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.
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.
I suppose the same way PawSense detects whether a cat or a human is using the device: when you text and drive, you have a funny way of using the device - because you're constantly switching between texting, putting down the device and driving, picking it back up after 10 seconds, and doing that over and over, as opposed to a human that's fully committed to the task of inputting text.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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.
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.
Here in Poland, quite a few people push for the first DUI mean losing the driving license for life. I'd say that's overkill, but 5 years or so of absolute driving ban for a DUI would be just right. It's a kind of a murder attempt, after all.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
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.
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.
They are OK with ignition interlocks that could easily be defeated if a non-inebriated passenger were to provide the breath for analysis. The idea is to put a barrier in front of a known offender, not to properly filter the actions of would-be offenders. One would think that this sort of reform/punishment would be offered in lieu of alternatives (i.e. you can get your license back in half the time, if you agree to have your phone locked/monitored) such that you can opt out, if you want to receive the normal punishment.
That argument has merit, but means you shift the ban from driving to purchase and consumption of alcohol. Ensure there is a license classification that specifies this restriction. This would also make providing a restricted adult with alcohol punishable in the same way as providing a minor with alcohol. Problem solved, and general public protected from morons with an addictive personality and no common sense. You could even give the moron the choice between losing a license or losing the legal ability to consume alcohol. You may have a right to drive. You may have a right to get shitfaced. You do not have a right to do both at the same time.