Slashdot Mirror


New York Turns Rest Stops Into 'Texting Zones'

New York governor Andrew Cuomo has announced a new plan to cut down on texting while driving: 'texting zones' along state highways. Existing parking areas, rest stops, and Park-n-Ride facilities will be designated as places for drivers to pull off the road and send text messages. There will be 91 locations to start, along with a few hundred signs to notify drivers. Cuomo said, "With this new effort, we are sending a clear message to drivers that there is no excuse to take your hands off the wheel and eyes off the road because your text can wait until the next Texting Zone." This follows a 365% increase in tickets issued for distracted driving this summer, compared to last summer. The increase comes in part from New York state police using unmarked SUVs with "platforms higher than an average vehicle, allowing officers greater ability to see into other vehicles and detect individuals in the process of sending text messages."

165 comments

  1. Unmarked vehicles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can they pull you over in one?

    1. Re:Unmarked vehicles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems so and I don't think there is a reason why they wouldn't be able to.
      When you are breaking the law, it generally counts as breaking the law, even if they didn't notify you that they were nearby and may be able to see you break the law.

      If the law is good, thats a whole different thing altogether.

    2. Re:Unmarked vehicles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      People may not want to stop for unmarked cars even if they do have flashing lights. There are some very strange & sick people out there and some of them impersonate police.

    3. Re:Unmarked vehicles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just checked. Cuomo repealed concealed vehicle ban in 2012, so it's open for business. They are also saying the CITE vehicles are only used during the day.

    4. Re:Unmarked vehicles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can they pull you over in one?

      Marked or unmarked, don't you feel safer knowing they're going to be encouraged to continue to text, type, and read all about your driving record on a 14" screen and keyboard mounted to the fucking floorboard of their vehicle, just before they pull you over to give you an expensive ticket for doing the same thing while stopped at a light.

      Let me just stop in Jersey so I can fill up my extra-large soda cup before I enter the land of common fucking sense we refer to as New York...

    5. Re:Unmarked vehicles by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Indeed, and especially assuming the officer that pulls you over is a plain clothes officer. Given some attempts at police impersonators, I've seen recommendations FROM POLICE that if there's a question of an unmarked / un-uniformed officer pulling you over, to call dispatch and verify. Maybe that doesn't work in 'merica where you'll be thrown in Guantanamo before your call can be completed.

    6. Re:Unmarked vehicles by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Please distinguish between stupid laws in NYC and stupid laws in NYS. The former have been fostered by someone who bought himself a public office, and the latter by someone who inherited it.

      P.S. Jersey ain't exactly perfect either. Here's a convenient reference: http://www.stupidlaws.com/laws/united-states/new_jersey/ It also lists other states and countries.

    7. Re:Unmarked vehicles by fnj · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are some very strange & sick people out there and some of them impersonate police.

      A goodly number of them ARE police officers.

    8. Re:Unmarked vehicles by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Indeed, and especially assuming the officer that pulls you over is a plain clothes officer. Given some attempts at police impersonators, I've seen recommendations FROM POLICE that if there's a question of an unmarked / un-uniformed officer pulling you over, to call dispatch and verify. Maybe that doesn't work in 'merica where you'll be thrown in Guantanamo before your call can be completed.

      Not sure about 'Murica, but here in Australia plain clothes cops are instantly recognisable from their haircut and the sheer amount of radio/computer equipment in their car.

      However plain clothes cops in Oz will only pull you over if you're doing something stupid... Like texting and driving.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    9. Re:Unmarked vehicles by fafaforza · · Score: 1

      You have the right to drive to the nearest police station, you don't have to pull over right then and there on the side of the road. As such, they cannot count it as fleeing. That is in response to fake cops pulling people over and robbing them, or worse.

    10. Re:Unmarked vehicles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They warn people of that here as well in the US. However the cop won't take you too kindly if they were legitimate and you went through that ordeal and made them waste their time. Sure, that higher fine is better than ending up raped, beat-up, or dead but the police mentality in the US is far from okay.

    11. Re:Unmarked vehicles by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      What if you don't know where the nearest station is? What if you don't have a smartphone? What if you don't have any kind of mobile phone? What if the unmarked car blocks your vehicle when you stop at a red light on the way to the nearest station?

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    12. Re:Unmarked vehicles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There have been quite a few fake cops around Springfield lately, and the thing is, the fakes are obvious fakes. OTOH when a real unmarked car turns its lights on, it's pretty evident it's a real cop car. I saw one here in town that had pulled someone over, and it looked like a late model civilian car -- but the flashing red and blue lights built in to the car, obviously factory-installed, gave little doubt that it was real.

      But the cops here give the same advice -- if you're not sure, turn on your flashers and drive to a police station, firehouse, or somewhere well-lighted and busy.

    13. Re:Unmarked vehicles by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

      My travel bong is well nigh invisible to prying eyes. Technology ftw.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    14. Re:Unmarked vehicles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are some very strange & sick people out there and some of them impersonate police.

      A goodly number of them ARE police officers.

      Uhhhh . . . huh?

      Sincerely,
      Riley Martin

    15. Re:Unmarked vehicles by fafaforza · · Score: 1

      Call 911. If you are pushed off the road, I suppose the most you can do is crack your window and ask them to hand you their badges. Then file a complaint.

    16. Re:Unmarked vehicles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if you call dispatch you are guilty of talking on the phone while driving.

  2. This makes no sense. by Seumas · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why couldn't you pull over and send text messages from a rest area, before it was named a texting area? This sounds stupid.

    1. Re:This makes no sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may be stupid, but it's slightly less stupid than most solutions that are put into action.

    2. Re:This makes no sense. by SJHillman · · Score: 2

      They could, they just think signs will help. Just like all those "Keep right except to pass" signs that everyone in NY ignores.

    3. Re:This makes no sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In New York you could, because the law is about operating a moving vehicle. As long as you stop, you can text. Other states talk about control, which includes being outside your vehicle with the keys. The point of this is to encourage people to use rest areas for texting. It's a PR campaign, not a legal one.

    4. Re:This makes no sense. by steelfood · · Score: 2

      Maybe service? New York has a lot of rural, hilly areas where you might get a revolving half-bar of service even on Verizon or AT&T. The smaller carriers, like Sprint and T-Mobile, have no chance in these locations.

      I don't know if they've confirmed cell service for all networks in these places specifically. If not, it's going to draw the attention of lawyers all over the state.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    5. Re:This makes no sense. by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      This sounds stupid.

      It sounds stupid . . . because it is stupid . . . but a lot of drivers are even more stupid . . . apparently.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    6. Re:This makes no sense. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Hell in VA they got rid of the law that even says 'keep right'. Apparently it's peachy keen to pass people on the right too, or so I was told by the nice officer who was objecting to my flashing the slowpoke in the left lane.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    7. Re:This makes no sense. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      How about the Georgia cop who has issued 800 tickets *this year* to people stopped at red lights and texting? linky

      Don't expect you're quaint notion of what's 'right' to mesh with how it's applied to you.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    8. Re:This makes no sense. by healyp · · Score: 1

      Yea, but it does sound like a really excellent way to spend millions of dollars on new road signs.

    9. Re:This makes no sense. by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      In urban areas redlight texting is a real problem.

      It's not infrequent to lose 10%-20% of a greenlight to some asshole texting in front of you, the spillover costs are quite high.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    10. Re:This makes no sense. by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      Georgia would be one of those other states he mentioned. I only read the Slashdot summary of the article, but it did seem to imply rather strongly that the Georgia cop was not in New York.

    11. Re:This makes no sense. by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      I'm on Sprint in rural New York you insensitiivivvvvvvvvvvv***CARRIER LOST***

    12. Re:This makes no sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In Texas you can pass any which way you want as long as you don't leave the pavement, and if you pass on a paved shoulder, that it's not marked with "no driving on shoulder" signs or stripes. Found that out when I passed a truck doing 20 under the speed limit up the center lane on its left, and hit the car that had passed both me and the truck on the right when we both pulled back into the middle lane in front of the truck.

    13. Re:This makes no sense. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Indeed it does. And with only 91 of them for the entire State, there probably won't be one near when you need one anyway.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    14. Re:This makes no sense. by Seumas · · Score: 1

      If you don't get cell service in your car on the interstate, then you aren't texting while driving *anyway* . . . because, you know, no cell service.

      If you're installing special cell service towers in these rest stops, then that's worth mentioning (along with toilets and picnic areas), but it doesn't seem worth promoting specially by renaming the stops.

      If you're just doing this as some sort of safety effort (which seems to be the case), then renaming a rest area to a "texting area" makes about as much sense as renaming it any other number of things you can also do at rest areas, besides rest. Rest stops. Stretch stops. Walking stops. Urination stops. Masturbation stops. Cell phone stops. Reading book stops. And if we're renaming them after social efforts under the premise that changing the name will some how change behavior, let's get up some "Don't Do Meth Areas" and "Don't Beat Your Children Areas"...

      It seems they were already properly addressing the problem in the correct way. A thing is illegal and they issue tickets when they catch people doing the illegal thing. if that isn't having enough of an impact, then increase the penalty. If people are seriously dying because fucking idiots are surfing on their iphone while driving, then punish them with more than a $100 fine. Maybe suspend their license on a first offense or issue a large fine to the company behind the truckers doing it while driving company rigs.

      Someone else really nailed it, I think, when they suggested this sounds like some brown-noser's little pet feel-good project. :/

    15. Re:This makes no sense. by cockpitcomp · · Score: 1

      Annoying, but not dangerous. The texting law is supposed to save lives, not as a revenue generator.

    16. Re:This makes no sense. by orthancstone · · Score: 1

      As I pointed out in the Georgia story, people have been shitty at red lights since before cell phones were prevalent. Targeting texting at the red light is not going to magically solve the problem that eating breakfast, reading the newspaper, doing your makeup, fucking with the radio, talking to someone in the back seat, or any other number of activities has been causing for decades.

      (And, NO, it isn't a start to correcting the problem, so please don't waste time typing out that argument.)

    17. Re:This makes no sense. by Seumas · · Score: 1

      If it is such life threatening behavior (and it certainly seems that it is), why don't they make the penalty significant enough that you will not want a ticket or will never do it again? It's like drunk driving. If people really gave a fuck about the dangers drunk drivers pose to the rest of the public, they would enforce a "caught once, suspended license for five years - caught twice, suspended forever. Caught on suspension, serve a year in prison" law.

      When you're only making it a nuisance, you're less interested in limiting the danger and more interested in generating continued revenue from it. You can't gain more revenue for the system from people who learn their lesson the first time.

      It sounds like putting up signs (that they know will have no impact) is a way to appear that they're doing something without actually impacting the revenue they generate by handing out tickets.

    18. Re:This makes no sense. by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      Trying to prevent distracted driving is simply an infeasible task. The reality of the world is that drivers are becoming increasingly distracted with every passing year, from GPS navigation devices to touchscreen radios, from Amber alerts on digital traffic signs to digital advertising billboards. All the other pieces of additional visual information that we didn't encounter twenty years ago make driving less safe, but reversing that trend is a bit like draining the Atlantic Ocean with a soup spoon. Not only will you never get there, but you'll also never really make any appreciable progress even though at first glance, you might think you are. Instead, we have to design vehicles, traffic lights, and other systems to be resilient to distraction and to minimize the negative ramifications thereof.

      The reason for such an approach is that the problem you describe is not even remotely limited to texting; it also occurs for adjusting the radio, changing the air conditioning, scratching your back, or doing any of a million other possible things while stopped at the light. These things are only a problem because the traffic lights in America are substandard.

      The best way to explain is with a quick anecdote. While walking around in Europe last week, by my estimation, about 80% of drivers were either on the phone or texting at lights, yet when the light turned green, they moved. Why? Because European traffic lights indicate not only when the light is about to turn red, but also when it is about to turn green. As a result, they don't have to constantly watch the light, waiting patiently for it to suddenly switch from red to green, but instead can glance up periodically and notice that it has moved to a red + yellow state (or red + orange in Europe), stop what they are doing, and be ready to begin driving again when the light turns green a few seconds later.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    19. Re:This makes no sense. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      No, have a real 'drunk driving is bad' law. None of that suspended license stuff.

      1) If you are driving drunk, and kill someone, you are executed. No exceptions.
      2) Do you even need another rule?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    20. Re:This makes no sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New York government is all about expensive symbolic gestures. Like spending $4 Million to rename a bridge: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/triborough-bridge-is-renamed-for-rfk/?_r=0

    21. Re:This makes no sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If laws were so simple, lawyers and by extension law makers will become redundant, therefore for their own safety, they will make laws as complicated as possible.

    22. Re:This makes no sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They got the idea from those "cell phone lots" at airports. Like people couldn't park before they had signs saying "cell phone lot"...

    23. Re:This makes no sense. by fnj · · Score: 2

      I passed a truck doing 20 under the speed limit up the center lane on its left, and hit the car that had passed both me and the truck on the right when we both pulled back into the middle lane in front of the truck.

      I bet the truck driver got a good laugh out of that one, two hotshots colliding with each other.

    24. Re:This makes no sense. by cockpitcomp · · Score: 1

      Your radio should play the start tones from the old "Pole Position" arcade game when the light is turning green. Boop...Boop...Beeeeeee

    25. Re:This makes no sense. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      You joke, but an audible signal would not be particularly difficult to implement, and would be a really useful addition.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    26. Re:This makes no sense. by electron+sponge · · Score: 2

      No, have a real 'drunk driving is bad' law. None of that suspended license stuff.

      1) If you are driving drunk, and kill someone, you are executed. No exceptions. 2) Do you even need another rule?

      It's been repeatedly established that the death penalty is no deterrent to crime. What we need is a ban on people possessing mobile phones. People don't kill people, people driving and texting with mobile phones kill people. These dangerous weapons are too powerful to be in the hands of the general population. The Founding Fathers never imagined this when they crafted the First Amendment.

      :)

    27. Re:This makes no sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beats losing 50-75% due to an old codger who can barely see past the dashboard.

    28. Re:This makes no sense. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      That's an issue with you and the other guy failing to shoulder check.

    29. Re:This makes no sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You aren't very familiar with zero-tolerance death penalty style laws in other countries are you? Hint: They don't work.

      You'd still have people driving drunk except now if a cop tried to pull them over, they'd do everything they could to get away, which would result in a scary high speed chase that is all but guaranteed to end very badly. You've taken a potentially bad situation and assuredly made it worse. Bravo. You've proven yourself qualified to sit amongst those we classify as "politicians". We'll put a cork on the end of your dinner fork so you don't injure yourself.

    30. Re:This makes no sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Texas I assume the law is "he whomever has the largest gun is allowed to pass on whichever side of the rode he wishes."

    31. Re:This makes no sense. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Go cork yourself.

      I didn't say "Execute all drunk drivers." Read it again.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    32. Re:This makes no sense. by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      The texting law is supposed to save lives, not as a revenue generator.

      Whose fault is it that it works mostly as the latter?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    33. Re:This makes no sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whilst annoying - the point they made still stands - it's "the law of unintended consequences". Whilst they mis-read your original point (only execute drunk-driving killers, not drunk drivers) the unintended consequence of your original law would be that hit and runs would go up immensely!

      If I'm hit by a car - I'd rather they pulled over and rang for assistance, than flee the scene under the assumption that maybe I'll die and they don't want to be around to get executed. Drunk people are useless at thinking - so I'd rather lawmakers didn't make it likely their first thought is always "shit - don't bother to check if he's just seriously injured and will survive with help - let's just SCARPER!".

    34. Re:This makes no sense. by Kilo+Kilo · · Score: 1

      Because this is NY we're talking about. People have become so used to the nanny state that if there isn't a law that tells you how dangerous something is, people assume it's OK.

      I don't disagree that texting and driving is dangerous, but NYS has a habit of going all out on enforcing particular laws instead of enforcing all the laws equally. If you read a NY (not NYC) news site (and I apologize in advance for the shit quality) you'll see that a few times a year the state police have Operation (Insert Witty Name Here) aimed at texting or something else ridiculously specific.

      Also, our state attorney general keeps trying to close a nuclear power plant instead of prosecuting criminals and such.

    35. Re:This makes no sense. by fisted · · Score: 1

      Rest stops. Stretch stops. Walking stops. Urination stops. Masturbation stops. Cell phone stops. Reading book stops.

      Now we only need people who a) Rest while driving, b) Stretch while driving, c) Walk while driving, d) Urinate while driving, e) Masturbate while driving, f) Use their cell phone while driving, g) Read books while driving.

      b) maybe, f) definitely.
      a,c-e,g) bullshit, you're a moron.

    36. Re:This makes no sense. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen any statistics from countries other than the US, but given that most of Europe actually makes it 'hard' to get a drivers license, I suspect actually 'training' people might have a significant impact on people's abilities.

      The US 'driver's ed' program is on it's face absolutely ridiculous. We basically hand licenses to anyone with a pulse.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    37. Re:This makes no sense. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      the death penalty is no deterrent to serious, malicious intent driven crimes, i.e. murder. Mostly because the people committing those crimes are already quite outside the 'norm' of society in general.

      Make it the death penalty for something the average person does on a regular basis, and I suspect you'll see significant behavioral change once it's established that it's actually enforced.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    38. Re:This makes no sense. by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      in urban areas around here (east coast) there's a lot less old people driving than people texting.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    39. Re:This makes no sense. by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Nothing. Not, really, nothing is as distracting as carrying on a conversation via text. Dialing the phone? Nope, ten digits, max. Changing the radio? Nope one button at a time. AC? Come on... Texting involves heads-down attention to the task for extended periods (several seconds at a time, at least). Yes, we've all seen the occasional dumbass reading the paper in traffic, but even that is not quite as demanding as the non-touch typing a user must do on a smart phone.
      As someone who has been injured when his car was totalled by a careless dipshit who was texting while driving full speed (never even applied the brakes before rear-ending my vehicle) I am all for cutting off the hands of any offender caught being that fucking stupid.

    40. Re:This makes no sense. by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Those Operation Witty Names are usually funded by federal grants.

    41. Re:This makes no sense. by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      yeah but think of the great TV this will generate ;-)

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    42. Re:This makes no sense. by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      Why couldn't you pull over and send text messages from a rest area [...]?

      You could, but I get the impression that other areas (park & ride, other unnamed parking lots) are being opened for legal temporary stopping and texting. Also, the signage looks useful - at least you know if a texting area is close: (flickr)

    43. Re:This makes no sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't expect you're quaint notion of what's 'right' to mesh with how it's applied to you.

      Don't expect YOUR writing to suggest to anyone that you actually finished high school.

      Jesus, where did all these new uneducated slashdotters come from?? Here's a hint, pixelboy, nerds are literate.

  3. Saw one on the way home. by HoldmyCauls · · Score: 1

    Thought it was silly, but the message was clear: "It can wait -- Text stop 5 miles." Which, of course, means nothing to the impatient texters.

    --
    Emacs: for people who just never know when to :q!
    1. Re:Saw one on the way home. by DougOtto · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Which, of course, means nothing to the impatient texters who didn't see the sign because they were looking at their phone.

      ftfy

      --
      Solving Unix problems since 1989...
    2. Re:Saw one on the way home. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5 miles? OK, if I floor it I can make it there in time to RT Justin Bieber's last tweet before any of my followers see it elsewhere. I'm sure I won't get a speeding ticket, all the cops are busy handing out Texting While Driving tickets.

  4. Re:AC Turns Slashdot Into "First Posting" Zone by SJHillman · · Score: 2

    This may be the first relevant "First post". Because it's exactly as useful, effective and accurate as "texting zones"

  5. How about... by mynameiskhan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Cuomo, I beg you. For God's sake... please designate a drinking zone. Please.

    1. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, *underage* drinking zones, and a whole host of currently illegal (but desirable) activities can have their own zones too... Imagine what it will do to tourism for New York... Oh .. Wait....

    2. Re:How about... by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      besides his office?

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    3. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're called bars.

    4. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have. It's called "Bar"

    5. Re:How about... by electron+sponge · · Score: 2

      Cuomo, I beg you. For God's sake... please designate a drinking zone. Please.

      As a native Upstate New Yorker, I imagine gigantic inflatable curbs, 10-15 feet high, bordering the Thruway from Buffalo all the way to NYC. Just like bumper bowling. Put inflatable bumpers on the cars too, and let's have some fun! Every Thruway rest area would be well stocked with various types of alcohol, taxed well for the benefit of our schools. Cell phone use would not only be legal, but encouraged! I-90 and I-87 have never been so interesting.

  6. Okay, I'll buy this. by raque · · Score: 1

    I was just driving in NY State and there are tons of signs up about the anti-texting law. Some of the rest stops had free wi-fi and some didn't. I don't think this will stop stupid young people from texting, that would require them to stop being stupid young people. But for the rest of us it may well help. When texts came in from my college age kid I found it hard to ignore them. Having my wife with me to read them and respond and tell me to stop dithering and drive was a great help.

    These days when ever I drive with someone I give them my phone, it's just easier that way. If I'm alone I turn on Do Not Disturb and use a jawbone earpiece. Actually that isn't true, lot of the time I just turn off the sound and listen to the radio. I need to call out, not take calls. I spent twenty years driving without a cell phone. It can wait, really it can. Or, solve it yourself, You're a grown up now, you can do this.

    1. Re:Okay, I'll buy this. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      When texts came in from my college age kid I found it hard to ignore them.

      Interesting. When my kid was college-age, and she texted me (rarely, since my attitude toward texting was clear), I had no trouble ignoring them - if it was a real problem, she'd call (and I'd answer), if it was trivial enough for texting (to be read anytime (for which read never)), I ignored it.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Okay, I'll buy this. by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Truth be told, these days I find less and less use for my cell. When I'm bringing the dog out for a walk or going shopping, I leave it at home. When I'm driving and it happens to be in the car, I let it ring out. When I sleep I leave the phone in another room. Every service has an answering machine anyway, I'll get back to you. The majority of my communication is done online through a laptop or desktop where I don't get charged real money per email. Yes some people have data plans, good for them, but even then I'd rather not peck at a miniature keyboardless monitor when I can do the same thing much more easily on an actual keyboard.

      If I ever become a doctor or take on some other role where people are paying hard cash for my 24 hour attention, or possibly if I had a very sick relative, sure I'll change my habits. Until such time there really isn't much that has a right to interfere with my life whenever it wants to.

    3. Re:Okay, I'll buy this. by raque · · Score: 1

      I run into endless cultural problems with texting. All my kids text by preference, even important stuff. I yell - I scream - I jump up and down, they promise to use better judgement. Two weeks later they are back to it. Maybe if I just ignored them they would change, but that just isn't me.

    4. Re:Okay, I'll buy this. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I run into endless cultural problems with texting. All my kids text by preference, even important stuff. I yell - I scream - I jump up and down, they promise to use better judgement. Two weeks later they are back to it. Maybe if I just ignored them they would change, but that just isn't me.

      MY kids love to text too.

      But they know that daddy is going to ignore their texts until he feels like looking at them (I usually try for once a month or so, usually when I can't sleep).

      I get a lot fewer texts from them these days.

      Mind you, if I have to go back to working in a secure area, I'll start checking them as soon as I get out of the secure area.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:Okay, I'll buy this. by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 1

      The opposite happened in my family: I'm in my mid-30s and hate talking on the phone as I find it hard to understand what's said, so my parents quickly learned first to rely on email & instant messaging when I was in college, then to text once they had qwerty or smart-phones. *g* I primarily text just to set up plans or get/exchange information with them, but we've always been close enough that keeping in touch seemed natural/desirable on both sides; I can't imagine either of them simply pretending that I didn't reach out.

      --
      Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
    6. Re:Okay, I'll buy this. by AlphaWoIf_HK · · Score: 1

      I don't think this will stop stupid young people from texting

      What about stupid old people? Will it stop them?

      --
      Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
    7. Re:Okay, I'll buy this. by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      I spent twenty years driving without a cell phone. It can wait, really it can. Or, solve it yourself, You're a grown up now, you can do this.

      I'll second that. Basically nothing is important enough that it cannot wait until I'm stopped or at my destination. If it actually is literally that important, cars with sirens and flashing blue lights will be coming for me anyway.

      --
      Eat the rich.
  7. Great... by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Park-n-Ride facilities

    Oh great, so people on their way to work are going to miss their train/bus because the lot is full of people texting.

  8. Payphone Scenario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember those? Back in the day, they were also used as a crutch by dealers and hookers standing around waiting to make a deal. Although they weren't fooling anyone, pretending to place a call was an excuse to legally (so to speak) hang in an area to avoid harassment from the police.

    It might come in handy in the latest version of this old school tactic

    1. Re:Payphone Scenario by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Hey sugar, want to receive a sexy call? Only five dollars per minute, long-distance charges may apply.

    2. Re:Payphone Scenario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like a win win.. Get texters off the road and attract more tourists....

    3. Re:Payphone Scenario by electron+sponge · · Score: 1

      Remember those? Back in the day, they were also used as a crutch by dealers and hookers standing around waiting to make a deal. Although they weren't fooling anyone, pretending to place a call was an excuse to legally (so to speak) hang in an area to avoid harassment from the police.

      It might come in handy in the latest version of this old school tactic

      If the dealers and hookers find this tactic useful, they likely were already there. Quite honestly, I don't think this is a major problem at rest areas on the Thruway.

    4. Re:Payphone Scenario by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the dealers and hookers find this tactic useful, they likely were already there. Quite honestly, I don't think this is a major problem at rest areas on the Thruway.

      It's a problem on the West Coast. They closed one permanently and another for several years.

  9. Re:AC Turns Slashdot Into "First Posting" Zone by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    I better write my comment here then, I don't want to get a ticket for posting in a non-posting zone.

  10. Something about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So this is where gay people goto text?

    1. Re:Something about... by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      -1.

      We use Grindr not just texting.

  11. Won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't fix stupid people. They will text when they are driving no matter what because...

    A. Just like speed limits those laws are for everyone except them.

    B. They can do it better and safer than anyone else

    C. It is only every now and then so it isn't really breaking the law.

    D. They are stupid.

    1. Re:Won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A and B describe the cops better than anyone. I've never seen anyone tailgate closer than a cop trying to nudge up a speeding ticket, or who was just impatient and trying to muscle his way through traffic.

  12. As someone who doesn't have a smartphone... by c5402dc53929211e1efb · · Score: 1

    I have one question: what the fuck are all you retards texting about all the time?

    1. Re:As someone who doesn't have a smartphone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Losers who don't have smartphones.....

    2. Re:As someone who doesn't have a smartphone... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Beats me, I haven't had a mobile for 5yrs now and I haven't missed it. It does however seem to annoy the shit out of other people who think I should be contactable 24x7 like everyone else.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:As someone who doesn't have a smartphone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      let's see. you say you need a smartphone to text. someone makes fun of you. you call them a retard. I bet you think you're smarter than average skippy, and you explain every incident away to yourself every time it happens. come on bra - do you even lift? I highly doubt it. what a loser. what a fucking loser.

    4. Re:As someone who doesn't have a smartphone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you buttfrustrated?

    5. Re:As someone who doesn't have a smartphone... by ShoulderOfOrion · · Score: 1

      This.

      The zombie apocalypse is no further than the next great solar magnetic storm event.

    6. Re:As someone who doesn't have a smartphone... by gtall · · Score: 1

      I'm similar, I have a cell but keep it off, I only want it for road emergencies. I have finally convinced everyone that I'm not about to reply to any voice mail they leave since I'll only hear it about a month after they sent it. Luckily I do not have a job where immediate communication is necessary. Now, I find it just a weird abstraction of someone's personality that I don't care to contribute towards.

  13. Get a life people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And who is paying for the signage and upkeep? Here's a thought! You don't need to be connected to your phone 24/7 put it down and drive the damn car until you reach your destination. No need to stop half way to update your stupid ass twitter, facebook or text your BFF you are 2 hours into a 8 hour trip.

    1. Re:Get a life people by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      And who is paying for the signage and upkeep?

      Who pays to change all the signs that say "Andrew J. Schnook, Governor" every time a new governor is elected. They're not only in NY, but most states I can think of. It's helpful to have a sign telling you when you're entering a state, but "who is the current governor" is not of great importance to most travelers.

  14. texing zones or gay sex zones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Georgia keeps closing rest areas because they can't keep people from screwing in the bathrooms.

    besides, texting tickets are a money maker, here in Gwinnett county.

  15. A question by sacrilicious · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What if I get a scrap of wood, paint it to look like a cellphone, and get pulled over for texting because a policeman saw me glancing at it and poking at it while driving. Have I broken a law? What precisely or generally would I be charged with?

    Taking it further: suppose I get pulled over for bona fide texting, but in the time it takes to be pulled over I launch an app that wipes out record of my having texted, and I switch my phone for the above-mentioned painted wooden block and take the position that I was not using my cellphone... perhaps because I resent the non-coherence of a law that targets cellphone users while leaving numerous other driver distractions untouched... or perhaps because I just like seeming like I'm important... or whatever. Other than going to the trouble of checking my cell records to see if I was sending texts, or just insisting that they don't believe me, what argument does law enforcement have? What if I can point to youtube videos I've posted of me using the wooden block numerous times in traffic, for the hell of it?

    I think this would be interesting, as it would force The System to clarify whether doing ANYTHING that looked remotely like texting was illegal. That's a distinction they've been spared so far by the built-in assumption that if it looks like a cellphone then it is one... from a prosecutorial perspective, that's really an important pillar of the law in its current form.

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    1. Re:A question by c5402dc53929211e1efb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      inattentive driving

    2. Re:A question by raque · · Score: 2

      I think you would get slapped twice. It's the cops word against yours. ASAIK IANAL the cop is automatically believed by the court. You have to disprove them. Also, simulating a crime just to distract a cop is a separate crime.

      As for the law's logic. you can't ban being distracted, you can ban specific behaviors in specific places. You can get a ticket for putting on makeup while driving. You are operating a vehicle in an unsafe manner. I knew someone it happened to. It was the cops word against her's.

    3. Re:A question by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Unless you're filming yourself with that block of wood, it's all the cop's say-so as to whether you were texting.

    4. Re:A question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I was a police officer, I would charge you with not being in full control of your vehicle by virtue that your attention is divided between the traffic and your piece of wood. Your piece of wood would be no different to fiddling with the radio or air-conditioning.

    5. Re:A question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real problem here is that we have laws that already addressed things like talking on the phone, texting or making a PB&J sandwich while driving... They just passed more laws to make it look like they were doing something about the problem instead of enforcing the ones on the books already. Government does this a lot.

    6. Re:A question by spasm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Northern Territory of Australia use to have no maximum speed limit. I remember hearing an interview on the radio with the chief of polcie which went something like "Yeah, we love it, you can get from Darwin to Tennant Creek (nearly 1000km, or 600 miles for the Liberians and Americans reading) in 5 hours .. but if we see you doing 160 (100 mph) in the rain at night in an area with a lot of water buffaloes out on the road we'll pull you over and bust you for dangerous driving for your own safety".

      My point is, if you're driving down the highway playing with a painted block of wood instead of paying attention and driving, there's plenty of things the cops can bust you for other than texting. Videoing the entire process and subsequent encounter with the cops and being able to prove to the judge that you "weren't texting" isn't going to save you.

      In fact, 30 seconds googling shows in New York state the maximum fine for texting is 'only' $150, whereas the maximum fine for reckless driving is $300.

    7. Re:A question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, its not always a crime to be a jerk. Then again, you don't have to be caught and legally punished to pay the price for being a jerk either.

      E.g. All you have proven is that you could waste a lot of your time in order to waste a little of some cop's time. Of couse, the cop is being paid, so you are really only wasting his employer's money. Oh, wait, that is your money.

      Contrary to your expectations, you will not be celebrated as a hero for proving that anti-texting laws are not perfect. Everybody already figured that out. Laws are never perfect. All they need to be is good enough to deter reasonable people. Unreasonable people, by definition, will not reliably heed any law, no matter how fair or rational.

    8. Re:A question by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

      Unreasonable people, by definition, will not reliably heed any law, no matter how fair or rational.

      I wouldn't know about that, but you seem to be implying that a law against texting -- while ignoring fiddling with the radio, talking to other people in the car, glancing at folded maps, handing things to other people, etc -- is unquestionably fair or rational. I question that premise.

      eah, its not always a crime to be a jerk.

      Right back atcha, sunshine.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    9. Re:A question by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

      Also, simulating a crime just to distract a cop is a separate crime.

      Out of curiosity, can you provide an authoritative citation of that?

      Regardless: the proposed activity is not simply "to distract a cop"... it's to highlight the shaky and arbitrary foundations of a poorly thought out law. I'm not saying a policeman is going to welcome that interpretation, but the prescribed defense is a whole lot more than "I was just trying to distract a cop". Was Rosa Parks just trying to make the bus late?

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    10. Re:A question by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

      Unless you're filming yourself with that block of wood, it's all the cop's say-so as to whether you were texting.

      So if the defense asks the cop in a courtroom to distinguish between a well-painted block of wood and an actual cellphone, at distances equivalent to those on a highway, could a cop do it, even putting aside that on the highway there was the further impediment of the cars moving at high speeds? The cop can certainly claim he THOUGHT it was a cellphone, but he has no way of proving that he didn't mistake one for the other.

      This would get especially sticky for him if it turned out to be the case that there was no actual cellphone in the car.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    11. Re:A question by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

      So here's the point: if we have a law against "inattentive driving", then having a separate law against "inattentive driving while using a cell phone" is a total sham. It's like having a law against robbing a bank, then having another law against robbing a bank while wearing pants. If the penalties are the same, there's no point in having two laws other than political posturing, which should be called out for what it is. If the penalties are different, then it's not moot whether someone is wearing pants while robbing that bank, nor is it moot whether someone is using a block of wood vs an actual cellphone.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    12. Re:A question by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

      If I was a police officer, I would charge you with not being in full control of your vehicle by virtue that your attention is divided between the traffic and your piece of wood.

      What if I can produce video of the event in which I can demonstrate that although I did poke continuously at the block of wood and sometimes glanced at it, that most of the time my eyes were on the road, and in fact I narrated a continuous and accurate description of all traffic around me? What if I have a certified driving instructor with me at the time who can legally swear that in his professional opinion, I was in full and complete control at all times?

      I'm not bringing up the particular scenario above to suggest that's exactly what I'd do, but if your answer is nevertheless "the cops always win", then we shouldn't even be talking about whether there are cellphone laws or what have you, because it's immaterial... the real discussion in that case would be what a complete police state the US has descended into (which it has, I agree). But if that's your point, please forgive me because I'm still working my through the possibilities that exist when there actually is some amount of due process, as meager as it seems to be these days. At a minimum, if we do live in a complete police state, I want to see every person acknowledging that. Until that happens, I'll continue to explore scenarios like this to see what happens when people take it upon themselves to contemplate poking at the system.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    13. Re:A question by mjwx · · Score: 1

      What if I get a scrap of wood, paint it to look like a cellphone, and get pulled over for texting because a policeman saw me glancing at it and poking at it while driving. Have I broken a law? What precisely or generally would I be charged with?

      In Australia,

      Dangerous driving, wasting a police officers time and wasting the courts time.

      Courts in Oz take a very, very dim view of dumb smartarses.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    14. Re:A question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I question that premise.

      So what? All you have done is thrown out a bunch of hypothetical edge cases where doing something illegal might not result in the consequences that the law was designed to prevent. You are wasting everyone's time, including your own. In the vast majority of cases people get away with texting in 80mph traffic without causing a wreck. No wooden phone or expert driving instructor witnesses required.

      Of course laws are sometimes arbitrary. Of course staring at your car stereo is just as dangerous as staring at your phone. Do you think these are revelations to anyone?

      It does not matter whether texting is more/less/equally dangerous than trying to tune a radio station. It matters how many accidents are caused by each behavior, and thus how to enact laws that a) people can be reasonably expected to follow and b) will have the maximum positive outcome.

      A pro NFL player just broke his arm after he crashed his car because he was distracted by a pizza falling off of the passenger seat. Some would probably think it eminently wise to argue that driving with a pizza is obviously equally as dangerous as texting, and we should either outlaw pizzas in cars or allow texting since both could be disasterous and it therefore makes no sense to treat them differently under the law. Reasonable people, on the other hand, would note that the statistics tell the story that matters.

    15. Re:A question by c5402dc53929211e1efb · · Score: 1

      agreed

    16. Re:A question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the point of the law is to avoid people claiming that they were using their phone while driving but weren't distracted. It removes some of the grey zone. Not totally worthless, but kind of a kluge.

    17. Re:A question by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

      Of course laws are sometimes arbitrary. Of course staring at your car stereo is just as dangerous as staring at your phone. Do you think these are revelations to anyone?

      Yes, I do.

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
    18. Re:A question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if I can produce video of the event in which I can demonstrate that although I did poke continuously at the block of wood and sometimes glanced at it, that most of the time my eyes were on the road, and in fact I narrated a continuous and accurate description of all traffic around me? What if I have a certified driving instructor with me at the time who can legally swear that in his professional opinion, I was in full and complete control at all times?

      Then I suppose you could probably get that ticket thrown out in court. From a practical perspective, I don't see this becoming a huge issue. If it does, police will simply get camera equipment to determine who is poking at wood blocks and who isnt.

    19. Re:A question by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1

      That law was responsible for the great short-shorts heist of 1987.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    20. Re:A question by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah, its not always a crime to be a jerk.

      But no one around will want to defend you when you're falsely accused of a crime.

      If you're lucky you'll get a lawyer who wants to defend principle, but not you.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    21. Re:A question by radarskiy · · Score: 2

      The reason for the more specific case is so that you don't have to reprove for every single case that using a cell phone causes a distraction, by repaying the same expert witnesses to give the same expert testimony.

    22. Re:A question by raque · · Score: 1

      As noted IANAL

      Regardless: the proposed activity is not simply "to distract a cop"... it's to highlight the shaky and arbitrary foundations of a poorly thought out law. I'm not saying a policeman is going to welcome that interpretation, but the prescribed defense is a whole lot more than "I was just trying to distract a cop". Was Rosa Parks just trying to make the bus late?

      This only works if Rosa Parks was texting while driving the bus. I don't know of any particular civil right to text while driving. A cop seeing you provides all of the cause needed to check your records and see if texts were sent and received in the time span in question. Fiddling with the radio, or anything else, is harder to prove. This makes a texting ban enforceable. What else do you want out of a law?

    23. Re:A question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if the defense asks the cop in a courtroom to distinguish between a well-painted block of wood and an actual cellphone, at distances equivalent to those on a highway, could a cop do it

      IAAL. You could ask, but it'd be irrelevant and so the traffic court judge wouldn't give two shits about the answer anyway.

      Weight of the evidence is not in your favor. Unless you have affirmative proof that (a) there was no phone in your car and (b) that you were doing absolutely nothing but attentively driving while obeying all rules of the road, you're hosed. There's no effective defense against distracted driving, including distracted driving involving a gadget.

      This would get especially sticky for him if it turned out to be the case that there was no actual cellphone in the car.

      No, it wouldn't, because you'd still be on the hook for distracted driving. Once a cop decides to pull you over for something he notices you doing, the very fact that he noticed you and pulled you over is credible evidence that you're in the wrong. A citation is prima facie evidence of the facts it alleges, meaning that it falls on you to disprove the citation, not on the officer to prove it.

    24. Re:A question by canadiannomad · · Score: 1

      Well if you have several videos of you using the fake phone, may we assume there is a dash/driver cam?
      Would that be evidence enough?

      Holding a block of wood in most places wouldn't qualify as being distracted while driving, esp. with video evidence to the contrary.

      --
      Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
    25. Re:A question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reasonable people, on the other hand, would note that the statistics tell the story that matters.

      Hahahahahaha, ok I needed a good laugh.

    26. Re:A question by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Is it a separate law? I was under the impression that the inattentive driving law was clarified to state that any time a person was using a communications device it will legally considered to be inattentive driving. In the case of you and your block of wood, that just pushes the onus back on them to prove that the block of wood really does distract you from driving. Also, if you piss them off bad enough to look up your call records, then they find that you really were using the phone and just pretending to use the block of wood they'd find some other charge to stick you with. I'm not familiar enough with the law to know exactly which one, but it probably falls under the obstructing justice umbrella.

    27. Re:A question by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      What if I get a scrap of wood, paint it to look like a cellphone, and get pulled over for texting because a policeman saw me glancing at it and poking at it while driving. Have I broken a law? What precisely or generally would I be charged with?

      Obstruction of justice, because you intentionally wasted their time.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    28. Re:A question by cHiphead · · Score: 1

      What precisely or generally would I be charged with?

      "Look's like you have a broken tail light, sir."

      *breaks your tail light*

      That's a tazin' right there.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    29. Re:A question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holding a block of wood in most places wouldn't qualify as being distracted while driving

      Of course it could. Anything that you do that diverts your attention from the task of driving, whether it's drinking a cup of coffee, shaving, reading the RDS information on the built-in radio, swatting a fly, or even just zoning out and daydreaming can be distracted driving. Although the term has become a buzzword for cell phone laws, almost every jurisdiction has a preexisting equivalent that already covered inattentive driving. The cell phone laws are only there to eliminate the need for appearing distracted to an officer. Just seeing the device itself is now sufficient, but not necessary, to meet that threshold.

      A dash cam of you using a fake phone doesn't prove you weren't being inattentive, and in fact the presence of such a camera aimed at a driver with a fake prop is evidence that you weren't simply out driving, but instead creating some sort of contrived scenario, the act of which is neither necessary nor incidental to operating a motor vehicle on a public road.

  16. Re:where our government went wrong by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    Texting causes accidents, period. You may think you can do it safely, but the rest of us know you're a hazard on the road.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  17. As a motorcyclist/cyclist/pedestrian by occasional_dabbler · · Score: 1

    I can say that smartphone use while driving is a disease that warrants draconian measures. I can't tell you the number of times I've been run off the road recently by _teenage girls on bicycles_ staring at their iPhones, oblivious to the other bikes, cars articulated lorries (US: semis) and _trains_ they happily ride past. This is quite apart from young mothers in 4x4s, 'dudes' in WVs and bankers in Porsches driving well over 200 kmh. It needs to earn the social stigma of drunk driving and worse, and quickly.

    --
    "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
  18. so how is a texting zone different from rest stop? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    Is it just the "texting zone" sign? How much did someone get paid to think of this?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  19. In fact... by occasional_dabbler · · Score: 1

    If you've never ridden a motorcycle in a full year's worth of weather then your traffic skills are nothing like as good as you think they are.

    --
    "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
  20. Allow texting while stopped by cockpitcomp · · Score: 1

    Just allow texting at redlights. Sure it's annoying, but not dangerous. People aren't going to stop texting, so encourage doing it in a safer manner rather than the less likely to get caught but more dangerous manner. It's a reasonable compromise.

  21. Politics trumps science by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

    This follows a 365% increase in tickets issued for distracted driving this summer, compared to last summer.

    Was this campaign so politicos could claim to be "doing something", or to generate more ticket revenue? If the latter, what's the net after buying those shiny new SUV's and paying for more police hours? I think texting while driving is the height of idiocy, and should be banned, but is this campaign actually based on the severity of the problem? It'd be nice if which traffic offenses they choose to enforce most vigorously were based on some study of which caused the greatest danger. I know, I'm dreaming, reason, logic, facts and all that other silly stuff is always trumped by politics.

  22. let the arms race begin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so my phone has voice recog for inputting the txt, and a heads up display right in front of me projected on my windshield. The cops "high" platform will not let them see me txting. My hands will be on the wheel in plain sight

  23. tomato, to-mah-to by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    You call them "texting zones", and I call them, "downloading-hentai-and-wanking-'til-I-get-blisters zones".

    Vive la difference!

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  24. New York: The new police state by pongo000 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, the *old* police state, just catching up with technology. I can't imagine a more awful place to live, where your every move is subject to surveillance and unlawful searches. What's worse is that New Yorkers actually vote these fascists in office.

    Guess you get to lie in the bed you make after all. No sympathies here.

    1. Re:New York: The new police state by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Good thing that at least 50.001% (or whatever plurality) of people wanted them in office, right? The rest can just go jump off a cliff.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  25. Good luck with that by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 1

    Anyone stupid enough to text while driving has the kind of stupid that can't be fixed with a "zone".

  26. There should be ZERO tolerance for this by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

    Drivers caught texting while driving should lose their license for a year on the spot on the first offense, no exceptions. Such wanton disregard for public safety is inexcusable. The fact that the tickets are such a minor offense right now does practically nothing to discourage this dangerous behavior.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:There should be ZERO tolerance for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm more in favor of losing car & money... license is a bit much to lose---yes, you're stupid, but losing license could screw up your *whole* life...

    2. Re:There should be ZERO tolerance for this by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      but losing license could screw up your *whole* life...

      And getting run over by some shithead who took their eyes off the road completely to read and write a text message could be even worse. There is no excuse for that kind of disregard for public safety, none. The law needs to come down hard on these people to get the point across. If they have to walk, bum rides, or take public transportation, they just might figure it out.

      Reading and writing text messages doesn't happen by accident. However we can prevent the accidents that can occur from that degree of epic stupidity.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  27. Re:so how is a texting zone different from rest st by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's no different at all, and yet it sends a message. They are trying to change social norms and create positive change.

    Problem is, IMO, that people actually want to multi-task. We've got citizens who spend a couple of hours a day in their cars and they want to reclaim a bit of that time. Pulling over to text accomplishes the job of making them safe but it slows the drivers progress towards reaching their destination. It will be an uphill battle changing attitudes and behaviour.

  28. Texting zones? by SternisheFan · · Score: 1
    I recently bought a used car that came with tinted side and rear windows, and was pulled over last week for it in an eastern Long Island N.Y. town. The summer tourist season has just ended, meaning the local police here have lots of free time for pulling people over for any reason now. I asked the young officer why I was pulled over, he replied, "Vehicle safety check", my windows being tinted being the reason, and I was quickly left to go on my way, this time.

    Now with these 'texting zones' where police will be higher in order to more easily see into a vehicle, any window tintinf at all will mean an instant (and expensive) ticket every time.

    I'm all for safer driving on our roads, but it sure seems to me that New York State has come up with many new and creative traffic laws over the last several years, most of which carry heavy(er) fines and license points. It's almost as if the elected officials in Albany need more money to cover what they need to embezzle, We have had many corruption stories coming out of our capitol here for the last several years, which leads me to wonder if it's really about safety or just another revenue producer for the state.

  29. Dear Lord! by niko9 · · Score: 1

    This, from the Govenor who brought us the NY (un)Safe Act! That is, that all gun owners load only 7 cartridges in their 10 round magazines in a effort to reduce "gun violence". I'm sure all the criminals are loading just 7 rounds because being prohibited from owning a firearm just became more illegaler.

    Same Govenor who banned "assault weapons" in NY State even though the Naval Yard shooter used a 4-7 shot, plain jane Remington 870 shotgun to carry out his attack.

    Texting and cell phone use is about convenience. Does anybody honestly think that average cell phone user, receiving the amount of texts per day the do, will honestly pull over every 10 min to send a text? What about the heavy users who carry hour long conversations via text?

    More *feel good* measures from career politicians who pass legislation so they can "do something" about a problem.

    1. Re:Dear Lord! by gtall · · Score: 1

      The shooter tried to by an AR-16 which can be converted to full auto but was stopped because of a background check. Want to bet how many more people he'd be able to kill if he had that?

  30. Make cars harder to drive and faster by prime_61997851 · · Score: 1

    I bought this 83 Porsche a while back. No power-steering, 5 speed manual, no cup holders and pretty damn fast. No way I could text while driving this thing. Needed left hand on the wheel all the time, right hand on the wheel or shifting gears. Couldn't even hold a cup of coffee. All I could to was drive, that occupied my attention. Nowadays cars do so much for us which leaves us with discretionary time. This time is then filled with other activities. If one is going to drive then one should focus on driving. If that cannot be done then turn the driving over to something or someone else.

    1. Re:Make cars harder to drive and faster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen!

    2. Re:Make cars harder to drive and faster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No cup holders? That's blasphemy!

    3. Re:Make cars harder to drive and faster by Ogi_UnixNut · · Score: 1

      Funny you should mention that.

      When I was growing up, my father seemed to have the complete opposite idea of almost everyone in society. He believed that those who just passed their license should drive fast and powerful cars. I sure didn't get it at the time, and I thought it was a crazy idea, even though I thought it would be cool if he meant it. And happen it did, after I passed my test he gave me a 82 Porsche, and now, I realise exactly what he meant.

      To begin with, most kids go through a phase of not taking a car seriously. They throw it around, mess about, etc... like a toy. They take risks because they feel safe, and because they don't quite realise what they are operating. They are very insulated, surrounded by noise insulation, airbags, and all sorts of gadgets and computers "taking care of things". However, this car was different, completely different to the car I did my test and lessons in (which was a bog standard Ford hatchback from the driving school).

      That car instilled a respect into me of what exactly a car is capable of. It has no airbags, no traction control, no ABS, no power steering. It had nothing to make you feel safe. You and you alone were in charge of what happened. The car did its best to connect you with the road, and it worked. I felt part of the car, and the road it was on when you were driving. I remember the first time as a new driver. Like most kids, I didn't take it seriously either. Once I floored it for kicks, and the car slammed my back into the seat as the body twisted and the car took off. That was the last time I did that for years. I had never felt that before, and the power actually scared me, as I didn't feel like I had the ability to control it. I realised that I would have to become a far better driver before I could attempt that again.

      No ABS meant I had to learn how to brake properly, and keep enough distance to not hit things. It meant I had to pay attention to the road surface and how much grip it had at all times (which was surprisingly easy, as you could feel it through the steering wheel).

      No traction control meant that I had to learn how to control the throttle and gear shifting, so as not to wheelspin, or not to lose traction in corners/rain/snow/ice/etc...

      It also meant that I pay a lot of attention to the state of my tyres. When you don't have any ECU's managing the traction for you, you can feel when your tyres are getting worn out, or when they lose traction. I'm the only guy I know who does a pre-drive check before going anywhere.

      All in all, when driving that car, you are driving it. It requires concentration on the act of driving, nothing less.

      It never popped into my head to fiddle with my phone, or read a book/map, or anything else. I guess it is a similar thing to why some motorcyclists say everyone should ride a motorcycle for a year. You just don't get a chance to be distracted. I've had times when I can't even fiddle with the buttons on the radio, and that requires no looking away either.

      I've now had that car for years, and I feel it made me a far better driver than if I had just continued driving modern cars.

      Indeed when I do drive modern cars, I find myself hating the experience. So much is out of my control, so much "just happens". Initially this made me very on edge, I would even open the windows so I could hear what the car was doing with the road, as I had no other input. You are so isolated from the act of driving the car that you might as well put a blind fold on. I can see why people end up texting or doing other stuff when driving. Hell, even I found the experience mind numbingly boring, and I like driving! I also found it harder to keep awake/alert when doing long distance driving.

      It seems modern cars are designed for people who hate driving, probably by people who hate driving. Everything is done to take the "driving" part away. I don't feel like a drive a modern car. I operate it instead. I have two pedals, stop and go, and I point it in the direction I want to go wit

    4. Re:Make cars harder to drive and faster by Zironic · · Score: 1

      Bla bla bla. Look, you just need to look at any kind of traffic accident vs car safety feature statistic to see that people in no way were better drivers with worse cars, they just died more.

  31. Free texts at texting zones by fleeped · · Score: 1

    So that people have a better reason to do that

  32. Re:where our government went wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some people are better drivers than others.

    Sometimes you just have to accept that there will be casualties if you want to live in a free society. Now, go get raped by the TSA, you freedom-hating safety nut.

  33. Until of course by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Someone in state gov figures out that they're used mostly for sex and drug deals.

  34. Swell. by DriveDog · · Score: 1

    So now the ones not caught while texting and driving are the ones driving the largest SUVs. Makes me feel safer. In general, every time I see a cop in an SUV I get annoyed that I'm paying for fewer cops but more fuel. There might be some logic to it in Montana or New Mexico, but not in most urban areas in the eastern US.

  35. Not a bad idea by whitroth · · Score: 1

    And for those of you texting while driving, no you are NOT that good a driver, and could you drive better if I took it away from you and gave it back to you as a suppository?

    "Driving is a privilege, not a right" - in the first paragraph of every state and commonwealth and the District's driver training booklet... and texting while driving IS NOT either.

                            mark, who does drive better than you, as proven by the extreme sparsity of tickets and accidents

  36. Texting & Driving by mgcarley · · Score: 1

    Doesn't AT&T (at least) have a function on their phones whereby if it's moving at more than a certain rate (25mph?), it would cripple the phone and prevent you using it?

    I seem to recall seeing it advertised by at least one of the carriers I was looking at, and while it may have been a subscription based service, since it is technically feasible and considering it's a law and all, shouldn't they be making it free/mandatory/default [assuming texting-while-driving really is a significant problem over and above the existing things that cause crashes]?

    Surely this + voice dialing (ICE) would at least be a step to solve the problem... especially if voice dialing were only available to call emergency services and/or the ICE contact on the device.

    Of course, we all know why something so sensible won't happen: profit.

    --
    Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley