New law could allow roadside 'textalyzer' checks for distracted driving

Legion Troll

Legion Troll

A fine upstanding poster
Design-01-1024x466.png


Drivers might soon be subject to on-the-spot analysis of their mobile phones to determine whether they were distracted by their devices in the run-up to accidents, if a proposed law passes the state legislature.

The bill would give police officers the authority to use so-called "textalyzers" to determine whether a phone was being used in the moments before an accident occurred. Those who refuse to consent to the search would face immediate suspension of their driving license.

One company developing such a textalyzer, Cellebrite — the same firm that helped the FBI crack the San Bernardino iPhone — says that their device would not gather personal data like contacts or photos in order to comply with the fourth amendment. Indeed, such a protection is included in the text of the bill. "No such electronic scan shall include the content or origin of any communication, game conducted, image or electronic data viewed on a mobile telephone or a portable electronic device."





http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/04/12/new-york-law-could-allow-roadside-textalyzer-checks-for-distracted-driving
 
Thing1 said:
I don't see having the ability to text while driving as a liberty issue.
Click to expand...

no, but there is the liberty issue of not being pulled over without having committed a crime, as well as the authorities with power to search my cell phone for any activity that they can deem as 'distracting'.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
no, but there is the liberty issue of not being pulled over without having committed a crime, as well as the authorities with power to search my cell phone for any activity that they can deem as 'distracting'.
Click to expand...

I'm going by the OP, which specifies that it could only be used in the case of an accident, and to determine if someone was texting moments before the accident occurred.

I'd be against using it for anything beyond that.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
no, but there is the liberty issue of not being pulled over without having committed a crime, as well as the authorities with power to search my cell phone for any activity that they can deem as 'distracting'.
Click to expand...

Nobody advocated alllowing police to pull anyone over. The tool would be used on the scene of an accident to determine if distracted driving was a factor.
 
Thing1 said:
I'm going by the OP, which specifies that it could only be used in the case of an accident, and to determine if someone was texting moments before the accident occurred.

I'd be against using it for anything beyond that.
Click to expand...

that is so vague that fog is easier to see through. this basically says that your phone is subject to search after any accident.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
did you post the law? what, in this particular statute, determines what probable cause is that allows a search of a cell phone?
Click to expand...


Did I say this particular bill - which isn't a statute yet, BTW, contains such a determination?

Are you going to drive to NT, text while driving, crash, and shoot any cops that dare to question you?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
that is so vague that fog is easier to see through. this basically says that your phone is subject to search after any accident.
Click to expand...

Something like this would obviously have to be written fairly specifically and monitored closely. But I am all for anything that discourages or reduces death & injury due to texting on the road.

This is a major problem in America. Look at the stats in the OP. It's amazing to me that something like San Bernandino happens, and people are ready to change everything we do when it comes to travel & respecting religious liberty, and it's a #1 campaign issue. But people die every single day because of texting and driving, and even what I'd consider to be a reasonable investigative measure meets some controversy.
 
Legion Troll said:
Did I say this particular bill - which isn't a statute yet, BTW, contains such a determination?

Are you going to drive to NT, text while driving, crash, and shoot any cops that dare to question you?
Click to expand...

are you now going to trash can troll the rest of this thread because I pointed out the flaws in a crappy assed piece of legislation?
 
Thing1 said:
Something like this would obviously have to be written fairly specifically and monitored closely. But I am all for anything that discourages or reduces death & injury due to texting on the road.

This is a major problem in America. Look at the stats in the OP. It's amazing to me that something like San Bernandino happens, and people are ready to change everything we do when it comes to travel & respecting religious liberty, and it's a #1 campaign issue. But people die every single day because of texting and driving, and even what I'd consider to be a reasonable investigative measure meets some controversy.
Click to expand...

it is this very argument that allowed DUI checkpoints, which are useless by the way, and led to even further reductions in our 4th and 5th Amendment rights on the road. thanks for that.
 
The federal government defines driving while distracted as "any non-driving activity a person engages in that has the potential to distract him or her from the primary task of driving and increase the risk of crashing." Such a potentially broad scope of activity is challenging to legislate and even more difficult to enforce. In truth, motorists have been driving while distracted (e.g., eating or applying makeup) probably as long as there have been cars. However, laws dedicated to distracted driving didn't really exist until cell phones became widely used.

Studies have suggested that the risk associated with talking or texting on a cell phone while driving — sometimes known as driving while "intexticated" — is akin to the risk associated with drunk driving. Most distracted driving laws focus on talking and texting, but it will take time before the legal implications are well-known. There are many questions about the application and enforcement of these laws. For example, what happens if you were tweeting, emailing or programming your GPS?

To date, it is against the law in 19 states to drive while texting (and 23 more states are considering similar laws), and in nine states for novice drivers or in other limited circumstances. Only six states prohibit the use of handheld cell phones for all drivers, though more states prohibit the use of cell phones for novice drivers and other circumstances.

Driving while "yakking" or "intexticated" can result in traffic citations, criminal charges (e.g., negligence, reckless driving and vehicular manslaughter) and civil lawsuits (e.g., personal injury). Possible penalties can include fines, insurance premium hikes, jail time, and large monetary judgments. In New York, for example, if you are caught talking on a cell phone you'll be fined $130, but no points will be charged to your license. However, if you are caught texting you can have two points charged to your license in addition to the $130 fine. In addition, legislation has been proposed that would allow the state to criminally charge distracted drivers involved in crashes that result in injury or death.



http://www.yourlegalguide.com/dwd-defenses/
 
SmarterthanYou said:
are you now going to trash can troll the rest of this thread because I pointed out the flaws in a crappy assed piece of legislation?
Click to expand...

Maybe you could move to New York and once you figure out who your new representatives are, you can lobby against the bill.

Or you could stay in Texas and utter idle threats against police who try to enforce any laws you disagree with.

Your choice.
 
Legion Troll said:
The federal government defines driving while distracted as "any non-driving activity a person engages in that has the potential to distract him or her from the primary task of driving and increase the risk of crashing." Such a potentially broad scope of activity is challenging to legislate and even more difficult to enforce. In truth, motorists have been driving while distracted (e.g., eating or applying makeup) probably as long as there have been cars. However, laws dedicated to distracted driving didn't really exist until cell phones became widely used.

Studies have suggested that the risk associated with talking or texting on a cell phone while driving — sometimes known as driving while "intexticated" — is akin to the risk associated with drunk driving. Most distracted driving laws focus on talking and texting, but it will take time before the legal implications are well-known. There are many questions about the application and enforcement of these laws. For example, what happens if you were tweeting, emailing or programming your GPS?

To date, it is against the law in 19 states to drive while texting (and 23 more states are considering similar laws), and in nine states for novice drivers or in other limited circumstances. Only six states prohibit the use of handheld cell phones for all drivers, though more states prohibit the use of cell phones for novice drivers and other circumstances.

Driving while "yakking" or "intexticated" can result in traffic citations, criminal charges (e.g., negligence, reckless driving and vehicular manslaughter) and civil lawsuits (e.g., personal injury). Possible penalties can include fines, insurance premium hikes, jail time, and large monetary judgments. In New York, for example, if you are caught talking on a cell phone you'll be fined $130, but no points will be charged to your license. However, if you are caught texting you can have two points charged to your license in addition to the $130 fine. In addition, legislation has been proposed that would allow the state to criminally charge distracted drivers involved in crashes that result in injury or death.

http://www.yourlegalguide.com/dwd-defenses/
Click to expand...

this, of course, exempts law enforcement and therefore disavows any liability or responsibility for crashes that they themselves cause by texting or yakking. hooray for freedom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top