower IQs really are their peers. I would hope that if such an unfortunate event were to occur to a member of the /. crowd, it would have been due to being framed and unjustly accused. Of course, finding a jury of our peers (not just based on citizenship, etc.), would be rather difficult!

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[hesiod]

> Would you prefer to have sex with barnyard animals

If he does, how does it affect you? Oh, that's right, you're an ass, and he might come after you.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[hesiod]

> The police just don't have the manpower or time to write "moron tickets".

Maybe not where you live, but don't gauge all police based on the ones you have seen. I've gotten a few absolutely idiotic tickets.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

People chatting on cell phones while driving are a real problem. They not only pose a risk to themselves, but to others around them. IF all you can do is wipe out yourself by an action, sure, keep it legal, but when you start taking out little billy sitting in the back seat of their parents car when you smack into them while talking to your wife about what flowers she wants you to bring her home so you get some tonight, then fuck ya, up against the wall with you, it's too crowded here anyway.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[darkmeridian]

The definitions of crimes change depending on the jurisdiction.

However, manslaughter generally is charged in instances where there is a homicide caused by negligence or recklessness. However, in this case, it is alleged that watching TV while barreling down the highway was so indifferent to the value of human life that it constituted "malice aforethought", a term of art that does not require actual planning or a foreseeable adverse result.

In fact, there are some "Russian Roulette" cases that have resulted in murder convictions on these same grounds. (A homicide by a person pulling the trigger four times at another is murder even if the shooter sincerely believed that the gun was unloaded.)

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Minna Kirai]

Amazing how many people manage to post on the internet but still haven't heard about Google.com. Here's one of the better hits for you, but you'll have to read a lot of PDFs from there. What it comes down to is that eating causes slightly more accidents each year than cellphone, but the percentage of drivers that eat is much higher than those who phone.

Actually, the FARs summary is a good one for comparing the danger of alcohol and cellphones, but I can't find a place to download it. Various newspapers have reported it's conclusions, though.

I've seen these studies, and I doubt they are unbiased studies by people in a neutral position on the issue.

Go ahead and point out the "bias" here.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[michael path]

The article needs to be corrected, unless President Clinton had an affair with the singer from Manfred Mann.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[SillySlashdotName]

By the way, I disagree with your assertion that driving is not merely a physical activity

OK, you have confused me.

Are you saying that driving IS merely a physical activity?

If so, then I have to disagree.

Having driven professionally in emergency response vehicles for more than 10 years in a college town, and having been trained in mandated driving classes and simulations, I have to vigorously disagree with any assertions that driving is 'merely a physical activity.' It does have many physical activities associated with it, but I saw many, many people at auto accidents that were young, athletic, amazing reflexes and physical ability, and dead because they did stupid things instead of just driving. (I also moonlighted as a coroners (meat wagon) driver, so I also picked up bodies at accidents that were bad enough that the ambulance was never called...)

Agreed, EXCESSIVE thinking is not good. You should think of what you would do and plan an avoidance route in advance - but that means you are thinking about your driving, thinking about road conditions, thinking about other drivers all the time.

On another note, I am sensing some hostility towards cognitive psychologists. I am not sure what that is, but will be googling for the term.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[wayward]

I agree with the point that careless driving is careless driving. The question is, where do you draw the line? What about people who eat while driving? It doesn't really make sense to try to anticipate and ban every possible distraction.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[rew]

If you drive, you concentrate on the road, and if you don't do that, you face the consequences when the inevitable happens.

The problem with that is that the authorities have to wait for the inevetable to happen. After passing a "no phoning while driving" law you can use fines to "teach" people that driving and phoning are not compatible.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[adavidw]

What the hell is a flaim war?

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[notasheep]

The last sentence in your definition from Cornell is interesting: "Any other murder is murder in the second degree." The findlaw definition is consistent with this one - and gives more detail as to what is meant by "any other murder."

I don't think the prosecutor will have a hard time showing the driver was engaged in dangerous conduct and that his actions show a lack of concern for human life.

I think the law supports of charge of either murder 2 or manslaughter.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[tomhudson]

... ff it fits the definition of murder,, which is Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. as opposed to manslaughter. This case doesn't fit, because there is no malice aforethought - eg: intent. No mens rea, no murder.

It's manslaughter.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[dabraun]

For felony murder intent follows the crime.

That is - you intended to hold up a liqour store with a gun - you killed someone in the process - even if you didn't intend to kill them you sure did intend to hold up the store and it's you're own damn fault that you killed someone in the process.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[Basehart]

"most of Latin America"

Which parts exactly?

Latin America is Soccer and F1. The only North American sports played in Latin America are those played by the CIA agents!

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[notasheep]

Here, I'll make it easy for you. The crime took place in Alaska, right? Here's the definition of Murder 2 from the Alaska criminal code - please pay attention to bullet #2 and note it does not depend on intent or malice. The only thing they need to prove is indifference to human life, which they can probably prove:

AS 11.41.110. Murder in the Second Degree.

(a) A person commits the crime of murder in the second degree if

(1) with intent to cause serious physical injury to another person or knowing that the conduct is substantially certain to cause death or serious physical injury to another person, the person causes the death of any person;

(2) the person knowingly engages in conduct that results in the death of another person under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life;

(3) under circumstances not amounting to murder in the first degree under AS 11.41.100 (a)(3), while acting either alone or with one or more persons, the person commits or attempts to commit arson in the first degree, kidnapping, sexual assault in the first degree, sexual assault in the second degree, sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree, sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree, burglary in the first degree, escape in the first or second degree, robbery in any degree, or misconduct involving a controlled substance under AS 11.71.010 (a), 11.71.020(a), 11.71.030(a)(1) or (2), or 11.71.040(a)(1) or (2) and, in the course of or in furtherance of that crime or in immediate flight from that crime, any person causes the death of a person other than one of the participants;

(4) acting with a criminal street gang, the person commits or attempts to commit a crime that is a felony and, in the course of or in furtherance of that crime or in immediate flight from that crime, any person causes the death of a person other than one of the participants; or

(5) the person with criminal negligence causes the death of a child under the age of 16, and the person has been previously convicted of a crime involving a child under the age of 16 that was

(A) a felony violation of AS 11.41;

(B) in violation of a law or ordinance in another jurisdiction with elements similar to a felony under AS 11.41; or

(C) an attempt, a solicitation, or a conspiracy to commit a crime listed in (A) or (B) of this paragraph.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[tomhudson]

the person knowingly engages in conduct that results in the death of another person under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life;

knowingly == intent, or foreknowledge.

Remove the word "knowingly" and you'd be right. But you're not. It changes the whole meaning of the statute, and brings it in line with sect. 1111.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[notasheep]

In this case intent does not equal "intent to kill" - which is the basis for murder 1. A person could be driving their car 100mph through a street fair without intending to injure someone and end up killing quite a few people. They had no intent to kill, but clearly they should know they were acting in a way that is likely to injure/kill and are acting with extreme indifference to human life.

That would make them a murder 2 candidate. Just like the DVD-driver.

Here is a link to another negligent driver being charged with murder 2:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/200 4/ 04/29/BAG256CGCQ1.DTL

Do a Google search on Murder 2 cases and cars and you'll see lots of arrests being made where the person didn't intend to kill someone, but acted in a negligent way and did.

Re:Keeping Up With Technology

[tomhudson]

Arrests are not the same as convictions.

Its common practice to "over-charge". Both sides expect it.

The story behind the story

[SIGALRM]

a driver in Alaska is being charged with second-degree murder

Astonishing. In my experience, you can drive for hours--even days--at a time in Alaska and not even see another human being. To cream one on the road is, well, amazing.

With a vehicle, it would seem more likely in Alaska you'd cross the median and strike an elk, grizzly, or something like that.

Re:The story behind the story

[CrazyGringo]

I initially thought that the headline referred to a software driver for watching DVDs.

Re:The story behind the story

[James Turpin]

Which may explain why he wanted to watch a DVD... er... I mean listen to music. The traffic wasn't sufficiently engaging.

Re:The story behind the story

[jpmkm]

Because, as we all know, there are absolutely no major cities in Alaska. Thanks for the insight.

Re:The story behind the story

[TheGavster]

That link actually suggests that there are MORE fatalities per mile traveled than the national average ...

Re:The story behind the story

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, as we all know, there are absolutely no major cities in Alaska

Oh yeah, there is that one, but I dunno if I'd call Anchorage major. You've obviously never been there, pal.

Re:The story behind the story

[Anonymous Coward]

Astonishing. In my experience, you can drive for hours--even days--at a time in Alaska and not even see another human being. To cream one on the road is, well, amazing.


Horse crap. The guy was driving along the Seward Highway which heads straight out from Anchorage. It's incredibly unsafe (no passing lane in most places) and generally clogged with Winnabego Warriors. At least that's the way it was when I was growing up there.

Re:The story behind the story

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but they all hit trees, DUI.

Re:The story behind the story

[dillon_rinker]

True, but if you look at state and national population figures, you'll find there are FEWER fatalities per capita.

The obvious conclusion is that Alaskans, on average, drive farther.

Re:The story behind the story

[lpangelrob2]

I'm not sure that link you provided said what you wanted it to say. In each of the data provided, the rate of fatal crashes per 100 million miles traveled was the same or greater than the U.S. average. Percentage of fatal crashes where alcohol was involved was also greater.

As for the population of Alaska... well, Anchorage clocks in at 260,283. Not bad, really, but I live in a metro area population of 7,000,000... so those figures cited above can be what is expected.

Re:The story behind the story

[pnatural]

At least that's the way it was when I was growing up there.

And it's pretty much the same road now. There are lots more passing areas between Anchorage and Girdwood, but summer time in Alaska means road construction, and for every passing lane, it seems like there's another construction spot. Slow down, wait, wait, wait.

My wife and I took turns two weeks ago driving from Anchorage to Sterling (on the same highway). The congestion is out of the norm for most Alaskans, and that increases tension, I think. Coupled with that the dumbasses in motor homes who don't obey the law (the one about pulling over if you're delaying 5 vehicles or more), and you get drivers that are in a big hurry.

Two damn near worthless quips. First, when I was driving down, we were on the flats just past Girdwood (say, about 60 miles out of Anchorage), and I had a perfect passing opportunity. I took it, and decided to take an extra car. What I didn't notice was the idiot in the oncoming lane, in a gray car, with out lit headlights. His car was damn near the same color as the road. Sheesh. Then, on the way back, the mrs. was driving, and she was going nuts -- passing folks and taking chances that I wouldn't have (and I'm a very aggressive driver). She actually said "I'd be freakin out if you were driving like this." :D

Back on topic, if the guy was watching a DVD on the Seward highway, he deserves prision.

Re:The story behind the story

[cybermancer]

That is what I thought too. Took me a second to figure it out.

Re:The story behind the story

[axjms]

I think you may be trolling here but I guess I will bite.

I actually live right off the Seward highway and was returning home from a fishing trip when this very accident occurred. I was stuck at a standstill with 10,000 of my closest friends for about 45 minutes.

During the summer this road is the main artery from Anchorage (pop. about 300k) and the Kenai Peninsula (where all the fun is). This narrow winding road is literally glutted with motorhomes, trucks towing large boats, and rental cars on weekends. Often it is moose that cause accidents on this road but more often it is people drifting over the center line. If this guy was watching a movie he deserves to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Re:The story behind the story

[Anonymous Coward]

So according to those traffic statistics (In 1999, a total of 101 drivers were involved in fatal crashes: 36 (36%) of these drivers had some level of blood alcohol ), Alaskan drivers are less likely to be in a fatal accident if they are drinking alcohol. I could really use a beer right now.

Re:The story behind the story

[Anonymous Coward]

The page you link to hardly supports your amazement.

First of all, it lists Alaska as having the same traffic fatality rate as the rest of the US.

Second, it says nothing about vehicle-vehicle accidents.

Re:The story behind the story

[Nept]

I actually live right off the Seward highway

lucky bastard ... that's the most beautiful place in the world (when it's not raining)

Re:The story behind the story

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps, like I did, he took the trip in the springtime, when it isn't very crowded (but it's still far from empty).

I took the trip a second time in the summer, but that was via the Alaska Railway (one of the most spectacular rail trips you can take, BTW). For most of the trip it doesn't follow the highway.

Re:The story behind the story

[MoOsEb0y]

me? cause accidents? never? :D

Re:The story behind the story

[Just Some Guy]

I was stuck at a standstill with 10,000 of my closest friends

There aren't that many people in Canada, let alone Alaska. Now we know you're lying.

Re:The story behind the story

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh?

Alaska: 626,932 (from 2000 Census)

Canada: 30,007,094 (from 2001 Census)

This is YRO how?

[JohnGrahamCumming]

YRO now extends to driving around while not watching the road? If this didn't involve a DVD player, but involved a driver distracted by the aadvark he'd let loose in the truck would it be YRO?

John.

Re:This is YRO how?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that depends. Are we talking about a digital aardvark?

Re:This is YRO how?

[MoonBuggy]

Well it is 'Your rights' although online doesn't really come into it. Don't you have the right to a fair trial? If so then why is this person being charged with murder despite the fact he clearly did not intend to cause death and it is therefore manslaughter.

Re:This is YRO how?

[j-turkey]

If this didn't involve a DVD player, but involved a driver distracted by the aadvark he'd let loose in the truck would it be YRO?

If he were distracted by an aardvark he'd let loose in the truck, he would not have been charged with manslaughter in the first place.

That's not to say, however, that his DVD-watching behavior wasn't negligent.

Re:This is YRO how?

[danheskett]

Read the law sometime. Unless you are familiar with the statues of Alaska, you are probably very wrong.

In most states, 2nd degree murder can also be qualified when you show "gross and flagrant disregard for human life". Manslaughter usually carries with it the tag of "negligent", "careless", etc.

What this man is accused of is showing an amazing indifference to others safety while operating a heavy fast machine. He acted with malice ("my DVD-watching enjoyment is more important than your right to avoid being killed in a car crash") towards his fellow citizens.

Re:This is YRO how?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Agreed, for it to be a Your Rights ONLINE he should have been surfing the web, not watching a DVD. But to some people, all digital is online, even when it's not on the internet.

Re:This is YRO how?

[Valar]

If what you say is the truth, then in theory, during his fair trial, the jury declares that he is not guilty of murder. They can charge you with whatever they want-- it is the fair trial that decides whether you actually committed the crime or not.

Re:This is YRO how?

[cybermancer]

I don't see how the premeditate installation of a DVD player is that different from the premeditated purchasing of fast food at a drive up window. Eating while driving is more dangerous then cell phones or DVD's. The officers originally thought his was reaching for a soda was the cause of the crash, and no one was so worried. What's next, specific laws against drinking soda while diving! The only reason we don't out law that is everyone does it, and they have forever.

Regardless of what distracted him, he was distracted. Soda, DVD player or Aardvark, it is all the same.

Re:This is YRO how?

[theLOUDroom]

YRO now extends to driving around while not watching the road?

No, the right that was violated he was the other person's right not to be killed by some idiot watching "road trip".
Road trip!!!!!!??????
Yeesh! I hope whoever kills me at least has some taste.

Re:This is YRO how?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought malice "meant intend to cause harm", not just disregarding the rights of others. I can pass around corners and still not *intend* to cause harm. But I should get jailed for the strongest reckless endangerment charge there is.

Hm. Seems that in law malice can include "wanton disregard for life". That's more of the lefal def. than the colloquial one, though. Seems to me like they ought to have picked a term that didn't already have a meaning.

Re:This is YRO how?

[EvanED]

The phrase "malice aforethought" has changed it's meaning in the courts over the last several centuries so that neither actual malice (nor actual aforethought...) is required. In fact, many states do away with this all together.

The American Law Institute's Model Penal Code, from which most states have borrowed extensively for their own crimes codes during the revisions of the 60s and 70s, defines murder as:

Section 210.2. Murder.

1. Except as provided in Section 210.3(1)(b) [mitigating the crime to manslaughter when committed "under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse"], criminal homicide constitutes murder when:
   1. it is committed purposely or knowingly; or
   2. it is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Such recklessness and indifference are presumed if the actor is engaged or is an accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit robbery, rape or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson, burglary, kidnapping or felonious escape.
2. Murder is a felony of the first degree [but a person convicted of murder may be sentenced to death, as provided in Section 210.6].

Recklessly is defined as:

Section 2.02. General Requirements of Culpability ...
(2)(c) Recklessly. A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation.

I don't think this could be considered murder at all. The indifference the murder statute speaks of is quite strict, and I don't think it's present in this case. I think even recklessness would be somewhat of a stretch. Neglegant homicide is probably the best (worst?) crime I think the MPC would definitely support.

Most states have vehicular manslaughter charges though that reduce the culpability requirements to negligance when you are operating a motor vehicle though, so assuming this state has such a crime it would certainly be supported.

Re:This is YRO how?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eating while driving is more dangerous then cell phones or DVD's.

Do you really think so? I eat while driving occasionally, but always such that I keep my eyes on the road, and at least one hand on the wheel. I only eat while stopped, or on long, straight sections. Music also isn't a problem, because it's ears only, and (at least in me), it uses a different part of the brain than driving.

Watching a movie implies that you're looking at something besides the road. That's bad. It's also a continual distraction for 90min, albeit one easy to ignore (if you're paying enough attention to the road to know when to ignore it.) A cell phone usually ties up one hand, and requires continual attention for the length of the call. Do you put the phone down when you go around a corner? How do you use turn signals and hold the wheel with only one hand? (not that anyone uses them anyway...) Even with hands-free, it's hard to ignore the person on the other end, so sometimes you're distracted when you should be paying attention.

I agree with you that the nature of the distraction is not that important. He was operating a vehicle poorly, and killed someone. Those are the important parts.

The only reason we don't out law that is everyone does it, and they have forever.

This accounts for so much of the law. Why are alcohol and tobacco legal, but pot isn't? Because alcohol and tobacco are so entrenched that they can't be removed, while pot was stopped while still somewhat "fringe". Personally, I'd do away with all of them, but that'll never happen.

Re:This is YRO how?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a burnt movie and the MPAA is after him now. We just forgot to mention that in the blurb.

Re:This is YRO how?

[danheskett]

don't see how the premeditate installation of a DVD player is that different from the premeditated purchasing of fast food at a drive up window.

Of course it's all the same. This has nothing specific to do with DVDs. The only difference is that watching a DVD is a continuous and intentionally distracting act, while, reaching for a soda can be reasonably be seen as a perfunctory action.

The issue in terms of law becomes: did he act with reckless disregard for human life. Regardless the distraction, that should be the test.

Re:This is YRO how?

[rock_climbing_guy]

Acutally, it's a double crime. Not only did he obvoiusly commit manslaughter, he committed the crime of being stupid, apparently.

Re:This is YRO how?

[Anonymous Coward]

YRO now extends to driving around while not watching the road?

It's "Your Rights, Online" :)

Re:This is YRO how?

[Fallen_Knight]

I disagree, watching a DVD is not much diffrent the eating or talking or anything else really. Sure it lasts for 90 min, but so what, maybe they just wanted to listen, music is short, but what about an audio book? its what was going on when the accident happened that counts and the cause of the accident.

And what right do you have to say what i can do with my body??

If i want to smoke pot/tobacco or consume alcohol i should beable to do so. its MY body and I can do what I want to it.

Sure regulate them, tax them, make operateing a car against the law, advertise and lie about the effects, even up health insurance costs for people who use them! Do all you want to discourage their use, but keep them legal. It doesn't hurt other people if i smoke pot. And if it does their are laws to cover that.

Re:This is YRO how?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're still reading this thread... (ruined my keyboard last night. Knocked me offline.)

I disagree, watching a DVD is not much diffrent the eating or talking or anything else really.

If you'd like to rebut any of my reasons, feel free to. Most importantly, watching a DVD means you're not watching the road. Vision is overwhelmingly important while driving. I can eat, talk, or listen to music while watching the road. I can't watch a movie and the road at the same time. (Note that I don't have a problem with music. Mr. Accused was watching an actual movie.)

And what right do you have to say what i can do with my body??

I don't care what you do with your body!! It's when you effect the rest of us that I care. Alcohol is a major contributing factor in a huge number of violent crimes and car accidents. By its very nature (as a disinhibitor) it is hard to control yourself when drinking.

Smoking isn't as bad. There's the whole secondhand smoke thing, which is where you hurt others when you want to just hurt yourself. There's also the awful smell everywhere, and the fact that smokers don't seem to understand that cigarette butts are LITTER! You can't walk down the street without wading through the things.

Pot is also a mind-altering substance, albeit with much safer alterations than alcohol. Still people have a hard enough time thinking clearly and fitting into society when sober. They tend to not show up at work, or just not work, when stoned.

And, yes, you can punish the actions, and not the cause. It's not wrong to drink, but it is wrong to run over pedestrians. Is it wrong to drive while drunk? You're not hurting anyone until you hit them. The saying goes: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." My saying I'd do away with lots of these recreational drugs goes along with that, not with wanting to tell you how to live.

Re:This is YRO how?

[tswann01]

1. his rights ON (and over) the double yellow LINE
2. he was watching a downloaded episode of SG-1 from a recently-busted "fan forum site"

I'm confused...

[telstar]

Was he arrested for killing somebody, or watching "Road Trip"?

Re:I'm confused...

[telstar]

... by the way, I'm going to hell ... and all of you with a smirk on your faces are coming with me.

Re:I'm confused...

[superpulpsicle]

He was arrested for DUBM (Driving under Bad Movies).

Re:I'm confused...

[Lacutis]

He obviously started watching Road Trip, and then when he realized what he was doing, he swerved into oncoming traffic.

Re:I'm confused...

[Anonymous Coward]

Man ... if I hadn't already posted to this thread, I'd mod you WAY up. Funniest post I've read in awhile.

Re:I'm confused...

[javiercero]

.....crickets........

Re:I'm confused...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, at least he was watching a movie with a title that sounds appropriate for driving. :)

Seriously. It's funny enough that this guy was watching a DVD while driving... But for the DVD to be called "Road Trip?" That makes me crack up.

Maybe he was looking for pointers...

Re:I'm confused...

[AvantLegion]

He obviously started watching Road Trip, and then when he realized what he was doing, he swerved into oncoming traffic.

The worst part is, he failed and survived - showing just how much the movie rotted his brain.

Make an Example Out of This Guy

[windside]

There's no one alive so desperate for entertainment that they need an in-dash DVD player. The US Department of Justice (or whoever's in charge of this - I'm not sure) needs to underscore the fact that your own personal gratification needs to get put on hold when you're in control of a vehicle that can quite easily take lives.

Re:Make an Example Out of This Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

both of my SUVs and I can tell you from experience it's not that hard to watch while driving

Yeah, it's everyone else's responsibility to get out of your way, you cock-compensating fucktard.

Re:Make an Example Out of This Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Common sense like turning the DVD player off?

Re:Make an Example Out of This Guy

[StillAnonymous]

While I agree that what he did was wrong, and he should face the consequences, I don't agree with "making an example" out of anyone when it comes to the law. Everyone should be treated fairly and equally, with no exceptions.

Re:Make an Example Out of This Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to the guy who got run over.

Seriously, turn it off, or get off the road.

Re:Make an Example Out of This Guy

[zakezuke]

There's no one alive so desperate for entertainment that they need an in-dash DVD player. The US Department of Justice (or whoever's in charge of this - I'm not sure) needs to underscore the fact that your own personal gratification needs to get put on hold when you're in control of a vehicle that can quite easily take lives.

I disagree. I've priced MP3 players for my car, and I've priced DVD players that support MP3. I have to say that the DVD players offer more bang for the buck except most offer on screen menus. Otherwise, the cost would about equal. In fact, if it wasn't for the need for a screen to operate the DVD player, i'd buy the DVD in a heart beat. After all, you can load up a DVD+/-r with a heck of alot more MP3s than CD-r, and i'd argue would be safer then having the urge to swap disks.

Otherwise, i'd agree that only a fool would even think of watching a movie while driving.

Re:Make an Example Out of This Guy

[webmaestro]

Well, the problem is a lot of GPS Navigation systems use DVD's to store the maps, so the manufacturers decided, 'well, lets let it play DVD movies while were at it.' I would think that most people would be intelligent enough to know that you don't watch a movie when your driving.

Re:Make an Example Out of This Guy

[RickHunter]

I think a better statement would be that an in-dash movie player is too distracting, and it'd be true. When most people watch a movie, they focus in on the screen and tune out everything else. When you're driving, this is very probably lethal - either for you or for whoever else happens to be around. Cars should be (and most are, or were) designed to eliminate unnecessary visual distractions within the vehicle. (Some, like the "Engine About to Explode!" light, are necessary visual distractions)

Re:Make an Example Out of This Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

I would think that most people would be intelligent enough to know...[something obvious]

You're new here on Earth, huh?

Re:Make an Example Out of This Guy

[letxa2000]

I agree. A few other idiots replied with smart-ass comments. But I doubt you are talking about driving down the road staring at the DVD screen. Of course not. You're driving I-10 in the middle of Texas or Arizona or I-15 in Utah and you're mostly watching out the window and listening to the DVD and glancing down from time to time at the DVD screen.

This is actually probably safer than concentrating exclusively on the road in many parts of the country where highway hypnosis is a very real and dangerous thing regardless of how well-rested you are.

Re:Make an Example Out of This Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

"I have an in-dash DVD system in both of my SUVs"

You are a complete jackass and I hope you run into a fucking clue while driving one day. Have a little common sense and turn your DVD player off you moron.

Re:Make an Example Out of This Guy

[sockonafish]

Yes, because the DVD player obviously INDUCEd this man to commit vehicular manslaughter (its NOT murder, dammit).

Like someone said earlier, we don't need laws about specific devices because negligent driving is already illegal. I should be able to have my laptop open in the front seat to play mp3s and act as a navigation system if I want to. If I start browsing Slashdot on the highway, then I'm being negligent, which is already illegal!

Re:Make an Example Out of This Guy

[iBran]

Or, buy an Alpine headunit ($199) with Ai-Net, a 40GB iPod ($399), and the Ai-Net - iPod cable ($99).

You'll fit "a heck of alot more MP3s" on that iPod than on a DVD, and you'll still be able to change songs/albums/playlists from the headunit's controls.

Or, find a headunit with a regular AUX-IN, get a 1/8" patch cable, and use your MP3 player of choice.

---

On second thought, WTF are you doing? This is Slashdot. Don't tell me you were considering spending $1000+ on an off-the-shelf in-dash DVD system... 6" LCD + MiniPC + Inverter, DUH!

Re:Make an Example Out of This Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope that when you run over some pedestrian you get sent to prison, and that your cellmate is a very "loving" 7' tall black man with a 24" penis.

Re:Make an Example Out of This Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh goodie, let's get the fucking federal government to take care of shit that the local governments are supposed to handle. Why is it that when it comes to dictating what people should be doing with their free time it automatically becomes jurisdiction for the feds? The federal level is bloated as it stands.

Re:Make an Example Out of This Guy

[EvanED]

I don't think making an example of someone definitely entails that it's unjust... I think that could as easily be seen as just saying that they should establish a precedent that behavior such as this is murder 2 (a crime more severe than one might think by just reading the statutes) and not a form of manslaugher or negligent homicide.

Re:Make an Example Out of This Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, some people have very poor prioritization skills. You know the type, they just can't figure out what the important thing to do right now is, and end up doing something low-priority (fiddling with the radio) instead of something high priority (watching the road). A DVD is a more distracting device than a radio. Less possibly than a cell phone, but cell phone conversations don't generally last 90min, and don't take the eyes off the road.

Now, I think that even the libertarians will agree that the gov't has some responsibility to protect the citizens from danger caused by other citizens acting foolishly. The question is, how far does it go? Do they need to act to prevent accidents because of distracted drivers, or is it okay to just clean up afterwards?

Re:Make an Example Out of This Guy

[rodgerd]

Wholehearted agreement; if you want to watch movies, fly, take the bus, or the train. If you want to drive, pay attention to what you're doing.

Re:Make an Example Out of This Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

AAAAAAAAAARGH!!!

Please stay off the road.

Re:Make an Example Out of This Guy

[LurkerXXX]

This is the new America. No one take personal responsibility for ANYTHING.

Re:Make an Example Out of This Guy

[sacrilicious]

There's no one alive so desperate for entertainment that they need an in-dash DVD player.

Exactly. Not while masturbation exists as an option.

Re:Make an Example Out of This Guy

[{8_8}]

The problem is not the in-dash DVD player, it's that the DRIVER was WATCHING A MOVIE while DRIVING. The passenger(s) can watch all they want because they don't have to watch the road. This sort of situation shouldn't require a special law making it illegal to have a dvd player in your dash. The general negligent driving/vehicular manslaughter statutes should take care of this without requiring legislative action.

As someone who's been both a driver and a passenger on long drives through the Midwest, I can say very strongly that an in-dash DVD player is very nice for the passengers. However, I wouldn't be dumb enough to watch a DVD while I was driving the car, especially at interstate speeds. If the driver actually was watching a DVD, he deserves whatever he gets.

Re:Make an Example Out of This Guy

[ikeleib]

Making an example out of somebody is an injustice. The guilty has a right to be judged and sentenced on the merits of their particular case. Making an example of somebody relates not to the accused but to the population at large. If more drastic sentances are needed, this is an issue for legislation, not prosecution.

Re:Make an Example Out of This Guy

[retinaburn]

Except in the case of .... oh.

Re:Make an Example Out of This Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

this is a great troll, i love the way he mentions he drives an SUV on top of coming across as an asshole

Re:Make an Example Out of This Guy

[Perky_Goth]

Microsoft?

Road Trip

[hypermike]

Was he arrested for murder or watching Road Trip?

He probably swerved at the large leopard underwear part!

Re:Road Trip

[rock_climbing_guy]

He probably swerved at the large leopard underwear part!

Actuaaly, I had imagined that he swerved when they got to the "milking the prostate" part.

So?

[penguinboy]

It doesn't matter if he was watching a DVD or picking his nose. If he killed someone, he killed someone.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

If he killed someone, he killed someone.

How clueless are you? It absolutely matters whether or not someone took reasonable precautions and behaved in a safe manner. If you took all steps reasonably possible to avoid killing someone but you accidentally killed someone anyways, do you believe you should be dealt with in the same manner as a first degree, pre-meditated murderer?

Accidents happen. But what I'm saying is it's not a particularly forgivable accident if he wasn't paying attention.

Re:So?

[Ranger96]

Yes, but "killing someone" "murder".

Was he negligent? Probably. Will he do time? Maybe, if he is found criminally negligent. Did he commit murder? I don't think so.

Will he face civil liability? Probably, as well as probably the manufacturer of the DVD player, the store where he bought it, and his friend (for not stopping him).

Re:So?

[Ranger96]

Meant to say "killing someone" <> "murder"

Re:So?

[germinatoras]

Nose-picking while driving doesn't really demonstrate total disregard for human life. Unless you're talking about some monsterous Olympic-grade nosepicking that I'm totally unaware of..

Re:So?

[gl4ss]

well only if there were no seperation in law between the ways of killing, then it would be so simple.

"causing death" he at least did(not sure of the english term, but something you would get slanted with if you just happened to cause someone to die, but not trying to do it, a simple accident you couldn't help) but was his neglience so great it could be considered manslaughter(killig done on a whim, because of sudden rage, self defence on a fight you picked or whatever) or possibly murder(planning on actually killing someone, buying a knife meant for killing and picking a fight with a stranger and sticking it into him)?
if he was really watching that dvd instead of the road he should at least get sentenced for manslaughter level penalties.. though i don't see any difference between watching dvd's and reading newspapers so it's not an exactly new issue for the judges either, he specifially arranged himself to be distracted from the road anyways(and it's not like you need a new law every time a new model handgun is introduced).

*(local interpretation of the words may be different depending on where you live)

DVD-Watching Driver Charged with Murder

[theguywhosaid]

doesnt that headline presume guilt? I think thats the only part of our rights online here

Re:DVD-Watching Driver Charged with Murder

[Anonymous Coward]

It says charged with murder, not convicted.

Re:DVD-Watching Driver Charged with Murder

[Anonymous Coward]

It says DVD-Watching driver, not just driver.

From TFA: Initial Alaska State Trooper reports said Petterson was at fault when he took his eyes off the road to reach for a soda. Stein, though, will try to prove that the DVD player was on, apparently playing the movie "Road Trip."

The DVD-watching part is the prosecution's entire case.

Re:DVD-Watching Driver Charged with Murder

[joke-boy]

No, he's right - I said "DVD-watching" instead of "alleged DVD-watching". My bad.

Re:DVD-Watching Driver Charged with Murder

[Roadkills-R-Us]

How does that headline presume guilt? All it does is summarize the facts. Reporting that someone was charged no more presumes guilt than it presumes he'll be sentenced.

Re:DVD-Watching Driver Charged with Murder

[EvanED]

Part of the dispute--that would in a large part determine his guilt--focuses on whether he was, in fact, a DVD-watching driver. He disputes this. It's a material element of the offense, and thus needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was watching.

Same deal with the Judge in the Kobe Bryant trial (and many others, BTW) ordering the witnesses and counsil to refer to the alleged victim by name, and not as "the victim", because most of Kobe's defense is that she consented and thus is not a victim.

Reaching

[SquierStrat]

I think they are reaching a bit with second degree murder. If he really was watching a DVD while driving though, I don't think vehicular manslaughter would be out of the question, as his carelessness with the vehicle would most likely have been the cause.

Re:Reaching

[Anonymous Coward]

"vehicular manslaughter" a nice way of saying you don't give a fuck about anyone else so long as you are happy, it's their fucking fault for stepping in the way of the vehicle. If I'm careless with a chainsaw is it chainsaw manslaughter? no, it is murder, you have a potentially lethal device that you should be paying all your attention to using properly.

Re:Reaching

[SquierStrat]

No, if you're careless with a chainsaw it is just plan manslaughter. If it was accidental, not pre meditated and due to you ngligence. Regardless of how you or I feel about what the person did, there is a thing care elements of the crime. You have to meet those to get a conviction and they'll be reaching really hard to get 2nd degree murder.

I full agree with paying attention and using it properly, but that doesn't change the fact that they are indeed reaching.

Lawer Speak

[riptide_dot]

IANAL, but this just sounds like the DA is pushing for a charge that he know won't necessarily stick so as to make the case more visible publically. More than likely, this will get plead out or will be dropped to the more (IMHO) appropriate charge of vehicular manslaughter.

From a random websearch for homicide:
Murder (1,2,3): Murder with EXPRESS or IMPLIED MALICE or intent to kill or do harm
Manslaughter(1,2): Manslaughter without express or implied malice or intent to kill or do harm

It seems to me that the driver falls into the manslaughter category, which includes vehicular manslaughter. If he were to be convicted of murder, it would mean that all drunk driving fatalaties could now be classified as murders as well.

Re:Lawer Speak

[matth]

As far as I'm concerened they should be! When you are drunk and you are behind a wheel that's no different then walking into my house and pulling a trigger.. you are JUST as irresponsible.

Re:Lawer Speak

[germinatoras]

Thinking the same thing. It's a little bit easier than what you found though - they have to prove he had a blatent disregard for human life in order to get the conviction. That's a bit easier to prove than implied malice. Either way, it'll be interesting to see how it goes. I agree that this is a bit of a publicity stunt - I guess the family or lawyer wants to make a public point. Not that I would blame him; I'd probably feel the same way given the sitaution.

Re:Lawer Speak

[sinnfeiner1916]

it's murder 2 if you recklessly create the situation that leads to someone's death, knowing their could be dire consiquences -- for instance, not taking your psycho drugs and then you're skitzed-out self committs a murder; telling your boyfriend your dad won't let you see him anymore, and your boyfriend kills your dad; watching a DVD on those windy mountain roads instead of watching out for elk, or other cars. I've driven in Alaska -- the whole Al-Can highway, and the 'top of the world' and the bottom loop through civilization. It's not the kind of place drivers should be watching movies. if he hadn't been watching movies, maybe man 2. i'd say murder 2. of course, i havn't even taken my LSATS yet -- i just watch law & order a lot.

Re:Lawer Speak

[KefabiMe]

It seems to me that the driver falls into the manslaughter category, which includes vehicular manslaughter. If he were to be convicted of murder, it would mean that all drunk driving fatalaties could now be classified as murders as well.

I am not a lawyer, but I do know this:

Killing someone while driving drunk will get you charged with MURDER in some states, not vehicular manslaughter.

It's not the Webster definition of murder, but I'm sure people who are facing murder charges care a *lot* more about what the courts think, rather than what Webster thinks...

Re:Lawer Speak

[dillon_rinker]

You are missing the very subtle distinction between EXPRESS and IMPLIED malice. Expressing a desire to kill someone would be express malice. Exhibiting a reckless disregard for human life would be implied malice. See the discussion here.

I think driving while watching a DVD could be a classic example of a reckless disregard for human life. The driver knew he was manuevering a ton of steel at high speed in a place where human beings were expected to be. I doubt that the DA had a choice in what charge to file, given both the letter and the spirit of the law.

Re:Lawer Speak

[Valar]

Under the statues of many states, if there is gross negligence or significant disregard for human life (usually meaning the act could reasonibly be expected to kill someone), then it is murder. If slight carelessness combines with bad luck, in order words, that's manslaughter. Doing something that your average adult with functioning common sense could tell is dangerous to others and then killing someone falls under murder. IMHO, it is realistic expectation that driving down the road while watching a DVD will lead to harm.

Re:Lawer Speak

[j-turkey]

As far as I'm concerened they should be! When you are drunk and you are behind a wheel that's no different then walking into my house and pulling a trigger.. you are JUST as irresponsible.

That's just wrong...and not very smart reasoning either. Did you think about what you were saying before posting? Read that logically -- is it really just as irresponsible as walking into your house and firing a gun? You're just plain wrong. There is a difference, and DUI/DWI is not malicous murder. It sounds to me like you're arguing for stronger DUI/DWI laws for malicous and emotion-driven reasons. Which is actually pretty selfish on your part. Our DUI/DWI laws are already pretty outragous. If you're intersted, I'll post a position paper from the NMA that I (mostly) agree with.

Re:Lawer Speak

[blackest_k]

Is the difference between murder and manslaughter basically stupidity?

he is guilty of man slaughter and that should carry a heavy penalty just short of the death penalty seems reasonable in this case. but shouldnt more road deaths be treated as harshly. Killing people through stupidity should get severely penalised whatever it is.
In the uk a man was sentenced to 5 years after killing 11 people when he fell asleep at the wheel. Is that enough?

vehicular manslaughter isn't treated seriously enough, perhaps it is time it should be.

and no i don't see a need to ban in car dvd's. driving without due care and attention should cover minor infractions, without giving up keeping the kids amused for 200 mile's instead of fighting on the back seat.

Re:Lawer Speak

[barks]

If he were to be convicted of murder, it would mean that all drunk driving fatalaties could now be classified as murders as well.

Great...now at road checks I'm gonna have the cops sticking their head in to smell my breath and to check what kind of gear I have installed in my vechicle.

"what...is that a surround sound system sir?!...GET OUT OF THE CAR NOW WITH YOUR HANDS UP!!!"

Re:Lawer Speak

[aardvarkjoe]

Main Entry: malice
Pronunciation: 'ma-l&s
Function: noun
1 a : the intention or desire to cause harm (as death, bodily injury, or property damage) to another through an unlawful or wrongful act without justification or excuse b : wanton disregard for the rights of others or for the value of human life c : an improper or evil motive or purpose

Sounds to me like killing someone by driving while drunk qualifies.

Re:Lawer Speak

[JRaven]

Murder II also includes what is known as "depraved indifference to human life" -- that is, the death of another person through "conduct which, beyond being reckless, is so wanton, so deficient in moral sense and concern, so devoid of regard for the life or lives of others, as to equal in blameworthiness intentional conduct which produces the same result" (quote courtesy of the NY Criminal Jury instructions).

In other words, maybe you didn't plan to kill anyone, but acting the way you did in spite of the fact that any reasonable person would have known it was extremely likely someone could die can be as good as intent.

jr

Re:Lawer Speak

[Jason Smith]

"If he were to be convicted of murder, it would mean that all drunk driving fatalaties could now be classified as murders as well."

And about high fricking time, too.

If you voluntarily imbibe, then voluntarily get behind the wheel, and voluntarily put other people at extreme risk due to your apparent 'right' to get to the next bar, and you kill someone... you're a murderer, pure and simple. It's no different in my mind than loading a gun and firing into a crowd. Sure, you might not hit someone, and gee, you didn't really *mean* to, you were just putting everyone at a *random* risk, right?

Fry the bastards.

Re:Lawer Speak

[j-turkey]

Sounds to me like killing someone by driving while drunk qualifies.

I've gotta disagree again -- especially given the current legal definition of intoxicated (.08 BAC). Now, I don't drive drunk (and rarely drink otherwise) -- and I certainly don't condone it. This is not a case of me definding my behavior. However, I don't see it as a wanton distrgard for the rights of others of for the value of human life. This issue is simply not that clear. No amount of MADD propaganda and number massaging is ever going to change that.

You can call it whatever you want, but the murder argument is starting to sound as specious as the argument that doctors who perform abortions are murders and should be charged accordingly or otherwise dealt with using terrorist methodologies. It sounds to me that this train of thought is about revenge, and revenge is just stupid.

Re:Lawer Speak

[aardvarkjoe]

This is not a case of me definding my behavior.

No, in that case, you're defending someone else's wanton disregard for the rights of others or for the value of human life. Which is still disgusting. The law says it's murder; the dictionary agrees that it's malicious. Revenge has nothing to do with it. Nobody who displays such a profound disregard for other people should be permitted to be part of society.

Re:Lawer Speak

[Bob Uhl]

Are you an idiot? There's a world of difference between meaning to kill and being indifferent to the possibility of killing. Even a second-grader can understand that. Certainly, the latter can often be legitimately illegal (I support reasonable drunk-driving laws), but by no means are the two instances even remotely similar.

Re:Lawer Speak

[j-turkey]

No, in that case, you're defending someone else's wanton disregard for the rights of others or for the value of human life. Which is still disgusting. The law says it's murder; the dictionary agrees that it's malicious. Revenge has nothing to do with it. Nobody who displays such a profound disregard for other people should be permitted to be part of society.

Oh please -- that's a totally vengeful attitude. You're also sounding pretty elitist. I hope it takes you far.

Re:Lawer Speak

[aardvarkjoe]

Maybe you could explain how that's vengeful, when it seems like common sense to the rest of us. Or maybe you could just stop trolling.

Re:Lawer Speak

[j-turkey]

Maybe you could explain how that's vengeful, when it seems like common sense to the rest of us. Or maybe you could just stop trolling.

The rest of us? It's just you and me, man. Anyway, have you ever seen the inside of a prison? I generally wish that upon very few individuals -- and only for the most heinous of actions. The fact is that your logic is based on emotion and subjective thinking more than logical and objective discussion. When these types of attitudes are based purely upon emotion, we generally see a vengeful, punitive attitude. In your case, it is no different. When you talk about removing someone from our society (prison, not exile) for what amounts to no more than really bad judgement (not malice)...it's vengeful.

FWIW, I looked into the Webster's definition of malice...it was the first place I looked. I didn't get your definition...how long did you search for that? I also checked google. I'm not saying that you made it up -- I'm sure it's out there. However, did you have to dig for that? Were you perhaps trolling there?

If this were such a common sense attitude, why is trying drunk drivers for murder such a new thing? Did we just wake up and smell the common sense 14 years ago? Were we not enlightened enough 14 years ago? Or, were organizations like MADD just really successful in their propaganda camapigns? Ever wonder what they mean by alcohol related traffic fatalities? They massage the crap out of their numbers to present the data in an alarming way.

Look, DUI/DWI is a problem. I'm not going to deny that. However, our overall legislative response to it has not been reasonable or rational. Our rights have been trampled so people like you can feel better. Your posts about it have shown that you are not willing to have an objective discussion about it. It's cut-and-dry for you, and is clearly an emotion-driven issue.

So...uhh, who's the troll now, troll?

Well....

[222]

At first glance i thought second degree homocide was a little stiff (I would have leaned towards involuntary manslaughter with a more harsh than usual sentencing) but then it hit me...
This asshat was watching a DVD WHILE DRIVING. WTF. Its bad enough dodging people that cant wait to use their cellphone, but even then the eyes are generally focused on the road (Not that it seems to help...). I can only hope that the major news networks pick up this story so people realize how much a careless choice can cost them.

Re:Well....

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of asshat, I assume you didn't read the article and jumped right in. The driver was in ALASKA on a stretch of road. I won't defend the guy, he did infact kill someone, but its not like he was in downtown Seattle. I've driven through alaska, and I can tell you, the DVD might have been the only thing keeping him AWAKE, so instead of a Vehicular Manslaughter due to falling asleep at the wheel, it sounds like a trade off.

I have a DVD player in my car, and I've had a close call, when it comes to the DVD player, unless the passenger is watching it, that thing is off and my eyes are glued to the road.

Re:Well....

[222]

Im not sure what to make of your post, but can i also assume that you would find partial justification for me to fire a gun wildly in the woods, as long as I believed i was in a remote location, or to throw bricks off of an overpass as long as i didnt see any vehicles approaching?
Dangerous behaviors dont cease to be stupid, regardless of how unlikely they are to harm someone else.

Re:Well....

[glitch23]

At first glance i thought second degree homocide was a little stiff (I would have leaned towards involuntary manslaughter with a more harsh than usual sentencing) but..

2nd degree homicide is a little stiff considering he had no intent to kill. Manslaughter fits the bill here as far as what the law states.The only thing to change it to homicide is if he expressly stated he wanted to watch the dvd while driving in the hopes he would kill someone.

Prison sucks.

[Elwood P Dowd]

There aren't many people that I think we should send to prison.

Never let this guy drive again. Sending him to jail isn't helping anyone, though.

Re:Prison sucks.

[winkydink]

Yeah, that works so well for drunk drivers. There's two perfectly innocent people who are no longer here as a result of this DVD-watching guy's actions. The punishment should fit the crime.

Re:Prison sucks.

[theLOUDroom]

Yeah, that works so well for drunk drivers. There's two perfectly innocent people who are no longer here as a result of this DVD-watching guy's actions. The punishment should fit the crime.

What they should do with drunk drivers is take away their regular liscense and give them a motorcycle-only liscense.

Either they'll quit driving drunk in a hurry, or they'll fix the problem themselves while causing MUCH less damage to their surroundings.

Re:Prison sucks.

[reallocate]

It's supposed to.

Re:Prison sucks.

[nihilistic angst]

So does being killed by some asshole.

Re:Prison sucks.

[enjo13]

I ask you.. how the hell are you going to prevent him from driving? Prison at least lets us keep an eye on him without employing someone to follow him around every day.

If you have such little regard for human life that you watch DVD's while you drive.. then you deserve to spend time in jail where we can be sure you aren't out driving at all. It's that simple.

(Note: I have no idea if this guy was ACTUALLY watching a DVD while driving.. thus the IF)

Re:Prison sucks.

[j-turkey]

Yeah, that works so well for drunk drivers. There's two perfectly innocent people who are no longer here as a result of this DVD-watching guy's actions. The punishment should fit the crime.

How do you know that he was watching a DVD? Did you read the article? Do you know what their proof was? Here's a quote if you didn't read up:

"We know it was," she said. "It was wired so that the screen was in the open position when the ignition key was turned out."

So I'll sum it up. The video screen was open while the car was turned off (and there was a video disc in the player). That's all of their evidence...for a murder case. I sure hope (for all of our sake) that the DA has to produce better evidence than that to destroy a third life.

Re:Prison sucks.

[Elwood P Dowd]

Paying someone to follow him around all day would be much cheaper than sending him to prison.

Fortunately we already pay people to follow drivers around all day. They are called Highway Patrol.

Re:Prison sucks.

[Elwood P Dowd]

As I said in my previous post, there are very few people that I would actually send to prison.

This guy's crime, likelyhood of recidivism, and degree of guilt are not high enough for me to want him in jail rather than on the sidewalk.

I don't understand why you say "Yeah, that works so well for drunk drivers." We do not do that to drunk drivers. Drunk drivers pay a lot of money and get back on the road. Drunk drivers are a revenue stream for local government.

Re:Prison sucks.

[EvanED]

I think this guy bears a very high degree of guilt. He was behaving at least very recklessly. Enough to support a murder charge, I don't know. Would have to actually see the trial. But it's close.

But also, prison serves as a deterrant. If someone else sees this guy get 30 years, maybe they will think twice about watching a movie while driving.

I would say parole the guy in maybe 5-10 years though. That won't get as much publicity, and would not decrease the deterrant significantly.

If he drives recklessly again though, throw the book at him...

Re:Prison sucks.

[sg3000]

> How do you know that he was watching a DVD? Did you read
> the article? Do you know what their proof was?

Before you chastise the parent poster further, it sounds like the he may have been watching a DVD. The passenger admitted to his wife as much:

> Within hours, Douglas called his ex-wife and told her he was
> not sure how the collision occurred because he was "spacing
> out on a movie they were watching," according to prosecutors.

Even if a DVD were playing on the dash, and the driver wasn't intentionally watching it, it's very likely the driver's eyes were drawn to the video. Our eyes are very sensitive to movement (particularly with our peripheral vision), and flickering video images draw our eyes' attention almost constantly. And if he took his eyes off the road for a few seconds, he could have gotten in an accident.

Re:Prison sucks.

[Elwood P Dowd]

I think this guy bears a very high degree of guilt. He was behaving at least very recklessly. Enough to support a murder charge, I don't know. Would have to actually see the trial. But it's close.

By degree of guilt, I meant that I am not sure he committed the crime he is being accused of. You are assuming that he is guilty of the crime he is accused of. Don't.

I would say parole the guy in maybe 5-10 years though.

Sending someone to prison for 5 years for a crime with no intent would be unbelievably cruel, and also unbelievably wasteful of tax dollars. If you feel that this crime constitutes criminal negligence, then I would expect a higher burden of proof than has been exhibited in this case.

Re:Prison sucks.

[Chalex]

Prison has some advantages over everyday life. Who are some of the only people in the USA to be guaranteed health care? That's right, prisoners. Veterans, too.

Would you want your tax money spent on baby-sitting this guy for the rest of his life? I agree, don't put him in jail. Give him an apartment in South Central or something.

Re:Prison sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who are some of the only people in the USA to be guaranteed health care? [...] Veterans

Not if George Bush has anything to say about it...

Re:Prison sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that if you ride a motorcycle drunk, the person you're most likely to kill is yourself. If only all idiotic acts were like this.

Re:Prison sucks.

[cyberformer]

Veterans have no guarantee of health care. There are many homeless, sick vets sleeping on the streets of American cities.

This guy allegdely killed two people. If found guilty of murder (or more likely manslaughter, as the murder charge is probably just a tactic by the DA), he's a lot more deserving of prison than most of the people there. About half the people in U.S. prisons wer econvicted of cultivating or selling a naturally occurring and mostly harmless plant.

Re:Prison sucks.

[EvanED]

By degree of guilt, I meant that I am not sure he committed the crime he is being accused of. You are assuming that he is guilty of the crime he is accused of. Don't.

Please don't think that I'm jumping to the conclusion that he's guilty, as much as it appears so from my question. If I were put on the jury, I think I would give him a fair trial (though as I'll say in a sec, I'm not sure that I would be able to).

I've done a lot of legal reading lately, and am thus sorta used to what I hear are law school style hypotheticals where the professor says "this, this, and this happened; what, if anything, is the defendant guilty of?" and where the "this, this, and this" are undisputed as the events are described from a God-like, all-knowing point of view.

Also, I think the question "If someone is watching a movie as they are driving and they kill someone, is that recklessness of the degree required to support a murder conviction?" is a much more interesting question than "Do the facts in the Erwin Petterson case support that he was watching a movie?", and thus I was implicitly talking about the former question rather than the latter. I should have said "If he was watching a movie, I think this guy bears a very high degree of guilt..."

(It's this reason that makes me slightly wary about if I could give a fair trial, but I think in the context of a trial it wouldn't affect me. But maybe that's wishful thinking. I don't know.)

Sending someone to prison for 5 years for a crime with no intent would be unbelievably cruel, and also unbelievably wasteful of tax dollars. If you feel that this crime constitutes criminal negligence, then I would expect a higher burden of proof than has been exhibited in this case.

Drunk drivers routinely get sentenced to 5 years here in PA, and there's no intent there. The Model Penal Code authorizes sentences of up to 10 years for manslaughter (reckless killing of another--note the lack of intent), so I think my 5-10 years is about right. A bit on the upper end of the scale, but about right nonetheless. (The MPC doesn't have a special vehicular homicide charge, but if it did, it would likely be a second degree felony like manslaughter.)

Re:Prison sucks.

[j-turkey]

Even if a DVD were playing on the dash, and the driver wasn't intentionally watching it, it's very likely the driver's eyes were drawn to the video. Our eyes are very sensitive to movement (particularly with our peripheral vision), and flickering video images draw our eyes' attention almost constantly. And if he took his eyes off the road for a few seconds, he could have gotten in an accident.

So...should the charge be the same if a passenger was using a laptop computer in the front seat? I certainly wouldn't consider that negligent. The point is that the facts aren't in yet, and alot of folks are assuming the worst. If this guy was watching a DVD while driving, sure -- he's an asshole...but the facts certainly aren't in, and the ones that we are presented with are all very disputable.

If you were trying to make a judgement based solely on what was presented in the CNN article, I'd hope that you would find the evidence inconclusive. We're talking about another person's life here. Why be so quick to judge? Is revenge really the answer here? What does it do for anyone?

Re:Prison sucks.

[drinkypoo]

The problem with this is the same as the problem with terminating the helmet law. When someone kills themselves on a motorcycle (or any other way) it tends to cost the taxpayer a lot of money. It frequently results in lawsuits, the coroner gets involved, the mangled body often takes a trip to the hospital that someone has to pay for, et cetera. This is why, as much as I hate the fact that I find it necessary, I support helmet laws, and why I wouldn't support giving drunks motorcycle licenses.

If you could find a way to shift this burden away from the taxpayer, then I'd be 100% behind this concept.

Re:Prison sucks.

[Elwood P Dowd]

Please don't think that I'm jumping to the conclusion that he's guilty, as much as it appears so from my question.

Got it.

Drunk drivers routinely get sentenced to 5 years here in PA, and there's no intent there. The Model Penal Code authorizes sentences of up to 10 years for manslaughter (reckless killing of another--note the lack of intent), so I think my 5-10 years is about right.

Your 5-10 years may be perfectly in line with sentences for similar crimes in our justice system. I still think that it's unbelievably cruel and wasteful of tax dollars. I don't feel that anyone deserves to go to our prisons, so I'd prefer to only send people there when it is absolutely unavoidable. I'm just plain anti-prison. I realize my position might not be very popular.

Re:Prison sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Read farther turkey (and moderators). The article also says:

Within hours, Douglas called his ex-wife and told her he was not sure how the collision occurred because he was "spacing out on a movie they were watching," according to prosecutors. The woman is scheduled to testify.

Re:Prison sucks.

[sg3000]

> If you were trying to make a judgement based solely on what
> was presented in the CNN article

Hopefully, we'll never get to the point where a newspaper article is enough to convict someone of a crime.

My point was that you originally questioned if there was any reason to believe the driver was watching a DVD, and it sounds like the passenger admitted to watching a DVD on the dashboard player. This contrasts with the driver claiming he was listening to music.

Re:Prison sucks.

[geminidomino]

About half the people in U.S. prisons wer econvicted of...

Had a bit too much of that "mostly harmless plant" yourself, I see.

He Failed...

[akeyes]

He failed at multitasking.

Re:He Failed...

[Anonymous Coward]

the first five logged in users to post their email addresses (obfusciated of course) will get gmail invites from me

Re:He Failed...

[akeyes]

I belive that you are a bit off topic to reply to my sig, But anyways, my email is above.

Re:He Failed...

[Anonymous Coward]

akeyes@comcast.net ?

This Troll brought to you by:
Anti-Slash

Re:He Failed...

[theguywhosaid]

wow@math.net or wow(at)math(dot)net or whatever.

YRO?

[randyest]

Your Rights Online: DVD-Watching Driver Charged with Murder

Rights online? What, was the idot browsing the web on a wifi connection also? Watching a DVD and driving a car wasn't enough stimulus, so he needed to, er, post on slashdot? IMDB forums? download porn at the same time?

Whatever. Even just watching the DVD justifies the charge, IMHO.

Re:YRO?

[Frogbert]

Hey! I'm using my WI-FI connection whilst driving to type this comment, you insensitive clo

<CONNECTION LOST>

Re:YRO?

[TimboJones]

Rights online? What, was the idot browsing the web on a wifi connection also?

Note that Slashdot has no "Your Rights Offline" category.

Also note that you and I are online while reading and writing these comments.

Re:YRO?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the right being violated here was the right of the other driver to live!

Re:YRO?

[Anonymous Coward]

imo this is never a /. story. There is a week link here of the in car DVD player being interesting technology, which in reality it isn't. Don't think that michael should be posting rubbish stories like this.

Re:YRO?

[Shadowlore]

Whatever. Even just watching the DVD justifies the charge, IMHO.

Then so does:
* eating food while driving
* smoking while driving
* drinking anyything (even milk or water) while driving
* DUI (drugs/alcohol)
* Driving while tired
* Driving while angry ("Don't drive angry")
* Driving under any emotional duress
* Getting a BJ while driving
* Fiddling with the CD, mp3 player, iPod, radio, etc. while driving
* driving while sick

Every single one of those can be dropped in place of (allegedly) watching a DVD. Now do you think tha tteh charge is appropriate? If so, you'd better not do any of the above. I can practically guarantee you do.

Indeed, from the article:
Liz Neblett, spokeswoman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said more than 25 percent of police-reported crashes are distraction related, which covers everything from cell phone use to changing channels on a radio, screaming at kids, eating, applying makeup or reading a newspaper.

I'd add "talking on the police radio" or "looking up someones licesne plate number on the computer", or fiddling with the radar. But we won't talk about that, will we?

See what happens when you let your emotions get in the way. You wind up with over-reaching charges. Murder is intentional killing, manslaughter is negligent killing.

Note:
Initial Alaska State Trooper reports said Petterson was at fault when he took his eyes off the road to reach for a soda.

Then they saw a DVD player and they changed their tune. Not unlike the satellite guy who agreed that something was wrong with my dish setup UNTIL he spotted the computer then blamed it all on the computer.

If you beleive that killing someone in an accident in which someone was negligent (distracted by something they were doing), then you must lobby for the ELIMINATION of manslaughter, because then all of them become murder. But you won't. You're acting on emotion, not logic and reason.

"But he intentionally did something knowing it'd distract him". Who doesn't know that talking to the person next to you is distracting (arguably more so than talking to them on the cell phone!)?

Who doesn't know that fiddling with the radio, sneezing, driving mad, can have distrcting and negative impacts on your driving ability and that those actions could lead to accidents which can lead to death?

Re:YRO?

[randyest]

"Whatever. Even just watching the DVD justifies the charge, IMHO. "

Then so does:
* eating food while driving - no, can be done without looking
* smoking while driving - no, can be done without looking
* drinking anyything (even milk or water) while driving - no, can be done without looking
* DUI (drugs/alcohol) - agreed, but unless impairment is measureable (and actually measured), establishing causality is hard
* Driving while tired - agreed, though hard to establish limits on levels of tiredness, and hard to measure
* Driving while angry ("Don't drive angry - agreed, though hard to establish limits on levels of anger, and hard to measure
* Driving under any emotional duress - agreed, though hard to establish limits on levels of duress, and hard to measure

* Getting a BJ while driving - agreed, though not always apparent that such a thing was taking place at the time of an accident
* Fiddling with the CD, mp3 player, iPod, radio, etc. while driving - agreed, though not always apparent that such a thing was taking place at the time of an accident
* driving while sick - agreed, though it's difficult to measure impariment from illness


Every single one of those can be dropped in place of (allegedly) watching a DVD.

Given my comments above, that's a non-sequitir.

Now do you think tha tteh charge is appropriate?

Yes.

If so, you'd better not do any of the above. I can practically guarantee you do.

I think what you mean (or should mean) is "you'd better not do any of the above, kill someone, and leave any evidence or admission that you were doing such things while you killed someone."

Indeed, from the article: Liz Neblett, spokeswoman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said more than 25 percent of police-reported crashes are distraction related, which covers everything from cell phone use to changing channels on a radio, screaming at kids, eating, applying makeup or reading a newspaper.

OK. So? IMHO, anytime anyone does any of that and kills someone as a result, they should be charged with murder. Of course, this assumes some evidence exists (such as a confession, like the one alleged in this case.)

I'd add "talking on the police radio" or "looking up someones licesne plate number on the computer", or fiddling with the radar. But we won't talk about that, will we?

Sure, let's talk about that -- why not? Have you any stats on cases where police officers have killed someone while using a police radio or computer? I'd love to hear about such cases, especially where the officer admits or leaves some evidence of the cause of the fatal accident.

See what happens when you let your emotions get in the way.

(1) My emotions are firmly in check and (2) nothing happened. I stand by my original assertion. A murder charge is warranted.

You wind up with over-reaching charges.

Such is your opinion.

Murder is intentional killing, manslaughter is negligent killing.

There's a bit of a gray area in the middle there, when (1) you do something you know is dangerous and likely to result in serious injury or death, (2) there's no sensible reason to take the risk (such as speeding while fleeing for your life), and (3) you admit or it can be proven that your dangerous act directly resulted in the death of another.

Note: Initial Alaska State Trooper reports said Petterson was at fault when he took his eyes off the road to reach for a soda.

Then they saw a DVD player and they changed their tune. Not unlike the

How dumb can

[Isbiten]

You get if you watch a DVD while driving. Ah what the heck I got cruise control! The car will know where to take me! Let me pop some popcorn with my battery powered microwave owen.

I Can't Blame the Guy

[geomon]

Have you seen the roads in Alaska? There is NOTHING to look at for hundreds of miles.

Just like driving through Eastern Montana. If he didn't wreck due to watching a DVD, he would have fell asleep at the wheel due to terminal boredom.

Re:I Can't Blame the Guy

[needacoolnickname]

Have you seen the roads in Alaska? There is NOTHING to look at for hundreds of miles.

How about the road? Maybe the two six inch thick yellow lines in the middle of the road?

Re:I Can't Blame the Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what MUSIC is for. You don't need your ears on that highway for controlling the vehicle so you may listen to something entertaining. You could always put your trailer on a train and then relax with a beer while 200 trailers are being towed by 1 driver. Ah no, I forgot, in Corporate America 200 truck drivers on taxpayer paid streets are cheaper than 1 train driver on train company paid rails...

Re:I Can't Blame the Guy

[geomon]

How about the road? Maybe the two six inch thick yellow lines in the middle of the road?

Boy, is THAT stimulating or WHAT?

The road, the yellow lines, the road, the yellow lines, the road, the yellow (yawn) lines, the (blink, blink) road, the yellllllllow lines (blink), the roooooooooooooooooooad (snore!!!!)

Yeah, very exciting.

Re:I Can't Blame the Guy

[geomon]

Ah no, I forgot, in Corporate America 200 truck drivers on taxpayer paid streets are cheaper than 1 train driver on train company paid rails..

I hope you enjoy the higher prices from maintaining a "just in case" inventory policy instead of a "just in time" inventory.

Millions of trucks on the road means that stores can purchase only the inventory they need, instead of paying for warehousing for stuff they may NEVER sell. That inventory cost is passed directly to you, the dork who is willing to pay $5,000USD for a computer that the rest of us can get for $450 from Dell.

Shitty ol' Corporate America. Brining you all the crap stored in your room for a fraction of what it would have cost under your version of inventory management.

Re:I Can't Blame the Guy

[rewt66]

And if he falls asleep at the wheel due to terminal boredom, he only kills himself. It's still a step up.

Look, if you can't bother to pay enough attention to control the vehicle, get out from behind the &*^%$#@ wheel! Ditto if you can't stay awake. Is that so hard to understand?

Re:I Can't Blame the Guy

[needacoolnickname]

Okay - because you have ADD it should be okay to watch something besides the road in a couple ton vehicle driving on a road more than 3 miles an hour. Last time I checked roads were built to get from one place to another, not to amuse the masses.

Want to watch a DVD - get in the back seat with the kids or take a bus.

Re:I Can't Blame the Guy

[geomon]

Look, if you can't bother to pay enough attention to control the vehicle, get out from behind the &*^%$#@ wheel! Ditto if you can't stay awake.Is that so hard to understand?

What were we talking about?

Re:I Can't Blame the Guy

[geomon]

Okay - because you have ADD..

I'm not following you. Could you repeat that?

Re:I Can't Blame the Guy

[needacoolnickname]

Now that's comedy! If I didn't waste my mod point by replying to this thread...

Re:I Can't Blame the Guy

[geomon]

Know what the worst part is?

I couldn't even BUY a troll -1 for the parent.

I can't believe people actually took it seriously.

Re:I Can't Blame the Guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you completely retarded? The roads are not there to amuse idiots like you, either pay attention or get off of it.

Re:I Can't Blame the Guy

[geomon]

Are you completely retarded?

Nah. I leave that honor to the you.

Re:I Can't Blame the Guy

[rewt66]

What were we talking about?

Um... let me pause this DVD for a sec... it'll come to me...

Re:I Can't Blame the Guy

[geomon]

>>What were we talking about?

Um... let me pause this DVD for a sec... it'll come to me...

Thanks. I just shot Pepsi out of my nose.

I enjoyed Road trip

[gphinch]

you insensitive clod. Amy Smart was lookin hot (and topless)

it's a car

[spamchang]

getting behind the wheel of a 2000-lb vehicle and accelerating it up to speeds of 60mph is inherently dangerous. i don't think manufacturers can, in good faith, feature DVD players, even if they install those minimal safeguards that are supposed to prevent the driver from watching the movie. they're giving drivers clear license to do what they will with their property, and thus, manufacturers are analogously as responsible for such deaths as gun stores are for gun-related deaths. but what's next, licenses to own DVD players? or how about an IQ test? carelessness on the road is ridiculous, and if the DVD player in this truck was installed against manufacturer spec, so is the driver's claim to innocence (see passenger's call to wife post-accident: "they" were watching a movie).

Re:it's a car

[VertigoAce]

According to CNN, the guy installed the DVD player himself, so it was able to function even when it was not in park (manufacturers are required to put certain safeguards in place, but apparently it's easy enough to get around them if you do it yourself).

Re:it's a car

[Roadkills-R-Us]

or how about an IQ test?

I'd almost go along with this. We definitely need much stricter standards for driving. I think you should need additional testing to be allowed to use a phone while driving, too. It's clear that most drivers aren't capable of doing them both at the same time-- at least not safely.

In Japan, a driver's liceense is just that-- a professional license (at least it used to be). If you kill someone through professional negligence, you are in deeeep doodoo.

Works for me.

Re:it's a car

[LinuxHam]

I used a kit from avelectronic.com to convert my nav screen to also be a tv with 3 a/v inputs. I bought it not for the tv, but to run video out for a micro PC mp3 player. Since I don't want to have to come to a complete stop to do simple tasks like selecting a genre to listen to, I need the video to stay on all the time.

Their "safety" line forces the screen to go blue until it gets grounded. Apparently, there is a special nut that gets grounded when the emergency brake gets applied. As you could guess, any permanently grounded nut or wire is all you need to circumvent the safety feature.

Yes, I am taking on a big responsiblity to not watch videos, but I am adult enough to do that. I do like to put the evening news on while I'm driving home from work. Plus, the unit will drive video to the nav screen and has two more outputs to drive rear-facing headrest screens, and I can shut off the video to the nav screen without interrupting it to the headrests.

Its all about the maturity and responsibility of the driver. Sure, it always has been, but now more than ever with so many distractions available.

Re:it's a car

[JCholewa]

> I'd almost go along with this. We definitely need much stricter standards for driving. I think you
> should need additional testing to be allowed to use a phone while driving, too. It's clear that most
> drivers aren't capable of doing them both at the same time-- at least not safely.

The problem with this is that our working culture is put together in a way that millions of people *have to* drive a car in order to reach their place of employment, and millions of people *cannot* change jobs easily, even if they are strongly qualified.

If I had to use public transportation, it would mean about two hours of walking and perhaps forty minutes sitting on the train, round trip, per day, and that's assuming that the train arrives at a perfectly ideal time that matches up with my rigid work schedule. It wouldn't be cheaper, either, than driving.

I'm experienced with setting up and maintaining BSD, Linux and MSWindows servers as well as desktop software for these platforms. I've put together ISO900x documents, I can program in Perl and C++, I'm in decent enough shape to move around the occasional heavy object, I do a ton of tech support, I remotely administer machines a thousand miles away, I'm a master of combating spyware on Windows machines, I have a ton of other responsibilities, and I make just enough money after eight years to not quite move out of my parents' house. And job seeking for four years has yielded nothing.

So making licenses more difficult for people like me to acquire would essentially destroy our lives entirely. People like me would end up penniless at best. But we'd have lots of fun writing Special Relativity equations in the harsh winter snow with our freeze-dried fingers.

--
-JC
http://www.jc-news.com/coding/freedom/

Having driven in alaska in febuary...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see, the highway from Anchorage to Seward, no speed limit, just one lane each way with no shoulders except ice flows, often twists and turns, sometimes around glaciars, few daylight hours, and...somehow the in-dash dvd was the most dangerous thing on the road???! I would check the road itself first!

Emotional Car Driver Charged With Murder

[usefool]

If this car is coming out soon, we'll have drivers killed or charged when trying to communicate with each other :)

Re:Emotional Car Driver Charged With Murder

[rock_climbing_guy]

That car is nothing. Check out THIS CAR!

Who cares about the DVD?

[ZZeta]

First Off... The irony! He was watching Road Trip while driving? What a laugh!

Now, for the real comment: Who cares whether watching the DVD is a crime or not? In fact, as long as people don't get hit or cars get crashed, I couldn't care less what the driver next to me is doing. (However, watching DVDs would probably cause these kinds of accidents, so if they wanted to prohibit it, I'd be glad to hear it.).

I'd be glad to see this kind of driver put away, not because of watching a DVD per se, but for not watching the road. What he did was irresponsible, and someone paid with his life. He is, AFIK, a true criminal.

Re:Who cares about the DVD?

[Anonymous Coward]

get a fucking clue, any driver not paying attention to the task of driving is a potential risk to you and every other driver, whether you get hit or not you dumb fuck. You'd think a /. poster would have some common sense not to have such a fucked up attitude.

Re:Who cares about the DVD?

[jesler]

First Off... The irony! He was watching Road Trip while driving? What a laugh!

That's not irony. If he was watching an instructional video on safe driving practices, THAT would be irony.

Re:Who cares about the DVD?

[maskedbishounen]

I'm not sure the point is that he wasn't watching the road, but rather he wasn't paying full attention to his task at hand-- getting himself to wherever he wanted to go, safely. Road safety isn't just for cars, after all, but also watching out for pedestrians.

I seem to recall hearing it was thought that radios was going to kill us all when they were first put into cars. As it turns out, they haven't. Radios, unlike so many modern car activities, don't require a lot of our attention. We sit, pay attention to the road, and soak up the music/talk without any active involvement.

You can be chatting up a storm on your mobile (cell phone, if you'd rather) with your eyes smack dab on the road and still end up rear ending someone. Why? You're not actively paying as much attention to your task at hand. The more thought an activity requires (watching a DVD, holding a two-sided conversation, trying to juggle the your latest geektoy and the steering wheel), the less likely you'll be able to react quickly when need be.

Should these things be banned? Possibly. Some people can manage, others can't. It's when we think we can, but can't, when the issue really comes up.

Re:Who cares about the DVD?

[ZZeta]

Ok, I'll agree with that. Cheers.

Simple Law for Future Use

[jimmyCarter]

All vehicle DVD players or other video screens must be behind the driver's head and facing away from said driver. Problem solved. Sound reasonable?

But wait.. decent smart laws like this will have to get in line behind laws to take away citizens' fair use rights and campaigning!

Re:Simple Law for Future Use

[Anonymous Coward]

Should the video screen for my navigation system also be behind my head?

Re:Simple Law for Future Use

[Anonymous Coward]

All vehicle DVD players or other video screens must be behind the driver's head and facing away from said driver. Problem solved. Sound reasonable?

No, it doesn't. What about GPS navigation system screens? Pretty useless if the driver can't see them...

Re:Simple Law for Future Use

[Luciq]

I thought we already had a few decent smart laws that hold drivers accountable for people they hit, and for endangering the lives of others. Leave it to the courts to properly interpret and apply these laws.

Writing separate laws to cover each distinct situation or to prevent possible misuse of a person's resources is not necessary. Our law books should NOT be as thick as Bibles!

I have a car mount for my iPaq that's easily viewable from my driver's seat. I use it while driving to display large buttons to control my mp3 player. I COULD use it to display video. I COULD display video on the same screen my navigation system uses. And I COULD safely watch video from the driver's seat while parked and enjoying lunch, waiting on someone, etc.

Video screens viewable by the driver have legitimate uses, and we'll be seeing more and more video screens in cars, especially as they become more multi-purpose. However, watching movies while driving is just plain negligent.

Re:Simple Law for Future Use

[mian]

In Australia we've had similair laws to this for years, the only visual display infront of a driver allowed is for information purposes (navigation etc), a DVD/movie player is allowed to be hooked up to the front display for when the car isn't running, but it's only allowed to function on rear displays while the car is started, actually thought most countries had laws like this.

Just imagine the look on a Toyota...

[FerretFrottage]

car's face if something like this happened to it.

listen to radio drama

[ch-chuck]

this is one reason I like to keep a good collection of old time radio programs - some of them are very entertaining and they don't tie up your vidio channels while enjoying a good story. Books on tape, etc. With OTR you can do other stuff while listening to a murder mystery, with tv your a passive observer.

Hoorah for the DA

[Giro d'Italia]

I wish King County, WA DA Maleng had the same balls as this DA. Instead, pretty much anything goes on the roads here.

I think the charge is partly a bargaining position against the defendant, and partly to make an example of the idiot. Manslaughter may not have sufficient jail time in Alaska and that may also be part of the motivation.

The reason jail time is important here is that it deters this twit from getting on the road again. License suspensions don't work, someone with that level of irresponsibility isn't going to be stopped. Give this clown 15 years in the slammer, you save his next victim and maybe, just maybe, someone else will think twice before pulling a stunt like this.

which Alaska were you in?

[peter303]

South central Alaska has lots of traffic, even traffic jams. Not to mention infamous moose-crossings.

How is this YRO?

[adam613]

Ok, I agree that this guy deserves to be punished. But how did this get into the YRO section? It has very little to do with my rights. Regardless of what the law says, I do not have a moral right to operate a device in my car that will distract me to the point where I will have an accident, whether it be a DVD player or an iPod or whatever. And it's certainly not online...he was driving his truck in Alaska!

Editors, care to explain?

Re:How is this YRO?

[reallocate]

You're right, of course, but /. refuses to admit that their editors have any responsibility for the content that appears on the site. They're just pointing to what someone else says....

Re:How is this YRO?

[joke-boy]

I submitted it as "Index: The Courts". I don't know what happens to it after that point. Do you have a better suggestion? (sincerely asked)

Ok, ok....

[JamesP]

Alaska has no laws prohibiting drivers from watching DVDs, although many other states do.

Ok, does ANY state has laws forbidding doctors for having prostitues over to "kill the boredon" while performing an operation? No?

Thank you...

Slashdot:

[ErikTheRed]

News for automotive bling-bling, stuff that matters (if you're a rap star, or want to just pretend you are).

Re:Slashdot:

[AvantLegion]

>> News for automotive bling-bling, stuff that matters (if you're a rap star, or want to just pretend you are).

Often, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Legitimate Uses

[shoemakc]

Two points here:

First off, an in-dash dvd player can be used safely, namely for entertaining a passanger in one of the other 1+ seats in the car. It does however require that a driver have the sense and discipline to keep his attention on the road.

Second, regardless of if the state laws explicitly mention DVD's in their laws, this would still have to fall under distracted driver laws...those same laws that ensure that I can't play solitare on the dashboard. Which is a good thing...because I suck at solitare.

-Chris

Mens rea

[cenonce]

The question will be what was his men rea, which is a fancy legal latin term for guilty state of mind.

If you read the article, it sounds like this is a custom made installation the guy did himself. If that's the case, I think there is a better chance that the prosecution can provide the guy acted with wanton disregard for human life. That can justify a verdict of second degree murder. Otherwise, I still think the guy could go for manslaughter. Manslaughter is no laughing matter as it still results in a good bit of prison time.

Re:Mens rea

[Anonymous Coward]

Mens rea?!?!?! I've got mens rea??!?! How can this be, we both use condoms!

Re:Mens rea

[glitch23]

Unless he said he put it in for his own viewing pleasure his lawyer could instead argue the dvd player was installed for his family (I didn't read the article so maybe he doesn't have a family) and that he wouldn't be watching it. A little lame but he may try it. I really don't think it matters who actually installed it. He had to give authorization for it to be installed so a electronics shop could have installed it for him and either way it would end up in his dash.

Re:Mens rea

[cenonce]

You're right. It really doesn't matter who installed it. The article makes it sound like he installed it himself and it is on the front dash, where the driver can see it. He also may not have a "king" or "crew" cab which would make it even worse.

While legally, installing it himself and hiring a shop to install it are the same for purposes of proving his disregard for human life, factually, it is a lot more convincing if he spent hours on end installing it himself. The Prosecutor will go through each step of the install process under cross-examination to show the guy's wanton disregard (assuming the guy testifies).

Re: your sig

[Anonymous Coward]

"Troll rhymes with Truth"

No it doesn't, you illiterate bastard! Rhyming words end on the same sound.

Alaska has cities too

[Ruggiero]

Lets not forget that Alaska has cosmopolitan centers too. I say this because everyone seems to be talking about driving in the wide open tundra of the north or something--The news article reports from Anchorage, and specifically mentions the Seward highway, which is "only" 127 miles long and connects the major cities of Seward (hence the name) and Anchorage. Just think of it in terms of driving around the DC beltway or some other large city. -Jim

Re:Alaska has cities too

[scrypt]

The thing with Alaskan roads, especially the Seward highway, is that we travel them so often we sometimes take for granted the attention that should be given when driving them. Mostly because much of the Seward is two lane and winding through mountains. Some people drive this road several times a week. Not to mention it's one of the only highways we have. Watching a movie, or doing anything that would distract from the road, is obviously putting your and other lives at risk, but the risk is greater because of the layout of this road.

It's always weird when we get national attention. Too bad it's mostly because of some tragedy or crisis (ANWR).

Oh, and just to clarify, Seward is a very small town, as are most up here (besides Anchorage and maybe Fairbanks...maybe). Their significance is large, but hard to call them 'major cities.'

Manslaughter? Don't count on it...

[asr_man]

One must consider the level of responsibility and the reasonable expectation of the consequences of irresponsible actions. Here the accused allegedly installed the movie player in a way expressly to enable the driver to view the movie while the car was moving. From the article:

Installed as recommended, DVD players and TV screens are either visible only from the back seats or will not work unless the vehicle is in park. But owners can defeat the safety measures by installing the devices themselves, as Petterson did, according to prosecutors.

"This takes forethought, this takes methodical steps," David Weiser [victims' son] said. "You have to go to the store, plop over money, install it, and install it so it can be used without a brake employed. "I view it as no different than walking into a bar, having five beers within an hour and getting behind the wheel"...

This will hinge on whether or not there is reasonable doubt the driver was indeed watching the movie. As installed, the player isn't evidence in favor of the driver.

Impossible....

[BlabberMouth]

This act cannot be 2nd degree murder. This charge requires the intention to kill. He must have purposefully driven over or into another person with the intention to cause bodily injury. I'm not sure what the particular laws of Alaska are, but this charge clearly should be negligent homicide, negligent homicide, or dropped entirely. Is this much different from people who read books in the car? They have wrecks, but aren't charged with murder.

Re:Impossible....

[joke-boy]

As has been pointed out by three or four people already, the term "malice" as applied to murder legally includes "reckless disregard". Malice need not be explicit - it can be implicit in the nature of the act. If you're a surgeon who kills a patient because you operated drunk, you have no explicit malice, but you can still be prosecuted for second-degree murder because you acted with reckless disregard for human life. Whether or not the DVD case counts as reckless disregard remains to be seen, but other states (such as California) already consider such action reckless.

Re:Impossible....

[SuiteSisterMary]

The idea here is that, by definition, doing something so incredibly stupid counts as willful malice.

Just listening to music?

[MisterMoney]

"Douglas called his ex-wife and told her he was not sure how the collision occurred because he was "spacing out on a movie they were watching," according to prosecutors. The woman is scheduled to testify."

hmmmm.....

YRO

[hypergreatthing]

I could see how this is relavent if this sets a precident so that everyone who has an lcd screen up front by the driver is automatically assumed guilty of negligence. I thinking of putting a touchscreen lcd up front so that i could display extra gauges at a minimal price and automotive know how (I know how to install a computer and that's basically all it takes). I'd have second thoughts if he's presumed guilty.

Re:YRO

[DaveJay]

>...thinking of putting a touchscreen lcd up front so that i could display extra gauges at a minimal price...

Before taking this step, I hope you'll consider the four problems that LCD-based touchscreen automotive displays have. I'd hate to see a fellow slashdotter get in an accident.

1. Poor contrast compared to dedicated analog gauges -- your eyes can see a white needle on a black background on a standard gauge much faster than a while pixelated line on a black lcd background, because lcd black isn't really black -- it's gray. It also has no depth, and is more susceptable to being washed out by the sun.

2. You cannot navigate by feel using a touchscreen. Consider how often you change your CD tracks by glancing at your radio to make sure your hand is aimed in the right direction, then looking back at the road while you move your fingers to the correct button by touch.

I can't emphasize this second shortcoming enough; a friend has one of those palm-powered phones where you use the touchscreen to dial, and he said he never realized how often he dialed without looking until he tried to use the new phone. He got rid of it shortly thereafter.

3. Center-mounted LCDs tend to be too close to the driver, requiring a lot of neck rotation and eye refocusing to view. Even the manufacturers who put LCDs (and even standard gauges) in the center of the dash try to push them as far forward as possible to minimize this effect; with touchscreen LCDs, though, you can't push them so far away that they can't be touched.

Custom installations are even worse, since you won't have the same access to dashboard component reconfiguration that the manufacturer has without laying out a lot of cash.

4. Multiple screens on one display == more attention required to navigate the screens, when compared to buttons that have a single placement and a single purpose under all conditions. You're more likely to divert your attention to think about which menu you're going through, and that's dangerous unless you're at a stoplight.

Re:YRO

[hypergreatthing]

actually i was thinking of making it all voice activated... but err... yeah, your points are valid... I'm not looking to stare at this when driving, I'm just looking to augment what i already have. There's nothing i really need it to show other than what song is playing/what temp my tranny is at, ect... some diagnostics and if it's all voice activated and plays through the car speakers, i can just ask it what i want. Perfect example of hands free computing.

Hardcore crazy fly mofo

[t_allardyce]

Big deal, he'll probably get off lightly. Now if he had been filming in a cinema.. oooooh nooo, what is it? 3-5 years for a first offence? Wow im being negative here, but yeah i wonder if the MPAA will have anything on this? of course they wouldnt want the good name of DVD to be tainted, similar to how a certain group stopped lighters and matches getting on the no-fly list...

nice troll.

[twitter]

Music on DVDs will increase driving safety. Hey, brain dead, did you even read the blurb? DVD players also do music. 4.7GB of music is most of my ogg collection. Having one of those puppies burned and in my dash will keep me, and about 100,000,000 other drivers from having to fumble with CDs, tapes and radio dials. The screens also can be used like a Jedi mind trick on young children. If you think "road trip" is distracting, try taking a real road trip with a two year old. The average 2.5 child family is better off with a DVD player.

Next time, try to think of something better to piss people off with. Ignorance of technology and it's uses are bothersome, but easy to cure.

PS - The Department of Homeland Security (TM) will not allow you to interfere with the normally scheduled Hollywood Brainwash (TM).

Re:nice troll.

[martinX]

I think he (OP) was referring to the driver having the screen point at him, i.e. an in-dash DVD player installed primarily so the driver can watch movies.

All of the examples you gave can be achieved without giving the driver visual access to the screen. Removing the need for people having to fumble with CDs, tapes and radio dials for music is a great idea. Entertainment for the kids is a great idea.

I'm hoping to install a DVD player in my car with screens in the back. Then I can hop in the back with the kids and let the missus drive :-)
Couple of Walkmans and some books on tape will do for the meantime.

Re:nice troll.

[Anonymous Coward]

Twitter, you're a petulant cock-gobbling nerd. I'm amazed at the pathetic tenacity with which you simultaneously masturbate the FOSS movement and snidely dismiss Microsoft anything. Zealots such as yourself are useless. You're unable to look at any issue without tainting it with your preconceived notions of Microsoft's abominable evil. Your anger has so consumed you that you sit there in your parents basement, banging away on your semen-encrusted Linux box, incessantly whining about the latest, most egregious "M$" violation.

If I ever had someone as rude, petty, and thickheaded as you working for me, I'd fire the both of us. I'd fire you for, well, sucking as much as you do. And I'd fire myself for not recognizing your brand of offensive bullshit zealotry the second it came steaming down the hall into my office. Listen to me dick: Zealots like you are FUCKING USELESS.

Yet another submitter who can't use hyperlinks.

[Inoshiro]

joke-boy writes "CNN reports that a driver in Alaska is being charged with second-degree murder for allegedly causing a fatality accident by driving while watching the movie 'Road Trip' in an in-dash DVD player. The driver contends he was just listening to music. Alaska has no laws prohibiting drivers from watching DVDs, although many other states do."

Look at that! Now people who have no idea what "Road Trip" is can just click that hyperlink and know. Astounding :-O!

Speaking of Technology...

[reallocate]

...why not disable in-dash DVD players or TV's when the vehicle is in motion? Bored front-seat passengers can console themselves with the thought that the driver is actually looking at the road ahead.

Now, if we could just deal with the other morons who think it's just fine to drive and read a newspaper, or put on makeup, or turn around and smack a kid in the backseat, or steer with one finger while holding a coffee cup as their left arms hangs out the window.

Re:Speaking of Technology...

[D'Arque Bishop]

...why not disable in-dash DVD players or TV's when the vehicle is in motion? Bored front-seat passengers can console themselves with the thought that the driver is actually looking at the road ahead.

Actually, that's how they are generally installed by default. When I was looking at one (wasn't planning on buying one... was just killing time at the store) a year or so ago, the sales rep told me that by law in Texas (and in many other states too, I believe) they have to be installed in such a way that they'll only operate while the vehicle is in park. However, according to him, a lot of people mod their in-dash players to allow them to run while the vehicle is in motion. According to the article, that's what this assclown did.

Hope this helps...

Re:Speaking of Technology...

[YrWrstNtmr]

Factory/dealer installed ones are. If I put one in myself, who's going to check? Annual inspection? A handy enable/diable switch under the dash would work.

Re:Speaking of Technology...

[prockcore]

why not disable in-dash DVD players or TV's when the vehicle is in motion?

In many states, it is illegal to have a TV monitor in the front seat.

I guess Alaska isn't one of them.

Darwinism gone awry

[Anonymous Coward]

It is too bad stupid people only manage to kill other people.

So, who is this guy anyway...

[Kristoffer Lunden]

Homer Simpson?

So, don't carry around things with screens.

[twitter]

It doesn't matter if he was watching a DVD or picking his nose. If he killed someone, he killed someone.

The driver says he was not watching it, but he's been charged with negligence by people who say he must have been. That's kind of like saying that you, penguinboy, must have been compiling a kernel when you had that wreck because your laptop was on the seat. That people might actually listen to music on a DVD does not enter most people's wooden heads yet.

National headlines have presumed this man guilty of grossly negligent behavior and idiots all around the world want to hang him for murder. Watch out!

Definitions: Manslaughter vs. Murder

[ahbi]

Because this is Slashdot, and we'll all just scream about stuff without caring about the definitions...

A quick Google of the Alaska Statutes

AS 11.41.120. Manslaughter.

1. A person commits the crime of manslaughter if the person
   1. intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes the death of another person under circumstances not amounting to murder in the first or second degree; or
   2. intentionally aids another person to commit suicide.
2. Manslaughter is a class A felony.

AS 11.41.110. Murder in the Second Degree.

1. A person commits the crime of murder in the second degree if
   1. with intent to cause serious physical injury to another person or knowing that the conduct is substantially certain to cause death or serious physical injury to another person, the person causes the death of any person;
   2. the person knowingly engages in conduct that results in the death of another person under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life;
   3. under circumstances not amounting to murder in the first degree under AS 11.41.100 (a)(3), while acting either alone or with one or more persons, the person commits or attempts to commit arson in the first degree, kidnapping, sexual assault in the first degree, sexual assault in the second degree, sexual abuse of a minor in the first degree, sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree, burglary in the first degree, escape in the first or second degree, robbery in any degree, or misconduct involving a controlled substance under AS 11.71.010 (a), 11.71.020(a), 11.71.030(a)(1) or (2), or 11.71.040(a)(1) or (2) and, in the course of or in furtherance of that crime or in immediate flight from that crime, any person causes the death of a person other than one of the participants;
   4. acting with a criminal street gang, the person commits or attempts to commit a crime that is a felony and, in the course of or in furtherance of that crime or in immediate flight from that crime, any person causes the death of a person other than one of the participants; or
   5. the person with criminal negligence causes the death of a child under the age of 16, and the person has been previously convicted of a crime involving a child under the age of 16 that was
   6. a felony violation of AS 11.41;
   7. in violation of a law or ordinance in another jurisdiction with elements similar to a felony under AS 11.41; or
   8. an attempt, a solicitation, or a conspiracy to commit a crime listed in (A) or (B) of this paragraph.

Murder in the second degree is an unclassified felony and is punishable as provided in AS 12.55.

This is...

[Anonymous Coward]

the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. This guy should have his right to drive taken away forever. Anyone who thinks they can drive a fucking vehicle and watch a movie is one dumb motherfucker. I have to worry about a bunch of asshats talking on cell phones already, now I have to worry about a bunch of fuckups who "ARENT EVEN WATCHING THE ROAD?". There should be a law stating that DVD's should not be within the drivers range of view while the car is moving. This guy deserves a very very long jail sentence.

Updated laws?

[shaitand]

If anything I see this case as proof that we DON'T need to update the laws.

Reckless and careless driving are ALREADY illegal in every state.

This is where we get into trouble, lawmakers have these crazy ideas that they must be constantly making new laws.

Honestly I can't think of ANY new laws that are needed, we don't need new rules, additional restrictions, additional things which require licenses.

In fact there are quite a few things we need to abolish. DMCA, fishing licenses, gun restrictions, FOID cards, pretty much ALL spam/internet legislation that has been passed, pretty well all the government contract legislation needs either abolished or reformed in a manner that reduces restrictions and complexity.

Although we have certain guaranteed freedoms (I'll pretend there haven't been so many instances where they've been ignored, disregarded, or somehow overturned despite the fact that no branch of state, local, or federal government is supposed to have the authority to overrule them), what we don't have anymore is day to day freedom.

The average man, who is doing nothing wrong and living his life should have as few controls, restraints, and tracking as humanly possible. Instead he must register, submit, fill out paperwork, file for a SS#, submit to tracking via that number, maintain an updated legal address, etc.

If a man wishes to have money in the bank, the government wants to know about it, and more they want to know how much and if too much they want to know where it came from. I say, bust me for drugs and then you can investigate my bank accounts, otherwise, leave me the hell alone!

In short, new laws and additional restrictions are bad. Especially when the only purpose they serve is to tack on another charge to give the states attorney a better hand when plea bargaining.

Re:Updated laws?

[ElForesto]

Geez, I couldn't have said it better myself. AND you managed to smack around licenses. Good show!

Re:Updated laws?

[Dausha]

If anything I see this case as proof that we DON'T need to update the laws.

Actually, most of the time laws don't really need to be updated. Via the common law system, courts really make law, while legislatures write dicta, which we consider law. When the legislature is finished with it, it is up to the courts to decide what the legislature really meant. The Introduction to Legal Reasoning does a much better job than I on explaining this (the Amazon link has the read inside feature that shares quite a bit of the kernel of what the book conveys).

So, in my opinion, let the DA go before the court with the charge of 2nd D Murder and see if it passes both the trial court and the appellate court. If so, then we now have a new law that tells us not to watch "Road Trip" on DVD while driving.

Re:Updated laws?

[BCW2]

Can we have a new mod catagory? Genius would work for the parent above. Most new laws are unnessesary if the existing ones were enforced properly. Careless driving would seem the correct choice for this one. A careless driving charge can lead to a 2nd degree murder charge in most states.

Re:Updated laws?

[dave420]

Laws need to be updated so they specifically state what is illegal and what isn't. Normal people can understand that watching a DVD while driving is reckless, but not everyone thinks that way. Just like you think that everyone running around with a gun is a great idea, lots more people think it's ridiculously dangerous and unfair on everyone else. Because not everyone thinks the same, these grey areas need clearing up.

Re:Updated laws?

[shaitand]

Some grey areas most definately should be left grey. For instance there may well be people who can have a dvd playing and still focus on the road, perhaps they listen while the passengers watch.

As for guns, it's not a matter of opinion and hasn't been for a long time. Countries/states/areas with strict gun control have the highest crime rates, while those with gun REQUIREMENTS or no control have the lowest.

Of course switzerland being the best example. All citizens are required to have arms and despite the amazing wealth floating around switzerland, it has the lowest crime rate in the world. Those are facts, not opinions.

Further the right to bear arms is constitutional, it's the highest law of the land and no body of government is SUPPOSED to have the authority impead on it in any fashion... including limiting or imposing restrictions upon it.

"lots more people think"

That's ridiculous, lots more DO NOT think it dangerous. Even if they did however, the majority does NOT rule nor should it (also a historical fact). Our government is NOT based on the concept of majority rules nor has it ever been. Even the election process of our President was devised in such a manner as to prevent (as per "The Patriots Handbook") a direct ruling of the unwashed masses.

Why? Because quite frankly, the MAJORITY of people, are idiots who believe whatever ideals their spoonfed. If left to their own they will choose based on ideal rather than harsh reality, and those who won't will usually accept harsh reality to be whatever they are told it is.

Quite frankly, I think even the crazed conspiracy theorists would be more fit to rule than the "majority". At least their more realistic and properly paranoid.

Having handled classified material I can tell you, while the conspiracy theorists are usually wrong, they are much closer to the truth than the majority.

Lizard Brains...

[reallocate]

You are obviously a lizard with a walnut-sized brain, but here goes:

If "taxpayer paid streets" did not exist, you would only be able to drive from A to B if someone could make a profit charging you to do that. Even a lizard ought to see the problems that would entail.

Go read your history. America's railroads weren't exactly built without federal subsidy.

Re:Lizard Brains...

[Anonymous Coward]

YHBT HAND

Re:Lizard Brains...

[reallocate]

I knew it. A lizard.

who cares ??

[kayen_telva]

he killed two people. does it matter if he was getting a blowjob, watching a DVD, or just stupid ?
he should still be held accountable for the same crime.
you will never know the full truth of what is going on inside the vehicle for every accident.
all these little addons just make the law more complicated.
make the punishment harsh for all of them. real harsh.
/me hates drivers who seem to have their heads in the clouds. driving is not a game.

I've done it many times

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to admit I've done this before. It's never been a problem either.

I don't encourage people to start watching Dvds while they drive but for all of you skeptics, load up the laptop and drive around an empty parking lot to see how easy it really is.

It's probably better that I usually watch comedies that I've already seen so they don't require me to really watch them as much as to hear them with occassional glances.

Anyway the guy screwed up. I would hate to have my family taken away from me in this manner but accidents happen. Saying it's murder is just wrong because he didn't intend to kill anyone. He's just an idiot driver that couldn't stay in his lane.

Am I the only one...

[NemosomeN]

Who initially thought it was insane to charge a device driver with murder?

This is ridiculous.

[EvilStein]

That flippin' song was written in * 1 9 5 6 *

NINETEEN FIFTY SIX!!

Almost 50 years later, it's still copyrighted material, and they're trying to say that you can't make a parody of it?

This copyright extension crap has to go. I swear, it's getting way out of hand. Even "Happy Birthday" is copyrighted.
If some kid sings "Happy birthday to you.. you smell like a zoo.." then they're probably opening themselves up to a similar lawsuit, eh?
Silly. Just plain silly..

Re:This is ridiculous.

[Maxite]

Umm.. dude, wrong thread. Unless the driver is now being sued for singing along to the "song" that he was listening to while driving.

Re:This is ridiculous.

[Anonymous Coward]

You wouldn't happen to be looking for this, would you?

Re:This is ridiculous.

[Anonymous Coward]

You wouldn't happen to be blonde and female would you?

RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

All vehicle DVD players or other video screens must be behind the driver's head and facing away from said driver. Problem solved. Sound reasonable? But wait.. decent smart laws like this will have to get in line behind laws to take away citizens' fair use rights and campaigning!

I see that you're just as smart as your namesake. The guy installed it himself in a manner that the manufacturer warned against and was against the law.

But wait.. decent smart forms of netiquette will have to get in line behind posters that can't be bothered with reading the articles and would rather pump their own misguided political rhetoric.

No minimum IQ for juries!

[Roadkills-R-Us]

Why? Because if we don't allow idiots on juries, the average idiot on trial couldn't have a jury of smrtz peers!

Reckless disregard or listening to a soundtrack?

[Penguinoflight]

Who's to say the driver wasn't lying, are you going to quiz him on the movie in hopes that he will be honest? I still don't understand how even if the driver was actually watching (likely, but hard to prove) that this is a case of reckless disregard. As many others have stated above, other drivers in Alaska are very sparse (with very few exceptions). I'd submit that it's more likely the victim fell asleep at the wheel to cause the collision than the dvd-listener.

Question for you guys.

[DWXXV]

When my family goes on trips we sometimes play a DVD that the parents cannot see but they can listen to. What do you guys think of that? What if the line gets blured. Perhaps that guy was just listening (wasnt that what he said he was doing?).

answers

[zogger]

"What needs to be done to help other Americans take responsibility for their actions?"

--outlaw insurance

--bring back deuling

Front-seat screens

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, any law against DVD watching will likely take the form of a law against any computer or TV screen visible to the driver, like California has done. This is really ridiculous, because cars are starting to have them by default. Not just for speed and fuel guages, but for maps and music selection too.

I have a home-made car mp3 player that runs a heavily customized text interface (cplay) on a 4" LCD screen. The text is large enough to read without leaning forward and the angle is fine. It is mounted at the very top of the center console in front of the dashboard, *above* where the built-in stereo is. All the driver has to do is turn his eyes (or head) slightly, and the road is still in his peripheral vision. Control is via a standard 10-key keypad that is used by touch only.

It's as safe as I can make it, and far safer than some built-in mapping systems or (I believe) XM radios. But it will be as illegal as DVD watching in a few years, I bet. And I'll have to remove it for fear that a simple no-fault fender-bender will turn into a felony charge.

Another thing that annoys me is when people attack others for doing what almost everyone does, just because it happened to kill somebody. Who doesn't take their eyes off the road for a split second for any reason, ever? But when somebody causes a wreck fiddling with the stereo, the DA pulls out the murder/manslaughter charges. If that is just, then every instance of glancing away from the road should be attempted murder/manslaughter, and be just as strictly enforced. But, that would make sense...

Re:Front-seat screens

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, any law against DVD watching will likely take the form of a law against any computer or TV screen visible to the driver, like California has done. Uh, wouldn't that also make the CRT's in the police cars illegal? Oh, I forgot -- law enforcement officers are above the law!

Re:Front-seat screens

[Anonymous Coward]

They're endangering us, but it's for our own good. (ha ha)

Re:Front-seat screens

[EmagGeek]

The California law does not apply to standard equipment screens.

I'm not a lawyer or nothin..

[puffbunny]

...But wouldn't such an act fall under manslaughter rather than murder?

This might have been me

[ConanG]

I installed a computer in my car about a year ago with a touchscreen interface, gps navigation, DVD, etc...

Well last week, I'm following a friend to his home. Roads are empty and I know where my friend and I are going. I start messing around with the mp3 player and I'm not paying attention to the road.

He decides to make a turn I'm not expecting and take a different route. I smashed right into him at about 30mph. I didn't even know I was going to hit him until a split second before I hit him.

Fortunately, we weren't hurt, but I caused about $5000 in damages to our cars.

Well, I learned my lesson. The computer is coming out after the repairs are complete. There is no need for this luxury while operating a vehicle.

Re:This might have been me

[Fuzzums]

This is a lesson worth far more that $5000!

Glad you're ok.

Me neither...

[Anonymous Coward]

But I think murder is intentional and manslaughter is due to stupidity (so yes), except in extreme cases where you'd have to be missing part of your fscking brain to have killed someone in a particular way (e.g., watching a DVD while you're DRIVING (so no)).

Re:Me neither...

[puffbunny]

The definition of murder I have seen is "with malice and intent" whereas manslaughter is when you kill someone doing something like watching your DVD player while you drive down the street.

Doesn't really matter these days, I guess.. He's a dipshit who's gonna get fucked hopefully.

learn the law before you complain about it

[indole]

Actually, smart guy, an action that recklessly disregards human life and causes the death of another IS murder. It is termed "depraved indifference" murder, and states include it as a subsection of the murder laws. NYS for example:

PL 125.25-2 Under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person

learn the law before you complain about it

Re:learn the law before you complain about it

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to be careful here. Murder falls under state jurisdiction (unless the crime crosses state lines or involves some federal law-breaking). Your link points to New York law. Alaska may be different. Remember that some states don't even recognize degrees for murder.

And this infringes on my rights how?

[jdreed1024]

It certainly doesn't infringe on My Rights Online. He probably wasn't watching an illegal copy of the movie. He probably wasn't watching on a region-free player. He almost certainly wasn't coding DeCSS while driving. I don't get what this has to do with my rights online?

Or with my rights at all for that matter. I don't have a right to not pay attention to the road. I don't have a right to be distracted while driving. And I certainly don't have a right to any form of entertainment I choose while driving?

He was distracted in his car and crossed the double yellow line. End of story.

So how long before

[Anonymous Coward]

someone gets in accident trying to get FP on slashdot?

I disagree

[theguywhosaid]

The case apparently being presented is that he was watching a DVD and caused a death. The headline presumes that he was watching a DVD, and I do not think he contests that he caused a death. He does, however, contest that he was watching a DVD. It seems to me that anything questionable should come after "Charged", like "Murder".

Idea for a new law

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a great idea for a new law! It's perfect!

Okay, here it is. "Operating a vehicle in a manner that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety of others is illegal." We could call it the "Reckless Driving" law, and it's cool because it encompasses things that haven't even been invented yet. If you are listening to D($Ljdk in the year 3047 and it is known to be too distracting to be safe, then you are still guilty of reckless driving!

So, what do you think! I'm gonna write my Senator! I can't believe no one has thought of this before!

There's Reasonable Doubt

[rmd6502]

While I _believe_ the guy was watching the screen instead of the road, if I were on the jury I'd have to vote Not Guilty. There's no way to prove that the video was playing, nor that he was watching it at the time. Yes, the screen was up and there was a dvd in the drive. But the thing still has a Stop button. Intuition and "obvious" doesn't constitute proof.

Re:There's Reasonable Doubt

[ZenJabba1]

especally when the jury needs to find for a criminal matter, "The burden is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A doubt that has reason to it, not a ridiculous doubt, not a mere possible doubt."

Very well said!

[PaulBu]

... and it deserves to be 'Insightful', not 'Funny', really!

What is really funny is all the replies from people who do not get your sarcasm here and try to "correct" your reasoning (and one guy even agreed to it! I guess he did not read to the end ;-) )

Paul B.

device driver?

[jaredcat]

DVD-Watching Driver Charged with Murder

Did anyone else read this title and think that a DVD software device driver was being charged with murder? Am I that nerdy?...

I was imagining all sorts of super-litigious situations, like a third-party dvd-watching device driver written for those linux nuts was used to watch a region-protected movie which somehow killed someone. or something. eh... back to work.

The reason for laws like that

[lorcha]

The reason for laws like that is to make life easier on prosecutors. This way, they don't have to take the time to prove to a jury that driving while yacking on a cellphone is driving without due care and attention every time someone does that. The legislature simply states the obvious: that if you are driving while on a cell phone, then you are not paying enough attention to the road.

Now the defendant can't argue that he/she has some special ability to drive and yack at the same time without being distracted (even though he/she just caused an accident while on a cell).

Re:The reason for laws like that

[ipfwadm]

The reason for laws like that is to make life easier on prosecutors. This way, they don't have to take the time to prove to a jury that driving while yacking on a cellphone is driving without due care and attention every time someone does that. The legislature simply states the obvious: that if you are driving while on a cell phone, then you are not paying enough attention to the road.

That's the point of legal precedent.

Re:The reason for laws like that

[drinkypoo]

Legal systems already have a concept to make life easier on prosecutors (not sure this is a good thing) which is called case law. IANAL, obviously, but the results of earlier cases sets precedent which is considered in later ones.

Hence, if there is an overwhelming history of cases being prosecuted along certain lines, it gets easier and easier to do so in the future.

Now I do already think we have too many laws, and I think that case law makes the legal landscape essentially a sandbox filled with land mines, but case law seems to make more sense (though it does serve mainly to employ lawyers) whereas writing law after law to catch every condition is simply not practical because people will always be inventing new ways to kill people, defraud people, and so on, and that means that over time, using a system which writes a new law for each thing someone can do wrong, we will have an infinite number of laws.

Re:The reason for laws like that

[jez9999]

The legislature simply states the obvious: that if you are driving while on a cell phone, then you are not paying enough attention to the road.

Except that under many situations, that's bullshit. Sitting in a traffic jam, even cruising along a long stretch of empty road, it can be perfectly safe IMHO to talk on a mobile phone whilst driving. Lawyers *SHOULD* have to prove that the driver in question was not paying due care and attention. How much do they get paid?? What do they get paid for?

Re:The reason for laws like that

[Hognoxious]

whereas writing law after law to catch every condition is simply not practical [...] we will have an infinite number of laws.

That's the European (Napoleonic) approach, and as you rightly say, it doesn't work.

Re:The reason for laws like that

[Spellbinder]

the point is that if cells are banned while driving, they can fine you if you us 'em anyway
other way around they had to wait until there is an accident

Easy out

[sharkey]

Alaska has no laws prohibiting drivers from watching DVDs, although many other states do.

Use a VCR instead and you're golden!

"causing a fatality accident by driving"

[Reenigne]

Finish Him..... FATALITY!

Driving while on a cell phone

[I7D]

I'm not sure if its in the previous posts, but It was found that driving driving with a cell phone, vs driving with a headset are equally as dangerous. Headsets are no safer.

Re:Driving while on a cell phone

[Fuzzums]

I agree. The problem is where is your concentration, on the road or with the call.

A casual conversation with your co-rider or a casual conversation on the phone are more or less the same, but if it's a call that requires your attention, like important or hard decisions, it's a whole different thing.

It's hard to discriminate between those two in court, so I prefer no calls at all while driving. Hell, even on a bike I think it's wiser to stop and finish my conversation.

Oh, COME ON!

[Fuzzums]

What's the reason for the frelling traffic laws? To keep the roads safe.

How can you do that the best? By watching tha "basics of drive a car in 5 hours" DVD.

OF COURSE NOT, YOU MORON!

You should keep your eyes end concentration ON THE ROAD. Is that so frelling hard to understand?

Sorry for the shouting, but it really pisses me off if there are people making calls, reading books, newspapers, reading maps or watching a FFFF.. a FFFFFFFF. Stupid DVD.

Ok. so lets rewrite the traffic laws and add a simple rule.
Rule number one. You shall do everything reasonably possible to keep your presence on the road as safe as possible, for you, but more important for others.

Boy, am I pissed... watching a dvd.. the $)*@#&)..

Heh

[lorcha]

Drunk drivers pay a lot of money and get back on the road.

I think the grandparent poster was implying that putting DUI convicts back on the road was not the wisest thing to do. Under the current system we take away their licenses, but they just drive anyhow. Maybe intoxicated, maybe not.

It was only a matter of time

[TiggertheMad]

I knew that this would happen eventually, after I saw what happened to Jackie Chan in 'Cannonball Run'. Not only was that movie a good wholesome, quality film, it contatined social warnings about the dangers of future technologies.

"CAPTAIN CHAOS! DUM-DUM-DUM!"

Laws against specific dumb acts

[the eric conspiracy]

Alaska has no laws prohibiting drivers from watching DVDs, although many other states do.

Why? Lawmakers should spend their time repealing laws like this, and increasing penalties for actions like negligent homicide, depraved indifference, vehicular manslaughter and my favorite new category, menace to society.

While they are at it, they should bring in whomsoever was the brilliant fellow who made it possible for somebody to watch a DVD in the front seat as a co-defendant.

Re:Laws against specific dumb acts

[EmagGeek]

"they should bring in whomsoever was the brilliant fellow who made it possible for somebody to watch a DVD in the front seat as a co-defendant"

So, you're saying that whomever invented the portable DVD player somehow shares culpability?

You're serving up french fries at McDonalds - so you're responsible for Joe Fatso's heart attack. Wait a minute, that was already thrown out of court..

Details

[Trailwalker]

The evening news reports a guilty plea to two counts of vehicular manslaughter.

The couple's son will doubtless file a wrongful death lawsuit.

No need for specific laws

[EmbeddedJanitor]

There is absolutely no need for specific laws to cover watching movies etc, all should be covered by negligence. If you start having specific laws then the loopholes get huge.

Officer:"Hey buddy you are not allowed to watch DVDs while you're driving". Driver:"It's OK, this is an MPEG off my harddrive." Officer:"Ok, carry on then...".

For those of you that can remember, or who have read The electric KoolAid acid test, there were such stupid loopholes in narcotics laws in the 60s when it was illegal to smoke dope, but legal to use LSD. These got tightened up by having blanket laws covering narcotics in general.

With driving, there should be no need to explicitely mention cell phones (under the cellphone law, listening and sending notes with voice-activated email is probably still legal and using a two-way radio is probably legal since it is technically not a cellphone - yet they are all equally instrusive into driver function), not watching movies, not playing chess,... Unfortunately it is hard to determine where the boundary of acceptable interference is since it is so subjective; is taking to your kids in the back OK?

Re:No need for specific laws

[treat]

For those of you that can remember, or who have read The electric KoolAid acid test, there were such stupid loopholes in narcotics laws in the 60s when it was illegal to smoke dope, but legal to use LSD. These got tightened up by having blanket laws covering narcotics in general.

Those laws are so wide-reaching that they make common items such as beef and sugar illegal. We rely on unwritten policies of our law enforcement to decide what portions of these blanket laws are enforced.

For example, we have laws banning a whole list of molecules - in any quantity, one molecule or more. Many if not most of these are found in nature and exist in trace amounts everywhere, with no exclusion in the law for such trace amounts. Then, we have laws banning their isomers, esters, ethers, salts and salts of isomers, esters and ethers.

What we have essentially done is made everything illegal. You rely on the discretion of police and prosecutors as to what actually does and doesn't break the law.

Reckless indifference = murder 2

[Beardo the Bearded]

All I know about American Law, I learned from Law & Order.

From what I understand, if you act in a way which shows a depraved or reckless indifference towards human life, you can be charged with murder in the second degree.

Again, IANAL. IWTV. (I watch TV)

bad classification

[EmbeddedJanitor]

The classification seems to be getting random. The one on lattitudes and longitudes was classified under science. Should have been under dumb things to do with technology.

Impaired driving, or negligence

[nuggz]

He wasn't watching what he was doing, negligence.
He wasn't able to pay attention to driving because of his own actions.

Pick one, I say throw the book at him, we don't need these morons driving 2 tons of death around.

A step backwards..

[GrBear]

You know, we had a section in the Alberta Highway Traffic Act that expressly stated "no televisions or video systems except in a motor coach" and that "it must be at no time visible to the driver of the motor vehicle".

The laws were updated into the 2003 Alberta Traffic Safety Act, and that section has been totally removed.

Similarly odd was the removal of act that required all 4 wheel motor vehicles to have mudflaps and they be a minimum of 6" off the ground.

Is it justified to repeal laws when enough people stop following them?

Re:A step backwards..

[EmagGeek]

"Is it justified to repeal laws when enough people stop following them?"

Actually, yes. That's the whole point of a representative democracy. Having more than half the people disobeying a law gives the implication that the law is not desired by the people and hence should be repealed.

If more than half of everyone sent a letter to congress demanding that a law be repealed, you can bet your ass it would be, because those representatives would know that if they didn't repeal it, they'd be voted out.

Re:A step backwards..

[Anonymous Coward]

So the DMCA will be repealled when? :)

Egad! Jobs was right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Jobs was right when he said people couldn't watch movies while doing other things while they could listen to music while driving or jogging. Who knew!

DVD players

[phorm]

I have to comment on this one, because it does apply to me (although I'm Canadian legal issues are similar).

I have a Mini-ITX PC which I made primarily for use in my car. It also has a 6" display. Use includes playing music, automotive functions, and playing DVD's.

This includes video DVD's, which I will use on the stipulation that:

a) Passengers watch I don't

b) Screen is turned away from me

c) Sound is through headphones

When I'm driving, the mp3 portion has some nice visualization plugins. I click the screen off or turn it upside-down so I don't see these either (flashing objects/colours=distraction).

People do stupid things. Having a DVD player within view of the driver is stupid. However, I'd hate to see DVD-capable devices banned. I plan on getting a touchscreen for my unit eventually, so then I can tap the screen to switch songs etc (which - in the same principle as my stereo - doesn't require eyes so much as a memorization of button location). Not much different from the LCD on a normal CD player

I forsee laws which may ban DVD-capable devices in vehicles. This is bad. As mentioned, laws exist to cover people who put themselves above the lives of others. But having a DVD player for my passengers (not driver visible/hearable) on long trips, or an Mp3-DVD with days worth of sweet, sweet music is not a danger, though it will likely be lumped with the rest.

Re:DVD players

[Anonymous Coward]

The laws in Australia regarding in-car DVD players are:

1. The driver must not be able to see it while driving.

2. Other drivers must not be able to see it through the rear window.

I think these are sensible, and I expect that most countries will adopt similar laws.

Re:Lawer Speak:

[WideMouthMickie]

Lets really use the rights we've been given and start naming names. The driver is Erwin Jamie Petterson Jr., and the people that his car rammed into, after crossing the centerline, were Robert and Donna Weiser. As a point order, let me declare my bias: I know the Weiser family.

The DA in the case is attempting to prove "an extreme indifference to the value of human life" in order to get murder 2 to stick. See the Anchorage Daily News for more at http://www.adn.com/front/story/5332477p-5270490c.h tml

Alaska law expressly prohibits a TV in view of the driver of a motor vehicle, but somehow a DVD monitor and a playstation 2 console on the front dashboard of pickup truck are sufficiently different from a TV so as the alleged crime cannot be prosecuted from that angle.

The question is this; how is it that in every state in the US, you can be summarily arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI/SWI) for the simple act of sitting behind the wheel of a vehicle with the means to operate (read keys) after having 2-3 beers, BUT, a DVD, Playstation, and Monitor banking in to the stickshift of a 5000 lb truck traveling at 65 mph gets you only a cross-eyed look?

This guy should have the right to have his movies, and whatever else he wants in the front of his truck. He should be allowed to drive with a completely opaque windshield if he wants, IMHO. BUT it should be clear and unavoidable, that he also has the right to be held accountable for the consequences of his actions. Hit someone, in mid afternoon light, while they are in their lane...that's on you. Or at least it should be.

this will trigger a spate of bad laws

[spirit_fingers]

This story is going to be seized upon by lawmakers as an excuse to pass more laws to limit personal freedom by prohibiting risk-taking. They've done it before by requiring the wearing of seat-belts and banning cell-phone usage in cars. People should by punished for misdeeds they do, not for things they might do. Simply using a cell phone in your car, having a DVD player in your dash or refusing to wear a seat-belt are not hazards. Stupid drivers are. When lawmakers attempt to legislate away stupidity you have the beginnings of a police state. I think I should have the right to install a widescreen HDTV display in my dash and replace the dome light with a disco mirror ball if I so chose. That shouldn't be anybody's business but my own. Don't penalize people for taking risks, but by all means throw the book at them if they plow into an oncoming car on the freeway--for whatever reason.

Re:this will trigger a spate of bad laws

[Anonymous Coward]

When you taking risks jepordizes only your own life then I have no problem with it. This is not the case when it comes to controlling a 2000+ pound chunk of metal travelling at 60+ MPH on a roadway which other people inhabit.

Re:this will trigger a spate of bad laws

[spirit_fingers]

The overwhelming number of people who talk on cell phones while driving never get into an accident. Most people would have enough sense not to let themselves get distracted enough by a DVD player to cause an accident. It comes down to what the majority considers to be an acceptible risk. My solution would be to make getting a driving license tougher to begin with and require that everyone take driving tests every couple of years. The problem isn't taking risks. The problem is we have too many irresponsible people driving. We need to do a better job of weeding out bad drivers instead of banning behaviors that good drivers can engage in without endangering others. We need to trust people to be responsible adults rather than big government infantilizing them for having a DVD player in their dash.

Re:this will trigger a spate of bad laws

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that getting a driver's license should be tough. However, the last 3-4 times I've almost been involved in an accident (which incidently I was able to avoid because I was paying attention) it was the result of the other driver being distracted because they were yapping on a cell phone.

I'm all for laws that make it a criminal offense for a driver to engage in an activity that is likely to distract they to the point that they become a potential liability. If that means I personally have to pull my vehicle over to use a cell phone then I'll gladly pay that price.

Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[cbreaker]

Come on. People will drive like morons no matter what. My freedoms are being taken away piece by piece because of morons like you.

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Your freedom is only being taken away if you drive like a moron, which presumably you have just admitted to.

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[jrockway]

No his freedom is vanishing because some people can't handle the freedoms. He might be able to chat on his cell-phone and drive quite safely. Just because you can't doesn't mean he should be penalized. That's his point.

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter what...you are more likely to have an accident using a mobile phone. You may not have an accident using one, but you might not have an accident if your'e drunk.

Of course, a few people take this too far (IMO) when they say that people shouldn't listen to Radio/CDs while driving because they are also a distraction.

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[shellbeach]

No his freedom is vanishing because some people can't handle the freedoms. He might be able to chat on his cell-phone and drive quite safely. Just because you can't doesn't mean he should be penalized. That's his point.

My friend, let me enlighten you. Everyone who has had an accident while using a mobile phone has thought exactly the same thing: that they were able to chat (and worse, SMS!!) on their phone and drive quite safely ... right up until the point where they killed either themselves or someone else. Self-perceptions of risk are never reliable, and especially not in situations like this where other people get killed.

The freedom to text/chat on a mobile is equivalent to the freedom to drive around and randomly shoot at people. Both are dangerous. Both are stupid.

And both, thankfully, are illegal.

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[EvanED]

And I may be a sharpshooter and be able to shoot a gun through a crowded mall without hitting anyone, but that doesn't mean that I should not be charged with reckless endangerment.

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[cbreaker]

"My friend, let me enlighten you. Everyone who has had an accident while using a mobile phone has thought exactly the same thing: that they were able to chat (and worse, SMS!!) on their phone and drive quite safely"

No, "my friend" let me enlighten YOU: Not every accident is caused by cell phones, and not every cell phone user is going to get into accidents. There's a whole other peice of that demographic that claims that they can talk and drive just fine and they DO.

Statistics show that eating, smoking cigarettes, and drinking beverages (soda, water) is equally as dangerous while driving if not more dangerous then talking on the cell phone. Do you want to ban these too? Should I get pulled over for taking a sip of my Pepsi?

Where do you draw the line?

Look, I'm not totally ignorant of the facts here. A lot of people drive like morons while on the phone. But I just think that a lot of people drive like morons reguardless, and these same people that can't talk and drive will just end up crashing anyways. These blanket laws are such bullshit, and each one takes a nibble out of my freedom as a citizen of a supposedly free country.

If you won't accept the inherent risk of driving, then I might suggest you take a train, ride a bike, or walk.

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[Anonymous Coward]

utlilitarianism at work. most, if not all people cant drive as well while performing another task - fact. so, sorry to those 6 people who can, but bad luck, its the greatest good for the greatest number.

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[Morganth]

I just got a $125 ticket for talking on the cell phone while driving.

I pulled out the phone and had it sitting on my lap until I got to a red light. Then I hit dial and told my friend I was running late to a meeting. I hung up. Conversation went like this: "I'm in the car, but I'll be there in 20 minutes. See you soon."

"Ok, bye."

*Knock knock*

Motorcycle cop at my window. Tells me to pull over.

I try to explain to him that I only spoke on the cell phone at a red light, and so my car wasn't moving. Then he explained to me that the rule is, if you have a cell phone out and the engine is on, you are violating the law.

I'm getting charged $125 (no small fee for me, I'm a student) for being a careful driver. This was actually the second time I've ever used my cell phone in the car (the other time I was in bumper-to-bumper traffic on a highway, so my car was stopped), and I get caught. My luck. I normally yell at people for talking on the phone and driving negligently.

Want to know the truth? Cell phone laws are a conspiracy to make money. Who makes money off hands free sets? Cell phone companies. Is talking on a hands-free set really any better than talking on a cell phone? Not really. It's not the lack of both hands that cause accidents, it's not paying attention to the road (for crying out loud, how about countries where you have to drive stick shift: it's the NORM to drive with one hand!) But a hands-free set makes the cell phone companies another $40-80, depending on the unit.

It's to save lives my ass. How about making drinking a Starbucks Macchiato while driving a crime? I'm sure plenty of accidents have been caused by those, and at least then you're giving $125 tickets to RICH people.

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[shellbeach]

Not every accident is caused by cell phones

Of course not, but then I never suggested that in the first place.

and not every cell phone user is going to get into accidents. There's a whole other peice of that demographic that claims that they can talk and drive just fine and they DO.

Or rather, they haven't had an accident yet. Perhaps you've never seen the way drivers using mobiles veer from one side of the road to the other ... and never even notice that they're doing this until they hit the kerb? Perhaps where you live there haven't been cylists and other drivers killed by phone users who had veered into bike lanes or the opposing lane of traffic? And note: this is not what I'd call standard "moron" behaviour - this is just plain distraction.

There's heaps of data that demonstrate how much driver concentration is reduced by listening to a phone pressed against one ear. It's also quite clear by the behaviour of phone using drivers that they are not aware that they are driving dangerously, even as they lose control of their car. As I said before, someone's own perception of their safety is a very poor indicator. Just think of a drunk mate who claims he's OK to drive home, even though he can't walk in a straight line.

Maybe, just maybe, your concentration isn't reduced while you talk on the phone and drive at the same time. But if that's so, then you're in an incredibly small minority.

Statistics show that eating, smoking cigarettes, and drinking beverages (soda, water) is equally as dangerous while driving if not more dangerous then talking on the cell phone. Do you want to ban these too? Should I get pulled over for taking a sip of my Pepsi?

I'd love to see these statistics - I've never seen drivers who were smoking swerve around the road. But yes - if this behaviour really, consistently causes people to have accidents then of course the answer is yes! Otherwise why don't we just throw out speed limits, drink-driving rules, road signs and all other road laws?

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[canajin56]

My girlfriend once say somebody playing the trumpet while driving. They were turned sideways for room, steering with one hand, and watching the road with occational sideways glances before looking back to their sheet music...

On another note, studies have also shown that, in addition to smoking and eating, talking on a cellphone is as dangerous as talking to a passanger.

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[drsmithy]

There's a whole other peice of that demographic that claims that they can talk and drive just fine and they DO.

There's little scientific evidence to support this. Pretty much every study ever done has concluded that talking on a mobile - with or without a hands free device - has a significant negative impact on driving ability.

It's also found that talking to a passenger in the car - while it also impact negatively - is nowhere near as dangerous. Hopefully the reason is obvious.

A top class rally driver is probably a sufficiently good enough at the mechanical actions of driving *and* used to/skilled at multitasking with other actions that require thought to be able to get away with it. But there aren't many of them driving around the streets.

Statistics show that eating, smoking cigarettes, and drinking beverages (soda, water) is equally as dangerous while driving if not more dangerous then talking on the cell phone. Do you want to ban these too?

Where are these statistics ?

The reason talking on a mobile is much more dangerous than things like eating and smoking, is that the latter don't require any cognitive thought. It's got nothing to do with not having a hand on the wheel.

Should I get pulled over for taking a sip of my Pepsi?

If doing so reduces your ability to drive, damn straight you should.

Where do you draw the line?

When significant thought is required to perform the activity. Driving is not - and can not - be made an "automatic" action. It requires constant vigilance and interaction.

If you won't accept the inherent risk of driving, then I might suggest you take a train, ride a bike, or walk.

It's often not the *driver* who pays the price.

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[ryanwright]

And both, thankfully, are illegal.

Not where I live. Thank God you crazies haven't screwed my life up yet.

Automated voice dialing and a hands-free system. I don't have to take my eyes nor my hands off the wheel. It's no different than talking to a passenger in the car despite what your anti-cell-phone funded bullshit studies claim.

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[shellbeach]

Automated voice dialing and a hands-free system. I don't have to take my eyes nor my hands off the wheel.

That's legal where I live, too - and I don't know anyone who has a problem with that system. I completely agree with you. I was talking about drivers who talk/text into handsets, which AFAICS was what the rest of this thread was talking about too.

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[Pete (big-pete)]

Automated voice dialing and a hands-free system. I don't have to take my eyes nor my hands off the wheel. It's no different than talking to a passenger in the car despite what your anti-cell-phone funded bullshit studies claim.

There is a difference - a passenger can also see the road conditions, and see your levels of concentration. I have yet to have a conversation with a passegner that didn't automatically get put on hold without me having to explicitly say so. When someone is talking on a cell phone, there is money behind the call, and people feel uncomfortable with prolonged silences, so they keep talking (and more importantly keep thinking about their conversation) - even when the road conditions get more intense.

It makes a big difference, and this why talking on a cellphone in a car is a bad idea.

-- Pete.

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[fscking_coward_2001]

Want to know the truth? Cell phone laws are a conspiracy to make money. Who makes money off hands free sets? Cell phone companies.
Take off your tinfoil hat. The equipment manufacturers and retailers are ones making money off hands-free sets. You think the only place where these things are used is in cars?

how about countries where you have to drive stick shift: it's the NORM to drive with one hand!
Not aware of any countries where manual transmissions are mandated. In any case, the only time you need to drive one-handed with a manual (called "standard" in the old days) is when you shift. You're not required to keep you hand on the shift lever at all times. Ever driven one of these types of cars?

makes the cell phone companies another $40-80, depending on the unit.
Look again. Mine was $.99 at a flea market bin.

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[Anonymous Coward]

My girlfriend once say somebody playing the trumpet while driving.

I saw someone reading a newspaper while driving. And he was driving a bus!

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

Would you accept a charge of first degree murder for people who kill ? After all it's premeditated - the driver chose to have a DVD player and use it while driving.

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[Hognoxious]

He might be able to chat on his cell-phone and drive quite safely.

He might think he's able to, just like some people think they drive better after six pints[1] of beer[2].

Of course, when these 'tards run a red light and kill a bunch of kids, they claim "I didn't mean to hurt anybody". Well, they didn't try too fucking hard not to, did they? Another solution would be to consider irresponsible behaviour as an aggravating circumstance, and either double the penalty or upgrade the offence to a more serious one. Sentences for causing death by reckless driving are incredible lenient in some places, like the UK. Consider it as manslaughter or murder and people might change their behaviour.

[1] Proper, .568 litre pints.
[2] Proper, i.e. not Budschheiser crap.

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[cbreaker]

You are so far off on your entire comment that it simply amazes me.

First of all, I was being sarcastic. Yes. Sarcastic. That usually means that what is written or said means the opposite. So no, don't lock us up before we commit crimes.

Premeditation requeres that the accused have intentionally killed someone and planned beforehand. Did this driver go out and say "I'm going to watch TV so that I can kill Susan!"? No, he didn't. It's was negligent, and he should be punished. But not murder in the first degree, because it wasn't premeditated. It was manslaughter - accidental death due to negligence.

People are often charged for higher crimes then what they are guilty of and very rarely these charges stand as is without being downgraded, and this is due to a number of factors - but I won't go into it, you can figure that one out yourself.

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[meadowsp]

And everyone who's had an accident whilst tuning the radio/talking to a passenger/shouting at their children while driving has thought that they can do it.

Are you suggesting that all of those should be banned?

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[aeschenkarnos]

Everyone who died crossing the road thought he/she could do so safely too, and had many times before. Should we outlaw road-crossing too?

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[bogeskov]

I'm not so sure I agree with you...

I don't know that kind of conversations you participate in, but the ones I participate in requires some brain activity... Taking a sip as you put it doesn't require much... I would prefer (having been run over by some jerk that ran a red light because he wasn't paying attention to much but his conversation) that you concentrate on driving not on talking...

And I did ride a bike... lot's of good that did me...

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[bogeskov]

Actually it is different... because your passengers tend to not talk to you when traffic gets tighter... Not sonthing that is easily seen from the other and of a phone conversation.

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[disntrstd]

Yea, I am totally with you. I drive drunk, above the speed limit, while having sex with my gf and I've never got into an accident.

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[[000000]]

How is talking on your Mobile phone with an Earpiece (NOT BLUETOOTH ENABLED) any different than talking to a passenger? Or Smoking?
(Please note that in the UK unless you have blue tooth it is illegal to talk on your mobile)

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[fnj]

Everyone who has had an accident while using a mobile phone has thought exactly the same thing: that they were able to chat ... on their phone and drive quite safely

Your denigrating what people use cell phones for ("chatting") is offensive. Many use them as part of their livelihood. But that's not the point here.

Since the rest of your post strongly indicates that you are in favor of ridiculously targeted legislation to cure this problem that you perceive (but in fact statistically is not a very significant cause of traffic accidents), let's take a look at where this big brother / nanny thinking would logically lead.

Consuming food and beverages while driving, yep, statistically a much more significant cause of traffic accidents.

Dealing with the kids - can be very dangerous.

Tuning the radio. Or hey, even LISTENING to the radio.

Talking to passengers - it's distracting.

And finally, you guessed it, THINKING about other things while driving. Distracting, man.

Do you really think targeted laws penalizing all of those activities will make the highways safer? I don't. But I KNOW it will make lawbreakers out of nearly every driver over and over again. Certainly trying to legislate against THINKING about other things is unenforceable (so far, anyway, thank goodness).

Legislating common sense and thoughtfulness. It doesn't work. Legislating to the least common denominator (just because YOU and your hypothetical others can't deal with a simple manual task, you penalize all the rest of us who can). It is wrong.

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[Cro Magnon]

I second this! On one occasion, I was talking with my GF in the car, and I saw an accident ahead which blocked one lane and was causing drivers to merge into my lane. I literally stopped talking mid-sentence until I got past that mess and the GF could plainly see why I shut up. If she'd been on the phone, she might have wondered why I suddenly stopped talking.

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[CrimsonAvenger]

My friend, let me enlighten you. Everyone who has had an accident while using a mobile phone has thought exactly the same thing: that they were able to chat (and worse, SMS!!) on their phone and drive quite safely ... right up until the point where they killed either themselves or someone else. Self-perceptions of risk are never reliable, and especially not in situations like this where other people get killed.

And everyone who had an accident while NOT using a mobile phone has thought exactly the same thing. Your point is?

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha.. Down, boy. I guess you must be one of those folks who likes to drive and chat on the phone huh?

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[Sgt_Jake]

BULLSEye... oof.

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[jackrd]

My girlfriend once say somebody playing the trumpet while driving.

Unbelievably, I've seen this too. The person I saw had his sheet music on the steering wheel and he occasionally took both his hands off the wheel. I'm not quite sure how he was holding the music in place or steering. The times you wish you had your camera...

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[hesiod]

> The freedom to text/chat on a mobile is equivalent to the freedom to drive around and randomly shoot at people.

That is absolutely asinine, they are NO-fucking-WHERE near equivalent. You are using emotional charge to push your view. You have perfectly valid facts to back up your point, so don't make moronic statements like this.

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[hesiod]

> > Should I get pulled over for taking a sip of my Pepsi?
> If doing so reduces your ability to drive, damn straight you should.

Looking in the rear-view mirror means I'm not looking at the road. Some people even use them to fix their hair & makeup. ALL MIRRORS SHOULD BE BANNED FROM CARS IMMEDIATELY! Think of the children...

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[hesiod]

> If she'd been on the phone, she might have wondered why I suddenly stopped talking.

I don't know about you, but it doesn't take me too long to say "hold on..."

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[EvanED]

Statistics show that eating, smoking cigarettes, and drinking beverages (soda, water) is equally as dangerous while driving if not more dangerous then talking on the cell phone. Do you want to ban these too? Should I get pulled over for taking a sip of my Pepsi?

These are momentary distractions. Your sip of Pepsi takes probably under 5 seconds.

Where do you draw the line?

At least beyond cell phones... some studies put the danger caused by them at the level of drunk driving.

Let me ask you this: since it's very possible to speed safely, should we remove speed limits because they are restricting your "freedom"? Alcohol affects people differently; should we get rid of the 0.08 limit and allow people who can take a lot to drive beyond that since the drunk driving laws restrict that? Let ME ask YOU where the line should be drawn. Why should cell phone usage fall on the "allow" side of it?

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[Merk]

Oh, so somehow the person on the other end of the phone knows when traffic is heavy, and they should let you concentrate?

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[shellbeach]

And everyone who had an accident while NOT using a mobile phone has thought exactly the same thing. Your point is?

That people should drive sensibly and pay attention to road laws that are designed to protect themselves and other people.

And your point is ... ?

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[shellbeach]

That is absolutely asinine, they are NO-fucking-WHERE near equivalent.

Hmmm ... obviously, you've never seen a person drive while talking on the phone ;-)

Anyway, my point was that no-one should have unlimited "freedom" when that freedom entails endangering others. I was just taking the OP's argument to its logical conclusion.

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[fnj]

Haha.. Down, boy. I guess you must be one of those folks who likes to drive and chat on the phone huh?

Actually, err ... bad guess. I never make a call and hardly ever (once a year maybe) answer the phone while driving.

I'm a somewhat rarer bird - one who regards busy bodies with a compulsion to nanny everyone else as ... misguided.

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Passengers are partially aware of the current driving conditions and react accordingly. A voice on the phone will not pause an emotionally charged or mentally taxing conversation when an incident is imminent.

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[ryanwright]

I don't know about you, but it doesn't take me too long to say "hold on..."

Hey, somehow you're my freak and I'm your foe, so it seems we didn't see eye to eye at some point in time... but I've got to agree with you on this. I've had to say "hold on" while talking on my phone so I could concentrate on driving. It's really no big deal.

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[ryanwright]

Actually it is different... because your passengers tend to not talk to you when traffic gets tighter... Not sonthing that is easily seen from the other and of a phone conversation.

I've had traffic get tight many times. A simple "hold on" takes care of it. I've never had anyone on the other end of the line sit there and harass me, they just wait patiently.

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[ryanwright]

Oh, so somehow the person on the other end of the phone knows when traffic is heavy, and they should let you concentrate?

Yeah, actually. It's this amazing invention called "speech". See, you say, "Hold on" and the person you're talking to sits quietly and waits for you to resume the conversation. ;)

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[hesiod]

> somehow you're my freak and I'm your foe,

Eh, who knows. I probably said something stupid & got P.O.ed. :)

It's interesting, when people talk politics and don't see eye to eye, they can immediately think they have nothing in common with the other, when in fact they happen to agree on a lot of other things.

Or maybe it has nothing to do with that, who knows...

Re:Ohh yea, lock us up BEFORE we commit crimes...

[ryanwright]

It's interesting, when people talk politics and don't see eye to eye, they can immediately think they have nothing in common with the other, when in fact they happen to agree on a lot of other things.

You're right, of course. I know a guy who is almost my opposite - he's an athiest, I'm a Christian. He's very liberal in his political views, I'm more conservative. He has a lot of ideas that I think are insane (and vice versa, I'm sure), but you know, we still get along and I find him to be a pretty nice guy. And under the surface, we still can find things that we have in common - sci-fi, Linux, etc.

I think people just get passionate about politics and religion. I know I do. Some issues just drive me insane: "How can he POSSIBLY believe that?!" I have to remember that it doesn't make that person bad. They just have a different frame of mind.

Good...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they'll do the same for people who talk on cell phones and hit people.

Important: He's not a threat to society.

[DroopyStonx]

Yes, he made a stupid fuckin mistake, but he is NOT a threat to society.

Call it a lesson learned the hard way, but if you release him back into society, I can guarantee you he won't be a threat to anyone.

You can take a normal law abiding citizen who happens to make a mistake and put them in prison. What if you throw a nerf football at someone and it hits their eye and blinds them... does that make you a threat? Nope.

Again, dumb mistake, but not a threat.

Re:Important: He's not a threat to society.

[Anonymous Coward]

if you release him back into society, I can guarantee you he won't be a threat to anyone.

How can you guarantee that? What makes you think he's not going to go back to DVDs on the road, given that he just got off the hook with no punishment?

Re:Important: He's not a threat to society.

[DroopyStonx]

Because I am he who is known as I Am.

Seriously though, because he's not a criminal. If I were to toss a pencil across the room and accidentally poke someone's eye out, you can bet your ass that'd be the last time I throw anything at anyone.

Cell phone bans

[nurb432]

We also did that here in the state I live in ( in the US ).. and I agree it should never even have been an issue.. ( nor should other acts, like putting on make up, reading books.. or for many .. eating... if its unsafe DONT DO IT!! )

But, that being said, people are stupid.. and often they need to be told what is unsafe..

Too bad its not made a difference in my area.. people still run around with a cell phone stuck to their face, driving like idiots..

As a side note, i hope they toss the idiot in jail forever... no excuse..

Need one say...

[BrokenHalo]

Only in America. (I think.)

I can't think of a more dumbass idea than installing a DVD viewer in a dashboard. Has anyone done this in other countries?

Re:Need one say...

[drsmithy]

I can't think of a more dumbass idea than installing a DVD viewer in a dashboard. Has anyone done this in other countries?

You can get them here in Australia, but my understanding is they must be wired up such that the DVD player part only works when the vehicle is stationary.

Re:Need one say...

[JackCroww]

In the US, the law requires that the video signal must be blanked/switched off when the vehicle starts moving. Audio can continue to play.

Of course, it is a simple matter to bypass the video lockout, and people can and do have in-dash DVD players playing video while driving.

RE: problems legislating against display screens

[King_TJ]

What really bothers me about this sort of thing is that I rely on a Garmin "Street Pilot" GPS unit every day for my work. These devices plug into a cigarette lighter plug for power and sit on top of your dashboard. They have a small color LCD touchscreen display, and allow entering house addresses, intersections, etc. - and then it reads off directions as you drive.

I've often wondered how long it will be before some ignorant police officer pulls me over for "watching TV while driving".

As others pointed out, what we DON'T need are still more detailed laws stripping of us of rights to use electronic devices as we wish in our cars. If someone is careless, they're careless - and it'll happen as often by them taking their eyes off the road to look at something they see out a side window as by messing with a radio, an in-car DVD player, or whatever.

I don't presume to know whether a particular person is or isn't good enough at "multitasking" to drive safely while some DVD movie is playing. I certainly wouldn't want to charge them with murder over my "guesstimation" of what they did! I don't think the law should try to do so either. In this case, charge the guy with manslaughter but NOT murder, unless you can show he has some sort of past history of making claims that he "watches TV while driving because he doesn't care about other drivers, and hopes he'll hit one sometime", or something outrageous like that.

Re: your sig

[Anonymous Coward]

....and guess what? YHBT.

Good

[smchris]

Pedestrian and runner here.

Throw him in prison for a couple decades. The idea that a driver's license gives somebody a right to treat the windshield like a video game is psycho and anybody who thinks otherwise should grow up. It is a responsibility and actually does require the full attention of one's brilliant mind (unless one is a Senator from South Dakota).

No excuses. No "oopsy!" No "two kills and you're out." Just no excuses. I remember a few years ago when some local kids were randomly shooting a rifle out a car window and "accidently" killed a guy on a porch. They got several years in reform school. What's the difference between a rifle and a car when it is wielded irresponsibly in a death?

Outlaw Front Seat TV

[Anonymous Coward]

I see it about once a month now, some total dip driving down the road, alone LCD TV *Built- in* to front dash, his eyes NOT on the road, but on the TV, If I could call them in to the state patrol, I would.

But where are my eyes? They are watching him watch TV. Not watching the road. So am I equally to blame, or is it like second hand smoke?

It does raise road rage in me... I want to pull in front of him and slow down, make him make notice of the road, but what if he isn't paying attention? I have honked, for that that is worth. I wouldn't mind rotten fruit or a paintball gun, again, a little out of hand. A signal Jammer, would be nice, but then they might pay even less attention to the road, to see what was wrong.

Merely make them illegal within drivers view.

But almost similar situations, I find okay. A GPS map instead of NFL fine. Listening to the TVs audio while driving fine. A set for other passengers, especially kids in the back, fine.

And I have used the cell phone, and shaved and eaten while driving, as well as manipulating a music player. Or fastened a seat belt, or looked around for something on the seat. And while not driving, I have disconnected seat belt alarms, or failed to wear them while driving several times.

But if someone was pulled over and ticketed? That is fine. Make it a heavy fine. Build the sets where they have to sense more than one person in the car to give an image while the car is in motion.

What I want is an LED message panel that flashes large messages across my back window. "You are driving too close, please stop tailgating or pass" " Nice cell phone, seen the road lately?" "What color lipstick is that?" "ooh, whats on channel 5?"

MURDER, MURDER, MURDER

[Anonymous Coward]

Murder imlpies intent; manslaughter implies negligenece. That's the difference.


Killing someone during the commission of a crime is regarded as murder, atleast in my jurisdiction.

The crime is driving without due care and dilligence.

Since someone was killed, it would automatically become a murder charge.

AND, since it was a car that was used in the killing, it's also assault with a deadly weapon, on any survivors. Since someone was killed, I think it also can become attempted murder.

For example, two crooks rob a bank, the police kill one, the other one is automatically a murderer, because his pal was killed by police during their crime... (ok, prosecutors don't usually do this, but they have before)

Re:MURDER, MURDER, MURDER

[EvanED]

Killing someone during the commission of a crime is regarded as murder, atleast in my jurisdiction.

Actually, killing someone during the commission of a felony is murder. (And not even all felonies.) Reckless driving is a misdemeanor in any juridiction I know of, and thus would result in the application of the misdemeanor-manslaughter rule, if it exists in your juridiction, rather than felony-murder.

Thus either "driving without due care and diligence" is a felony, you have a misdemeanor-murder rule, or you're wrong in this case. The first could be true, the second is almost certainly false if you're in a jurisdiction with laws based on English common law (e.g. essentially the entire US), so I tend toward the third view.

For example, two crooks rob a bank, the police kill one, the other one is automatically a murderer, because his pal was killed by police during their crime... (ok, prosecutors don't usually do this, but they have before)

Even under jurisdictions with felony-murder, such a conclusion is not widespread. Most follow the "agent" theory, which says that the perps are only responsible for crimes committed by their agents. The officer isn't an agent, and thus the felony-murder rule doesn't apply to killings by the officer.

(You very well may live in a jurisdiction that uses the "proximate cause" theory--as opposed to the agent theory--though, so the above paragraph is there for people's interest and information rather than as a correction.)

BTW: to your parent (my grandparent): murder implies intent OR extreme negligence; manslaughter implies gross negligence.

Idiots unite

[segfault7375]

Alaska has no laws prohibiting drivers from watching DVDs... [while driving]

Has the world gotten to the point where we need one? Just how much do we have to dumb-down the laws?

Re:Idiots unite

[Darwin_Frog]

As long as the drivers keep dumbing themselves down, we'll have to dumb down the laws just to keep pace.

There has been no conclusive proof

[EmagGeek]

that the driver was indeed focused on the DVD player at the time of the accident. The facts of the case have not been established and it shows incredible journalistic irresponsibility for Slashdot to frame the story in such a was as to not only imply that the facts have indeed been established.

But by that reasoning...

[Eric Damron]

By that reasoning drunk driving laws are unnecessary also. After all it is very negligent to drive under the influence of alcohol. The problem is that without laws that spell it out the law may be too vague to prosecute offenders.

There are a lot of people who don't believe that talking on a cell phone while driving is dangerous. Yet it has been shown that people using non-hands-free cell phones while driving have an accident rate roughly equivalent to drunk drivers. Sounds like a good law to have to me.

Re:But by that reasoning...

[Firethorn]

DUI and DWI don't have to necessarily relate to drinking or alcohol. Matter of fact, while levels are usually done to upgrade a DUI to DWI, in many states you can be prosecuted for DUI while on cold medicine, etc...

The point is that the law system gets to the point not even the lawyers can understand it. Thus, any new law should be done to clarify or deal with an actual new area.

Cell phones may be new (legally speaking), but distracted driving is not. How is talking on a cell phone worse than, say, putting on makeup or reading? Now distracted driving was enhanced by the invention (and more importantly proliferation) of the automobile. Wagons and coaches got into accidents too, but horses don't generally run into things on their own.

Alaska's prosecuting this guy just fine with no DVD statute, so why do they need another law? If anything, just clarify the older laws.

Re:But by that reasoning...

[JamesTRexx]

Driving drunk means you can't focus on the road. That is an entirely different thing than conciously doing anything else but drive.

Re:But by that reasoning...

[The Spoonman]

There are a lot of people who don't believe that talking on a cell phone while driving is dangerous.

Actually, I was just watching a report on the news earlier this week where New York State is looking at the results of the "hang up and drive" law passed a couple years back. It's looking like driving while using a hands-free set is as dangerous, if not more so, than using one without. Main reason being the amount of work it takes to get one "setup" when trying to answer a call. Not to mention the fact that you still have to take your eyes off the road to dial the phone, or even answer it.

Yet it has been shown that people using non-hands-free cell phones while driving have an accident rate roughly equivalent to drunk drivers.

The question I have is: how is that gauged? When I drive down the street, I'd say an EASY 25-40% of the cars I see nowadays is being driven by a person talking on a cell phone (and that's in NYS where said act is illegal). If the number of people who drive and talk has gone up by X%, then the amount of accidents on the road would have to go up by some corresponding amount. If the number of talk and drivers has gone up by 40%, I'd expect to see more than a single-digit increase in the number of accidents. Is that the case? Are there more accidents in general?

Okay, I'm not sure I'm making much sense, let's try a related issue: driver age. The most recent stat I heard is that a male between the ages of 18 and 25 is 4X as likely to get into an accident as a female between the ages of 50 and 65. The question I have is, do they account for miles driven in that equation? When I was between those ages, I easily put between 25,000 and 30,000 miles per year on my cars. I drove EVERYWHERE. Conversely, my grandmother in that age range almost never puts 10K miles on her car in a year. If I drove 3X as much, wouldn't that account for a significant portion of the "4X as likely"? (In those years, I had one accident that wasn't my fault, my grandmother in her "range" had one that was her fault.)Similarly, if a person using a cell phone while driving is more likely to have an accident, isn't it because it's more likely that someone will be driving while using a cell phone?

Re:But by that reasoning...

[JVert]

Frustrating, isn't it? Statistics are very emotional.

I've also heard that the conversation is too intense for the driver because the person on the other side of the conversation can't judge the flow of traffic and when to pause for the driver to maneuver. This sounds pretty silly to me, if someone is talking to me while driving I just say "hold on" and block out anything else they say. So now dialing is the issue, phones have roughly 12 buttons needed to make a phone call, my radio has at least 8 (I dont slashdot while driving) along with a couple of dials.

Sounds like "driving with a hands free phone is just as dangerous as holding the cell phone" means "some people just can't pick their nose while driving".

The argument agrivates me to no end, when i'm talking with my father in the car I have to tell him to lean back when I need to pull into traffic. In fact he creates a pretty good blind spot just driving down the road.

life's lessons

[makeyourself]

63. synapsis is an unknown phenomenon to the driver ahead of you of course, in this case it is, the one behind you...

Re:life's lessons

[makeyourself]

i meant over you

Just like drunk driving ...

[magicianuk]

... speeding, drug taking, discharging a firearm in a public place, taking a gun on board an airplane, running a red light, driving without insurance, using a false passport, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater etc.

Part of being a member of society, is that you accept that society places restrictions ("laws") on what is and isn't acceptable behaviour. I have a right to LIFE as well as Liberty (according to the Constitution) and sometimes those contradict.

Liberty is not selfishness. Liberty is about each person taking personal responsibility, and when enough people show that they can't exercise their freedom and liberty in a safe and sensible manner, then, for the safety and freedom of all, restrictions (I believe) are sensible though regrettable.

I may feel perfectly safe using a cellphone while driving ... but there are enough idiots out there that feel exactly the same but are not safe (several of whom have nearly hit my car in the last year or two).

YMMV

Re:Just like drunk driving ...

[Anonymous Coward]

> I have a right to LIFE as well as Liberty (according to the Constitution) and sometimes those contradict.

Actually, those "rights" aren't in the Constitution. They're mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, which doesn't carry the force of law.

You're right about the rest, though.

Re:Just like drunk driving ...

[hesiod]

> Part of being a member of society, is that you accept that society places restrictions ("laws") on what is and isn't acceptable behaviour.

That is your opinion. Being a "member of society" requires being born somewhere. Being a "willing & complicit member of society" means you accept those things.

I don't accept many laws that are unreasonable/stupid, so I ignore them. The others, I follow -- not for any love of the state, but because I realize they are based on sound reasoning.

Being a "member" of something means you agreed to it. Being a "slave" of something means it was thrust upon you and you have no choice. I had no choice where I was born and grew up. Yet I am held responsible for that. You can say "then leave," but moving to another country means that you first need a certain amount of money -- which requires playing nice with the system I despise. Then, if I'm extremely lucky, I won't be in severe debt the rest of my life, but it seems unlikely. It also requires finding a country that values the same ideals -- being that people are greedy, power-hungry assholes the world around, this seems unlikely. "Land of the free" is complete bullshit. We are no more free than the citizens of most other developed countries, and less in some cases.

A jury is

[Soporific]

A jury is comprised of twelve people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty.

~S

You Can't Blame the Guy?!?!?!?!

[RdsArts]

I realize this isn't a popular position these days, but you do not have the right, nor can you have the expectation, to be entertained 24/7.

Turn on the radio. Get a CB radio. Pull over every hour or so and watch something, fine. But watch a DVD while driving a car?!? Hey, maybe just passively watching would be too boring, hook a PS2 up to that and play some Grand Theft Auto. I'm sure that'll keep the roads real safe.

Re:You Can't Blame the Guy?!?!?!?!

[geomon]

Hey, maybe just passively watching would be too boring, hook a PS2 up to that and play some Grand Theft Auto.

Okay. Which GTA?

I like Vice City, but I'd be willing to play the new one while I'm driving through ALASKA!!

Boring roads, nothing to see.

How???

[SoVi3t]

How do you get hit by a car in Alaska? It's not like there are tons of them all over the place, a la New York, or any city. You've gotta see that one lone car coming!

Right... the Major Networks.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean FOX News (owned by... who?) or ABC (owned by... who?) or MSNBC (owned by ... who?)

These people make MAD money off of DVD sales. If it means you stopping off at a Best Buy to grab the latest stupid movie they produced, so they can watch it to whatever stupid destintaiton they're going to... the media networks aren't gonna hinder it.

content matters

[sacrilicious]

Was he arrested for killing somebody, or watching "Road Trip"?

I've got a friend who recently tried to get out of a speeding ticket by (falsely) telling the officer that she had been listening to Freebird, hoping that the officer would relate. Didn't work, but I thought it was inspired.

Re:content matters

[Scudsucker]

"Ride of the Valkyries" worked for my Mom once. Tell your buddy not to stop trying.

Why cell use while driving should be illegal

[0x0d0a]

He might be able to chat on his cell-phone and drive quite safely. Just because you can't doesn't mean he should be penalized. That's his point.

I think that few people think "Gee, I can't really handle talking on my cell and driving at the same time. Oh, hell, I'll do it anyway." Everyone is confident that *they* are a good driver, that *they* have the skill required to avoid accidents with only part of their attention on the road.

The problem is that the person who pays for their guessing wrong often isn't them. It's someone else, someone driving to their office who gets nailed by someone talking on their cell, some guy that leaves behind a wife and three children with a newly fucked-up life. I view that risk as more severe than the convenience factor of being able to chat with someone without pulling over or waiting until reaching the drive's destination.

Re:Why cell use while driving should be illegal

[ryanwright]

I think that few people think "Gee, I can't really handle talking on my cell and driving at the same time. Oh, hell, I'll do it anyway."

Yeah, so take away everyone's cellphones. You won't do a bit of good. Why? The same people fiddle with the radio, yell at their kids, apply makeup, comb their hair, read, smoke, and do all sorts of other things while driving down the road. Things that are every bit as distractive as a cellphone - if not moreso - and things that you can't take away. What, are you going to remove everyone's radios? Ban children from cars because they distract the driver?

What about those idiots that insist on LOOKING at their passengers while driving? Should we ban passengers, too?

Sorry, but cell phone or no cell phone, there have always been people who don't pay attention while driving, and there always will be. Nothing you can do about it.

Will the MPAA stop at nothing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad enough they are using the DMCA against device drivers used to watch DVDs on Linux systems. Now they are held responsible for even more serious crimes.

Once again.....

[linkdead]

What trips me out is that some shop installed that front display for her...I see the possibility of a legal poostorm stirring up.

One law upheld here

[iamacat]

Is the Darwin's law:

Within hours, Douglas called his ex-wife and told her he was not sure how the collision occurred because he was "spacing out on a movie they were watching," according to prosecutors.

Pleeese, if you kill someone in whatever circumstanses, you are dumb as a fish until you see your councel, courtesy of a messed up guy killed in a knife fight later in his life. If you can not manage that, you should definitely remove yourself from the gene pool by getting a divorce, among a few other simple methods.

No Reason

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no reason for a law to be made banning DVD-watching / use or banning mobile phones.

Reckless driving is reckless driving. negligent driving is negligent driving.

Regardless of if you are tired, on the phone, drinking a cofee or playing with Fido in the passenger seat... if you drive recklessly, that is driving recklessly. Even if you have no distractions and drive recklessly, YOU ARE DRIVING RECKLESSLY... that is what the crime should be.

No need to idiotic laws.

Cheesy reply to self

[EvanED]

Okay, I Googled a bit more and discovered a couple things:

First, common law murder includes recklessness.

Second, extremely reckless behavior has been held in courts to imply malice. (This is a hand-me-down from common law; see above.) Thus several of the states that I said don't have reckless murder, specifically the ones that use the "unlawful killing with malice, either expressed or implied" type of definition (I think a bit more than half of the ones I named), actually *do* have reckless murder.

The justice system in the US is insane

[carcosa30]

This happened in a year where a drunk-driving North Dakota politician who killed a person got off with a hundred days in jail. This is utter madness.

Perhaps car stereos should be illegal too, aren't they potentially just as dangerous? What if you hit someone while fiddling with the air conditioner, is that just as bad? If not, why not?

Aren't cars the real problem? I think maybe only politicians should be allowed to drive. They should be allowed to drunkenly swerve onto the sidewalks killing pedestrians, and for the rest of us, running a stop sign should be punished by having the accelerator foot chopped off.

Re:The justice system in the US is insane

[emtboy9]

This happened in a year where a drunk-driving North Dakota politician who killed a person got off with a hundred days in jail.

True... and that one was just unbelievable. If it had been you or I, one of us would be rotting in jail for several years over that wreck. But he is a "popular representative" and was "so very remorseful"... sigh... just goes to show that money and power can get you pretty much anything.

Perhaps car stereos should be illegal too, aren't they potentially just as dangerous? What if you hit someone while fiddling with the air conditioner, is that just as bad? If not, why not?

Apples and Oranges. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but in this case, are not similar enough to compare. The guy wasnt fiddling with the DVD player. IF in fact it was on, (and while that has not been proven yet, BUT they DID say that the player was wired to come on and show the LCD screen when the car was turned on) if it was on, the wreck happened because he was watching it... not fiddling with a knob or two.

Listening to the radio, while using SOME brain function (unless you are listening to pop or boy bands), does not involve visual acuity. However, playing a DVD in a dashboard mounted player DOES require concentration visually on the screen. Personally I thought the whole idea of a video screen in the dash like that was just dangerous in and of itself. A really stupid idea, and I cant wait to get my own... :\

Aren't cars the real problem?

No, the problem, and I think you get this, is People. Not just Americans, or Eruopeans, or Asians, or whatever. People. In this day and age (especially in America) people feel that they don't need to be responsible for their own actions. People blame everything under the sun, except for themselves when something bad happens.

There is a very small and dwindling groups of people who still believe in personal responsibility, and unfortunately, that is a trend likely to continue as the US Govt steps in wiht all sorts of rules and laws "for our own good".

I think maybe only politicians should be allowed to drive. They should be allowed to drunkenly swerve onto the sidewalks killing pedestrians, and for the rest of us, running a stop sign should be punished by having the accelerator foot chopped off.

Wouldn't it be serendipitous

[Anonymous Coward]

If he crashed just as the road trippers tried to jump the fallen bridge, destroying the nerd's car in the process?

I expect he was really laughing at the black frat house scene though.

Which is only relevant ....

[jotaeleemeese]

... in Common law bsed systems only I believe (UK, US).

A driver should drive.

[jotaeleemeese]

How can people like you get on their heads that a driver is using a tool that is potentially life threateaning at any time while it is being used?

The line should be drawn where each society finds it necessary, I would advocate for stopping drivers drinking, eating, smoking ro doing anything that requires to look away from the road or that impairs therir attention.

Mobile phone use was so widespread and so obviously dangerous (as later confirmed by numerous studies in different countries) that it was important to penalize that particular behaviour since people obviously were not sensible about this problem.

Look at it from the cops point of view

[CmdrGravy]

He sees you talking on mobile phone in a car on the road which is illegal. You tell him that you were only talking for 2 seconds, honest, and that it was just while stopped at the lights and not before - oh no officer I wouldn't do anything illegal.

Sounds like a likely story to me and if I were the cop I would not believe a word you said and fine you as well.

Re:Look at it from the cops point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, except that the cop could actually *SEE* him, *AS HE WAS DOING IT*, dumbass.

Re:Look at it from the cops point of view

[hesiod]

> if I were the cop I would not believe a word you said and fine you as well.

The problem is that the cop is not fining him for doing anything dangerous. IMO, all the cop is doing is proving to himself & you that he IS the law and can do whatever the hell he likes. His word is automaticaally better than yours, and trust has no place in dealing with evil lawbreaking cellphone-talkers.

There needs to be a sense of limits in law (enforcement). If he saw the guy talking while driving, great. He was stopped. If the policeman was REALLY interested in just safety, he would have waited until the guy started moving again & THEN immediately pulled him over.

And I read the title wrong...

[AmbyVoc]

I was at first horrified that Jon Lech Johansen was charged with a murder. Phew, what a relief it was not him, and not because of DeCSS. :)

Murder, Manslaughter, Ovecharging--Re:Lawer Speak

[JInterest]

I think driving while watching a DVD could be a classic example of a reckless disregard for human life. The driver knew he was manuevering a ton of steel at high speed in a place where human beings were expected to be. I doubt that the DA had a choice in what charge to file, given both the letter and the spirit of the law.

Actually, you are mistaken. The DA had considerable leeway, and there is a growing and unfortunate tendency for prosecutors to overcharge defendants in order to force a plea bargain to the proper charge out of fear that a jury might convict on the harsher charge

Depraved heart murder should not be confused with manslaughter, as seems to be happening here. Depraved heart murder is the unlawful killing of another human being accompanied by extreme atrocity. That is, the person with the "depraved heart" must be engaging in an activity that not only creates an unjustifiable risk of serious bodily injury or death, but that activity must be one where a very high risk of causing death or serious bodily injury that will result in death. A depraved heart murder is one where all the elements of murder are present, including conduct that would normally be seen as intended to cause death, but where clear intent to kill is lacking.

Driving while watching a DVD is a classic example of negligent behavior, not of a depraved heart. Watching a DVD while driving, or doing just about anything while driving (including talking to other people in the car) can distract you and cause you to have an accident. While it may be foreseeable to the "reasonable person" that engaging in distracting activities while driving will cause an accident, it cannot be said that activity is one where it is HIGHLY LIKELY that a death will result. This isn't like going around shooting into crowds, or deliberately driving on a busy sidewalk, or putting lethal doses of poison into random medicine bottles on a pharmacy shelf or other activities where extreme malice can be implied because some level of intent to cause death or injury likely to result in death is clearly present, even though intent to kill a specific person is lacking.

Increasingly, murder is the charge of preference whenever there is a criminal homicide, since murder charges garner headlines. My personal belief is that prosecutors that consistently overcharge defendants -- and many do -- should be disciplined by state bar organizations. It is unethical conduct, prejudicial to the defense, and is a disservice to the public. It serves no good purpose to muddy the distinctions between manslaughter and murder, as the confusion on this board demonstrates. How many people here would like to end up charged with murder for talking to the wife in the passenger seat when you should have been watching the road, hmm? The criminal law should serve justice, not vengeance. Charging someone guilty of manslaughter with murder is a perversion of justice, plain and simple.

Not the DoJ, maybe the DoT

[krygny]

I hate Federal regulations, but this is so obvious and universal. It should be prohibited that a video display within the view of the driver's position, and while the vehicle is in motion, display anything unrelated to the vehicle's operation (such as navigation, vehicle data, rear-view camera, etc).

The best idea...

[disntrstd]

Don't making doing it illegal, just step up the punishments for fucking up. I think charging the guy with murder may be a bit harsh, but manslaughter certainly isnt enough. Stupidity is no excuse, and this especially holds when you are the victim.

I really wonder what the problem is. I have never felt that stripping away freedoms in response to social problems is a good way to foster a responsible, intelligent society. Typically it is much harder to find the true cause of the problem, rather then just illegalizing everything, but in the end it is a far better approach. These sort of preventative laws tend to only affect the more-or-less responsible demographics.

I call total BS

[brunes69]

Can you point me to this study?

And can someone explain to me what the difference is between someone talking to another on a handsfree cell phone, and talking to a person sitting in the car seat beside them? I see none whatsoever. And there is not a single person in this country who responds to a question posed by the passenger with "I can't talk, I am driving", lest the be called a total nimrod.

The reality is some dimwitted people (the people who have caused accidents while talking on phones) should have never had a license in the first place, since they cannot handle any distraction whatsoever. These are the types of people who are like this while driving - "Hey, look at that guy over there, what a nice hat" "Where?!?" "Over th.." **BANG***

Not too smart, ......

[worthb]

.....I tell myself as I read this article on my Treo 600 ... while driving to work.

At least I waited to get to work to type my reply.

My theory

[Napoleon Blownapart]

I think they should check that the off switch was working on his DVD

Perhaps he was watching road trip and when he found he couldn't turn it off decided to end it all

Call total BS all you want, but here are the facts

[WIAKywbfatw]

Isn't it amazing how many people are too damned lazy to use a search engine to look for facts themselves? Is independent research really that hard? Googling mobile phones cars drink driving safety or cell phones cars drink driving safety too much for you?

Here are just two of the articles that those Google searches bring up:

1. Mobiles 'worse than drink-driving'; and
2. Driving and Dialing.

And, just because you're that damned lazy, here are a couple of quotes, one from each article:

1. Talking on a mobile phone while driving is more dangerous than being over the legal alcohol limit, according to research. Tests by scientists at the Transport Research Laboratory said drivers on mobiles had slower reaction times and stopping times than those under the influence of alcohol. And it said hands-free kits were almost as dangerous as hand-held phones... "The person on the end of the phone doesn't know the driving conditions around you. If someone's in the car talking to you they can stop talking if a dangerous situation arises"... The research said reaction times were, on average, 30% slower when talking on a mobile than when just over the legal limit, and nearly 50% slower than when driving normally...; and

2. "The New England Journal of Medicine" published a report in 1997 by Dr. Don Redelmeier of the University of Toronto. The study found that talking on a cellphone while driving quadrupled a person's risk of an accident. Redelmeier recently repeated his call to ban cellphone use by drivers, saying he actually underestimated the risks four years ago... Two other Canadian studies have raised questions about the safety of cell phones in the car. One by the University of Montreal included 36,000 people. The study found if you're using a cell phone while driving, you are 38 per cent more likely to get into an accident than if you're not using your cell phone. "Having a complicated telephone conversation is a demanding activity for the brain...depending on how stressful the conversation is," says Urs Maag of the Transportation Safety Laboratory at the university....

It's telling that you yourself use the word distraction, implying a loss of concentration on the task of driving.

I thought I had already explained in my previous post why mobile phone conversations were more dangerous than ones with a passenger, but clearly you either didn't think it was a sufficient answer. Did you try the little experiment that I suggested? I bet you didn't, so go do that.

In the meantime, imagine an NFL quarterback taking a snap, looking downfield for someone to throw the ball to and trying to talk to his wife via helmet radio about what colours and what fabrics they are going to use to redecorate their bedroom. Do you think that that QB is more or less likely to get creamed by a blitzing linebacker than if he wasn't having a chat with his wife? Because that's the level of distraction we're talking about: a road hazard can present itself in a split-second and anything that detracts from your reaction time is potentially going to kill you or someone else.

Get Over Here!

[Mordaximus]

...allegedly causing a fatality accident...

Man I hate those damn fatality accidents! I always blamed them on a stuck block button. Nothing sucks more than watching your opponent fall limp and lifeless to the floor.

nooo! this has to stop.

[dep01]

oh, get ready.. you're going to see lots more DVD-watching related accidents on the road.. I love how cars are integrating more and more things that take a driver's attention off the road... GPS screens, DVD players, fancier head units... between those, talking on a cell phone, text messaging, updating a palm pilot entry and whatever else, i'll bet on a typical day, a driver has 40% focus on the road. when will there be focus laws enforced? if a trooper catches you doing anything besides driving, you should get pulled. driving *correctly* and safely demands 100% of your attention and focus. people are idiots anyway.. and now we're asking them to do 1, 2, 3 things at a time.. when we're travelling in a giant speeding box, a moving weapon.. and it will only get worse.

Re:nooo! this has to stop.

[DirkDaring]

Why not automate driving. Put all that technology to good use. Then you won't have these problems.

Re:nooo! this has to stop.

[dep01]

"Don't worry, brain... the COMPUTER will do our thinking, now!" :)

driving is first priority, not only priority.

[whitis]

My friend, let me enlighten you. Everyone who has had an accident while using a mobile phone has thought exactly the same thing: that they were able to chat (and worse, SMS!!) on their phone and drive quite safely ... right up until the point where they killed either themselves or someone else. Self-perceptions of risk are never reliable, and especially not in situations like this where other people get killed.

Those who are truly wrong in their assessment of the risk are liable. But not every accident that is blamed on distraction is in fact caused by distraction. And while some people are incorrect in assuming they can drive and do something else at the same time, other people do both together. Also, let me tell you about a more serious source of distraction than cell phones: passengers, particularly kids.

Driving doesn't need to be your only priority but it does have to be your first priority. And I mean that in a very strict preemptive real time OS scheduling sense. If you can't enforce your priorities, do not multitask!

The prohibitionist view is that any risk is unacceptable. horsefeathers. Some level of risk is reasonable. One must weight the risk/benefit ratio.

Consider, for comparison, the drunk driving witch hunt. Yes, some people really should not be driving and originally the compaign actually did some social good; now the campaign is socially harmful. Even the "drunk" with 0.10% BAC who drives 1 home mile at 168% greater risk of having an accident is less of a threat to society than the tetotaller who drives 10 miles to go to a movie. The drunk has 3.68 risk adjusted miles (1 getting to the bar, 2 going home) and the tetotaller 10 risk miles. Both could have stayed home. But the "drunk" at 0.10% BAC is the one who faces legal persecution (DUI), even if he doesn't get involved in an accident. Drinkers usually choose bars close to their homes. In fact, if he drives home at 17 miles an hour instead of 35 (assuming it is late so he can do so without blocking traffic), completely canceling out the risk of alcohol he greatly increases his chances of prosecution. Further, NHTSA statistics that cite the percentage of accidents involving alcohol blame alcohol if the BAC was 0.01% or greater (relative risk 1.03 vs. sober) whether or not the person who consumed alcohol caused the accident in whole or in part. Ok, 45% of fatal accidents "involved" alcohol. In what percentage did alcohol cause the accident? In what percentage were the people hurt not the ones drinking? What percentage of people who did not have accidents had 0.01% BAC or greater? Less than one third of the fatalities in accidents "involving" alcohol were third parties (i.e. not the driver or someone who accepted the elevated risk when they got into the car with them). 92% of accidents do not involve alcohol at all. Two thirds of fatal crashes involve BAC greater than 0.15% with an average of 0.17% (risk factor: 39.05), yet the witch hunters keep trying to lower the legal limits. There is no statistically significant improvement in fatality rates from lowering DWI limits from 0.10% and 0.08%, according to a former MADD chapter executive director who reveals that MADD's priority is stopping drinking, not saving lives. Not even MADD's founder endorses their current policy: "I worry that the movement I helped create has lost direction. [.08 legislation] ignores the real core of the problem...If we really want to save lives, let's go after the most dangerous drivers on the road. --Candy Lightner, founder of MADD"

Back to driver distraction.

• Better to mess up the inside of your car than the outside of your car. In other words, don't drink that 32 oz soda while you drive unless you are willing to throw it on t

Re:Call total BS all you want, but here are the fa

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's lazy? It is your responsibility to list your references; The reader should not have to go hunting for them. Your post is one of hundreds; we don't have time to check everyone's references.

I don't buy the claim that having a conversation with a passenger is much less distracting than a phone call. I think talking and driving should be banned altogether.

The difference is obvious

[Merk]

In one case, the person is sitting in the seat beside you. If the traffic gets heavy, a driver pulls too close, etc. they'll notice too, and probably quit yakking so you can concentrate. If they're on the other end of a cell phone, they don't know what's going on, and will quit yakking no matter what. In addition, a passenger is unlikely to say something that might distract the driver so much, simply out of self-preservation. Someone on the other end of a cell phone call often doesn't realize that it isn't an appropriate time to talk about intense things.

GPS?

[Anonymous Coward]

So does this mean I can't install a GPS system within the veiw of the driver? Same difference. People will still drive and fiddle with something else. I wanted to do this,http://www.mujmac.cz/art/hw/tatra_mac_eng.htm l but if this goes through, they will start charging everyone that has a computer installed in their car if there is an accident regardless of what it was being used for...

Re:Call total BS all you want, but here are the fa

[WIAKywbfatw]

There's a difference between asking someone politely for references and calling someone a bullshitter, which is basically what brunes69 did in the title of his post.

If you're going to have the gall to call me a bullshitter (or imply that that's what I am), at least have some proof that I'm bullshitting. Don't just take what I've said and say "hey, I disagree with you but can't provide any evidence of my viewpoint myself, so I'll bad-mouth you instead".

This discussion makes me wonder

[00squirrel]

with everyone talking about how this and that should be illegal, if motor vehicles were invented today, would we even be allowed to drive them. Or would they be deemed too dangerous by our government and outlawed?

We have too many laws as it is. We don't need to keep outlawing things. It is not the government's responsibility to make sure you don't kill yourself by being stupid. It is your own responsibility.

What?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what is it about cellular telephones that makes talking into the mouthpiece of one inherently so much more dangerous and stupid than talking into a passenger's ears? And when do you expect the laws prohibiting talking while driving to take effect?