Slashdot Mirror
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."'"
And how far does an SUV travel while the driver tries to see whether a person in another car is texting?
Stilts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stilts :)
..don't panic
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.
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.
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?
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?"
Slashdot, where you get the same news as Theregister, but a week later.
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.
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
speed and tailgate even when their lights aren't on. Because they're trained professionals. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
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.
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...
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
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.
.... 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....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
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.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
People who text while driving get punished by getting into accidents.
What about the people who weren't texting that they hit?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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...
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
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.
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%?"
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Also, does anyone else have a problem with cops peering into your private vehicle to see what you are doing?
Plain view doctrine.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
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!
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.
It won't take long to notice that a grossly disproportionate number of cute girls in short skirts are either warned or ticketed.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
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.
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.
If only you hadn't waited until you were safely parked to post...
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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
Dropbox drops it like it's hot.
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.
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!"?
No sig today...
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?
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
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!
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
- People talking on the phone while driving. Totally safe yet illegal.
False.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
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.
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
"Sexting While Driving" ... got my hopes up. After that the actual story was a bitter disappointment.
Bitter and proud of it.
Gotta love the world we are creating.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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.
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)
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
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.
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.
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.
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....
-Styopa
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.
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.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
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.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
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....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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.
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!
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
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.
SMOG - how fitting of an acronym in cali
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
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.
Liberty in your lifetime
Police in monster trucks will be allowed to drive over top of anyone caught texting while driving.
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.
Anyone else think of that too.
Tall SUVs ARE the problem
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.
Why don't they just pre-arrest everybody and be done with it? That's where we're heading, right?
ah, awesome, thanks!
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.
Have gnu, will travel.
Illegal window tint. Problem solved.
Have gnu, will travel.
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.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
"!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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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."
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Name two.
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.
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.