Teen sentenced for killing driver while texting.

[Fudd]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/06/12090348-massachusetts-teen-sentenced-to-prison-for-texting-while-driving?lite

Good.  Make an example out of him.

These days, I'm relieved to see drivers talking on the phone.  At least I know they aren't texting.

After the cops got tougher with driving texters, I've noticed a disturbing trend;  Many drivers are no longer holding their phones up in front of them in plain view, they're leaving the phone in their laps, so the cops don't see them texting.

I'm all for cops checking the phone records to see if the driver was impaired by texting, following certain accidents.

[Patrick]

The kid tried to lie his way out of it.. The phone records proved it..

I have a number of phone or texting stories,, just like must of us do,, so,, I won't bore anyone with them..

[alph]

i'm not sure, but i believe here in wisconsin, if you get into an accident the police have the right to check your phone for current texting mesages.  kinda like a breath-a-lizer test, if you refuse you go straight to jail. 
 
i'll have to ask some of the guys at work, they'd know what the law say's, they're expierenced at getting pulled over.   

[tank_post142]

phone records show he hadn't sent or received a message in 51 seconds.

[Fudd]

phone records show he hadn't sent or received a message in 51 seconds.

That's another good reason to have On-Star; match his phone record to your airbag deployment.

51 seconds huh?  Just about enough time to read the last incomming message, LOL, and type a reply (allowing for a few inconvienient glimpses at the road).  

He should have sent a final message:OMG, WTF, I've just been in a wreck!

[alph]

as some of you know, i have some relitives i care not to be related to living in the phoenix AZ area.  my neice (the stupid one) one day posts on facebook how she almost hit a guy on a cycle while texting.  she thought it was funny.  i thought it was funny that she deleted me from her "friends" list after i called her an idiot.  many of the other coments on her posting also called her irresponsible.  i swear, the DMV should start testing for stupidity along with proper use of turn signals.  hey, maybe that's a good idea, have the examiners request the cell phone numbers of test drivers, then fail them if they answere!!

[GiG]

Tank:

Where did you get your 51 second info?


"Though he insisted he was not texting at the time of the crash and could not remember texting while driving, phone records indicate Deveau sent a text message at 2:34 p.m. and received a response at 2:35 p.m. Police said the crash occurred at 2:35 p.m., ABCNews.com reported.

“I made a mistake,’’ Deveau told the judge, according to the Globe. “If I could take it back, I would take it back. I just want to apologize to the family.’’

He received a message  at the same time as the "accident" - he was texting while driving.
He killed a man.
Fry the jerk.

[tank_post142]

on nbc news last night then again on yahoo.

[The Anvil]

phone records show he hadn't sent or received a message in 51 seconds.

That's another good reason to have On-Star; match his phone record to your airbag deployment.

51 seconds huh?  Just about enough time to read the last incomming message, LOL, and type a reply (allowing for a few inconvienient glimpses at the road).  

He should have sent a final message:OMG, WTF, I've just been in a wreck!

51 seconds is inconclusive though. There can be differences in timekeeping, the time it takes to type the message etc. Point is; he was driving while texting. Off with his head. It's unfortunate that his life is seriously screwed now but an example needs to be made of someone.

[tank_post142]

   i agree. BUT an example should also be made of someone who would pull up next to a driver on the phone and blast their horn causing them to swerve, loose control or kill someone also. asshole behavior endangering someones life should always be punished.
  we had one of these horn guys in my riders he got a solid ass kicking and pulled his colors.

[BIG--T]

Finding phone records are good but a little too late. They can pass all the laws they want and ppl will still do it- especially kids. Like Fudd said they hide it in their lap and won't be seen unless the cops in a 4X4 or something.

I don't know how many will have to die before some does something about it. The only way I can see it happening is the FCC stopping all carriers from providing texting. I mean why do we need it..?

Just my $.02!  

[tank_post142]

i use texting constantly in my business. but never on the road. hell, i pull over in a parking lot to take or return a phone call. i think the answer would be for auto manufacturers to install something to disable phones within 2-3 feet of the steering wheel. something that will allow 911 to still work.

[Stanley Steamer]

Georgia passed a NO texting law.......it hasn't slowed anyone down here in this college town....... .......Wife and I were driving home from Myrtle Beach yesterday on I-20 near Columbia.....a young teen was wobbling a little as she was texting with her phone plugged into a charger......I'd have blown my horn at her but she'd probably have veered into me or someone else around her.....I passed her @ss in a big hurry though......

Our policy at work(County Govt) was changed a while back to no one talking on their cell phone while driving a county vehicle(still legal for the public in GA).....if the boss or a co-worker calls me, they will have to wait until I can call them back......although I have seen my boss and some other folks ignore it a few times.......

[Rams]

I'm sure some will disagree but, I'd like to see all new vehicles have a text/cell phone intereference device installed so that one could not make use of this technology while the vehicle is in operation.    Don't care whether it's the person in the driver's seat or the passengers.  We survived exceedingly well prior to this technology, we'll be just fine not using it while driving.  It unfortunate that folks don't seem to have enough good judgement to use cell phones appropriately and not in dangerous situations where they not only endanger their own lives and those who are traveling with them but everyone else on the road.

I hate it when an example has to be set but, we as a species seem to learn only when we get smacked around a little.  Sad but true.

[bigguy]

I've posted this idea on other forums and caught he!! for it. Hang on. huh grunt. OK fire suite on.
I'd like to see a volunteer program where drivers can apply ( and maybe even pay for) a police certified camera mounted on their vehicle facing front and back. (Maybe seven side to side. I'm open to details.) It would of course have to be tamper proof with verifiable time stamp. It could run on a continuous loop when the vehicle is running.
The next time some inattentive driver cuts you off, tailgates, passes while texting, runs a red light in front of you, etc. you simply pull into the nearest police station where they download the video, then send the perp a ticket, a summons, or officers out to arrest them as circumstances fit.
Yep. I'd probably get a ticked or two two myself. And I'd happily pay them, learn my lesson and try to avoid future infractions, knowing that all of the other drivers are held to the same account. I'm also pretty certain that within a few months, driving (or riding my bike) would be a MUCH more pleasant and less stress filled experience.
The use of public roads is not a right. It is a privilege, afforded by the state. It is reasonable for the public at large (who payed for and owns those roads) to expect users of those roads to be held accountable for actions on those roads. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy while on a public road. State and municipal revenues would soar for a few months at least, which would help offset the additional expenses involved. (It might very well generate excess revenue, though that's not an argument I'll make in favor of it.)
And at the very end of the day, when some moron cuts me off, rather than let my blood pressure rise as I resist the temptation to chase him down and start an unfortunate event, I'll smile and wave knowing video evidence will soon be in the proper hands.

[tank_post142]

we have redlight cameras down here (unconstitutional in my opinion) for the last couple of years. Ft.Lauderdale loses approx. $3700.00 a day through their use. this per the sun sentinel newspaper.

[bigguy]

we have redlight cameras down here (unconstitutional in my opinion) for the last couple of years. Ft.Lauderdale loses approx. $3700.00 a day through their use. this per the sun sentinel newspaper.

There's no idea so good that somebody can't do it wrong.

[old2soon]

Fergit cameras. It is so simple it's almost funny. Every carrier of cell service needs to have the total function of the cell phone disabled while exceeding 5 or 8 miles an hour or so. EXCEPT the 911 function and emergency responders. Once any body died because of or do to texting or phone calls while driving was too many. Both my daughters have lost friends directly or indirectly due to texting or cell phone use while driving. I myself have had enough near misses do to some other S O B using a cell phone while driving that i really question the need for them to function while rolling. Short sighted?-maybe-saves lives?-fer sure. I will now go put on my flame resistant Dr. Dentons. There are enough distractions on the highways and byways WITHOUT adding the already proven dangerous use of cell phones while driving. How many more will die before something is done?? If it can be proven totally and completely that your cell phone was the root cause of the incident-your insurance carrier should not be liable for your F-up. RIDE SAFE.

[bigguy]

Fergit cameras. It is so simple it's almost funny. Every carrier of cell service needs to have the total function of the cell phone disabled while exceeding 5 or 8 miles an hour or so. EXCEPT the 911 function and emergency responders.

I hear similar arguments for gun control. "Some people will mis-use them, so let's take them away from everybody." The operator of a vehicle should not be able to use a cell phone. Passengers most certainly should. There is no legitimate or ethical reason to deny somebody a right because somebody else doesn't appreciate it. Just because one person doesn't "like" cell phones, or see the "need" for their use doesn't generate a legitimate reason for the state to take them away from others. The burden of proof is on those who would suspend a right, not those who would exercise it.

[The Anvil]

Fergit cameras. It is so simple it's almost funny. Every carrier of cell service needs to have the total function of the cell phone disabled while exceeding 5 or 8 miles an hour or so. EXCEPT the 911 function and emergency responders.

I hear similar arguments for gun control. "Some people will mis-use them, so let's take them away from everybody." The operator of a vehicle should not be able to use a cell phone. Passengers most certainly should. There is no legitimate or ethical reason to deny somebody a right because somebody else doesn't appreciate it. Just because one person doesn't "like" cell phones, or see the "need" for their use doesn't generate a legitimate reason for the state to take them away from others. The burden of proof is on those who would suspend a right, not those who would exercise it.

Well reasoned. We just need stiff penalties for people who flaunt the law.

[czuch]

Drag em behind a train.

[old2soon]

Fergit cameras. It is so simple it's almost funny. Every carrier of cell service needs to have the total function of the cell phone disabled while exceeding 5 or 8 miles an hour or so. EXCEPT the 911 function and emergency responders.

I hear similar arguments for gun control. "Some people will mis-use them, so let's take them away from everybody." The operator of a vehicle should not be able to use a cell phone. Passengers most certainly should. There is no legitimate or ethical reason to deny somebody a right because somebody else doesn't appreciate it. Just because one person doesn't "like" cell phones, or see the "need" for their use doesn't generate a legitimate reason for the state to take them away from others. The burden of proof is on those who would suspend a right, not those who would exercise it.

Well reasoned. We just need stiff penalties for people who flaunt the law.

They do little more then slap drunks on the wrist. Prior to my retirement and including todays fine ride on my fat lady-around here at least the frikkin driver appears to usually be the one talking/texting/gaming take yer pick. I also understand you can't legislate away stupid. The young man that this post is about now has at great personal expense and a death attributed to him a fine case of 20/20 hindsight. Do we REALLY need to kill more people over something that is so easily fixable?????? Me personally-i think not. RIDE SAFE.