Recommended Posts

HARTFORD, Conn. ? A teenage driver is under arrest after authorities said the distraction of a handheld cellphone caused her to fatally hit a jogger, whose father blames his death on her "stupidity."

A 16-year-old girl from New Canaan, Conn., who police say was driving the SUV, turned herself in May 12, 2012, after learning there was a warrant out for her arrest on charges of negligent homicide with a motor vehicle.

The death of 44-year-old Kenneth Dorsey in Norwalk and the subsequent criminal charges against the 16-year-old driver come as other states are considering measures to force teenagers and adults to disconnect from cellphones and other electronic devices before getting behind the wheel.

Dorsey, an avid runner, was on a morning jog and training for a marathon on March 24 when he was fatally struck by the SUV the girl was driving, according to his father, Leo Dorsey.

The New Canaan girl, whom police are not naming because of her age, was charged Saturday with negligent homicide with a motor vehicle, using a handheld telephone under age 18 while driving and failure to drive in the proper lane. Police declined to say what she was doing on the phone, only that they found evidence she was using the keypad before Kenneth Dorsey was hit on a busy street.

"There's no reason to use a phone while you're driving a car," Leo Dorsey told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "There is nothing out there that important. I totally, totally have to believe that these phones can be made to shut off if they're moving. I'm pushing for phones that don't work when they're moving."

The accident is prompting new calls for people to put down their phones and other electronic devices while driving, from police officials to victims' relatives to readers posting online responses to the Norwalk accident story.

more

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1077743-jogger-killed-while-driver-texted/
Share on other sites

"There's no reason to use a phone while you're driving a car," Leo Dorsey told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "There is nothing out there that important. I totally, totally have to believe that these phones can be made to shut off if they're moving. I'm pushing for phones that don't work when they're moving."

...and what if I'm a passenger in a car, or on a bus and want to text somebody? Sad news but that's a stupid idea. There are plenty of reasons to need/want to use a phone while moving, it doesn't mean I'm going to use it while driving. There just needs to be much harsher penalties if caught using a phone while driving.

...and what if I'm a passenger in a car, or on a bus and want to text somebody? Sad news but that's a stupid idea. There are plenty of reasons to need/want to use a phone while moving, it doesn't mean I'm going to use it while driving. There just needs to be much harsher penalties if caught using a phone while driving.

Yep I agree, stupid idea. Plus most cars nowadays come with bluetooth hands free built in. Its sad what happened but this is an over reaction.

Ontop of that there are current laws on the books which do just fine to cover this sort of thing. wreckless endangerment, wreckless driving etc. Why invent a whole set of new laws that just cover what the existing laws already do?

Sad, but I like the fathers idea. Have cellphones with a device that will detect when it is in motion above a certian speed. Once that speed is hit, the phone turns off or is disabled from waking up, until the phone is back at "rest".

Righto.

Trains

Buses

Taxis

Passenger in car

Wouldn't work would it?

I was about to chime in with that..

Stupid little **** the girl is :\ There is nothing I hate more than seeing some idiot swerving all over the road, and upon getting sight of the driver, see they are on the phone.

****s ME TO TEARS >: (

  • Like 2

I never ever ever do it as I once was in a car that almost crashed because the driver was setting up his GPS, but what annoys me most are taxi drivers and bus drivers. They are always either texting, calling or just filling out a form while driving. And the worst thing is you can't even wear a seatbelt in a taxi.

Wty the hell would he push for phone disconnect while moving ... I am on a bicycle and you wnat my phone off? ... skateboard? ... running?! -- speed -- what speed? going downhill while riding on a cheetah ? ... stupid politicians and their logic

However, I would not mind forcing some phonelock ... maybe force bluetooth and if none detected then force text to speech or something ....

actually, no, not even, put fines out .... rewards ... whoever turns in an idiot talking while driving will get a 200$ reward (paid to him in cash by the offender on top of other fined and demerit points)

Wty the hell would he push for phone disconnect while moving ... I am on a bicycle and you wnat my phone off? ... skateboard? ... running?! -- speed -- what speed? going downhill while riding on a cheetah ? ... stupid politicians and their logic

However, I would not mind forcing some phonelock ... maybe force bluetooth and if none detected then force text to speech or something ....

actually, no, not even, put fines out .... rewards ... whoever turns in an idiot talking while driving will get a 200$ reward (paid to him in cash by the offender on top of other fined and demerit points)

If your biking, you are not on your phone I bet. If you are skateboarding, you are probably not riding while on the phone. Running, well, if they make the speed 15mph + on phone disconnect, good luck hitting that 15mph constantly... Get real.

Some of you people act like you HAVE to talk on the phone at ALL times. Seriously, you lives are not that busy and what you say is not that important. Get over yourselves.

Most people can barely do 1 thing right at a time. Give them 2 things, and they are most likely to screw up somewhere along the line. Again, get the hell over yourselves, nothing is too important to say, " I can't pull over and tell the person this." Unless you are in that very very very very very rare situation of someone chasing you to kill you, or in an emergency, where there is ALWAYS exceptions to the law/rule. Let's try to think things through without going all," but but but what about if I ruuuuun. " ... Why don't you stop moving your feet then so the person on the phone can hear you without having to hear gasp from you trying to breathe properly while running and talking at the same time... sheesh people are so... briandead.

And if your in a taxi or anything else, same as if you were driving. What you have/want to say, im sure can wait a little bit.

  • Like 1

You can be biking and on the phone same with skateboarding .... and running ... hands free bluetooth or earphones (gasping oh well, have talked on the phone while having sex, don't see the issue)

also, I have a counter example for your "in a taxi can wait" ...

---------

so, you are a banker, clearly have enough money for a taxy or limo, yet you have to deffer to oh wait, my stocks, board meeting can wait the 30min -1h because some idiot thought I cannot talk in a limmo.

similarly, a doctor witing in a taxy for some crucial info, a captain or a police officer ... watever man, really, so many valid examples where a hands free device can be literally a live (clearly death) situation.

The fact that people cannot do one thing at a time is well known, not not all are the same. I wold talk on the phone while driving (albeit I have a bluetooth) and have no problem with it. Don't read/send text but will talk.

Wty the hell would he push for phone disconnect while moving ... I am on a bicycle and you wnat my phone off? ... skateboard? ... running?! -- speed -- what speed? going downhill while riding on a cheetah ? ... stupid politicians and their logic However, I would not mind forcing some phonelock ... maybe force bluetooth and if none detected then force text to speech or something .... actually, no, not even, put fines out .... rewards ... whoever turns in an idiot talking while driving will get a 200$ reward (paid to him in cash by the offender on top of other fined and demerit points)

Haha, I agree with you but those are the worst examples ever. Biking, skateboarding, and running are probably not good times to be using your phone either, regardless of if you CAN. You CAN text and drive, it doesn't make it safe. The previous examples of a bus, train, passenger in a car, etc are probably a lot better examples. There will never be a speed lock on phones though. That's not a viable solution to the problem.

She should lose the phone too, so that everyone would know how stupid behind the wheel she is ....

I had some close calls where some idiot merging on the freeway, texting/talking, no signal, jumped 3 lanes to mine and did not see me. Suffice to say a lot of wording and honking came from my direction towards the idiot.

And if your in a taxi or anything else, same as if you were driving. What you have/want to say, im sure can wait a little bit.

There's no need to get so worked up. People are calling it a stupid idea because it is. It's incredibly flawed and falls apart in several scenarios e.g. using a phone when you're a passenger or using a smartphone as a sat nav. There are far more sensible alternatives.

There's no need to get so worked up. People are calling it a stupid idea because it is. It's incredibly flawed and falls apart in several scenarios e.g. using a phone when you're a passenger or using a smartphone as a sat nav. There are far more sensible alternatives.

Possibly there are better alternatives, this isn't the conclusion of a congressional research panel over 5 years. This is the knee jerk reaction to a devastating, but continually becoming common, event. The reality is something drastic needs to be done, and it will take a combination of legislation and technical changes, to stop cell phone use while driving; or biking for that matter.

I think the start would be coordinated law enforcement efforts and serious penalties when caught...

Friend of mine was hit (he was stopped at a stop sign riding a motorcycle) by a texting teen age girl. she lost her license till she turns 25

This is my biggest fear when I ride my motorcycle these days--I wear all the bright shiny reflective stuff I can get my hands on, but I'm always appalled by idiots on their phone--the person going slowly in the left lane forcing people to pass on the right, the person weaving in and out of the lines, the person suddenly realising they're about to miss their exit and swerving recklessly across 2 or 3 lanes of traffic--that person is ALWAYS on their phone when this happens, talking or texting or something. I just know that if I get into an accident one day, that's going to be the cause...

Possibly there are better alternatives, this isn't the conclusion of a congressional research panel over 5 years. This is the knee jerk reaction to a devastating, but continually becoming common, event. The reality is something drastic needs to be done, and it will take a combination of legislation and technical changes, to stop cell phone use while driving; or biking for that matter.

I think the start would be coordinated law enforcement efforts and serious penalties when caught...

What is the difference between having a phone conversation (using hands free bluetooth which is readily available and built into most modern cars) and talking to the person sitting in the passenger seat, or sitting in the rear seats?

Banning cell phones whilst driving is as you say a knee jerk reaction and completely over the top.

Texting whilst driving is a different matter but existing laws already cover that, wreckless driving etc.

What is the difference between having a phone conversation (using hands free bluetooth which is readily available and built into most modern cars) and talking to the person sitting in the passenger seat, or sitting in the rear seats?

Banning cell phones whilst driving is as you say a knee jerk reaction and completely over the top.

Texting whilst driving is a different matter but existing laws already cover that, wreckless driving etc.

A major difference is the passenger being in the car with you as well. As such, the passenger can gauge the situation the driver is driving in to adjust their conversation. Essentially, if you see the driver is on a busy highway you would opt to not spark a conversation. Phone conversations don't allow both parties to participate in the act in this manner. The passenger also expects the driver to ignore them quite frequently, not something that is expected on the phone.

I'm also not convinced Bluetooth is an actual solution. The research needs to figure out (and I haven't checked on this so this could be already figured out) if the distraction is the device or the conversation. If it is the latter then Bluetooth isn't a solution. It is only shifting the source of the problem.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!