Cellphones

This NY D.A. Wants to Disable Your Phone When You Drive, Also Wants Higher Office

|

Wikipedia

Kathleen Rice is the District Attorney of Nassau County, New York, and she wants two things right now: First, power over your phone while you drive. Second, more political power.

From Newsweek:

Rice said Monday her office will begin mandating cellphone monitoring devices in some texting-while-driving cases prosecuted by her office.

Rice also urged County Executive Edward Mangano and local magistrates to mandate the disabling devices in any case involving a texting violation, which are typically handled not by the DA but by village justices and the county's Traffic and Parking Violations Agency.

The device will be required for drivers who plead guilty in criminal court. Rice's office has brought charges in 82 texting-while-driving cases.

Violators will pay the cost of the devices, which attach to the cellphone and prevent it from working while the vehicle is in motion, Rice said. …

Rice also has asked acting Nassau Police Commissioner Thomas Krumpter to step up enforcement efforts to target texting offenders. She contacted insurance industry associations asking them to urge auto insurance providers to give discounted rates to policyholders who use devices or apps that block texting while driving.

"The D.A. is also recommending that courts require the use of the technology when sentencing offenders," according to CBS. "She believes her plan will make a difference."

But, will it actually make a difference? Based on data from California, which has banned handheld devices while driving for six years, "across various specifications, we find no evidence of a reduction in accidents state-wide due to the ban," according to a recent study in Transportation Research. Another study suggests not only that "texting bans haven't reduced crashes at all," but that "laws banning texting while driving actually may prompt a slight increase in road crashes."

And, whether this ban would be enforceable is questionable. As the tech savvy readers of SlashDot point out, it's impossible to know if the phone is in the driver's or passenger's hand, and someone could just buy a cheap second phone.

Rice's sense of justice is alarming. She wants people to get five points on their license for these offenses. And she's got a history of getting gung-ho about the wrong stuff. Reason's Jacob Sullum wrote last year about her prostitution sting that nabbed over a 100 men for soliciting sex from fake sex workers, smeared the arrestees in the media, and ultimately made real sex workers less safe.

Even more disconcerting is the fact that Rice wants more power. She is running for Congress in New York's Fourth District, the state comptroller endorsed her this week, and according to The Huffington Post, she "has voter momentum." 

NEXT: Jobless Claims Up For Last Week

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I imagine she’s popular with middle-aged women.

  2. She has the eyes of a fanatic.

    1. I bet she isn’t getting laid enough.

      1. She is 49. Her wikipedia entry never mentions a husband current or ex. I bet you are right.

        1. At least she never reproduced.

          1. sarc, surely a strong woman like this doesn’t require a relationship with a patriarchal figure to reproduce!

        2. Can you imagine rolling over in bed in the morning, opening your eyes and seeing that smile staring at you? That would freak me out.

    2. Might just be the lighting.

      1. You’re right, she should have gone with no lighting.

        1. And having now seen other pictures of her, I completely agree about the crazy eyes.

  3. Violators will pay the cost of the devices, which attach to the cellphone and prevent it from working while the vehicle is in motion

    So, if you’re in the passenger seat: too bad. Riding on the bus: tough luck. Taking the socially acceptable train to your office: EAT SHIT AND DIE.

    1. I wondered about that, too.

  4. Further evidence that anyone who actually wants to hold political office thereby proves themselves too much of a psychopath to be allowed to do so.

  5. Self driving cars can’t come soon enough.

    1. And then people like her can have complete control of how you use your car. Brilliant.

      1. Please wait while your system reboots and applies the latest updates from the DOT, NTSB, FDA, USDA, OSHA, NIH, and FCC.

        1. You forgot the sniffer app from the DEA.

          1. Perhaps the DOJ can get involved, and make sure that racial quotas are applied to who gets stuck in traffic.

      2. For that very reason I have my doubts about how far self driving cars will go. And if they don’t allow you to take your self driving car home when you are drunk, it will never catch on.

        1. Since drunk driving is just another name for prohibition, no way in hell are they going to do that. We can’t let people get drunk and get safely home.

    2. Self-jailing prosecutors would also be a solution.

      1. Or self-killing, even.

  6. “She believes her plan will make a difference.”

    And she is probably right. The difference will be for her career not for highway safety.

    And are those “if I ever find out you so much as texted your old girlfriend, I will put a golf club upside your head as you sleep” eyes or what?

    1. And if you wrote that text while driving, boy, you don’t even want to know…

  7. What the hell device is she talking about? And why would I bother to hook my phone up to it every time I get in my car?

    The retard is strong in this one.

  8. Rice said Monday her office will begin mandating cellphone monitoring devices in some texting-while-driving cases prosecuted by her office.

    By what authority? Check donations to her campaign for the owner of the company that manufactures the mandated devices.

    1. “mandating” means “asking the local hack judge to rubber stamp their request.

      Don’t you speak tyrant?

  9. I’d vote for her just to get her off the street.

  10. The device will be required for drivers who plead guilty in criminal court. Rice’s office has brought charges in 82 texting-while-driving cases.

    Do the cops in Nassau do anything but arrest people for texting? Other than shoot the odd dog of course.

    1. They also lock up law abiding gun shop owners.

  11. The halls of government make quite a cozy home for the hyperventilating and power-tripping moralist, which is what this thing is.

  12. Rice said Monday her office will begin mandating cellphone monitoring devices in some texting-while-driving cases prosecuted by her office.

    FUCK OFF, SLAVER.

  13. These plan is foolproof. No one would ever just cancel their cell contract and go down and buy a prepaid no contract phone or just pay a friend to add an extra phone you can use under their contract or anything. Nope. Everyone will dutifully keep their phone and pay to have this device put on it.

    The sad thing is that I really believe this woman is so fucking stupid she has no idea people could do that. She actually thinks this plan will work.

    1. I don’t see how she could think that. She’s already got a law mandating you can’t text while driving, and some people disobey it. She knows they’ll disobey this one too. She’s just manufacturing a problem she can “solve” for the low-information voters.

      1. Its possible that is true. But stupid is still never a bad bet. I taking stupid here.

        1. Well, she is a district attorney, so she’s not low-IQ stupid. It’s just that her ideology is making her stupid about this, unless it’s just self-serving blather for the rubes, to position her as “a politician who cares.”

          1. Papaya

            You would be surprised how many really stupid people get into power.

        2. I always bet evil before stupid. And I’m usually right.

    2. It’s a money trap. Regardless of whether or not it is effective, some poor saps will be required to pay a monthly rental and maintenance fee.

      1. Gee, I wonder if the maker of that device has contributed to her campaign for Congress? Or am I just being cynical?

    3. Yep.

      “No thanks, I’ll just give you my phone instead of buying your device.”

      Buys another phone and switches Google Voice forwarding number.

    4. No one would ever just cancel their cell contract and go down and buy a prepaid no contract phone

      Everyone she knows is on a contract plan. She just assumed burner phones were fictional devices on Law & Order.

  14. Rice also has asked acting Nassau Police Commissioner Thomas Krumpter to step up enforcement efforts to target texting offenders.

    That’s a lot less arduous than finding out who keeps leaving his dead hookers on the beach.

  15. Why cant we just punish people who cause accidents? If you can safely drive standing on your head, good on you. Cause a crash and you’re screwed, but no worse than if you were merely adjusting your geriatric socks.

    The lady that broke my back was just lazy. She had no plan as to whether or not she should turn at this intersection. My back isn’t any less broken than it would be if she was drunk or stoned or texting. The state proclaimed her a competent driver via licensing, and proclaimed her financially responsible (even though the min. required policy didn’t cover the E.R., much less anything else).

    When stupidity or arrogance is the vice causing dangerous driving it’s a free pass. Go ahead and kill and maim. Add a disfavored cause and it’s prison for life. Hell you don’t even need to cause harm, just be in a class statistically more apt to cause damage. And we’re all good with this because why?

    1. Because drugs are bad mmmkay?

    2. If on my way home tonight someone pulls out in front of me and I die in the resulting accident, am I going to be more dead if they did it because they were texting or drunk instead of because they just fucked up?

    3. Because being drunk/texting/jerking off while driving is exactly the same as firing a gun in random directions in a public park. Or so I have been told.

      1. I think there is a lot of evidence that jerking off while driving causes no problems. I mean I’ve heard that. I think I read a study somewhere. Not that I’ve ever done that.

        1. If you do it excessively, you go blind, so…..

  16. In 2006, Rice, the “state’s toughest DWI prosecutor,”[4] declared her first major policy initiative to be an “assault on the drunk driving epidemic.” She lowered the blood-alcohol level at which you could take a plea bargain,[5] supported Leandra’s Law, and charged some drunk drivers who killed their victims with murder.[6]

    Leandra’s Law, making it a felony to get a DUI while carrying someone 15 or younger in the vehicle.

    1. Oh my god. “Drunk Driving epidemic”. The one that has been getting smaller and smaller for the last 30 years.

    2. charged some drunk drivers who killed their victims with murder.[6]

      I don’t have a problem with that, or at least charging them with manslaughter.

    3. I don’t think the prosecutors will rest until they’ve gotten everybody labeled as a felon.

  17. Two points:

    1. those are the craziest eyes I’ve ever seen. Ever. And I’ve seen *cough* dated *cough* some crazy eyes.

    2. She contacted insurance industry associations asking them to urge auto insurance providers to give discounted rates to policyholders who use devices or apps that block texting while driving.

    What a maniacal cuntbag. If insurance companies’ actuarial studies showed this to be an issue, then they have already factored it into their rates.

    1. And since insurance companies have to make money, the fact that you could never enforce such a thing is kind of important to them.

    2. I hope she also urged them to give discounts for not having any sort of conversation while driving, not eating while driving, not fiddling with the radio or GPS while driving, and for installing a sound-proof barrier between the front seat and any seat occupied by a child.

      1. And don’t loads of people have GPS in their cars now? How is that less distracting than texting?

        I think texting while driving is retarded. But there are many things that are just as distracting.

    3. The photo on her campaign site is even better

      1. Damn. You can almost smell the bunny boiling when you look at that picture.

        1. I can imagine those teeth rending flesh.

        2. That is funny, John.

      2. Holy shit. Those are not crazy eyes. Those are immediately turn around and walk the other way eyes.

        1. I have to admit, there is something oddly compelling about her. It is like walking up to the edge of a cliff and feeling the urge to move closer or the reason some people want to own gaboon vipers. There is something about playing with crazy.

          1. Crazy is typically a tradeoff. Her eyes project a level of intensity and malicious spite that should only attract hardcore masochists.

            1. I didn’t say it was right or very smart Raston. I just said it was compelling.

            2. Her crazy doesn’t look like, ‘hmmmm, wild in bed, but you couldn’t even take her to Chipotle’s’ crazy, but rather ‘hmmmm, absolutely lousy in bed, then she plants kiddie porn on your computer and reports you to the police if you break up with her’crazy.

              I’m with Raston here. No trade-off. Nothing good will ever come out of that face.

      3. Someone thought using that photo was a good idea.

        1. Perhaps it was the least crazy one they could take.

        2. When I see a smile like that it always seems like someone just explained to the person what a smile is and suggested that they should give it a try.

          1. Zeb…that is funny.

      4. You know the thing about Rice, she’s got…lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll’s eye. When she comes at ya, doesn’t seem to be livin’. Until she bites ya and those black eyes roll over white. And then, ah then you hear that terrible high pitch screamin’ and the streets turns red and spite of all the poundin’ and the hollerin’ they all come in and rip you to pieces.

    4. Not to start a “who is hot and who is ugly” debate here. But she doesn’t seem to have a horn growing out of her head. She seems attractive enough that I am sure her looks haven’t kept that many men from going for her.

      Yet, she is 49 and never married. Woman over 40, average looking or better, and never married, not divorced but never married, is usually a pretty strong indication of batshit crazy. Just saying.

      1. Or she might be gay. Or she may have had a boyfriend for the last 30 years and they’ve never seen the point in getting married.

        She’s a power-hungry politician. Her personal life isn’t the problem.

        1. She is a power hungry politician. Being married would help her career. And she is a liberal Democrat, so being gay would help it as well.

          She is crazy.

        2. Yeah, that. Maybe she is into being multiply penetrated by barnyard animals. I don’t give a shit.

          1. Never Zeb.

            Nassau County is Long Island. Mostly gentry liberal I think. Those people would eat up having “New York’s first openly gay DA”

            1. If that’s where she is, then yeah. Rich white people will eat that shit up.

              If she were from some suburb of Boston or something it would be less of a boon.

            2. Don’t forget they keep voting in Peter King.

      2. Could be gay.

        1. She would come out. It would help her in the Democratic party.

          If she is, she is a pretty cute, if crazy, lesbian.

          1. Not necessarily. I don’t know about where she is from, but there are still a good number of Democrats out there who are pretty socially conservative.

          2. What a pity that Michelle Bachmann isn’t running for re-election.

            Imagine the congressional girl on girl action if she and Bachmann got it on!

            http://www.hollywoodreporter.c…..week_a.jpg

            “Hey, I saw you looking at me from across the aisle…”

      3. There has to be a self-loathing guy out there who would marry her just to hate fuck her every night.

        1. Self-loathing guys don’t hate fuck. You need a certain level of self confidence for that.

    5. Her issues page reads like a DNC talking points memo.

      Gun control. Check
      More SS and Medicare. Check
      Obligatory support our vets. Check
      Feminist issues. Check
      Hike the minimum wage. Check
      Student loan debt. Check
      Go Israel. Check

      1. I am pretty sure that last one has been cut from the memo.

        1. Not on Long Island, it hasn’t.

  18. Even more disconcerting is the fact that Rice wants more power. She is running for Congress in New York’s Fourth District…

    That might be a less powerful position, in terms of singlehandedly affecting people’s lives.

    1. A lot of people in the area are rooting for her for just that reason; she will be a freshman in a congress full of critters as opposed to the head critter in the DA’s office.

    1. Okay, that is funny.

    2. You’re The 2014 Counterterrorism Campaign!

      Fucking awesome!

      1. I got that one as well – which is odd, since I was in TEH SURGE in 2007-2008.

        1. So – you were ahead of your time. Impressive!

          My brother was old skool – Desert Storm, bitches! 4 days of combat, 6 months of dicking around waiting to get home and try not to get killed by some wack job dropping a grenade in the mess area or something.

  19. OK, I’d hit it, hatefuck style. I just would, OK? Judge if you want.

    And yes, she is one of the most odious, authoritarian fucktards I can imagine. And stupid, to boot.

    But…i’d hit it. Course, I like Katrina vanden Heuval, so no accounting for my poor taste, I know…

    1. I totally would. Anyone who doesn’t harbor some desire to stick it in crazy doesn’t understand the appeal of living on the edge.

      And she is 49 years old. She punches pretty well for that weight class.

      1. She punches pretty well for that weight class.

        +49

    2. I think Sarah is kind of hot. In a whiny Amazon sort of way.

  20. How much anyone want to wager that she texts while driving all of the time and has no intention of stopping no matter what laws exist?

    1. I would take that bet.

    2. Assholes like this don’t pass laws for themselves to follow, they pass them for others to follow and as a means of attaining the next higher office.

      1. I don’t think this law will win her any popularity contests. I know this many sound sexist, but it’s still a fact. In MD there is a law against talking on cell or texting while driving. It doesn’t seem to have any effect at all. I am constantly having to honk at cars in front of me at stop lights when the light turns green because the driver is on their phone and oblivious to what is going on around them. And when this happens, it’s almost always a woman. I think a lot of women would go into some type of panic attack if you shut their cell phone off.

        When women start getting screwed over because of this law, then she’s going to start losing support for political office. Bad laws are only supposed to affect those other people.

    3. She probably thinks she’s like the pigs who get to drive around fucking with their laptops all the time and then arrest people who they rear end.

    4. She is totally addicted to her phone and that’s why laws must be passed to stop everyone from endangering others by the use of these uncontrollably addictive devices.

      My lefty buddy is the same way. He’s a selfish prick to employees, especially, therefore wage and price controls are needed. The leftist are basically saying,
      ‘stop me before I kill again!”

  21. She is my neighbor and she is even worse than you think.

    1. even worse than you think

      It’s likely you will eventually become her target – I advise you to move away immediately.

    2. So…lesbian, straight, out of her mind?

  22. Sounds like it would be a great idea to elect her to Congress. She’d do a whole lot less damage there than she could do as DA.

  23. Based on data from California, which has banned handheld devices while driving for six years, “across various specifications, we find no evidence of a reduction in accidents state-wide due to the ban.”

    That’s because, here in LA, people simply ignore the law. I would say that 1 in 5 people on non-fwy roads are using their phones while driving. On fwy roads, I’d reduce it down to 1 in 10. Most others simply haven’t been texted or called otherwise they would be on their phones too. Any cop who wants to write a ticket only needs to travel about 40 secs before they see an offender. Ask anyone if they stopped texting or phoning will driving because of the law and nearly all will say no.

    So here are a couple of possible reason there hasn’t shown a difference in accidents (citations unavailable)…
    1) There hasn’t been a reduction in usage
    2) People who use their phones while they drive slow down a lot – everyone knows who is texting and driving, they are the ones who are giving 50 feet in bumper-to-bumper traffic. They are also the ones who aren’t looking up at stop lights until everyone behind them starts honking – of course they will acknowledge their mistake by signaling with their middle finger. They may not be causing accidents, but the people who try to avoid these sticks in the mud are probably getting into more accidents.

    I hate driving near a texting driver – from experience alone it’s obvious they are unsafe or unpredictable.

    1. I don’t even like to walk and talk on the phone at the same time – WTF is up with people who drive on the phone. I just don’t get it. Are people’s conversations so important it can’t wait?

      /get off my lawn

  24. It’s always going to be something. Radios, lighting cigarettes, doing their makeup, etc. What’s different now?

    Some people can drive just fine while on the phone and others, not so much. WEhen you outlaw talking on the phone, they hide it by texting, a much harder skill to master. Then, they outlaw texting, so they move the phones even lower, making you have to divert your eyes even farther.

    How about, if you cause damage, you pay the price. If you don’t, no charges. I’m sick to death of these statistically potential damage related “crimes” How many ways is it ok to punish the POSSIBILITY of doing damage?

  25. Here are a few things Scott Greenfield has written about Rice:

    http://blog.simplejustice.us/?s=kathleen+rice

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.