Slashdot Mirror
Nevada Lawmakers Want Police To Scan Cellphones After Car Crashes (apnews.com)
An anonymous reader quotes the Associated Press:
Most states ban texting behind the wheel, but a legislative proposal could make Nevada one of the first states to allow police to use a contentious technology to find out if a person was using a cellphone during a car crash... If the Nevada measure passes, it would allow police to use a device known as the "textalyzer," which connects to a cellphone and looks for user activity, such as opening a Facebook messenger call screen. It is made by Israel-based company Cellebrite, which says the technology does not access or store personal content. It has not been tested in the field and is not being used by any law enforcement agencies. The company said the device could be tested in the field if the Nevada legislation passes...
Opponents air concerns that the measure violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union, also raised questions over how the software will work and if it will be open sourced so the public can ensure it doesn't access personal content...
Law enforcement officials argue that distracted driving is underreported and that weak punishments do little to stop drivers from texting, scrolling or otherwise using their phones. Adding to the problem, they say there is no consistent police practice that holds those drivers accountable for traffic crashes, unlike drunken driving.
Opponents air concerns that the measure violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union, also raised questions over how the software will work and if it will be open sourced so the public can ensure it doesn't access personal content...
Law enforcement officials argue that distracted driving is underreported and that weak punishments do little to stop drivers from texting, scrolling or otherwise using their phones. Adding to the problem, they say there is no consistent police practice that holds those drivers accountable for traffic crashes, unlike drunken driving.
While I would say yea, lets do this to catch the fucking knobs that I constantly see texting and driving, I am 100% certain people are going to be falsely accused because how are they going to verify that it was not a hands-free call or text? This is going going to end well.
The law these days has become nothing but an automatically guilty upon accusation without due process cliche. We cannot have the innocent suffering just to catch the assholes, despite the fact that the world at large has a mostly guilty until proven innocent bias!
As long as they obtain a warrant first.
Get a warrant. And yes, that means showing probable cause for a warrant.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Here's the actual legislation if anyone wants to look through it. Seems like a pretty bullshit law. If you refuse to submit your device to search, it's an automatic 90-day suspension of your license.
If only some genius would be able to come up with a method to penalize drivers distracted by texting - before any crash happens. Like, let's say, looking for drivers who text while driving. So sad that only all the non-police traffic participants can see texting drivers like every day, in every street, at every traffic light, while they remain completely invisible to police personnel, for whatever unidentified reason.
is that if you've got a nicer car your phone syncs to it and you can control it from the dash, which is perfectly legal. If I can change the channel on my radio why can't I do it on my phone sitting in a dash holder?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Hmm...
Leaked files show what a Cellebrite phone extraction report looks like
US law enforcement alone have spent millions on the phone-cracking technology.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/israeli-firm-cellebrite-grab-phone-data-seconds/
US State Police Have Spent Millions on Israeli Phone Cracking Tech
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/aekqkj/us-state-police-have-spent-millions-on-israeli-phone-cracking-tech-cellebrite
Both of these articles written in Dec of 2016. The first article shows exactly what data (everything) Cellebrite can extract from devices.
>"Law enforcement officials argue that distracted driving is underreported"
Then encourage people to report it more. That doesn't require scanning people's phones. Observed behavior is far more meaningful than trying to uncover every possibly way something bad could happen.
>"and that weak punishments do little to stop drivers from texting, scrolling or otherwise using their phones."
Then make the punishments more severe. Again, that has nothing to do with scanning people's phones.
>"Adding to the problem, they say there is no consistent police practice that holds those drivers accountable for traffic crashes, unlike drunken driving."
Does it matter the CAUSE of the "traffic crash" that much? Or does it matter more that it happened? Hold people accountable for the observed bad behavior (drifting lanes, failure to signal properly, "sleeping" through lights, running lights) and bad outcomes (like a crash, or forcing another vehicle to crash), not for pre-crime or backwards time analysis.
The level of dysfunction can't be measured by something so simple (like a phone scan or breath test, etc). You could be impaired by any number of drugs- legal or illicit. You might have fallen asleep because you worked late. You might have been distracted by your child. You might have been eating something while trying to drive. You might have drifted lanes while trying to change the radio, or get something from the glove box, or grabbing a brush from a purse in the other seat, or wearing flip-flops and having one wedge under the accelerator, or day-dreaming, or trying to read the paper, or putting on makeup, or spilling an unsecured hot coffee in your lap. Any of those things are bad driving behaviors, all avoidable, all potentially just as bad as messing with a phone while driving.
If this was about busting people for texting and driving, a cop could stand by the side of the road while his partner is two blocks up in the cruiser and they'd probably get somebody every five minutes. You and I see it constantly while we're driving around. Just watch people start at their phone, doing the thumb dance as they drive by. For bonus points, have a camera that shows what the cop saw.
Cop who sees rhe texting driver (and has it on video) radios his partner to light them up.
If you want to do it with less manpower, just have the cops keep an eye out for texting and driving while they do their usual patrol. I see drivers doing it, you see them. Cops can see them too.
This law clearly is not about enforcing texting and driving; there is something else going on here.
"This law clearly is not about enforcing texting and driving; there is something else going on here."
Yes, this would make a great prelude to opening full legalize search and seizure of all data on peoples phones as well. I did not actually consider that in my first post but you definitely bring up a great point. Almost all laws today are now end runs around civil liberty just so a dossier of citizens can be built so they can charge you with criminal liability for about 100 laws just to scare you into accepting a plea deal. Because everyone knows that citizens are so damn dumb that risking their life in a trail by jury is a risky proposition. Most American citizens will now happily render a guilty verdict just their precious time being wasted having to serve on a jury. There are a lot of self-righteous hypocrite bastards out there.
If you go back through history, you'll find the same anti-cellphone hysteria about, drumroll please, car radios. Really. The media, law enforcement, and other shrill idiots were screaming about the introduction of radios into cars when those were first introduced.
Of course, this sort of thing is full of problems, and I'm sure the company that supplies the equipment has nothing whatsoever to do with the notion of this even being considered. I'm a frequent visitor to Nevada and I know with a bill like this I will never drive in that state again. It's too risky to one's rights and privacy.
Among the multiple, multiple problems with this idiocy:
- How will the police know there's a cellphone present without searching for one? If there are multiple people in the car, how do they know which phone belongs to who without searching?
- What if the phone was doing something by itself or by bluetooth command?
- How will the police know the exact timestamp of the accident in order to determine if a violation occurred? The car could have been in a parking lot 2 minutes before. How will they know that?
- How will anybody know if phone usage was actually related to the accident? A party could have been using a phone while stopped, hit by a moving vehicle, and then this will be (not could be, will be) used to assign guilt incorrectly.
- What if I'm tech savvy and know how to defeat their stupid device and practice good security as a matter of principle? Am I now presumed guilty because of how I configured my phone or car?
Bit of a philosophy question too: seeing as how vehicle accidents have been trending downward at the same time as cell phone usage has been trending upward, how do we even know this is a problem beyond anecdotes? Sure, there are some accidents that happen that we know involve cell phones, but there are accidents that we know happen involving applying makeup or eating a cheeseburger too. We don't have a media and politicians constantly beating drums and causing a moral panic about the latter two though. I personally got involved in an accident where the at-fault driver was distracted by her kids--another stereotype that we just don't panic over.
I once was at fault in a minor accident where I had two cell phones on two chargers sitting in the seat next to me. Neither was in use at the time. I'm really glad this didn't happen in Nevada with this law because giving up your personal information, and that's what these cell phone scanners do,
I always thought western states that aren't on the coast actually believed in personal liberty too.
Who says there is? Maybe there's a compelling interest in population control.
Law enforcement officials argue that distracted driving is underreported and that weak punishments do little to stop drivers from texting, scrolling or otherwise using their phones. Adding to the problem, they say there is no consistent police practice that holds those drivers accountable for traffic crashes, unlike drunken driving.
What would this tech do to change the above?
If I can change the channel on my radio why can't I do it on my phone sitting in a dash holder?
Some of them let you do that. California prohibits windshield mounts (probably as a way to penalize people who can only afford cheap radar detectors, which are legal to have in this state) but you can change the music on your phone in a non-windshield-mount cradle. You can only text by voice, though.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"If this was about busting people for texting and driving, a cop could stand by the side of the road while his partner is two blocks up in the cruiser and they'd probably get somebody every five minutes. You and I see it constantly while we're driving around. Just watch people start at their phone, doing the thumb dance as they drive by. For bonus points, have a camera that shows what the cop saw."
I got pulled over once because I still had the phone in my hand after looking at it at a stoplight.
They likely don't keep detailed records of data usage. How would one know if the 1MB used at the time of the crash was downloading a FB message with a photo (illegal) or streaming Spotify (legal)?
Bugger off, police stater. (Large corporate scum like insurers also fall under the "police state" rubric.)
That's basically what happens here in Australia, plain clothed motorbike cops on scooters with helmet cams ride split the lanes and check drivers stopped at lights, as well as ride in traffic checking them out.
And the new speed cameras also check for phone use while driving (since they're up high on gantries, looking down into your lap).
If it saves lives, good. And it's a really easy tax to avoid, don't use your phone while driving.
I use a tablet for my connectivity needs. Because it is not a cell phone, I'm in the clear.
So do you use one of these?
Waste of time. It was pilot error. It's always pilot error.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
This law clearly is not about enforcing texting and driving; there is something else going on here.
Unless you want to get down right conspiratorial, it seems to be about just that, or just making it easier for police to bust people for it after the fact anyways. From the linked article, a few years ago someone lost a child due to another person texting while driving and was upset enough about it to get involved politically. This isn't too much different than a lot of other laws put into place after someone died in a tragic manner.
It's really just another case of "there oughta be a law" in action. As the law is currently written, they can only attempt to do this after a crash has occurred and they have probable cause of suspecting that a person was on their phone. It's not going to stop anyone from doing it, just make it easier for police to tack on additional charges when a crash does occur.
Pretty sure they want to be able to do this without getting a warrant. I'm also pretty sure they are going to finagle it so they just download *all* texts, dump them into a database, then sort through them looking for any criminal activity later on.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
... because there are people who text and drive. They will hit you, and then it will be your fault.
"It is made by Israel-based company Cellebrite, which says the technology does not access or store personal content."
Of course it doesn't access your personal data, because that would be wrong! *cough* *cough*
And you can certainly trust Cellebrite, they surely would have no reason to fib, right? RIGHT?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Yeah, it's about determining whether a driver's texting, or phone usage was a contributing factor in a car accident they were involved in after the fact. This has ramifications for determining if extra charges need be levied against the driver in a criminal case, or determining liability in civil litigation like a wrongful death suit. Put away the tinfoil hat.
"If it saves lives, good. And it's a really easy tax to avoid, don't use your phone while driving."
Let me explain why this logic is absolutely asinine, abusive, and counter productive.
If you are willing to text and drive risking your life, the life of your occupants if you have them, AND the lives of the drivers around you, tell me why you think a law that allows police to scan your device "AFTER" the accident that has already happened is going to change that?
This is NOT about catching people that are texting, this is about gaining access to phones to find out if they illegally used their phones AFTER the fact. That is a huge difference, most places already have laws for people caught texting... accident or not!
they say there is no consistent police practice that holds those drivers accountable for traffic crashes
Funny, I was going to say the same thing about police accountability for abusing their powers.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Are police cars required to pull over before they respond to radio calls? Why is that different?
That aside, this seems unworkable.
How do they prove whether or not they are downloading data - or uploading spyware. (will they carry a large insurance bond to cover any damage their software does?)
If there are multiple in the card, how do they know who was on the phone.
If a phone rings and in hitting the silence you accidentally hit the pick-up button, is that illegal?
You are still "driving" when stopped at a red light. And you missed when the Mone turned green by about 10 seconds. ***honk***
That's all "distracted" driving is. You want to "plug into" my phone? GET A WARRANT! There really isn't any difference between texting and driving than reaching down to pick up something you dropped, changing the radio station you were listening to, turning around to talk to someone, looking at yourself/makeup in the mirror and on and on. It ALL falls into the category of C&I driving. CARELESS and IMPRUDENT driving.
Every 5 minutes? I cross a busy, but only one lane in each direction, street a few times a week during rush hour. During just one crossing, I see many people using their phones, usually i can spot them because they weave out of their lane.
If the government would contract me, I'd be happy to setup a company which takes video of traffic, finds people who use cell phones, then issues a ticket to them via mail - with a web portal to go see your video and pay. I will even give 10% of the tickets to the government, so they get to reduce texting and driving and it will cost them nothing, the 10% will cover any administrative costs involved with integration with their emv databases. I'll also make sure the cameras are mobile and well camouflaged so no problems with people causing accidents because they see them. Oh, if you are serious about enforcing speeding, happy to share 20% of all speeding fines (I anticipate a lot larger volume of fines if I can start ticketing at +5mph). With video evidence, court challenges will be rare and usually will not succeed (for speeding I'll have a rigorous calibration process and schedule). Any interested municipalities?
Yes, the government should really setup a process where citizens can report on other citizens with recorded evidence of such problems so they can send them tickets like they do with traffic cameras. Now, the other new problem... people being distracted while trying to snitch on each other in a game of one-up-man-ship.
There is nothing like a society where we all look at each other with contempt and suspicion, right? Hmm... we are going that way anyways so why not?
Good lord! Their tagline is "Promoting Safe and Productive Automotive Technology" which is the exact opposite of what they're doing.
We have a charge where I live called "careless use of a motor vehicle" and I think anyone with one of those could be charged with exactly that.
That's basically how they enforce it here (BC), Cop standing beside the road looking and radioing their partner on the next block and also driving and watching.
They catch lots but there's always more and you can't have a cop on every block.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Can you not elect a bench trial?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Could be because the police want to set a legal precendent where they can scan any phone at the "scene of the crime", no warrant or justification required. Also what happens if they can't get into your phone? Are you required to assist them? Do you go to jail if you don't?
Good. Sick of missing lights due to people looking at their phone and being slow to move when the light turns green. Worse is when they move because the left turn lane is moving.
I just leave my phone in its case so I can't look at it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Read his comment about Australia again. Just simple looking through the cars windows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
See, this is why my sutions works best. No distracted citizens. Privately operated network of well camouflaged mobile cameras. I make money, city makes money, roads become safer, win-win-win. I take the risk of suddenly people no longer texting and driving, or never speeding, so no risk to public funding either.
Sure, since we're trying to save lives rather then raise revenue, no camouflage, and no film in most of the cameras, just working flashes. And signage everywhere you operate so people know to slow down and put down their phone.
It's basically how it works here with red light cameras mostly being empty but rotated so you never know and the cops phoning in their speed traps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Sounds good. I was nearly t-boned yesterday buy a guy who ran a stop sign whilst texting. I could see the phone in his hand as I passed by.
And there should be greater penalties if you are talking or texting and are involved in an accident.
Prog rock guitarist Steve Morse once did a stint as a commercial pilot. He had like a one hour commute, so to keep his chops he would practice on a travel guitar while driving, using his knees to steer.
The overwhelming majority of judges just mindlessly believe everything said by the notoriously corrupt and untrustworthy cops.
Our current crop of judges ARE THE PROBLEM, definitely not the solution.
Not as effective when signaged and advertised, people will still text and drive where they know there are no cameras. If they are camouflaged, mobile, and nobody knows where they are, people are less likely to text and drive everywhere.
That said, I think I get where you're coming from, the prevailing social justice sentiment that it's better to not save lives than save lives but allow someone to make money in the process, even in cases like this where the money would clearly come only from people endangering others.
Lick that iron boot!
The problem is a disconnect between breaking the law and getting a ticket weeks later. If going the camera route, you'd need a lot of them and even with 75% being fake, you'd know a good chance of getting caught.
Personally, I think having cops randomly around watching and ticketing would work much better then cameras but once again there has to be enough of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Excellent. Perhaps if we cut off an ear when we catch them they'll stop for sure! Larger and more severe penalties have really done a number on the drug problem! Lowest numbers in years, bigly progress....
Look citizen, if you didn't have anything to hide why would you be worried?
Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
Having more cops around costs the city money, so higher taxes. If you think you can offset it by the ticket revenues, then you'll have to raise the fines as cops issue less tickets per hour than an automated camera. Then if revenue declines because less people text and drive, you have to lay them off. Outsourcing it to a private (yes, for profit) company brings money in rather than out and let's the private company take on the risks (being a company, they can shift some cameras to different cities, not so easy to send the extra cop to another state).
As for disconnect from time delay, I agree however I think you overestimate this impact. Getting a ticket in the mail a week or two later would absolutely curb people's dangerous (to others) habits.
Well the fine here is already $543 including the 4 points for a first offence, $888 for a second and 3-12 month driving ban after that. Not as high as some places but high enough to discourage people.
Actually, my mistake, new fines (as of Mar 1st) include $2000 for a second offence within 2 years. First offence didn't change.
I just keep my phone put away with fines like that, as well as not eating while driving and other forms of distracted driving.
https://604now.com/new-distrac...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Those are great for texting drivers. If they crash, the airbag in the steering wheel will slam the device into their face. Seems fitting...
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
is that if you've got a nicer car your phone syncs to it and you can control it from the dash, which is perfectly legal. If I can change the channel on my radio why can't I do it on my phone sitting in a dash holder?
Because you interact only a few seconds with your radio and you do it at long intervals. I've seen people interacting with their phones for extended periods of time while texting, surfing, working some app or god knows what else. That constitutes several orders of magnitude more distraction than the momentary distraction of pressing a preset button on your radio or rotating a volume knob which you can usually also do without taking your eyes off the road. I've been stuck behind people driving at walking pace down a road, driving over pedestrian crossings without looking, running lights only to overtake them at the next opportunity and find that they were texting. I've seen people so distracted by texting that are only shaken out of it when they end up driving onto the pavement or the lane divider strip. I'd actually be interested in seeing insurance company statistics over how many people end up driving into a light post or some other stationary object because they were so busy texting.
Some regular bikers do that as well, except they’ll break your rear view mirror as punishment instead of issuing a fine.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Hmm, and I thought nothing good could come of that device. You're onto something here. Now to try to set the air bag off by hitting them from the back.. Ill be back!
You're the reason we have to have laws like this...
Man we don't have enough police officers here to do that. someone every 5 minutes my ass here in Las Vegas it would be someone every 30 seconds. And I wish I was exaggerating, I just want to enjoy driving again!!!
I try to honk about 2 seconds before the light turns green to scare the driver into acting right.
I connect the phone to my stereo with an aux cord for music and incoming phone calls. I set the phone on my lap so if I receive a call I can glance down for half a second to decide if I'm gonna answer or not and then look back at the road and let muscle memory take over. If I accidentally hang up trying to answer they can either call back or wait until I get to my destination. I have to watch out for too many stupid drivers to take my eyes off the road for more than half a second. I don't even like checking my blind spot because of it. That't why I don't tailgate. I have seen too many people rear end people checking their blind spot.
As much as I have been frustrated enough by texters to damage their vehicle. That is an easy way to get shot or possibly even run over than shot here in the US. Seriously people are crazy and if someone broke something on my vehicle I would not take it lightly. Not saying I would shoot them, but people in california shoot other drivers because they have to sit in traffic next to them.
Also what happens if they can't get into your phone? Are you required to assist them? Do you go to jail if you don't?
That would never fly here in vegas. We have WAY to many people with power that feel they are above the law, and luckily for me they would never allow this to pass. I am skeptical they will even allow this proposed law. We don't have red light cameras or speed cameras for that exact reason. Which I am grateful for.
Here in Nevada that would be the equivalent of speeding cameras and red light cameras which are outlawed already. I love my state.
Then fix the fucking lights to give a warning that it's going to turn green.
Driving in the US is a fucking nightmare. Either you hit a stop sign every 80 yards or you reach a red light that suddenly goes green with no warning leaving some fuckwit behind you honking their horn because you don't have the reactions of a 20 year old fighter pilot.
While I think it should be a fine for texting at a red light and stopped, it shouldn't be as big a fine or points on a license.
I don't understand why it's so fucking hard to just put the phone in your pocket and take it back out when you reach your destination.
At a red light? So fucking what. Not looking at your phone isn't exactly hard.
Hmm. I used my phone as a satnav in California and didn't know about the windshield mount law.
Good job I just dropped it into the drinks holder, and looked down when I needed to check directions.
Oh dear. Did someone's dashcam catch you being naughty?
It seem it doesn't work as well as you think:
https://vancouversun.com/news/...
Proves my earlier point of posting signs warning users of cameras decreasing the effectiveness of the fine system.
Of course, you could use more drastic measures, go Singapore style are start using corporal punishment, of even more draconian and cut off fingers used to text while driving. I'm sure that would have some incremental success (you don't see many people spitting gum on streets of Singapore, do you), but do you really want to go there?
But don't worry, I know no western politician stands a chance allowing a private company to make money, even if it would save lives. Federal Medicare officially admits there is abover $5B worth of fraud occurring each year, but until Obama there was only 3 full time people with little budget allocated to it, while constrained to laws which forced Medicate to pay all claims with 30 days, verified or not. Obama increased the budget significantly, but still just a drop in an ocean. Try to pass a law that any company which can crack down on Medicate fraud can keep 50% of the savings, and you'll never get it passed. Today's social movements prefer to loose $5B of taxpayers money rather than losing $2B and paying $1.5B to some private company. Welcome to the 21st century.
Start there.
Report them.
I don't have to explain my interest in my own privacy.
We're reaching the tipping point for self driving cars. Soon you'll be in the passenger seat with your laptop.
This law clearly is not about enforcing texting and driving; there is something else going on here.
You base this on the fact that a manpower heavy and completely ineffective alternative is available? What next, cops shouldn't investigate any accident unless they see it happen in person?
No. No I won't. I don't trust other drivers with my life why would I trust some fake ass if then else loop..
I don't see horns being used that much. If you're hearing them often your probably just not paying attention. You can usually see the opposing traffic's lights turn from yellow to red, so if you're paying attention there are plenty of clues.
Lights in metro areas are almost always timed so you make them *if you're going the speed limit*. Similarly, if you're *actually paying attention* to the signals, you can get by with the reflexes of an 80 year old man just fine.
If you haven't learned how to anticipate traffic by now, please for everyone else's safety, stop driving and call Uber.
~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
So, this law would basically target people driving alone? Because otherwise the obvious defense is to say a passenger was the one using the device.
When someone says, "Any fool can see
Stopping motorists for speeding is "manpower heavy", but the police do it all the time. Fining people for distracted driving would be a literal gold mine for them and would do something to curb the problem in the first place. Much better than a sketchy, border-line legal system that snarfs data off of your phone after an accident.
~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Maybe you SHOULDN'T ANSWER THEM? Maybe you should let the system take the message? When you're driving, you have ONE JOB: DRIVING, and PAY ATTENTION TO THE ROAD.
Your response suggests that you're one who should be pulled over and subjected to at least a 10-day intervention from your cellphone addiction in a jail cell.
this is a very bad idea that will do nothing to make anyone safer, it just further erodes our right to privacy and gives the police more power that they do not need.
If this was about busting people for texting and driving, a cop could stand by the side of the road while his partner is two blocks up in the cruiser and they'd probably get somebody every five minutes.
They routinely do stings like that here. Cops riding buses looking down on drivers and radioing to the marked cars ahead is one method. Cops dressed as homeless people begging on the boulevard is another. We call them HoboCops, and they catch a lot of people.
https://nationalpost.com/news/...
Many FCA vehicles come with uConnect, the newer versions of which will actually read your incoming texts, and has speech-to-text to allow you to send texts as well. Most newer Jeeps, Ram Trucks, Dodge/Chrysler cars and minivans, etc can do this. Here's a quickie video on how that works.
So if someone gets in a wreck while using the hands-free texting but did not cause said wreck? That person would either end up eating a massive fine/ticket (and fault), or would have to pay someone a shit-ton of money (that is, the dealership) to go out to the wrecked vehicle, then pull records from his vehicle's computers proving that he was using the hands-free feature at that exact time... if it even keeps such records stored internally (I believe uConnect does, but not sure about other brands...)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Both of your claimed uses can be done after the fact with a subpoena from the cellular provider.
If I was a conspiracyst I would see this as an attempt by the state legislature to undo the recent supreme court that ruled that cell phones couldn't be searched without a warrant. Just throw in a moving violation and viola, a cell phone search!
Driving is the most dangerous thing modern people do every day. Why make life worse with using a cellphone while driving?
As usual, it's going to be the problem 5% of the population that define the laws and regulations around something. The more people die because of careless people, the higher chance there will be laws that make cellphones non-functioning during movement in a vehicle.
Inconvenient or not, people dying is obviously a million times more important than using a mobile device.
Stopping motorists for speeding is "manpower heavy", but the police do it all the time.
Indeed and it is very much non-consistent which is precisely why:
1) Post accident your punishment may be adjusted once police determine you were speeding either through analysis or blackbox data if some were recoverable from the ECU.
2) Fixed speed cameras are a thing.
Fining people for distracted driving would be a literal gold mine for them
Indeed, and until we have a technical and legal system in place to do this we'll have to make do with what we have.
For US drivers who've never driven elsewhere, most of the rest of the world has a phase on the lights after red and before green. The lights will display both red and yellow/amber as a "Prepare to go" signal for a few seconds, usually as crossing traffic gets a red light to give time for the junction to clear.
That way you can be in gear, have your stop/start system going again ready to move as soon as the light turns green. In busy traffic, that can mean you get one or two more cars through per cycle on the lights.
That's all true and precisely why the US does not have a similar system.
Such a system would massively reduce traffic accidents at intersections which means a lot of lawyers, cops, judges, insurance companies, doctors/medical workers, medical equipment makers, and many more would become unemployed or see a reduction in income.
Sane lawmaking and enforcement with effective oversight that respects the civil rights of the citizens is an existential threat to public sector job security and growth.
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them...you create a nation of lawbreakers - and then you cash in on guilt. " -- Dr. Floyd Ferris in "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Then we can bust the robot driver every time we see traffic in wireshark.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Let's consider the obvious, all drivers before they start the car should have a clear head and the intention of doing the best job they can as far as being safe. Why? Because they're driving something along that often, at speed, carries the energy of a bomb, can kill them and others, etc, etc. If anything distracts from that? It should eliminated. I'm a musician. I love music. I don't listen to music while I'm driving. Why? Because I get too into it. I start thinking about the music, how it's made, who's playing what and perhaps why. What does that do? It takes away thought cycles from driving. So what do I do? I don't listen to music while I drive. What's the trade off? I don't get to listen to music, and someone might not die because of it. Sounds like a fair trade. I happen to be lucky enough to walk back and forth from work. Every day on the road, and countless times over the years, I see people staring into their phones at stoplights while people have to honk at them to get them moving. Most of us are addicted to these communication devices to the point of ridiculousness. To the point of risking our lives so we can answer that message asking something that certainly isn't life threatening. Driving cars is life threatening. I think cell phones should shock users (electrically) who try to use them AT ANY TIME while driving, hands free or not. If we are multitasking (something we are very bad at) and attempting to drive while arguing with a workmate, or our spouse, or talking with anyone, or attempting to message, then this constitutes a danger to themselves and other drivers. "I can handle it," is not a reasonable response. Take a look at a full restaurant sometime. See how many people are beholden to their smartphones. Free yourself from it. And for the sake of everyone, drive in a way that you 1) realize your car is carrying the energy of a bomb, 2) you, and everyone else, cannot multitask worth a shit, and you shouldn't try doing it while driving no matter what you're ego tells you.
It doesn't totally prohibit windshield mounts; it prohibits blocking line of sight out the windshield. There's a couple of spots low down near the pillars that are okay. But a dash mount or console mount is probably simpler.
he didn't say answer them, he said receive them. He in fact explicitly distinguished between receiving and responding (aka answering).
Now, would you like to answer the question?
+1 Funny.