Textalizer as part of accident investigations...Discuss

[RDKLL]

I just read this...I see both sides.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetwburns/2017/05/15/new-york-could-be-first-to-adopt-textalyzer-for-catching-distracted-drivers/#67b69cbd4415

[The emperor has no clothes]

It's ok with me.

[Robert]

While we need to do something I think a simple check of the phone by a trained police officer should do the trick. I am not so sure I am in with any governmental agency intruding into anyone's life more than necessary with what sounds like invasive software.

I was riding down a fairly busy road and a woman was next to me texting for about 4 miles and she was in the right lane driving slower than traffic. She had no clue that I took a picture of her texting and the plate. I was beside her then in the rear before I sped forward not wishing to be around her. The road up ahead narrowed and we were doing about 50 a 18 wheeler in the left lane, text lady in the right behind the truck who was in the left lane. I saw this in my rear view and decided to see what was going to happen so I slowed down going past her again and she never noticed. Well she never noticed the road narrowing or the truck turn signals on or him merging over and she at this point was next to him. When it came to the point she was almost off the road and mid way to the trucks trailer section it was a shock to her since she really  had no where to go. She finally decided to slow enough to let the truck go and 2 wheels were off the road. I told her to get off her phone and she lied and said she was looking for directions. I told her how long I had been watching and that she was lying and of course she was making life harder for all around and could have possibly lost her life. She was clueless.

[RDKLL]

I have decide that if I am a witness to anything that will require an officer....I will stay on the scene to make sure that the cop knows that they were doing something behind the wheel that they should not have...
Arizona is one of only a small number of states (I have to be vague because someone will miss the whole point of my post to say I had the wrong number of states) that has no ban on cell phones state wide...there are some localities that have bans in place.

[Moonshot_1]

This will likely fail on Constitutional grounds. Equal protection for one.
The purpose of the proposed technology is to establish a phone distraction during an accident.
This would then cause a series of fines or punishments for being distracted by the phone and causing an accident.

Does this technology also determine if someone is distracted by applying make-up, eating a burger, changing a radio station, disciplining a child, changing a shirt, reading a paper or book which then causes an accident?

The technology can't determine the user of the phone in a multiple occupied vehicle.

And it is likely some innovative computer guy will develop an app to undermine the technology.

This also doesn't solve the problem of distracted driving as the accident has already occurred.
The technology must be developed to PREVENT the accident from happening in the first place.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I have decide that if I am a witness to anything that will require an officer....I will stay on the scene to make sure that the cop knows that they were doing something behind the wheel that they should not have...
Arizona is one of only a small number of states (I have to be vague because someone will miss the whole point of my post to say I had the wrong number of states) that has no ban on cell phones state wide...there are some localities that have bans in place.

I have seen numerous Sherrif's, Police using while driving.

This will likely fail on Constitutional grounds. Equal protection for one.
The purpose of the proposed technology is to establish a phone distraction during an accident.
This would then cause a series of fines or punishments for being distracted by the phone and causing an accident.

Does this technology also determine if someone is distracted by applying make-up, eating a burger, changing a radio station, disciplining a child, changing a shirt, reading a paper or book which then causes an accident?

The technology can't determine the user of the phone in a multiple occupied vehicle.

And it is likely some innovative computer guy will develop an app to undermine the technology.

This also doesn't solve the problem of distracted driving as the accident has already occurred.
The technology must be developed to PREVENT the accident from happening in the first place.

All good points. And I agree it's likely not going to reduce the amount of accidents. There is much we need to do in prevention. But I don't see that much difference in requiring breathalyzers . If it turns out to be a passenger they can get redress in the courts. I'm all for individual liberties, but we need to keep in mind the collective good. To be honest, if I thought it would do any good I would ride with my Sena all the time and call the cops every time I saw it. I realize that is hopeless, this measure has a tiny modicum of hope.

[Chrisj CMA]

I think the penalty for getting caught"red handed" texting and driving should be the LEO takes the phone, places it in a very strong ziplock bag then smashed the phone with a hammer. Then hands it back to the driver and says have a nice day, drive safe.

No ticket, no court date just a smashed phone.  Saves money for taxpayers and assures no more texting and driving at least for a while.

[Moonshot_1]

I guess I see a great difference between a distraction and an impairment. I believe the law is fairly consistent when it comes to impaired driving in the sense that it isn't only alcohol that is considered and that other tests are used to determine different types of impairment.

With distractions, and again, this is in the context of driving, distractions are generally moments of time. Phones are a prevalent distraction but it is not the only one. So when it comes to punishments and consequences, all distracted driving must be considered.

This brings me back again to my contention that the focus should be on legislation and technology to prevent the distraction in the first place. Not to "punish" after the fact.

Shared liability for providers for allowing access to active drivers, disable texting in phones in motion faster than 20 mph with overrides for public transportation and private service transport, 911 override, and other measures to prevent the distraction in the first place.  

[The emperor has no clothes]

I think the penalty for getting caught"red handed" texting and driving should be the LEO takes the phone, places it in a very strong ziplock bag then smashed the phone with a hammer. Then hands it back to the driver and says have a nice day, drive safe.

No ticket, no court date just a smashed phone.  Saves money for taxpayers and assures no more texting and driving at least for a while.

Sounds perfect to me. 

I guess I see a great difference between a distraction and an impairment. I believe the law is fairly consistent when it comes to impaired driving in the sense that it isn't only alcohol that is considered and that other tests are used to determine different types of impairment.

With distractions, and again, this is in the context of driving, distractions are generally moments of time. Phones are a prevalent distraction but it is not the only one. So when it comes to punishments and consequences, all distracted driving must be considered.

This brings me back again to my contention that the focus should be on legislation and technology to prevent the distraction in the first place. Not to "punish" after the fact.

Shared liability for providers for allowing access to active drivers, disable texting in phones in motion faster than 20 mph with overrides for public transportation and private service transport, 911 override, and other measures to prevent the distraction in the first place.   

I have no problem with prevention. Moments of time ? You haven't seen some of the texters I have.  I would say being distracted IS an impairment. I concede we are not going to likely catch all distractions.

[G-Man]

I have a feeling that cell phones, pads, etc. will not be allowed "out" while driving.  It's not just texting.  It's also searching for info like songs or directions, etc.  They'll make a law like VA has with radar detectors. 

[Gryphon Rider]

I'm okay with the textalyzer technology, as long as it has the privacy protections mentioned in the article.  I also think that citizens should be encouraged and empowered to gather evidence of distracted driving, to be submitted to a police task force dedicated to prosecuting offenders caught on camera.  All that should required as evidence is a continuous video showing the offender's plate, the offender playing with his phone while behind the wheel of a car on the road (or any other egregious driving offence), and the videographer's driver, proving the videographer wasn't driving.  I'm sure there is a willing group of volunteers out there.

I am against technology that prevents device use while the device is in motion.  It puts undue restriction on passengers' device use.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I'm okay with the textalyzer technology, as long as it has the privacy protections mentioned in the article.  I also think that citizens should be encouraged and empowered to gather evidence of distracted driving, to be submitted to a police task force dedicated to prosecuting offenders caught on camera.  All that should required as evidence is a continuous video showing the offender's plate, the offender playing with his phone while behind the wheel of a car on the road (or any other egregious driving offence), and the videographer's driver, proving the videographer wasn't driving.  I'm sure there is a willing group of volunteers out there.

I am against technology that prevents device use while the device is in motion.  It puts undue restriction on passengers' device use.

I'm against it also, if only for the reason. My wife would likely blow up and burst into flames if not checking Facebook every hour. I'd hate to lose her. 

[Gryphon Rider]

I'm okay with the textalyzer technology, as long as it has the privacy protections mentioned in the article.  I also think that citizens should be encouraged and empowered to gather evidence of distracted driving, to be submitted to a police task force dedicated to prosecuting offenders caught on camera.  All that should required as evidence is a continuous video showing the offender's plate, the offender playing with his phone while behind the wheel of a car on the road (or any other egregious driving offence), and the videographer's driver, proving the videographer wasn't driving.  I'm sure there is a willing group of volunteers out there.

I am against technology that prevents device use while the device is in motion.  It puts undue restriction on passengers' device use.

I'm against it also, if only for the reason. My wife would likely blow up and burst into flames if not checking Facebook every hour. I'd hate to lose her. 

If I'm driving, I either figure out how to get to my destination before I start moving, or I have my phone's GPS giving me voice directions.  If my wife is driving, we get close to our destination, then she asks me, "Where should I turn?"  For some reason, it always catches me by surprise.  Because I'm equally unfamiliar with how to get there (I'm not driving, so why would I need to know?  And it's her destination, after all), so I end up opening my map/GPS app so I can tell her where to turn (or turn around).

My wife and I have regular disagreements about the appropriateness of social media use while in the physical presence of someone you are with for the purpose of enjoyment of one another.

[old2soon]

SAME Tune different day-past 5 M P H the cursed things shut off EXCEPT for 911. See How EASY that wuz!  RIDE SAFE..

[Daniel Meyer]

SAME Tune different day-past 5 M P H the cursed things shut off EXCEPT for 911. See How EASY that wuz!  RIDE SAFE..

Sooo...as a passenger I could call 911 and say, "Put me through to ... " or "I need to book a room at ...." ?

I hate texting while driving...but I hate laws that punish/impair people that aren't doing anything wrong even more.

[old2soon]

SAME Tune different day-past 5 M P H the cursed things shut off EXCEPT for 911. See How EASY that wuz!  RIDE SAFE..

Sooo...as a passenger I could call 911 and say, "Put me through to ... " or "I need to book a room at ...." ?

I hate texting while driving...but I hate laws that punish/impair people that aren't doing anything wrong even more.

                     In my case the U.S. Navy taught me to plan ahead. Company I retired from said if they found out I was using the cell and involved in an accident I could help pay for it. Don't KNOW if that could have been enforced BUT I chose and still choose to NOT use the cursed things while driving and/or riding. Daniel-had a couple too many close encounters of the bad kind while some dumb ass low life cretin was exercising "his right" to not drive while attempting to drive. YOU and anyone else do NOT have the right to put MY LIFE in peril while driving. Honestly have NOT figured out the passenger thingy yet and it is NOT high on my list of thingys to do!  RIDE SAFE.

[Jess from VA]

All use of cell phones by a driver while driving should be prohibited. Hands free or not.  While many are completely competent to do hands fee, enough are not that none should be allowed.

I like an implied consent law for the use of this technology to check drivers phones at the scene of accidents (with privacy protection).  Like breath tests, when getting a driver's license, you agree to take the test (or allow the phone check), as a condition of accepting a driver's license.  Refuse, and lose you license.  Such law will have a positive chilling effect on drivers using their phones.  

Then, if the technology does show use at or around the time of an accident, that becomes the probable cause to secure a warrant to open the phone for all investigative purposes.  But that sure does not happen on the scene, and any guilty driver has all the time in the world to pitch the phone in the East River (or otherwise lose/destroy it permanently), before any warrant can be served. Perhaps the phone can be confiscated at the scene, but only opened with a warrant, or returned unopened.

But now say the check shows the phone was in use at or around the time of the accident.  This will allow the imposition of the penalty for driver's using phones (whatever that is).  But it is sure no automatic for finding the driver at fault in the accident, and thus guilty of reckless or impaired driving or manslaughter, (or being sued civilly for accident damages or wrongful death).

The fact that a driver was shown to be using a phone, will have to be at exactly at the time of the accident, and the police and prosecutor will have to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the phone use was the (or a big contributing) CAUSE of the accident and injuries and damages for any criminal conviction.  That is a high burden of proof, and not met by just showing a phone was being used.  It puts the prosecutor in the position of having to prove the accident was not caused by any other reasonably possible cause, like weather, visibility, road conditions, speed, actions of other drivers, defective equipment, etc.  And despite the prosecution's best efforts, when the defense counsel asks the jury if they have any reasonable doubt at all, they can't have any to vote to convict.

The burden of proof in any civil suit is only by a preponderance of the evidence, and this is an easier burden, but this assumes the injured party can afford a lawyer to sue, or convince one to take the case on a contingent fee basis (free, unless you win), and lawyers don't like to take cases this way if the case is not a slam dunk, or close to it. (But yes, ambulance chasers live for settlement and nuisance value alone.)  It also assumes the guilty driver has anything of value to sue for, beyond two bottles of wine and some roaches in the ashtray.

Personally, since technology has resulted in these thousands of accidents, injuries and deaths, I think technology should be used to prevent drivers from using phones at all.  However that is done, DO IT.

We put a man on the moon, stop drivers from using phones while moving.  This is a much better solution (and certainly millions cheaper) than requiring the police and prosecutor to prove up cases after the damages and mayhem are already done.    




 

[The emperor has no clothes]

I'm okay with the textalyzer technology, as long as it has the privacy protections mentioned in the article.  I also think that citizens should be encouraged and empowered to gather evidence of distracted driving, to be submitted to a police task force dedicated to prosecuting offenders caught on camera.  All that should required as evidence is a continuous video showing the offender's plate, the offender playing with his phone while behind the wheel of a car on the road (or any other egregious driving offence), and the videographer's driver, proving the videographer wasn't driving.  I'm sure there is a willing group of volunteers out there.

I am against technology that prevents device use while the device is in motion.  It puts undue restriction on passengers' device use.

I'm against it also, if only for the reason. My wife would likely blow up and burst into flames if not checking Facebook every hour. I'd hate to lose her. 

If I'm driving, I either figure out how to get to my destination before I start moving, or I have my phone's GPS giving me voice directions.  If my wife is driving, we get close to our destination, then she asks me, "Where should I turn?"  For some reason, it always catches me by surprise.  Because I'm equally unfamiliar with how to get there (I'm not driving, so why would I need to know?  And it's her destination, after all), so I end up opening my map/GPS app so I can tell her where to turn (or turn around).

My wife and I have regular disagreements about the appropriateness of social media use while in the physical presence of someone you are with for the purpose of enjoyment of one another.

I think we married sisters. 

[J.Mencalice]

Nothing had been done, nothing is being done, nothing will be done.

Screw the electronic horseshit, big brother surveillance.  Show us a good ol' fashioned roadside post accident I.Q. test to assess if it's over the lower threshold of 70.

 Lewis Terman (1916) developed the original notion of IQ and proposed this scale for classifying IQ scores:

    Over 140 - Genius or near genius

    120 - 140 - Very superior intelligence

    110 - 119 - Superior intelligence

    90 - 109 - Normal or average intelligence

    80 - 89 - Dullness

    70 - 79 - Borderline deficiency

    Under 70 - Definite feeble-mindedness


"5% of people have an IQ under 70 and this is generally considered as the benchmark for "mental retardation", a condition of limited mental ability in that it produces difficulty in adapting to the demands of life." (i.e. cellphone users with driving licenses).


I think that's what we are actually dealing with here in the U.S. of A.

[Daniel Meyer]

Daniel-had a couple too many close encounters of the bad kind while some dumb ass low life cretin was exercising "his right" to not drive while attempting to drive. YOU and anyone else do NOT have the right to put MY LIFE in peril while driving. Honestly have NOT figured out the passenger thingy yet and it is NOT high on my list of thingys to do!  RIDE SAFE.

Had more than a few of those close encounters myself...I commute DAILY in Dallas traffic.

...and I don't claim to have any right whatsoever to put your life in peril while driving.

Drivers using cell phones are a real problem.

Passengers using them are not. You or anyone else do NOT have the right to punish/impair folks that are doing nothing wrong and not endangering others.

[PhoenixRizing]

I think all phone companies should ban together and make these phones not be able to text if your going over a certain mph. The phone will work as far as playing music or making phone calls. But the texting shuts down. We have the technology. All phone makers will have to do it though otherwise people will just buy the phones that don't have the software installed.

[Robert]

When Jenner got in an accident in California they took his cell phone and checked it to see if he was the cause of the accident.

Was Bruce Jenner texting? Police to check phone records after fatal rear-end crash which killed 69-year-old Kardashian neighbor

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2944476/Woman-died-horror-crash-involving-Bruce-Jenner-believed-69-year-old-neighbour-Kardashians.html

So if California can do it then why does NY have to go to this extent? Just being suspicious but it sounds like a bit much to me. That means in this personal world with all your information on your phone they can go in and check and take whatever they want. They claim for accident investigation but what if a cop pulls you over for a traffic infraction is that permissible to check your phone?

In another thought, in most new cars they have black boxes that give copious amounts of information about what the driver was doing prior to the crash. Most new cars also have cell phones linked to your car audio and navigation system, what if you could make a black box on the car record what the cell phone was doing?

[Pete]

Please do not support or pass another blanket law on anything.

PUNISH the offenders not everyone.

Catch and punish them before they crash and kill someone.

I hate being around distracted drivers of any kind, because they end up doing something stupid and hurting other folks - pull there license and phone before the accident.

I see it everyday distracted drivers almost causing accident, often some other poor driver avoids them and prevents an accident.

[RDKLL]

I think the citizenry should be able to submit evidence to law enforcement concerning distracted driving...because of my accident I will be equiping both bike with front and rear discreet cameras connected to a dvr with GPS. I also dont believe LEO's should be operating their mobile control centers (laptop) either. I followed a Mesa cop in their Tahoe and they were all over the road...got to the light and caught their eye and just shook my head...as high up as some police vehicle sit, they should not have a problem catching the violators...something needs to be done...now...and sadly my state of AZ is one of the few states with no statewide ban with the exception of school bus operator not allowed to be on the phone...

[MarkT]

Preventing the distracting in the first place is a better soln I think. It could be easily coded into the phone's firmware to identify dangerous activity and block it using existing tech.  RFID tech with corresponding triangulation radio emitters mandated in new cars could establish if the phone was being used from the driver's seat.  Most cars already use RFID for keyless starting.  Combined with GPS in the phone capturing speed, the phone could easily have texting and dialing or whatever disabled while driving.  Allow 911 exception. Now of course, such a solution could be circumvented with hacker software.  Then incorporate laws proscribing texting etc activity as they do now.  The firmware block would stop the majority of the distraction use IMHO.

[scooperhsd]

There is nothing that scares me more when I'm riding then to see a cage driver using the phone  - period . talking, texting, GPS, music - it doesn't matter.

OTOH - I don't have a problem with passengers using them. This is the way me and my wife generally operate - one of us drives and the other can use the phone / more complicated car electronics. Otherwise - I set before I get going.

I don't know what would be the best way to enforce, other than to make phone use for driving an instant ticket no matter what the driver is doing or how it impacts the situation. And LEOs should not be exempt either.

[Pappy!]

Texting requires Visual, Tactile, and cognitive effort to accomplish.
All things that are needed to drive are diverted while this happens.

[Jess from VA]

I get out of traffic as soon as I can when riding.

But it's about an hour to do so.

I have been playing a little game the last year or so.  While rolling in traffic,  I look for vehicles ahead that are weaving in their lane (even slightly), or simply not driving like everyone else.  More often than not, that person is on the phone.  They are not hard to spot, but you have to be looking.

I won't ride next to them, but as I roll by, I give them my 1000yd stare.  No angry face or yelling or hand gesture, just a hard stare.  Most pull the phone down with a guilty look.  The really bad ones, I fake a phone with my left hand little finger and thumb to my head, shake my head around and waggle my mouth like a gibbering idiot.  It probably does no good, shaming sinners rarely does.

I'd like a big motorcycle lobby to suggest publicly that the collective G's either stop drivers from using phones, or our membership will start shooting them on sight (and claim self defense in our jury trials).   Of course we wouldn't, but it would probably make the news and bring the issue to the front burner.  Common sense and reason are getting us nowhere.

[J.Mencalice]

The governor of Colorado signed this bill yesterday.  It was initiated by a group of motorcycle riders after the deaths of their friends last year.
Fine for texting while driving increases from $50 to $300

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/06/01/texting-while-driving-colorado/

It's a start.

[old2soon]

The governor of Colorado signed this bill yesterday.  It was initiated by a group of motorcycle riders after the deaths of their friends last year.
Fine for texting while driving increases from $50 to $300

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/06/01/texting-while-driving-colorado/

It's a start.

                       Granted it is a Start. First time Should be $3000.00 2nd time $6000.00 and the 3d time should be $25000.00 and 15 years in prison-NO early release. RIDE SAFE.