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.

Comments

It should be

[rossdee]

It should be the car that is disabled (or your license taken away)

Re:It should be

[hooiberg]

Why not both?

Re:It should be

[Mr D from 63]

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.

Re:It should be

[KiloByte]

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.

Re:It should be

[SJHillman]

You'd have more of a point if the US wasn't so often concerned with the domestic policies of other nations.

Re:It should be

[CrimsonAvenger]

Ironically, if you do text and drive, you are likely to become disabled.

Based on US auto-accident rates, unless virtually everyone (99.99+%) of the population does NOT text while driving, it is rather UNLIKELY that you will become disabled as a result....

Re:It should be

[jeffmeden]

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.

Re:It should be

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

It boggles my mind over here on the other side of the pond why you Euro types worry about our domestic policies. Seriously, I can see you taking issue with our international actions and policies, but what happens inside the US really isn't any of your concern.

Some of us Americans think it would be nice if people actually wanted to visit here again. Between our insane laws and even more insane borders, it's becoming increasingly unappealing. So thank the foreigners for constructive criticism, we could use it!

Re:It should be

[StrangeBrew]

I don't know what should be more embarrassing. The xenophobic and myopic attitude or that it's shared as an Anonymous Coward who thinks he represents the views of a country.

Re:It should be

[Krojack]

It boggles my mind why people thinking taking away ones license will prevent them from driving. Afterall they didn't care to follow the law the first time.

Re:It should be

[StrangeBrew]

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.

Re:It should be

[justthinkit]

How about this...Faraday cage the car, then provide a cell phone antenna. To use it, you have to jack-in. And each jack has a separate IP address, so that all subsequent communication on that address can be tied to an individual. Maybe you have to dock your phone in your door, so that you can't steal someone else's jack. Ok, this is getting complicated. How about you take a hammer, and smash everyone's phone before they climb in your car?

Re:It should be

[Anonymous Coward]

Murder attempt? About half the people imprisoned for "drunk driving" in Poland were riding bicycles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

In Poland, you also used to gas people by the millions, followed by decades of socialism. The political and legal judgment of the Polish nation seems rather suspect to me.

Re:It should be

[tlhIngan]

Ironically, if you do text and drive, you are likely to become disabled.

Most likely not, actually. Driving is one of those activities where the risk is disproportionate - text/drink/etc and drive and those who suffer are more likely going to be third parties than yourself (who is protected by a myriad of safety devices and the car itself). Especially since a collision generally means you're going forward, and frontal impacts have been well studied and front crumple zones are big and absorb and distribute the energy over a long period of time. (Side impacts are the worst since there's very little crumple zone before intrusion into the passenger cabin happens).

Re:It should be

[JaredOfEuropa]

It's a kind of a murder attempt, after all.

No, it's not. At all. There is no premeditation nor intent. If you get behind the wheel while drunk, you are making a more or less informed and conscious decision to increase your chances at causing an accident, and reduce your chances at avoiding one.

I know that the comparison to murder is a popular view though; here (NL), some people call for the first DUI to mean losing your license, your car, your genitalia, or your head. In reality, there are degrees of being over the limit, and the punishment should vary accordingly. Life bans rarely work, the offender is more likely to continue driving without a license (and insurance, as a result). The chances of getting caught are small enough.

Re:It should be

[silas_moeckel]

Because we have little to no functional mass transit. That is pretty much a lifetime imprisonment being forced to live in a city to be able to get a decent job. Forget being able to take care of family life.

We really need to rethink our transport related laws, were effectively removing peoples freedom to associate/travel on the mere accusation that they did something that might hurt somebody else. It frankly seems like the buggy whip guys started us down this slippery path trying to throw roadblocks at the switch to cars. The move to self driving cars may be the answer, with licencing turning into something for enthusiasts.

Re:It should be

[rogoshen1]

2 minute hate mode engaged!

should ban cupholders, radios, and passengers while your at it.
bad drivers will be bad drivers.

Re:It should be

[morgauxo]

Outside of a few select cities it is quite a bit harder here to live without transportation. Homes, jobs and grocery stores are much farther apart. Public transportation is far less developed. Pull too many drivers licenses and you end up with a lot more panhandlers living on the street.

Re:It should be

[kilfarsnar]

You'd have more of a point if the US wasn't so often concerned with the domestic policies of other nations.

Do we get concerned about domestic policies in other nations that are harboring American-murdering terrorists (and to a lesser extent those that murder our allies)? You bet your ass. Do we give a shit about Poland? Not so much.

LOL. Look at the drug laws in many other countries, and then find out how they got that way.

Re:It should be

[mysidia]

I kind of liked the idea of a "smart steering wheel"

If for any reason, the driver takes either of their hands off the wheel, then their paired phone will automatically lock, and they can't place or answer calls when moving, except by using voice commands and a hands-free device.

Re:It should be

[MaryAnnEvans]

Hopefully most people are sensible enough not to text whilst driving. And if there is a statistic, we should be careful about interpreting it - texting whilst stationary in a queue would be classified as texting whilst driving, but the serious accidents caused by texting whilst driving happen when the car is moving at a significant pace.

Re:It should be

[funwithBSD]

Meh, make them drive a Yugo or Trebant, or stick them on 50cc scooters for life.

Cruel and unusual, but effective.

Re:It should be

[funwithBSD]

Horse and buggy for DUIs sounds great!

At least the horse has a sense of self preservation when the drunk driver tells it to do something stupid.

Re:It should be

[Mr D from 63]

Is that just picking apart my choice of words, or a rationalization to continue to text while driving?

Re:It should be

[Cederic]

Disabling the phone is a response to someone breaking the fucking law. It's part of the punishment.

If you don't text while driving, you wont break that particular law, and you wont get your phone disabled. Pretty fucking simple really.

Re:It should be

[GTRacer]

Oh God yes PLEASE! I am so *sick and tired* of being stuck behind those 56-MPH sluggards on my shiny 70- or 75-MPH limited interstates!

Re:It should be

[magarity]

How any automated system will know if the phone is used by driver vs passenger is a challenge, I imagine.

By the inward pointing dash camera, of course.

Re:It should be

[silas_moeckel]

Isn't that effectively what the new autonomous cars are? Horses tended to go back to their barn so yea similar effect.

Re:It should be

[Bigbutt]

80 mph in eastern Wyoming. :)

[John]

Re:It should be

[thieh]

Then comes people with missing one arm/hand bashing that idea. Making that configurable to be used with one hand kind of defeats the purpose, no? And what about manual transmissions?

Re:It should be

[StrangeBrew]

Wow, that is an amazing rewrite of history. I'd love to hear some of your summary of other countries as well. By contrast, maybe look at a country that actually dropped nuclear bombs on civilian cities despite knowing that the enemy was running out of the petroleum necessary to stay at war.

Re:It should be

[pspahn]

Please stop perpetuating the myth that texting while at a stop light is completely safe and not the same as while you are driving.

You are still operating a vehicle. You are still distracted. That stop light won't be green forever.

Or am I the only one that sees people using their phones at stop lights that aren't paying attention and miss the green light?

Re:It should be

[thieh]

Because then you can't call for help when some other car smash into yours if both are disabled. You should at least be able to either get out of harms way or at least call for help if your passenger starts messing with your phone.

Re:It should be

[pspahn]

If you get a DUI, your ability to drink alcohol will be severely limited.

First off, if it is deemed necessary, you will be put on Antabuse or something similar. Have fun having a drink with that shit in you.

Next, it is probable that you will have to take random urine and/or breath analysis. You are given a phone number, a color, and a state. You call the phone number every day and if the recorded message names your color, you go take a UA. If the message names your state, you go take a breath test. Failure at either of these results means you go back to square one and probably have additional fines, court costs, etc since you are likely violating probation. Not only that, but the breath tests are easily fooled and will give a false positive for even having a smoothie with no booze in it.

While it might make some sense to give someone a choice between the privilege to drive or the privilege to drink booze, in reality they will simply take away both and make it as difficult as possible for you to want to do either for the next 2-5 years.

Re:It should be

[lgw]

Do we give a shit about Poland? Not so much.

"Don't forget Poland!" - George Bush

Re:It should be

[mordenkhai]

I was thinking about this and I think it is a good idea. Courts can confiscate your license, order a new one issued that says "No Alcohol" or something, and just have laws require ID for all purchases, all of them, so they are checked. However, I think were this in place, second offense needs to be total loss of driving license. I mean, you already got a second chance at driving. It would be interesting to see in action.

Re:It should be

[pspahn]

One of the guys who was in my "counseling" class after I got a DUI was forced onto a moped since there are no licensing requirements. Our classes were mostly during winter, and he would show up just about every week covered in slush and snow.

Probably not for life, but certainly effective at making someone wish they had a proper car again.

Re:It should be

[Pope]

You're not the only one. I get stuck behind these idiots all the time.

Re:It should be

[MaryAnnEvans]

Please stop perpetuating the myth that texting while at a stop light is completely safe and not the same as while you are driving.

I wasn't. You should never text whilst driving. That's why I said "Hopefully most people are sensible enough not to text whilst driving." However the results of doing so will obviously be worse if you are at 70mph than at 0mph. You should never shoot someone innocent. However the damage done if you did would be worse with a Magnum than a air pistol.

Re:It should be

[hooiberg]

I guess a passenger using a phone is never a problem. I suppose this is only for the driver.

Re:It should be

[Ravaldy]

It's pretty simple. Deal with is like you deal with drunk drivers. Take their license away. The amount of accidents caused by texting and driving is higher than the ones caused by drinking and driving leaving aside deadly accidents.

Once you've prosecuted enough drivers the word will get out and this shit will stop. FFS, we didn't have cell phones 10 years ago so what made it so important to answer the text right away.

Re:It should be

[Ravaldy]

People with one arm can have their system turned accordingly. No sense in stopping 99.9% of other users from being controlled because we can't control 0.01% or less.

BUT regardless the system isn't ideal. There are more reliable ways but I think we aren't there yet. The best way at this point in time is to punish the offenders.

Re:It should be

[secret_squirrel_99]

People who do 56 MPH on the Interstates should get the chair.

Agree, in fact anyone doing under 70, or under 85 in the left hand lane should be summarily executed

Re:It should be

[jeffmeden]

I kind of liked the idea of a "smart steering wheel"

If for any reason, the driver takes either of their hands off the wheel, then their paired phone will automatically lock, and they can't place or answer calls when moving,
except by using voice commands and a hands-free device.

What good would this be, why not just use the existing method of locking the phone while it's in motion? Or, do you mean to have a way for all other phones in the vehicle to somehow also pair and abide by the steering wheel hand sensor, thereby allowing passengers to text only when the driver is being "safe"? Why not just have a working phone act as a key to the car, which then becomes locked (presumably its the driver's phone) and therefore who ever isnt the driver has a working phone still? Better yet, have electronic "driving gloves" in the car that are required to have hands firmly in them in order for the engine to run, which will naturally stop the user from being able to operate a touchscreen while driving (unless they have a blackberry or happen to be Bennett Hasselton, two punishments worth more than the crime of texting while driving anyway.)

The unfortunate thing is that drivers have a really endless list of dangerous shit they can do behind the wheel (ghost riding the whip, anyone?) and passengers do, too (watch any given episode of tosh.0 for hints) so bending over backwards to stop serial texters is probably not worth the trouble. Give cops good ways to spot and cite it, let the offenders get penalized, and if they dont stop then take their license away. Pretty simple, really. Alcohol, at least, has a chemically addictive component that isn't easily forsaken which calls for more specific punishment to encourage rehabilitation. Texting and driving is perhaps only rehabilitated if you take away the offender's friends.

Re:It should be

[steelfood]

Not that your statement about the US is true (most people get their licenses revoked permanently after enough times), and simply driving without a license or with fake credentials is an easy way to defeat such measures anyway, but a lot of it has to do with population density and poorly-planned, developer-interest-based suburbia.

Most people live in the suburbs, mostly because living in most city centers suck (either prohibitively costly or prohibitively crime-ridden or it's no different from living in the suburb except you don't get much personal space). You have to drive in the suburbs. Hell, in a ton of city centers you still have to drive.

Reducing reliance of cars in all of the U.S. would be a great thing, but there's too much moneied interests (and a bit of misguided nationalism) involved for that to happen. To fix the problem, the culture itself needs to be changed, and the moneied interests (oil, auto, etc.) need to go away. And then you can talk about redeveloping the suburbs into real towns and revitializing city centers and increasing mass (local as well as regional) transit.

Re:It should be

[Jason Levine]

I was tempted into doing this a couple of times. (Stopped at a red light. Hear a notification come in. Think "well, I'm stopped, I can check it.") The times I did it, I felt extremely unsafe. Now, I have a pattern lock on my phone. Not only is it increased security from "swipe to open", but it makes it much harder to casually try to open your phone while stopped at a light. The increased difficulty in checking the messages helps reduce the temptation and makes it less likely that I'll listen to the "you can do it this time and still be safe" voice in my head.

Re:It should be

[vlad30]

How any automated system will know if the phone is used by driver vs passenger is a challenge, I imagine.

The solution isn't to hard and just got easier with NFC place drivers phone in this slot if phones are detected and none in slot don't start car, once in slot all distracting functions disabled or postponed other phones can operate

Still won't stop the idiot driver with 2 phones, for this one a death penalty is appropriate when caught

Re:It should be

[CrimsonAvenger]

but the serious accidents caused by texting whilst driving happen when the car is moving at a significant pace.

Yep.

On the other hand, there's not that much evidence that there are millions of such accidents every year.

And if there were a million such accidents a year, that would mean that you have maybe a 1% chance of being in such an accident annually. And there aren't a million such accidents a year.

Annoying? You bet! Potentially deadly? Surely is!

Likely? Not hardly....

Re:It should be

[farble1670]

i guess because many people require a driving license to be a productive member of society. taking away someone's license, causing them to lose their job and go on public assistance or worse isn't good for anyone. so you allow them to drive to work only.

Re:It should be

[AmiMoJo]

It depends how the law defines murder in your jurisdiction. In some places committing one crime that leads to someone being killed, even if you had no intention of killing them, is murder.

Re:It should be

[mjwx]

Meh, make them drive a Yugo or Trebant, or stick them on 50cc scooters for life.

Cruel and unusual, but effective.

Cruel would be making them drive a PT Cruiser cabrio with the top down.

50CC scooters can be quite fun when you get ones that you can rev the tits off (high revving is what motorbikes do best).

Re:It should be

[JaredOfEuropa]

That's just semantics. Our laws distinguish between murder (premeditated), "manslaughter" (not premeditated but with intent to at least cause grievous harm), and "culpable death" (no intent to cause harm). The latter category basically involves someone dying as a direct result of you taking excessive risk or being exceptionally careless, and it covers deaths in traffic accidents. GP's point of calling DUI a murder attempt implies intent, which is missing here.

Re:It should be

[JaredOfEuropa]

Not sure if you understand what "more or less" means. There are degrees of drunkenness, and many drunk drivers knew full well that they were breaking the law by getting behind the wheel, meaning they were informed. And many of them paused at least once to think about whether they should get behind the wheel or not, meaning it was a conscious decision to do so. What they are is judgment-impaired, underestimating the risks and possible consequences of their actions.

I kind of agree on your stance on drunk driving. There are a few countries that treat it as such: DUI is not rigorously prosecuted and the punishment for being over the limit is small, but if you cause an accident while under the influence, you'll be in serious trouble. It means making the driver responsible for judging whether or not they are still able to drive, and making them responsible for the consequences as well. A good idea in principle, however as stated before, a drunk person is impaired and not capable of making that decision just by weighing the risks. A hard limit enforced by law makes that decision a lot easier even when drunk, and it seems that in practice that limit works well to deter people from driving drunk. Our current laws are quite decent in that regard: most people are still under the limit after 2 drinks, and being slightly over the limit carries a reasonably small punishment for first offenders, usually a small fine and a driving ban of a few hours so you can sober up. Only when you go way over the limit do longer driving bans and judges kick in.

Re:It should be

[david_thornley]

Frequently, if somebody dies because a felony is being committed, that's classed as premeditated murder. Is there such a thing as felony drunk driving laws?

Re:It should be

[david_thornley]

We were at a restaurant a few days back, and my mother-in-law (in her late 70s) was carded when she ordered a glass of wine. The server said that some driver's licenses were marked on the back for alcohol restrictions. First time I've seen that (and probably the first time the M.I.L. has been carded for decades).

Re:It should be

[Cyberdyne]

It should be the car that is disabled (or your license taken away)

Exactly - as they do already in the UK: get caught driving while using a mobile phone, you get 3 penalty points. That puts your insurance premiums up in itself, and if you reach a total of 12 points, no more driving for a few years. The penalty may be increased to 6 - in which case, get caught driving on the phone twice, you're in the passenger seat for several years. If someone's been caught driving on the phone (whether texting, talking or reading Slashdot), why let them continue driving at all? Will disabling the phone stop them driving while fiddling with the radio, eating, shaving etc? Of course not - so get them away from the wheel and let them text all they like as passengers.

Re:It should be

[RockDoctor]

It should be the car that is disabled

That was pretty much my thought too. There should be fewer problems with coupling an app on a phone to a particular car - say by the same sort of link as used in BlueTooth - and if the phone comes out of screen-saver, then the engine drops through the gears, puts on the hazard lights and horn, and then shuts down. Once the phone is back in screen-lock state, then the car's engine can be re-started.

It'd still be vulnerable to a driver who wants to text using a passenger's phone. But that's going to be a comparatively small problem, largely because it requires two idiotic self-centred narcissistic morons to be in the same car at the same time.

May be able to adjust it IF you've got laws allowing use of a hands-free mobile as a speech phone to put that as another engine-allowed state.

Re:It should be

[mysidia]

Then comes people with missing one arm/hand bashing that idea. Making that configurable to be used with one hand kind of defeats the purpose, no?

If someone with just one hand/arm gets convicted of texting while driving holding the phone with ZERO hands available to put on the wheel, then that is so much more dangerous and unsafe, that they should just be forced to undergo the standard punishment; or give up driving or having a cellphone altogether.

2nd phone

[MrL0G1C]

What's to stop them buying a cheap 2nd phone?

Re:2nd phone

[Shatrat]

The ubiquitous surveillance that this measure would also advocate...

Re:2nd phone

[PolygamousRanchKid]

The phone is not the problem . . . the driver is the problem. That's why it would be better to suspend their license for a week or so.

Re:2nd phone

[MrL0G1C]

I read the articles and didn't see any such thing.

DA Riceâ(TM)s Five-Point Plan to Reduce Driving While Texting focuses on using smartphone operating systems, auto insurance rate structures, court discretion, enhanced enforcement and enhanced public awareness efforts in order to help end the distracted driving epidemic

Re:2nd phone

[MrL0G1C]

A week, come on, that is not a deterrent. Over 20% of drivers are texting etc but only a small few get caught so what are the chances of getting caught twice?

Re:2nd phone

[Translation Error]

Nothing. But if they're caught circumventing a court order, expect the judge to come down on them like a ton of bricks.

Re:2nd phone

[Cramer]

Right, because taking away a sliver of plastic will totally stop someone from driving. Just look at the stats for "driving without a license". Any technology put in the phone that can be selectively enabled (read: enabled by court order) can be disabled. And good luck getting Cyanogen to add that brain damage to the image. Plus, it's only the **DRIVER** who must be stopped; everyone else in the car is perfectly OK to text while in motion, but such technologies stop them too.

Only if

[Lawrence_Bird]

she agrees that her hands can be lopped off as a "deterent" when she is pulled over for driving and eating/drinking.

Re:Only if

[Krojack]

Don't you mean putting make-up on?

Re:Only if

[3.5 stripes]

Farding is the proper word.

difference between driver and passenger?

[i.r.id10t]

How would a system tell the difference between a driver and passenger in the car?

Re:difference between driver and passenger?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

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.

Re:difference between driver and passenger?

[MrL0G1C]

I usually get car sick if I don't spend most of my time looking out of the window / I don't think this would work for phones.

And if the app is installed to one phone the driver can simply buy another phone. I don't know about the US but in the UK there is (was?) nothing stopping you buying a cheap phone with cash.

If a person can't drive safely, ban them from driving... I can't wait for autonomous cars (with caveats), they will make it much easier for judges to make the decision to ban bad drivers.

Re: difference between driver and passenger?

[yakatz]

In the US, you can not buy a phone anonymously - even prepaid. The retailer is supposed to ask for ID to link to it (not sure whether every oneactually does) or when you activate it you need to give the necessary information.

Re: difference between driver and passenger?

[MrL0G1C]

Apparently that doesn't apply to pre-paid sims and I doubt it is enforced or applies to 2nd hand phones.

Re:difference between driver and passenger?

[codeButcher]

... 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.

The people I have observed in traffic, seem to fall into the latter (fully committed) category. It's the driving task that gets put on hold for 10 seconds and then picked up again.

Re:difference between driver and passenger?

[cdrudge]

You've never seen my wife text then.

Re:difference between driver and passenger?

[pavon]

They are evaluating different technologiess, some of which are implemented on and affect a single phone, others implemented with hardware in the car and affect all phones in the car. But even if it disables all phones in the entire car, I am completely fine with this. Yes it is inconvient, but it's not like it is being required as standard equipment on all cars all the time. It is only being applied to cars of people who broke the law and put others around them at risk. You want to keep using your phone when you are riding with a friend/spouse; then give them shit about texting while they are driving.

Re:difference between driver and passenger?

[Krojack]

I not only do that while riding in a car but also while sitting at my desk at work.

Re: difference between driver and passenger?

[jratcliffe]

Not true at all. If you're buying a prepaid SIM, in some cases, they'll ask, but there's no real check - I know for a fact that a carrier with a large presence in South Florida has several hundred phones registered to "Dan Marino."

Re:difference between driver and passenger?

[Karl Cocknozzle]

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.

How would that be different than someone, say, texting while masturbating in the passenger seat of a moving car? A lot of sudden awkward pauses, shifts in position, device gets put down to pinch a nipple.

Re:difference between driver and passenger?

[Translation Error]

I'd expect a device (RFID?) that's active when the car is in operation would be installed in the owner's car, and the phone would have an app that's paired to the device check for its signal. Depending on the range, it may or may not reach passenger seats, but this would only be an issue when the person is a passenger in their own car.

Re:difference between driver and passenger?

[gfxguy]

Agreed.... traffic around here is demonstrably worse over the past few years, and I don't know if it's simply building volume, or idiots that don't pay attention. Likely both, but I think more the latter.

It used to be that you'd occasionally see someone sitting at a green light because they were distracted with something while waiting - reading a newspaper, changing the radio station... it never ceases to amaze me, looking at driver in front of me, how often it's only moments before the light changes that they succumb to boredom and take their attention away from traffic to look at something on the passenger seat, take a long drink of something, start playing with the radio...

Now people's attention spans, given smartphones, are even shorter. What used to happen 1 in 10 times happens 1 in 5. And it's not always that first person in line, either... and the worse traffic spots have the longest lines of people waiting for the light at the worst times of day, increasing the chances that one of them will not be paying attention.

And you know what's worse? It seems like most people are afraid to honk. With all the incidents of road rage, people don't honk. I'm often two or three cars behind the person not moving, and I'm the one that ends up using the horn (and no, I'm not that impatient... I give adequate time for someone else to do it). And then you know what? Traffic starts moving, and nobody shoots me. Problem solved.

Re:difference between driver and passenger?

[Khashishi]

System? I assume the system is a traffic cop in a cop car and a court order to a phone company to shut off service to an individual.

Re:difference between driver and passenger?

[funwithBSD]

I cover the motorcycle horn with my thumb. If I don't think of pushing it, a sudden move by a car will make me grip the handlebars tighter, triggering the horn.

The High beam is also a finger trigger on this bike, sometimes I cover that too, which means I flash the driver as well; think of someone inching forward to make a right turn on a light, I tense a little and the high beam comes on.

Seeing how I don't subscribe to loud pipes save lives, most people cut me slack if I hit the horn.

Re:difference between driver and passenger?

[funwithBSD]

Dude,

use nipple clamps.

Re:difference between driver and passenger?

[drew870mitchell]

Existing apps don't. I haven't figured out a way to tell AT&T DriveMode "no, I'm a passenger, please don't bug me for the next {1,2,3,...} hours." Fortunately it can still be bypassed. The irritating thing about DriveMode is that it lets you use maps and a couple other things even while you are putatively the driver. Bad AT&T. If somebody is driving they should know where they're going and just not be distracted until they're stopped again. Lost? Pull over and stop to look at the map like we did back in the dark ages.

Seriously, smartphones have turned being a roadtrip passenger from an awful chore into a breeze. They don't seem to make passengers roadsick like a book does, they're legible at night, the passenger can still hold a conversation with the driver just like before, and they can be a much better navigator if in unfamiliar ground. I really hope the cell companies don't screw the pooch on this.

Re:difference between driver and passenger?

[Michaelejahn]

Yes, or - for example - my wife using my phone in the passenger seat ? She does that all the time because my Note has a much larger screen than her iPhone.

The reason

[NotDrWho]

They don't want anyone texting out to warn people not to come to Long Island.

Re:The reason

[codeButcher]

The U.S. will always be at war now, until the government is bankrupt. Should have listened to Eisenhower.

No, you don't seem to understand. The US needs wars to keep its industries from bankruptcy. But yes, "will always be at war now" seems to be true.

Re:The reason

[funwithBSD]

They build the victor's economy if they loot everything that is nailed down...

somehow we have forgotten that lesson: Pillage, THEN burn.

And if I am ridding in the car?

[LWATCDR]

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.

Re:And if I am ridding in the car?

[c]

If my wife is driving and I am riding then what?

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.

Re:And if I am ridding in the car?

[SJHillman]

I don't think "treason" means what you think it means. Or "arresting". Or "suggestion". Actually, I'm not sure if you speak English or just pissed on a dictionary and strung together whatever didn't get wet.

Re:And if I am ridding in the car?

[gfxguy]

I don't understand... if that were really the case, then your wife would never get caught texting and driving, and it should never be a problem for you, so I don't understand your complaint.

Now if they use a technical measure in the car to prevent nearby (within the car) cellphones from operating while the car is on or in motion because the driver (or someone previously driving the car) texted while driving... then blame them, not the people trying to prevent dumb accidents. I can see the carpool to work... "And let's all thank Frank for texting while driving so that now none of us can when we commute with him. Thanks, Frank!"

Re:And if I am ridding in the car?

[torsmo]

. . . pissed on a dictionary and strung together whatever didn't get wet.

Is there an app for this?

Re:And if I am ridding in the car?

[c]

Well, that would explain why my language center pretty much seized up trying to make sense of that.

Re:And if I am ridding in the car?

[cmdahler]

If my wife is driving and I am riding then what?

Who cares? You're missing the point of the whole punishment aspect of a law like this. If you're dumb enough to think you can safely text while driving, then I for one wouldn't have much sympathy for you bitching later on that you can't text while you're a passenger. You deserve what you got. This sort of law and punishment would be sort of like making it illegal to be stupid. I suppose the problem is that stupid people, by definition, are too stupid to understand that they're being punished for being stupid, but at least it would keep you from texting while you're driving and turning your stupidity into an active menace to society.

Re:And if I am ridding in the car?

[LWATCDR]

So you get fined.
Really people unless you are going to make people that cause an accident got to real driving school or forbid people from drinking ever again after a DUI this is just a clear knee jerk reaction to a popular hot button.
About 5 years ago I had a guy run into the back of my brand new "week old" bright red car while I was stopped at a stop light! He did not even get a ticket even though he hit my car. He was found at fault but he did not have to do anything but pay higher insurance and probably buy a new car.

But...

[Anonymous Coward]

But if you a cop you get a free pass.

Re:But...

[Isaac-1]

The sad thing is yesterday when driving home from work there was a cop in the other lane next to me texting while driving, the funny part about it was he had a neon blue smart phone cover.

Re:But...

[MrL0G1C]

That's similar to the Dunningâ"Kruger effect, it reminds me of a taxi driver that I admonished for his shitty driving, which he though was OK because he had passed an advanced driving test!

Better trained so ok to act more dangerously.

Re:But...

[GrBear]

No, not usually. The law is typically written to specifically exempt law enforcement and emergency responders.

Re:But...

[stealth_finger]

The sad thing is yesterday when driving home from work there was a cop in the other lane next to me texting while driving, the funny part about it was he had a neon blue smart phone cover.

Yeah, but they're allowed to run you down and kill you if they're checking work email while driving so I'm sure texting is perfectly fine.

Re:But...

[nabsltd]

The law is typically written to specifically exempt law enforcement and emergency responders.

Most of those exemptions are only truly valid while on an "emergency" response, even though most cops treat them like full-time exemptions.

Because of the emergency requirement, and because the police car has a radio and most have computers, I can't think of any reason to allow cops to use hand-held cell phones for any reason while driving. If they are responding to an emergency, they should be using official communications methods, and if they aren't, they shouldn't get an exemption from laws.

Re:But...

[gfxguy]

There's a cop that patrols near where I live along a busy road (near a mall); amusingly it was a slashdot story almost exactly a year ago.

I don't actually drive in that area very often, and I don't care because I don't use my phone when driving anyway (or, at least, I ignore texts and use bluetooth for calls). But I think of that story often while I notice police officers violating traffic code left and right, and rarely stopping people for violating traffic codes... I guess the big money is in speeding, and other violations might be hard to prove - like following too closely. But I've been stuck in really frustrating gridlock with a cop RIGHT NEXT TO ME doing NOTHING to the people blocking the intersection. The same places, day after day, gridlock with the police RIGHT THERE doing nothing, looking as aggravated as I am.

They don't give tickets for following too closely until you've actually caused an accident because of it (then it's objective); I've never seen a ticket for failing to signal, for illegal right on reds (with oncoming traffic); I've never seen anyone get in any trouble for sitting at a green light because they were distracted by something. All they seem to care about it speeding (and I guess red lights) because that's where the money is. It has NOTHING to do with safety.

Re:But...

[gfxguy]

Which is why the technical measure of putting something in the car to block all cellphone signals in the vehicle is the only "valid" solution. I don't know how I feel about it in general, but I don't care about the passengers not being able to use their phones while the car is moving - they can blame the driver. In fact, being shamed by your family and friends is probably even more of a deterrent.

Re:But...

[Lawrence_Bird]

not only that - cops use the cell phones to by pass systems that would otherwise record their communications.

Re:But...

[mjwx]

No, not usually. The law is typically written to specifically exempt law enforcement and emergency responders.

Law enforcement also receive better driver training than your average mouth breathing, texting, lane drifting driver who couldn't work a clutch to save their lives.

They also stand to lose their career for any accident.

Re:But...

[Kalium70]

So, if get special training, if will be okay if I text and drive?

Re:But...

[Nephandus]

Most here already have a screen with a keyboard next to them built into the car. I've seen several every morning coasting haphazardly down certain streets while clearly fiddling with the thing. Same ones tend to end up following me around repeatedly for no reason. They're not doing anything actually useful in either case, and their mentality's clearly fucked up. If I coasted by driving like they do (ignoring that the typical 2 lanes means I'd hit them by crossing the same line), they'd very likely be glad to have an excuse to pull me personally.

Re:But...

[Nephandus]

Certain cars that regularly sit in certain places and meet certain other non-uniformed people and unmarked cars there creeped me out for years even before they starting doing this. I KNOW some of the other parties are gang members but have never heard of a single officially gang-related arrest in this particular town, so something's very wrong. I see it more often now than them holding either the CB or talky things they still got.

Has too many problems

[RobinH]

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.

Re:Has too many problems

[nehumanuscrede]

Since when did having a revoked drivers license stop anyone from driving ?

It works about the same as all the public service ads we get bombarded with that tell us not to text / talk and drive in the first place. Yet, by my observations, about 25% of the motorists on the road are screwing with their phone while hurtling down the freeway at 70mph. . . . .

The average idiot cannot be trusted to do the right thing, hence the " punishment " part of this problem. The hardware needs to be disabled before it will be effective, take the choice away from the folks who aren't bright enough to make the right choice to begin with.

The easy part will be disabling the phone of all but emergency calling while in motion at any speed faster than the typical human animal can walk / run. The hard part is differentiating between the drivers and passengers of the vehicle.

Re:Has too many problems

[SecurityGuy]

It doesn't. That's why driving on a revoked license should land you in jail.

Re:Has too many problems

[MrL0G1C]

*Should* land you in jail.

In the UK it's all gone to the dogs, drivers get a slap on the wrist for driving without a license.. repeatedly.

If you get full points on your license there is a 'extreme hardship' loophole which means that there are over 10,000 drivers in the UK that have driven badly enough and been caught enough times that they shouldn't be driving, but the judge has said they can continue to drive FFS. For comparison, 13k people have been banned after hitting 12+ points on their license.

Oh but hey, don't even think about pootling along on an electric foot scooter on either the pavement or the road, not legal at all.

Re:Has too many problems

[Khyber]

Yea, *SHOULD*

But then you go to Memphis, TN, where a registered motor vehicle offender was still behind the wheel, drunk as fuck, passes out behind the wheel, veers across every lane of traffic, hits the curb, and then hits me, crushing the right side of my body and I'm dead on impact. Then he proceeds to keep going, still passed out, and slams into someone's bedroom.

Despite being a registered motor vehicle offender with a multiple-decade record of such, he still got TIME SERVED.

TIME SERVED for willfully violating the law, temporarily depriving me of life, and destroying the property of another, despite a court order barring him from operating a motor vehicle under any circumstances.

Re:Has too many problems

[gfxguy]

I get what you're saying, but laughing about the way you said it... "and I'm dead on impact." ... "temporarily depriving me of life..."

Are you writing on slashdot from the grave, telling a true story, or just making something up?

Re:Has too many problems

[Khyber]

I'm alive, barely. With titanium replacing part of my femur, plastic/kevlar replacing my kneecap, my wrist rebuilt, my chin slightly screwed, injury-induced lumbosacral arthritis, a healed T-12 compression fracture with a nasty disposition, and a nice StarFleet insignia-shaped scar at my shin.

Two nurses coming off-shift were behind the guy and witnessed it all happen. Their account, I was hit, sent flying, partially crushed as the truck rolled over me. Their assessment; no pulse, no breathing, no response of any sort. Dead on impact. According to them, after 20 minutes of straight CPR I was resuscitated and about five minutes later paramedics arrived and called for an airlift.

This was a story on the local Memphis news. June 18, 2007. You can probably see a blurb about it in the Commercial Appeal archives.

Re:Has too many problems

[gfxguy]

I understand your plight (and glad you weren't actually dead on impact); it was just that wording that I found amusing.

But your problem isn't amusing, and certainly that guy should have been severely punished. It sounds like a travesty of justice.

Re:Has too many problems

[Khyber]

Yea, I bet the wording seems weird, but it's wholly accurate. I laugh about the accident all the time.

How?

[LongearedBat]

How to distinguish whether the phone user is driving a car or riding a bus?

Re:How?

[lgw]

In the Seattle area, buses are packed with the high income tier. But given they mostly work for MS, whipping out your iThingy might still be rude.

Has too many problems

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

A deeper problem

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

A solution for passengers?

[ai4px]

I did recently see a device that plugs into the OBD-II port under the steering wheel. It apparently signals the phone when it's on the driver's side of the car and won't allow texting when moving - when the app is installed on said phone. If the phone is on the other side of the car, it's too far away to hear the inhibit signal and will work... when it's in the hands of the passenger or in a back seat. http://www.cellcontrol.com/tex... and probably a few other similar products.

The solution for NY though is to stop the drivers, not control their cell phones.

Re:A solution for passengers?

[hypergreatthing]

... why the fuck would you ever want to plug a device into your odb-II port that has wireless communications? That's likely to get you killed.

Re:A solution for passengers?

[drinkypoo]

I have a feeling we'll have to go full retard to forcibly stop drivers from texting while driving. Like, putting a microcell in the car. That would be a good way to handle vehicle-to-vehicle communications, though, which is probably coming whether we like it or not. If the microcells built a mesh it would also solve the last mile problem pretty conclusively.

Re:How about no

[ai4px]

Mod parent up.... too many laws... time for a reset.

The Problem I see with this

[kilodelta]

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?

Bad idea in NJ too.

[Ronin Developer]

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.

Re:Bad idea in NJ too.

[Karl Cocknozzle]

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.

Today that enlisted man would have been tasered, beaten, and arrested for assault on a police officer and resisting arrest.

Ahhh, progress...

Re:Bad idea in NJ too.

[Karl Cocknozzle]

Today that enlisted man would have been tasered, beaten, and arrested for assault on a police officer and resisting arrest.

Not necessarily. A large minority of the enlisted are white...

- T

True. It's possibility the cop would have made-out with him or become drinking buddies with him instead.

Or

[Greyfox]

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.

Problem of interfaces

[sinij]

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.

Re:Problem of interfaces

[gnasher719]

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.

Having your phone changed so it can't text while you are driving would be one thing. Being caught again with a different phone will probably get you into one hell of trouble.

Re:Problem of interfaces

[mjwx]

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.

This, beyond that phones are hackable (and I bet this plan relies on an app that is easily disabled or removed).

Those dumb enough to believe they're capable of texting and driving will continue until their cars are forcibly taken off them for it.

Re:The Nanny State Strikes again!

[Shortguy881]

Public safety through regulation. What could go wrong there?

Re:The Nanny State Strikes again!

[SecurityGuy]

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.

"Caught"

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> 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?

Re:"Caught"

[Vitriol Angst]

And it translates to MORE REVENUE for police departments have moved away from "protect and serve" to "find that revenue".

Fines are supposed to discourage a certain behavior. And in the case of the poor, the fines are not reduced based on income -- they are a higher percentage of that person's income. The theory of discouragement is therefore false because the poor get a greater penalty relative to the rich, and they also are fined more frequently. Guilt or Innocence meet equal punishment as well, if not more so for the costs involved if you go to trial to prove innocence in the vain attempt to get rid of an automatic fine.

The police don't like you that day; you get a fine. That's all that matters.

Off-topic

[MrL0G1C]

What character set do I have to use in Firefox to stop "£ ÎνáÏfÎÏ gnÅsis, " from happening on my slashdot posts?

Re:That's nice and all

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

If you're driving in stop-and-go traffic, texting using your cell phone isn't quite as bad as if you're barreling down the highway at 70, 80, 90 or more miles per hour while texting.

As for differentiating passengers and drivers ... tethering is one possibility. Not electronic tethering, but literal physical tethers that connect the phone to the car and are short enough and positioned carefully enough (for the front seat, in the far corner of the dashboard from the driver above the glove compartment) where it will allow passengers to bring the phone to their ears but will not allow drivers to do so. Any phone that is physically tethered can make a call via the car's antenna; phones that aren't are blocked.

Now sure, drivers could probably try to attach extender cables to allow them to text while driving. And if a police officer sees an extender, they can pull the driver over, confiscate the cable (and possibly the phone), and fine the offender.

Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

its the fundamentals most drivers suck at.

[nimbius]

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.

Re:its the fundamentals most drivers suck at.

[misexistentialist]

texting while driving should triple your insurance rate

Then they'll drive without insurance. Trade in your motorcycle for a jetpack

Re:its the fundamentals most drivers suck at.

[u38cg]

Quite. I cycle in central London. I would die every other day if I didn't take responsibility for dealing with other drivers' mistakes.

Re:its the fundamentals most drivers suck at.

[drinkypoo]

1. What's down there? Probably their makeup, or electric razor, as appropriate.
2. I never have understood why people who are eating on the road can't slow the shit down. On the rare occasion that I decide to do the same, that's what I do. I get over into the cud-chewing lane and stay there.
3. Acura and Audi are among the marques with a stupid control scheme for their onboard display which controls everything. BMW and Mercedes do it, too.
4. Motorcyclists can use phones now, too :p

Re:its the fundamentals most drivers suck at.

[k6mfw]

Acura and Audi drivers are the worst.

I used to drive an Acura, 1996 model, but when I had to get another car I never considered Acuras because windows are much smaller. I drove a 2012 model, it was terrible with small windows, zillion blindspots. I guess add type of person that drives Acuras but getting back to all new cars where they have airbags in the window frames which further reduces visibility.

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.

did you pull out your phone and take a video of this event and post on youtube?

Re:its the fundamentals most drivers suck at.

[steelfood]

Since this is Long Island, you forgot the women putting on makeup and the guys doing their hair while going 75.

The new touch screen center consoles don't help either (and the steering wheel buttons don't really have all of the functionality of even a non-touch screen system). Yeah, I get it, backup camera and all that. But there's no reason every piece of functionality has to be through the screen.

But the really dangerous people are not the ones who are texting or distracted in gridlock. The really dangerous ones are the guys racing down the LIE at 90 MPH weaving between lanes and cutting cars off while everyone else can only go 55-60 due to light traffic. And they're definitely racing because there's usually two or three of them at a time. The distracted drivers just end up rear-ending someone as a result of these people (assuming they themselves don't flip over first). Not that the distracted drivers aren't at fault, but they're not the only ones that caused the accident.

Re:its the fundamentals most drivers suck at.

[mjwx]

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.
.

Top Gear established years ago that all the cocks had moved from BMW's to Audi's.

Fortunately Acura doesn't exist outside the Americas. They're all basically rebadged Hondas (the TLX or CLS or whatever is basically a standard Euro spec Civic (not even the type R)).

Also it's a myth that people multi-task. We dont, our brains basically do time sharing (like hyperthreading on a single core CPU). So when a brain focuses on one task, it ignores the others until it task switches again. The brain also prioritise a phone call/text over driving.

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.

This but I say it needs to go further.

Fines and higher insurance wont cut it. People will just write that down to the Revenue Raising conspiracy like speeding and running red lights. Here in WA (Western Australia) using a phone in the car is a A$300 fine and 3 demerit points and it still hasn't stopped people, the cops did a phone blitz over a weekend and got over 300 people in Perth.

What we need to do is start giving people time off the road for texting (and no whinging that you need your car for work, its a punishment, you're meant to suffer) with complete license cancellation for repeat offenders (cancellation means you need to pass a driving test after your suspension period in West Australia). 1 month suspension for using a phone in traffic + 1 additional month suspension if moving and 6 months suspension for using a phone whilst stationary at a green light.

Re:its the fundamentals most drivers suck at.

[mjwx]

Acura and Audi drivers are the worst.

I used to drive an Acura, 1996 model, but when I had to get another car I never considered Acuras because windows are much smaller. I drove a 2012 model, it was terrible with small windows, zillion blindspots. I guess add type of person that drives Acuras but getting back to all new cars where they have airbags in the window frames which further reduces visibility.

Not sure whats up with Acura's but the Honda's they're based on have rather good blind spots for the class (SUV's just suck for blind spots so forget the CRV, I'm thinking more of an Accord Euro or Civic).

Personally I think the Jazz and Civic are the best sub-compact and compact (respectively) you can buy. Sure they're boring but they are the best boring cars you can get (and damn reliable too).

As an Australian, who's car designs are closer to Europe and Japan, I think American cars in general have blind spots that are way too big. The back pillar on the Camaro and Mustang are horrendously big even for fast backs (I used to have a Honda Integra Fastback). SUV's as I said above, terrible for blind spots as the B and C pillars are massive and windows are way too high (I drive a Nissan Silvia S15... A dodge Journey steering wheel attendant couldn't even see my car out the back window and my car is on adjustable coil overs, so its not as low as it could be).

Nanny State

[GrBear]

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.

Re:Nanny State

[silas_moeckel]

It just shows that the law is broken, LEO's frankly need to be the model drivers unless the disco-tech mounted to their roof is on (and that needs to be toned down at night).

Everybody else but me

[codeButcher]

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.

Not severe enough

[dskoll]

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.

Re:Not severe enough

[dskoll]

So you react to my post with ad hominem attacks rather than refuting what I stated. As a "weak-minded idiot" and "easily-led child", I deal with people like you by ignoring them until they contribute something useful to the discussion.

Re:Not severe enough

[ancientt]

Fair enough. I agree the tone of the reply you're commenting on was silly, so allow me to present a counter argument, hopefully slightly more logical.

It's very hard to put a drunken state down because traffic demands it, while it is easy to put a phone down.

I routinely take calls while driving, and as the evidence indicates, I'm typical in my response of driving much more conservatively when that happens. Personally, I'm probably safer when I'm taking a call than I am normally, because I back way off and try to stay well away from other cars when I'm on a call. If I'm going to reply to a text, I'm going to wait until I'm pretty lonely on the road and start paying a lot of attention to the driving when otherwise I'd normally be pretty much on auto-pilot. If there is heavy traffic and I need to use my phone for some reason, I find an exit and pull off. If I'm averaging 5mph and take a call and traffic picks up, I switch to hands free or if it looks like it is resuming normal speeds, say I'll have to call back.

Contrast that with driving intoxicated. If I'm behind the wheel, there is nothing I can stop doing as a result of my analysis of traffic. I can try to drive slower, but cause a whole set of different problems by impeding normal traffic flow. There is no "set it down" or "I'll have to call you back" option.

None of this means that texting or talking on the phone while driving is as safe as not doing those things. I don't think anyone is suggesting that a driver should do things that decrease the safety of the situation. All I am saying is that there are clear differences between driving intoxicated and engaging in texting while driving.

If I *had* to text while driving, my driving would be significantly impaired, just like it is in a study comparing reaction times. The fatality rates of motorists has actually decreased while mobile phone use has increased. (Look it up. I had to before I believed it.) The corollary is obviously NOT an indication that mobile phone use while driving improves safety, there are a lot of other things offsetting the hazard posed by texting while driving, but the idea that texting drivers is making the roads more dangerous than they used to be is false. The idea that texting drivers is making the roads more dangerous than they need to be is fair. There is a difference.

I hate it when people confuse improper and immature behavior with the technology they're using. Bittorrent is a very logical and quite useful protocol and it has a bad name because it is associated with the behavior of many people who use it. Outlawing the bittorrent protocol is just as reasonable as outlawing texting while driving. Unsafe driving should be (and is) against the law, just as copyright infringement is against the law. The technology isn't *ever* the problem, the people making bad decisions are the problem.

Maybe driver vs passenger doesn't matter

[sjbe]

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...

Re:Maybe driver vs passenger doesn't matter

[overshoot]

Text messages aren't reliable enough for any life saving use

That must be why 911 systems are adding text capability.

Re:Maybe driver vs passenger doesn't matter

[Jawnn]

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...

"Might?" As someone who has been injured and had a vehicle totalled by by some fuckhead who was texting at the wheel (never even hit the brakes before plowing into me) I am here to tell you that we need much harsher penalties for this supremely irresponsible behavior.

Re:Maybe driver vs passenger doesn't matter

[pspahn]

Passengers are more than welcome to use their phone, so long as they do it in a car driven by someone who hasn't been convicted/ticketed/whatever of TWD. If you aren't happy about that, take the bus.

Re:Maybe driver vs passenger doesn't matter

[ddtmm]

If you're already holding a cell phone then texting 911 is a bit lame when you can just call. You'll get a lot more back and forth communication in 1 minute on a call that you could ever get with texting.

Re: Maybe driver vs passenger doesn't matter

[Kelson]

Ok, then how does the app know that you're on a bus and not driving?

Re:Maybe driver vs passenger doesn't matter

[khellendros1984]

There are other scenarios where an SMS or MMS may be better. During a home invasion, when you don't want to expose your hiding place by speaking. In a situation where it would be useful to send a picture. In a location with weak signal, where a text transmission may get through even when you can't connect for a voice call. And then, you've got the cultural issues. A lot of people (especially the younger ones) barely use speech calls on their phones, any more, and a text may be the first thing that comes to mind when trying to get help.

A cell phone is a flexible device. I don't see a problem with enabling its use in whatever way we can, when it comes to helping someone in an emergency situation.

Re:Maybe driver vs passenger doesn't matter

[v1]

My suspicion is that they will simply not bother discriminating.

Every GPS I've laid my hands on in the past two years has had a motion-lockout enabled on it. (all garmin... maybe it's a Garmin thing?) It won't let you into most of the menus while it senses it's in motion. So me as the passenger, trying to plug in the destination, I have to dig through the menus to find the option and disable it. (I think they bury it on purpose)

One that's off, all the gps functions return to normal and it can be used while in motion. I can't imagine them doing it any differently on a cell phone. Just a matter of not giving the owner the option to disable it.

I wonder how that'll get along with the "any cell phone must be able to dial 911 even if it has no service and is locked" law? They got that one supported by all the manufacturers, and this wlll probably require a similar amount of effort to pull off.

I can see other issues, like not being able to use it while in a cab or bus. But waaaah all you want about that, you shouldn't have used your phone illegally in the first place, endangering the lives of others. That's just part of your punishment.

Re:Maybe driver vs passenger doesn't matter

[findoutmoretoday]

The only time I phoned 911 (used 112) was for a car already burning bumper to bumper on a German highway, and yes I was the first to call. Maybe people would have preferred to text.

Re:Maybe driver vs passenger doesn't matter

[sjbe]

Disabling based on motion would disable it for passengers as well.

Yes it would. The point is that it doesn't really matter.

A passenger should be able to use his phone.

Why? Seriously. "Because" isn't an answer. We can allow any phone to text or call 911 at any time if there is an emergency.

Re: Maybe driver vs passenger doesn't matter

[sjbe]

Ok, then how does the app know that you're on a bus and not driving?

It wouldn't. It means you just wait until you stop and then you can text to your heart's desire. The point is that we may be worrying too much about making sure passengers aren't inconvenienced and forgetting the big picture problem that people are dying because they can't resist texting while driving. Since determining who is driving and who isn't is too hard, maybe the least-worst answer is simply to not allow it at all for anyone while in motion. If you've got a better idea I'm all ears but everyone so far is throwing up their hands and saying we can't solve the problem. I respectfully disagree with that stance.

Re:Maybe driver vs passenger doesn't matter

[sjbe]

Every GPS I've laid my hands on in the past two years has had a motion-lockout enabled on it.

Yep. For product liability reasons. People can't help themselves and there is no way to determine if the driver or the passenger is the one working on it.

I wonder how that'll get along with the "any cell phone must be able to dial 911 even if it has no service and is locked" law?

I don't have ANY problem with allowing any sort of communication to 911 at any time. If there is a reason to contact 911 that probably is ok even if driving.

I can see other issues, like not being able to use it while in a cab or bus

I really don't see that as a problem. Very few text messages are so urgent they cannot wait a little while.

Re:Maybe driver vs passenger doesn't matter

[v1]

I can see other issues, like not being able to use it while in a cab or bus

I really don't see that as a problem. Very few text messages are so urgent they cannot wait a little while.

But how would you like to find yourself on a bus that's been hijacked by a wacko with a gun or knife, (happens from time to time) and no be able to call 911 until he decides to let the bus stop?

Re:Maybe driver vs passenger doesn't matter

[beastofburdon]

You and everyone above you in this conversation are missing the real purpose of being able to text to 911. How the hell do you expect a deaf person to call 911? Sure there is a service that they can use where they type to a middleman who then speaks to the other person and then types the reply to the deaf person, but are you going to rely on a middle man when you are in danger?

Need harsher penalties.

[LoRdTAW]

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.

Re:Need harsher penalties.

[ancientt]

Fair enough. I hope you do "buy a dash cam, record these knuckleheads and then post shame videos on youtube," but please don't just limit it to the people you know or suspect are driving badly due to texting. Driving unsafely is and should be against the law. We're in complete agreement on that.

Please don't suggest that texting while driving is "just as dangerous as drunk driving" though, as that's an illogical comparison and it weakens your position. I can set a cheeseburger down, I can leave the radio alone, I can let the obnoxious gps navigator be wrong, I can ignore the fighting children in the backseat, I can ignore the ranting of my passenger and I can choose to give my full attention to the road. I can set a phone down. What I cannot do is undrunk myself because traffic demands it.

If you're convinced that texting while driving should always be illegal everywhere and in every situation, then you have a perfectly logical argument. Don't diminish it by conflating it with driving intoxicated. It makes drunk driving seem less dangerous than it is and it makes it sound like you don't understand the difference between being in an diminished state and avoiding a distraction.

Re:Need harsher penalties.

[david_thornley]

"can set a phone down" != "will set a phone down". Arguably texting while driving in relatively safe situations isn't that dangerous, but lots of people don't put the phone down when things get more demanding. At that point, there's no functional difference between texting and drinking.

Re:The Nanny State Strikes again!

[Khyber]

Dunno, how about you ask the FDA about things like Vioxx and what not?

Driver's versus passenger - does it really matter?

[sjbe]

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.

Technical limitations

[dkman]

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.

Re:Technical limitations

[david_thornley]

I don't think putting an interlock on the car, or a disabling mechanism on the phone, is a legally enforceable punishment. However, a judge may require it as a condition for reduced punishment. So, if a court tells you you need a disabling mechanism on your phone, you have to agree to it (arguably under duress, but it's part of a reduced punishment), and so you'd be breaking an agreement and violating the terms of your parole or whatever.

Do you REALLY need that text message?

[sjbe]

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.

Re:Do you REALLY need that text message?

[LWATCDR]

"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."
Why? Really why should I wait? I have an app on my phone that reads my text message if I am in my car. I never respond and it is no more distracting than the radio.

Until you pass a law that says that you are never allowed to drink again once you have a DUI conviction or even better pass a law that says if you hit a motorcyclist and the reason was "you did not see them" you must take a real driving school and pass then this is just an over reaction.
"An excellent idea and bravo to you but FAR too many people clearly cannot be trusted to be so responsible."
So I should be punished for their failings?
The whole idea is silly. Give them a fat ticket and be happy with the income and worry about real issues like drunk and flat out careless drivers in general.

Re:Do you REALLY need that text message?

[nabsltd]

Why? Really why should I wait? I have an app on my phone that reads my text message if I am in my car. I never respond and it is no more distracting than the radio.

Similarly, my car provides this same feature, and also allows me to send "canned" texts (similar to one-button taunts in online games) with a couple of clicks on the car's touch screen. I also can't edit "regular" texts while the car is in motion, but I can edit either the canned texts to meet my needs or edit a normal text while the car is stopped but still hit "send" while the car is in motion.

Re:Do you REALLY need that text message?

[LWATCDR]

Actually my phone does it for me. I use an app called agent.

Re:Do you REALLY need that text message?

[sjbe]

Why? Really why should I wait?

Because you almost certainly don't need the information that moment and too many people can't resist the temptation to text while driving. You'll survive without the text and as a result so will some other people.

I have an app on my phone that reads my text message if I am in my car. I never respond and it is no more distracting than the radio.

Good for you but that doesn't establish any compelling need for you to receive or send a text message while driving. After all if it was critical they could have called you instead. I'm willing to be convinced but "because I want to" isn't a good enough argument for me given the safety issues involved.

So I should be punished for their failings?

Do you stop at stop lights even when there is no traffic? Sometimes part of living in a civil society is dealing with a little personal inconvenience to ensure safety and order. Maybe you are the responsible one (I have not reason to doubt it) but since the rest of us have no way to be sure of that you might have to deal with having to wait for that text message to arrive.

Give them a fat ticket and be happy with the income and worry about real issues like drunk and flat out careless drivers in general.

People who text while driving are every bit as dangerous as people who drink and drive. There are plenty of studies that support this. While anecdotal, I actually know more people who have been in accidents caused by distracted (texting) driving than by drunk drivers. Texting is the leading cause of death for teen drivers.

Maybe some state other than Virginia?

[Primate Pete]

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.

Never ridden a bus have you?

[sjbe]

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.

Not to worry...

[RogueWarrior65]

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

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:The Nanny State Strikes again!

[C0R1D4N]

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.

Re:The Nanny State Strikes again!

[buckfeta2014]

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.

Re:Driver's versus passenger - does it really matt

[Krojack]

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.

Sadly an event will have to take place

[portwojc]

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.

Life is complicated

[sjbe]

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.

Re:Life is complicated

[sjbe]

The problem is, his second chance came at the cost of endangering innocent people.

And you've never done anything that endangered others? (If you say "never" I'm going to call you a liar)

We're talking about someone who endangers everyone else on the road should he "screw up" again.

And he has served time in prison for that. You think he doesn't understand the consequences? I know the guy and his situation and you do not. I know what he's been through and I know how he has comported himself for the last several years. Don't be so eager to dole out "justice" for people you've never met. He had his license pulled for 10 years. He had to prove to a judge that he had straightened out. He had to have an interlock on his car even when granted a provisional license for 2 years. He had to get drug tested regularly. He had to show up to work every day for several years. Honestly I trust this guy more than I would trust you if we just met on the street.

It isn't right that your life is ruined because of a single screwup, but it also isn't right that someone else has to risk their life being ruined to avoid that.

We do that every day. I trust thousands of drivers I pass daily to stay in their lane. We depend on each other to not screw up all the time.

Re:Life is complicated

[ultranova]

And you've never done anything that endangered others? (If you say "never" I'm going to call you a liar)

Plenty, including drunk driving. So if I hit your kids tomorrow, is that just too bad for them and you, because obviously your employee deserves a second chance, and me failing mine is just accaptable price for that?

Because, I assure you, I'm drunk this very second, will probably never stop, and can only hope I judged my (abused) liver's abilites right, when it comes to making sure I'll be sober for when I have to drive. But of course even then I'll be sleep-deprived and in withdrawal. So go ahead and defend your employee; just remember you'll also be defending me.

And he has served time in prison for that.

And that won't make any future victims any less dead.

Don't be so eager to dole out "justice" for people you've never met.

I'm not. In fact, I don't give a tiniest bit of a shit for "justice" when that's just a nicer word for "revenge", which in turn is a nicer word for "sadism". I do, however, care about stopping people from getting killed. And that means keeping drunk drivers away from cars.

He had to have an interlock on his car even when granted a provisional license for 2 years.

Of all the things you've listed, this is the only one that actually matters, since it's the only one that stops him from driving drunk again. And frankly, at this point, it would probably be best if we simply admitted the facts and demanded that an "interlock" be installed on all cars.

So how will they tell if you're texting or using

[s0nicfreak]

Google Maps to get directions? I know that around here, they don't even make a distinction.

Not Good Enough

[Rambo Tribble]

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."

What does that have to do with driving?

[sjbe]

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]

Re:What does that have to do with driving?

[wonkey_monkey]

It really hurts my feelings when an anonymous coward calls me names. [/sarcasm]

So... it's okay if the rest of us do it?

Poopy head!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Texting 911

[sjbe]

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.

Re:Texting 911

[beanMosheen]

You're forgetting though that a text message is far more likely to be transmitted than a phone call when there is minimal signal.

Re:Texting 911

[Bigbutt]

A woman hiding under the bed or in a closet with an attacker in the house comes to mind.

I think the main problem is the younger generation has been brought up on smart phones and internet so expect to be able to text to 911. The text 2 911 product is being made available so the folks who do text will actually get an answer.

And the nice thing about texting to 911 is you can send images to 911 as well where calling just gets you a voice.

Plus texting to 911 does get a response from the service. It's not sending it into the ether hoping someone sees it like Facebook. The PSAPs that purchase the product will have someone manning the text 2 911 console.

[John]

Re:Texting 911

[j2.718ff]

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.

Yes -- for those times when you can't call. For example, you are in an area with very poor service. Your calls fail, or are dropped. Since a text is small, it can be delivered during that second when you have a good enough signal.

Re:Texting 911

[sjbe]

You're forgetting though that a text message is far more likely to be transmitted than a phone call when there is minimal signal.

It might be transmitted but it still doesn't guarantee delivery or notify you if the message was not received. With a phone call you know for certain if the other party received the message. Kind of an important detail.

Re:Texting 911

[sjbe]

Depends. What if you send a tweet? Now what if the tweet is sent via data over TCP/IP instead of SMS?

Same thing. Shouldn't be legal. It's basically the same activity so should be covered under the same rules.

Same end result, but difference in transmission medium defeats the whole "SMS isn't reliable" argument stone cold.

No it does not because those other services you mentioned are not least common denominator services. Pretty much every phone has SMS - not all phones are smart phones. Plenty of people do not have twitter or other similar messaging services and even when they do they don't all have the same ones.

Or why we need specific rules banning it, versus simply applying existing distracted-driving laws?

Distracted driving laws are A) inconsistent, B) only enforceable after the fact and C) are widely and demonstrably ignored. Disabling all texting while in a vehicle in motion would proactively prevent a lot of accidents and is much easier to enforce.

Crappy texters are runing it for us all

[workdot]

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.

Re:Crappy texters are runing it for us all

[PPH]

able to do it promptly, safely, and not driving like a zombie idiot.

Then you will not give officers probable cause* to cite you for an initial offense. And so will not be subject to the installation of this blocking app.

*One aspect of texting (or performing any other questionable activity) while maintaining proper situational awareness sufficient to drive is not doing it in front of a police officer.

Poor Ingressors

[Jogar the Barbarian]

If approved and enforced, this would probably eliminate 90+% of Ingress agent activity.

Re:Poor Ingressors

[TechyImmigrant]

Some of us walk.

Too complicated...

[Type44Q]

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.

Re:The Nanny State Strikes again!

[linuxrocks123]

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.

Not with GNSS

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:The Nanny State Strikes again!

[morgauxo]

>>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!

Re:Disable moving phones at the tower

[morgauxo]

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.

Re:Driver's versus passenger - does it really matt

[morgauxo]

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?

Re:Should be lose your license

[gfxguy]

I don't see it so much recently, but as life with smartphones (and earlier models that could still text) progressed, I've had arguments with a lot of younger people who were like "well you can't do it because you grew up without the technology, but we grew up being able to multitask!" I think that notion is well perceived as moronic now, but I'm willing to bet there are still quite a few people out there who think they are somehow able to divide their attention with no consequences.

Re:Disable moving phones at the tower

[funwithBSD]

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.
 

Re:How about no

[gfxguy]

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.

Re:Disable moving phones at the tower

[MrL0G1C]

Long train journeys are tedious enough, I'd rather my phone not be disabled when I'm on the train. Unfair on passengers too.

Re:Disable moving phones at the tower

[MrL0G1C]

But fuck it, I hate cars so wouldn't be too bothered if some mandatory car system caused phones to stop working.

False positives

[MBGMorden]

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.

Look to other jurisdictions

[Silvrmane]

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.

Re:Look to other jurisdictions

[mark-t]

Here in Saskatchewan Canada, it is illegal to operate any electronic device while driving a motor vehicle

So then, is it also illegal to sell cars in Saskatechewan that may have controls for things like the stereo, etc, mounted on the steering wheel so that a driver does not need to take either hand off of the wheel?

What about hands-free devices? What about hands-free devices that do not require any concentration to use (such as a pacemaker, for example, or other implanted technologies).

The law there, as you've worded it so vague as to be useless.

Re:Look to other jurisdictions

[mark-t]

The problem, as always... is distracted driving, not mere use of an electronic device while driving, because as you have noted, not all electronic devices require any kind of concentration to use, or would actually be a distraction. Arguably, simply talking to another person in the vehicle can present a greater distraction than using steering-wheel mounted controls for the car's audio system.

And vehicles with stereo controls mounted on the wheel are explicitly designed to minimize the distraction from driving while using. If such things are illegal to operate while driving then it would stand to reason that it would also be illegal to buy such a car in that jurisdiction... again, this is because of what positioning of the controls are *explicitly* designed to achieve.

Further, some electronic devices are necessary to use for normal and safe operation of the vehicle itself, such as cruise control. or even signalling. My point being that "electronic device" is overly vague, and can be enforced arbitrarily.

Re:Look to other jurisdictions

[ancientt]

There are a lot of people who think drunk driving is equivalent to drive-texting, but that's illogical since people can set a phone down and ignore it, but they can't undrunk. I think the comparison is bad because it makes drunk driving seem less dangerous than it is and it makes it sound like you don't understand the difference between being in an diminished state and avoiding a distraction.

That said, making it illegal to operate electronic devices while driving a motor vehicle is a pretty reasonable start. It doesn't matter *why* a person is driving unsafely, what matters is that they are. I find the specification of "electronic" a little silly since that makes any car with a battery (all of them in production) technically illegal, but I like the consistency. Do something that distracts your attention from an inherently dangerous activity (driving) and you break the law? Logical. Even if I don't personally like it. (I like lots of things that aren't logically supported by my long term goals; naps, beer, webcomics and cheetos spring to mind.)

"Ban cheetos! They make people fat!" Fine, I'll switch to pringles and vote against you in the election. "Ban naps and beer!" I'll drink wine and sleep in and vote against you in the election. "Ban snacks!" you say? I'll attend your funeral and eulogize "Here lies Silvrmane, at least his argument was consistent."

Re:The Nanny State Strikes again!

[Shortguy881]

That just helps prove my point. Regulation doesn't stop stupidity and in most cases is shown to increase it.

Re:That's nice and all

[gfxguy]

I disagree... stop and go traffic is worse because you actually need to pay more attention than on a relatively clear interstate - the likelihood of an accident is far greater in stop and go traffic. The difference is the severity of the accident caused when there is one. But those little fender benders during rush hour that make traffic even worse have huge financial and environmental impacts.

That said, it depends on how "stop" the stop and go traffic is. Normally in rush hour traffic, stop means for just a few seconds, then go slow, then stop for a few seconds. I was stuck in Atlanta's "snowmaggedon" earlier this year, and at two points on my drive home my car was literally stopped for 45 minutes or more. I would call and/or text my wife about conditions and just let her know I was still OK and still on my way home. Sometimes traffic is just stopped. But then that's not "stop and go."

Re:i moved when real estate taxes hit 5k

[tompaulco]

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.

This could all be solved quite easily....

[erp_consultant]

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.

Re:This could all be solved quite easily....

[j2.718ff]

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.

So in other words, I wouldn't be able to text while riding the train to work?

Re:This could all be solved quite easily....

[erp_consultant]

Ahh...there's the difficulty. Somehow it would have to determine whether the phone owner is the driver or the passenger. Or whether the vehicle is a mass transit vehicle or a car/motorcycle. There are ways to make that happen but it's going to take cooperation.

Kathleen Rice is an authoritarian cunt

[krygny]

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.

Mod parent up.

[bussdriver]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Driver's versus passenger - does it really matt

[Bacon Bits]

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.

With proposals like this...

[Yakasha]

Do you still think the phone kill switch was for our benefit?

Think that government use of the kill switch won't be considered in round 2 on this very issue?

Re:Nope

[GTRacer]

[...] software like the interlock concept doesn't exist on a phone.

What? I've seen a couple of products that do just that, but how well implemented is up for debate. Here's a two-year-old Tom's review of Scosche's interlock. I'm curious how the emailed alert that the interlock was disabled is supposed to work...

Re:Nope

[poetmatt]

This requires people to install the app. That's a failure right there on many levels.
Not only that, but it cannot tell if you are the driver or the passenger. That's failure #2.

Then you get to the fact that this could stop you from making emergency calls. That's questionable and teeters in the "is this even legal?" quesiton range.

It is not just the implementation - the very concept of "if vehicle is moving you cannot use your phone" will ALWAYS be wrong whether it can figure out you are a passenger or not, if the decision is implemented via software.

Re:old phones

[k6mfw]

speaking of old phones, I had a Motorola flip phone (with GTE Wireless label). Though it was big but great for driving because buttons were large, I can use tacit feel when dialing so I don't have to take my eyes off the road. It had no text messaging but since it was pure analog, I can have a full fidelity conversation (and it was loud, perfect to accommodate road noise) and both me and other person can clearly hear each other. Nowadays you text because voice quality is terrible.

But another issue is in this world of high demand like more hours at work, more tasks to do, more IT kinds of things (and I'm not talking about watching corny vids on youtube), etc. Now traffic is become brutal at least here in Silicon Valley. It is painfully slow and damn going 1 mph for such a long time, it's difficult to not get on the 'net and take care of some tasks. But have to be careful and not impulse drive when traffic goes from 1 to 15 mph, and then bump the curve, take out a parking meter in front of a traffic cop.

Driver's versus passenger - does it really matter?

[KingMotley]

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)

Re:The Nanny State Strikes again!

[SecurityGuy]

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.

Re:The Nanny State Strikes again!

[SecurityGuy]

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.

Re:Disable moving phones at the tower

[morgauxo]

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.....

the problem is the driver

[j2.718ff]

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.

The Regulation Bureaucracy

[tom229]

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.

Can the hardware/software

[MitchDev]

tell if the person is the one driving, or just a passenger?

Re:The Nanny State Strikes again!

[dskoll]

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.

Re:The Nanny State Strikes again!

[dskoll]

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.

Re:The Nanny State Strikes again!

[dskoll]

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.

Re:Disable moving phones at the tower

[mordenkhai]

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.

Re:The Nanny State Strikes again!

[Shortguy881]

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.

Re:The Nanny State Strikes again!

[C0R1D4N]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Why DA?

[manu0601]

Why is a district attorney on this? Isn't it the job of legislators?

Re:Disable moving phones at the tower

[mordenkhai]

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.

Not driving while in a closet

[sjbe]

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.

Re:Not driving while in a closet

[Bigbutt]

Really? A woman (or man) locked in a trunk doesn't come to mind? Sure the kidnapper should be taking the cell phone assuming there's only one but there's a chance it was missed or there's a second one. And yea, road noises would keep the attacker from hearing a conversation.

And corner cases exist for lengthy picky discussions :)

[John]

General purpose texting while moving

[sjbe]

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.