Slashdot Mirror
Text While Driving In Long Island and Have Your Phone Disabled
An anonymous reader writes: A District Attorney in Long Island, NY is stepping up efforts to combat distracted driving. Kathleen Rice says motorists who are caught texting while driving should have hardware or apps installed on their phone to prevent them from using it at all while driving. She likened such barriers to the ignition interlock devices that prevent people convicted of drunk driving from using their cars unless they're sober. "Hardware and software solutions that block texting during driving are currently produced by various manufacturers and software developers, and are constantly under development. The DA's office does not endorse any particular company and is in the process of reviewing specific solutions based on their features and services. Critical features include security measures to make the solutions tamper-proof, and data integrity measures to ensure accurate reporting to courts, law enforcement, parents, and guardians." New York is one of many states who already have laws banning all handheld use while driving.
It should be the car that is disabled (or your license taken away)
What's to stop them buying a cheap 2nd phone?
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
How would a system tell the difference between a driver and passenger in the car?
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
They don't want anyone texting out to warn people not to come to Long Island.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
But if you a cop you get a free pass.
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.
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.
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.
Text messages aren't reliable enough for any life saving use
That must be why 911 systems are adding text capability.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
No, don't mod parent up... just because there are too many dumb laws doesn't mean that a new one isn't good. What we should be doing is condensing laws in to more sensible ones, like "distracted driving" instead of a separate law for every way that a driver can be distracted.
Stupid sexy Flanders.