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.
How would a system tell the difference between a driver and passenger in the car?
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
But if you a cop you get a free pass.
Ironically, if you do text and drive, you are likely to become disabled.
How any automated system will know if the phone is used by driver vs passenger is a challenge, I imagine.
It's supposed to be applicable to people caught (and, presumably, convicted) of texting and driving. I'm sure being stuck as a passenger with no interesting distractions other than the company of the driver and other passengers might be considered a living hell by some people, but such is life.
Log in or piss off.
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.
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.
You'd have more of a point if the US wasn't so often concerned with the domestic policies of other nations.
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...
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.
No, don't mod parent up... just because there are too many dumb laws doesn't mean that a new one isn't good. What we should be doing is condensing laws in to more sensible ones, like "distracted driving" instead of a separate law for every way that a driver can be distracted.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
You're forgetting though that a text message is far more likely to be transmitted than a phone call when there is minimal signal.