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

[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

[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...

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

[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

[_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

[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.

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?

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: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

[Shakrai]

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

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