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."
Why couldn't you pull over and send text messages from a rest area, before it was named a texting area? This sounds stupid.
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
This may be the first relevant "First post". Because it's exactly as useful, effective and accurate as "texting zones"
Cuomo, I beg you. For God's sake... please designate a drinking zone. Please.
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.
Oh great, so people on their way to work are going to miss their train/bus because the lot is full of people texting.
I better write my comment here then, I don't want to get a ticket for posting in a non-posting zone.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Hey sugar, want to receive a sexy call? Only five dollars per minute, long-distance charges may apply.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
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.
I have one question: what the fuck are all you retards texting about all the time?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
Anyone stupid enough to text while driving has the kind of stupid that can't be fixed with a "zone".
-1.
We use Grindr not just texting.
A goodly number of them ARE police officers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So that people have a better reason to do that
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."
Someone in state gov figures out that they're used mostly for sex and drug deals.
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.
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.
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
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)
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.