2. ...and should they? If a crash happens, and someone was on their phone, it would be pretty obvious that they were at fault. I just have a really hard time thinking that more device-related tracking would be better for society.
Also, the mention of cameras at the end of the article is another concern for me. I really don't think this country is better off with more internet connected cameras that are actively being used to surveil the populous. There have to be better ways to win the hearts and minds of people and convince them to not use their phones. Turning into a surveillance state doesn't seem to be the best way to do that IMO.
The article discusses this: it’s often not obvious and largely on the honor system, just as police are often extremely deferential to drivers who claim a pedestrian “jumped in front” of their car. That means that we’re almost certainly significantly undercounting the number of times it’s a factor.
A good analogy would be DUI: Americans really loved their booze and there were many people who felt it was a core freedom to be able to drive after drinking, but eventually the death toll mounted high enough that our social norms changed to include things like designated drivers and doing roadside tests rather than trusting drivers’ claims. Phones will probably follow a similar arc because they are involved in many serious accidents and most people agree that driving safely is not an unreasonable request or a civil liberties violation.
>If a crash happens, and someone was on their phone, it would be pretty obvious that they were at fault.
Accidents are so circumstantial that it's not always going to be "pretty obvious" someone involved was on their phone. Nor does being on your phone when involved in an accident necessarily mean that you caused it.
Accidents can also be caused by someone who didn't crash. If you have to take evasive action because of someone else you might crash. (in some cases you crashing is the best result for you)
I know someone who was rear-ended by someone who was reportedly on his phone. The person I know also admitted to me that they were on their phone but that didn't make it into the police report.
So, not only were they on their phone and reportedly didn't cause the collision, nobody even asked if they were on their phone and therefore nobody found out, presumably because they didn't cause the collision.
My step daughter was in a collision in the middle of an intersection. No cameras, no witnesses, no other vehicles than the two.
Police come along, ask her a bare minimum of questions. "Did you have a green light?" "Yes, I did." "Okay."
Walk over to the other driver, and talk to him, come back less than three minutes later. "The other driver said he definitely had a green light. I am issuing you a citation for failure to obey a traffic control signal."
That fell apart very quickly when we appealed it to court. "Definitely" in a statement adds nothing to the reasonable doubt equation.
2. ...and should they? If a crash happens, and someone was on their phone, it would be pretty obvious that they were at fault. I just have a really hard time thinking that more device-related tracking would be better for society. Also, the mention of cameras at the end of the article is another concern for me. I really don't think this country is better off with more internet connected cameras that are actively being used to surveil the populous. There have to be better ways to win the hearts and minds of people and convince them to not use their phones. Turning into a surveillance state doesn't seem to be the best way to do that IMO.