NY Police Get Tall SUVs To Combat Texting While Driving

coondoggie writes "The New York State Police have a new weapon to fight the plague of drivers that insist on texting while operating their vehicle: tall SUVs. Most recently reported by the AP, NY has begun operating a fleet of 32 unmarked SUVs that let troopers more easily peer down into a car to see if the driver is texting or not. 'Major Michael Kopy, commander of the state police troop patrolling the corridor between New York City and Albany, quoted a Virginia Tech study that found texting while driving increased the chance of a collision by 23 times and took eyes off the road for five seconds — more than the length of a football field at highway speed. Kopy worries that as teens get their driver's licenses, texting on the road will become more prevalent. "More people are coming of driving age who have had these hand-held devices for many years, and now as they start to drive, they're putting the two together, texting and driving, when they shouldn't."'"

Comments

Distracted driving

[Anonymous Coward]

And how far does an SUV travel while the driver tries to see whether a person in another car is texting?

Re:Distracted driving

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, no. These are "trained professsionals", so your argument is irrelevant!

Re:Distracted driving

[Anonymous Coward]

No, No, these are the driver's partners so your argument is irrelevant!

Re:Distracted driving

[Anonymous Coward]

What cop drives with a partner these days? They're all one officer to a vehicle everywhere.

Re:Distracted driving

[Shakrai]

And how far does an SUV travel while the driver tries to see whether a person in another car is texting?

About as far as an ambulance drives, while the driver radios ahead to the hospital, simultaneously remaining in communication with his partner, who is busy attending to the patient they picked up from the automobile accident caused by distracted driving.

Re:Distracted driving

[ThatsMyNick]

You are assuming the driver will be checking other cars. The shot gun rider would be in a much better angle to check the neighboring car, and could very well be the only person that can check cars for texting drivers.

Re:Distracted driving

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that no matter how tall the police vehicle is, it's very difficult for the driver to look down through the driver's window of an adjacent vehicle (left or right side). Either the other car's roof or the police car's passenger side door are blocking the line of sight. This is assuming we're looking to a vehicle on the lane immediately to the side of the police car, and not in a wide avenue two or three (or more) lanes away.

Another solution would be to have Right-Hand-Drive police vehicles, then the driver could easily look down through the windows of vehicles to their right.

Does this also apply to SUV drivers? 'cuz then the police's chances of looking down are reduced. I don't have the figures to SUVs in use in NYC or Albany. What about trucks? certainly a truck's cab is placed higher than an SUV's and a distracted truck driver has the potential to cause more damage than driver in a sedan (especially at high speeds).

Re:Distracted driving

[Nephandus]

You just bored or didn't actually get it's a vehicle envy thing? They wanted SUVs. They're getting SUVs. No further analysis needed. They want drones and military weaponry too. Guess what...

Re:Distracted driving

[stealth_finger]

You just bored or didn't actually get it's a vehicle envy thing? They wanted SUVs. They're getting SUVs. No further analysis needed. They want drones and military weaponry too. Guess what...

No, we definitely need new vehicles! Why can't we just put little cameras on the roofs pointing down? Because we'd have to run a few small wires and a monitor of some kind inside, nope, it's gotta be new vehicles...real big ones!

Re:Distracted driving

[shawn(at)fsu]

You can see people texting left and right when driving, a hell of a lot ticker than it takes a person to read or respond to a text.

Re:Distracted driving

[RaceProUK]

Except that no matter how tall the police vehicle is, it's very difficult for the driver to look down through the driver's window of an adjacent vehicle (left or right side).

If only there was a seat on the passenger side where someone could sit and look so the driver doesn't have to...

Re:Distracted driving

[Kilo Kilo]

What doesn't make sense is that the troopers have always had Chevy Surburbans. Probably 1/3 of their fleet in this area are already in SUVs, not cars.

Re:Distracted driving

[Kilo Kilo]

A good driver can reach for the radio without taking his eyes off the road. In most rigs however, the EMT or Medic in the back will actually call the hospital to give the report.

Re:Distracted driving

[Anonymous Coward]

State Troopers in New York do. I say this from seeing it more than assuming based on TFA.

Re:Distracted driving

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I see on my daily commute, the best way to spot a texter on the highway is from behind them, The rhythmic side to side wandering of their vehicle gives it away every time, Sure don't need an SUV for that.

Re:Distracted driving

[J'raxis]

Silly. The law doesn't apply to cops, so why would you think the laws of physics do?

Re:Distracted driving

[gsslay]

...which was exactly the point being made.

Re:Distracted driving

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Follow the money -- it is another ticket-writing profit vector. This will fuel the drive with which they pursue this, not safety.

Re:Distracted driving

[CanHasDIY]

Follow the money -- it is another ticket-writing profit vector. This will fuel the drive with which they pursue this, not safety.

Yea, that's what my local municipality thought about red-light cameras.

Turns out, with the monitoring contracts it ended up costing $20,000/mo just to keep the damn things turned on. Thank goodness the state supreme court declared them unconstitutional, otherwise we taxpayers would still be on the hook for almost a quarter million per year.

I'd be curious to know how much the NYPD paid/is paying for these new leases, and compare that to their ticket revenues over the next 12 months.

Re:Distracted driving

[Anonymous Coward]

If I need to change lanes, I'll glance over my shoulder to make sure the lane really is clear. I can do that in a fraction of a second. I'd imagine it would take about that long to see if a driver next to me was holding a phone in front of their face. Certainly much, much less time than would be needed to compose and send a text message.

Re:Distracted driving

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe in your podunk little hick town they don't but I live in one of the largest metropolitan areas in the USA and ALL of the cops drive around with partners. You're out of touch with reality.

Re:Distracted driving

[Brama]

You and your silly logic and reasoning. The hive mind wants to bash cops, how dare you stray from the path!

Re:Distracted driving

[Anonymous Coward]

You just bored or didn't actually get it's a vehicle envy thing? They wanted SUVs. They're getting SUVs. No further analysis needed. They want drones and military weaponry too. Guess what...

Same thing happened in Austin, but with a totally different excuse. It seems they don't make cars that meet a long list of requirement designed by the police, so they had to get SUVs. There are some problems with using SUVs, but those problems don't have matching requirements for some reason. Oh, and Austin got a helicopter a few years back, which they use to monitor for speeders.

Re:Distracted driving

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya can'a change the laws of physics!
- Scotty

Re:Distracted driving

[Anonymous Coward]

Just curious, what state is that?

Re:Distracted driving

[Anonymous Coward]

I too Live in a Large Metropolitan Area and ONLY the new guys drive with a partner, all others are by themselves. Also its a mix of SUV and Crown Vics and Impalas so your All Cops is not true, its the 6th largest city in the USA

Re:Distracted driving

[JamieIanMacgregor]

NZ cops most of the time and I would assume UK bobbies too as they're not allowed to carry guns for regular patrols, one unarmed officer against a large angry person is not much of a fair fight. according to the cops.

Re:Distracted driving

[hairyfish]

Of course. I ride a moped, it is perfect for inspecting driver behaviour because I can zip inbetween lanes and get close up to everything everyone is doing. It would be a perfect vehicle for such a job, but somehow it doesn't fit in with the tough guy bully boy image that cops seem to love.

I have a better idea.

[xtal]

Stilts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stilts :)

Re:I have a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

I concur. Cheaper, possibly just as effective. A pair of binoculars is a must. With the price of big SUVs and Gas I'm surprised this is goin' down.

Re: I have a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

The people's replublic of new york has never been afraid to spend tax payer money. Especially if it is to gather more money from said tax payer

Re:I have a better idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Next thing you know we will have cameras placed at intersections to capture images of stationary vehicles looking for that tell-tale LCD glow.

Re: I have a better idea.

[Joce640k]

When the next generation starts driving there'll be no shortage of people to fine for social-networking while driving.

Re:I have a better idea.

[Zoxed]

Or for more speed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_farthing

Re:I have a better idea.

[J'raxis]

The cameras are already there. That's just a software update away.

Re: I have a better idea.

[Luckyo]

I'd be much more worried about no lack of work for emergency medical workers and undertakers as related to potential massive increase of incidents these people will cause.

Re:I have a better idea.

[gawaino]

Who was it who said we would have a lot fewer accidents if drivers were strapped to the front of their vehicles?

Re:I have a better idea.

[Sponge Bath]

Tall circus unicycles? For safety, the police could wear brightly colored uniforms and be accompanied by audible alerts like calliope music.

Cost-benefit analysis

[Confusedent]

I don't suppose there's any chance that the cost of the police buying this with taxpayer money will be made up with reduced collisions, accidents, injuries/fatalities, etc.? My knee-jerk reaction would be that it will not, and they're probably just using it as an excuse to get some new fancy cars. 32 new cars pulling people over at times a regular police cruiser would not, just for texting while driving, doesn't seem like it's going to make huge changes in driver behavior... or any changes at all.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[ArchieBunker]

Its about sending a message. I am completely competent in my driving abilities. That said, I do not want to die in a collision because some self absorbed cunt insists on texting while driving. Same goes for drunk drivers. Drunks rarely kill themselves when they wreck.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Confusedent]

But will that message be even remotely effective? Because if not, it's just a waste of money. Obviously I don't know for sure and haven't done an analysis, and am giving them a huge benefit of the doubt by assuming it even might be. My experience is that most people have great difficulty altering daily behavior habits, assuming they even care enough to try, because of abstract risks to themselves (fines) or others (wrecks). Even if they did, it's hard to imagine 32 cars doing this would really send that message effectively.

Clearly I think it's bullshit, but posted wondering if someone might have some solid numbers on it (unlikely).

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be happy to know my tax money was going to something like this. It probably isn't the most intelligent solution, but they're trying. My knee-jerk reaction would be that it is worth the cost. The benefit doesn't need to be purely financial - i doubt much of what law enforcement does saves us money, yet we still fund them.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[ShanghaiBill]

My experience is that most people have great difficulty altering daily behavior habits

Counter-example: Seat belt use went from about 11% in 1981, when the first mandatory seat belt laws took effect, to about 75% today.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[mjwx]

I don't suppose there's any chance that the cost of the police buying this with taxpayer money will be made up with reduced collisions, accidents, injuries/fatalities, etc.? My knee-jerk reaction would be that it will not, and they're probably just using it as an excuse to get some new fancy cars. 32 new cars pulling people over at times a regular police cruiser would not, just for texting while driving, doesn't seem like it's going to make huge changes in driver behavior... or any changes at all.

The thing about knee-jerk reactions is that they're normally wrong.

Texting whilst driving is one of the worst things you can do on the roads and having driven in the US, most drivers are barely competent to begin with. If we took 100 experienced US drivers and gave them a Western Australian driving test, I'd be surprised if 2 passed. The WA test hinges on vehicle control, looking and signalling, three skills that US motorists seem to lack in spades. If we made them take the test in a manual, I'd be surprised if 1 passed (I passed in a manual, flow gets a lot harder when you've got to understand how gears work).

You're right that it is driver behaviour that needs to change, ultimately fines dont cut it in this regard. People who text and drive are dangerous (doubly so if you're naive enough to think you're capable of doing it safely, Dunning-Kruger in effect) and not just to themselves but to others. Repeated tests have shown that texting whilst driving has a very negative affect of driving abilities. Unfortunately sometimes the only way to get though to people is to take their phones and cars away, so unless suspensions are issued, people will keep writing this off under the old revenue conspiracy theory and as you pointed out, refuse to change habits.

Really, its not a question of if new vehicles will be effective, rather its a question of whether the punishments are effective and from what I saw driving in the US no-one seems to care about the punishments for anything.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[FatLittleMonkey]

Its about sending a message

Isn't that what got us into this mess?

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[FatLittleMonkey]

I'd go further, the only time the extra foot or so of height is going to let you see someone texting is when waiting at lights, stuck in traffic, or travelling side-by-side on multi-laned straight roads in smooth uniform traffic.

Only the latter situation is actually remotely dangerous to glance down at a phone (in case someone ahead emergency brakes), but still about the least dangerous of all possible traffic conditions. So even if it makes a difference, you may end up training people to only avoid using their phone when it is safe to do so. Surely the opposite of what you want.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Foo2rama]

why would you not wear a seatbelt? That just seems stupid... What is the downside of wearing one.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard for a chick to give you a BJ while she is wearing a seatbelt?

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Joce640k]

Why would you be typing on a little virtual keyboard and looking at a screen when driving? That just seems stupid. What is the downside to waiting five minutes .

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Necroloth]

why would you text whilst driving? That just seems stupid...

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Nephandus]

Being 6'4", I have to drive with my head stabilized against the roof, when I'm not ducking to see the stop light. If I sit further back, either I can't steer properly, or my head bounces off the top of the windshield when braking and occasionally the top of door when turning right. The seatbelt will stop my body in about the nicest possible position to snap my damn neck, if the airbag doesn't do it first and better. Without it, I'd more evenly flatten out against the wheel AND ceiling and not have the motion of my body suddenly so completely out of kilter with my head, expect under some odd, probably already lethal circumstance.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[wonkey_monkey]

I am completely competent in my driving abilities.

That could be a dangerous line of thinking.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Seumas]

It's about revenue generation. Can't bill'em if you can't catch them.

If it was about safety, we'd treat it more seriously. The same way we would treat drunk driving more seriously if we gave a fuck. How many chances do you get to be incredibly negligent and dangerous on the road before we take you out from behind the 4,000lb 60mph metal death box? Make the first penalty a temporary one, the second a permanent one, and the third time in prison (including driving while suspended). Sound tough? How many opportunities do you want to give someone to stray into oncoming traffic and kill an innocent person before you say "you can't be trusted doing this; take the fucking bus"?

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[_Spirit]

Get a different car, seriously. I am about the same height (slightly taller) and will still fit in the front seat of most cars. Some are impossible (who needs a Ferrari or Jaguar anyway?) but most cars are fine. Key here is to make sure that the height of the seat is adjustable and that there is no sun roof installed.

The strange thing is that there only seems to be a limited correlation between the overall size of the car and the height available between seat and roof in the front seat. A (new) Mini is fine, a Renault Laguna Estate is like you describe.

In the back it is even worse, mostly because the seats are usually placed a bit higher than the front seats to make sure the rear passengers still have a view to the front. There's only a handful of cars where I can sit up straight in the rear.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

A few years ago, I saw some stupid bitch reading while driving. She was actually tailgating the vehicle in front.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

32 new cars pulling people over at times a regular police cruiser would not, just for texting while driving, doesn't seem like it's going to make huge changes in driver behavior... or any changes at all.

It depends on whether people pulled over could have been one of the drivers in this Werner Herzog doc:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BqFkRwdFZ0

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[RaceProUK]

Or you could lower the seat.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Ihlosi]

Texting whilst driving is one of the worst things you can do on the roads

You haven't seen people watch a movie, play Angry Birds, ear a bowl of soup or make coffee while driving?

If we took 100 experienced US drivers and gave them a Western Australian driving test, I'd be surprised if 2 passed.

Indeed. They'd probably be driving on the wrong side of the road in the first place.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Kilo Kilo]

Being 6'4",

Have you thought about joining the NY State Troopers? You won't even need the SUV, they can just cut a hole in the roof of the car.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[C0R1D4N]

I don't at work, my job has me in and out of he vehicle every couple minutes. As to the texting while driving being so dangerous, the accident rate has not increased in alignment with the massive increase of cell phone use the past 15 years.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[jimbobborg]

Get a motorcycle.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Lumpy]

No what he is saying that he is OK with YOU and others dying in a crash so he doesn't have to miss a text from his BFF.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Skater]

People who text and drive are dangerous (doubly so if you're naive enough to think you're capable of doing it safely, Dunning-Kruger in effect) and not just to themselves but to others. Repeated tests have shown that texting whilst driving has a very negative affect of driving abilities. Unfortunately sometimes the only way to get though to people is to take their phones and cars away, so unless suspensions are issued, people will keep writing this off under the old revenue conspiracy theory and as you pointed out, refuse to change habits.

It's not even the texting that makes them dangerous. What makes them dangerous is that they think it's okay to have their attention focused elsewhere while they continue maneuvering several thousand pounds of machinery. The text messaging is just the latest example, but there have always been examples of people reading, putting on makeup, eating, playing with the radio, talking on the phone, etc. People just don't understand, or care, that driving IS the activity you're doing. In a logical world, these people would be the biggest supporters of public transportation, so they can do those things without risk.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

Driving is boring so they need something else to do. If they weren't text messaging, maybe they would be putting on makeup, playing with the radio, or sipping their latte. Is it the case that these patrols will make anybody safer? Or will they just shift the distractions to something that isn't specifically illegal?

dom

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Nephandus]

Through the floor?

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha. If you think that's bad, I've done calculus homework while driving.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[spire3661]

And seatbelt laws are as Liberty infringing today as they were back then.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[RaceProUK]

Taller car then.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[fuzznutz]

Did you ever consider that not everyone's midpoint is in the same relative position? Not all 6'4" people are created equal. Some of us have more height in our torso than our legs. I'm only 6" and I have problems with many cars and most compacts having insufficient headroom. And maybe not everyone wants to drive a Suburban or Escalade just to keep their head off the headliner.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Curunir_wolf]

Its [sic] about sending a message.

Yes - but what message? While the explicit message may be "don't text and drive", the implicit message in this, and many other activities of NY and many other efforts around the country is very clear: Big Brother is watching you.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[bws111]

In NYS, first offense texting is a $150 fine (not too much revenue), and 5 points on your license - same a reckless driving. While not as serious as DWI it is pretty serious.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll be damned if I'm trading in my Lamborghini for another car on account of the headroom, you insensitive clod!

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

Cite the dangerous driving, not the perceived "cause". The driver may be just as distracted talking with a passenger as she is sending a text... or may just be a really bad driver in the first place.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

because its not waiting 5 minutes it could be waiting 30 minutes or and hour depending on how long your trip is. Because driving is boring and texting gives you something to do.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[mrvan]

I would be fine with you not wearing a seat belt, as long as it does not affect me when you get into an accident, including:
- my health insurance premium does not go up because you pose a greater risk of requiring treatment (if your answer is: differentiate premiums between seat belt wearers and libertarians, how do you monitor that differentiating without an even greater breach of your Liberties?)
- my taxes don't go up because you are now a burden on the emergency medical care system
- the road is not closed off longer because the accident is now more serious, leading to more traffic jams.
- if an accident is my fault, my punishment does not go up because you are now dead/seriously injured instead of not/lightly injured
- the police and medical staff are still available to help me and not wasting their time on the greater time required to investigate/treat a serious or fatal accident compared to a fender bender. If your answer is: hire more police and medical staff, than realize that this will drive up the cost of said staff by more demand. If your answer is: train more staff to increase supply, this will cost taxpayer money since those institutions are generally subsidized, and/or take potential candidates from other fields where they would actually add value to society rather than scrape your libertarian remains off the tarmac.

In other words, your decision to not wear a seat belt places a claim on a number of scarce goods if you get into an accident, which affects more people than just you.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[J'raxis]

No, it will be made up with increased fine revenue. That's how this kind of "public safety" bullshit typically "pays for itself." The cops get to steal your money to pay for their new toys to further steal your money.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[kilfarsnar]

Being 6'4", I have to drive with my head stabilized against the roof, when I'm not ducking to see the stop light. If I sit further back, either I can't steer properly, or my head bounces off the top of the windshield when braking and occasionally the top of door when turning right.

Was this the largest automobile you could afford?

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[kilfarsnar]

Unfortunately, that's a given these days.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[J'raxis]

And New Hampshire, one of the few states in the nation to not have a seatbelt law (I and this organization helped scuttle their last attempt to pass one), has one of the highest seatbelt-usage statistics, and has some of the safest roads in the country.

But don't let that stop you from passing off a simple correlation-causation coincidence as justification for your nanny-statist laws. In the same time period, cars with those annoying seatbelt alarms that don't shut off until you put the seatbelt on were introduced, and society became more safety-conscious in general.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[bws111]

It is not illegal to text while your car is not moving in NYS.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[TangoMargarine]

Lots of people still driving normal cars + cops in SUVs with elevated bumpers + said cops looking into other vehicles while driving = what could possibly go wrong?

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[TangoMargarine]

I demand my constitutional right to get myself killed if I want!!

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[rwise2112]

A few years ago, I saw some stupid bitch reading while driving. She was actually tailgating the vehicle in front.

That's all right, bus drivers do it in Toronto as does everyone's favorite mayor

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Luckyo]

A lot of people just don't like it. Some aren't used to it. I sometimes watch those russian dashcam videos, and they have a whole category where some taxi drivers insist that their fare must use seat belts (these are usually former race drivers who lost someone they cared for in an accident). The arguments are between "what the fuck" and "how stupid is this" level of sad hilarity.

But reality is that until it becomes a widespread and generally accepted as "right" way to drive/get driven in a car, there will be a lot of people to resist using them. It's likely that your current attitude is a product of being raised in environment where seat belt usage was deemed more acceptable than before because it was originally made mandatory.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[FatLittleMonkey]

Ah. Is here.

(Annoys me. Idiotic rule.)

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you are an idiot and should get a different car.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Luckyo]

It is a well known statistical fact that a large spike in "new driver" accidents comes around a year after they get their license, because they become "completely confident in their driving abilities", which is something that has little basis in reality. So you have a self centered idiot who thinks he's an ace driver driving in a way that would actually require one, but who isn't. And accidents start to happen. A lot.

Add to that the whole "texting" issue they are afraid of with the new drivers, and they are afraid (and with a good reason) that they are going to have a massive increase in accidents.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Nethead]

Don't know where you live but in my state it's at 97.5% compliance.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[spire3661]

As long as you ALSO apply this to all sports, dangerous activities like rock climbing or skydiving etc. Fatty foods, salt, anything spicy....you see where im going with this. Be well!

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[russotto]

I would be fine with you not wearing a seat belt, as long as it does not affect me when you get into an accident, including:
- my health insurance premium does not go up because you pose a greater risk of requiring treatment (if your answer is: differentiate premiums between seat belt wearers and libertarians, how do you monitor that differentiating without an even greater breach of your Liberties?)

The idea that you should be able to control other's behavior which might have a deleterious effect on your health insurance premiums is not even a slippery slope to tyranny, it's tyranny in a single step.

- my taxes don't go up because you are now a burden on the emergency medical care system

As is this one, though less so.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

>Counter-example: Seat belt use went from about 11% in 1981, when the first mandatory seat belt laws took effect, to about 75% today.

Counter-counter-example: And yet, in New Hampshire, where seat belt use is optional, the numbers are even higher.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[CanHasDIY]

correlation != causation.

Yes, this goes for the person you're replying to as well.

LOTS of things have happened since 1981 that would lead to more seatbelt use/less car crash fatalities. Education, better equipment, cars that ding at you constantly until you belt up...

Actually, were I a betting man, my money'd be on that last one as the most likely cause.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[CanHasDIY]

because its not waiting 5 minutes it could be waiting 30 minutes or and hour depending on how long your trip is.

Well, gee, Wally, what kind of car do you drive that is incapable of pulling the fuck over? What's that? There's no car that's incapable of pulling the fuck over? Oh, I see, you're just a selfish jackass. Good to know.

Because driving is boring and texting gives you something to do.

An extremely selfish jackass who shouldn't be put in charge of anything more important than a pudding cup. Gotcha.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you ever consider that not everyone's midpoint is in the same relative position?

Either you didn't read his comment about ensuring the height is adjustable, or you just wanted to moan.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[CanHasDIY]

In other words, the world can have liberty so long as it doesn't inconvenience you by virtue of a number of factors no individual has any control over.

When I put it like that, can you see how insane your ideology sounds? Hell, you might as well be arguing against free speech, since the wrong person saying the wrong thing in the wrong place at the wrong time can run afoul of all the criteria you've set forth here.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[danomac]

If you're only 6" tall wouldn't you have problems reaching the pedals and seeing over the dashboard?

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody ever puts ME in charge of a pudding cup =(

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Pumpkin Tuna]

Back when I was a kid and dirt was new and shiny, lots of people had crazy misconceptions about seatbelts. They thought they would kill you in a wreck, or that you would be trapped in a burning car. I remember not wearing them in the 70s and early 80s.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

Your counter-example of how easy it is to change habits would be more convincing if it was over a single generation. 30 years could easily be just old drivers getting replaced.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't suppose there's any chance that the cost of the police buying this with taxpayer money will be made up with reduced collisions, accidents, injuries/fatalities, etc.?

Its about sending a message.

What's the point of sending a message if that message doesn't reduce collisions and injuries? As a motorist and voter, I don't care how scared the bad drivers are of my political authority, just what my chances of a collision are.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

You are free to NOT drive, as it's a privilege, not a right.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[fuzznutz]

You misunderstand. I should have said 6" while flaccid. I never said tall...

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

why would you not wear a seatbelt? That just seems stupid... What is the downside of wearing one.

Duh! It makes it harder to reach your phone when you have to respond to a text!

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[firewrought]

(1) waiting at lights, (2) stuck in traffic, or (3) travelling side-by-side on multi-laned straight roads in smooth uniform traffic... only the latter situation is actually remotely dangerous.

Wrong: you are operating a motor vehicle. The task is inherently dangerous, even if you aren't texting. Even if you could text and 100% drive "correctly", because part of the responsibility of driving is guarding against other drivers, pedestrians, and road debris that doesn't behave "correctly".

Besides, situations (1) and (2) aren't as safe as they seem. In situation (1), people begin texting at a complete stop but end up trying to finish their texts after beginning to roll again. Though not fatal, low speed rear-endings are still vexing to everyone involved. In situation (2), "stand-still" traffic is pretty rare; usually the traffic you are stuck in is of the lurching "stop-and-go" variety. Texting here increases your odds of low and moderate speed rear-endings.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Shagg]

Everybody is an above average driver, just ask them.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to study on my way to school while driving. I didn't stop until I almost killed a man.

AC in case he is reading this, right now.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, the world can have liberty so long as it doesn't inconvenience you by virtue of a number of factors no individual has any control over.

When I put it like that, can you see how insane your ideology sounds? Hell, you might as well be arguing against free speech, since the wrong person saying the wrong thing in the wrong place at the wrong time can run afoul of all the criteria you've set forth here.

You think you mock, but that's a pretty reasonable definition if you replace "inconvenience you" with "infringe your equivalent liberties".

Yelling "String up that N****r!" is generally illegal.
Shooting where other people might be it is generally illegal.
We could go down the list but I think the point is made.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Algae_94]

And maybe not everyone wants to drive a Suburban or Escalade just to keep their head off the headliner.

I know I prefer driving cars that don't cram my head against a headliner no matter what kind of car they are. Fortunately there are quite variable headrooms among different cars. It is often not straightforward. Yes, a suburban or escalade will have lots of room, but some compacts have more headroom than mid-size. The size of the cars exterior does not necessarily dictate that the interior headroom will match.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a shame that flaccid cock can't get erect isn't it? You limp dick faggot.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

But the thing I've never seen accounted for about texting vs DUI is that as soon as you put your phone down, you're sober again. You can't do that w/ DUI. So texting at a stoplight is almost 0 risk increase. But being DUI at a stop light doesn't lessen your risk.

I am not advocating texting while driving.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

If we took 100 experienced US drivers and gave them a Western Australian driving test, I'd be surprised if 2 passed.

if course they would, you drive on wrong fucking side of the road. waitaminute... they might actually do really well, since they're used to driving on that side of the road already.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[bored_engineer]

If an analysis was done, the assigned value of a person is about $1.4 Million. So if they can reasonably assure (often WAG, sometimes backed by data) that enhanced enforcement will save 2 or more lives, then it becomes worth the (here's a WAG) $1.5 Million spent on the project. There's a fair bit of money flowing to enforcement, prevention and mitigation of texting while driving.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Nephandus]

I can't afford that. It's not mine. Neither's the house. Student loans are about to get fun too, possibly before the degree.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[sabt-pestnu]

There are minimum legal vehicle standards. And behavior standards. Your reasons do not well distinguish between falling within and without of them; your gripes are analog.

By the same logic, you would be offended because...
- I drive a lighter vehicle, being more at risk of injury.
- I drive a vehicle with poorer handling, increasing the likelihood of an accident, or reducing my ability to dodge an accident.
- I drive a vehicle more prone to mechanical failures (older, less reliable, other), increasing the likelihood of closing the road.
- I have some other medical condition that causes problems and/or expense when I'm to be pulled from a vehicle. Say, hemophilia, obesity, or age.

Each of the costs you have described apply as well to one more of the scenarios above. And yet, the vehicle and driver may well fall within acceptable standards for driving (and being driven).

As for your health care premium worries, the insurance companies do account for seat belt use (or lack of it). I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

Change the risk/benefit balance.

I used to know a professional road-traffic accident investigator. He said, many times, that if you really wanted to reduce the rate of accidents, you'd ban seatbelts and airbags, and mandate instead a 6-in spike sticking out of the steering column at the driver's chest.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

Slippery slope. No one should have the right to chose to do or not to do something if it "might" negatively affect another person? Very dangerous with respect to individual liberties. Should I be "forced" to eat a "healthy" diet in order to save on collective health cost? Why don't we ban people from driving if they can't prove that there is a strong need to do so? Do you really need to drive? If not, you are creating unnecessary risk and potential collective taxpayer cost.
  It is only a silly "libertarian" principle until intrusive laws affect you, then it's a different story.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[toddestan]

As someone who is about the same height, the problem with cars nowadays is the sloping rooflines. I can fit in the car just fine, but I'm staring at the sun visor and not out the windshield. So yes, that can mean ducking to see a stoplight. I'm just hoping things come back around and we go back to the squared off styling and formal rooflines like back in the 80's instead of the form-over-function overstyled mess that is modern automobile design.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[toddestan]

On the other hand, not wearing a seatbelt might make the difference between someone ending up dead, which is relatively cheap compared to treating a serious injury or expensive complications that will last for the rest of their lives. It may be like with heavy smokers, which despite the serious effects from smoking to their health, tend to cost less health care dollars because they often drop dead at an earlier age.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, the cars end up back on the proper side once you take into account that you have to flip the road over. The real problem is driving the bloody cars when sitting on the headliner.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

with actual keys (t9) typing while doign something else is quite easy with one hand. proofread at an intersection when you're not near the front of the queue.

seatbelts are uncomfortable, being able to stretch out in the back seat is nice.

i dont like wearing shoes when driving as it abstracts the PUI. (pedal user interface)

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[_Spirit]

I actually have a fairly long torso and relatively short legs. There may be a big difference between the US and Europe here, but what I said goes for most of the cars sold in Europe. I don't drive US made cars very often so you may be right there. Nobody drives an Escalade or Suburban here and people here are quite a bit taller on average than Americans.

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI: I think you got whooshed.

[a very tall man scrunched in a Volkswagen Beetle has just grabbed Nelson after being laughed at]

Tall Man: Do you find something comical about my appearance when I am driving my automobile?

Nelson: Yes.

Tall Man: Everyone needs to drive a vehicle, even the very tall.

[points to his Beetle]

Tall Man: This was the largest auto I could afford. Should I therefore be made the subject of fun, huh?

Nelson: I guess so.

Tall Man: [clears his throat] Would you like it if others laughed at YOUR misfortune, hmm? Maybe we should find out!

Tall Man: [Tall man pulls down Nelson's pants and commands him to walk down the main street] Nowwww march!

Tall Man: [honks his car horn while driving behind Nelson] Hey, everyone! Look at this; it's that boy who laughs at everyone! Let's laugh at him!

[the entire crowd yells HA-HA! at Nelson]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0701186/quotes

Re:Cost-benefit analysis

[kilfarsnar]

Thanks AC! It's good to know some still remember really old Simpsons references.

taller SUVs payoff for the hungry investor

[beckett]

More truck means slower pursuit and longer interdiction times, but just think of how many doughnuts a Yukon with a lift kit will haul! no more embarassing loading-u-haul-in-the-crispy-creme-parking-lot for NY cops.

Re:taller SUVs payoff for the hungry investor

[Anonymous Coward]

Leadership isn't about polls.

Re:taller SUVs payoff for the hungry investor

[Anonymous Coward]

Why make them about poles when you can have tall SUVs?

Re:taller SUVs payoff for the hungry investor

[Anonymous Coward]

And more rollovers when chasing that rally car down a winding road =)

Cut their budgets and lay them off.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sick of it. These dumbasses need to be fired yesterday.

This seems safe.

[Anonymous Coward]

They should do a risk analysis of giant SUV's with drivers distracted trying to look at other people's texts.

Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[bill_mcgonigle]

The NY police are making things worse - texting bans increase crashes.

clearly drivers did respond to the bans somehow, and what they might have been doing was moving their phones down and out of sight when they texted, in recognition that what they were doing was illegal. This could exacerbate the risk of texting by taking drivers' eyes further from the road and for a longer time."

But since when did NY ever let data get in the way of a bad law? If it means more revenue, more cops, and someday anti-texting Hummers, then screw the people getting in car crashes.

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the law that's "bad".

The people who text while trying to drive are the bad actors here.

Your logic is so flawed you must be insane.

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

It could also be because the police are now just sitting on the side of the road (in their comfy SUVs) while scarfing donuts and looking out for people texting, instead of driving around and looking out for actual unsafe traffic violations - hey, it's easier right?

Seriously, the same thing happened with the damned seatbelt laws. Everyone was saying how it would make our roads so much safer, and all I see is five state troopers sitting on the side of the freeway hoping to see someone not wearing their seatbelt (or at least, appearing to not wear their seatbelt), when they could be out driving and pulling people over for unsafe lane changes, tailgating, etc. But we all know that will never happen because everyone needs to have their pet annoyance enshrined into law.

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

If that didn't work they'd stop doing it all the time, just saying.

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[Shompol]

People who text while driving get punished by getting into accidents. Cops are on the lookout for:
- People talking on the phone while driving. Totally safe yet illegal.
-People using phone while parked and on red light
-People using GPS on phone

It's like enforcing speed limits -- everyone breaks them but cops are there to pull over the unfortunate ones

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[Shakrai]

People who text while driving get punished by getting into accidents.

What about the people who weren't texting that they hit?

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[bill_mcgonigle]

The people who text while trying to drive are the bad actors here.

Yes, and the texting bans make them more dangerous. Did you even read the link, bro?

Your logic is so flawed you must be insane.

Which is why the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the Highway Loss Data Institute did the research and publicized it, eh? But AC knows better...

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[Shakrai]

Did you even read the link, bro?

I read it. It says, in a nutshell, "drivers know it's illegal, so they go out of their way to hide it, increasing the risks that are already inherent in texting while driving." What I'm unclear about is what you think should be done with this study from a public policy standpoint? Is distracted driving dangerous? If so, should we be proactively attempting to reduce it, through education and enforcement, or should we deal with the consequences after the fact?

Frankly, I'd rather see a generalized law against distracted driving, rather than texting, because I'm just as dead if you kill me reaching for the Big Mac as I am if you kill me reaching for the phone. An A/C put it best in the last conversation we had about this, "95% of driving may require 10% of your attention span, but what about the other 5%?"

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally safe yet illegal.

Citation needed. Last I heard, talking while driving wasn't much better than texting while driving.

See this: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199702133360701

Unless you think people have gotten better at talking in the last ten years, I would say that talking while driving is far from "total safe," as that study in the NEJM cites a more than quadrupled risk of crashing while using a mobile compared to not.

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[rwa2]

heh, I saw some guy in a bimmer texting with his nose last week, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.
But I suppose a cop in a tall SUV wouldn't be able to see him.

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[rwa2]

Hey, speaking of which, is there any way to get the old zoom in/out buttons on the new Google Maps? Pinch-to-zoom is a real, real pain in the ass to use one-handed, even with my phone in a mount. There's supposedly some "alternative" way to make it zoom in/out by holding and then moving up/down, but I can't get it to work. I just want some simple onscreen buttons, dammit!

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[malignant_minded]

Better equip vehicles for communication. End of 2013 and the car manufactures want you to use their crappy GPS when my phone has better maps that update on the fly. Put my damn phone on my middle dash screen or better yet hud the basics. Allow buttons that can be mapped to Siri / Google Command. I have 3 buttons one with 2 states on my 2013 Honda CRV, hang up, dial and callback on single button one by short press later by long press, and voice command which maps to Honda's stupid voice command not a multi button blutooth that can map to Siri / Google Command. If you gave a way to easily communicate with my phone then the phone would continue to expand and become better.
me: "send text to wife stopping to get milk"
phone "text wife stopping to get silk"
me: "not silk milk"
phone "text wife stopping to get milk"
me: "yes"
Could be no more distracting than me talking to someone or messing with the radio all with a single button press...but its not.

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[Belial6]

Did you read the methods used in that study? The only conclusion that they could legitimately come to is that people who got in accidents while on the phone were on the phone. They literally only counted accidents that happened while someone was on the phone. They dismissed all accidents that did not happen when on the phone, and virtually all phone calls that happened without producing an accident.

Your link is like every other "Cell Phones are dangerous" study, complete BS made up to rationalize a pre-conceived bias. The designers of this study were either grossly incompetent, or outright dishonest.

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[petman]

There's supposedly some "alternative" way to make it zoom in/out by holding and then moving up/down, but I can't get it to work.

To zoom with one hand, do a double-tap, and upon the second tap, hold. Then slide down to zoom in and up to zoom out.

i.e. tap, tap+hold... (while holding) slide up/down

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[Joce640k]

I think people texting is an actual unsafe traffic violation.

Are you happy to think there's people out there driving around while constantly looking down at little screens and typing "OMG! Faggot. LOL!"?

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[wonkey_monkey]

- People talking on the phone while driving. Totally safe yet illegal.

False.

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah sure. And the fact that the police chases down criminals makes crimes worse because now some criminals try to force the police to not chase them by taking hostages.

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[Seumas]

I'm pretty sure driving while distracted is already a citationable offense. I don't really care what the nature of your distraction is -- if you're engaging in it, you are endangering other people on and off the road. I can see the rational behind harsher penalties for certain choices, though. Negligent behavior because you're having a conversation with three people in your car is not the same thing as choosing to get drunk and hop on the road or choosing to turn around and discipline your children while doing 65 down the highway.

The problem is we're never willing to impose significant penalties for just about any behavior. Hell, we have a hard time even deciding to take the license away from 90 year old grandmas who hit the accelerator instead of the brake and plow through field of kids playing soccer.

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[Seumas]

Why don't we put more focus on automated driving? I'd rather not need a license and not waste several hours of my life each day at the wheel, if I could nap, read, get some work done, etc in the back.

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

... Totally safe yet illegal.

Other countries have tested this assertion and found it to be totally false. Some people put their electronics (Sat-Nav) at road-eye height, but most people look down for several seconds to use personal electronics. Then there's the problem of using a hand to hold the phone: Less of a problem in big cities where everyone drives an automatic, but it is still a diversion from the task of driving. Lastly, experiments reveal a phone conversation distracts the driver more than an in-car conversation.

... while parked and on red light ...

The rule is: while you are in control of a vehicle you may not operate a phone. Obviously not a danger when the car is stopped but the driver either has to delay traffic while he puts the phone away, or immediately move the vehicle and break the law.

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

my google nexus 5 has "voice" typing fuck the police

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

Talking on the phone while driving is not safe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vFcIpzF7pc

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[bws111]

If they 'literally only counted accidents that happened while someone was on the phone', as you claim, how could they possiby come to the conclusion that accident rates were four times higher when the phone was being used? By definition ALL of the accidents would be while the phone was being used, and NONE would be while the phone was not being used, which is certainly not a 4-1 ratio.

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[rwa2]

ah, awesome, thanks!

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. Talking on the phone while driving is perfectly legal where I live. So is texting while driving, if you're over the age of 18. (Yes, the age limit is stupid. See below.)

I have a better idea than to make more laws: enforce the ones we already have!

Rule #1 of the road is to keep your vehicle under control at all times. If you don't, you can be pulled over and ticketed for any of several various wordings of the same infraction ("unsafe and imprudent", "driving erratically", "swerving", "veering", "failure to control vehicle"). It's a moving violation, and it tags you with "points", which your insurance company is sure to frown at (and then bill you for).

The important thing to note is that it's completely irrelevant WHY you aren't keeping control of the vehicle. If you're dead from a heart attack, I guess it doesn't matter to you, but there's not much the law can do about that. Otherwise, the reason your vehicle is out of control is because you allowed it to be. And that's illegal. And you can (and should) be disciplined for that.

And if it gets to the severity of an "accident" (quotes around that because it's seldom an actual accident), then you should be punished for whatever outcome you caused. Destruction of property is illegal, and is a natural result of running into things with your car. Assault already has a "vehicular" variant in the law. So do homicide and manslaughter (differing only by intent). The only possible accident (really an accident) that I can think of is when you hit a deer. Also, not every party to a collision is at-fault, so a collision doesn't mean an automatic punishment.

And one final thing to shore up: testing. Driver testing should be MUCH more stringent than it is now. If you can't safely operate a vehicle, you should not be given a license anyway because you're "hot" or "rich" or "cool" or any other reason. You should only be able to get a license if you're competent at operating a vehicle. Period.

This is the real problem with US drivers: the state license testing is not strict enough. Where I live, the highway patrol sends an officer out for a ride-along with a permit driver when they take the test. But if you already have a license in another state, you can come in and "trade" your out-of-state license for an in-state one, with just a simple proof-of-residence. You aren't even required to prove that you know the differences between the laws in your old state and the laws in this one by taking the written "permit" test. This is idiotic. Here, we allow right-on-red (unless posted), have unsigned no-passing zones (only the middle line shows whether it's safe or legal to pass, there are no signs posted about it), define signs as in-effect when you can read them (not when you pass them), and have default speed limits defined by state law for areas where no sign is visible (and different types of roads have different defaults). You won't necessarily know these things unless you read the driver's handbook.

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[krovisser]

I agree with all of this. Thanks for saving my fingers. Like you say, we already have laws for this: Reckless driving/Careless driving. Why they need to make a law for each individual instance is beyond me. Other than to look like they are doing something.

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the law that's "bad".

The people who text while trying to drive are the bad actors here.

Your logic is so flawed you must be insane.

Your logic is that there is only one bad actor? Can't we blame BOTH the irresponsible drivers AND the laws which make them even more dangerous?

Just because something is bad doesn't make every possible law against it good.

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[Belial6]

Exactly. The study the AC linked to is clearly BS. They state right in their methodology section that they only count accidents that happened while someone was on the phone. All of the 'cell phones are dangerous' studies have the same kind of problem.

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is we're never willing to impose significant penalties for just about any behavior.

So true:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texting_while_driving#Existing_laws

There is no freaking way $200 is a fair citation for someone who recklessly puts lives in danger with heavy machinery. It should be at least $1000 plus community service, and 2nd-time offenders should be forever banned from driving.

Sounds harsh? So is death, and that's the punishment that distracted drivers threaten US with.

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

The mods are out railing against the science that contradicts their pre-conceived notions. Even on Slashdot. Our society is so fucked.

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

That experiment does not reflect the reality in many aspects. I also cannot talk on the phone and juggle, what they test is closer to juggling than driving.

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[Anonymous Coward]

What in the fuck happened to this fucking site? Seriously, the OP who posted the study (from the fucking Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) that shows that this law doesn't work is modded at 1. The cocksucking AC who replied by simply saying "Lol, ur insane", with no argument or information whatsoever is modded at +5 insightful???

Yeah, just keep jamming your fingers in your ears and shouting whenever the actual evidence doesn't align with your preconceived notions. Christ people are idiots.

Re:Texing Bans Increase Crashes

[wonkey_monkey]

Because it's far, far easier to prosecute someone (and I think this is a good thing; my original "false" was for the safety aspect, not the legality) for holding a mobile phone while driving than it is to prosecute them for reckless driving. Just as it's easier to prosecute someone for not wearing a seatbelt or driving with a fixed, but essentially arbitrary, amount of alcohol in their blood.

That's why we have laws at all, otherwise we could have just stopped at "don't be a dick."

More like an excuse for a federal grant...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about instead of deploying a gas guzzling waste of taxpayer money, they mount a video camera to the left and right on their roof and wire it into their existing displays?

Re:More like an excuse for a federal grant...

[Anonymous Coward]

A human eye is much better because it will see whatever it wants to see, whenever it wants to see it. wink, wink

Re:More like an excuse for a federal grant...

[eepok]

In all likelihood, they probably just needed new vehicles, wanted things that would take a beating, and needed a little extra spin to get the approval. The vehicles were not purchased JUST to catch texting drivers, but the type or spec of the vehicle was chosen to validate that spin and "prove" that their use will be used to bring in additional revenue.

Re:More like an excuse for a federal grant...

[bob_super]

When they bought huge expensive SUVs for the cops almost a decade ago in Chicago ("news" for nerds), the guy in charge had the balls to point out that their dismal gas mileages was not worse than the abysmal mileage of the crown vics, therefore it was fine.

I don't expect the cops to drive priuses, but that really pissed me off.

Re:More like an excuse for a federal grant...

[Anonymous Coward]

don't worry.. pretty soon they will be flying drones for surveillance

Re:More like an excuse for a federal grant...

[Algae_94]

Really, what do you think they should drive? They made a choice that had no negative change on their fleet mileage. You're mad that it didn't go up. What did go up, was their ability to go over and through obstacles in their way during a pursuit. They also increased their capacity to haul officers, criminals, and equipment around the city. You most likely pay more taxes for the guy driving the vehicle than for the vehicle itself.

Re:More like an excuse for a federal grant...

[bob_super]

This is Chicago we're talking about. "ability to go over and through obstacles in their way during a pursuit" will cover a fraction of a percent of their use cases.

I agree that they sometimes need SUVs to deal with the snowstorms, but they had somehow managed with the crown vics (note how Chicago has gotten safer in the last couple years), and not having the biggest SUV on the market still gets you 95% of the SUV benefit.
I know they also moved to Chevy Impalas, which made sense from the crown vic

And yes, I am perfectly justified to complain when they replace twenty-plus year-old technology by stuff that is not more efficient. The cost of the guy driving it keeps going up, but the ride is not a negligible fraction and it should be tamed. Otherwise they need more cash from me.

Re:More like an excuse for a federal grant...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea.. or one of those suspensions that can jack up/down the vehicle like we see in rap videos....

Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in the UK they did a similar thing, hired a lorry so that they could look into the cabs of lorry drivers and catch the phone users who couldn't be seen by cops in cars.

I might see a flaw

[Anonymous Coward]

So the risk of collision goes up if a driver looks down to text ...

Does the risk of collision go up if a police officer looks across his car, through his window, through your window, into your car, across either your passenger seat or his, to see if you're texting?

Re:I might see a flaw

[mark-t]

Probably, yes. I would assume the police officer looking down through your window is sitting in the passenger seat of the vehicle, and not driving the car at all, and you are not in the leftmost lane.

Re:I might see a flaw

[Shakrai]

I would assume the police officer looking down through your window is sitting in the passenger seat of the vehicle

Probably not. New York State Troopers almost always patrol alone, unless they're training someone, or being evaluated, both of which are comparatively rare events in the course of their careers.

Re:I might see a flaw

[CrimsonAvenger]

I would assume the police officer looking down through your window is sitting in the passenger seat of the vehicle, and not driving the car at all, and you are not in the leftmost lane.

So the simple solution to this problem (problem being cops in extra-tall SUV's looking for texters) is to drive in the left-lane when you want to text?

Hmm, you have to get into the fast lane to text without being ticketed...I can't see ANY potential problems with that....

Why don't they just use technology?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely someone has the ability to capture cell phone traffic. Software could tell a cop sitting for speeders when a car coming around the road has released a text in the past 3 minutes. It'd be on a map on his tablet in car. Also it could tell him for speeders coming to his location by analyzing GPS signals. Maybe the cops aren't allowed to use this and only the big agencies can? I'm not inviting this future, but just pointing out that technology would change stuff up for more crimes to be solved than this. Also cops could even track the speed of traffic to be better equipped to set up speed traps

Of course I also wonder why cops won't investigate stolen iphones when the user knows their general location on aps named stuff like,"Find my iphone."

My question might also go further: Is there a business opportunity as a private detective who goes out and retrieves your iphone? My guess the life expectancy for this person wouldn't be much. For the people who will steal your iphone probably are up to other crimes... Which goes back to the question,"Why don't the cops investigate then?"

Re:Why don't they just use technology?

[Culture20]

Passengers are allowed to text. And phones can be set to auto-text. In fact, phones send SMS messages a lot; very few of them are "texts" though.

Re:Why don't they just use technology?

[TangoMargarine]

-1 Horrible Idea

You *have* been listening to all this wiretapping stuff, right? We give them an inch and they'll take a mile, and your suggestion sounds like significantly more than an inch. You'd have to listen to the entire network to catch some hypothetical car "in the last 3 minutes" anyway, too, which is terrific. From there, it's just one small step to actually reading the texts "to catch terrorists and pedos."

Also problematic is if this is displayed on a tablet in his car if he's moving, which is more or less exactly what we're trying to prevent in the first place.

Yawn

[Falconhell]

Slashdot, where you get the same news as Theregister, but a week later.

Re:Yawn

[rwa2]

But less snide British snark.

I suppose you could http://arstechnica.com/ as well.

Hey, if you're really a masochist, you can go to http://beta.slashdot.org/ for the worst of all worlds!

Re:Yawn

[phantomfive]

Yeah, but who wants to read the comments at the Register?

Re:Yawn

[Seumas]

I would rather read the comments at Slashdot and not RTFA than RTFA and not read the comments at The Register. :)

But less so every passing year.

Re:Yawn

[oodaloop]

Slashdot is a news aggregator, in case you're new here. It's always somewhere else first.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea BUT who READS the REGISTER? Those WHO like EUROTRASH that SHOUT in all of THEIR headlines?

Re:Yawn

[NoImNotNineVolt]

The headlines are much better here, though.

Meanwhile, over at el Reg:

NY police boffins THRILLED to get tall SUVs to COMBAT texting while DRIVING

Re:Yawn

[phantomfive]

Sadly so..........
If the new beta doesn't improve, I think it will kill slashdot. The comments are too hard to read.

Blame the kids

[NIK282000]

Kopy worries that as teens get their driver's licenses, texting on the road will become more prevalent

 
Age has nothing to do with it, there aren't many teenagers plowing their SUVs into other cars on the highways during rush hour (more like 4 hour crawl). Its the 9 to 5 cube jockies and wage slaves who are bored to hell with sitting in traffic for cumulative days of their lives. Teenagers are disruptive hellians but you can't blame them for a problem that existed before they were even eligable to contribute.

Re:Blame the kids

[Kaenneth]

A 63 year old friend of mine got a smartphone to take payments with for his business...

less than a week later he rear-ended someone on the freeway while texting.

any age can be a fucking dumbass.

Re:Blame the kids

[ogl_codemonkey]

It's the 9 to 5 cube jockeys and wage slaves who are bored to hell with sitting in traffic for cumulative days of their lives.

So the law should instead be encouraging people who live more than X distance from work to be using mass transit? Sounds good to me!

Re:Blame the kids

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen to that!

What if

[Anonymous Coward]

What if they just pulled someone over when they're suspected of texting and driving? Perhaps they'll create an opportunity and smell some weed AND save the life of six people because someone was texting and someone else was looking down at the one texting as they plow through a crosswalk.

Why is it that cops feel like everything is supposed to be easy for them?

What if my girlfriend is doing me favors? Now I have to deal with cops on a mission instead of some trucker going home wishing?

Damn it. Can't that money go to, I don't know, bigger guns and chemical weapons.

Oh that's why they can

[NotSoHeavyD3]

speed and tailgate even when their lights aren't on. Because they're trained professionals. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.)

Re:Oh that's why they can

[Anonymous Coward]

When making a reply, the first box is for the subject and not the first half of your message.

I know this is probably very surprising and upsetting, but you have to trust me on this.

Re:Oh that's why they can

[Nephandus]

Or flipping on the lights a split second to run a red light, while speeding, almost hitting people on a regularly basis at the same damn light. That takes skill...or drugs.

Re:Oh that's why they can

[Lumpy]

Most cops can barely drive, and then when off duty they drive like complete and utter assholes.

Re:Oh that's why they can

[Lumpy]

"That takes skill...or drugs."

Just being complete sociopath assholes is all that is needed to do that.

Re:Oh that's why they can

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here.

Re:Oh that's why they can

[CanHasDIY]

Most cops can barely drive, and then when off duty they drive like complete and utter assholes.

Some of them can't even tell when they're off duty; about a year ago an Iraq War vet was killed when a local, off-duty cop took it upon himself to engage his personal, vehicle in a high-speed chase through the center of town at mid-day. The LEO chased the suspect right into the driver's door of the vet's truck, not a week after he got back from an 18 month deployment.

The cop was, of course, found innocent of any wrongdoing.

Re:Oh that's why they can

[Lumpy]

Police do not have to obey any laws. They can kill innocents without any recourse.

Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

It's moving how cops want to protect us from harm. Thank you for continuous surveillance. I'd like you to monitor inside of my home too, where do I sign up?

Re: Excellent

[cyber-vandal]

I want the police to arrest dangerous drivers thanks. If people are too retarded to realise that they're putting everyone around them at serious risk just so they can send a stupid message then I want them off the road. This is no different to arresting drunk drivers or boy racers.

Re: Excellent

[fuzznutz]

I want the police to arrest dangerous drivers thanks.

Except they aren't arresting anybody. They are handing them a civil fine. This is not about promoting public safety any more than stoplight cameras are. It's all about increasing revenue. They have a nice new law that allows the state to collect some more of that easy money. These SUVs are an investment which the state expects to deliver a nice return on that investment.

The "retarded" people are the ones deluding themselves to think otherwise. But hey... You go nurture that indignant attitude and smile.

Re: Excellent

[cyber-vandal]

Easy money collected from people putting others at risk with their retarded behaviour. How is it in any way a bad idea? Let me guess. You're one of the total fucktards who thinks that sending a message that can wait is more important than the safety of others.

Re: Excellent

[fuzznutz]

Easy money collected by the state is an problem. When the local police show up with tens of millions of dollars of military hardware just because some asshole doesn't want to come out of his house, we have a problem of overfeeding the beast. Fines are not a punishment; they are a way to increase taxes without angering the "law-and-order" types. Do you not see a problem that the state has to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on special vehicles to try to peer into people's cars to try to catch them doing something that apparently has no other appreciable effect on their driving? Otherwise, if their driving was noticeably affected, police would not need to peek in their windows to "catch" these horrible criminals. This is not a law against distracted driving, it is a law against a behavior that certain whiny pussies don't like.

And you would be wrong in your "guess." I don't text while driving, although I do answer my phone if I recognize the ringtone. I, however, would be willing to guess though that you are one of those "fucktards" that think that everything you don't like should have a specific law to prohibit despite other existing laws that could be easily applied to the case. You believe that perfect safety and security should always trump liberty and personal freedom. It is this kind of bullshit reasoning that creates our tangled system of laws that no human being can possibly understand or remember. Life is a risk. Get over it.

Despite the whining that you and all the other safety-at-all-costs contingent seems to dwell upon, texting or talking while driving is a minor issue for public safety. It's annoying and occasionally causes an accident, but so do medical conditions, tiredness, animals on the road, road rage, talking to passengers and a whole host of other things. From all the paranoid ranting and obsessing, one would think that there were people dying in the thousands every day on the roads. I, for one, am tired of the very vocal, "there ought to be a law against that" bunch. If you are so insecure that you need the government to protect you against every thing you don't like and don't think anybody else should do because it hurts your sensibilities so bad, maybe you ought to find some nice gated community to hide. The rest of us are willing to accept the risk of living in the real world.

Re: Excellent

[cyber-vandal]

Wrong. I just want people who do dangerous things whilst in charge of a couple of tons of metal to be punished. Now if you think that being fined is not a punishment then you're obviously very well paid. The majority of people aren't and so it will hopefully act as a deterent. As to the rest of the libertardian drivel I'm not even going to dignify it with a reply. I'll just recommend a trip to Somalia for you where you can text and drive to your heart's content.

Re: Excellent

[fuzznutz]

Being fined is NOT a punishment. Having your license suspended is a punishment. Being sentenced to jail is a punishment. Being fined is a tax. It may be a inconvenient tax, but it is a tax. If being well paid means that there is absolutely no deterrent to the behavior that you find so abhorrent, then you cannot argue that a fine is a punishment. If the state of New York intended to "punish" texters, they would do more than just fine them. There would also be no financial incentive to purchase unmarked SUVs to peep into people's cars. It's all about the dollars and the whiny pussies lap it all up patting themselves on the back for "doing something" about the problem.

And I don't know how you managed to bring up Somalia. It's usually the nanny state apologist's last line of defense. Just for the record, I support taxes. I want good schools. I want my roads repaired. I expect the fire department to come when I call. I DO NOT expect the local police to walk around with AR-15s and armored personnel carriers when responding to a domestic disturbance. I also don't want to see them driving around brand new Mustangs, Challengers and whatever vehicles they managed to confiscate. When there is a large financial incentive to take from the public and very little oversight, is all too often abused. This New York SUV purchase is a case-in-point. It is a huge tax-payer expense whose only purpose is to bring in more taxes. This is just another variation of the red-light cameras with shortened caution timing. It's about taking in money.

If the punishment was a suspended license, New York would never have bought these. It's also probable they would have never enforced this law except as a afterthought because it's not the huge issue that you think it is. As I said: It's all about the dollars. You're just too pigheaded to see it.

Re: Excellent

[cyber-vandal]

The only people who have to pay this 'tax' are the ones who break the rule on texting while driving. Therefore it is not a tax it is a punishment. I'm not being pigheaded in any way you're just wrong. I only mentioned Somalia because you started wittering on about freedom, as if the freedom to do something extremely dangerous to themselves and others is a freedom that should be defended. I happen to agree with some libertarian ideals, however when I see people texting away at 90mph I want them to be punished and I personally think a fine is not enough but it's a start.

Re: Excellent

[fuzznutz]

The only people who have to pay this 'tax' are the ones who break the rule on texting while driving. Therefore it is not a tax it is a punishment[...]

And the only people who pay the cigarettte tax are those who smoke. Is that a punishment too? Lots of people would love to make that behavior illegal too. It affects others. It can be deadly. And second hand smoke is probably just as dangerous to innocent bystanders.

as if the freedom to do something extremely dangerous to themselves and others is a freedom that should be defended.

And here we differ. As I have already said before. If it was extremely dangerous, we would be seeing a lot more accidents. I see it multiple times EVERY day during commutes. You just have no idea about the estimation of risk. You must be a safety fanatic that thinks everyone who does not drive with both hands on 10 and 2 are maniacs who should have their money confiscated from them by the state. And yes. I value freedom. I do not want any whiny pussy deciding what behavior is permissible based upon some paranoid delusion about their risk. I risk more every time I drive around the block on my motorcycle.

[...]however when I see people texting away at 90mph I want them to be punished

And here we come to the real meat of the matter. You have an authoritarian streak. You do not say that you want people punished when someone texting nearly runs you off the road or cuts you off or nearly rear ends you. You just don't want them to text because it pisses you off. You see them text as they go by and you can't stand the fact that they are doing something that you think they shouldn't be doing. You overestimate the safety risk and instantly want to hurt them. You feel taking away some of their hard earned money is a good way to hurt them, but it only hurts the ones who don't have money. There are much better ways to curtail the behavior, but buying SUVs and peeping in windows is not it. It is really only good for bringing in more money. And as I said, you're too pigheaded to see it.

Re: Excellent

[cyber-vandal]

It is not in any way, shape or form a tax. Your example is meaningless. Every smoker has to pay the tax. Every driver doesn't have to pay the texting 'tax'. It is an easily avoided non-tax since it is merely a punishment for a misdemeanour, much like a parking fine isn't a tax, it's a punishment for parking where you shouldn't (which you can challenge and get overturned - try that with the cigarette actual tax) and a fine for littering isn't a tax it's a punishment for dropping things on the ground.

And here we differ. As I have already said before. If it was extremely dangerous, we would be seeing a lot more accidents. I see it multiple times EVERY day during commutes. You just have no idea about the estimation of risk. You must be a safety fanatic that thinks everyone who does not drive with both hands on 10 and 2 are maniacs who should have their money confiscated from them by the state. And yes. I value freedom. I do not want any whiny pussy deciding what behavior is permissible based upon some paranoid delusion about their risk. I risk more every time I drive around the block on my motorcycle.

If it was extremely dangerous it wouldn't be a fine it would be a more severe punishment but there have been plenty of crashes due to morons texting, some fatal. A lot of people drive drunk but fatal accidents are rare. Does that make it ok? Do you text while you're riding your bike? After all it's not dangerous in your opinion.

And here we come to the real meat of the matter. You have an authoritarian streak. You do not say that you want people punished when someone texting nearly runs you off the road or cuts you off or nearly rear ends you. You just don't want them to text because it pisses you off. You see them text as they go by and you can't stand the fact that they are doing something that you think they shouldn't be doing. You overestimate the safety risk and instantly want to hurt them. You feel taking away some of their hard earned money is a good way to hurt them, but it only hurts the ones who don't have money.

Wrong. I don't want them putting me and other people at risk which is what they are doing by taking their eyes off the road at 90 miles an hour. It's still in no way a tax; I will never pay it because I will never text while driving. But then to you all fines are taxes because you're incapable of rational thought when your freedom to be a dumbass is restricted. I hear it all the time.

There are much better ways to curtail the behavior, but buying SUVs and peeping in windows is not it.

Name two.

It is really only good for bringing in more money.

People stop doing it and the money immediately stops coming in. This isn't a speed limit sign hidden behind a tree catching unwary drivers. This is a bunch of highly visible SUVs to discourage dangerous behaviour.

And as I said, you're too pigheaded to see it.

We're both pigheaded but in this case I'm the one who's right. Try looking up the dictionary definition of tax and the dictionary definition of fine and see how they differ.

Hm, they might see more than they bargained for...

[ArsenneLupin]

32 tall, unmarked SUVs to better peer down at drivers' hands,

Need I say more?p. Good thing you need to be 18 to get a driving license, or else those cops might get them into hot waters themselves...

Guess who...

[Anonymous Coward]

will be texting and driving because no one else will be able to see what they are doing. I see cops texting while driving. I walk to work and watch them go by at intersections.

anti-texting hivemind in full effect.

[rogoshen1]

It's amazing how the outrage of the day really riles people up into frothy frenzy. It seems that the root problem is the lack of respect and attention people pay towards driving. Texting is a convenient target, but I'm willing to wager that the same people who think it's 'okay' to text whilst driving are the same who wouldn't think twice about eating, applying mascara, checking a map, scolding their children, restraining a dog, driving while tired, changing the radio station, looking for a CD, singing along to a song, or any of the fuckmillion other ways people can distract themselves while operating a car. Guess what... distracted people kill other people. you can't legislate common sense. stop fucking trying.

Until there are 0 murders, robberies, arsons, rapes, financial crimes,dog thefts,sugared soda sales, or $crime in the city, cracking down on drivers while texting should be pretty much of 0 importance.

Re:anti-texting hivemind in full effect.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with this logic is that followed to its extent, we would not try to prevent any dangerous behavior (there would always be something worse to be prioritizing). Taking small steps to make the world safer is just as important as taking large steps... both save lives.

Driving while texting kills people and so do murders; thus, both should be stopped.

Re:anti-texting hivemind in full effect.

[tftp]

Most of your examples are valid. You can refrain from applying mascara or checking a map while driving. However how the hell do you avoid driving while tired? Many people work, you know, and they are tired by the time they are allowed go home.

But I don't know what is more dangerous: the morning commute, when many drivers are still half-asleep, or the evening commute, when many drivers are dog tired. I do my best to avoid both.

Re:anti-texting hivemind in full effect.

[Belial6]

I would venture to say that while texting while driving while tired is more dangerous than driving while tired, talking on a cell phone while driving while tired is very likely dramatically safer than just driving while tired.

Re:anti-texting hivemind in full effect.

[Ginger Unicorn]

I don't understand how it's even possible to text while driving. I can't look away from the road for more than a couple of seconds without feeling like I have a dangerously outdated awareness of my situation. And I'm usually drifting into the middle of the road...

Re:anti-texting hivemind in full effect.

[Seumas]

Agreed. Actively going out to patrol specific violations like this is pretty fucking idiotic. However, when extreme negligence (disciplining your kids, talking on the phone, texting, drinking, etc) is demonstrated by a driver, it should be handled and the penalty should be severe. I have always been baffled, for example, by drunk drivers who have dozens of arrests for it. Why is such a person even out in public? Make the penalties hurt if you want them to stop doing it. First time, suspended license. Second time, permanently suspended license. Third time, jail, because you have proven that you can't be trusted not to put other people's lives at risk. (And driving while suspended counts as one of those violations). Don't want to lose the right to drive for the rest of your life or spend a few months in jail? THEN DON'T FUCKING DRINK AND DRIVE.

Instead, we bitch and moan about how horrible it is, then treat it like a relatively trivial crime.

Re:anti-texting hivemind in full effect.

[TangoMargarine]

Until there are 0 murders, robberies, arsons, rapes, financial crimes,dog thefts,sugared soda sales, or $crime in the city, cracking down on drivers while texting should be pretty much of 0 importance.

So that would be approximately two weeks after never. Your list of which 'crimes' we should care about is rather arbitrary. Drinking a soft drink is not going to kill any bystanders.

I kind of agree with your original point however.

Re:anti-texting hivemind in full effect.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just anecdotal, but it seems here in the Bay Area, that there "seems" to be more accidents and fender benders during morning commute than evening commute. However, during evening commute, I witness more aggressive driving than in the morning...

zero sympathy for those who get caught....

[Shakrai]

.... if you're so oblivious that you don't even notice the large SUV in the next lane, with driver staring intently at you, you deserve the bloody ticket. Police cruisers, even unmarked ones, have all manner of features that scream "COP", but of course you'd have to be paying attention to actually notice them....

Maybe they'll shift enforcement resources to texting and leave us open-highway speeders alone. I'll take 80 with both hands on the wheel and eyes on the road over 45 with both hands on the phone, a knee doing the steering, and eyes glued to a cell phone....

Re:zero sympathy for those who get caught....

[Seumas]

Let's admit what this is about. They don't give a fuck about seeing you "texting while driving". This is about being able to view as much of the interior of your car as possible without the need to make an excuse to pull you over and justify searching your vehicle.

Re:zero sympathy for those who get caught....

[Shakrai]

They don't give a fuck about seeing you "texting while driving"

Who is "they"? Policy-makers? Individual State Troopers? Their Commanders? All of the above?

LEOs are usually the first ones to arrive at the scene of a traffic accident, and there isn't a law enforcement officer in the United States who hasn't assisted with the extrication of a mangled body from a crushed automobile. It seems a bit outlandish to try and claim they don't "give a fuck".

Re:zero sympathy for those who get caught....

[Anonymous Coward]

.... if you're so oblivious that you don't even notice the large SUV in the next lane, with driver staring intently at you, you deserve the bloody ticket. Police cruisers, even unmarked ones, have all manner of features that scream "COP", but of course you'd have to be paying attention to actually notice them....

That's quite true during the day. At dusk or night time it is much harder to spot the undercover cop car. So your point is only half valid.

It is not kids

[bussdriver]

Parent makes total sense.

Why not pass a regulation on phones -- they have bluetooth, it's not like they couldn't make them disable when a certain device is present... that goes into the car. Failure to use the device would be easier to detect.

Nobody has any legitimate reason to receive texts while in traffic outside of EMT people. Or at least, there is ZERO reason for anybody to be able to send anything. Pagers are old-- they never caused troubles.

Not being able to use the phone everywhere is not a communist plot-- it's totally reasonable. You don't have to be that old to remember when you could live your life just fine (if not better) without carrying a cell phone everywhere. With the power of the MPAA you'd think we'd have something like this in place as soon as phones had reasonable video recording ability.

Re:It is not kids

[Shakrai]

Why not pass a regulation on phones -- they have bluetooth, it's not like they couldn't make them disable when a certain device is present... that goes into the car. Failure to use the device would be easier to detect.

Three problems with that:

1) Why can't passengers text?
2) What stops me from removing the enforcement code from my open-source smart phone?
3) Prior restraint is generally frowned upon in the American legal system. We could probably cut down on DWIs by putting ignition interlocks in all automobiles, rather than just those owned by people with DWI convictions, but that wouldn't fly from a cost benefit or civil libertarian standpoint....

Re:It is not kids

[Anonymous Coward]

There has actually been a push to put ignition interlocks in ALL automobiles already.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/morning_call/2012/03/federal-plan-plots-ignition-interlocks.html?page=all

Random page about it.

It's comming. Insurance companies, MADD, cops, interlock makers, legal system, car makers, everyone of them stands to make more money.
So it's going to happen.

At first there will even be an insurance discount if you have one. And then it will become mandatory to have one to get insurance. This is the way these things play out.

We're on the discount if you have the spy device from the insurance company step right now. progressive. others. Soon that too will be mandatory.

Money has alot of pull. And money beats your 'rights' if theres profit to be made.

Re:It is not kids

[FatLittleMonkey]

Why not pass a regulation on phones -- they have bluetooth, it's not like they couldn't make them disable when a certain device is present... that goes into the car. Failure to use the device would be easier to detect.

How about just making it "negligent driving" if you have an accident when using a phone? So if you kill someone in an accident, it's negligent homicide. And you are 100% responsible for costs/damages in non-fatal accidents, even if you would otherwise have right of way if you weren't using your phone.

Why not punish the people who actually cause accidents?

Re:It is not kids

[Belial6]

Just as long as the same applies to anyone with a passenger in the car. Or using a radio.

Re:It is not kids

[Seumas]

When you read bussdriver's signature, it really puts the whole rest of the comment into proper context.

Re:It is not kids

[Seumas]

By that logic, why punish drunk drivers, as long as they haven't smashed into anyone, yet?

Because it's about prevention.

Well, prevention and revenue.

Re:It is not kids

[dave420]

So people who think "oh, I'm awesome at driving, so I can use my phone without fear" will not kill someone when their actually-not-awesome driving skills smash their car into someone.

Re:It is not kids

[Anonymous Coward]

... punish the people who actually cause accidents?

Given that Prisons are big business in the USA, it might not apply: But most countries don't like building prisons and they certainly don't like the cost of locking a person away because she decided the rules didn't apply to her. Besides everyone has bouts of selfishness and delusions of grandeur: The result of ignoring those who got lucky is a massive death-toll of the all the people who weren't so lucky. The police running around raising revenue also reminds people the rules apply to everyone (except the police).

Re:It is not kids

[bussdriver]

I hope so! Maybe it exposes people to something informative and thought provoking; maybe they will wake up before the next multinational caused disaster smacks more people to wake. the. fuck. up!

We the people, in order to have an actually safer nation, ask the FCC to do it's job by requiring and allow certain avenues to remotely disable cell phone use. Terrorism was never a big threat; cell phone drivers are - and if you think that is exaggeration I'm wasting my time on you.

Jailbreak your phone and hack off the feature if you don't plan to crash while texting... and risk the heavy penalty when the (metadata) phone records betray you afterwards.

speed limits !

[Anonymous Coward]

Just increase the speed limits already ! None of this talking/eating/texting/distraction happens on autobahn. Driving at 100+ mph will get a full attention of 99.9% of drivers. Going 55 mph in modern cars seems so uneventful, I'm surprised people pay any attention whatsoever to what's happening.

How do they know I'm texting?

[Taylor123456789]

What if I am, say, using the phone's GPS, or making a hand's free call? Also, does anyone else have a problem with cops peering into your private vehicle to see what you are doing?

Re:How do they know I'm texting?

[Shakrai]

Also, does anyone else have a problem with cops peering into your private vehicle to see what you are doing?

Plain view doctrine.

Re:How do they know I'm texting?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they have to get up that high to see it, I don't think that's in "plain view."

Re:How do they know I'm texting?

[couchslug]

If using GPS then holding your phone ties up the use of a limb and is dangerous. Put the thing in a dash mount so it's naturally in the area you scan as you drive. It's legal having navigation aids mounted there (It's also legal having a laptop in your field of vision if it's a navaid. I use a cheap BU-353 (supposedly works with Linux too, but I've not tried it yet) USB GPS receiver with MapPoint on an old Thinkpad in a RAM mount (same as the coppers have, RAM and Gamber Johnson make nice gear and they have mounts for your car too.) Large, easy-to-scan display and works a treat.
For the amount of time people spend in their vehicles, it's silly not to get quality gear mounts and integrate your nav and comm systems.

Handheld gear is distracting and excellent solutions are readily available.

Re:How do they know I'm texting?

[foobar bazbot]

If they have to get up that high to see it, I don't think that's in "plain view."

If it's a custom monster truck affording them a view into other cars that no other drivers have, then yes.

If it's a standard vehicle (or has the same view as one, even if there's police-specific modifications in other areas) that many non-cops routinely use to haul themselves around, no.

And if every truck's cab sits even higher and affords an even better view, definitely no.

Re:How do they know I'm texting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Must be nice. Cops in NS are cracking down on google navigation. The Hardware itself is illegal while driving, regardless of software.

IE iPod Touch with skype or MSN is legal.
iPhone with skype or MSN is illegal. It's a "handheld cellular device"

Re:How do they know I'm texting?

[PPH]

Illegal window tint. Problem solved.

Law of Unintended Consequences

[hyades1]

It won't take long to notice that a grossly disproportionate number of cute girls in short skirts are either warned or ticketed.

Re:Law of Unintended Consequences

[locopuyo]

I have heard New Yorkers drive differently, but I think it would be girls in low cut shirts,

That's not how we solve such problems

[holophrastic]

Oh look, a hugely significant percentage of humans in a given environment want to do something. It comes with an added danger. Let's prohibit them from doing it! Because that works. It's always worked in the past, with everything from alcohol to abstinance.

Or, we can do what actually works. We can train people to do it well enough to lower that risk of danger.

Make it a part of the drivers' test. Make it just another mark on the drivers' licence -- same as glasses, motorcycles, and transport trucks. I learned to drive in a blizzard in the dark, and just did it again tonight for over an hour. I can learn to text while driving on a clear day. Teach me. I'll learn.

Re:That's not how we solve such problems

[Joce640k]

Sure. We can teach them to drive drunk as well....

Re:That's not how we solve such problems

[holophrastic]

Of course we can. Especially with the new definitions of "drunk".

Re:That's not how we solve such problems

[foobar bazbot]

Oh look, a hugely significant percentage of humans in a given environment want to do something. It comes with an added danger. Let's prohibit them from doing it! Because that works. It's always worked in the past, with everything from alcohol to abstinance.

I'm not sure what "added danger" comes with abstinence, but to my knowledge prohibiting abstinence has never been tried; if it were, I believe it would actually be fairly successful.

Re:That's not how we solve such problems

[Anonymous Coward]

I drive far better drunk and trying not to get pulled over by a cop than I do when I'm sober and texting...

Re:That's not how we solve such problems

[PPH]

We already do. Its called speed enforcement.

Re:That's not how we solve such problems

[holophrastic]

Yeah, I didn't maintain the logical direction, but I think my point was clear: each involves a forced behaviour.

Re:FP?

[BronsCon]

If only you hadn't waited until you were safely parked to post...

smells of shady moves

[ruir]

Pity it is not me selling them the SUVs.... Seems a half baked excuse to spend more money. Hypothetically speaking, some friend will make a huge deal selling them luxury cars, someone will get a fat cut, and at the end of their life/leasing?? who will keep the cars? It is an injustice to spend the tax payers money on a time they say budgets are being cut. And no, I don't want police looking at people texting, but at robbers and people driving either insanely fast, too slow, or in the wrong lane. Or parked in the wrong places, which lately here is a plague, either in 2nd row parking at coffee shops, or worse, parking in roundabouts.

No we don't

[Anonymous Coward]

have to trust you on this...

WHO CARES

[johnwerneken]

Theoretically drivers texting drinking having sex painting their toenails or smoking crack MIGHT be more hazardous to others than those who are not. So what. I'd rather (1) drive doing all o those things when I please (which I in fact DO do, a and when I please, for decades now) (2) see me not forced to deal with the idea that some idiots think that there is some magic that creates a "law" I should obey when I don't feel like it (3) let others do as I do - I defend myself from other drivers by PAYING ATTENTION.

Re:WHO CARES

[Seumas]

Yes, people who find themselves suddenly facing a driver head-on who has drifted into the wrong lane are at fault for "not paying attention". Same with people going through an intersection when a drunk or texting driver going 80 crosses through a red light.

If it were as simply as "paying attention", we'd have almost no innocent victims of car accidents, as it is.

Re:WHO CARES

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you just admit that you DUI when you feel like it?

Yet everybody agrees Robot car are dangerous ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You would have more time for safer texting though ...

Nothing better to do?

[bradley13]

The cops have nothing better to do with their time? They have so many funds that they can buy special vehicles just to enforce this one traffic law?

Re:Nothing better to do?

[fuzznutz]

You are looking at this all wrong. These SUVs are not an expense. They are an investment. This is simply a cost of revenue and are expected to pay for themselves within the allocated depreciation period. How else do you expect to implement the new business model, I mean, enforce the new texting ban laws?

just make a 1megawatt IR burst to kill cameras

[cheekyboy]

Just have a pulse every 3 seconds of 10000x LUX IR burst lasting 50ms. That will be enough to overload / fry any expensive POWLICE camera systems.

Fight tyranny with technology!

Proportionality

[Anonymous Coward]

I have never seen someone texting while driving a car, so I suppose it is not very common. This is not surprising, since it must be really difficult to text, watch traffic (to some extent) and physically control a car at the same time. I have no doubt that it very dangerous, but that is also the precise reason it is a completely margina problem and it makes no sense to spend lots of taxpayers' money on buying very ugly cars to combat it.

Highway Speed? In New York?

[evilandi]

I admit to only having visited New York for five days almost a decade ago, but the very clear impression that I got was that "highway speed" was unlikely to be achieved anywhere in New York at any time by any driver whatsoever.

Re:Highway Speed? In New York?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is New York, the state, and New York City. They are not the same.

To quote the summary : "The New York State Police ... 'Major Michael Kopy, commander of the statepolice troop patrolling the corridor between New York City and Albany

In other words : learn to read.

Belgian ad campaign

[Anonymous Coward]

A while ago, there was a funny ad campaign in Belgium on this subject. It was based on the premise that to pass the driving test, one would be have to demonstrate his/her ability to safely drive and text at the same time...

http://www.koreus.com/video/auto-ecole-sms-volant.html

Misread as ...

[Evil Pete]

"Sexting While Driving" ... got my hopes up. After that the actual story was a bitter disappointment.

Presumed Guilty

[nurb432]

Gotta love the world we are creating.

People will soon start behaving when...

[advocate_one]

those caught texting while driving are dragged out of their vehicles and summarily executed at the roadside and left there with a warning to others sign...

Kidding, but they'll only start behaving when their personal risk is high...

It doesn't help that Hollywood still has people using hand held units while driving and they don't show the consequences (ie that driver having a crash)

Re:People will soon start behaving when...

[drinkypoo]

It doesn't help that Hollywood still has people using hand held units while driving and they don't show the consequences (ie that driver having a crash)

It doesn't help that everyone thinks they're a fucking moviestar, and more, that their movie is an action movie. Some people need to realize that they are starring as the relief in a comedy, before they turn their movie into a tragedy.

teams

[Anonymous Coward]

And how far does an SUV travel while the driver tries to see whether a person in another car is texting?

Depends on whether there is more than one cop in the SUV. The police have been know to work in pairs and even teams you know.

driving tests in Western Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

" If we took 100 experienced US drivers and gave them a Western Australian driving test, I'd be surprised if 2 passed. The WA test hinges on vehicle control, looking and signalling, three skills that US motorists seem to lack in spades."

The driving test in California is exactly the same. I have two daughters who have taken the test over the past few years. And believe me, looking and signalling is one of the most important things they look for: SMOG - Signal Mirror Over the shoulder Go

I think the real issue is that we never re-test. And as drivers get several years experience, and the whole "managing the machine" gets to be more instinctual, driving habits and processes need to change. Unlike the newbie whose mind is fully occupied keeping the car on the road in the middle of the lane, someone with 10 years experience does that automatically, and so, they fill their mind with other activities.

The same thing is true in pilots, but for pilots, there is a periodic re-examination process of sorts (biennial flight review for private pilots).

Re:driving tests in Western Australia

[ganjadude]

SMOG - how fitting of an acronym in cali

waste

[Anonymous Coward]

can't believe they would invest these kinds of funds for txting and driving. catch some actual criminals.

New York cops can't catch a cold...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone remember that story about a SUV driver running over a fleet of road-raging motorcycle thugs? The police can't even catch them, but they're going to waste money on buying themselves Escalades? Fuck off.

Perspective on cleavage

[SirLanse]

The real advantage will be the perspective on women's cleavage. Also look for them spending a lot of time around sports cars with women in them.
Some women have to move skirt to use a manual tranmission. Perspective on that will be maintained.

Re:Perspective on cleavage

[TangoMargarine]

What, is the shifter between their legs? This isn't a cockpit.

Re:Perspective on cleavage

[nitehawk214]

What, is the shifter between their legs? This isn't a cockpit.

That isn't a shifter...

How closely they have to look?

[argStyopa]

I've always wondered - I don't have one of those sprout-things sticking out of my dash, and (on this car) there really isn't a handy ledge to lay it on, so when I'm using the navigation feature on my phone, I'm holding it upright in my hand, listening to it's directions.
I often just drop it (then have to drive incautiously as I later retrieve it) when a police officer is nearby, as I don't want him to think I'm texting and driving.

I just wonder, while there are plenty of people who DO text and drive, I'd imagine there are a few like me that aren't ACTUALLY texting, but holding their phone like they might be....

Re:How closely they have to look?

[Anonymous Coward]

It may be different in each state, but in California, you're not allowed to HOLD the device, regardless of whether your using it or not. So holding it for Navigation purposes will get the same penalty that texting will, or checking the time on it to see how long you've been in traffic, or dialing a phone number, or anything else.

The 'automatic ticket' part of the law is stupid in a way, case in point: there was a case here not long ago, where a man got stuck in freeway construction traffic, where traffic came to a complete stop on the freeway. He pulled his phone out to check google maps to try to find a way off the freeway as an alternate route, when a motorcycle cop pulled up next to him and pulled him over for using his phone. The fact that his car was not in forward motion due the gridlock, didn't matter, it was an automatic ticket.

Now, how he alternatively, whipped out one of the old folding maps that take up the whole front seat and block your vision out the window to find an alternate route, THAT would not have been an automatic ticket. Does that make any sense?

Reckless driving

[nbritton]

If texting while driving is as dangerous as people indicate, wouldn't a reckless driving charge be more appropriate? Individuals under 21 should be charged with reckless driving if an officer catches them with a communications device in their hand while driving.

Re:Reckless driving

[Curunir_wolf]

If texting while driving is as dangerous as people indicate, wouldn't a reckless driving charge be more appropriate? Individuals under 21 should be charged with reckless driving if an officer catches them with a communications device in their hand while driving.

Only if they are, in fact, driving recklessly. Let's face it, there are many ways to get distracted while driving and cause an accident. I really don't like the focus on this one specific activity. It should be about sanctioning people that actually cause a problem. This focus on texting as the distracting activity (justified as a prevention effort) is more like pre-crime.

Cant mount cameras on existing cars?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Why taller SUV?. It would be easier to mount cameras on the passenger side of existing patrol cars near the roof line peering down. If necessary add small extension pole, heck, you could even make it retractable. That would be far cheaper, and have a recording of the "texting while driving motorist" to be used as evidence.

Re:Cant mount cameras on existing cars?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kickbacks to decision makers from local dealership owners. Nothing new, happens all the time.

Re:Cant mount cameras on existing cars?

[J'raxis]

Because bigger, taller, more imposing-looking cars fit in with the ongoing militarization of law enforcement, not cameras mounted on sticks.

Good point but...

[Anonymous Coward]

...I prefer to place my ellipses differently.

This is easy to solve...

[Anonymous Coward]

If anyone is caught texting while driving:

1st offense: Pull them over and take their phone and break it right in front of them. Also fine them.
2nd offense: Pull them over, break their phone, fine them, and suspend their license.

Have to be strict because texting while driving puts the lives of everyone in their path at risk.

Tyranny. Oy vey.

[Anonymous Coward]

Trying to save lives is now considered by you young 'uns to be "tyranny"? Live and let die, eh?

Re:Tyranny. Oy vey.

[CanHasDIY]

Hyperbole aside, you obviously didn't read the post he was replying to.

Nor have you considered that ubiquitous surveillance equipment might have purposes other than "saving lives;" spying on people, for instance.

But what about...

[Curunir_wolf]

Okay, it's a bad idea, causes accidents, and the state is combating it. I never text and drive, and I get the justification for trying to stop it.

But ... what about Ingress? Can I still play Ingress and drive? I'm not texting anything, dammit!

If they really wanted to do something.

[gelfling]

Revoke their driver's license for life, fine them a hundred thousand dollars and put them in prison for 5 years. This is the same nonsense you hear every time someone's given their seventh DUI and whatnot. If anyone actually wanted to do something they'd come down with the hammer of God. But of course they won't. Personally I don't believe texting is as big a deal as the soccer mommy squadron screams it is. But if they really wanted to see it stamped out they'd get all those people off the road for life. Pol Pot wasn't entirely wrong, he just had bad media advice.

As usual, unintended consequences

[J'raxis]

And as usual, this will have the unintended consequence of making people try to conceal their texting more so than before. So now someone tucks their phone between their legs while trying to use it, or holds it under the steering column, or halfway down to the pedals, thereby looking further downward from the road and further increasing their chances of not seeing something ahead of them.

But hey, the politicians get to look like they're "doing something" passing these laws, the government gets to expand its power and revenue stream more, and the cops even get cool new toys, so it's all good.

Re:As usual, unintended consequences

[J'raxis]

Heh, someone upthread posted an article that demonstrates this unintended consequence is already happening.

First Pics of SUV's

[Anonymous Coward]

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6195/6092175192_84a8d5f87b.jpg

Re:First Pics of SUV's

[PPH]

That pic looks wrong. If you put a lift kit on a vehicle, you are supposed to put the really small wheels on it. The large diameter wheels (particularly with the low sidewall tire look) requires that the vehicle be lowered.

Either way, the goal is to create an even more useless vehicle for actual off-road or rough road use. Although, seeing any SUV with low sidewalls have to creep over a pothole to keep from bending rims makes my sides hurt from laughing.

And when that fails

[GrumpySteen]

Police in monster trucks will be allowed to drive over top of anyone caught texting while driving.

Well I think that

[Anonymous Coward]

people can post however they want.

Tall SUVs ARE the problem

[davydagger]

Anyone else think of that too.

Tall SUVs ARE the problem

Re:Tall SUVs ARE the problem

[T.E.D.]

Anyone else think of that too. Tall SUVs ARE the problem

I used to. However, I live in Oklahoma. Here, that would be like saying "Oxygen in the problem". Mostly I have learned to attempt to look through their windows to the other side, and save my ire for SUV's with tinted windows.

Re:Tall SUVs ARE the problem

[davydagger]

In oklahoma not so much, but in a an aggressive congested enviroment like NYC, why is anyone driving a truck?

Re:Tall SUVs ARE the problem

[T.E.D.]

Hell, even here it *ought* to be an issue. My grandfather was a rancher, and owned 5 pickups and one car. Unless he was getting feed or something, every time he went into town, he used the car. Every single truck was covered in dents, because it was a work vehicle, and worked.

He certainly would never have understood all these city folks driving around washed and waxed trucks. Don't even get me started on bedliners. I used to really resent all these cowboy wannebes. But after a few decades I realized that I've got better things to do than drive around ticked all the time. Doesn't mean I have to join the parade of fools though.

Re:Tall SUVs ARE the problem

[davydagger]

It should.

If your using the truck as a truck, I don't care. I don't care if your a rancher, offroader, gotta few horses, construction, etc...

By all means, continue to get work done.

However things like a Escallades and Navigators shouldn't exist. If your a limp dick office worker too self conscious about being a white collar employee, fuck off. you have no business driving a truck.

pre-arrest them all!

[AndyKron]

Why don't they just pre-arrest everybody and be done with it? That's where we're heading, right?

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

New York is among 41 states that ban text messaging for all drivers"

Hang on - it's LEGAL to text and drive in 9 states?

!norealcrime my arse

[marxzed]

"!norealcrime" tag? ... what sad and damning indictment of the kind of fktards that text and drive, may the vehicular homicide you cause be your own.

Where is Greenpeace ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, Greenpeace ! Police is using gas guzzlers. Tax money is founding global warming. Instead of climbing Russian oil platforms in the Arctic and risk 10 years of hard labor in Siberia, you can safely combat this outrageous crime against mother Gaja and actually achieve some public support.

The cops are worse

[Anonymous Coward]

I see cops in Seneca, Westminster, West Union, Walhalla, and Clemson South Carolina texting all the time. Then again, they're allowed to text, because laws are for us, not for them.

No doubt, they're "trained" in how to properly text and drive, just like they're "trained" to drive recklessly; and the laws do not need to apply to them.

Next Up: Drones

[Anonymous Coward]

We want Drones, to see you texting better, way up.

Priceless excuse

[orgelspieler]

The guy "looking at his GPS" said, "I can't look at a map? What's the difference between looking at a paper map and looking at a map on the phone?"

Seriously? He thinks it's OK to do this?! Applying eyeliner, fiddling with phones, swatting at flying ants, switching out 8-tracks, refilling your coffee mug from a Thermos. All of these are dangerous/stupid to do while driving; I've done at least two of them at highway speeds. And I knew damn well I should have just pulled over first. The difference with texting is that you have people who do it habitually -- even continuously -- while driving. That is a big problem.

Other methods can be successful

[robbityca]

The police here in Ottawa, Canada have tried a number of different tactics to watch for drivers texting. One tactic involved officers dressed up as "can I wash your windshield?" bums. It's an instinct to avoid eye contact with such. They can get right up to cars stopped at a red light without alerting drivers. (note that it's illegal here for a driver to text while at a stop sign/light).

Re:Hm, they might see more than they bargained for

[Anonymous Coward]

32 tall, unmarked SUVs to better peer down at drivers' hands,

Need I say more?p.
Good thing you need to be 18 to get a driving license, or else those cops might get them into hot waters themselves...

Having worked as a helper riding in the cab with truck drivers for a few summers I can attest that this is a major "sport" with them. I can envision cops making decisions on pulling women over just to get a better look.

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Are these the same cops that used their infinate skills and wisdom to open fire on a guy in the middle of a crowd at Times Square a few months back?

Or are they the ones that think its okay to ignore their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, by illegally infringing on people's right to keep and bear arms?