Proposed law: cell-phone review at accident

KCRam

The New Jersey legislature is discussing a proposed law that would allow police officers to review call/text history of a driver's cell phone if they have reason to believe the driver was using the device when involved in an accident.

CNN.com June 12 2013 - After the crash: Driver's license, registration, cellphone, please

ACLU is already voicing their opinion that this doesn't meet the accepted level of probable cause for a search.

Should police be allowed to quickly browse the call/text history of a driver's cell phone after a collision/incident, or is it going too far?

kcram - Pickups/Wagons/Vans+Minivans Host

ray80

I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. (perhaps because I never use the phone or text when driving, and wouldn't)

fintail

I'd have thought a simple subpoena after the accident would reveal the records without a sometimes questionably skilled LEO of sometimes sketchy ethics taking possession of the device and doing, in reality, who knows what with it. Looks like more public sector mucky mucks creating a make-work project to justify their positions.

andre1969

will some of the most egregious offenders of texting/cell phone laws, the very police officers who are sworn to uphold the law, protect, and serve, be held accountable just like the rest of us when they get involved in an accident? Around these parts, I see cops goofing off on their cell phones all the time, and yes, it does impair their driving ability.

I know someone who was almost sideswiped by a cop who was goofing off on his cell. He got the number of the car, called the police to complain, and all they said was that sometimes it's necessary for the police to use their cell phones will driving.

But still, shouldn't they have to be hands-free, just like the rest of us?

igozoomzoom

I'll just share a brief story that relates to this-

In July 2010, my mom was rear-ended while stopped at a red light. The car that hit her forced her into the SUV stopped in front of her and 'sandwiching her between the two. The driver's side airbag deployed and my mom was hurt pretty seriously. Ultimately, she required surgery to remove a herniated disc from her cervical spine.

My mom recalled seeing the 20-year old girl a few miles back and she was tailgating her and weaving while talking on her cell phone. Two witnesses to the accident also stated that she was using her phone when she rear-ended my mom.

The at-fault driver's insurance company was very difficult and treated my mom like a criminal. All she wanted was reimbursement for out-of-pocket medical expenses and six weeks of lost wages while recoverinig from surgery.

Ultimately, she had no choice but to hire an attorney who went after them for the full policy limit. He filed the case in court and, even when they received notice of being sued, they still refused to pay a penny. Then my mom's attorney subpoenaed the at-fault driver’s cell phone records from 30 minutes before until 30 minutes after the time of the accident.

Two days after that, the insurance company settled for the policy’s full bodily injury limit ($100k).

Personally, I wish that cell phone usage while driving should illegal in all 50 states, including here in Georgia. Unfortunately, we only have laws that prohibit texting so far…..

iluvmysephia1

I'm sorry you and your Mom and all of the family had ta go through all of that.

Personally, I wish that cell phone usage while driving should illegal in all 50 states, including here in Georgia. Unfortunately, we only have laws that prohibit texting so far…..

I think texting and driving while talking on the cell phone should be illegal in all 50 states. Period. No if's, and's or but's.

fintail

I remember seeing signs and billboards in GA that actually encourage people to talk and drive. Insane. Might not matter though, my state has made phone usage a primary offense - but enforcement doesn't seem to exist.

Several years ago, my brother was driving a Corolla my mom had bought a mere month earlier - got rear ended by a Ford truck going ~40 or so, destroyed the Corolla. He had some mild back/neck injury that required physical therapy - he too had to fight the insurance company to simply pay the medical bills, not even asking for anything more at the time. He ended up threatening with names of lawyers he saw on TV, somehow that made them take responsibility (the FIRE cabal, what would we do without them) - settled for what I thought was too little, but it's his mess. He is certain the truck driver was using a phone, I think he was cited for some kind of distracted driving fault.

igozoomzoom

The worst part of it all is that my parents WERE insured by the same company as the girl who hit her! They had been with them for 40+ years!

Mom was driving my car because I had taken her Explorer on vacation with some friends for the week. My car (a 2006 Mazda3 s 5-door) should have been totaled. I told them I'd take $10,500 for it, which was fair cash value in 2010. They insisted on repairing it and, when I finished with them, the repairs took 39 days and cost them over $13k!

And my parents are NOT insured with them any longer!

fintail

The guy who hit my brother had Geico - I remember my brother swearing up and down for a year every time he heard the name. Corolla had damage that almost hit its value IIRC - was written off. Maybe for the better, as I convinced my mother to spend just a little more and get a Camry, which feels like a Lexus compared to the Corolla.

igozoomzoom

Ironically, I had a Corolla LE (or Crapolla, as I called it) for a rental when Mom got hit in my car. First they gave me a 2009 Dodge Avenger with the Check Engine Light and Tire Pressure Monitor Warning Light lit (even thought all four tires were at the correct pressure). The Avenger was the most horrid vehicle I've ever driven...

The Crapolla was the second worst I've ever driven. I took the Avenger back after two days and I had to pick between the Corolla (Red) or a Yaris 2-door Liftback in some Easter-egg color. I'm 6'2" 245#, so the Corolla was the better fit and the lesser of the two evils.

But I hated that thing. It was insane on a 2010 Corolla LE that Cruise Control & Remote Keyless Entry were an option (and not included). It was the first time I had to use a key to unlock a car in years!

Since mom was banged up and pretty much stuck at home for several weeks, I drove her 2007 Explorer Eddie Bauer the entire time and left the Corolla parked at her house. The only bad thing was that I got very used to the sonar rear park assist in the Explorer. The first day I got my Mazda3 back from the shop, I backed into the mailbox (I was waiting for the beep that never came).

fintail

My mother bought the Corolla without my input - one day I received an "I bought a new car" email. Here's was a dark blue LE with the plood interior trim, I want to say it also had a sunroof, but I don't recall. She seemed to like it - but when I visited soon after the wreck and we went test driving, I was very unimpressed by what felt like cheap flimsy construction. We then drove a low mileage Camry that was virtually the same price, and I told her to go that route. She's happy with it. She'd also never use a phone while driving, so no worries about getting that ticket,

I'm growing used to backup sensors and the camera in my car, too. It really aids precise parking.

igozoomzoom

I still have the 2006 Mazda3 that was involved in the wreck because, after $13k of repairs, it's like a new car. I'm thinking about giving it to my nephew next year when he starts driving.

But I also have a 2012 Mazda CX-9 GT that I bought back in Nov 2012. It has the Rearview Camera (with no on-screen guides or reference points) but not the Backup Sensors (they were added on all 2013 CX-9 models). The camera is VERY disorienting for me and I just glance at it when I put it in Reverse to make sure it's all clear.

The feature I love is the Blind Spot Monitoring System along with the Rear Cross-Traffic Alert that functions off the same sensors on each rear corner of the car. Whenever a vehicle is within the range that it considers the 'blind spot', a small warning light appears in the top, outside corner of the rearview mirror on that side of the vehicle. If you engage the turn signal indicating a lane change while someone is in the Blind Spot, it alerts you audibly that someone is there.

It's far more useful than I ever immagined it would be. But the problem is, when I drive the 2006 Mazda3 on occasion, I forget that it doesn't have Blind Spot Monitoring!

fintail

I have to park in tight garages, the camera helps me get right up against a wall or to the end of a space. I don't use it much in parking lot situations, other than getting an all clear, as well. The sensors also help in tight garages, as modern cars have such poor visibility.

I also have blind spot monitoring and lane departure warning. Triangles in the side view mirror illuminate when something is beside the car, and a chime when one changes lanes into a sensed obstacle. The lane departure system vibrates the wheel - as I take turns fast and use the whole road, I set it off now and then in normal driving :shades:

My old car actually has good visibility, so such systems aren't needed - thin pillars and low beltline.

igozoomzoom

I have a co-worker who just bought a new Cadillac XTS with Lane Departure Warning. In addition to alerting the driver with a light and warning tone, it will also vibrate the seat bottom if immediate action isn't taken. If I had nodded off behind the wheel, I'm not sure that a butt massage would be the safest way to get my attention!? It would probably scare the crap out of me and I'd run into someone or something....

The only option on the Grand Touring is a package that includes Radar Cruise Control and Forward Obstruction Warning System. Radar Cruise Control seems ridiculous to me- why would I want to remain behind a car that can't maintain the same speed instead of passing it?

The Forward Obstruction Warning System (in the words of Mazda) "detects obstructions ahead and warns you of a possible collision". I've been doing the same thing for years- using my eyes and the windshield! If you're too distracted or dumb to see something blocking your lane ahead, you have no business driving a freakin' car, right???

igozoomzoom

The lane departure system vibrates the wheel - as I take turns fast and use the whole road, I set it off now and then in normal driving :shades:

I forgot to respond to this....

I live in north Georgia and commute to the metro Atlanta area daily, a total of almost 100 miles round trip. Sometimes when I get stuck behind a 'lane squatter' blocking the left lane, I lose my patience and end up 'zoom zoomin' around them somehow. The Blind Spot Monitor goes crazy (even if I'm squeezing in front of a car and clearing their front bumper by a few inches, at least I'm singaling before (as) I do it! The BSM OFF button comes in handy sometimes....

fintail

That's a good point that relates bcck to the thread topic - some of these 'driving aids' seem to encourage inattention and/or incompetence. MB has similar systems, and has even made commercials for them, ones I title "my car saved me from my own stupidity". Set the adaptive cruise or forward warning system so one can instead play with their i-device. Not cool.

I laugh when I set off the lane departure and blind spot warnings - usually when I am carving through a road and using more than the lane boundaries, or making an aggressive lane change. The tech is still new enough to me to give me amusement.

I had a rental Audi in Germany with adaptive cruise. I didn't trust it to begin with, and I would cover the brake - but it worked. It was handy in slow-and-go traffic, but it's not something I would pay for.

KCRam

...let's get back to the original theme re cell phones.

igozoom, do you think the outcome would have been different/easier if the responding police officer was allowed to check the driver's cell phone history right then and there?

kcram - Pickups/Wagons/Vans+Minivans Host

igozoomzoom

igozoom, do you think the outcome would have been different/easier if the responding police officer was allowed to check the driver's cell phone history right then and there?

I don't think so. The accident was obviously her fault and she was issued three different tickets- one for driving too fast for conditions, one for following too closely and (thankfully the 'first responder' to the accident was one of my childhood best friends) he pointed out to the cop that the girl's tag was also expired so that was her third ticket.

Her insurance company, Snake Farm, loves to make so-called 'complex claims' very difficult on third parties (the people their customers hit)!

The only way immediate access to her cell phone records would have made any difference is if cell phone use was ILLEGAL in our county and/or state!

But even that could backfire and make the situation much worse for the not-at-fault drivers. All Personal Auto policies in Georgia (and most states) have a clause that states clearly that they are not responsible and will not cover the driver if he/she is knowingly and willfully committing a crime!

They will cover stupidity, carelessness, ignorance and recklessness, however.

But many accidents are caused by speeding drivers, which is illegal. I've never known of an insurer to invoke the 'willfully violating law' clause to stall or avoid paying in those cases. One could claim that they momentarily forgot that cell phone usage was illegal, just as a driver could inadvertently be speeding.

The state insurance commissioners and state lawmakers would need to close any potential loopholes that insurers could use to avoid paying for Any One's damages! Then ban cell phone usage while operating a vehicle.....

BTW, I read an article last week related to this topic. It reported that hands-free cell phone usage and even voice-commands for Navigation and other vehicle systems are NOT nearly as safe as once thought! In fact, a phone call over a car's Bluetooth can be just as dangerous as holding the phone to your ear with one hand....

fintail

Really, doing anything while driving is an issue. I don't drink or eat while driving, don't want the mess or the distraction when the inevitable spill takes place.

For the thread topic, one issue I have is timing. Is the exact second of a crash discernible? If someone is yapping, hangs up, and a minute later rear ends someone, how will our skilled LEOs who are not wildly after revenue judge it? Unless there's a text that says "oh crap I'm about to cra..." , it might be easier said than done.