Slashdot Mirror
Utah Law Punishes Texters As Much As Drunks In Driving Fatalities
The NY Times reports on legislation in Utah which harshly penalizes people who cause fatal car accidents while texting. Instead of merely facing a fine, offenders may now get up to 15 years in jail — the same as drunk drivers.
"In effect, a crash caused by such a multitasking motorist is no longer considered an 'accident' like one caused by a driver who, say, runs into another car because he nodded off at the wheel. Instead, such a crash would now be considered inherently reckless. 'It's a willful act,' said Lyle Hillyard, a Republican state senator and a big supporter of the new measure. 'If you choose to drink and drive or if you choose to text and drive, you're assuming the same risk.' The Utah law represents a concrete new response in an evolving debate among legislators around the country about how to reduce the widespread practice of multitasking behind the wheel — a topic to be discussed at a national conference about the dangers of distracted driving that is being organized by the Transportation Department for this fall."
This appears to be the correct legislative response, for once.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Does anyone know if traffic accident rates have gone up in recent years?
I haven't heard that they have. But if talking on a cell phone, or texting, while driving is really as dangerous as it seems, I would have expected accident rates to rise significantly.
Good! Driving while drunk and driving while texting are both negligent choices. If that choice leads to someone's death, they certainly should be treated equally. If anything driving while texting is worse since your decision making abilities are not hindered by an altered state of mind.
Does this rag smell like chloroform to you?
The NY Times reports on legislation in Utah which harshly penalizes people who cause fatal car accidents while texting. Instead of merely facing a fine, offenders may now get up to 15 years in jail -- the same as drunk drivers.
Good.
So what's the point of this story?
Driving is a responsibility, and if you are irresponsible because you are texting - not merely talking handsfree, not talking hand-to-ear, but typing on a fiddly keyboard, you are going to be distracted. Kill someone doing this, and it isn't an accident, what's accidental about taking your mind off the road.
If you need to text on the road (and also if you need to talk), then pull over somewhere safe and do it there. Or don't answer the phone, and give yourself some "me time" in your own car.
Why shouldn't malicious and willful ignorance be punished harshly?
You know better than to get behind the wheel after ten or twelve beers, but some people do it anyway. Driving drunk, driving while texting, driving while playing a gameboy.... frankly, I don't see much of a difference.
Beyond the fact you can turn off the phone or the gameboy in a snap, whereas sobering up takes time. Given that, I'd figure the penalty would be harsher!
...as it has worked in Canada. The punishment for this kind of crime in Ontario (Canada) is so severe that only fools even dare.
On a side note, the punishment for street racing (going 31 miles above the limit), includes the following done on the spot:
Your car being confiscated, getting fined about US$ 8,000 and having your license suspended for at least 60 days.
Bottom line: It works. I hope those in Utah will see similar results.
Missouri just passed a law banning texting while driving ONLY FOR DRIVERS UNDER 21!!!
How stupid is that? As if it's OK to willfully distract your attention while driving as long as you're of a certain age.
Being in control of a two-ton projectile in public is a responsibility to be taken seriously. Far too few people do.
best dept name evar /.
thx
I agree with Utah.
Wow, that felt dirty.
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
I've got superhuman reflexes, godlike judgement, and 99.99th-percentile driving skills, so those rules constitute an unconstitutional burden! I can easily thread through cross-traffic in an intersection or use the two-millisecond rule for following, with perfect safety -- as long as all the other drivers refrain from their usual rank idiocy.
Oh, sorry, I though this was a speed-limit thread.
Seriously, if you want to text while traveling, take a bus/train! I don't know why people in the US are so deadset against public transportation. I can be much more productive while riding the train/bus than I can(and should!) be while driving.
Monstar L
I'm with others on this... Distracted driving like this is responsible for a lot of severe and fatal "accidents". As someone else said- it is willful misconduct that should be punished. Driving a car is dangerous, period. If you are driving a car- that should be ALL you are doing is driving. If you aren't focused on what you are doing- you are putting your life, and those of everyone around you, in danger. Why is that so hard for some people to understand? I have a 32-mile long commute to work every day, and EVERY DAY I see people swerving out of their lane and driving erratically while gabbing or texting on a cell phone. I almost get hit at least once a week by one of these winners.
Let's pass a new law for every single type of driving distraction that comes along instead of writing one law that covers the general case of distracted driving. That way we can make it look like we are responding to every new problem that comes along so we get reelected more easily.
"In effect, a crash caused by such a multitasking motorist is no longer considered an 'accident' like one caused by a driver who, say, runs into another car because he nodded off at the wheel. Instead, such a crash would now be considered inherently reckless."
Nodding off while driving is not an accident. If you are tired, stop the car and sleep it of. It is just as bad driving tired as driving intoxicated!
It should not matter why you are unable to concentrate on what's going on in front of your car if you're responsible for the distraction. Whether it's drinking or texting, in both cases you made the decision that you want to drink/text instead of concentrate on traffic, you're responsible for the outcome.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
to received a lot of attention (here in salt lake) happened a few blocks from my home. I saw it driving to work. A young kid blew the light and t-boned a girl, killing her. The intersection had just been closed when I got to it. It was horrific. I asked my wife if she saw the accident on her way to work. She left 15min before me and, as it turns out, drove through that intersection minutes before the accident. Just by chance neither of us were there when it happened. The poor girl who was killed was just 19 - the stepsister of one of my wife's good friends. There was a PS campaign afterward. Her picture was on billboards all over the city. Whenever I saw one I thought of the kid who killed her, and how he would see them wherever he went.
46 & 2
In effect, a crash caused by such a multitasking motorist is no longer considered an 'accident' like one caused by a driver who, say, runs into another car because he nodded off at the wheel.
Except nodding off or passing out at the wheel is not an accident. It has a cause (medical or just simply not getting enough sleep.) It's one thing if you have a random stroke nobody saw coming. It's another if the doctor has said "you're at high risk for _______. You should not be driving."
If it's a case where you were simply too tired- well, we're not children and it's not rocket science why you "microsleep" or completely fall asleep at the wheel. It happened to me ONCE- woke up in a different lane than I remembered being in. Scared the crap out of me, and I've since learned to get my ass off the road to a rest-stop for a 20-30 minute nap if I feel any of the signs of being too tired, which are pretty damn hard to miss. And to make sure I get enough sleep if I'm doing a bunch of driving!
I see this all the time with bicyclists who are killed by drivers completely let off the hook. A woman local to Boston was killed in Seattle by an older guy driving his van. On a wide-open highway, in clear weather, in the middle of the day. He was charged with nothing- they said it was due to "inattentiveness." In other words, the fucker wasn't looking where he was going, killed someone, and he gets a free pass? How is that justice? How does that hold people responsible for paying attention to where they pilot a 2-ton hunk of metal at 70 MPH?
Methinks the thought of spending the rest of your life in jail for killing someone with your car would make people pay a little more attention than getting an occasional speeding ticket for doing 5mph more than everyone else, which is only a randomly collected road tax.
Please help metamoderate.
Driving is a responsibility. You are operating a motor vehicle and there is ALWAYS the potential
for 'accidents'. Anything you do that interferes with your maximum concentration while operating the vehicle, is something you should not be doing.
Messing with the radio, adjusting your mirrors(something you should have done before starting the car), putting make-up on, the list can be endless, all interfere with your job. Your job is to operate the vehicle to the best of your ability. If you cannot understand these simple things, you should not be driving a motor vehicle.
I would welcome such laws nationally. But make them mandatory time, not discretionary time. 15
years hard labor repairing the roads you did the violation upon. I would remove the word fatal from the legislation. Any such stupidity should not be rewarded. You wreck my car, you pay the price.
In actuality, more of these types of drivers Cause Others to have accidents. They should not get away.
All the way from Europe! (warning, graphic scenes!)
This was all over the news this week. I love that video. Every driver's ed class should show it. In full.
15 years isn't enough. If it resulted in a fatality, the texting driver should get life (and so should a drunk driver).
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
As someone who doesn't drive and has almost been runover several times when legally crossing the street by some damn idiot on his or her cell phone or texting I have no problem with this...
Considering the research suppressed at the behest of the TelCo's proving cell use while driving is tantamount to driving drunk, it's great to see a state taking the lead in this.
I can always tell the cellphone using drivers on our freeways, and I wish my state would do the same thing that Utah has done.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
If they truly wanted to stop multitasking behind the wheel there would be a lot more support for removing the human from the equation. We aren't that far off from cars that can accurately and safely drive themselves. Why aren't we funding efforts like the DARPA road challenge more? Lets get that wrapped up and out there. I mean I think its good that people who end up doing bad things, because of their poor behavior choices are being penalized for those choices, but if safety is truly the goal we'd recognize that in one way or another multitasking occurs for most drivers at some point and the only way to truly get rid of it and the risks they represent is to minimize the human role in controlling the vehicle.
Mod parent up.
Go watch it.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
Phone records show that you sent a text message 15 seconds before the accident? It's pretty easy to prove, actually.
Plus all these phones have GPS in them these days. It won't be long before they know you were doing 60 mph when you sent that message.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
In the UK the phone records are usually used to prove that somebody's been texting while driving. This only catches people who actually send their messages.
Here's the most famous example. Lord Ahmed, a Labour peer, killed somebody because he was texting while driving. He got off with a shockingly light sentence which prompted cries of political interference.
The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
Man, I'm glad this specifically legislates texting, otherwise it could interfere with my playing Sudoku on my blackberry while driving. Or reading slashdot.org. Or watching YouTube videos. Or reading an ebook. Or any of the million other distracting things I can do on any mobile device that is not texting.
Better known as 318230.
Why does it matter if the negligent choice results in a death or not ? That's purely a thing of chance. They should try and stop negligence altogether rather than negligence_on_bad_days.
While i agree that drunken driving and texting at the wheel should be punished I'd rather it be just as an extra offense rather than as an aggravating one.
I makes no sense to punish someone more for being drunk than reckless as the only reason for him being drunk at the wheel is that he is reckless! In case of an accident one should get charged with both offenses, that might carry the same impact on the sentence but seems more like the proper way to write laws.
This style of writing laws makes people think "it's alright , what are the chances of me killing someone while texting ?". It's more a matter of perception but it does impact how drivers behave.
If you get caught DUI then there are "reliable" tests that can determine your blood alcohol content, which is then used determine legal liability.
How do you prove that a person was 'texting, webbing, reading, etc'?
A (busted?) phone that may or may not show an active message screen x minutes after an accident for the police to look at?
Eye-Witness reports? (looking down at radio vs looking down to text)
These lawmakers are chasing smoke. They want to look like they are trying to make a difference but ANY half competent lawyer could likely get those charges thrown out.
Laws already exist that cover crap like this:
Undue care and attention while operating a motor vehicle.
Unsafe operation of a motor vehicle.
Dangerous driving.
Dangerous driving resulting in bodily harm.
Manslaughter.
Most crashes caused by idiot drivers can get 1-3 of those charges applied, do we _really_ need to add more?
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
Maybe - just maybe - enough media attention and (sadly) a few high profile cases will change that.
You should consider the possibility of killing someone while driving, period. The moment you realize that (but don't let it turn to paranoia and make you hesitant to get behind the wheel at all), you start wondering if you -really- need to be looking at that map on the seemingly empty stretch of road in front of you... whether you -really- need to answer that call right now in busy traffic... whether you -really- need to reach under the passenger seat for that bottle of water that got away from you; and so forth, and so on.
That said.. I don't think most of these should carry the same penalty as when DUI; being on the phone may be arguable, but they all rather fall under the idea that you're just not paying (enough) attention to the road. When you're DUI (be that alcohol or drugs, OTC, prescription or otherwise as applicable), you're intoxicated - completely different state of mind often resulting in sluggishness. Being on the phone may have you distracted and less likely to notice something -to- react to, but I don't think I've seen any studies that claim that your reaction time itself is decreased once you -do- notice something to react to.
"Yes, i'd like to see them punish the dead! That is a marvellous idea!"
It's key to the social control exercised by religion.
Not "marvellous", but an effective deterrent myth.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Maybe there's a major accident, and they discover that one of the drivers had sent 2 texts within the last 5 minutes. Of course, they would either have to examine your phone or get the co-operation of your cell phone provider for these things. I remember reading a report of a driver here in Canada (either BC or Alberta) where they pinpointed what happened from his cell phone records. He had sent a text less than 30 seconds before the accident occurred.
Of course, he had splattered himself all over the pavement, so he wasn't around any more to object to them going through those records.
Having said that, I do agree, it would be hard to enforce it in many cases.
If the text was completed and sent 15 seconds before the accident, I think it's extremely unlikely it caused the accident.
You're right about the GPS blackbox though. I wish you weren't.
You ask their cell company, with a judge's order if needed. Trust me they're tracking your texting to bill you. If they aren't, you write a law requiring them to do so. Easy. Done.
Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
Great video. But at least one of the cars was driving on the wrong side of the road.
The girls and the first car they hit were both driving on the left, but the third car was driving on the right hand side of the road. Also, he had to be at least a few hundred metres out when the crash first occurred. That driver must have been texting too.
01110000 01010111 01101110 00110011 01100100
"Great video. But at least one of the cars was driving on the wrong side of the road. "
Had she not been texting, the girl might have caught this and either corrected herself or avoided the other driver.
Also, European road perspective. Additionally, someone might have reversed that portion of the video for a better angle, not realizing it screws up logical viewers.
A couple times a month I see some idiot clearly not paying attention on the road and making dangerous decisions. The only clear pattern I've ever observed is that 9 times out of 10 it's someone on a cell-phone. Just yesterday some moron in a mini-van came close to merging right into me, and sure enough there was a cell phone next to his head. I've never noticed a pattern in car, gender, race, or bumper-stickers... but the person holding a cell phone up to their ear is a very clear pattern. I've never seen someone texting, so I have to believe it's rather rare.
Unfortunately there's still no law in Minnesota against using a cell phone while driving. For some reason there's a ban on kids using a cell phone while driving, but apparently when you get older you gain a magical ability to drive and hold your cell phone at the same time. I believe most states are the same way.
So if you ask me the big problem is just plain old cell phone use, not texting. Texting while driving is idiotic and should be illegal, but concentrating on it and increasing penalties to ridiculous 15 year jail terms while ignoring the obvious problem of people using cell phones while driving is equally foolish. According to http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html Cell phone usage while driving is not illegal in Utah.
AccountKiller
...and I think quite many are, but there's sane and insane ways of doing it.
Sane:
1. If it beeps, pick it out of your pocket or whatever without looking. This is no more dangerous than finding a breath mint or whatever.
2. Bring it up to wheel height. Don't keep it in your lap so you really have to look down, it's too dangerous for more than a glance.
3. If something happens, grab the wheel with your phone hand too. You can hold both, or in a real emergency let the phone drop.
4. Glance-read like if you were looking at the GPS screen. You are able to do that right, or should we ban those too?
5. When you reply, reply only with one hand. It's really useful for lots of things to be able to do that anyway.
6. Reply only in brief. My three favorite responses are "k", "yes", "no" or any of the text shorthands like "lol", "ttyl".
From my observations I'm a way safer driver than say anyone with kids in the back seat. But I guess I'm pretty screwed if I end up in one of those really inavoidable accidents, like the guy in the other lane doing a front-on-front collision with me or whatever. And I do understand why it's forbidden. I've noticed so many people that are writing a text message down in their lap, with both hands and apparently composing a novel while they're at it. But the only reason it's punished so hard on that fact that you sent a text at all is because that can verify that. "Your phone company records show that at 3:42 PM you send a text" unlike "At 3.42 PM you were busy fiddling with the radio or gps or kids or finding a mint". Then tough shit for you even if you did do it in a way that's perfectly reasonable.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I predict a run on software for hands-free texting in Texas. Even though I consider it as bad as using a cell phone, and I'm shocked at the number of people on the cell phone while driving these days: I spent a recent harrowing hour on a journey to a partner site, riding with a VIP in his very nice venture-capital funded BMW, wanting to leap out the window and run screaming for a much safer cab as he spent the hour chatting on his Bluetooth phone instead of paying attention to the road.
It led me to understand how he'd gotten to be a VP: blinding focus on what he wanted, whenever he wanted it, and complete obliviousness to the lives or progress of anyone else. And I always arranged to work with people below his level from his department, because they'd learned to work around his obliviousness. He tried to take credit for all the work, too: I made sure my peers and supervisor knew exactly whom to work with to actually get anything done properly in the future.
I am glad to see someone is cracking down on this foolishness. Whenever I drive, I see people in their cars paying attention to anything BUT the road. Inattentive drivers don't go promptly when the light is green, and create traffic backups. They go 45mph on the fast lane of interstates.
Driving is dangerous. It demands ALL of your attention. Texting and phoning while driving is risks everyone's lives. You don't ever want to see me on a civil jury in a "texting while driving" case. Insurers, quake now. Texters and yakkers, up your liability limits and buy an umbrella policy.
These malefactors endanger everyone for a little convenience and entertainment while driving. How typically thoughtless.
I was up late last night and caught some episodes of 1000 Ways to Die, for the first time.
Harsh show to watch but it is rather educational.
Among the various ways people die was this:
A young male idiot was driving his vehicle around whilst texting his girlfriend who
was walking about someplace.
According to the story they were 'texting' where he was to meet her.
Eventually the primary idiot in the story arrived in some parking lot and continued to text his
girly.
She was texting him back and was much to busy to be bothered with looking side to side while doing so.
Driving down one of the parking lot aisles primary idiot one runs right over his
girly, apparently killing her quite dead.
He never saw her and she apparently didn't' ever see him.
Pretty sad huh? Hard to believe really but I can see it happening.
I can recall in my own experience seeing IDIOTS walking about parking lots yammering on their phones.
As a driver one always has to watch out for such. It appears from my observation of people
they hardly ever turn their heads to watch for traffic whether talking on the hand set or texting.
Talking about pedestrians here.
It is a pity Darwin's law does not take these people out sooner and more thoroughly before they
have a chance to breed.
This 53 year old grump would love to see harsher penalties for drivers doing such. Go Utah , Go.
Something between the lines jumps out and bites your arm off. Soltan Gris / London
Stop being a dork. If you're in an accident and there is a cell phone at the scene, the trooper may very well pick it up, put it in a nice clean baggy and toss it in the evidence box. The trooper will NOT cite you with murder - only traffic infractions that are obvious from the evaluation of the scene.
Said trooper could even be totally incorrect - that's why judges (and maybe a jury) actually look at all of the crap in the plastic bag and all of the associated paper work. And the telephone company logs. And the personal transcripts.
And then toss your ass in jail.
Cool off on the chocolate covered espresso beans.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
You don't think cell phone providers keep logs?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Previously, the Mythbusters (and other scientific studies) has shown that talking on a cell phone while driving is worse than driving while legally drunk. Texting is far more distracting than talking on a cell phone, so this legislation seems more than appropriate.
What could possibly be so vitally important that it has to be texted right now, yet not so important that you can't pull over to do it?
Talking at all on a cell-phone is a bad idea; studies have found it's similar to DUI. Knock yourself out: http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&q=cell+phone+driving+accident
A sinner? So you're comparing an action with potentially fatal consequences to yourself and others to a sin like having sex out of wedlock while Christian? This goes beyond what constitutes a sin.
Your self-deception is just classic. Yes, I'm sure you're one of "the safe texters", and it's everyone else that's the problem.
AccountKiller
So, how are they going to prove that an accident is caused by texting? The last time you were in an accident, did you look to see what the exact time was? Was your watch / clock accurate? How do you know?
For example, let's say you pull over to the side of the road, look up an address using Google, pull back into the stream of traffic and one to two minutes later get in an accident. The phone records will be used to show that you were texting while driving -- not that you were parked on the side of the road, in a driveway or parking lot.
Let's say that you looked up an address (again on the side of the road) and then a few minutes later were in an accident this time caused by your adjusting the radio. Of course, the phone records will show that at the approximate time of the radio, you did a Google search and this time, a witness says that they saw you looking down at the time of the accident. How do you prove otherwise?
The local news station (here in Utah) did a whole segment on the times when someone looks down and looks like they are texting but were not. For their segment, they drove around Salt Lake City and filmed people who looked like they were texting from a distance but upon closer inspection, they were dealing with other things (such as maps in their lap). Over 80% of the time, people were dealing with other things -- not texting. The interviewed a number of police officers that said that it is almost impossible to determine that someone is texting v.s. not.
Quite a few people's clocks are off by a few minutes either direction -- with all the confusion that surrounds an accident, it is quite likely a large number of people will be accused and quite possibly successfully prosecuted when they in fact had done the responsible thing and were parked at the side of the road, in a drive way, or had waited until a red-light.
Do you realize the amount of stress, money, time and effort that is involved if you are arrested? You don't that is why you are stating this. Yes, you may be cleared after they find out that your cell phone has been off the whole time, but you are still charged, processed and that all takes alot of money, time and maybe your health and job. All for having a cell-phone... This is why there are wayyy too many laws and law enforcment personnel. 90% of there job positions can easily be eliminated without and adverse affect. Works in the EU and even in "commie" Russia and China...
Of course they keep logs, but do you think the state trooper will know? Or care? Of course not, nor do most care. "That's what the judge and jury are there." It's a variation of "Shoot them all and let God sort them out.", but little do they realize (or care), they being arrested can involve money, time, stress and maybe your health and job even though you are innocent. The USA has wayyyy too many BS laws, with too many BS law enforcement. We need to reduce them by 80-90%...
Mod parent up.
Go watch it.
Won't work. I watched worse than this in drivers ed years ago, and the dead people I saw weren't actors. I still drove foolishly, because I was a young foolish man. The prospect of prison will influence some, I think. Actual, substantial punishment for reckless driving will influence more.
A problem with scare videos, and this one is a perfect example, is that they will influence the wrong people- like some girl who will be so afraid to drive after seeing one that she instead will ride with her young, foolish boyfriend, who will drive like a fool and get her killed.
Plus all these phones have GPS in them these days.It won't be long before they know you were doing 60 mph when you sent that message.
Assuming that the phone logged your position/speed, which it normally doesn't. Also, what do you mean by "all these phones"? GPS is (still) far from ubiquitous.
The other proposition (records of a message sent shortly before the crash) may be useful for a lot of cases. All you need to do is time the crash decently, and telco records are good enough.
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
Ok, so if a person is dialing a phone number when they get in an accident, everyone will say they were texting, but technically, they aren't. So, why not just outlaw *manipulating* telephones while driving. What if a person has a voice-recognition device in their car (like the MS/Ford "Sync" that lets them 'dictate' text messages (not sure if Sync actually has such a feature yet, but it *could*).
If you were 'texting', using voice recognition, would you still be in violation of this law?
The drunk's judgment is impaired when the drunk gets behind the wheel. The texter makes an intentional, volitional, free decision to put other people at risk by texting while driving.
Stupid bastards forget that their cars are killing machines unless properly handled.
It's not a large-scale study or anything, but it's still worth considering: Mythbusters did a test on this once. They had two people take a driving test (a) while intoxicated (b) while having a discussion on the phone, using a hands-free set, which is perfectly legal.
Both of them failed both tests, although they did a lot better drunk than they did talking on the phone.
I'd rather you rationally disagree than irrationally agree.
You should consider the possibility of killing someone while driving, period.
I think too few people actually do this. It's one of the reasons I don't drive, actually.
I have ADD, cognitive problems, and no depth perception. (The depth perception problem is caused by strabismus.) Around 20 years ago, I made the decision that I didn't want the responsibility of one of my problems being the cause of someone else being maimed or killed.
Frankly, it pisses me off when I hear about people being so casual about driving that they do this shit. As far as I'm concerned, it's intentional homicide, and should be treated as such.
I don't think that I said anything which would indicate that I don't think that vigilantism isn't a crime or should be appeased, but one of the reasons that we have the luxury of thinking this way is that, in fact, our government is supposed to (and, often enough, does) punish people so we don't have to do it ourselves. This "disinterested third party" is supposed to mete out justice proportional to the crime in a less personal way than the victim might, but don't for a minute think that society would stand for the punishment being solely related to the action and completely disconnected from the outcome. Drunken driving is a punishable offense, but the punishment for killing somebody while driving drunk is always worse than if you didn't kill somebody. That is how it is and how it needs to be, at least until we evolve, and that is how it needs to be for texting as well.
Just call! Remember voice calls? I know you kiddies are shy, but get over it! With a Bluetooth headset and a voice activated phone, you never need to take your eyes off the road.
Wow, your creativity has inspired me. We don't need laws, we can create TECHNICAL solutions. For instance, we don't actually need a law against murder. Instead we can attach a device to each person's brain which will immediately kill them upon sensing murderous thinking. You know, this is really a great idea. Why hold people to a standard of morality and responsibility when we can simply prevent them from doing anything that could possibly harm someone else? It's great -- now we can all go back to behaving like animals and rely on "the system" to keep us safe.
Illegal intentionally distracting yourself while operating a 2 ton vehicle, yes. A car is not a toy, and far too many people on the road treat them like they are. Other than the fact that me agreeing with Utah could very well be one of the signs of the End of Times, I think this is a great idea. Though I'd hope that they fine and prosecute people before they actually kill someone with their stupid behavior.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Your phone will actually keep a text up on the screen that long? After a few minutes mine automatically saves it as a draft and closes it. So if the draft was saved, say, 5 minutes after the accident, then you were probably typing the text while driving.
Wow. That's one effective video. Thanks for the link.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
i don't get it. if i write a text and don't kill anybody or drive drunk and don't kill anybody, society may see fit to revoke privileges (for example my driving license) but it shouldn't be able to throw me in prison or fine me because i haven't actually caused anybody any harm.
if however i do hit someone and hurt them, then the law can punish me for it.
Sorry, didn't read the last line of the parent comment. Mod my comment above down please. How I long for a delete button.....
Here's another, this is the true story of a Utah teenager that killed two people while texting & driving:
http://ut.zerofatalities.com/#texting
Disclaimer: I work for the company that put this together.
Hrm... so I receive a text message, but don't read it. I get in an accident 30 seconds later. I get taken to court by the other driver. They subpoena my cell records to see if I was texting. They see a message received just before the accident. There is no way for them to prove that I actually was reading the text, nor that it was in any way involved in the accident.
Take it a step further. Say the accident was 5 minutes after the text, say I did read the message, and let's say I was in the middle of creating a text to respond but then got in the accident. Since my phone is a flip phone, it is likely in the accident to either snap in half or close itself.
Now, as a prosecuting lawyer, prove beyond a shadow of doubt, that I was texting while driving, and deserve the 15 year sentence as opposed to the standard accidental manslaughter defense.
Don't get me wrong. These are just examples. I personally avoid texting while in my car at all, and if something is really important, I wait until at a light I know will take 30 seconds to a minute to change from red to green, and text it then (rare occurrence).
Now, again, take the last scenario, the one that might actually be the case for me. I send a text while waiting at a red light. 5 seconds later, the light changes to green. I start to go through, and hit a pedestrian who ignored the don't walk sign. I go to prison for 15 years because my records show I had just sent a text message?!? Again, good luck proving beyond a shadow of doubt, that texting while driving was the cause of that person's death, though this law now makes it easier to have false positives.
Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
You'd be happy with somebody getting 2 years in jail for killing your wife/girlfriend/mother (etc)?
"How do you prove that a person was 'texting, webbing, reading, etc'?"
I'm not sure how it works in the USA but here in the UK phone providers hold logs of calls - I guess you must have the same or how else does the phone provider bill you for your phone calls at the end of the month? So if an accident happens and there's any suspicion that use of a phone was involved, the police can ask for the phone records. They check the logs.
"then why not just leave it to vigilante committees?"
Are you crazy or just haven't taken your medications today?
There are several reasons why civilized society abandoned long ago.
1. If the vigilante mob gets it wrong, there would be hell to pay from their victims family and supporters. Would they then be justified in going after members of the original mob?
2. Mobs have a nasty habit of not dispersing when their business is over.
3. The justice meted out by a vigilante mob is very highly variable and often is far in excess of what the punishment should be.
There are too many objections to list them all. Perhaps others could come up with a more complete list.
I love you, Utah law-making people things. Have my babies. Please. A law like this should have been in my state so long ago that it's disturbing. I mean it. Maybe we'll copy you down here in America's dangly-bits.
A slap on the wrist for holding any sort of a conversation on the phone when you should be DRIVING has always hacked me off. Should be a baby seal club on the wrist.
I have a cellphone. I strictly refuse to hold a conversation while driving. If I have a family member in a vehicle with me when I'm driving, I hand them the phone and ask them if they recognize the caller (since it's usually family calling). If they do, I tell them to have the conversation. Otherwise, if it's just me, they go to voicemail or send a text.
If they send a text, I check it at the next place I stop at, like a store. If they leave voicemail, it's the same thing: Next time I make a substantial, vehicle-leaving stop, I'll check it.
My family hates it, but I tell them the same thing every time: "My attention is best served in avoiding all the other jackasses driving with BlackBerrys coming out of their ears and iPhones in their asses."
One of these days, I am going to flip out. When I flip out, I'll be back in five minutes.
If someone dies, it's hardly BS. Now I'd agree that they probably shouldn't arrest you at the scene. But subpoenaing the logs of the cell phone provider is easy to do. There's no reason they shouldn't be able to build a case and then arrest someone who caused an accident after texting.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Instead we can attach a device to each person's brain which will immediately kill them upon sensing murderous thinking.
What are we going to do about politicians, then, since you insist that the device be attached to a brain?
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
GP was talking about texting before driving. You ought to read before you go straight to the capslock button.
Mod parent up. Pretty gals from the age of 6 to 35 always get published in newspapers - and always on the front page of taboids. At least here where I live.
Easy to prove if you're the only person in the car, I suppose. Otherwise, there's a chance that a passenger was texting on the driver's phone (which I have done).
I think you've hit on something here.
We all read the story just a little while ago about how so-called "multitaskers" are in fact incompetent idiots. And NOW they're dangerous incompetent idiots! The psychological connection is easily made without our realizing it was made for us.
But you're right! There's a problem. While popular opinions agrees that texting while driving is bad, (it kills! It affects everybody who ever needs to cross the street), unlike drunk driving, there's no blood test for blackberry use.
But wait!
--If you had some sort of. . , I don't know. . , say, black-box in the car which recorded everything the car does and when it does it, then you could compare that information with the phone records of the driver's blackberry account, and you could 'prove' that texting was taking place when an accident occurred!
Now, Slashdot is usually a strong holdout for privacy rights, and geeks and engineers are one of the most important driving forces for how societal infrastructure is designed. --If you want to build a prison nation, you first have to convince the engineer geeks that we need such a thing, otherwise there will be all kinds of problems in achieving it. So the question is raised, "how do you convert a bunch of entrenched privacy proponents to accept black boxes in cars? --No, to DEMAND black boxes in cars?"
Why you run a couple of stories with the exact angles as we have seen here, and then you've just manipulated a bunch of geeks into accepting that which they would normally reject on principle.
Simple and effective.
And don't think it doesn't work that way. Slashdot editors are just as prone to mind-control as anybody else. Laugh if you want, but part of you knows you can't write me off entirely. Others know just how close I really am.
-FL
As a motorcyclist (15k a year), I hope every state will enact this. Or, allow me to just toss an old sparkplug through their windshield as I ride by.
A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
If you hit a pedestrian at a crosswalk, even one who ignored the signal, you are being negligent. They are being negligent as well, but you are the one controlling the dangerous object.
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
That has nothing to do with my argument. The argument is whether or not texting had anything to do with it, or proving that it indeed had anything to do with it.
Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
Every Cell phone manufactured for sale in the US has had (as mandated by law) GPS circuitry built in since 2003. Many phones don't give the user access to that feature, and many may only activate it at action of dialing 911, but the capability is there. Though I admit it's useability per a subpoena probably varies greatly from device to device.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
One flaw in your logic: How are you going to know when the *accident* happened, to within 15 seconds?
"I stand on my record. Fifteen crashes and not a single fatality."
I am not a crackpot.
If texting is a crime due to choices made(like drunk driving) then many parents at work are doing the same every as they drive their kids to work then recount stories of their behavior and the parents attempt to control it.
The second a parent looks back at their kids, should they get 15 years?
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
Phone records show that you sent a text message 15 seconds before the accident? It's pretty easy to prove, actually.
Plus all these phones have GPS in them these days. It won't be long before they know you were doing 60 mph when you sent that message.
It's possible now that your phone is reporting you every time you do this. You would have no way of knowing.
And if I sent a text message while stopped, pull out of a parking lot or away from a just-changed light, and am involved in an accident, why should the recent text message subject me to a lifetime of anal rape in a cage?
As long as the message is not addressed to "the person's telephone number", and it's also not an "electronic mail", it's legal. Instant messages seem OK, unless "electronic mail" is defined elsewhere to include them. Regardless, there's enough room in this law to devise an application for smartphones that allows you to communicate via typing without breaking the law.
(b) "Text messaging" means a communication in the form of electronic text or one or more electronic images sent by the actor from a telephone or computer to another person's telephone or computer by addressing the communication to the person's telephone number.
http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/hbillint/hb0290s01.htm
(c) except as provided in Subsection (3), uses a handheld wireless communication
55 device for text messaging or electronic mail communication while operating a moving motor
56 vehicle upon a highway in this state.
Lyle Hillyard represents my own senate legislative district (Cache Valley) in the State of Utah. I'm sure he'd get a kick out of making it to Slashdot, although I think I'd have to explain to him what /. is in the first place. The guy is an otherwise full-time lawyer (I've used his law firm) and rocks the boat enough to get the ire of his own party from time to time. Republican because Democrats don't have a chance in local elections, and most locals consider the primaries to be the "real" elections around here.
It should be pointed out that this is also due to a high profile situation that happened in Logan where somebody texting while driving killed two researchers who worked for ATK System. The rocket they had been working on, BTW, was the solid rocket core of the Ares I rocket, being developed for future manned NASA missions. The kid who was behind the wheel was arrested and the county prosecutor complained to the state senator that there was a distinct lack of legal options available to prosecute with. Ultimately I think he was charged with automotive manslaughter and the judge gave the kid a sentence to travel around the state to various high schools explaining his story and what dreadful consequences can happen if you text and drive at the same time. This was also ultimately videotaped and sent to all of the Utah high schools on DVD. The "200 hours of community service" mentioned in the original article was this trip around the various high schools.
I think this video is also on You Tube, but I don't know the link. The excerpts I've seen of it are pretty sobering as well.
While I generally like what Senator Hillyard has been doing for Cache Valley, it is nice to see him doing things like this as well. I'd agree it was an appropriate legislative response to a bad situation.
Just turn the gps off.
It's common sense, if your going to do the wrong thing DONT record yourself doing it.
If you have a crash the phone company can see that messages were going to and from your phone moments earlier. Plus the emergency services may find your phone with the half typed message.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
If you ride in a bike lane you have to be very careful, because if you don't pay attention to traffic to your left as you approach an intersection you may wind up passing cars that are trying to make right turns. Many cities have poorly designed bike lanes that stretch all the way up to the intersection to the right of traffic that would turn right, which puts cyclists in danger.
Chicago does a reasonably good job. At large intersections with designated right-turn lanes for cars (Halsted approaching Roosevelt from the north, for example) the bike lane shifts left and the right turn lane for the cars is drawn to its right. The cross-over of car and bike traffic happens far enough before the intersection that cars are likely still going faster than bikes. At other intersections (just about every intersection from Halsted on the north side, for example) the bike lane stops before the intersection; it's clear that the bike and right-turning car traffic is supposed to merge in the space between the end of parallel parking and the intersection, and if you're moving faster than the approaching column of cars (quite common on Halsted) you're an idiot to hit that merge going very fast. If you're going to pass one of the right-turning cars you do it between the right-turner and the column to the left. If there's not space there then you wait. If you're not actually passing anyone don't worry; they can see you, and you have no control over the situation anyway.
There are some variations when you're not in a city. Where I live now, in Wyoming, most paved roads out of town have high speed limits and wide shoulders. It's safer to ride in the shoulder than anywhere else, you just have to be very careful approaching intersections. Fortunately there's usually excellent visibility due to the lack of buildings and very little traffic, and the very occasional right-turning traffic is going faster than you even through their turn, so you never have to worry about passing it.
The best way to make left turns varies a lot place to place. In Chicago I almost always did it like a car because when you can it's the easiest and fastest way. If I wasn't able to get left in time, or when turning off of very busy and wide streets like Ashland or Western I'd do a modified version of the "hook turn": enter the intersection in the rightmost lane of traffic and proceed through until reaching the rightmost lane of traffic on the cross street that's not turning right (or the bike lane, if there is one). Then position myself at the front of that lane (out of the way of my original street's traffic) and wait for the green. You don't have to go through crosswalks, and you never do anything unusual while crossing a lane that might be moving. I also used this turn a lot when I lived in California, because pretty much every road that goes anywhere is six lanes wide. At any rate, I almost never cross in the crosswalk like a pedestrian, as it creates transitions between pedestrian and vehicular behavior that are confusing and slow.
Drivers most places, I think, recognize hand signals, but that doesn't mean they're going to slow down and let you in any more than they would a car that was doing 15mph. Generally you'll be better recognized as a vehicle on the road when you ride straight in your lane (not ducking in and out of parked cars, or riding extremely close to them, as many cyclists do). And sometimes you just have to take a lane and ride right down the middle. If it's the only safe way, and there are lanes to your left for passing, don't let assholes that honk at you make you feel bad. You're doing the right thing, and only inconveniencing them a little tiny bit.
No offence, but I find it incredible you would even be eligible for a license.
If it doesn't criminalize texting, as you say, then why is texting even specifically mentioned in the legislation at all? Reckless enadangerment and manslaughter are already criminal offenses.
I should say, though, that I do like what Utah has done by clearly stating that there are other distractive driving behaviors which should be considered no less (or more) causal of recklessness than intoxication. Where I part ways with it is when they start trying to criminalize those behaviors in the same way that intoxication already is; even driving while intoxicated should not be judged criminal: it's the POSSIBLE consequence of that behavior that might be judged criminal, not the drinking itself.
I don't think I was doing a very good job explaining my concern. I think a review of the moral of the story in the movie Minority Report is close to what concerns me about this trend to preemptively criminalize non-criminal behaviors. Even intoxication while driving should not, by itself, be a criminal offense, if no true criminal act has yet taken place, and yet it is. The state I call home even criminalizes bicycling without a helmet.
Whoever it was that penned Minority Report certainly saw all this coming.
No offence, but I find it incredible you would even be eligible for a license.
No offense taken. I took driving lessons ~ 20 years ago. Back then (I don't know what the rules are now in NJ) the issues were:
1) Can you pass the written test?
2) Can you pass the driving test?
At the time, my ADD was undiagnosed. I had some obvious attention issues, but I was borderline, and I had learned how to compensate, mostly. The cognitive problems were completely undiagnosed. (Again, I compensate well.) The depth perception was more of an obvious issue (because the strabismus was documented), but the odds of me being able to drive (according to the rehab center I was learning at) were put at ~ 50%. (And there was no way to guarantee I wouldn't pass the test and still be a consistently safe driver.) It was that 50% that convinced me not to drive. A 50% chance of failure is simply too high when "failure" can mean death to me or someone else.
Well, the drivers are so bad over here that we need every advantage we can get.
Thank God I own the patent on the world's only Textalizer (TM).
I'm gonna be rich, bitch!
Yes, texting while driving seems like a superfluous activity.
What about entering data into your GPS?
What about looking at the GPS screen?
What about changing a station on the car radio?
What about looking up a phone number and then using voice dialing?
What about fiddling with your BMW car's control joystick?
Those aren't illegal under the current Utah law; should they be? Which level and kind of distraction is reasonable and which isn't?
If the cell phone towers detect a phone in motion could it not be shut off? Just a thought. I do remember surviving when one had to actually to stop at a phone.
Get up!
Of course they keep logs, but do you think the state trooper will know? Or care? Of course not, nor do most care.
Fortunately, state troopers don't prosecute such things.
im jst fne drvng nd txtng no prblm can kp hnds on whl nd typ no dngr 2 nebdy
This guy epitomizes carelessness (doesn't result in a crash though).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klteYv1Uv9A
I am all against texting and driving and I only text at stop lights, especially cause I have a slider phone...but how in god's name are they going to enforce this.
How can they tell if someone was texting right before they crashed...I mean what evidence can you hold against someone to show that they were texting and driving?
I know there is some things you could do like phone records but although that might be enough evidence for a insurance company to deny someone's claim its not enough to sentence someone to a possible 15 years in prison.
For drunk driving you can prove unequivocally that someone was driving drunk using a breathalyzer or a blood test without there being reasonable doubt...but if your trying to prove someone was texting while driving there is plenty of room for reasonable doubt.
there was some discussion about texting while driving last week as well. Seems a hot topic these days. Honestly, if people can't talk on the phone and drive, I don't see how they expect to read their phone and type on it while driving. Some people will try and defend their position that using their phones in the car is perfectly safe, but fact is it is not. I've seen people with maps or books or whatever spread out on their steering wheels, and they are no different. Taking glances every few seconds to try and make heads or tails of what they are reading, taking their hands off the wheel to move paper or buttons. I just don't get how so many people can just turn their brains off when it comes to cell phone usage. I mean, at least when you are drunk, your eyes are on the road for the most part. You don't react as quickly, but hey, if you are looking at your phone, you don't react at all. Cracking down on these people is a good thing, as it may lead others to start using their heads for a change and realize that typing "meet me @ the park, kthxbye" is not worth the danger it puts you and others into. If you have to text, pull over. Some pull over to use the phone at all, and they are not even diverting their eyes from the road, they are just diverting their minds from the task at hand. My comment before to someone saying "I only text while I drive sometimes" was "so you are only stupid on occasion" and although it was modded insightful, all the responses were mainly saying "everyone is stupid on occasion" but I think there is a difference between having a moment of stupidity that causes no harm, and having moments of stupidity that are potentially fatal to you and others.
Of course it doesn't bring back the dead. If that were a valid argument against crimes that result in the death of human beings, we wouldn't have any laws against murder, much less manslaughter. I've always found that an absurd observation/argument to make in discussions of this nature.