“Right now, we have a reed, not a stick,”

May 2, 2016 7:32 AM

Texting and Driving? Watch Out for the Textalyzer [The New York Times] The most provocative idea, from lawmakers in New York, is to give police officers a new device that is the digital equivalent of the Breathalyzer — a roadside test called the Textalyzer. It would work like this: An officer arriving at the scene of a crash could ask for the phones of any drivers involved and use the Textalyzer to tap into the operating system to check for recent activity.
posted by Fizz (163 comments total)

I totally support this. And, can we also criminalize texting while you are WALKING? The number of people I have to tell every day to look up from their phones is unbelievable.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:41 AM on May 2, 2016 [5 favorites]

Not sure why a special gadget would be necessary. Seems easy enough to require drivers to show their messaging apps to the arresting officer to determine if they were texting at the time of the accident. But either way, I am all for anything that can deter people from doing idiotic, dangerous things while they are driving. And bonus points for making people accountable for driving while distracted. My blood boils every time I see someone behind the wheel looking at their phone instead of the road. I saw the Wim Wenders short film about texting and driving (2 years ago? Sponsored by AT&T?) Several people who were interviewed in the film were responsible for horrific, fatal accidents and more than one was sending an "I'll be there soon. I Love You" text. And they killed someone else who will never be there or anywhere else ever again with the someone they love.
posted by pjsky at 7:41 AM on May 2, 2016 [5 favorites]

Or, we could mandate that phones be left in the trunk of the car, like open alcohol containers. I lived through the 90's-- nobody had turn-by-turn GPS and we still reached our destinations just fine.
posted by blnkfrnk at 7:42 AM on May 2, 2016 [5 favorites]

Put a chip in the key that disables SMS from a linked phone when key is inserted. Whole thing is voluntary but results in auto insurance discounts.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 7:42 AM on May 2, 2016 [33 favorites]

I am totally on board with harsher legislation with regards to people who are driving while distracted. Too many lives are being lost. But I really dislike the idea of giving the police access to private data, even if it is metadata.
posted by Fizz at 7:43 AM on May 2, 2016 [74 favorites]

Relevant text:

The proposed legislation faces hurdles to becoming a law, including privacy concerns. But Félix W. Ortiz, a Democratic assemblyman who was a sponsor of the bipartisan Textalyzer bill, said it would not give the police access to the contents of any emails or texts. It would simply give them a way to catch multitasking drivers, he said.

. . .

But the bill’s authors say they have based the Textalyzer concept on the same “implied consent” legal theory that allows the police to use the Breathalyzer: When drivers obtain a license, they are consenting in advance to a Breathalyzer, or else they will risk the suspension of their license.

If the product and investigation can be done in a non-discriminatory (I won't hold my breath) and non-4th amendment breaking manner, this seems like a perfectly legitimate solution to a major public health issue.
posted by Think_Long at 7:43 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

Boy I can't wait to see what kind of wacky lawsuit I'll have to pay for the NYPD to settle when they grossly misuse this.
posted by griphus at 7:43 AM on May 2, 2016 [65 favorites]

There's a much less Orwellian solution, already in place in much of greater Boston:

Narrow roads, with narrow lanes, lined with lots of rocks, trees, and fence posts.

The repair bills are a good behavioral corrective, just as good as fines and police stops.
posted by ocschwar at 7:44 AM on May 2, 2016 [12 favorites]

Gee, how could this possibly be misused? I wonder.

[Time passes.]

Activist friends are constantly getting pulled over and having their phones checked. The phones are often confiscated or returned broken. Sex worker friends' phones are checked and they're arrested if anything indiscreet pops up. People of color find that their messages are subject to greater scrutiny, and suddenly "hey, want to get dim sum" is turned into code for "hey, let's go buy drugs and throw rocks at cop cars".

I mean, I hate the pervasiveness of phones as much as the next person, but geezum crow, I have known enough people whose computers and personal possessions were seized by the cops on fake charges over the years to find this very sketchy indeed.
posted by Frowner at 7:45 AM on May 2, 2016 [125 favorites]

What if they weren't texting, but were fiddling with the playlist? What if they were trying to see something on their phone map? What if they were doing any one of a million things people do on their phones while they drive that isn't texting?

Maybe we can enforce existing "you are driving like an unsafe asshole" laws without giving cops more power to see your digital life.
posted by rtha at 7:46 AM on May 2, 2016 [77 favorites]

nobody had turn-by-turn GPS and we still reached our destinations just fine.

Confirmation bias. I have a lot of high school friends who are still driving slowly through neighborhoods trying to figure out how to get to a house party I threw in 1997
posted by beerperson at 7:46 AM on May 2, 2016 [126 favorites]

What if they weren't texting, but were fiddling with the playlist? What if they were trying to see something on their phone map? What if they were doing any one of a million things people do on their phones while they drive that isn't texting?

None of those things are okay to do while you are driving.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:47 AM on May 2, 2016 [18 favorites]

The proposed legislation faces hurdles to becoming a law, including privacy concerns. But Félix W. Ortiz, a Democratic assemblyman who was a sponsor of the bipartisan Textalyzer bill, said it would not give the police access to the contents of any emails or texts. It would simply give them a way to catch multitasking drivers, he said.

Hahahaha there's no chance they wouldn't scrape the contents.
posted by protocoach at 7:48 AM on May 2, 2016 [11 favorites]

Why does the source of the distracted driving matter to the law? Should texting while driving be punished more severely than reading a book while driving?
posted by demiurge at 7:49 AM on May 2, 2016 [11 favorites]

What if they were using the Untappd app to check in the beer they're in the middle of drinking?
posted by beerperson at 7:50 AM on May 2, 2016 [18 favorites]

Do drivers in New York ever get pulled over for violating the hands-free law? Based on anecdotal evidence driving the East Coast, no one is terribly concerned about getting busted for this. Cop cars already have dash cams, right? Get drivers on tape using their phone and fine them on the spot. You could do this all day long. Even automate it a la red light cameras.

I think there is approximately 0% chance this tech wouldn't be abused.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:50 AM on May 2, 2016 [5 favorites]

Yeah, because my dad reading a map in a brand new city while trying to drive or arguing with my mom who was trying to read the map to him was a LOT less distracting.

The solution to your [and my] dad being a dangerous idiot is not to provide him with a larger variety of ways to be a dangerous idiot.
posted by klanawa at 7:50 AM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

I don't use my phone while driving and I am strongly opposed to this idea. Get a warrant/court order if you want someone's data. It's not similar to breathalyzers because the evidence of alcohol naturally disappears over time so needs to be recorded at the scene. Texts/messages stick around on the phone/server/receiver's phone.
posted by michaelh at 7:50 AM on May 2, 2016 [30 favorites]

This, as proposed, has nothing to do with texting while driving -- and everything to do with setting up a justification for universal law-enforcement access to your phone.
posted by aramaic at 7:51 AM on May 2, 2016 [92 favorites]

Embedded.fm's most recent episode is primarily about car hacking, how powerful it has become, and how vulnerable our vehicles are. It's a good and relevant listen when considering automated approaches to this issue.
posted by qbject at 7:53 AM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

In eighth grade algebra, we had those fancy graphing calculators that were programmable. You could put formulas in there to cheat on tests, so teachers came up with protocol to prevent that: you had to show them the screen that said "MEMORY CLEARED" to show that you had erased any preprogrammed stuff from your calculator. Guess how long it took an enterprising thirteen-year-old mind to discover that you could effect the same results by writing a program that output "memory cleared"?

So, let's extrapolate this to cell phones. Best case, it's easily spoofable by anyone with an ounce of sense. Worst case, legislators notice that people are spoofing it, and order some sort of cryptographically-signed backdoor that only law enforcement can use. Which we all know can be done with perfect security, and will never be abused by crooked cops or the inevitable torrent of blackhats who get ahold of countermeasures.
posted by Mayor West at 7:53 AM on May 2, 2016 [7 favorites]

> None of those things are okay to do while you are driving.

No shit. But a law letting cops examine your texting history will not tell them if you were distracted by doing OTHER things on your phone. Sorry if my point was unclear and I somehow came across like I was saying those other things are dandy.
posted by rtha at 7:57 AM on May 2, 2016 [25 favorites]

Police in many places give warning and that does little or nothing to stop the texting...Solitary confinement sans cell in the cell?
posted by Postroad at 8:06 AM on May 2, 2016

"Alright, the Textalyzer says your last 3 texts all happened in the past 90 seconds. Clearly, this proves you were texting while driving."

"No, officer, my passenger sent those texts using my phone."

'Your passenger is being arrested for fraud'
posted by beerperson at 8:07 AM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

"Alright, the Textalyzer says your last 3 texts all happened in the past 90 seconds. Clearly, this proves you were texting while driving."

"No, officer, my passenger Siri sent those texts using my phone."

posted by Fizz at 8:08 AM on May 2, 2016 [7 favorites]

Can't you text at red lights though?

You are still driving even if you are stopped at a red light.
posted by muddgirl at 8:09 AM on May 2, 2016 [17 favorites]

I drove in the 90s too, and the only reason I'm not still looking for beerperson's house party is because I got GPS in 2003.
I got that GPS in a new car after crashing my previous car-- because I was lost, trying to figure out where I was, and hence pretty damn distracted.

I use my phone for turn by turn directions while driving, but if I'm alone, I don't touch the phone while driving; I set it, and then go. If I need to adjust the directions, I *pull over*.
Same with texting- if I need to text that badly, I get off the road and stop to do so.

Of course this technology can't really tell the difference between my behavior and that of someone still driving while texting.
posted by nat at 8:09 AM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]

Hrrrrrm. I'm not sure what to think about this- what about those of us who voice text? Surely I'm not the only one. Or on preview, what Fizz said.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 8:10 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

"No, officer, my passenger SIRI sent those texts using my phone."


"Not only that, officer, I didn't even touch my phone, since my car has a Siri button on the steering wheel..."
posted by Huck500 at 8:10 AM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]

> Can't you text at red lights though?

Not in California.

The first time I got rear-ended, we were at a stop light and the guy who hit me did so because he was looking at his phone, looked up, saw the light was green, and hit the gas - without checking to see if the car in front of him (being driven by me!) was actually moving yet. Which I was not, since the car in front of me was not moving yet.
posted by rtha at 8:12 AM on May 2, 2016 [9 favorites]

I mean, I hate the pervasiveness of phones as much as the next person, but geezum crow, I have known enough people whose computers and personal possessions were seized by the cops on fake charges over the years to find this very sketchy indeed.

Yeah, I was pretty startled at the "yeah, let the cops have access to our phones!" response at the top of the thread.

I have no trouble with arresting people for texting while driving. And educating people. And so on. But given what we know about police corruption, rights violoations, racism and violence, I am not on board with this.
posted by emjaybee at 8:12 AM on May 2, 2016 [7 favorites]

"Not only that, officer, I didn't even touch my phone, since my car has a Siri button on the steering wheel..."

Not only that officer, I own a Tesla and the car was driving.
posted by nathan_teske at 8:13 AM on May 2, 2016 [7 favorites]

I drove in the 90s too, and the only reason I'm not still looking for beerperson's house party is because I got GPS in 2003.

omigod you were supposed to bring the keg

why didn't you call
posted by beerperson at 8:13 AM on May 2, 2016 [26 favorites]

Can't you text at red lights though?

No. If you want to text park the car, but it in park and then text. Your job at a red light is to make sure no one rear-ends you.

For those worries about privacy abuses, I would think this actually helps prevent that: It doesn't tell the police anything about content or what you were doing, only that the phone was used, and it tells them that instantly on site. So they have no reason to confiscate your phone pre-emptively, which would give them all sorts of opportunities to check all your private crap.

As for handing over a decoy phone or claiming not to have one's phone, I imagine that (if found to be false via warrant on cell phone data which would show location, in the "left it at home" case) could easily be treated in the same way as refusing a breathalyzer. That's a chargeable offense in some places, isn't it?

The only thing I find odd is that it seems to limit itself to hands-based actions. We know that using a phone hands-free is no safer, but one of the arguments I've heard against also making hands-free illegal is that how would you know people were doing it? It's supposedly unenforceable. (Though I've spotted plenty of people alone in their cars obviously having conversations, so I don't think this holds much water). So yeah, make hands-free use illegal, too and have the textalizer check for all use, not just hand-based.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:14 AM on May 2, 2016

Honestly I would be okay with federally-mandated code that locks all SMS functions on phones detected to be moving on a road faster than a human can walk. My passenger needs to text? That too can wait until we stop. Plus this way people who use trains could still text.
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 8:15 AM on May 2, 2016

Hrrrrrm. I'm not sure what to think about this- what about those of us who voice text?

It's not safe. Don't do it. Scroll down to the hands-free section here for the research.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:16 AM on May 2, 2016 [4 favorites]

Plus this way people who use trains could still text.

But not buses, streetcars, or trains that run along roads. I like the idea of putting a chip in the car key with a linked phone.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:17 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

If you've pulled someone over and are subjecting them to the Textalyzer, didn't you already see them using the phone through the window? Isn't that all the evidence you need to levy a fine?

And don't cell phone records get subpoenaed all the time in accident cases?

Something is rotten in Denmark.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:17 AM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

I lived through the 90's-- nobody had turn-by-turn GPS and we still reached our destinations just fine.

And we drove uphill both ways in deep snow in the summer to do, too!

The technology is there for total hands free use, maybe new cars should require the driver's phone be slotted into a plugin before the key works or else all phones in the car are disabled.

We could jack up the social stigma against driving while texting, but it wouldn't stop assholes. People still drive and drink in the car. Maybe if you're caught screwing with your phone it should be 6 months forfeit first offense and no phone or license second.

I lived through the '70s- early 80s without a cell phone OR a landline. Husband and I used payphones, and managed necessary communication just fine. (But it did snow a lot.)
posted by BlueHorse at 8:18 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

Mm, forgot about buses. This is hard.

And the hell of it is, the Terminator warned us. I'm certain that after he said "It's in your nature to destroy yourselves," he almost mentioned cell phones, but decided it might just turn John into the Miles Dyson of the cell phone.
posted by CheesesOfBrazil at 8:19 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

If you've pulled someone over and are subjecting them to the Textalyzer, didn't you already see them using the phone through the window?

Not if they're using it hands-free. And not necessarily if you're driving behind them. How many drunk/distracted drivers are spotted from behind because they're drifting left and right in their lane? If I call (and I'm the passenger if I'm calling) 911 to report a suspected drunk driver, and it turns out they're on the phone, not drunk, this gives the police the evidence they need to charge.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:20 AM on May 2, 2016

Not only that officer, I own a Tesla and the car was driving.

TESLA IN JAIL CELL #1: What are you in for?
IPHONE 6 IN JAIL CELL #2: I was texting my owner's gf at a stop sign. What about you?
TESLA IN JAIL CELL #1: I was googling while driving.
IPHONE 6 IN JAIL CELL #1: Shit man, this new future Internet of Things is all kinds of fucked up.
posted by Fizz at 8:20 AM on May 2, 2016 [5 favorites]

And don't cell phone records get subpoenaed all the time in accident cases?

But that's sooooo boring! C'mon.
posted by ODiV at 8:21 AM on May 2, 2016

New idea: All smartphones manufactured going forward have a huge protrusion shaped like a car key and you have to use your phone to turn the ignition in your car so it's impossible to text because the angle is weird
posted by beerperson at 8:22 AM on May 2, 2016 [6 favorites]

The technology is there for total hands free use, maybe new cars should require the driver's phone be slotted into a plugin before the key works or else all phones in the car are disabled.

I prefer that if drivers are going to use their phones that they use their hands so that I can see them. If I see them doing it, I know to be extra cautious with those drivers and stay as far away as possible. If they're hands-free, how do I know which ones are extra dangerous? Disabling all phones in the car except 911 would be ok with me, but is obviously the clunkiests possible solution.

(Sorry to post too many times...I'll go to work now).
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 8:23 AM on May 2, 2016

I'm a little surprised this isn't universally understood to be a really, really bad idea. Cops are going to abuse this tool within hours of it being implemented. Cops have shown time and time again they do not care about privacy, or rights in general, even in the most mundane of policing contexts.
posted by elwoodwiles at 8:26 AM on May 2, 2016 [25 favorites]

Not if they're using it hands-free.

Which is allowed under NY state law.

You've got to convince me that simply mounting a camera to the driver and/or passenger side of the police vehicle wouldn't catch enough violators to keep an officer busy all day long. Maybe people adapt by going hands-free, which isn't perfect, but better than holding a 5" blinder to your face.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:27 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

Not to rain on the collective parade here, but: this is not a problem with a technological solution. If your plan includes some variant of the phrase "the car will disable the X under condition Y," you're advocating for the use of a device that jams common frequency bands, and is not under user control. (Hint: this is curing the common cold by giving everyone pancreatic cancer) You cannot reliably discern which phone inside a passenger compartment belongs to the driver, and attempting to do so will absolutely cause horrible side effects that make phones and cars unusable. If you rely on self-reporting, anyone who cares will defeat the problem trivially. If you think law enforcement could handle the difficulties of reconciling all three of these problems, and still manage not to use their unobtanium-powered Textalyzer to target minorities and political dissidents, I have an unobtanium-powered Textalyzer I'd like to sell you.
posted by Mayor West at 8:28 AM on May 2, 2016 [21 favorites]

For those worries about privacy abuses, I would think this actually helps prevent that: It doesn't tell the police anything about content or what you were doing, only that the phone was used, and it tells them that instantly on site.

You actually believe, in this the year of our lord 2016, that you can take anyone at their word when they tell you they will limit how much data they collect about you? You trust the police not to gather as much data as they possibly can, and not to abuse that data?
posted by protocoach at 8:30 AM on May 2, 2016 [24 favorites]

If I see them doing it, I know to be extra cautious with those drivers and stay as far away as possible.

Unless you're parallel to them and looking over (thus taking your own eyes off the road), how could you possibly see them doing it (or anything else for that matter) until it's too late to react?
posted by blucevalo at 8:32 AM on May 2, 2016

Also, can this thing distinguish between using Siri "always on" (or similar for Android) and actually putting mitts on the phone?
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:32 AM on May 2, 2016

That said, this is absolutely a problem with a human solution. You just need to put police officers at intersections, and have them issue tickets to everyone who is obviously typing while they're stopped at a red light, or are just glancing up at the road every few seconds.

This problem is just as insidious as running red lights, blocking the box, or driving excessively fast. So, if the enforcement pattern of the City of Boston is any indicator, this problem cannot possibly be solved in our lifetime, even though every officer writing tickets would earn the city five times their own salary and be a license for the cash-strapped city to print money.
posted by Mayor West at 8:34 AM on May 2, 2016

I'm surprised the cops aren't just using this to justify putting a StingRay phone sniffer in every police car.
posted by mccarty.tim at 8:37 AM on May 2, 2016

Unless you're parallel to them and looking over (thus taking your own eyes off the road), how could you possibly see them doing it (or anything else for that matter) until it's too late to react?

I'm primarily a pedestrian and I see people texting while driving all the time! I hate it because I don't want to wait a full light cycle to cross the street but I also KNOW they haven't seen me so I don't want to cross when there's a chance they'll forget what's going on and just start going or if it looks like they're going straight but they MIGHT suddenly realize they want to turn right and drive into me. It also means that because their behavior is unpredictable (because they're not paying attention to the road) then mine becomes unpredictable (am I going to cross or not?) which is less safe for everyone.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 8:37 AM on May 2, 2016 [8 favorites]

Don't forget also that this "Textalyzer" doesn't actually exist yet, so it's impossible to analyze the privacy concerns. It's not hard to imagine what it will do in practice, however.
posted by fogovonslack at 8:38 AM on May 2, 2016

Also, yes, I would love it if the cops had a way to easily, at the press of a button, tell where my phone was. Tracking where phones are couldn't possibly turn into tracking where people go and that couldn't possibly be used to crack down on who people associate with, could it? Alternatively, wouldn't it be really neat for law enforcement to be able to track you by name really, really easily as a matter of course? If you don't have anything to hide, etc etc.
posted by Frowner at 8:41 AM on May 2, 2016 [10 favorites]

This assumes that your phone will actually tell the truth about your activity. How can you trust that some third party app won't trip the usage flag? How can the police tell that my phone isn't hacked to always report "no?"
posted by a dangerous ruin at 8:41 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

As I understand the proposed law, you can refuse the cop and like refusing a breathalizer, you risk having a judge suspend your license. In a sense, you can buy your own privacy with the cost being a 3 or 6 month suspension of your license. Or, you go to court and produce your own records and fight the case and never have to give up your phone.

This law is not that intrusive in that you can simply say no, go to court and produce your cell phone records.
posted by AugustWest at 8:43 AM on May 2, 2016

This law is not that intrusive in that you can simply say no, go to court and produce your cell phone records.

That seems pretty intrusive! I don't want to show anyone my phone records because it's none of their damn business, and taking a day off of work to go to court is not necessarily a small thing.

I really, REALLY hope we can get a handle on people texting while driving (or really doing basically anything with their phones will driving) because it really is a huge safety concern and people are sure they are okay at it and they're not, NO ONE IS GOOD AT TEXTING WHILE DRIVING, but giving police access to more information about people and how they use their phones and who they're calling doesn't seem like an okay plan at all and also seems like it will be pretty selectively enforced which is always really dangerous if you're interested in any sort of justice at all.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 8:48 AM on May 2, 2016 [17 favorites]

For those worries about privacy abuses, I would think this actually helps prevent that: It doesn't tell the police anything about content or what you were doing, only that the phone was used, and it tells them that instantly on site.

Using Metadata to find Paul Revere
posted by Mayor West at 8:49 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

> Why does the source of the distracted driving matter to the law? Should texting while driving be punished more severely than reading a book while driving?

Yes, absolutely - and the reason is deterrence, and the reason we need deterrence is that mobile devices are far, far more of an attractive nuisance than a book.

Books don't suddenly ring, click, or beep, demanding attempting. One of the few times I almost got into a serious accident, it was when I decided to pick up on a call from someone I hadn't heard from in years while driving - it turned out to be bad news, a mutual friend had been in a car accident, and then I seriously cut off another driver who missed me by inches.

Had I known that touching my cellphone for anything other than navigation was a serious offense, I would have steeled myself already against it... and I'm generally paranoid about not answering phones (I believe I would have been legal to have answered that phone, when it happened).

Cellphone manufacturers need to figure out a good "car mode" system - one that doesn't ring if you are in the car.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:53 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

people who think this sounds like a good idea have too much trust in the police/too much faith in safeguards on technology.
posted by nadawi at 8:53 AM on May 2, 2016 [17 favorites]

Cellphone manufacturers need to figure out a good "car mode" system - one that doesn't ring if you are in the car.

everyone has a volume button. if someone knows they're the type to respond to every blip and bling and notification, they should turn off alerts when they're driving.
posted by nadawi at 8:56 AM on May 2, 2016

Oh, and "car mode" also solves the "police see my texts" issue.

If my phone is in car mode, I have no privacy objections to "how long I've been in car mode" being shown to anyone with physical access to the phone.

If a policeman sees, "This phone has been in car mode for 60 minutes" then they know my texting, emailing, youtubing, facebooking, etc. did not cause this accident - no more details are needed.

(Yes, I could fake such a screen but that'd be felonious, and it'd be easy to check if you were lying with a court order to your provider...)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:57 AM on May 2, 2016

people who think this sounds like a good idea have too much trust in the police/too much faith in safeguards on technology.

I think this is a good idea and I am the first to say fuck the po-po. I think most people agree that distracted driving is a real problem that costs lives and millions of dollars in damages every year. Those who think this is a bad idea either don't have a solution of their own or think that the tradeoff between the risk the cops are taking more data than they claim is worse than the distracted driving is itself.
posted by AugustWest at 8:58 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

> everyone has a volume button. if someone knows they're the type to respond to every blip and bling and notification, they should turn off alerts when they're driving.

Well, that doesn't prevent me from sending texts, facebooking, or a million other things, so I'm not sure what it accomplishes.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:00 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

(Yes, I could fake such a screen but that'd be felonious, and it'd be easy to check if you were lying with a court order to your provider...)

But how would you know to get the court order? If I have $EMERGENCY_APP where I tap a button and it shows "Car Mode - 30 min.", the cop presumably has no cause to look farther - after all, I'm in car mode. If they are plugging it into something that reads just the car mode, you have to trust that they're just reading the car mode setting and nothing else. Again: this is placing more faith in the police than they have ever earned, and it would be ripe for abuse.
posted by protocoach at 9:02 AM on May 2, 2016

Disclaimer: I work for Apple, but not on anything related to iOS or iPhone. So doing some speculation based on public information.

This whole discussion is a moot point, at least at on the iPhone side.

As we have all seen, Apple is not going to write special software that weakens your phone's security to help the police. Because if the cops can get into your phone to check activity, so can nefarious 3rd parties. The user is going to have to give explicit permission by unlocking the phone.

Unless it's an older model, of course, but not sure if the FBI is handing out the exploit they bought on the black market for texting-while-driving cases.

Also, there might not be a way to do this, even if the user gave permission. "Show me the call history" would need a public API provided by iOS. A quick Google shows people complaining about a lack of public API to do it, so I am going to guess there isn't one.
posted by sideshow at 9:02 AM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]

Those who think this is a bad idea either don't have a solution of their own or think that the tradeoff between the risk the cops are taking more data than they claim is worse than the distracted driving is itself.

i lost my uncle to a car full of distracted driving. as far as i know, no one was on a cell phone - it was just a car filled with college kids not paying attention and ran head first into my uncle's bike. gleefully giving up our rights won't solve this issue.

Well, that doesn't prevent me from sending texts, facebooking, or a million other things, so I'm not sure what it accomplishes.

a technological solution won't solve this problem was my point. it has to be a human behavior solution. any technological barrier would be circumvented and/or abused.
posted by nadawi at 9:04 AM on May 2, 2016 [7 favorites]

My car is not particularly fancy or high end, and it has a function that will read me my texts to me and allow me to respond with basic answers (yes, no, I'm running late, that sort of thing) using my radio controls. You can argue about whether it should, but it's not illegal, anymore than adjusting my radio is. So I'd be concerned about this just from a functional perspective, even before you got to the likelihood of abuse by police.
posted by tavella at 9:05 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

In a world with a different policing culture, I might be willing to entertain a discussion about the pros and cons of a system like this. In a world with the policing culture we actually have, the only rational reaction to this proposal is "HAHAHA FUCK OFF."
posted by tobascodagama at 9:07 AM on May 2, 2016 [10 favorites]

The technology is there for total hands free use, maybe new cars should require the driver's phone be slotted into a plugin before the key works or else all phones in the car are disabled.

Great, so now I have to decide if I'm going to buy an Android car or an Apple car? Because there is no way this does not turn into console wars.
posted by maryr at 9:07 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

What if I turn off the engine and pull up the emergency brake at the light?

I'm like 99% sure it's illegal to just straight up park in the middle of the roadway, and in California at least texting while illegally parked is still illegal. So no texting while double-parked, either.
posted by muddgirl at 9:08 AM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

Sideshow- New York can then ban the sale of iPhones in the state, and maybe Apple holds firm and the faithful have to buy from another state, and maybe Apple doesn't. But you can trust that the structure of the law will be arranged so that it's difficult to mail order from any major player (they all will have retail ops in NY), it would put enormous pressure on Apple to build complaint phones.
posted by wotsac at 9:09 AM on May 2, 2016

We've been told there's a massive upswing in distracted driving deaths and injuries. I'm not certain it's true. Pedestrians, not protected by airbags or seatbelts or impact-resistant structures like drivers and passengers are, should be more vulnerable to distracted drivers than anyone. Yet, pedestrian deaths, with the exception of 2015, have been trending down since the introduction of cell phones and texting, along with motorist fatalities and injuries.

This is due to improvements in safety equipment (anti-lock, four-wheel disk brakes and traction control), and progress overall does not seem to be impeded by those who recklessly text while driving - they're an edge case and an outlier. The bump in fatalities last year probably has more to do with the explosion of opioid abuse in a large segment of the driving population than distracted driving.

This smacks of a power-grab by law enforcement, to be used to incarcerate more minorities - "I guess you weren't texting, but what's this about sparking up a blunt? Hold tight while we bring in the K-9 unit to go over your car."
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:10 AM on May 2, 2016 [10 favorites]

This problem is just as insidious as running red lights, blocking the box, or driving excessively fast. So, if the enforcement pattern of the City of Boston is any indicator, this problem cannot possibly be solved in our lifetime, even though every officer writing tickets would earn the city five times their own salary and be a license for the cash-strapped city to print money.

No, no, the solution is stricter PARKING enforcement. That'll fund your schools and parks.

Love,
Somerville
posted by maryr at 9:11 AM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

This reads exactly like an attempted technical solution to a social problem without addressing even one of the major problems that its implementation would have. In order for this to work we'd have to give up on the idea of our phone being a general-purpose computer.

You can run arbitrary software on your phone as you desire. Until that changes, this solution does nothing but give law enforcement more power.
posted by introp at 9:11 AM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]

New York can then ban the sale of iPhones in the state

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That is not going to happen.
posted by maryr at 9:12 AM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]

The user is going to have to give explicit permission by unlocking the phone.

Of course that's the entire point. See the "implied consent" theory mentioned in the article. Currently the police need a warrant to search a cell phone, but the Textalyzer provides an excuse to skip the warrant and perform the search immediately, legally requiring the citizen to unlock the phone and consent to the search.
posted by skymt at 9:12 AM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

Honestly, I am interested that this kind of thing is being proposed at the very moment that the cops are under greater public scrutiny. My bet is that this would be used, much as body cams seem to be, in a selective and abusive way with the goal of saying "but it's technology, it must be fair" - new model cops, same as the old ones.
posted by Frowner at 9:14 AM on May 2, 2016 [8 favorites]

Meanwhile - calling this a law about texting only begins to tell you the scope of it, because there's no need that the communication which takes place is in the form of sending an SMS message, and not one of the myriad communication apps provided by third parties. And merely because you aren't using the phone to communicate does not mean that you're not being distracted by it. So we can't really limit the inspection of the phone to one app, it has to be comprehensive.
posted by wotsac at 9:15 AM on May 2, 2016 [6 favorites]

I be thinkin' every day
Mulholland Drive, need to put up some god damn barricades
I be paranoid every time
The pressure, the problem ain't I be drivin'
The problem is I be textin'
My psychiatrist got kids that I inspired
First song they played for me was 'bout their friend that just died
Textin' and drivin' down Mulholland Drive
That's why I'd rather take the 405
posted by porn in the woods at 9:15 AM on May 2, 2016

There are all these things that in combination with driving can result in serious injury or death.

Maybe look at the common factor here instead of trying to individually regulate every other thing?
posted by ODiV at 9:15 AM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

i lost my uncle to a car full of distracted driving. as far as i know, no one was on a cell phone - it was just a car filled with college kids not paying attention and ran head first into my uncle's bike. gleefully giving up our rights won't solve this issue.


I am sorry for your loss. This proposed law is not seeking to solve every distracted driving case, only the ones where the use of a cell phone is the distraction. I banned my teen drivers from using their radio until they had a year of experience. I have seen people pull out of the McDonald's drivethru with a Big Mac in one hand and a soda in the other. This law will not address either their distraction or their eating habits. It is a first step. It is a deterrent. Breathalyzers haven't solved the drinking and driving problem 100% either.

While this may seem like a power grab by the police and it certainly can be abused, the impetus for the law was a man whose son was a passenger in a car and died because the driver was texting and driving. The cops at the scene and the DA afterwards refused to seek information on whether there was any distracted driving. They refused to try to enforce an existing law.
posted by AugustWest at 9:15 AM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

That is not going to happen.

If the law passes, what's the alternative?
posted by wotsac at 9:17 AM on May 2, 2016

only the ones where the use of a cell phone is the distraction.

no, only the ones where the sms app were used. which makes the overreach absurd for how little information it will really give.


The cops at the scene and the DA afterwards refused to seek information on whether there was any distracted driving. They refused to try to enforce an existing law.

this seems like a much better place to start rather than trusting your phone with police as a condition of having a drivers license.
posted by nadawi at 9:18 AM on May 2, 2016 [6 favorites]

While this may seem like a power grab by the police and it certainly can be abused, the impetus for the law was a man whose son was a passenger in a car and died because the driver was texting and driving.

I'm not sure we should be letting the police search us because the police refused to do their jobs and someone has some Good Intentions in re: making them do their job.
posted by griphus at 9:19 AM on May 2, 2016 [12 favorites]

They refused to try to enforce an existing law.

How is giving police another tool they can use at their discretion going to help this? It's appalling and has nothing to do with available technology and everything to do with failures of the justice system to protect people.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 9:19 AM on May 2, 2016 [11 favorites]

That is not going to happen.

If the law passes, what's the alternative?

The law banning iPhone sales in New York state? It is not going to pass.

(And the alternative is that citizens buy their iPhones online or in one of the surrounding states or provinces. Because a law making it illegal to own an iPhones is even LESS likely to pass.)
posted by maryr at 9:23 AM on May 2, 2016

My understanding is police can already look in someone's phone to see if they were doing something on it at the time of an accident. I'd much rather they plug the device into something that looks at keyboard actions on the phone rather than actually dig into all of my apps and see exactly what I was saying. To me, this feels more like its limiting the scope of what the police can access?
posted by lownote at 9:28 AM on May 2, 2016

rrrrrm. I'm not sure what to think about this- what about those of us who voice text?

It's not safe. Don't do it. Scroll down to the hands-free section here for the research.

Weeeeeeeel that's not exactly what it says.

In short, texting drivers may believe they’re being more careful when they use the voice-to-text method, but these new findings suggest that those applications offer no real safety advantage over manual texting if drivers choose to visually confirm the spoken texts.

I rarely confirm anymore- I don't want to say that I never do, but it's infrequent. My dictation is strong. I am more likely to have an autocorrect fail type mistake with typing than a dictation fail, so I don't need to check it.

Don't get me wrong, I've sent some goofy ones. Anyway, I question the premise that voice texting is slower than manual texting. Maybe when the tech was new. I've been told I'm a fast typer on the phone(though never tested it) and yet my dictation outpaces my typing by a smidge.

Now I may be the exception to the rule- I spent two years with crippling wrist pain and ended up relying pretty heavily on voice-to-text. And as my wrists have started to heal, they tolerate text typing more than computer typing, likely due to the neutral position of the forearm when texting. So I have had a lot of practice with both means.

My setup may not be conventional either. I mount my phone on the windshield and use google maps more or less everywhere I go. I like taking the fastest route and Google is pretty good at pointing me to ways I never thought to go. But that also means that I've also got a display within a quick eye flick, should I need to look.

I don't doubt I'm distracted to an extent. I know talking on a phone when driving is a big problem even when hands free. But I can literally feel a difference between the background fading out as in a phone call, and the immediacy of the road is more in the active forethought of my brain.

I'd love to know how familiar the drivers were with the voice operations of there phone, and how they were using it, because I suspect that does play a roll. The study was concluded March 2013. Voice to text has improved enormously in the past 3 years. Within that time frame it's gone from chunky one word at a time dictation that you must review in progress, more or less understanding complete sentences with a high level of accuracy.

(Also, I'm not having long conversations; it's more the i'm running a little late, I should be there no later than 1240." variety.)

On the other hand, the few times I've been in California recently, I've been with people who still text and drive, but they all hold their phones down low so cops will be less likely to see them. Now they have to look away for a longer period of time!!! Because that's all sorts of safe.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 9:28 AM on May 2, 2016

And my above comment isn't to imply by any means that hands free texting is entirely safe- but rather with careful consideration, you can reduce risk. I have pulled over if something needed more immediate and involved attention. Just be conscious of the risks and do what you can to minimize them.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 9:32 AM on May 2, 2016

Honestly, building new cars with a more obvious place to mount your phone would be a simple technological improvement.
posted by maryr at 9:32 AM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]

Guaranfuckinteed a lot of the concern around this is coming from drivers who also have a huge stick up their ass about bicycles running red lightsusing the road.
posted by osk at 9:39 AM on May 2, 2016 [4 favorites]

As a related note- my husband and I drive older cars that don't have giant fucking tv screens in the middle of the console. When we've rented cars recently, I couldn't help but notice what a huge distraction those things are, and how difficult it can be to operate. In at least one of the cars, some of the traditional physical knobs were replaced with control via the screen. Instead of being able to change climate control by physical touch and memory, you had to engage actively with a screen that took longer to get into the controls and change than a simple knob or button...

Neither of us could imagine that was particularly great for keeping your eyes on the road. Maybe you get used to it enough to be able to do blindly, but it seemed unlikely.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 9:45 AM on May 2, 2016 [13 favorites]

I'll take that bet, osk. I simply do not text or call while I'm driving at all, ever and I'm all for sharing the road with cyclists; and I still think this is a hideously stupid and bad law.
posted by Greg_Ace at 9:47 AM on May 2, 2016 [6 favorites]

I'm not even entirely sure what a 'car' is tbh
posted by griphus at 9:48 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

it's a box you go inside to text and surf the web without having to worry about your family seeing what you're doing
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:53 AM on May 2, 2016

Oh, the one the toilet is in, got it.
posted by griphus at 9:54 AM on May 2, 2016 [4 favorites]

This law is not that intrusive in that you can simply say no, go to court and produce your cell phone records.

i mean?? maybe??? a white person could do this? but probably the first black person to try this will get shot in the face?
posted by poffin boffin at 9:56 AM on May 2, 2016 [14 favorites]

In at least one of the cars, some of the traditional physical knobs were replaced with control via the screen. Instead of being able to change climate control by physical touch and memory, you had to engage actively with a screen that took longer to get into the controls and change than a simple knob or button...

Excuse me while I rant, but touchscreen everything is such a bad fucking idea. It was bad enough when they decided phones don't need more than one physical button, and the failure mode was random input from the side of your face while talking - now they're doing it with a 1200 kg chunk of metal hurtling down the highway, a real genius move.
posted by Dr Dracator at 9:57 AM on May 2, 2016 [12 favorites]

it's always so confusing to me when metafilter suddenly starts randomly trusting US law enforcement
posted by poffin boffin at 9:57 AM on May 2, 2016 [24 favorites]

Seems like the USA is a few years behind the UK.

Over here, it's illegal to be distracted while driving, and using a mobile phone is an explicit violation in its own right (3 penalty points and a fine). Hands-free is legal but discouraged -- again, if you're distracted by a gizmo while driving and an accident happens you can be prosecuted. This includes Satnav devices, mp3 players, phones .... just about anything: the key word here is "distracted" because you're meant to be in control of your vehicle at all times (People get prosecuted for being spotted drinking from a cup of coffee or, allegedly, smoking a cigarette at the wheel).

In event of a serious crash, the cops routinely confiscate all phones found at the accident scene in order to check for when they were most recently used. Texting at the wheel right before an accident can get you years in prison.
posted by cstross at 9:57 AM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

Guaranfuckinteed a lot of the concern around this is coming from drivers who also have a huge stick up their ass about bicycles running red lightsusing the road.

I'm a cyclist who doesn't own a car and has never held a valid driver's license, but I think this proposal is utter horseshit.
posted by tobascodagama at 9:58 AM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]

> older cars that don't have giant fucking tv screens

I rented a late-model car a while ago. I'll be damned if it didn't have a humongous touchscreen center console that lit up the cab like an atomic Christmas tree. It was late at night when I got in, and I had to poke around in the settings for 5 minutes to figure out how to put it into "Night Mode"--even though the time was set correctly (10 PM). I can definitely imagine something like that causing problems.

Also, the climate controls (which were under the giant screen, yet somehow not illuminated by it) were not lit up and I had to use my phone to light them up to see where everything was so as to turn on the heat. Yay, technology?
posted by ostranenie at 10:00 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

Talking on a cell phone has about the same distraction level as talking to a passenger. See the AAA/University of Utah study on driver distraction. Do you think talking to a passenger is going to be outlawed any time soon?
posted by demiurge at 10:00 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

passengers talking to me should be outlawed, also passengers changing the radio station or passengers turning on the a/c, passengers in general

ban humans i want to ban humans

i don't even have a car
posted by poffin boffin at 10:02 AM on May 2, 2016 [14 favorites]

I would also like to ban people talking to me in coffee shops
posted by beerperson at 10:07 AM on May 2, 2016 [5 favorites]

Talking on a cell phone has about the same distraction level as talking to a passenger. See the AAA/University of Utah study on driver distraction.

I'm going to read the study shortly, but I'm guessing talking to most passengers doesn't occupy your hands. Also you are not very likely to drop the passenger you are talking to and cause an accident while scrambling under your seat with one hand trying to find them.
posted by Dr Dracator at 10:11 AM on May 2, 2016

Do you think talking to a passenger is going to be outlawed any time soon?

all these 'distracted driver' laws get the side-eye from me as long as it's legal to have a goddamn human child strapped into a seat in the back of your car, talking nonsense, asking questions that cut you to the bone with their guilelessness, throwing sippy cups full of juice, unstrapping themselves, randomly vomiting and possibly aspirating said vomit, shrieking for no reason, having full-blown panic attacks because there's a moth in the car, etc
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:13 AM on May 2, 2016 [12 favorites]

i also support this ban on babies
posted by poffin boffin at 10:20 AM on May 2, 2016 [17 favorites]

Driving a car is a privilege, not a right.

We need extremely stringent licensing requirements and traffic law enforcement, as well as extremely punitive measures for infractions: fines based on your wealth, prison time for deaths. It should be extremely easy to lose your license, not extremely difficult.

You are driving a killing machine and "lol didn't see them" should not get you a "kthxbai," it should get you a revoked license.
posted by entropicamericana at 10:23 AM on May 2, 2016 [9 favorites]

Tesla's 'autopilot' does throw up all sorts of complex issues. Granted I haven't tried it in the US, but on a long journey across some very lightly trafficked, gently curved and excellently marked European roads, the system was capable of driving safely for literally hundreds of kilometres on its own. It becomes second nature to switch the system on if you wanted to change the music on your phone or quickly check your email, 'safe' in the knowledge that the car would be fine to steer by itself. I was never in any doubt that I was responsible, though. But as these systems get more advanced - and include active safety - the act of simply using a phone behind the wheel will no longer be a cut and dried case of dangerous driving.
posted by srednivashtar at 10:28 AM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]

Also, touchscreens in cars are stupid. Everyone knows knobs and switches are better, which is one of the many, many reasons the Millennium Falcon is cooler than the NCC-1701-D.
posted by entropicamericana at 10:36 AM on May 2, 2016 [6 favorites]

"It should be extremely easy to lose your license, not extremely difficult. "

Congratulations you've impoverished millions of people who depend on being able to drive to get to jobs, schools, etc who will, for sure, be targeted unfairly because of gender, race or other bigoted reasons.
posted by FritoKAL at 10:37 AM on May 2, 2016 [24 favorites]

If only there were other solutions than autocentric development, like building/retrofitting walkable and bikeable cities with public transit!

Too bad, I guess we'll have to just keep accepting the equivalent of 10 9/11s on our roads every year!
posted by entropicamericana at 10:46 AM on May 2, 2016 [4 favorites]

There are also insurance companies toying with the idea of in-cockpit cameras that detect when you are distracted.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 10:49 AM on May 2, 2016

Also, I'll support this when the police stop using fucking laptops in their car while driving.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 10:51 AM on May 2, 2016 [19 favorites]

If only there were other solutions than autocentric development, like building/retrofitting walkable and bikeable cities with public transit!

It's a real shame that we can only do one thing at a time!
posted by Dr Dracator at 11:03 AM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

If a cop asks for everyone's phones from a four-car fender-bender, and I say I didn't own one, what happens if he doesn't believe me? How do I prove that in court? Subpoena all cell providers in the US? Wouldn't that be an undue burden?
posted by eclectist at 11:09 AM on May 2, 2016

Why would you assume that you would have to prove that you don't own a cell phone? The burden of proof would be on the prosecution to prove you own a phone. I'm sure that's really not that complicated of a process if they really wanted to prove it.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 11:16 AM on May 2, 2016

If the State of New York were genuinely interested in legislating to improve road safety, there are many other places they could go — mandating frequent and thorough testing to requalify for a driver's license, requiring the stereo to be removed from all cars licensed in the state, making traffic police do their damn jobs, etc. Instead, we have something that allows police, under the flimsiest pretext, to rifle through your personal effects and almost incidentally maybe show that you were distracted in one very specific way. It's pretty obvious why they're doing this, and it has nothing to do with road safety.
posted by indubitable at 11:29 AM on May 2, 2016 [5 favorites]

Why would you assume that you would have to prove that you don't own a cell phone?

Because we live in the US, where the police may or may not follow their own laws depending on the prevailing trade winds.

(ETA: By "we", I mean people affected by this-here law.)
posted by XtinaS at 11:42 AM on May 2, 2016 [5 favorites]

pretty lame. old news: all the cellphone use is bad, not just texting.

just as bad as DWI, says the research. still, no MACPD. but, no need to enumerate everything, there's already careless driving and negligent homicide and vehicular manslaughter. just make any cellphone use at all while driving an aggravating factor. And prosecute.
posted by j_curiouser at 11:43 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

Whelp. It's clear from this thread what the push for self-driving cars is all about.
posted by Twang at 11:45 AM on May 2, 2016 [4 favorites]

Whelp. It's clear from this thread what the push for self-driving cars is all about.

The elimination of road fatalities, for me, is #1. No. 2 is reduced pollution and fossil fuel consumption - since no-one will be pulling into traffic themselves, who cares if your car has "overtaking ability?" All cars will drive the posted speed limit, which will vastly reduce fuel consumption and emissions. In addition to that is reduced road maintenance - since cars no longer need huge engines to entertain the drivers, manufacturers will be focusing on reducing weight for greater fuel efficiency and a nice ride quality, which will in turn mean lighter, more softly sprung vehicles that are gentler on the roads.

Also, I want to nap on my way in to work.
posted by Slap*Happy at 11:58 AM on May 2, 2016 [7 favorites]

Whelp. It's clear from this thread what the push for self-driving cars is all about.

Freeing up time for more Candy Crush?
posted by maryr at 11:59 AM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

Well, that's one way to let cops check out anyone's cellphone. I expect refusing to unlock a phone will be viewed poorly, so I guess that'll be it for "You cannot be compelled to enter your passcode".
posted by rmd1023 at 12:33 PM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

Can't you text at red lights though?

Ah, so you're that person ahead of me who "forgets" to drive when the light turns green.
posted by chavenet at 12:36 PM on May 2, 2016

In this thread: numerous metafilter users preemptively acquiesce to a new potential invasion of their privacy.

The state of exception is the new normality, issue #48738.
posted by Pyrogenesis at 12:45 PM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

The solution to the high number of deaths and injuries on the road isn't more snooping, it is active safety features on cars, up to and including self driving.

If everyone had forward collision avoidance and active lane keep assist, we'd cut down on crashes by far more than we would if cell phones didn't exist.
posted by wierdo at 1:02 PM on May 2, 2016 [4 favorites]

The solution to the high number of deaths and injuries on the road isn't more snooping, it is active safety features on cars, up to and including self driving.

Correct. And stronger punishments.
posted by entropicamericana at 1:09 PM on May 2, 2016

This is the type of thing that would probably see custom Android ROMs designed specifically to get around.

Also, it would have to snoop far more than SMS. More and more people are using apps that communicate through data instead of the SMS protocol. iMessage is one (it sends SMS to non iMessage users but otherwise it's data) and then there's Hangouts (also SMS capable but again, most chats are via data.) Then there's Snapchat, Facebook, etc. Now you're asking to snoop through data. Was there data in/out? That doesn't indicate anything. That could be an automatic mail fetch, the GPS getting updated map data, an app update, an automatic podcast download, or any of a ton of things. This isn't about traffic safety, it's about giving law enforcement an easy way into phones. I wonder how this would survive a court challenge given that the Supreme Court has already ruled that police need a warrant to go through your phone.
posted by azpenguin at 1:12 PM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]

Correct. And stronger punishments.

Which will be meted out to minorities and the poor to better keep them in line. Using law enforcement to solve a social problem is a non-starter with the state of things in the USA right now.
posted by Slap*Happy at 1:12 PM on May 2, 2016 [7 favorites]

Native Americans, Hispanics and blacks are much more likely to die as pedestrians in traffic accidents than whites or Asian-Americans.

Poorer neighborhoods have disproportionately higher rates of pedestrian deaths.

posted by entropicamericana at 1:32 PM on May 2, 2016

Fantastic, we have a great excuse to incarcerate more minority drivers built-in! It's for their own good, after all...

... you do realize who drives more in minority and poorer neighborhoods, right?
posted by Slap*Happy at 1:40 PM on May 2, 2016 [3 favorites]

In my experience, it's usually white folk commuting from their exurb to their job downtown, because highways and surface-level high-speed car corridors are usually rammed through minority neighborhoods.
posted by entropicamericana at 1:47 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

pretty lame. old news: all the cellphone use is bad, not just texting.

Approximately equivalently so to talking with a passenger in the front seat...
posted by atoxyl at 2:09 PM on May 2, 2016

Approximately equivalently so to talking with a passenger in the front seat...

According to your same source, I mean - talking in person ranked similarly to talking hands-free and only slightly worse that talking with a handheld phone. The hands-free text interface was worse - whether that's a design issue that can be improved upon to some degree I don't know.
posted by atoxyl at 2:24 PM on May 2, 2016

only slightly worse that talking with a handheld phone.

only slightly better, I mean
posted by atoxyl at 2:29 PM on May 2, 2016

Your job at a red light is to make sure no one rear-ends you.
How?
posted by soelo at 2:41 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

Ah, so you're that person ahead of me who "forgets" to drive when the light turns green.

ah i see you're that person 5 cars back who honks when the 5 cars ahead of you don't all immediately move simultaneously the precise second the light turns green
posted by poffin boffin at 2:55 PM on May 2, 2016 [5 favorites]

Your job WHILE DRIVING, is to stay alert to everything around you. Distracted drivers - You're driving a several ton killing machine - act like you know that, please?
posted by agregoli at 2:56 PM on May 2, 2016 [4 favorites]

ah i see you're that person 5 cars back who honks when the 5 cars ahead of you don't all immediately move simultaneously the precise second the light turns green

Ah, I see you've never suffered the frustration of being just 5 cars back in the left turn lane, and the first person just sits there for 30-40% of the 10-second left arrow light, which causes you (and 2 or 3 people behind you) to have to sit through an entire extra traffic light cycle for no goddam good reason.
posted by Greg_Ace at 3:38 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

A several ton killing machine seems pretty melodramatic to me. Unless you're driving, like, a combine harvester or a main battle tank down a crowded city street in which case, describe on!
posted by indubitable at 4:02 PM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

Ah, so you're that person ahead of me who "forgets" to drive when the light turns green.

Oh, man, that used to drive me absolutely bonkers when I first moved to the States. Being from Gemany it was deeply ingrained in me to start rolling when the light turns green and so I ended up having dozens of close calls where I nearly rear-ended people. It's a skill drilled into us during driving lessons and it makes a huge difference in keeping traffic flowing.

Took me years to unlearn this skill and accept defeat. Now I just feel a little sad watching no more than 2 or 3 cars manage to get through a turn signal instead of the dozen or so that realistically could. I guess people here somehow like the additional noise and fumes from cars piling in turn lanes for no good reasons?
posted by Hairy Lobster at 4:11 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

BEHOLD A SEVERAL TON KILLING MACHINE, A FLAME-POWERED CONSTRUCT OF MERCILESS AND WANTON DESTRUCTION! CONTEMPLATE THE UNTOLD POTENTIAL FOR MURDER AND CARNAGE BORNE WITHIN THE STEEL FRAME OF THIS DREAD ENGINE OF DOOM!

[a 2011 Kia Soul pulls up]
posted by prize bull octorok at 4:15 PM on May 2, 2016 [9 favorites]

I'm struggling to see how this could be implemented without causing tons of problems or needing way too much data.

I'm an avid user of siri while driving for goddamn everything. "Read the most recent messages to me" *reads* "Ok, respond to emily with bla bla bla" *should i send it" "Yes". "Ok, give me directions to *address*".

So now i'm "texting while driving" if i do that. There is no delineation in the system software or messaging app between TTS and typed text.

So do google, apple, and microsoft have to add this sort of indication now? What about older phones that support hands free/text to speech functionality but are no longer updated by their manufacturers? Are they grandfathered in, or is the onus on you to somehow try and prove you used handsfree?

Either this becomes a situation like red light camera tickets where everyone with knowledge and time can get out of them(in washington, if they cant prove whose driving the car the ticket is invalid for example) and it disproportionately effects people who aren't educated on the law or can't get time off work, or on the flip side the burden of proof is almost unreasonably high on the driver to show they weren't doing the wrong thing and lots of people get fucked over.

This just seems like the absolute worst bag of dicks as far as "probable cause" and fucking with people the police want to fuck with goes.
posted by emptythought at 4:37 PM on May 2, 2016

Being from Gemany it was deeply ingrained in me to start rolling when the light turns green and so I ended up having dozens of close calls where I nearly rear-ended people. It's a skill drilled into us during driving lessons and it makes a huge difference in keeping traffic flowing.
[...]
I guess people here somehow like the additional noise and fumes from cars piling in turn lanes for no good reasons?

The highlighted part is your answer. Driving is the closest thing that we have in the US to a universally recognized human right, so driver training is minimal at the outset and nonexistent from there on out. Raising standards would mean some people might not get to drive anymore, which would be crazy, it'd be like saying you can't own an entire armory's worth of firearms.
posted by indubitable at 4:38 PM on May 2, 2016 [8 favorites]

I have almost been killed by distracted drivers too many times to count. I think it's bizarre to call my statement melodramatic.
posted by agregoli at 5:49 PM on May 2, 2016 [5 favorites]

I promise you I've never been in a near-death situation on the road caused by a distracted driver. Does my anecdata cancel out yours? Or are neither of our experiences actual data?
posted by Greg_Ace at 6:15 PM on May 2, 2016

Our 2001 Toyota Prius weighs ~2700 pounds. The Tesla Model S that nearly sideswiped me last week - at around 70 mph on the freeway - weighs about 4700 pounds. The driver began drifting into my lane because he was looking at his phone. I'm very lucky the guy behind me was paying attention when I had to hit my brakes (and the horn, which made the Tesla driver look away from his goddamn phone and get out of my lane).

Dude in the Tesla could have fucking killed me (and possibly other people). If I had swerved into the occupied lane to get away from him, I could have killed people. So yeah. It doesn't seem melodramatic. That their sole purpose is not to kill doesn't magically make them not machines that kill.
posted by rtha at 6:15 PM on May 2, 2016 [5 favorites]

That their sole purpose is not to kill doesn't magically make them not machines that kill.

Kinda comes off like the local news, though.
COULD YOUR BED MURDER YOU IN YOUR SLEEP? FIND OUT AT ELEVEN
BRICKS: THE CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL THAT KILLS
YOUR CELL PHONE, YOUR DEATHTRAP
posted by Etrigan at 6:27 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

griphus: "Boy I can't wait to see what kind of wacky lawsuit I'll have to pay for the NYPD to settle when they grossly misuse this."

Thank you! <3
posted by symbioid at 8:52 PM on May 2, 2016

I don't text while driving, but periodically the GPS will lose reception or the phone will fly off the dashboard and into my lap or some such crap and then get all befouled in its ability to work. While I am in no situation to pull over. Hell, sometimes the GPS is slow enough to have me get to an intersection and have no effing idea if I'm turning left or right yet until I hit the too late mark.

I'm not thrilled at having to stop and hold the dang phone, which probably looks like texting, but it's still better than me trying to read instructions on a piece of paper while driving, which is even worse for eyes off the road behavior.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:46 PM on May 2, 2016

Focusing on the cellphone seems really wrongheaded, when there are so many edge cases (passenger using it etc). If the idea is to gather evidence to prosecute people who cause accidents while texting, why not mandate installation of a "black box" camera on the dash facing the driver, which records encrypted video, with the key held in escrow and only released in the event of a fatal/serious accident? These cameras should be mandatory road-facing too. There is the issue of cost, but honestly I can't see these things costing more than $20 within a few years, if they aren't already, which can be rolled into the cost of vehicle registration.
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 11:42 PM on May 2, 2016 [1 favorite]

Does my anecdata cancel out yours?

"Hey, I'm a guy who's never been harassed on the street, what are all these women complaining about?"

Try bike commuting for a couple weeks and see how that changes your attitude.
posted by osk at 11:57 PM on May 2, 2016 [2 favorites]

Add me to the list of folks wondering how my ability to send text messages and access almost the full functions of my phone either by talking to it or my connected smartwatch would be addressed by similar laws.
posted by longbaugh at 4:14 AM on May 3, 2016

Try bike commuting for a couple weeks and see how that changes your attitude.

I've done it, it sucks, but the numbers indicate that it's getting safer for cyclists since the mid-'90s, not worse. (NHSTA has the numbers on their site.) Last year was pretty bad, but this likely correlates to the opioid epidemic in the suburbs rather than iPhone fiddling.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:51 AM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]

Try bike commuting for a couple weeks and see how that changes your attitude.

My point was not to deny anyone's actual experiences, only to point out that not everyone shares that experience, and that personal experience is not the same as actual data. As Slap*Happy pointed out upthread, the data is different.
posted by Greg_Ace at 9:10 AM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]

Oh, and I've bike-commuted for almost a year in the past. I never had an incident, but then I'm also white and male and reasonably large. That still doesn't make me think other people are lying or mistaken about their experiences, only that both they and I are merely part of the larger picture.
posted by Greg_Ace at 9:12 AM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]

As yet another bike commuter, I really, really don't appreciate this attempt to use me as an excuse to further erode the Fourth Amendment. Thanks.
posted by tobascodagama at 9:31 AM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]

I would be worried about a situation where I text someone at a stoplight

I, too, am worried about situations where drivers are texting at a stoplight.
posted by straight at 8:21 PM on May 6, 2016 [1 favorite]