Slashdot Mirror
Text While Driving In Long Island and Have Your Phone Disabled
An anonymous reader writes: A District Attorney in Long Island, NY is stepping up efforts to combat distracted driving. Kathleen Rice says motorists who are caught texting while driving should have hardware or apps installed on their phone to prevent them from using it at all while driving. She likened such barriers to the ignition interlock devices that prevent people convicted of drunk driving from using their cars unless they're sober. "Hardware and software solutions that block texting during driving are currently produced by various manufacturers and software developers, and are constantly under development. The DA's office does not endorse any particular company and is in the process of reviewing specific solutions based on their features and services. Critical features include security measures to make the solutions tamper-proof, and data integrity measures to ensure accurate reporting to courts, law enforcement, parents, and guardians." New York is one of many states who already have laws banning all handheld use while driving.
It should be the car that is disabled (or your license taken away)
What's to stop them buying a cheap 2nd phone?
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
she agrees that her hands can be lopped off as a "deterent" when she is pulled over for driving and eating/drinking.
How would a system tell the difference between a driver and passenger in the car?
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
They don't want anyone texting out to warn people not to come to Long Island.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
If my wife is driving and I am riding then what?
When we are driving together the passenger is in charge of all devices. When I am driving I set up my podcasts to play and nav before I start off.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
But if you a cop you get a free pass.
First of all, it can't determine if you're a driver or passenger, so it will then disable your phone if you're a passenger. Not a huge deal if this is just a punishment, I guess. However it's still easily defeated by getting another phone. The right solution is to take away their driver's license for a period of time (2 weeks to start, and increasing amounts after that). Use your phone all you want, but don't drive.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
I'm not sure how anyone thought it'd be ok to try and text while driving. Why not try driving while reading a book? How idiotic. But then you've got knuckleheads that equate stupidity like that to all cell phone usage in a vehicle which is just as insane in the opposite direction.
we already have way too many laws and regulations. instead of creating more, let's start repealing them.
How to distinguish whether the phone user is driving a car or riding a bus?
That's nice and all, but how does the software differentiate between being a driver and a passenger? For that matter, if you are in traffic and moving slowly (stop and go) how does it know you are not walking? I know they could use the gyro in the device to try and detect walking/running, but seems like an awfully easy way to fool the software.
The right solution is to take away their driver's license for a period of time (2 weeks to start, and increasing amounts after that)
No, the first offense should be a $5000.00 fine, the second offense should be a $10000.00 fine and loss of your license for one year, third offense should be $10000.00 fine, 6 months in jail, and permanent loss of your license.
I am forced by circumstances to commute 100 miles a day, and I'm damn tired of almost getting killed by assholes and their cell phones. Enough is enough!
I can't believe we even need to consider using a forced lockout solution to keep people looking at the damn road.
The fact that there are people that think it is OK to cruise down the road without even looking is terrifying. But it fits right in line with the people that I commute with every day that don't know what a yield sign is, can't merge properly, and leave their turn signals on for miles if they even bother to use them at all. I have close friends that have driven straight over a roundabout and laughed it off. Hell I was almost t-boned by a lady who ran a red light at full speed (my advance green) and she had the confidence to turn out the window and yell at me for it (on her phone too).
I hate how carefree we are about driving here. One easy paper test, and a road test to prove you understand which side of the road to drive on and where the pedals are and here you go, licensed to drive for life as long as you can pass a vision test every few years. We're up in arms about gun control, but we put our kids behind the wheel of a few tons of metal that hurtles around at high speed in a sea of other vehicles and we treat it like a god-given right.
The solution for NY though is to stop the drivers, not control their cell phones.
Is that if the device in the car prevents the phone from functioning the manufacturer of the device will get a visit from the FCC. If it's accelerometer based - ok fine. But nothing prevents the person from using a different phone, a burner if you will. But another thought comes up - will passengers be able to text and use their phones? Or is the device indiscriminate?
A friend of mine was nailed last month in NJ for simply picking up her mobile device and a cop happened to see her (yes, illegal to operate a hand-held device in NJ). She uses the phone hands free via bluetooth. She was using it as a GPS, in a town she didn't know well, and couldn't see the screen due to sunglare. She learned a hard lesson that day (as did a bunch of others) after a $160 fine and a mandatory traffic court appearance away during working hours. She now has her phone mounted in a better position rather than putting on the seat so she isn't inclined to pick it up. Judge said that met State requirements - at least in his court.
A funny story - back in the late 80's, when radar detectors were all the rage, one of my enlisted men got pulled over by a VA Trooper. As the trooper approached, the kid got out of the car and threw his $200+ state-of-the-art radar detector on the ground smashing it into pieces and calling it a worthless POS. Trooper shakes his head and starts to laugh. Kids asks why? Trooper responds that they don't use radar in VA - they use VASCAR. But, he was being pulled over because his tail lights weren't working correctly and the trooper simply wanted to warn him about it.
Moving != Driving
You could apply hardware to the DRIVER that prevents them from texting while driving. That seems to work more effectively than more complicated technical solutions.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
While I hate people that drive and text, I don't see the solution proposed by the article as effective. Phones are cheap enough and portable enough that there is no way to enforce such "interlock" if the user does not want to comply.
Fundamentally, text and driving is an interface design problem. Instant messaging interfaces are designed to almost fully occupy your attention while information conveyed is nearly trivial to cognitively process. As such, removing the need to type with your thumbs on a tiny screen to text would be my recommended solution.
Public safety through regulation. What could go wrong there?
Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
It's not a nanny state thing. Nanny state would be preventing you from harming yourself. The problem with texting and driving is you hitting other people. Just last week I had some moron on a 2 lane road drift fully into my lane. Luckily, leaning hard on my horn got him to pay attention again.
If you want to text and drive yourself into a tree, be my guest. It's only if you want to text and drive yourself into someone else that I have a problem with.
>> Kathleen Rice says motorists who are caught texting while driving
And convicted. So, this rule will only apply to the lower and middle classes who can't afford the lawyers to beat the ticket down to some other charge, then?
It's a basic human right to drive poorly and dangerously!
I don't know if you were commissioned or enlisted, but none the less, thanks for the laugh! As a former enlisted man who was stationed in New England in the late 80s/early 90s (back when Fort Devens was open) I can see me doing the exact same thing.
Then again, if they knew half of what we ELINT types did, the FCC probably would have thrown us in the clink.
What character set do I have to use in Firefox to stop "£ ÎνáÏfÎÏ gnÅsis, " from happening on my slashdot posts?
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Wrong ... she was nailed last month because she was letting a 4000 lb weapon cruise uncontrolled because she chose to look at a gadget instead of controlling her car.
I get it. I'm a pilot. I can casually put my airplane 4 feet from another one at 600 mph, upside down, flying loops. When I'm flying, I have to change the radio (not want to) and mess with other systems. However, I don't fuck with the radio while flying formation, and I don't fuck with my phone or GPS while driving. It's not going to kill me to stop and answer the phone or fuck with the GPS. It might kill someone for me to fuck with the phone or GPS while driving. Your life is worth more to me than the 40 seconds I save by not stopping.
As a motorcyclist who does not own a car, I notice this constantly: totally distracted, careless drivers. Usually lined up in the median or shoulder in teams of two or three with a dumbfounded, perplexed look on their face as to how this all could have come to be and why the police are even present, despite extensive damage present to their vehicle. the key point ive noticed is that it is not just cellular phones. the problem is much, much bigger.
1. the floorboard.: what in the hell is down there. drivers wobbling in lane face-down in the passengers seat or pretzeled around into god forbid the rear floorboard of the car. is it the shire? does frodo live down there? did you lose the one ring?
2.Food: im not sure what it is about burritos and burgers, but they have the magical ability to turn any sane driver into a maniac. even the expression on their faces while shoveling calories into their face is disconcerting. Drivers multitask too, so its not uncommon to see some lard-lad juggling a starbucks liquid candy bar and some awful breakfast sandwich trying to merge into 5 lanes of good-morning gridlock.
3.the goddamn car.: Acura and Audi drivers are the worst. im not sure what future-perfect ameneties these cars have to be saddled with in order to attract millenials and mid-lifers but id give anything if they were disabled during transit. Usually its some white-collar clown button-mashing the console or prodding in a dazed stupor at the enormous screen in the vehicle. that lane-change warning technology likely compensates for some kind of brain-damage induced by corinthian leather and more brass than sense.
4. phones.: I get it, in gridlock it seems pleasant to text someone but speaking from experience its nothing short of stupid. Ive personally watched as an inattentive driver, at impulse speed, slowly mount a curb in their ford excursion and proceed to deacpitate a parking meter in plain view of a traffic cop.
the reason drivers get away with this shit is because the repercussions are limited. disabling their phones isnt going to help, you need to start docking points from their license and sending them to remedial drivers ed. texting while driving should triple your insurance rate.
Good people go to bed earlier.
It's pretty sad that situations like this lead down the road to a nanny state.. but the people texting and driving don't seem to realize they're the driving it in that direction.
Also, to the comments about the popo getting a free pass, in some places LEO's and emergency response are specifically exempted under the law to use their data terminals and conversely their GPS apps.
No, it's all the other people who make accidents when driving and using the mobile. Not me. I can handle it. I can also handle my alcohol, won't get addicted, know when to stop, and all that. But I need the nanny state to keep all those other lesser humans in line, so I can be free to be an induhvidual and chase my american dream.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
Since the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that cell phones impair drivers as much as over-the-limit blood alcohol does, the penalties for cell-phone-distracted driving should be as severe as for drunk driving, and we also need a campaign to stigmatize it the way drunk driving has been.
How any automated system will know if the phone is used by driver vs passenger is a challenge, I imagine.
My suspicion is that they will simply not bother discriminating. If the phone is in motion on a roadway (it has GPS so it can tell) then it cannot send/receive text messages. If this means you have to wait until the car stops moving to text then so be it regardless of whether you are a driver or passenger. Text messages aren't reliable enough for any life saving use so unlike the problem with disabling cell phones in theaters there is no compelling first responder problem to deal with.
While having to wait for text messages on a road is a tad irritating, it might be worth it if it saves some lives. Kind of the very definition of a first world problem...
Way too often do I see someone swerving around the Southern State Parkway playing with their little phone and trying to steer straight. I see at least one or two people per week doing their little "oh shit" swerve when they realize they are about to side swipe someone or run off the road. I say this is just as dangerous as drunk driving. Anyone caught swerving and texting should be arrested, car towed and impounded, and license suspended for no less than 6 months. Severe punishment but necessary to stop these jerks. But as with drunk driving, gook just catching them. So it's more of a gesture than actually solving anything.
The absolute worst driver I ever saw was so bad I almost popped a blood vessel with rage. This piece of shit prick was in the left lane swerving around to the point where he came close to side swiping three other cars. He kept clipping the curb that divides the pavement from the grassy shoulder and bouncing/swerving back to his lane, or the middle lane. At one point everyone around him stayed back and he happily swerved from the left lane to the middle lane and back again as if he were the only person on the road. He even rode the line for a few minutes blocking both lanes. It was such a gross demonstration of a complete disregard for others that I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Mind boggling. And it's not like this happened a few times. This went on continually for MILES. He didn't drive normally once from the time he got in front of me until he got off. I can't believe a state cop didn't see him as they are very thirsty on the SSP in Nassau County.
And this isn't the first time I have seen people swerve between two lanes while texting. I also saw the same thing in NJ coming back from Atlantic City. I was behind him and driving a van. I could clearly see him leaning over, looking down and tapping away while swerving around. His girlfriend appeared to yell at him but it didn't appear to do anything. He almost side swiped a pickup who then hung back not wanting to pass him. Someone behind me started beeping and he just stuck out his middle finger. I wanted to cut it off and feed it to him along with the phone. Talk about rage inducing behaviour.
I keep thinking I should buy a dash cam, record these knuckleheads and then post shame videos on youtube.
Dunno, how about you ask the FDA about things like Vioxx and what not?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Confiscate their damn car. Crush it. Don't let the cops get rich off it, just crush it and sell it for scrap. If you're not looking where you're going, you don't deserve to drive. It's not a right to threaten people's lives.
How would a system tell the difference between a driver and passenger in the car?
The probably answer is that you don't bother. You simply determine if the vehicle is in motion on a road (via GPS) and disable sending and receiving until the vehicle stops moving for some period of time. I'm trying to figure out a reason why we need to care whether the texter is driving or not and honestly I'm having trouble thinking of a reason why we should worry about it. Yeah people will whine about it but we've proven that people can't help themselves so maybe a little tough love is in order?
If you can think of a good reason we need to worry about the driver vs passenger thing I'm certainly listening but I can't think of any important reason I can't wait a bit longer for my text messages.
I didn't see anyone address the technical limitations of trying to disable texting while driving.
If the legislative arm forces me to install Text Nanny I will promptly root the device and uninstall it. Failing that I'll just factory reset the device. Unless the service provider won't accept my phone unless Text Nanny is installed on it, there's not much the gov't is going to do about that.
Slapping a 2 week suspension on my license doesn't physically stop me from driving, but it sure does raise the penalty if I'm caught doing it.
Of course, (I forget the term) the police "choosing" when to enforce the law is going to be a problem.
I refuse to sign
If my wife is driving and I am riding then what?
Then you wait until the car stops moving probably. I don't mean to be snide (seriously) but it probably won't kill you to wait a few minutes/hours to receive or send a text message.
When we are driving together the passenger is in charge of all devices.
An excellent idea and bravo to you but FAR too many people clearly cannot be trusted to be so responsible. It's kind of gotten to the point where we simply cannot trust anyone to act responsibly. My question would be do you *really* need to receive text messages while moving in a car? Is the information THAT critical? I think 99.999999% of the time the answer is going to be no if we're being objective about it.
Radar is widely used in Virginia (which I know from unfortunate experience). Also, radar detectors are illegal and are themselves enough to prompt the police to pull you over. The people who I knew that had radar detectors ultimately lost them to police seizure. None of this should have been a surprise to anyone, given the many "RADAR DETECTORS ILLEGAL" signs at the state borders.
At least you can exclude all iPhone owners from that particular test: people who can afford Apple products are so not riding busses...
You've never ridden a bus have you? Plenty of people who ride busses have Apple products especially in big cities. Hell, in places like NYC it's more likely than not that people don't have cars because they are too expensive and not necessary. I went to school on the east coast and few of my classmates from NYC even had a driver's license. Furthermore I have employees who get paid $10/hour who have iPhones and some of them ride public transportation to work.
But it's awfully nice of you to paint everyone who buys Apple products with the same condescending broad brush. Very mature of you.
It should be the District attorney that is disabled (or never quoted ever again). She is an idiot, because software like the interlock concept doesn't exist on a phone.
Part of the problem is user education and part of it is that an attorney who has no understanding of technology who simply wants to create more business via litigation.
Who the fuck is Kathleen Rice and why should any of us give a shit? Answer: we shouldn't.
Given that governments usually buy the crappiest software out there, this will be easily cracked. Not that I'm suggesting people do this, mind you.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What the government WOULD do about that is either have the software call the mothership periodically to update its status, or require you to show up to demonstrate to an officer of the court that it's still installed and functioning. And if you've removed it yourself without permission, then congratulations - you're likely guilty of contempt of court and/or violation of parole, which is not something judges don't take lightly.
So what you're saying is, nothing happened. Cell phone use (talking and texting) has skyrocketed over the last decade. The accident rates have not risen in correlation with it. People are going to be distracted while driving, regardless of the distraction. If someone is at fault in an accident, the cause of their distraction should not be the issue; they are responsible whether they were texting or eating a hamburger or talking to the person next to them. The penalties should be the same as well without regard to the actual distraction.
Or Champix/Chantix, the anti-smoking pill that causes its users uncontrollable rage and suicide attempts (some of which were successful). All the FDA cares about is making money off the misery of Americans. On top of that, you have Canada, which feeds off anything America does, so they have Canadian blood on their hands as well.
Buck Feta. You know what to do.
Hah. And what are they going to do, when driver is not using a smartphone? But is using some old phone, that can still send sms-es quite good?
I dont like the smartphones. Old phones can keep going for weeks without the need of battary recharge.
Just this past summer I went on a family trip. I was a passenger in one car and we had 2 other cars going with us. One was following and the other was coming from another direction. I was often texting the passengers in the other vehicles finding out where they were, if they were stopping for a rest break or to get some food and where.
The only way this will problem will be corrected is when a horrific event occurs. Then people will care. Now they just check the phone and think they are in control.
It boggles me why, on the left side of the pond, you have people with multiple DUI convictions who still get permits to drive on selected routes.
First off, that doesn't happen very often and it's very unusual to see that. Most people with multiple convictions get their license pulled though some decide to drive without one which is obviously illegal. But sometimes life is more complicated than one sentence rhetorical questions. In a lot of the US it is impossible to be gainfully employed unless you have access to a car. There simply is no alternative transportation available. It's easy and glib to just say "screw em" but that's not really any sort of solution to the problem. Do that and you are often condemning a person to a life of poverty which may not be an appropriate punishment depending on the circumstances. While drunk driving is serious and should be taken seriously under the law, one size fits all punishments are rarely appropriate.
I have a guy who works for me who did time in prison for a drunk driving conviction. Good person but an alcoholic who has been sober for 10 years now. He got his act together and is a reliable and valued employee. He screwed up and served his punishment but it wouldn't be right to never give him a second chance.
Maybe mobile companies should stop intentionally lining the highways with cell phone towers and focus on residential and rural areas instead.
Google Maps to get directions? I know that around here, they don't even make a distinction.
A driver who is legally deemed drunk faces far more serious consequences, while creating a similar degree of hazard to the public. Furthermore, the drunk has impaired judgement, while the texter has no such excuse. Or, to put it another way, "Git a rope."
Oh really?
Yes really. Text messages do not guarantee delivery and hence they are inappropriate for any use where it is critical to ensure the recipient receives the message. Furthermore 911 works on any phone and there are assistive devices available to help them communicate via mobile phone in genuine emergencies.
What about deaf or hearing impaired people or noisy places?
What about them? How does this have anything to do with texting while in a vehicle? Explain to me how a deaf person can text any more safely than a hearing person in a vehicle.
Sometimes idiocy creeps up on a person like it has on you, sjbe.
It really hurts my feelings when an anonymous coward calls me names. [/sarcasm]
Car radios are muted during motion if the driver changes a station, CD, or aux cable. Drivers seen yawning are forced to carry Adderall and down a pill every few hours. Billboards are blacked out if someone runs off the highway while staring at them.
Actually, that last one would be pretty nice. Billboards are literally only intended to distract drivers (and the occasional passenger), so why hasn't an underworked lawyer decided to take them on?
Point is, if we're going to take a hard line stance against distracted driving, I'd like to see them really commit to it. There are a lot of causes and that is only one politically popular "solution" that creates more safety problems than it's worth.
In New York City, it is now illegal to sell clothing that has exposed drawstrings of more than 3 inches in length. Seems that a few people had their longer drawstrings get caught in subway doors.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I looked it up a few months ago, a bit over half as many people are killed each year by distracted drivers as by alcohol involved accidents, which amounts to about 35000 people per year (about 60000 per year die in alcohol related accidents, at least according to MADD). Fun fact, removing health related deaths (smoking, heart disease, etc.), it's the number two cause of death in the US, behind drunk driving. Yup, more people are killed by idiots not paying attention while driving than by firearms. Impressive, since firearms are designed to destroy things.
I personally think punishments for distracted driving should mirror those of DUI since it's the only thing people do on the road that rivals the death count.
That must be why 911 systems are adding text capability.
There's nothing wrong with having the extra ability but if you send a text message you cannot be certain it will be delivered. It's like posting to Facebook and hoping someone notices. Might work out but you'd be better off calling. Honestly I really don't see text messaging to 911 being particularly useful and it certainly is not a widely available service (not yet anyway). Maybe there are some super rare corner cases I'm not thinking of but I fail to see why you would text instead of calling.
I am one that rarely txt's or phones while in the car. I try to avoid it. But every now and then I need to send a quick text (not necessarily converse for the fun of it) and able to do it promptly, safely, and not driving like a zombie idiot. I hate the people that are attached to their phones 24/7 and must txt or talk all the time and are shitty drivers on top of it. All this legislation is because of them and it sucks for reasonable people like me that txt maybe 300 characters at most in a year while driving.
If approved and enforced, this would probably eliminate 90+% of Ingress agent activity.
3. Profit!
2. ???
1. On Soviet Slashdot, a Beowulf cluster of alien Natalie Portman overlords welcomes YOU!
Too complicated with too many ways to circumvent the restrictions. Suspend their fucking license for thirty days (first offense) if caught using anything but GPS or MP3 apps while driving, six months for the second offense, two years for the third offense, five years for the fourth and permanent revocation for the fifth.
I was at a gate to my apartment. Nonresident woman was in front of me, oops, she went to the resident gate instead of the nonresident one. There's a somewhat-hard-to-see U-turn slot for exactly this reason. Instead of using it, she starts backing up. I lay on the horn. She BACKS INTO ME anyway. Fortunately she was going 5mph so no harm mostly although she did scrape off some of my paint.
Sometimes, you wonder how some people survived childhood.
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
Please, do not make this depend on GPS/GLONASS/some other GNSS. There are already a lot of cars driving around with GPS jammers (so they don't have to pay toll, use work vehicules in private, ...). It already causes problems at corps using GPS for timekeeping and at airports. We do not need another source of jamming.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-17119768
please explain why calling is less distracting to the driver.
>>The penalties should be the same as well without regard to the actual distraction.
That's so old fashioned. Get with the times! Laws against doing things are out. Laws against doing things with a ________ are where it's at today. (fill in the blank with cellphone, computer, porcupine, etc...) You have to outlaw the distracted driving tools, not the distracted driving! Otherwise you are so last century!
1) Not everyone in a moving vehicle is the driver. I can imagine no viable way for the cellphone to determine this.
2) Cellphones can provide navigation with real-time traffic updates and rerouting.
3) In much of the country radio really sucks. Pandora is better.
I use my smartphone to study flashcards, browse the internet (somtimes for productive reasons) and more when my wife is driving. Would all of these things be disabled too?
Disabling based on motion would disable it for passengers as well. A passenger should be able to use his phone.
Really? They have it already: the immobilizer.
Short distance, dongle needs to be just a few inches from the receiver to enable the ignition. Just do it in reverse, if a cell phone is within 2-3 feet of the steering column, the driver door, it shuts off.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Long train journeys are tedious enough, I'd rather my phone not be disabled when I'm on the train. Unfair on passengers too.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
But fuck it, I hate cars so wouldn't be too bothered if some mandatory car system caused phones to stop working.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
I don't see how this is going to work. They mention "hardware and software solutions" but how are they going to make this apply only to the driver? Seems every legitimate way of doing this would block everyone in a moving vehicle - even passengers - from doing it.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
The accident rate for 'distracted driving' is approximately equal to that for drunk driving. Therefore the state has an interest in curbing the bad habits that drivers get into. Here in Saskatchewan Canada, it is illegal to operate any electronic device while driving a motor vehicle. This includes fiddling around with the stereo in your car, fiddling with your GPS, etc. You cannot use a cell phone in any capacity - take a call, take a picture, text, or email, while the vehicle is in motion. If you need to do those things, pull over. Now, the penalties for failure to comply with the law are steep, but fair. Its a $285 fine for the first offense. The second offense, your vehicle is impounded for a week. This does not mean you can't drive - you can certainly rent a car during that period. I'm not 100% clear what happens on subsequent offenses - I imagine they'll increasingly treat you as they would an impaired driver, which you clearly are if you cannot follow a simple, very clear law.
planet texture maps and more
That just helps prove my point. Regulation doesn't stop stupidity and in most cases is shown to increase it.
Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
If you can think of a good reason we need to worry about the driver vs passenger thing I'm certainly listening but I can't think of any important reason I can't wait a bit longer for my text messages.
Because it's my device, and it should do what I tell it to do. I rarely find myself in cars, buses and trains more often, and I would be uninterested in having a device that disabled itself.
It also seems that accident rates have been going down over the past decade or so, so even safety is a bullshit reason to restrict our rights in this case.
5k? Luxury! I live in Oklahoma and mine are that high. My dad lives in unincorporated DuPage county in Illinois and his are over $12,000.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
except that the greedy Telcos are standing in the way of it. It would be trivial for Apple, Samsung, etc. to program their phones so that distracting features such as texting could be disabled once the motion detector in the phone detects that the owner is traveling at a given speed. When the car comes to a stop, it's all working again.
Study after study has shown that texting while driving is at least as distracting as being moderately drunk and operating a vehicle. Yet the Telcos consistently lobby against any legislation that attempts to limit the use of texting. Why? Because the more text messages people send the more money they make. The more time your eyes are on that screen the more ad revenue places like Facebook make.
So they will continue to fight it. Just like Budweiser would fight the notion of limiting patrons to 2 drinks at a bar. It's taking money out of their collective pockets. Unless and until corporations begin to think of the collective good none of this will ever change. We get the society that we deserve.
Wow, more government intrusion. I came from a communist country and life was not as bad as compared to today's usa((((no warrants, police brutality, healthcare charging to death, eminent domain taking ppl's homes, government taking kids away, etc..)))). People come to this country mainly for materialism(become rich and own tons of stuff). How about cops? does the law apply to them? a cop texting a while ago hit and killed a bike pedestrian and no charges filed. So I guess it's only the peasants that need to abide by all laws while the oligarch and their fucking whores(all government employees: congressman, senators, law enforcement, etc...) don't have to. I mean seriously, Senators and Congressman don't actually sit down and right laws anymore it's all written by corporate lawyers. WTF do these STATES man do all day?
Despite the fact that I view the practice of texting while driving to be every bit as stupid and dangerous as DWUI, she's trying real hard to distinguish herself as she runs for State AG in NY. A state not known for placing a high priority on individual liberties.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
Will you also provide Wi-Fi for people in public transit? If we really want to maximize the number of lives saved (including killed by emissions) then we need to take into account the incentive for public transit that is created by cell phones. Instead of cracking down on innocent people, we should permanently revoke the driver's licences of people who don't take driving seriously and auction off their car. They survived it before, after all. ;-)
You may think that such technology is useful to reduce recidivism, but the reality is restricting peoples movements, thoughts, and actions is a very dangerous road to go down. More dangerous than locking them up or having a slightly higher body count. Our democracy is at stake here. When we lock someone up there is a limit to what our resources can bear. When we use technology to monitor, restrain, and control people there is a limitless potential for control. When 98% of people plead guilty for the sole reason of being promised a sane lighter sentence how can we even begin to justify such technology. Guilty or not we don't know what percentage of the so called guilty pleas are actually guilty. Almost everybody who faces a trial is put forth with an unfair and unreasonable situation. They can never receive a fair trial because of the million dollar costs in attorney fees and are forced into pleading guilty (guilty or not) at the threat of long sentencing (Potential for life imprison, or a year behind bars? Which would you choose? Most choose the less risky option given the costs of trial will bankrupt them and couldn't afford to even get to the trial stage- and without a lawyer no average individual has any chance in hell at navigating the legal system).
It's just a matter of time (its actually already happening) before some segment of the population is routinely victimized. I can think of a few in fact. One less controversial than the other. And the more controversial one I wouldn't advocate for at the risk of persecution by an uninformed and scare-mongered society despite the obvious (to me) lack of a threat from the larger segment of that population (certainly some people of any group are dangerous, but when 98% of the population have never harmed a sole, it's called persecution, racism, etc).
I object to GPS or MP3 while driving because what the apps are is not that important, people can't multitask and those apps also are a serious problem.
In my state, they regulate GPS apps so they can't have a distracting interface-- only then is GPS allowed and the cell phone ban applies to ANY TECH that is distracting. The exceptions require a law, like the GPS regulation.
MP3 and car stereos might be better now, but last time I looked into a car stereo (back when mp3 was new) I couldn't find a single car stereo that wasn't an example of horrible GUI... and they all were graphical with unlabeled buttons around the border (micro print does not count.)
Touch screen madness is everywhere today. That is distracting stuff; I want physical knobs and buttons back because they are provably superior under driving conditions. Oh, and animated diagrams prove these "UX" people are full of shit; if you understand interface design at all, you should be aware of the situation the thing is used. Nothing should move when driving except the child running out into the street you catch in the corner of your eye because your brains recognition system is BASED AROUND MOTION. no gps, app, billboard, TV should be in the peripheral.
Hopefully these laws restrict themselves to the DRIVER. Not that far from now the driver will be a computer and that day can't come soon enough for me. If you have to use apps and drive, learn to car pool and hand off your phone.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Comment removed based on user account deletion
(or emailing)
If your car has an interlock installed, any driver would need to use it to start the vehicle.
It's not meant to be convenient. That it's onerous is entirely intentional. It's meant to punish you by forcibly preventing illegal behavior. It provides an alternative between a fine and a suspended license. That's all. Interlocks aren't installed for first time offenders. It's likely this will be the same. Don't like it? Stop risking other peoples lives.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
Think that government use of the kill switch won't be considered in round 2 on this very issue?
Because I use my phone every day, on my commute on the train for an hour each way. I'd be pretty upset if they disabled it and I couldn't use it while on a train (or a bus, a taxi, or a plane)
So, that's interesting. I pulled statistics for my state, and it bears out what you're saying. In 2010, there was about one reported accident per 478,873 miles. In 2000, 405,000. In 1990, 378,000. And way back in 1960, when I'm sure no one had a cell phone, one in every 313,000.
Is it possible that cell phone use is increasing accident rates but something else is lowering it? Sure, it's possible, but that's just guesswork. Somebody needs to dive deeper into the data to figure it out. Maybe people used to drink and drive more. My data source for alcohol involved crashes only goes back to the mid 2000s. Personally, I almost hit someone because I was messing around with my phone. I learned my lesson. I had some idiot 20something total my car with my kids in it because he was, by his own admission, fishing around on the floor for a CD. You're right, I don't care why you're distracted. Knock it off. Pay attention. My own experience tells me I'm a worse driver if I use my phone. I've heard of plenty of studies that report the same thing. It's also intuitive. If you're not actually looking at the road, it's hard to avoid hitting things.
I was stopped at a traffic light, waiting for a right-on-red opportunity. Lady behind me apparently thinks she's doing the same thing. Rather than waiting for me to go, she waits for the same right-on-red suitable opening in traffic, hits the gas, and runs right into me.
Luckily, I still had my nigh-indestructable car (it had been previously hit on 3 sides in an accident by a semi on a snowy road), and I couldn't find a scratch on it.
Then you would just have people holding their phones over in the passenger area or above their heads to text. If you thought things were bad now.....
When someone is stopped for DUI, do the police install a lock on their liquor bottle? No -- a person could just buy a new bottle. Instead, their driver's license is suspended. Similar action should be taken on those found to be driving while distracted.
Let them try to force me to install an application on a device that 1) I pay for and 2) I pay to keep activated on a service plan. I will gladly do it, should they be willing to pay for the time needed to add it, the space it uses, and the data/network use, but then there is the very large "you are imposing things on my personal property" that will be very very very expensive for them to pay me off to endure. Short answer: Keep your shitty apps off my device or I'll make you sorry you ever pipedreamed you can afford to keep them there.
Laws that prohibit you from being on your phone while driving are doing nothing but further spiraling the nanny-state out of control.
Here in Alberta Canada we have the province now wasting even more money on this silly regulation with advertisements that beg people not to "crotch watch". Of course this is referring to the fact that everyone just tries to hide their texting-while-driving behavior which, ironically, makes the practice even more dangerous then when you could do it in the open.
But who am I to fight the prevailing mentality that we need to regulate away every single issue with society, no matter how minor? The actual people making the decisions have to be smarter than me right? I guess that's why a third of my income goes to pay their salary along with the monstrous bureaucracy created by all this regulatory nonsense.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
tell if the person is the one driving, or just a passenger?
Cell phone use (talking and texting) has skyrocketed over the last decade. The accident rates have not risen in correlation with it.
Wrong. Accidents caused by distracted driving have increased dramatically. For example, see here:
"In 2013, distracted driving fatalities surpassed both impaired and speed related fatalities in fatal motor vehicle collisions investigated by the OPP. A total of 78 persons died in distracted driving related collisions compared to 57 impaired driving deaths and 44 speed related deaths last year.
Tell that to all the babies in the United States who were not disfigured by Thalidomide because of the courageous actions of the US regulator. There were some, but it could have been much, much worse.
Regulation's goal is not to stop stupidity. It's to reduce harm. If you think seatbelt laws, automobile safety regulations, etc. have not reduced harm, then you're living in a fantasy world.
If I am a passenger, then the government disabling my device is not ok. I haven't killed anyone while sitting on a bus, or a train or in a car while a passenger, therefore I shouldn't be punished for it. If you wanna stop DUIs why not go ahead and ban alcohol.... surely that would work right? Being upset at government power grabs is not the same thing as you getting drunk and then driving. If you think it is, perhaps you shouldn't have a license. If you really want your nanny state, just go ahead and make texting/calling while driving an offense equal to a DUI. Start pulling licenses and sending people to jail.
Why should there be regulations put in place to protect someone from themselves? What right does the government have to intervene there?
Seat belt laws do just that. In fact, there is a strong correlation between the implementation of seat belt laws and car wrecks. Its theorized that because people 'feel' safer they drive more recklessly, so yes, seat belt laws have not reduced harm. Tell me more about this fantasy world I live in again.
Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
Firstly, the whole point of a cellphone is that they move.
Secondly, the tower can only locate that you are within the cell, not your movements within the cell
Thirdly, moving between cells while in call is a process called handover. While yes, the cell companies could disable handover, the amount of tech support calls they would get due to drop voice calls would flood their systems. The public would absolutely NOT stand for the disabling of handovers.
The overall number has increased, but the ratio has not. If anything it has gone down, the number of people who use the phone in any capacity (talking, texting, websurfing, posting on slashdot) went from 0 two decades to everyone aged 17-50.
Another valid use, When I get to a stoplight I'll text the craigslister to expect my arrival. This is customary, and I don't see anything wrong with it. Just resist the temptation to take foot from brake, esp if your peripheral perception is that it's clear.
It doesn't.
It's a punishment. It's supposed to be inconvenient. If you think losing the ability to text while being a passenger is unacceptable perhaps you should not risk texting while driving?
I guess you've never been in a trans-continental convoy. One's line of sight gets obstructed pretty frequently. CB two-way radios are useful, but have a pretty limited range.
Also, I guess you're not clueful. States that have banned texting-while-driving actually ban "Using a phone in a non-hands-free manner while operating a motor vehicle.". Using your hands to email, text, operate the dialer, or hold the phone while in a vehicle are all equally illegal.
No word on why CB radio use isn't illegal, or why existing distracted driving laws weren't sufficient, but whatever.
The real way to fix it is a $2000 fine for texting while driving, unless specific conditions exist, such as a life or death situation, contacting police or fire, etc. A few stiff fines and people will stop.
That should be "on" Long Island!
Is it possible that cell phone use is increasing accident rates but something else is lowering it? Sure, it's possible, but that's just guesswork. Somebody needs to dive deeper into the data to figure it out. Maybe people used to drink and drive more.
Other than drunk driving, which I suspect has decreased, it would be awfully tedious to determine the statistical influence of specific root causes. Cars have improved, e.g. anti-lock brakes, better headlights, improved tires, "lane assist" tech, and so on. Roads have improved, too. When I was a kid, there was no reflective paint for road striping, nor any of those reflective inserts now common in highways. Even the road surfaces are generally better, constructed using materials which require less maintenance with better failure modes, plus it seems to me that they're more likely to be engineered to resist puddling in heavy rain. Better traffic enforcement could also play a role. For example, perhaps in comparison to 1960s patrol cops, today's cops are more likely to pull over drivers with broken headlights and tail lights. Pulling all that (and more) together would be a tall order for researchers.
- T
Comment removed based on user account deletion
We drove our motor home 1300 miles last week. We sit eye level to truck drivers. We were shocked to see how many truck drivers were texting, staring at phones or tablets. Compared to our motor home trip early this year, it seemed many more were busy with phones & other distractions.
Textin' Fool: "Oh crap, my phone has been modified so I can't text while driving."
Textin' Fool: "Oh wait, I can just put my SIM in another phone."
Every time you foolproof something you'll get bigger fools.
Why is a district attorney on this? Isn't it the job of legislators?
Make no mistake, for the convicted... go for it. I have no problems at all when it is a punishment for a convicted person. Someone else mentioned it being installed in a convicted persons car, and that car blocking all phone in it. I can probably agree with that, as I can not ride in their car, or I can make fun of them for my phone not working in their car when I am passenger. I am just vehemently against blanket punishment for the innocent.
Its funny you mention movie theater, as there I would be fine with it. Private party, I don't own the theater, compared to my car and my phone, and I could choose to frequent a theater that didn't do it if it bothered me vs government forcing it on me. I probably would go to that theater though if it was the closest, I don't care if my phone doesn't work while I am watching a movie. I do care when I am a passenger in a vehicle.
A woman hiding under the bed or in a closet with an attacker in the house comes to mind.
Are you aware of a lot of closets that drive on the road? The discussion is for whether or not to allow texting while in a passenger vehicle. I'm sure people can come up with corner cases where texting might make sense but I cannot think of a single one for passenger vehicles.
During a home invasion, when you don't want to expose your hiding place by speaking.
Not relevant to the whether to allow texting while in a passenger vehicle. I actually don't have a problem with allowing text messages to a 911 operator at any time just like we require phones to always be able to dial 911. (I question their utility but that's a separate issue) There probably is a good reason to allow any sort of communications to 911 even while driving. But generally speaking I cannot think of any reason why we need to allow general purpose texting while in a motor vehicle that is in motion.
Here (he left you dead on impact, totally silenced by your fails) http://mobile.slashdot.org/com...
If you are caught, you lose you license forever. If you are caught again, you go to jail until you die.
Could work for DUI as well.
was the 'moron' texting? if not, what the hell does that have to do with this story? a guy drifted into your lane, you avoided his car and honked the horn to get his attention. sounds like driving to me...