> No States ban complete non-usage of cell phones while driving
And even if they did an increasing number of cars have small-TV-sized "cell phones" built into the dash.
And as a bonus prize, when you crash due to the distraction and the power is gone you get to solve a 3 part puzzle to open any of the doors to get away from the fast moving fire that probably broke out when the battery cells ruptured.
> Illinois law prohibits the use of electronic communication devices to write, send, or read text messages, emails, or other electronic communications while driving.
> In 2024, legislation went into effect that also made it illegal to use teleconferencing apps, watch videos, or access social media sites while driving.
> Drivers who are in a crash resulting from distracted driving may face criminal penalties and incarceration.
What's the difference between "other electronic communications" and "teleconferencing apps", compared to a phone call? Or is there a specific carve out for that?
The District of Columbia bans holding your phone while driving. I haven't been downtown in a bit, but it used to be my impression that if you walked half a dozen blocks and didn't notice a few drivers with phones in their hands, you weren't paying attention.
>Lucas’s son-in-law, Chris King, told the Lake and McHenry County Scanner that news of the video made his family “hold our loss tighter to our hearts”.
>“We … will continue to pray for what the driver must be going through,” King reportedly said. “We are trying to find our ways to live, without someone we cherished so much.”
Damn, I wouldn't be saying anything like praying for the driver after something like that.
or, just being empathetic to the guilt the driver must be feeling, as well as the lifelong ptsd they get to look forward to carrying the memories of taking someone's life
We don't know the full circumstances of the accident. She may have been distracted, but it's also possible the pedestrian crossed unexpectedly right in front of the car. Hopefully the facts come out and justice is served fairly.
Forgiveness only counts when you believe the crime to be unforgivable, yet forgive the criminal anyway. "Forgiveable crimes" are just crimes you merely tolerate.
“There is a limit to human charity," said Lady Outram, trembling all over.
"There is," said Father Brown dryly, "and that is the real difference between human charity and Christian charity. You must forgive me if I was not altogether crushed by your contempt for my uncharitableness today; or by the lectures you read me about pardon for every sinner. For it seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don't really think sinful. You only forgive criminals when they commit what you don't regard as crimes, but rather as conventions. So you tolerate a conventional duel, just as you tolerate a conventional divorce. You forgive because there isn't anything to be forgiven.”
Surely there must be some conception of forgiveness outside those of sin and charity. I'm not even sure what it really means for forgiveness to "count".
All US states have distracted driving laws. Some people get away with it for too long. Doesn't have to involve a phone. Could involve sex toys, receiving fellatio, arguing with a passenger, reading a map, putting on make-up, etc... People get tickets every day for such things.
In most cases, distracted driving is a secondary cause for a stop. Police need some other reason to pull the driver over.
That's what the hands free laws in most states addressed- using a cellphone while driving became a primary offense, something you could be pulled over for or ticketed for even if you hadn't done anything else wrong.
The ultimate goal is to stop people from distracted driving before they cause an accident, but it's not always easy to see who should be stopped and who shouldn't, so a lot of people get away with it anyway.
A few hours ago I saw (on Twitch) some guy live stream his helicopter piloting over a rural picturesque village in Sweden while shouting loud cheers to "chat".
We now need an ignition interlock device for these people -- that will shut down the car if there's a phone inside that's not in airplane mode. Like they have for DUI doofuses.
Crimes committed on or for social media (whether for likes or just by negligence, ie, distracted by your app while driving) should automatically get an additional sentence. Same idea as hate crimes, just for social media.
>Crimes committed on or for social media (whether for likes or just by negligence, ie, distracted by your app while driving) should automatically get an additional sentence.
Sounds like something that could be easily abused for cracking down on filming police or similar. Filming ICE agents arresting someone and posting on tiktok? "obstruction of justice", plus they're obviously doing it "for social media". Same for whistleblowers or security researchers.
That doesn't actually work. The problem is people think they're not going to hit anyone and then it doesn't matter what the penalty is because they're discounting the risk of it happening to begin with. Nobody would be doing it who expected to receive the existing penalty for negligent homicide.
You don't need to convince them that the penalty is high, you need to convince them that the risk is high.
We've been able to track eye movement across a computer screen for a good 5 years to be able to see what their gaze is set to, providing heatmaps and dwell metrics.
Someone just needs to put that in a car. We've also got lidar based cruise control systems to maintain distance as well as panic brake systems that can react to something in front of the vehicle faster than a human, which is partially there to account for people texting and driving while flying up on a red light with stopped traffic.
We have all the tech needed to make it damn near impossible for a 2 ton mass of steal to just unflinchingly mow someone down, yet we live in a world where it's cheaper to not make those things standard, even knowing without it, more people will die than with it.
Listen to the radio and use a map? Driving is a privilege, not a right. Or just don't run people over while livestreaming and you can keep your Apple Maps and Spotify.
Some cars actually have this, and will track where your eyes are to determine if you're distracted and flash a big warning on the dashboard and make a loud noise.
Mostly the ones I drove were able to tell if I was distracted by checking my instruments or mirrors, or over my shoulder before changing lanes.
I came very close to just abandoning the fucking thing in a car park, and getting a train instead.
Readit News
All States except for Montana ban texting while driving
No States ban complete non-usage of cell phones while driving
And even if they did an increasing number of cars have small-TV-sized "cell phones" built into the dash.
And as a bonus prize, when you crash due to the distraction and the power is gone you get to solve a 3 part puzzle to open any of the doors to get away from the fast moving fire that probably broke out when the battery cells ruptured.
> Illinois law prohibits the use of electronic communication devices to write, send, or read text messages, emails, or other electronic communications while driving.
> In 2024, legislation went into effect that also made it illegal to use teleconferencing apps, watch videos, or access social media sites while driving.
> Drivers who are in a crash resulting from distracted driving may face criminal penalties and incarceration.
Deleted Comment
Well, this would also ban things like GPS, or hooking up Spotify to your steering wheel media buttons.
I think targeting texting + social media is the right approach.
>“We … will continue to pray for what the driver must be going through,” King reportedly said. “We are trying to find our ways to live, without someone we cherished so much.”
Damn, I wouldn't be saying anything like praying for the driver after something like that.
Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhammapada
Dead Comment
Deleted Comment
> the person driving while on TikTok “wasn’t paying attention to the road because she was reading comments and grinning at her phone”.
It seems clear that one fact we know is that she was paying attention to her phone at the time. Frankly unforgivable in my opinion.
“There is a limit to human charity," said Lady Outram, trembling all over.
"There is," said Father Brown dryly, "and that is the real difference between human charity and Christian charity. You must forgive me if I was not altogether crushed by your contempt for my uncharitableness today; or by the lectures you read me about pardon for every sinner. For it seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don't really think sinful. You only forgive criminals when they commit what you don't regard as crimes, but rather as conventions. So you tolerate a conventional duel, just as you tolerate a conventional divorce. You forgive because there isn't anything to be forgiven.”
― G.K. Chesterton, The Complete Father Brown
Dead Comment
Jon Caramanica records pop music reviews for the New York Times while driving. It's completely asinine.
That's what the hands free laws in most states addressed- using a cellphone while driving became a primary offense, something you could be pulled over for or ticketed for even if you hadn't done anything else wrong.
The ultimate goal is to stop people from distracted driving before they cause an accident, but it's not always easy to see who should be stopped and who shouldn't, so a lot of people get away with it anyway.
A few hours ago I saw (on Twitch) some guy live stream his helicopter piloting over a rural picturesque village in Sweden while shouting loud cheers to "chat".
This is who you're sharing the road with, you probably pass by dozens of them every day:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=_w8Fll6a0hM
Thousands of people get maimed or killed every ear by fucktards who can't wait 10 minutes for their fucking dopamine rush.
Deleted Comment
Sounds like something that could be easily abused for cracking down on filming police or similar. Filming ICE agents arresting someone and posting on tiktok? "obstruction of justice", plus they're obviously doing it "for social media". Same for whistleblowers or security researchers.
You don't need to convince them that the penalty is high, you need to convince them that the risk is high.
So no. We simply need to take away the driving licence of such people.
Someone just needs to put that in a car. We've also got lidar based cruise control systems to maintain distance as well as panic brake systems that can react to something in front of the vehicle faster than a human, which is partially there to account for people texting and driving while flying up on a red light with stopped traffic.
We have all the tech needed to make it damn near impossible for a 2 ton mass of steal to just unflinchingly mow someone down, yet we live in a world where it's cheaper to not make those things standard, even knowing without it, more people will die than with it.
New law: driver's phone must be in semi-disabled mode
The phone can already infer it is inside moving vehicle. The bigger challenge is, how to determine the phone belongs to the driver?
Say N passengers in car (including driver), each with cell phone.
When phone infers moving vehicle, it attempts to mesh with other phones in the vehicle.
If N=1, driver is solo, phone semi-disables
If N>1, phones ask users to vote on who is the driver.
Result: 1 phone disabled (Voting tie disables both/all)
The only inconvenience here is to a passenger with a phone-less driver.
Maybe a warning with a eye tracker or something...
Mostly the ones I drove were able to tell if I was distracted by checking my instruments or mirrors, or over my shoulder before changing lanes.
I came very close to just abandoning the fucking thing in a car park, and getting a train instead.