NJ Court: Text Recipients Can Be Held Liable In Texting-And-Driving Accidents | Hacker News Reader

NJ Court: Text Recipients Can Be Held Liable In Texting-And-Driving Accidents

newyork.cbslocal.com

6 pointskposehn9 comments

This is a misunderstanding of the purpose of a text. I can see where the judges are coming from, as the sender of the text if i'm actively aware that the recipient is driving, I should not cause them to become distracted. However I adamantly disagree with the details.

If the issue was over a voice call, i might consider their logic, but the point of a text is to provide a passive way to send a message. There is nothing compelling the driver to answer that text immediately. In fact, if I know the person is driving, and I need to convey a message. Text is actually the BEST way to communicate as they can still receive the message without interrupting their driving.

If the driver decides to look at the phone while the vehicle is moving. It was a decision they made.

Yep, the whole point of texting is that it's passive/asynchronous and doesn't demand an immediate response.

Despite being textual in nature SMS has by social convention turned into a synchronous protocol. Common scenarios:

* A bunch of people are driving separately to an event. One of them is severely late. It is likely that the late person will receive an SMS to ask where they are.

* Use as a pager replacement makes it odd to send a text at a weird time (especially for on-call employees, for instance). An on-call nurse I know was annoyed after a group text conversation occurred at a late hour.

Funny how the ruling says "if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving” yet most of the public reactions are complaints specifically about not knowing that the recipient will view the text while driving.

Taking aside misunderstanding of the issue by most people commenting in the article what the judge said (“that a person sending text messages has a duty not to text someone who is driving if the texter knows”).

Texting the driver is actually the safest way to send him a message. It's not that disturbing as a voice call and he can choose to ignore it until it's convenient and safe to read it when he stops.

If this holds up, there are going to be some awkward conversations about mass Amber Alert broadcasts.

I wonder if, using GPS and accelerometer, the Phone can determine it's in the hands of a driver -- and prohibit texting use.

I mean, using the GPS it can see the speed and that it's inside a vehicle. And I would think that holding the steering wheel with the other hand, rotating it to change course etc, might have some kind of signature micro-motions and interactions through GPS/accelerometer, so that it could be determined that not only the phone it's on a car, but that also the driver holds it.

Wouldn't work with most drivers that I know, who usually keep their phones in holders mounted to the center console or front window.

Text sender surely, not text recipient? [No matter how the bleeding original headline reads]

Reply on news.ycombinator.com