Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Handhelds Government Your Rights Online Hardware Politics

Legislators Ponder BlackBerry Pileups 333

WSJdpatton writes to mention that legislators are taking a look at a new driving offense, DWT — Driving While Texting. Sparked by an increase in accidents related to the use of an electronic devices, this is just the latest in a string of "distracted driving" laws that are being entertained. "Some wireless industry supporters argue that statutes barring texting while driving are too specific. What is needed, they say, is not narrowly focused legislation, but a campaign to educate the public about all driver distractions. In Washington, D.C., an industry lobby group called CTIA -- The Wireless Association has begun tracking legislation, including Ms. McDonald's bill, and scratching out a strategy to counter it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Legislators Ponder BlackBerry Pileups

Comments Filter:
  • Uhhhhhhh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jusDfaqs ( 997794 ) on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @12:07PM (#18349529) Journal

    "Some wireless industry supporters argue that statutes barring texting while driving are too specific. What is needed is"

    Oh, Oh, Oh, I know the answer!

    "some common freaking sense or a chauffeur!"
    • by clem ( 5683 )
      It can't be helped if some people are unable to concentrate on two things at once. Others, myself included, are more than capable of texting while driving. As a matter of fact, I'm posting this on my Blackberry as I cruise down the...oh dear God!

      Ahhhhhh!!! Ahhhh!!!! I can't feel my legs!

      Losing blood. Feeling faint. Can only type. Sentence fragments.

      Must...finish...post.

      NO CARRIER
  • Its all I can say to people crashing while trying to type... until one gets me, then I'm gonna take home some spare hands.
  • by StarvingSE ( 875139 ) on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @12:07PM (#18349551)
    I-94 sucks every single day, and I see people staring at their phone while driving on this deathtrap of an interstate all the time...
    • I-94 sucks every single day, and I see people staring at their phone while driving on this deathtrap of an interstate all the time...

      ...instead of looking at, say, the road ahead of you?

  • by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 ) * on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @12:08PM (#18349557) Homepage Journal
    Why do we need all of these new laws? Isn't driving carelessly already illegal? And how are we going to enforce all of these new laws anyway? Force auto makers to equip cars with built-in spy cams with wireless transmissions to the police?
    • by KingSkippus ( 799657 ) * on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @12:14PM (#18349677) Homepage Journal

      So that politicians can look like they're doing something about this grave new threat to everyone's safety.

      Seriously, aside from the fact that driving carelessly is already against the law, exactly how many "Blackberry pile-ups" have their been? I'm guessing it's a miniscule number caused by either flukes or by people who drive so stupidly that they would have had an accident whatever they were doing.

      Do we really need a law to prevent, what, a dozen or so at the most accidents a year? Would those dozen or so people who cause those accident really not send text messages while driving because of it?

      • So that politicians can look like they're doing something about this grave new threat to everyone's safety.

        Seriously, aside from the fact that driving carelessly is already against the law, exactly how many "Blackberry pile-ups" have their been? I'm guessing it's a miniscule number caused by either flukes or by people who drive so stupidly that they would have had an accident whatever they were doing.

        Do we really need a law to prevent, what, a dozen or so at the most accidents a year? Would those dozen or so people who cause those accident really not send text messages while driving because of it?

        The exact same argument could be used to say that there shouldn't be a law specifically against drunk driving. After all, if they drive dangerously they'll get arrested for that right? Except it's never that simple. It's not up to people to decide whether they're safe to do something while driving because they'll very often make the wrong option - the one that's convenient for them even if it's unsafe for others (and ultimately them too). You'll instantly start getting "I can't believe they pulled me over

        • by KingSkippus ( 799657 ) * on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @01:02PM (#18350549) Homepage Journal

          The exact same argument could be used to pass a law making it illegal to build a campfire in the passenger seat of your car while driving. It's impractical to make laws to prevent every stupid thing a person may do while driving. At some point, you have to say, "You know what? We're going to trust you to use a little bit of common sense. If we find that you've got a bit of a lapse of it, though, and you do something dangerous, we're going to pull you over and give you a ticket."

          Yes, some people will still do stupid things. They always will. It's impossible to outlaw them all.

          What you can do is make a judgment about which are particularly dangerous. Drunk driving fits into that category, evidenced by the enormous number of accidents and fatalities caused by drunk drivers. Driving while drunk is also a special case in my mind because drinking specifically causes your judgment to be impaired. Texting on a Blackberry, to my knowledge, doesn't make one more stupid than they already are.

          That why I was wonder exactly how many "Blackberry pile-ups" there are. If the answer is thousands, then yeah, passing a law against it would probably be a Good Thing®. If it's a few fluke fender-benders, then it's no big deal, and should be well-covered by existing laws regarding paying attention (or in this case, not) while on the road.

          • The exact same argument could be used to pass a law making it illegal to build a campfire in the passenger seat of your car while driving. It's impractical to make laws to prevent every stupid thing a person may do while driving.

            Hold on a minute, how many folk have you seen recently lighting a bonfire in their car while driving. Now how many have you seen using a mobile phone.

            With evidence showing using a mobile phone to be more dangerous than driving while drunk, folk clearly aren't going to stop until t

      • by Bagheera ( 71311 )
        "Seriously, aside from the fact that driving carelessly is already against the law, exactly how many "Blackberry pile-ups" have their been? I'm guessing it's a miniscule number caused by either flukes or by people who drive so stupidly that they would have had an accident whatever they were doing."

        Seriously? Pileups: Few. Minor to moderate accidents I have actually witnessed: Several a year. How many near misses have I had because some bozo was too busy texting to pay attention to the road: Several - ever
    • by josecanuc ( 91 ) *

      Isn't driving carelessly already illegal?

      It is. Unfortunately, I foresee that if police start enforcing this existing "law" -- whether through arrests, tickets, or warnings -- there will be an enormous backlash.

      Think of all the people you know or drive near who believe that if they aren't in an accident, they cannot be driving carelessly. Because clearly if you're not causing physical damage, you must be driving okay!

      I once worked with a fellow who said he drove under the assumption that "basically, n

    • by hal2814 ( 725639 )
      "Isn't driving carelessly already illegal?"

      Yes, but as long as police seem to be focused on easily provable violations like speed limits and tags expiring, somewhat nebulous laws like careless driving laws are just not going to be enforced. I'm not saying I agree with that, but it's the truth. If there is a specific law against using Blackberries, that makes for an easy conviction and you might be able to get police to get off their lazy duffs and enforce such a law. God forbid they have to show up in co
  • No new laws needed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by spun ( 1352 ) <loverevolutionary@@@yahoo...com> on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @12:08PM (#18349561) Journal
    This morning I was stuck behind a vapid looking blond in a Mercedes. She was driving erratically, speeding up and slowing down, veering outside her lane, and cutting people off. Then I noticed that she had her rear-view mirror tilted so she could see herself, and she appeared to be doing her hair and makeup while driving.

    That is unsafe driving. Unsafe driving is currently against the law, and it covers more than just cell phones and crackberries. It is no more enforced than any new law against one specific type of unsafe driving would be. Why don't we just enforce the laws we have instead of making new ones that will also only be conditionally enforced?
    • we have 3 categories in NJ

      careless, reckless, and unsafe (newest) unsafe means no insurance points, just more cash straight to the state.

      no. what that woman did was reckless.. it shows a clear contempt for the dangers of the road, and the fact that she has a 2 ton mass hurtling down the road.

      that said, I text while driving, and expect I'll pay for it someday...
    • by lucabrasi999 ( 585141 ) on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @12:20PM (#18349801) Journal
      This morning I was stuck behind a vapid looking blond in a Mercedes...

      Great points throughout your entire post. So...was she hot?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by spun ( 1352 )
        Physically? Yeah, I guess so. Stupid people are such a turnoff to me it really doesn't matter how physically hot they are. I've only had sex with a hot-but-dumb person once, and maybe this is just sour grapes, but the experience was unpleasant. Well, the experience itself was pleasant, but afterwards I felt kind of revolted and just wanted to get her out of my house as quickly as possible.

        Heh, reading that last paragraph, I can imagine most guys going "Yeah, so? That's normal, dude!" I guess I'm not normal
        • by lucabrasi999 ( 585141 ) on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @12:36PM (#18350039) Journal
          Well, the experience itself was pleasant, but afterwards I felt kind of revolted and just wanted to get her out of my house as quickly as possible.

          First, after I've had sex with my wife, I feel revolted and I want her out of the house. But, then, I realize that whether I like it or not, she's getting at least 50%. So, I get over it and try to interact. Second, this experience should prove to you that even bad sex is pretty good.

    • by speculatrix ( 678524 ) on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @12:29PM (#18349927)

      morning I was stuck behind a vapid looking blond in a Mercedes. She was driving erratically,

      happened to me too this morning, she swerved across my path, causing me to drop my shaver, doughnut and mobile phone, the latter fell into my coffee and spilled it!

  • A-fucking-men. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Phanatic1a ( 413374 ) on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @12:08PM (#18349565)
    Some wireless industry supporters argue that statutes barring texting while driving are too specific. What is needed, they say, is not narrowly focused legislation, but a campaign to educate the public about all driver distractions

    Close, but not quite.

    There's an infinite variety of shit you can distract yourself with when you're driving. Trying to craft legislation to address every single one of those things would be a great jobs program for would-be legislators, but it's likely to be ineffectual.

    Like so many other problems with cars, this is one that's directly the responsibility of the idiot behind the wheel. Competent drivers don't distract themselves while they're driving, and the source of the problem is that we insist on giving drivers' licenses to people who are not only not competent, but whose only qualification for driving is the ability to fog a mirror.

    If drivers' licenses actually signified some level of competence, rather than simply the ability to pay a registration fee, then the problem of drivers playing with their Blackberries or their cellphones or their makeup or a road map while they're supposed to be driving would tend to disappear, because those people would be either on a bus, or in the back seat of a carpool.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      The other problem with this is that the people doing this know it's dangerous AND JUST DON'T CARE.

      It's like trying to educate a long term substance abuser about the health habits.
      They know, they could care less.

      The law would at least allow them to fine the people, and maybe provide for harsher sentancing. The former could help pay for some of the damage they cause (probably not), and both could add just that little bit of incentive not to do the obviously stupid things they were doing.
      • by geekoid ( 135745 )
        They can already do this with reckless driving laws.

        Making a law that does the exact same thing except for a more narrow description doesn't help, doesn't make people more alert, and it doesn't put more police on the highways to enforce the laws.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Phanatic1a ( 413374 )
          and it doesn't put more police on the highways to enforce the laws.

          It doesn't make more police want to enforce the laws, either.

          Here in Pennsylvania, it's a statewide law that if you're on a multilane highway you keep to the right unless you're passing someone. If you're driving in the left lane, not passing anyone, holding up traffic behind you, you're breaking the law. Even if you're the only car on the road, if you're driving in the left lane for some reason other than to pass someone, you're breaking
    • by ivan256 ( 17499 )
      I can think of an easy law that would address all of these problems...

      If you cause an accident because you're being stupid. You (not your insurance company) have to pay for the damage you to to other people and their property. You should still have insurance to cover the damage if you can't pay, but you should have your license revoked until you finish repaying your debt to the insurer.

      If there were consequences to irresponsible behavior, people would be inclined to stop behaving badly. Also, it would lower
  • Shouldn't this be adequately covered by reckless driving statutes? After all, intentionally engaging in an activity that you know will result in being less attentive to the road is certainly showing a disregard for the rights and safety of people and property, as well as showing a failure to exercise due caution.

    Rather than making new laws for every specific thing someone can do in a car that will result in reckless driving, just charge them with reckless driving and be done with it.
  • Unfucking believable. I was tempted to put her in the ditch on principle.
  • IANAL, but as I understand it, all of the US states have laws that make dangerous or reckless driving a punishable violation. If you are driving while texting, or using the phone but speak with both of your hands, that is both dangerous and reckless... problem solved, no new laws are required. The CTIA can rest easy knowing that mobile phones and devices do cause accidents, but no special laws are required. Law enforcement officers don't really need new laws, just permission to press existing laws into acti
  • a bill that would make it a crime to "operate a motor vehicle while reading, writing or sending electronic messages."

    Whoa, sparky. This is a law. You need to KEEP SUBJECTS DISTINCT.

    The driver is not a subject in this fragment, only the motor vehicle. It makes it illegal for the motor vehicle to read/write/send electronic messages? Now, let's see what this wording outlaws, off the top of my head:

    Buses that display the route/bus number
    Trains that have verbal announcements of stops
    Police Officers l
  • What is needed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bucephalis ( 165674 ) on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @12:13PM (#18349659)
    is enforcing the laws as they exist. And not making new ones to be seen as "doing something"

    There are already laws on the books for negligent driving.
    There are already laws on the books for distracted driving.
    Between those two, you cover the vast swath of "being a danger to others".

    You don't need laws for "driving while texting", "driving while putting on makeup", "driving while reading the NYT", "driving while eating", "driving while thinking about that really hot chick at the club", "driving while changing clothes", "driving while being outsmarted by the radio/CD player", "driving while tired, because I was an idiot and stayed up all night playing WoW", etc.

    If any of those (or thousands of other examples) result in the person driving in a distracted or negligent manner, they are ALREADY illegal. If not, then why should anyone care?
    • If any of those (or thousands of other examples) result in the person driving in a distracted or negligent manner, they are ALREADY illegal. If not, then why should anyone care?

      Because politicians like the following things:

      1) Righteous indignation (personal)
      2) Righteous indignation (public)
      3) Being seen as "doing something about the problem"
      4) Being seen as "needed" per 3)'s corrollary
      5) Addititonal power

      Voter Support: Level up!
      +3 chr +2 wis
      Learned skill: Pride
    • We have those laws, but they're too difficult to enforce. That's why you only see them applied after an accident has occured. The primary exception to this is speeding, which is easy to detect and prosecute.
  • Honestly, as much as I despise the insurance industry I think it is about time for them to step up on this. Get in a wreck of any kind and it comes out you were texting/cellphone/whatever just enforce a massive rate hike. My sister t-boned another car because she was reaching for her phone on the passenger side floor. Yet as an under 25 male (at the time) with a muscle car and a pristine driving record I get to pay more? People frequently only care about things when it hurts their pocket book. Make it
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @12:18PM (#18349737)
    Build a sensor into the airbag system that looks for wireless devices within 2 ft of the steering wheel.

    If found, do not activate airbag.

    Problem solved.

    • I figure if there is a device there and the airbag deploys, then the person is going to experience "death by blackberry". Perhaps we should make the airbag sense the presence of a wireless device within 2 feet and deploy immediately, hopefully before the luser has shifted into drive,
  • "Some wireless industry supporters argue that statutes barring texting while driving are too specific. What is needed, they say, is not narrowly focused legislation, but a campaign to educate the public about all driver distractions. In Washington, D.C., an industry lobby group called CTIA -- The Wireless Association has begun tracking legislation, including Ms. McDonald's bill, and scratching out a strategy to counter it."

    CTIA: "Yeah! It is discriminatory for the legislature to focus only on wireless dev

  • I floss while driving. The cops hate it, but my dentist loves me!
  • I can't think of anyone likely to call/text me that is so important that I risk my life, and the lives of others. to answer the fucking phone! They can wait till I get where I'm going.
  • by Black Art ( 3335 ) on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @12:29PM (#18349917)
    Electronic gadgets are not as big of a distraction as driving with children.

    You can turn off gadgets, but you cannot turn off your children. (Well, you can, but they tend to not come back on and it voids the warrenty.)

    Until they outlaw children in cars these accidents will continue to happen.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by svendsen ( 1029716 )
      Can you put them in the trunk or luggage rack? :-)
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      Until they outlaw children in cars these accidents will continue to happen.

      Kids in the back seat causes accidents.

      Accidents in the back seat causes kids.

  • Maybe we should look more to why people feel compelled to Drive and Text at the same time? I think we'll see a trend that has been building for years in the US. Businesses are asking more and more of individual employees, having them do the job of 3, 4 or 5 people, all in the name of more profits?

    If an employee is so important, it's key that they're reachable when their on their way somewhere else, or needs to be instantly accessed 24/7, maybe there needs to be thought about why that's happening. Why the
  • technological responses to social problems, but perhaps the law that should be passed here is: require a verbal command/ readback interface in every new car. you get in your car, you plug your cellphone into your car, and you interact with it verbally

    yes, i can imagine at least half a dozen problems with this scheme. i'm just trying to be constructive. driving while texting is obviously a problem, but laws aimed at behavior modification are less appealing than laws that target the car industry to empower dr
    • This does not work.

      Studies have conclusively shown that 95% of the 'distraction' is caused by not THINKING about the road.

      Those hands free car phones? They don't solve the problem at all - people are just as likely to get in an accident while using them as when you use a regular cell phone.

      • not looking at the road has to matter a whole hell of a lot more than not thinking about it. it's common sense: if your eyes aren't on the road, and obviously screwed. meanwhile, if your eyes are on the road, it doesn't matter what you are thinking about: brake lights will bring you out of whatever stupor you ar ein if you are at least minimally conscious

        i often daydream while driving. i think everyone does. and i don't think it affects my response time at all, as my eyes are on the road, and i can anticipa
  • by Todd Knarr ( 15451 ) on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @12:36PM (#18350037) Homepage

    They don't need a new law to deal with this. Reckless driving is already on the books in every jurisdiction. All they need is a law, regulation or ruling saying that failure to pay attention to the road, regardless of why you're not paying attention, is indeed reckless driving. Then it doesn't matter whether the guy's texting on his Blackberry, gabbing on his cel phone, has his head down fiddling with his overly-complicated stereo system or is turned around yelling at his kid in the back seat, he can get pulled over and ticketed. In California this is already the case, see California Vehicle Code sections 23103 [ca.gov] and 23104 [ca.gov]. Besides the fine and possible jail time, it's also a 2-point violation and 4 points in 12 months or 6 points in 24 months is a suspended license which will really put a crimp in these people's lives.

  • I think the larger issue is people treat driving like a right instead of as a privilege, and as such don't give it any respect. I've seen, just like many others have probably, really shitty driving from single occupancy vehicles where no cell phone or other toy was involved.

    Most people [including myself from time to time, but I think, perhaps with bias less so] commit driving infractions on a ROUTINE basis. Changing lanes without properly checking, or signalling, speeding, denying right of way, etc... So
  • by jjeffrey ( 558890 ) <slash@jamesj e f f r e y . c o.uk> on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @12:39PM (#18350101) Homepage
    This is already covered by UK law - either driving without due care and attention, or causing death by dangerous driving.

    In fact someone who caused a fatal accident while texting has been sentenced to jail for 2 years, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6357425.stm [bbc.co.uk] and another to a young offenders institution, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/6448887. stm [bbc.co.uk].

    But it's common to other EU countries too, here is another example from France; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3673632.st m [bbc.co.uk]
  • by hellfire ( 86129 ) <deviladv@gmTOKYOail.com minus city> on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @12:40PM (#18350113) Homepage
    ...is to switch to ubiquitous public transportation. The problem is that people at large are stupid. Driving is a dangerous activity and people get hurt or killed every day. And yet it's the only choice most of us have.

    Lawmakers have to get out of this mindset of making laws for things to say what we can't do, and maybe work on rethinking the problem a bit.
    • by geekoid ( 135745 )
      That can be said about walking, biking, whatever.
      It is a stupid argunment and shows complete ignorance of numbers.

      How many millions of miles are driven every day? how many 10's of people are injured?

      The only way public transportatin can be ubiquitous if they stopped in front of you home whenever you needed them, and were ready to go where ever you need to go whenever you want to go.
      But that would be expensive and wastefull.

      Plus the more cars, the slower the traffic, the safer it is to use your blackberry
  • it is called reckless driving.

    If an officer see's someone driving recklessly they should pull them over.
    It doesn't matter if it was a phone, blackberry, putting on makeup, shaving, or wacking off.

    Then give them the ticket.

    The only organization the benefits is the insurance industry. It's just another way for them to get out of paying.

  • From TFA.

    And that's how he hit the white Mazda, which clipped the green Honda, which rammed the black Toyota SUV before spinning into the other lane and plowing into a city bus.

    I'm having trouble visualising how one collision could reasonably lead to not one, not two, but three further collisions. I mean, how fast were these people going? When you go fast, you're supposed to go by the "two second" rule for distance from other vehicles. If they were going slow, how could the momentum have jostled a car three

  • This is already covered by at least two existing laws - 1) DUI the influence can be anything that will distract the driver from full control of the vehicle, and 2) Reckless driving. All that is needed is for these laws to be Federal so as to cover all US states equally.

    Note - I turn off the cell when driving, or if I'm expecting a call I pull over before answering.
  • I think a lot of us are so used to video game action and other intense activities that driving in typical commuter traffic is just kind of frustrating. You end up fiddling with your iPod or texting or shaving or on the cell phone doing deals just because the commute is "dead time" that you feel like you need to fill in with something entertaining or productive.
  • Wouldn't a simple "driving without due care and attention" law be enough, like we have in the UK?

    Admittedly, they did amend the law recently to band using a mobile phone in any way while driving, but at least in theory you could have been prosecuted under the old law anyway. I think the amendment was simply to get some free advertising and good publicity.
  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Wednesday March 14, 2007 @01:07PM (#18350663) Homepage

    Aviation cockpit designers think hard about this stuff. They refer to it as "head-down time" [uiuc.edu], the time the pilot is looking at something else in the cockpit and not out the windscreen. In combat, this is fatal. Hence the military emphasis on heads-up displays and HOTAS (Hands On Throttle and Stick) input devices. In civilian aircraft, cockpits are designed to minimize head-down time at least during takeoff, approach, and landing.

    Much automotive and civilian gear is terrible by these standards. Cockpit designers insist on big knobs you can set by feel and interfaces that minimize head-down time. They try hard to avoid interfaces with unneeded state, and ones where you have to look to see what state you're in. BMW's iDrive [wikipedia.org] was terrible in this regard. BMW's answer was to include a disclaimer that it was unsafe to operate iDrive while driving. Really.

    One design feature that can kill - an interface which times out. The pilot/driver must be able to stop dealing with some cockpit gadget without losing any work. Phones/keyboards/dashboard devices that time out during data entry are dangerous, because they train the user to give them undivided attention. Some phones have this problem, and some don't. Texting has this problem.

    "Nothing to watch but the road" - early Oldsmobile slogan.

  • I'll admit that I've Texted while driving on several occasions, but having a new little girl has changed my perspective on this issue greatly. I just don't do it anymore. I live next to a 2 lane 50mph highway that curves right where I walk with my girl to a park. I walk against traffic in order to see cars approaching me, and on most occasions when a car is swerving towards us, the driver is distracted by a mobile phone. I was almost hit recently walking my dog on the same highway buy a guy who had his face
  • Let's make it simple. Let's just legislate against stupidity and be done with it. Whatever your crime, if you were stupid during the commission of the crime, you get an extra 5 years in jail.

    Wouldn't that be much simpler than these silly knee-jerk reactions to specific un-problems?

How many hardware guys does it take to change a light bulb? "Well the diagnostics say it's fine buddy, so it's a software problem."

Working...