Texting while driving? Watch out for the "Textalyzer"

[summer]

NYTimes

Over the last seven years, most states have banned texting by drivers, and public service campaigns have tried an array of tactics — “It can wait,” among them — to persuade people to put down their phones when they are behind the wheel.



Yet the problem, by just about any measure, appears to be getting worse. Americans confess in surveys that they are still texting while driving, as well as using Facebook and Snapchat and taking selfies. Road fatalities, which had fallen for years, are now rising sharply, up roughly 8 percent in 2015 over the previous year, according to preliminary estimates.



That is partly because people are driving more, but Mark Rosekind, the chief of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said distracted driving was “only increasing, unfortunately.”



“Radical change requires radical ideas,” he said in a speech last month, referring broadly to the need to improve road safety.



So to try to change a distinctly modern behavior, legislators and public health experts are reaching back to an old strategy: They want to treat distracted driving like drunken driving.



Harvard’s School of Public Health, for example, is developing a new push based on the effective designated driver campaign it orchestrated in the United States beginning in the late 1980s. Candace Lightner, the founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, has helped found a new group this year, Partnership for Distraction-Free Driving, which is circulating a petition to pressure social media companies like Facebook and Twitter to discourage multitasking by drivers, in the same way that Ms. Lightner pushed beer and liquor companies to discourage drunken driving.

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.



The technology could determine whether a driver had used the phone to text, email or do anything else that is forbidden under New York’s hands-free driving laws, which prohibit drivers from holding phones to their ear. Failure to hand over a phone could lead to the suspension of a driver’s license, similar to the consequences for refusing a Breathalyzer.





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.



“We need something on the books where people’s behavior can change,” said Mr. Ortiz, who pushed for the state’s 2001 ban on hand-held devices by drivers. If the Textalyzer bill becomes law, he said, “people are going to be more afraid to put their hands on the cellphone.”



If it were to pass in New York, the first state to propose such an idea, it could well spread in the same way that the hands-free rules did after New York adopted them.



Ms. Lightner said the intensifying efforts around distracted driving “are the equivalent of the early ’80s” in drunken driving, when pressure led to tougher laws and campaigns emphasizing corporate responsibility.



Distracted driving “is not being treated as seriously as drunk driving, and it needs to be,” she said.



“It’s dangerous, devastating, crippling, and it’s a killer, and still socially acceptable,” she added.



The safety administration plans to release the final fatality numbers as early as Thursday but previously announced that the numbers appeared to be up sharply.



Jay Winsten, an associate dean and the director of the Center for Health Communication at Harvard’s School of Public Health, said, “We’re losing the battle against distracted driving.”



Dr. Winsten is developing a distracted-driving campaign based on designated-driver efforts that were ultimately backed by major television networks and promoted by presidents, sports leagues and corporations.



He said the new campaign would urge drivers to be more attentive, rather than scold them for multitasking, and would encourage parents to set a better example for their children.

The campaign, though still in development, has already garnered support from YouTube, which has agreed to recruit stars on the website to create original content involving the message. Dr. Winsten said he had also been in talks with AT&T, Nascar, a major automaker and potential Hollywood partners.



Dr. Winsten said the new campaign could be a kind of carrot to encourage better behavior by drivers, but he added that a stick was also needed.



While the Textalyzer raises potential privacy concerns, it might help enforce texting bans that have so far proved ineffective, he said.



“Right now, we have a reed, not a stick,” Dr. Winsten said, adding that the Textalyzer would “make enforcement that much more credible.”



Now, the police can obtain a warrant for cellphone records, but the process takes time and resources, limiting the likelihood of investigation, Mr. Ortiz said. But those protections are there for good reason, according to privacy advocates, who oppose the New York bill.



“It really invites police to seize phones without justification or warrant,” said Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the New York chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.



A unanimous decision by the Supreme Court in 2014 ruled that the police could not search a cellphone without a warrant, even after an arrest, suggesting an uphill fight on the New York legislation.



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.



Matt Slater, the chief of staff for State Senator Terrence Murphy of New York, a Republican and a sponsor of the bill, said the constitutional concerns could and should be solved. “It’s monumental if we can get this done,” he said.



Mr. Slater said he hoped it could happen this session, which ends in June, but, he added, it may take several tries and may require broader public support.

“We’re facing the same hurdles we faced with drunk driving,” he said. “We’re trying to make sure safety and civil liberties are equally protected.”



Fourteen states prohibit the use of hand-held devices by drivers, and 46 ban texting, with penalties ranging from a $25 fine in South Carolina to $200 fines elsewhere, and even points assessed against the driver’s license.



A handful of states have strengthened their original bans, including New York, which in 2014 adopted tougher sanctions that include a 120-day suspension of a permit or a license suspension for drivers under 21, while a second offense calls for a full-year suspension.



Deborah Hersman, the president of the nonprofit National Safety Council and a former chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety Board, said she liked the Textalyzer idea because it would give the police an important tool and would help gather statistics on the number of crashes caused by distraction.



She said the Textalyzer-Breathalyzer comparison was apt because looking at and using a phone can be as dangerous as driving drunk.



“Why are we making a distinction between a substance you consume and one that consumes you?” Ms. Hersman said.



The Textalyzer legislation has been called Evan’s Law for Evan Lieberman, who was asleep in the back of a car on June 16, 2011, when the vehicle, driven by a friend, lost control.



Mr. Lieberman, 19, died from his injuries, and his father, Ben Lieberman, spent months trying to gain access to phone records, which ultimately showed that the driver had been texting.



Ben Lieberman became an advocate for driving safety, and in December, looking to develop the Textalyzer concept, he approached the mobile forensics company Cellebrite, which was involved in helping the government find a way into a locked iPhone, and which works with police departments around the country.


Jim Grady, the chief executive of Cellebrite U.S.A., said that the Textalyzer software had not been fully built because it was not clear what a final law might require, but that it would not be too technologically challenging.



“I hope it will have the same effect as the Breathalyzer,” he said.

[penguingrrl]

I love the idea of this if it can work correctly. I do have concerns about how it will work. If you pull out of your driveway having just sent a text (as I do to the woman I carpool with to let her n ow we're in the car: I send it before putting the car in drive) or pull into a parking lot to read and reply then have an accident shortly after could you be held liable?

Assuming it really can prove your car was not parked when you used the phone I think it's fantastic.

[aurora]

8% increase in fatalities in 2015 after many years of decreases? Definitely, something needs to be done.

I think probably societal pressure is needed in addition to law enforcement. Driving drunk isn't considered socially acceptable in most circles anymore. How do we get to that stage for texting use?

[aurora]

Apr 30, 2016 9:16:30 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

I love the idea of this if it can work correctly. I do have concerns about how it will work. If you pull out of your driveway having just sent a text (as I do to the woman I carpool with to let her n ow we're in the car: I send it before putting the car in drive) or pull into a parking lot to read and reply then have an accident shortly after could you be held liable?

Assuming it really can prove your car was not parked when you used the phone I think it's fantastic.

Phones are capable of measuring their speeds, so it's at least technologically possible for the phone to report its speed when the text was sent.

[penguingrrl]

Apr 30, 2016 9:20:57 GMT -5 aurora said:

Apr 30, 2016 9:16:30 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

I love the idea of this if it can work correctly. I do have concerns about how it will work. If you pull out of your driveway having just sent a text (as I do to the woman I carpool with to let her n ow we're in the car: I send it before putting the car in drive) or pull into a parking lot to read and reply then have an accident shortly after could you be held liable?

Assuming it really can prove your car was not parked when you used the phone I think it's fantastic.

Phones are capable of measuring their speeds, so it's at least technologically possible for the phone to report its speed when the text was sent.

Oh wow, really? I had no idea they could do that! Cool! In that case assuming a passenger wasn't using the drivers phone that it very reliable (my 8 year old usually has my phone when we're driving and H will read/reply to texts if he's in the car).

[mrspez07]

I have a few concerns about how it would work as well, like selecting music to play via Siri during or before I start driving, how would that be read?

I find this statement from the article such BS, the justification is that you caused an accident, same as justification for a breathalyzer test if alcohol is suspected:
“It really invites police to seize phones without justification or warrant,” said Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the New York chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

[aurora]

Apr 30, 2016 9:27:32 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

Apr 30, 2016 9:20:57 GMT -5 aurora said:

Phones are capable of measuring their speeds, so it's at least technologically possible for the phone to report its speed when the text was sent.

Oh wow, really? I had no idea they could do that! Cool! In that case assuming a passenger wasn't using the drivers phone that it very reliable (my 8 year old usually has my phone when we're driving and H will read/reply to texts if he's in the car).

Passengers using the phone is definitely a complicating factor.

Most smart phones have some sort of accelerometer, which is how they know to turn the display. Speed could be determined from that signal in theory (though you'd have to differentiate between moving the phone inside the car with your arm vs the car moving).

Google has such accurate maps of speeds on roads on its maps by using everyone's android phone as a speed sensor and compiling the info. I assume these speeds are measured by communication between the phones and cell towers. (I don't actually work for a phone company or Google.)

[penguingrrl]

Apr 30, 2016 9:39:14 GMT -5 aurora said:

Apr 30, 2016 9:27:32 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

Oh wow, really? I had no idea they could do that! Cool! In that case assuming a passenger wasn't using the drivers phone that it very reliable (my 8 year old usually has my phone when we're driving and H will read/reply to texts if he's in the car).

Passengers using the phone is definitely a complicating factor.

Most smart phones have some sort of accelerometer, which is how they know to turn the display. Speed could be determined from that signal in theory (though you'd have to differentiate between moving the phone inside the car with your arm vs the car moving).

Google has such accurate maps of speeds on roads on its maps by using everyone's android phone as a speed sensor and compiling the info. I assume these speeds are measured by communication between the phones and cell towers. (I don't actually work for a phone company or Google.)

That's all very cool! Thanks for sharing.

[ttt]

Apr 30, 2016 10:02:00 GMT -5 @mx said:

Apr 30, 2016 9:57:05 GMT -5 tillie said:

Sorry, Don't trust this at all.

So don't use your phone while driving. And it won't be a problem for you?

Isn't this kind of like "if you have nothing to hide, why should you care if the government listens in on your phone calls?" 

I'm not sure how I feel about this yet. Since a court just ruled that the police can't search your phone without a warrant, I don't see how a law like this would pass legal muster. 

I do see some concerns about what if someone else was using the phone, how far back it goes, etc. and also with the police using this every time they pull someone over as opposed to on the scene of a crash. But on the other hand, nothing else to stop texting while driving has seemed to have much effect. 

[MrsAxilla]

Apr 30, 2016 11:20:04 GMT -5 ttt said:

Apr 30, 2016 10:02:00 GMT -5 @mx said:

So don't use your phone while driving. And it won't be a problem for you?

Isn't this kind of like "if you have nothing to hide, why should you care if the government listens in on your phone calls?" 

I'm not sure how I feel about this yet. Since a court just ruled that the police can't search your phone without a warrant, I don't see how a law like this would pass legal muster. 

I do see some concerns about what if someone else was using the phone, how far back it goes, etc. and also with the police using this every time they pull someone over as opposed to on the scene of a crash. But on the other hand, nothing else to stop texting while driving has seemed to have much effect. 

Good points!  

I have, on more than one occasion believe it or not, seen someone READING A BOOK while driving.  On the freeway, no less!  Distracted driving isn't limited to texting.  I think we need more education honestly.  I just don't think it occurs to most people.  Like, last weekend, we were driving family in two cars (I'm following DH). As were merging onto the highway and into a construction zone, my phone rings.  It's MIL, who's in DH's car.  I ignored and she calls right back.  Twice!  I finally handed the phone to Ben who said "Mommy's driving right now and its not safe to talk.  What do you want?"  Shamed by her grandson - lol.  Like, why didn't it occur to her that I was literally right behind her, navigating speeding cars, orange cones and concrete barriers?  Why in god's name would you call me right then??  

[elleblue]

Apr 30, 2016 12:22:25 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

Apr 30, 2016 11:20:04 GMT -5 ttt said:

Isn't this kind of like "if you have nothing to hide, why should you care if the government listens in on your phone calls?" 

I'm not sure how I feel about this yet. Since a court just ruled that the police can't search your phone without a warrant, I don't see how a law like this would pass legal muster. 

I do see some concerns about what if someone else was using the phone, how far back it goes, etc. and also with the police using this every time they pull someone over as opposed to on the scene of a crash. But on the other hand, nothing else to stop texting while driving has seemed to have much effect. 

Good points!  

I have, on more than one occasion believe it or not, seen someone READING A BOOK while driving.  On the freeway, no less!  Distracted driving isn't limited to texting.  I think we need more education honestly.  I just don't think it occurs to most people.  Like, last weekend, we were driving family in two cars (I'm following DH). As were merging onto the highway and into a construction zone, my phone rings.  It's MIL, who's in DH's car.  I ignored and she calls right back.  Twice!  I finally handed the phone to Ben who said "Mommy's driving right now and its not safe to talk.  What do you want?"  Shamed by her grandson - lol.  Like, why didn't it occur to her that I was literally right behind her, navigating speeding cars, orange cones and concrete barriers?  Why in god's name would you call me right then??  

I once saw someone eating a bowl of cereal (obviously not a millennial) while driving their morning commute. That was a new one. Newspapers on the steering wheel a few times, not sure how they could see the road at all. People are crazy and dumb. 

[MrsAxilla]

I remember once several years ago, DH and I were in the middle of a fight when I had to leave to pick up someone at the airport. It's 45 minutes of freeway; no stop lights, no parking lots to pull into. He starts blowing up my phone and I ignore him. I finally get to the airport and am waiting for my guest and can look at the texts. The last few were along the lines of "why are you ignoring me? I'll assume from your silence that you don't care. Blah blah blah". OMG I was so livid!! What the fuck is wrong with you?? He hasn't done that since - lol.

[summer]

Apr 30, 2016 10:19:43 GMT -5 tillie said:

Apr 30, 2016 10:02:00 GMT -5 @mx said:

So don't use your phone while driving. And it won't be a problem for you?

I don't text while I drive but I do use my phone, which is perfectly legal in my state.

DH's truck displays and speaks (if desired) any text received on his navigation screen. That's really no different than using GPS while driving.

I feel like reading a text on a screen is different from reading a GPS map saying "turn left at xyz." 

[saz]

Well my phone is always in use while I drive playing podcasts or spotify. Voice commands also exist.... talking on the phone with or without a headset is still legal in many places. I think this is just going to be a nightmare to try to enforce. It is not nearly as simple as "you were drinking or you weren't." I think it is a culture/awareness issue.

[summer]

The bigger issue for me is that we are all driving huge machines with precious cargo (ourselves/families, etc.) but it is somehow asking too much for people to just drive when they are driving. Maybe I'm the asshole, but I get aggravated with my H when he fucks with the navigation while driving. Do that before you go or when you are stopped. Just because he "always does it" doesn't mean things can't change in an instant.

I don't even love all the hands free stuff, though I get you can't argue against it because we talk to passengers and listen to radio. But the more distractions ("I need to find just THAT album, or THAT song, send one emoji so they know I'm on the way,....) we have, the less we focus. Can't we just drive? I mean if you are in the car for a half hour or less especially, we can't just drive and do everything else when we get there?

I hate the idea of driverless cars, but this issue always makes me think twice. Just let people sit in the car and play with their settings and talk to their boss, friends or whatever, without driving. But if it's not when driving humans really need to find sometime in the day where they are just doing the thing they are doing and not 4 and 5 other things. But that's me and my soapbox rant.

[ECB]

Apr 30, 2016 14:01:54 GMT -5 @bunnybean said:

Kind of seems...redundant after an accident though. Like you already had the bad thing that will turn you happen. You had an accident. Maybe someone got hurt. Definitely your car did. Guessing you won't do it again.

Seems like a weirdly timed idea.

But they want to know WHY the accident happened.  Was it just a wet road and no one was at fault or were you doing something illegal that led to the accident?   Especially if two cars are involved. Who's at fault?

ANd to assuming they won't do it again- how many repeat drunk drivers are out there?  I mean AFTER getting caught?  And go and do it again?  

I like the idea of this - I feel like there needs to be something more being done.  But yes, I have the same concerns too.  My one car has Bluetooth and I'll often listen to the music on my phone or talk to someone.  How does that show up on the "textalyzer"?  Or my son playing on my phone.  

[5thofjuly]

I'm going to come down hard on this. We don't NEED our phones for anything (GPS, music, etc.) when we're driving. We managed just fine before they existed- why not now? If the research shows that using your phone while driving is dangerous, I'd be OK with banning cell use while driving entirely.

[irishbride2]

I use hs phone all the time while he is driving to answer texts for him or look up directions.

How will it distinguish between users?

[laurack]

I wish they would come up with something that actually prevents phones from working while you are driving. This I feel is the only way to stop this downward spiral of ridiculous

Like if the car is started it turns your cell to airplane mode.

It would be complicated because of passengers using phones but hopefully there's a way to deal with that.

I use the google map app for gps because I can and its great, I love it but if I couldn't I would just have to look at a route beforehand just like the old days I guess

Overall I just think we are unable to stop this madness with laws alone as people don't follow them and they aren't enforced

[miniroller]

May 1, 2016 8:26:04 GMT -5 irishbride2 said:

I use hs phone all the time while he is driving to answer texts for him or look up directions.

How will it distinguish between users?

I'm also H's texter while he's driving. (As much as I try to convince myself he doesn't text when he doesn't have me, it's definitely a concern.) ANYWAY, I'm wondering if they could have a thumbprint system (Apple) to distinguish between driver & passenger. You have to "sign in" to drive, & that's the person who can't access devices while the car is in drive.

[laurack]

I do think that self driving cars will deal with a lot of our issues but that comes with other concerns for me.

But it would be cool to have a car that can tell what the speed limit is wherever you are right now and physically will not be able to go more than 10% faster than that.

The combination of speed and distracted driving due to texting etc is just so scary

[blink]

I wish we would stop with the false notion that talking to a passenger in the car - who is also aware of the road, weather, driving conditions to some extent - is the same thing as talking to someone on the phone. And that since the former is distracting and not being punished, we shouldn't try to prevent or punish phone distractions while driving.

[aurora]

May 1, 2016 5:08:15 GMT -5 tillie said:

summer, I do understand your point, but there are so many things people do while driving that we shouldn't just pick out a few of them to punish (other than text. I agree that should be separated and banned).

I think it's fair to legislate the ones that have been scientifically proven to lead to accidents and that can actually be proven in court. Alcohol and illegal phone use are two of those. Sure I'd love to be able to throw the book at someone who drives with his eyes closed on a lark but that's harder to prove.

[irishbride2]

May 1, 2016 8:45:07 GMT -5 @mx said:

May 1, 2016 8:20:24 GMT -5 5thofjuly said:

I'm going to come down hard on this. We don't NEED our phones for anything (GPS, music, etc.) when we're driving. We managed just fine before they existed- why not now? If the research shows that using your phone while driving is dangerous, I'd be OK with banning cell use while driving entirely.

Yes. I'd be perfectly fine if everything but dialing 911 was disabled. And I am far more often the passenger than the driver in a car! If you want to multitask on your commute take the bus.

Not  all of us live somewhere where this ipossible

i miss living somewhere where I could only take public transportation. It was such a better comute!

im very very very anti texting and driving. I can see why we might have to ban everyone in a car using a phone just like we ban open containers. But I would be frustrated someone who follows the law already. But I get it.

[WanderingWinoZ]

there's lots of issues going on here...


The Waze app actually displays your speed instantly, so that's already being done. Tons of people use the phone GPS for directions / to check traffic.

There are very different parts of the brain that are used in various driving tasks. Talking to somebody on the phone takes a cognitive toll on a certain portion of the brain, but in some respect still allows you to function physically to drive the car. Now, you are much less likely to notice things around you or remember much of your driving trip if you were on the phone, and it does somewhat diminish your capacity to control your car/react/respond, but it's not huge like some other things.

There are already ways to obtain cell records to see incoming calls/data when there is an accident. It goes help assign fault or in criminal cases, but it'snot doing anything to prevent more crashes. It's not as reliable b/c you can't know if somebody read the texts and there is only about a 1 minute window & you need to be able to correspond it to the exact time of the crash (usually from 911 calls or onstar type of signals).

I'm theoretically OK with some type of device that lets you read out if somebody has been using a phone, but there would need to be some pretty serious privacy & rights restrictions on it. A cop can't just pull you over & check. There would have to be some reasonable suspicion.

I wonder if this will be something that insurance companies embrace. Either put this on your phone to disable texting+driving or face huge increases in your insurance premiums. But it would have to disable all internet/data traffic- not just text. Think about all the people that Facebook, read, check other stuff while driving- not just texting.

[josieposy]

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.

Show of hands for people who believe this?

[bears]

I think GPS adds safety. Otherwise, people are trying to read maps or paper directions... Or, if you're talking about me, they are just plan lost and pulled over trying to read the gazetteer and trying to figure out where the F they are.

Something needs to change for sure. I am routinely terrified by all of the people I see texting while driving. It's a damn shame that people can't put down their damn phones long enough to drive a car. It's ridiculous that driving is generally not seen by people as a high risk activity.