Text While Driving In Long Island and Have Your Phone Disabled 364
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 (Score:5, Informative)
It should be the car that is disabled (or your license taken away)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It should be (Score:5, Insightful)
How any automated system will know if the phone is used by driver vs passenger is a challenge, I imagine.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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....
Maybe driver vs passenger doesn't matter (Score:3, Insightful)
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 wai
Re:Maybe driver vs passenger doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Text messages aren't reliable enough for any life saving use
That must be why 911 systems are adding text capability.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What does that have to do with driving? (Score:2)
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 feeling
Re: Maybe driver vs passenger doesn't matter (Score:3)
Ok, then how does the app know that you're on a bus and not driving?
Re:It should be (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Life is complicated (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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 o
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:It should be (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd have more of a point if the US wasn't so often concerned with the domestic policies of other nations.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
2nd phone (Score:5, Interesting)
What's to stop them buying a cheap 2nd phone?
Re: (Score:2)
The ubiquitous surveillance that this measure would also advocate...
Re: (Score:2)
I read the articles and didn't see any such thing.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Only if (Score:2)
she agrees that her hands can be lopped off as a "deterent" when she is pulled over for driving and eating/drinking.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you mean putting make-up on?
Re: (Score:2)
Farding is the proper word.
difference between driver and passenger? (Score:5, Insightful)
How would a system tell the difference between a driver and passenger in the car?
Re:difference between driver and passenger? (Score:5, Interesting)
I suppose the same way PawSense [bitboost.com] 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: (Score:3)
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? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently that doesn't apply to pre-paid sims and I doubt it is enforced or applies to 2nd hand phones.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
... 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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
You've never seen my wife text then.
Re: (Score:2)
I not only do that while riding in a car but also while sitting at my desk at work.
Re: (Score:3)
I suppose the same way PawSense [bitboost.com] 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: (Score:3)
Dude,
use nipple clamps.
Re: (Score:2)
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 whe
Driver's versus passenger - does it really matter? (Score:2, Flamebait)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason (Score:5, Funny)
They don't want anyone texting out to warn people not to come to Long Island.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
And if I am ridding in the car? (Score:2)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3)
Well, that would explain why my language center pretty much seized up trying to make sense of that.
Do you REALLY need that text message? (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
"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
But... (Score:5, Insightful)
But if you a cop you get a free pass.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Has too many problems (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't. That's why driving on a revoked license should land you in jail.
Re: (Score:2)
*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
Re: (Score:2)
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 vi
How? (Score:2)
Never ridden a bus have you? (Score:3)
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
A deeper problem (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:2)
The solution for NY thoug
Re: (Score:2)
... 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: (Score:2)
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.
The Problem I see with this (Score:2)
Bad idea in NJ too. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Maybe some state other than Virginia? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Or (Score:3)
Problem of interfaces (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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.
"Caught" (Score:3)
>> 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: (Score:2)
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 mor
Off-topic (Score:2)
What character set do I have to use in Firefox to stop "£ ÎνáÏfÎÏ gnÅsis, " from happening on my slashdot posts?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. What's down there? Probably their makeup, or electric razor, as appropriate. :p
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
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody else but me (Score:2)
Not severe enough (Score:2)
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.
Need harsher penalties. (Score:2)
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 the
Not to worry... (Score:2)
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.
Sadly an event will have to take place (Score:2)
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.
So how will they tell if you're texting or using (Score:2)
Not Good Enough (Score:2)
This could all be solved quite easily.... (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How about no (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 i
Re: (Score:3)
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.