Idiots and cellphones

[michaelyoung254]

You know, I've been giving this some thought. There have been several ideas about how to eliminate this issue, but now that I've thought about it a while, I don't think that the solution is making laws and mandates on the manufacturers disabling the phones once they are moving. To me, this is kinda like the gun control argument. Why should we punish everybody because some refuse to obey the law? If we make laws that require the phones not to work once they are moving, that means that anybody who uses any type of public transportation or is a passenger in a vehicle can't use their phone. My wife has a couple of zombie games that she loves to play as we're driving (I'm driving, she's playing games), and this would mean she could no longer do something that she enjoys doing.

I think that instead of passing laws that punish the innocent, perhaps we should pass laws that have severe consequences, and rigidly enforce them. Treat texting while driving just like a DUI, whereas the penalty and fines will put a stop to the problem. Perhaps a VERY stiff fine for the first offense, and then  continue raising the penalty for any subsequent offense. Up to, and including loss of license, and jail time.

Once the consequences for doing this are very severe, people will eventually stop doing it (at least most will).

[The emperor has no clothes]

You know, I've been giving this some thought. There have been several ideas about how to eliminate this issue, but now that I've thought about it a while, I don't think that the solution is making laws and mandates on the manufacturers disabling the phones once they are moving. To me, this is kinda like the gun control argument. Why should we punish everybody because some refuse to obey the law? If we make laws that require the phones not to work once they are moving, that means that anybody who uses any type of public transportation or is a passenger in a vehicle can't use their phone. My wife has a couple of zombie games that she loves to play as we're driving (I'm driving, she's playing games), and this would mean she could no longer do something that she enjoys doing.

I think that instead of passing laws that punish the innocent, perhaps we should pass laws that have severe consequences, and rigidly enforce them. Treat texting while driving just like a DUI, whereas the penalty and fines will put a stop to the problem. Perhaps a VERY stiff fine for the first offense, and then  continue raising the penalty for any subsequent offense. Up to, and including loss of license, and jail time.

Once the consequences for doing this are very severe, people will eventually stop doing it (at least most will).

+1 

[Moonshot_1]

You know, I've been giving this some thought. There have been several ideas about how to eliminate this issue, but now that I've thought about it a while, I don't think that the solution is making laws and mandates on the manufacturers disabling the phones once they are moving. To me, this is kinda like the gun control argument. Why should we punish everybody because some refuse to obey the law? If we make laws that require the phones not to work once they are moving, that means that anybody who uses any type of public transportation or is a passenger in a vehicle can't use their phone. My wife has a couple of zombie games that she loves to play as we're driving (I'm driving, she's playing games), and this would mean she could no longer do something that she enjoys doing.

I think that instead of passing laws that punish the innocent, perhaps we should pass laws that have severe consequences, and rigidly enforce them. Treat texting while driving just like a DUI, whereas the penalty and fines will put a stop to the problem. Perhaps a VERY stiff fine for the first offense, and then  continue raising the penalty for any subsequent offense. Up to, and including loss of license, and jail time.

Once the consequences for doing this are very severe, people will eventually stop doing it (at least most will).

Just suggesting that upon being in excess of a certain speed determined by GPS, the most distracting abilities of the phone be disabled, not all. Hands free operation would still work, 911 override, and thru the provider some other features that would require a permit to override the disabling features (for volunteer firemen for example).

All the features would not be shut off.

Mass transit systems would have the ability to bypass the disabling features. Pretty sure the tech guys could come up with a simple but secure way to do this.

Passing such legislation would absolve the liability issues for manufactures and providers that follow the law. If you still cause an accident then it is all on you.

Again, I would liken this to a gun manufacture not designing a safety mechanism into the gun and having their product occasionally going off accidentally when it would not have if it had a safety. 

I don't see this approach as "punishment" of innocent folks. 

The issue I have with going with the "severe consequences" route is that it would typically require death and mayhem to occur before the law would be enforced.

I'd like to see a solution that would stay ahead of that curve.

[J.Mencalice]

My thoughts.  Nothing will happen; it will stay the same as it's been since those things came on the scene (even when they were the size of walkie-talkies).  Innocent people will continue to be injured, maimed and killed.  Why?  Because "I NEED my phone!"  Another stupid excuse for an addiction that makes no reasonable sense or logic.  "I NEED my meth, my booze, my heroin, my coke, my cigarette,my stupidity."

I keep looking for signs of intelligent life...still looking after all these years.
It just won't happen in Amerika.

[Ramie]

Not much can be done when people need a distraction from reality.

http://kstp.com/news/man-hit-killed-train-big-lake/4276733/?cat=1

[solo1]

In my experience as a former city councilman, before enacting a new ordinance, the LEO's ability to enforce it, comes into play.

Too many ordinances are 'feel good"    I would think that texting while driving might be hard to catch people.  Just throwing this out.  What do you think?

[baldo]

In my experience as a former city councilman, before enacting a new ordinance, the LEO's ability to enforce it, comes into play.

Too many ordinances are 'feel good"    I would think that texting while driving might be hard to catch people.  Just throwing this out.  What do you think?

Wayne, you're probably right, but I can't count how many people I see every day on my ride to work. I have a 70 mile commute and see it everyday. I once saw an older woman with an iPad attached to her steering wheel...

If I was a cop, I'd need extra citation books every day.

[Gryphon Rider]

The answer is more motorcyclists...with helmet cams.  See a distracted driver?  Pull up behind or beside where you can get a good shot of the plate, then pull up beside and turn your head so the camera catches the perp in the act with a clear view of their face, all in one continuous shot.  There needs to be an officer or team of officers on each police force whose job it is to receive these videos and lay charges as appropriate.  Would work for aggressive tailgaters too.

[Beardo]

In my experience as a former city councilman, before enacting a new ordinance, the LEO's ability to enforce it, comes into play.

Too many ordinances are 'feel good"    I would think that texting while driving might be hard to catch people.  Just throwing this out.  What do you think?

My city's police put a police officer at an intersection where hitch hikers and pan handlers usually stood with cardboard signs begging for money. He had a cardboard sign saying something to the effect of "I don't want your money, I am a police officer. Have a nice day". He was watching for people on their cell phones and relaying it to a car after the intersection.

10 years ago, I'd have said that's a serious waste of police resources, they should be out going after "real criminals". But it's gotten so bad, as bad or worse than drunk driving. It needs to be done.

[Wizzard]

In my experience as a former city councilman, before enacting a new ordinance, the LEO's ability to enforce it, comes into play.

Too many ordinances are 'feel good"    I would think that texting while driving might be hard to catch people.  Just throwing this out.  What do you think?

Wayne, you're probably right, but I can't count how many people I see every day on my ride to work. I have a 70 mile commute and see it everyday. I once saw an older woman with an iPad attached to her steering wheel...

If I was a cop, I'd need extra citation books every day.

Let the county handle it. Good way to fill the coffers

[Wizzard]

This problem is so  easy to solve. All has to be done is the phone manufacturers put in software that disables the texting and messaging when the phone is in motion over a certain speed.

My lincoln gets sports scores and news on the screen,but soon as that car is over 5 mph its disabled.

[solo1]

Baldo, you're absolute right! We, as drivers or riders can do everything safely but we can't account for some idiot texting. It's the same as drunk driving.  The question is how to solve it.

Our city awhile back passed an ordinance prohibiting 'jake brakes' from being used.  It was based on one person's complaint. Impossible to enforce unless caught in the act. That was BS.

Now how does a LEO catch someone texting, especially if the 'phone is in their lap.  He/She, the LEO, is busy looking at the display on the info screen in the cruiser.  Maybe the LEO sympathizes with the texting driver. Just a thought .  

Best answer is automatic shut down of the smart phone if moving.  Is it constitutional?  Of course people will devise a way around that .  

How about an automatic shutdown sent from the tower upon detection of a signal changing GPS location at faster than, say 15mph?

Of course the best is common sense.  However there is an enormous shortage of that bordering on an epidemic.