New York Prosecutor Wants Harsher Texting While Driving Penalties

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice has rolled out a pretty extensive plan to stop texting while driving. She even went as far as asking Apple, Google and Microsoft come up with a way to disable texting while driving.

DA Rice sent a letter today to the heads of Apple, Google, Microsoft and Blackberry urging the companies to take the technologies behind various existing third-party apps to block texting during driving and incorporate them directly into smartphone operating systems, thereby vastly expanding the reach of such technologies into the hands of hundreds of millions of users.
 
Blackberry?
What are the odds that someone who can't wait to text that they do it while driving is still using a Blackberry?

How about a real punishment. If you cause a serious accident while texting, you are banned from owning/using a cell phone for 2 years :)
 
The problem is proving someone was texting previous to an accident. Obviously any sent texts with timestamps would still be on the phone, but how do you confiscate the phone? The officer on site would have to take on this responsibility, and the driver of the car simply has to say they don't have a cell phone on their person. Is the officer going to strip search them on the spot? Search the car? No, because the driver has rights.
 
Blackberry?
What are the odds that someone who can't wait to text that they do it while driving is still using a Blackberry?

There is one thing I miss about my BB, I could type on it without even glancing, the keyboard was that good. While the phone overall sucked, they qwerty keyboard was much better than the virtual keyboards these days.
 
First offense, break all fingers on none texting hand.
Second offense remove all none texting hand.
Third offense remove person from planet by putting them into a pod and shooting them into space.

Seem harsh enough?

And you might be wondering why I keep saying none texting hand. that is because I want to still allow them to get to 3rd offense easily. Which they can't really do if they don't have a hand to use .
 
There's only one thing I have to say, they sound retarded, honestly there's that many programers that could easy over come this so call new request. I had to read it twice to make sure is I was reading it right the first time and just laugh silently to myself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice has rolled out a pretty extensive plan to stop texting while driving. She even went as far as asking Apple, Google and Microsoft come up with a way to disable texting while driving.

For once they are listening to the research on this topic, saying that issuing tickets is entirely ineffective against this problem, as it is difficult to enforce, and because we are hard wired to compulsively react to these social interractions.

The only solution to this problem will be a technical one, that removes the choice of the user to check facebook/text while driving.
 
Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice would do well if she enforced this upon the LE community first and NOT exempt her enforcers. US citizens... should video tape Law Enforcement personnel, who are driving while talking on their expensive smartphones and make sure to record the patrol vehicle plate number. And, just for fun... video tape them while they are performing traffic duty while on a highway or roadside construction site just standing there texting or talking on their c-phones. Hmm... $65 dollars per hour to stand there texting and talking when a properly trained security officer could be directing traffic for $14-15 dollars per hour. :D

"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." ~Albert Einstien :cool:
 
Doe's not sound to hard with GPS enabled phones, track any movement over 5 mph and shut the phone down from manual operation and set it to only voice. It is really startling that in today,s world more people do not use the voice activation capabilities or their cars blue teeth settings and that the software to do so is so crappy.

I am all for the harshest of penalties. 1st offense drivers license revoked for 3 weeks, second offense 3 months in jail, 3rd offense 1 year with nights in jail and day time cleaning hiney's at the nursing home. If involved in an accident go to step 3 if some one is hurt step 3 and repay 10- fold if someone is killed then death penalty. As a medic I can tell you that the incidents from cell phones outweigh drunk and driving 10 to 1 and are generally more severe.

Just for good measure obama is a terrorist.

p.s. I wish that at least once every quarter we had 1 24 hour period with out any electricity unless medically necessary.
 
Didn't read the article, but even without I 100% agree. I just got stuck behind a 199x massive small man syndrome truck that was swerving back and forth traveling at 15 mph under the speed limit in the fast lane. When I was finally able to pass... 20 year old kid texting. Thought it was going to be a white trash drunk.

In my experience, texting and driving is in so many ways more dangerous than nearly any drunk driver under a .15 or so. This needs to be addressed.
 
That's stupid.

The punishment needs to fit the crime, and while dangerous, you can't give it the same penalty as say raping a woman, otherwise the whole balance of crime/punishment becomes even more of a joke than it already is.

Police have also said and proven time and time again, that you CAN NOT police this. Police simply can't be everywhere and you can't tell from a glance at a distance if someone is texting and driving.

We need to simply take the sacrifice and require the carriers to disable texting functionality while the phone is in rapid motion, such as would be experienced driving a car. People on trains will somehow survive, just like people did in the 80s and 90s before the texting craze. We've already done the same thing with in-car entertainment systems that won't allow you to play TV/movies/etc while the vehicle is in drive. This makes far more sense than creating draconian laws that impale people on stakes for violating texting laws to make an example of them.

It is a serious problem that needs to be addressed though to save lives. Its far too pervasive.
 
Doe's not sound to hard with GPS enabled phones, track any movement over 5 mph and shut the phone down from manual operation and set it to only voice.

What if you are a passenger or on a train? You can't text just because you are moving more than 5 mph even if you are not driving? I see many people will simply disable the gps function.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041083248 said:
For once they are listening to the research on this topic, saying that issuing tickets is entirely ineffective against this problem, as it is difficult to enforce, and because we are hard wired to compulsively react to these social interractions.

The only solution to this problem will be a technical one, that removes the choice of the user to check facebook/text while driving.

If you are too dumb to ignore your damn texts while driving they should take away your driving privileges. There's the solution to "removing that choice." FFS I have my wonderful bluetooth in my car and only use it if its a)client/business related, or b)mom/wife - otherwise the call can wait.
 
^Zara - when I said "you" I didn't mean you specifically - was speaking in generalization. Just wanted to clarify!
 
The punishment needs to fit the crime, and while dangerous, you can't give it the same penalty as say raping a woman, otherwise the whole balance of crime/punishment becomes even more of a joke than it already is.
.
Apparently didn't stop laws from being pushed to allow $150,000 per song fines to be enacted.
 
If you are too dumb to ignore your damn texts while driving they should take away your driving privileges. There's the solution to "removing that choice." FFS I have my wonderful bluetooth in my car and only use it if its a)client/business related, or b)mom/wife - otherwise the call can wait.

The problem it is has nothing to do with intelligence. Our ape brains are hardwire to find this type of stimuli irrisistable. We aren't talking the same kind of self control ad involved with resisting sex or alcohol,but something that a very large percentage of the population have no control over what so ever, even when they know better. The best they can hope to do is be conscious about it and shut all devices off prior to starting a drive. It - of course - will differ from person to person a bit, but you know... Law of averages.

Also, why do you in the same breath acknowledge it is dangerous and wrong, yet make an exception for business clients and family? Do you think it is any less dangerous in those situations?

Problem is that most people rationalize what they are doing. You know "everyone else is an asshole for texting, but I am a doctor, my messages are important!" or "...but my kids might need me, my messages are important!" etc. etc.

I admit, I occasionally give in to temptation, but only when stopped at red lights and the like. At least then the worst I will do is annoy the person behind me...
 
The punishment needs to fit the crime, and while dangerous, you can't give it the same penalty as say raping a woman, otherwise the whole balance of crime/punishment becomes even more of a joke than it already is.

Um, texting while driving kills people. It's not quite as bad as rape, but doing something that can kill someone should have a pretty yucky punishment.
 
Make driving and texting/ calling/ posting selfies to Facebook without a hands free unit, if it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, the same punishment as a DUI.
Another option is to take manslaughter off the table in case of accidental death and make a person fully understand the gravity of the situation, that distracted driving is just as bad, if not worse, than drunk driving.
 
It's a terrible idea to disable texting while moving because the person might not be driving and there could be an emergency. It's already been mentioned in this thread, but I'm reiterating to show my agreement.
 
Yea lets put a GPS requirement that all phones moving over 10MPH fail to work. Let's just ignore the millions of people who travel on trains/ride in cars/us ferries/subways/any other form of transportation that moves faster than 10mph where you aren't driving.
 
Technology and laws will never ever overcome stupidity. You simply can't do anything about idiot drivers.
 
Um, texting while driving kills people. It's not quite as bad as rape, but doing something that can kill someone should have a pretty yucky punishment.

So going parachuting should be a capital punishment, after all the parachute can fail and people can die. Might as well throw just plain old driving in there. People die in non texting and driving related accidents every day. When will this stupidity stop?
 
So going parachuting should be a capital punishment, after all the parachute can fail and people can die. Might as well throw just plain old driving in there. People die in non texting and driving related accidents every day. When will this stupidity stop?

I don't understand why people make such weird comparisons in this forum. Jumping out of a plane with a parachute only kills the people willing to do it in the first place so they made the choice to take whatever the risks are and they did it to themselves, not to someone else. Okay, unless they squish someone when they hit the ground, then their estate should be liable for repaying the family of the squished person.

Driving is dangerous, but we already have laws against negligent people who do dumb stuff when they drive. The rest of that, like if you're driving under the speed limit, being safe, and whatever, you're probably not gonna cause an accident. Accidents happen when people try to go racing or are messing around with random stuff, eating a bowl of cereal, humping, tailgating, sleeping, or whatever in their car a lot more often than they happen when people aren't being negligent somehow. Texting is just another form of negligence and like all those other kinds, it should be given hugenormous penalties.
 
The solution is to create a "Highway Kill Patrol", using armored supercars that have backscatter imaging systems and cell detectors. Once a douche is detected and verified with the backscatter that it's the driver and not a passenger, an image recognition missile is launched from the roof rack, blowing the 'tard to kingdom come. If there's too much traffic around for acceptable collateral damage levels, dual hood-mounted miniguns can offer more surgical removal of the offending party. This system could also be tuned to work with rhythmic bass frequencies, so the ballers with the crap that nobody wants to listen to blaring at window-breaking levels can be obliterated as well.

Implement a fleet of these nation wide and I guarantee the problem will be solved in a week. After all... nobody wants to run afoul of a weaponized version of KITT with Judge Dredd behind the wheel.
 
-Help, I've been kidnapped, and am in the kidnapper's trunk, call police because I can't talk!-
[SEND]
...
...
...
-AUTOMATED MESSAGE: TEXTING WHILE DRIVING IS ILLEGAL AND PUNISHABLE BY FINE OR JAILTIME ---- DO NOT ATTEMPT ANOTHER TEXT WHILE DRIVING OR YOUR PHONE WILL BE DISABLED-


^ Sounds great! :D
 
Accidents happen when people try to go racing or are messing around with random stuff, eating a bowl of cereal, humping, tailgating, sleeping, or whatever in their car a lot more often than they happen when people aren't being negligent somehow.

You know, the sad thing is is that I have actually seen every one of those things you've mentioned. :eek:
 
Doe's not sound to hard with GPS enabled phones, track any movement over 5 mph and shut the phone down from manual operation and set it to only voice. It is really startling that in today,s world more people do not use the voice activation capabilities or their cars blue teeth settings and that the software to do so is so crappy.

I am all for the harshest of penalties. 1st offense drivers license revoked for 3 weeks, second offense 3 months in jail, 3rd offense 1 year with nights in jail and day time cleaning hiney's at the nursing home. If involved in an accident go to step 3 if some one is hurt step 3 and repay 10- fold if someone is killed then death penalty. As a medic I can tell you that the incidents from cell phones outweigh drunk and driving 10 to 1 and are generally more severe.

Just for good measure obama is a terrorist.

p.s. I wish that at least once every quarter we had 1 24 hour period with out any electricity unless medically necessary.
Severity of punishment doesn't reduce crime, certainty of getting caught and swiftness of punishment have more impact on deterrence.

That said, the headline Steve wrote is incorrect. I expected to read an article about the DA arguing for stiffer penalties after being caught, which wouldn't do much, but instead she's formulating a plan that would incentivize people to not use their phones while driving, interfering with texting capabilities at the OS level, among other recommendations that have little to do with "punishment" (except for the one recommendation that people be cited for texting even when they're already being cited for something more severe and courts require offenders to install devices that block them from texting--but none of those are particularly "harsh").

Anyway, being more punitive isn't likely to do much but what she's recommending is actually approaching it from the correct direction.
 
-Help, I've been kidnapped, and am in the kidnapper's trunk, call police because I can't talk!-
[SEND]
...
...
...
-AUTOMATED MESSAGE: TEXTING WHILE DRIVING IS ILLEGAL AND PUNISHABLE BY FINE OR JAILTIME ---- DO NOT ATTEMPT ANOTHER TEXT WHILE DRIVING OR YOUR PHONE WILL BE DISABLED-


^ Sounds great! :D

Or they would make an exception for 911 calls... You know, how phones currently work when you are outside of roaming area, but can get signal for another network.
 
Yea lets put a GPS requirement that all phones moving over 10MPH fail to work. Let's just ignore the millions of people who travel on trains/ride in cars/us ferries/subways/any other form of transportation that moves faster than 10mph where you aren't driving.
Its not ignoring them, its acknowledging that they need to eat a dick and live without texting for their 15 mins on the train, in order to save a crapload of lives.

Texting... lives.... texting... lives.

OK, you have a point, texting is more important than the lives of random people.
 
Its not ignoring them, its acknowledging that they need to eat a dick and live without texting for their 15 mins on the train, in order to save a crapload of lives.

Texting... lives.... texting... lives.

OK, you have a point, texting is more important than the lives of random people.

This save-us-from-ourselves bullshit is getting out of hand.
How about people get some common sense, parents start raising their kids right, and stop letting people learn from "society"; we'd all be living in a much happier, more capable world.
 
-Help, I've been kidnapped, and am in the kidnapper's trunk, call police because I can't talk!-
What kind of dumbass TEXTS 911? Most 911 call centers can't even receive texts. Never go full retard. If you're in a trunk, which I'm sure happens a lot to you, then call 911 and just keep the line open and whisper to them if you have to.

Again, are you really arguing that the number of lives saved every year from not texting on the go will be less than the lives saved by people that text 911 from the trunk of someone's car? What kind of lazy ass kidnapper throws someone in a trunk without taking their cellphone first anyway?
 
What kind of dumbass TEXTS 911? Most 911 call centers can't even receive texts. Never go full retard. If you're in a trunk, which I'm sure happens a lot to you, then call 911 and just keep the line open and whisper to them if you have to.

Again, are you really arguing that the number of lives saved every year from not texting on the go will be less than the lives saved by people that text 911 from the trunk of someone's car? What kind of lazy ass kidnapper throws someone in a trunk without taking their cellphone first anyway?

I never said they texted 911. ;)
Also, what if something is going down in a subway or bus or other moving vehicle, where a person may not be able to talk due to what is happening, but can text?

These one-size-fits-all blanket rules are just too stupid to be effective at all.
Not to mention how oppressive the nature of that law would be, which, in turn, would start to affect other laws the same. (snowball effect)
 
This save-us-from-ourselves bullshit is getting out of hand.
I HATE save us from ourselves nanny-state bullshit. If a grown man wants to chamber a bullet in a revolver and play russian roulette, he can do so. I don't care. Its none of my business.

Texting and driving is NOTHING like that. My texting and driving is not just me loading a round, pointing a revolver at my head, spinning the barrel, and pulling the trigger.... its then turning that gun around and pointing it at YOUR head and pointing the trigger.

Personal risk is YOUR business, but when my sister and I go on rides together on Sunday morning on our motorcycles to get a burger, I don't want to be killed in a 55mph head on crash with a Dodge Ram thanks to some asshole texting and drifting into oncoming traffic.

This is a basic libertarian value, and libertarians are NOT about nanny states. Your freedom to do whatever the fug you want ends when you directly interfere with the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of your innocent neighbor.
 
Also, what if something is going down in a subway or bus or other moving vehicle, where a person may not be able to talk due to what is happening, but can text?
Life is about compromises. So now you're arguing that the ability to text in a subway is going to save more lives than getting rid of texters and drivers?

Texting and driving is now the LEADING cause of death for teen drivers.

This is more important than drunk driving. It can't be policed. You can't reasonably hand out death sentences or something ridiculous as an extreme scare tactic to stop it. You can either ignore it, and let innocent victims of texters die every day, or you can choose to do something about it.
 
I HATE save us from ourselves nanny-state bullshit. If a grown man wants to chamber a bullet in a revolver and play russian roulette, he can do so. I don't care. Its none of my business.

Texting and driving is NOTHING like that. My texting and driving is not just me loading a round, pointing a revolver at my head, spinning the barrel, and pulling the trigger.... its then turning that gun around and pointing it at YOUR head and pointing the trigger.

Personal risk is YOUR business, but when my sister and I go on rides together on Sunday morning on our motorcycles to get a burger, I don't want to be killed in a 55mph head on crash with a Dodge Ram thanks to some asshole texting and drifting into oncoming traffic.

This is a basic libertarian value, and libertarians are NOT about nanny states. Your freedom to do whatever the fug you want ends when you directly interfere with the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of your innocent neighbor.

But what if your neighbor isn't innocent?! :eek:
No, I see where you are coming from, that makes more sense.

From your view point (and I do agree with this) it sounds like you are comparing texting while driving to drinking and driving.
It's ok to get drunk on your own, but not ok to do so behind the wheel of a vehicle.

Honestly, I can get behind this, and never thought about it that way before, thanks for pointing that out.
 
I'd prefer it if lawmakers would stop making personal behavior laws, and start making laws that punish 'harm'.

Texting? Whatever. Your damn fingers.

Collide with someone and kill them? If you caused it, you're in BIG trouble (texting or not).

I'm tired of the exceptionalism surrounding harm, when it was for one reason or another.
A paralyzed man isn't gonna get up and walk again because whoever broke their back //wasn't// texting when they ran into ran into the man.
The victim has to deal with their injuries - and the perpetrator should be made to pay for them. Either punitively, or financially.
If the injuries are permanent, then the perpetrator keeps paying for the remainder of their life.
Victims shouldn't be saddled with having to deal with crap that others did to them.

I couldn't care less if people do dangerous things - just own your actions. Don't walk away when you F up.

-scheherazade
 
I HATE save us from ourselves nanny-state bullshit. If a grown man wants to chamber a bullet in a revolver and play russian roulette, he can do so. I don't care. Its none of my business.

Texting and driving is NOTHING like that. My texting and driving is not just me loading a round, pointing a revolver at my head, spinning the barrel, and pulling the trigger.... its then turning that gun around and pointing it at YOUR head and pointing the trigger.

Personal risk is YOUR business, but when my sister and I go on rides together on Sunday morning on our motorcycles to get a burger, I don't want to be killed in a 55mph head on crash with a Dodge Ram thanks to some asshole texting and drifting into oncoming traffic.

This is a basic libertarian value, and libertarians are NOT about nanny states. Your freedom to do whatever the fug you want ends when you directly interfere with the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of your innocent neighbor.

This^^^ QFT.

And for the 1% of the people who commute to work on mass transit, perhaps a cell node/wifi on the vehicle? If not, then do WTF we did before 2000- READ A F*CKING BOOK. For f*cks sake; use your head for more than a way to keep your ears separate; your "right" to text/talk too loud in public ends where MY safety begins.
 
Back
Top