2yrs for texting and killing

[RACER X]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/06/12090348-massachusetts-teen-sentenced-to-prison-for-texting-while-driving?lite

Massachusetts teen sentenced to prison for texting while driving

By Andrew Mach
A Massachusetts teenager was sentenced Wednesday to two years in prison and loss of his license for 15 years for causing a fatal crash by texting while driving.


Follow @msnbc_usAaron Deveau, 18, was convicted of motor vehicle homicide by texting – the first driver in Massachusetts to face such charges, the Boston Globe reported. Prosecutors said Deveau, who pleaded not guilty, was texting on Feb. 20, 2011, when his vehicle swerved across the center line of a Haverhill, Mass., street and crashed head on into Daniel Bowley’s truck, killing the 55-year-old New Hampshire father of three.

Before imposing the maximum sentence on Deveau, District Court Judge Stephen Abany said he was sending a message of deterrence to Massachusetts drivers.

Deterrence “really seems to come to play in this case,’’ Abany said, according to the Globe report. “People really want to be safe on the highways.’’ People need to “keep their eyes on the road, keep their eyes on the road.’’

David Teater, senior director of transportation initiative at the National Safety Council, agreed with the ruling and said he believes it’s important to take a hardline approach on cases of texting while driving.

“People can violate these laws and there really isn’t much of a deterrence without examples like this,” Teater told msnbc.com. “Clearly, being distracted is an extremely deadly thing that’s going on in this country and people need to understand they just can’t do it.”

Deveau, who was 17 at the time of the crash, was initially charged with motor vehicle homicide and negligent operation of a motor vehicle, using a mobile phone while operating a motor vehicle, reading or sending an electronic message, a marked lanes violation and two counts of negligent operation and injury from mobile phone use.

Deveau’s lawyer argued there was no evidence that the crash caused Bowley’s death. In his own testimony, Deveau said he was distracted by the amount of homework he had to do and sent his last text message while parked in the parking lot of the grocery store where he worked. Furthermore, he said he left his phone in the passenger’s seat until after the crash when he called his parents.

Though he insisted he was not texting at the time of the crash and could not remember texting while driving, phone records indicate Deveau sent a text message at 2:34 p.m. and received a response at 2:35 p.m. Police said the crash occurred at 2:35 p.m., ABCNews.com reported.

“I made a mistake,’’ Deveau told the judge, according to the Globe. “If I could take it back, I would take it back. I just want to apologize to the family.’’

A survivor of the crash – Bowley’s girlfriend, Luz Roman – said she suffered emotional and physical stress after the crash and death of Bowley, the father of her three children.

“This has been giving me a lot of pain, there are no words to describe,’’ Roman said, according to the Globe. “Broken leg, broken heart.’’

“We hope this sends a message that it’s not OK to text and drive,’’ Burleigh said, according to the Globe.

Texting while driving is a crime in Washington, D.C., and 38 states, including Massachusetts.

“This is a threat that did not exist just a few years ago, and we’ve never had to understand how being connected to a mobile world was dangerous,” Teater told msnbc.com. “Unfortunately now the way we’re beginning to understand the danger of it is by people getting hurt and dying. And that needs to change.”

[Homeslice]

So the fact that he received a text one minute before the crash PROVES that he was texting or reading at the moment of the crash. Gotta love people's logic.

Where's the outcry over women who apply makeup while driving?

How about handsfree calls? Better believe people become distracted by those sometimes. But no, people ignore all that and focus their hatred on texting instead. Hypocrites.

Why can't people be punished for the act, instead of the alleged cause of that act. I'm tired of people saying that someone is "more guilty" because of HOW it allegedly occurred.

[dubbs]

He sent a text at 2:34 and received the response at 2:35.. The crash happened at 2:35.. He was texting.

[shmike]

He sent a text at 2:34 and received the response at 2:35.. The crash happened at 2:35.. He was texting.

Yep.

Talking on the phone may be distracting but there is no way that it compares to people texting. In addition to the distraction of a conversation, people are taking their eyes off the road for extended periods of time when sending or reading texts.

Sure, 'slice, if it was a chick applying make-up or a dude reading the paper, the same penalty should apply but texting is a major concern currently and I would not be surprised to see more verdicts like this.

[tommymac]

Yep.

And if it was a chick applying make-up or a dude reading the paper, the same penalty should apply.

Talking on the phone may be distracting but there is no way that it compares to people texting. In addition to the distarction of a conversation, people are taking their eyes off the road for extended periods of time when sending or reading texts.

I still cant see how someone could drive and send a text at the same time. Still not sure if this will be a deterent, se ehow all the stiffer drunk driving penalties havent done a whole lot.

[OneSickPsycho]

I'd be interested in seeing the proof that he was texting at the moment he lost control and how police concluded EXACTLY what time the crash occurred.

I'm all for hammering people when they're irresponsible, especially in cases like this where someone else dies as a result... however, I'm skeptical of this sort of precident... He could have sent the text at 2:35:10 and crashed at 2:35:40... 30 seconds is a LOT of time in this scenario. Odds are he's probably guilty as sin, but still...

[OneSickPsycho]

I still cant see how someone could drive and send a text at the same time. Still not sure if this will be a deterent, se ehow all the stiffer drunk driving penalties havent done a whole lot.

Yes and no... DD penalties are still pretty much a slap on the wrist unless something else happens...

[Turbo Ghost]

I can't lie. I've texted and drove. With my old phone, I could text without looking down at the buttons since they were textured. I've since quit texting for several years now (while driving). If I have my Jawbone Bluetooth connected, an automatic text is sent telling the sender I'm driving and can't text and please call me. If I'm on the bike it's the same. They get an automatic text telling them to call me. Personally, I think handsfree is safer than talking to a friend in the car because you aren't constantly looking over at the person and you keep your eyes on the road.
While I was still driving truck, I was on the phone a lot! That may scare some of you but, I was driving up to 20 hours a day and the conversation kept me awake and alert when I got tired. As the day went on and I got tired, I had to call someone to help wake me up. If it got too bad, I pulled-over.
Texting for most people including teens who are very talented at it, requires you to physically take your eyes off the road. ONE SECOND away from the road can be the difference between life and death!
I was on the jury of a wrongful death suit where the accused looked down just to push the button to change the station and when she looked back up, the other car was turning in front of her (the turner had a green arrow and the light was notoriously short) and her light was red. Only a moment and a life was taken.
As motorcyclists, we are (generally) much more aware of our surroundings and our own vulnerabilities. Most people have no concept of the importance of what they are doing when they are driving. I blame that on our government not requiring training to drive.
In Germany, I believe it's a minimum of 10 weeks of training IF you get everything right the first time through! If you fail a course, you are required to take it again AT YOUR COST! I haven't looked but, years ago it was around $1400. Over here you hop in drive to the street and back and you're good to go. Not good!

[pauldun170]

I don't have anyone who wants to text with me.
Will someone text with me so I can drive?
Thanks.

[Homeslice]

I'd be interested in seeing the proof that he was texting at the moment he lost control and how police concluded EXACTLY what time the crash occurred.
.
Exactly.......

What's next in the age of Big Brother? Wouldn't be surprised that the insurance lobby is figuring out a way to propose hidden cameras in cars....

[pauldun170]

Exactly.......

What's next in the age of Big Brother? Wouldn't be surprised that the insurance lobby is figuring out a way to propose hidden cameras in cars....

I can't wait until they make speed limiters linked to GPS mandatory on all vehicles sold in the US.
Right now they also have pilot programs where data loggers capture driving habits and send the info directly to insurance companies...I cant wait till they make those mandatory.

No speeding, aggressive driving is automatically reported. Toss in all the safety nannies (stability control, traction control, lane departure sensors, proximity sensors, auto park, auto shift, auto drive etc ect etc) and they will finally make travel safe for everyone within the constraints imposed by the law.

We will finally be able to text and travel without having to take public transportation.

The only thing is that they would have to ban all the older vehicles that don't have all the safety nannies installed.
For historical vehicles they would either have to pull the drivetrains (so you would be able to demonstrate the operation under a controlled environment) or do what they would have to fill the engines with concrete or something.

Motorcycles should just be banned altogether.
Too much is in control of the rider and everyone knows that human error is the leading cause of accidents. Its too difficult to control a motorcycle and text at the same time.

Maybe they should just ban cellphones.

[Turbo Ghost]

Exactly.......

What's next in the age of Big Brother? Wouldn't be surprised that the insurance lobby is figuring out a way to propose hidden cameras in cars....

You obviously haven't been paying attention! Several years ago, the insurance companies lobbied congress to install GPS in all vehicles so they could monitor the insured drivers driving habits and adjust rates accordingly. They were not successful.
So, they went a different route. Perhaps you've heard of it.
It's called OnStar. There are other variations for other manufacturers but, it's all the same principle. I know, OnStar is great! It's so helpful and it's saved lives. I agree. However, don't be surprised when it's used for more sinister purposes. I believe one of the insurance companies has an offer where they install their own GPS tracker in your car and your rates can go down if you are a good driver. Of course, their definition of a good driver might be different than yours!
Big Brother is out there and he is us!

[fasternyou929]

Personally, I think handsfree is safer than talking to a friend in the car because you aren't constantly looking over at the person and you keep your eyes on the road.

An interesting theory, but an in-depth study was done a while back that proves otherwise. Turns out when you are talking on the phone, your brain does something to establish a "connection" with the other person, something it doesn't have to do when you are sitting next to them.

It changes your focus to the horizon and creates a "virtual" connection characterized similar to a day-dream. Your eyes, and your mind, are taken off the road an order of magnitude more on a phone call than they are during a person-to-person discussion.

[Homeslice]

I can't wait until they make speed limiters linked to GPS mandatory on all vehicles sold in the US.
Right now they also have pilot programs where data loggers capture driving habits and send the info directly to insurance companies...I cant wait till they make those mandatory.

No speeding, aggressive driving is automatically reported. Toss in all the safety nannies (stability control, traction control, lane departure sensors, proximity sensors, auto park, auto shift, auto drive etc ect etc) and they will finally make travel safe for everyone within the constraints imposed by the law.

We will finally be able to text and travel without having to take public transportation.

The only thing is that they would have to ban all the older vehicles that don't have all the safety nannies installed.
For historical vehicles they would either have to pull the drivetrains (so you would be able to demonstrate the operation under a controlled environment) or do what they would have to fill the engines with concrete or something.

Motorcycles should just be banned altogether.
Too much is in control of the rider and everyone knows that human error is the leading cause of accidents. Its too difficult to control a motorcycle and text at the same time.

Maybe they should just ban cellphones.

And the sad thing is, "the herd" will accept it....

Lately I've been hearing people have a growing acceptance of not owning a car, and just using public trans......But then I live in a big metro area......

Plus, we'll be seeing "drive by wire" sometime soon....

[TYEster]

Exactly.......

What's next in the age of Big Brother? Wouldn't be surprised that the insurance lobby is figuring out a way to propose hidden cameras in cars....

Hidden? They figured out how to make it popular already...

http://www.progressive.com/auto/snapshot.aspx

[Homeslice]

Hidden? They figured out how to make it popular already...

http://www.progressive.com/auto/snapshot.aspx

Wow, how stupid

I haven't been paying attention to the insurance world, I've stayed with the same company (GEICO) for the last 10-12 yrs

Wonder how they define "sudden braking"

Personally I think sudden brakers are safer than old farts who constantly "ride" their brakes, overheating them

[Rangerscott]

There was a girl in court for the same thing. Lets see if she gets as a harsh punishment.

http://www.kctv5.com/story/17587020/teen-charged-with-manslaughter-in-texting-while-driving-case

[askmrjesus]

So the fact that he received a text one minute before the crash PROVES that he was texting or reading at the moment of the crash. Gotta love people's logic.

Where's the outcry over women who apply makeup while driving?

How about handsfree calls? Better believe people become distracted by those sometimes. But no, people ignore all that and focus their hatred on texting instead. Hypocrites.

Why can't people be punished for the act, instead of the alleged cause of that act. I'm tired of people saying that someone is "more guilty" because of HOW it allegedly occurred.

Bullshit.

A guy has a few to many happy pops at the bar, and kills somebody on the way to Piggly Wiggly, he does time.

Good, we all say. He was impaired.

By your logic, he should just do time for drunk driving, since you can't really prove he crossed a double yellow on a curve because he was drunk. Maybe there was a bee in his car, who knows?

Texting may not be on the same level of impairment as being drunk, (depending on how drunk you are) but it definitely impairs your ability to drive, since driving requires that you WATCH WHERE THE FUCK YOU'RE GOING.

I don't think it's asking to much for you to put down your idouche box 3000X, or your news paper, slutty romantic novel, Big Mac, laptop, or bong, and drive your goddamn car like there were actually other people on the fucking road.

JC

[Papa_Complex]

Bullshit.

A guy has a few to many happy pops at the bar, and kills somebody on the way to Piggly Wiggly, he does time.

Good, we all say. He was impaired.

By your logic, he should just do time for drunk driving, since you can't really prove he crossed a double yellow on a curve because he was drunk. Maybe there was a bee in his car, who knows?

Texting may not be on the same level of impairment as being drunk, (depending on how drunk you are) but it definitely impairs your ability to drive, since driving requires that you WATCH WHERE THE FUCK YOU'RE GOING.

I don't think it's asking to much for you to put down your idouche box 3000X, or your news paper, slutty romantic novel, Big Mac, laptop, or bong, and drive your goddamn car like there were actually other people on the fucking road.

JC

Australian and UK studies show that talking on a cell phone is roughly equivalent to having 3 'standard' alcoholic drinks in you (call it around BAC 0.10). Texting is infinitely worse.

[Homeslice]

Australian and UK studies show that talking on a cell phone is roughly equivalent to having 3 'standard' alcoholic drinks in you (call it around BAC 0.10). Texting is infinitely worse.

I am calling bs to that one, but whatever.

I'd be willing to bet that most people only have 1 hand on the wheel the majority of the time. Therefore, holding a cellphone isn't all that bad except for the conversation/distraction bit. And you would be just as distracted by a handsfree call as you would be a handheld call.

Bullshit.

A guy has a few to many happy pops at the bar, and kills somebody on the way to Piggly Wiggly, he does time.

Good, we all say. He was impaired.

By your logic, he should just do time for drunk driving, since you can't really prove he crossed a double yellow on a curve because he was drunk. Maybe there was a bee in his car, who knows?

Texting may not be on the same level of impairment as being drunk, (depending on how drunk you are) but it definitely impairs your ability to drive, since driving requires that you WATCH WHERE THE FUCK YOU'RE GOING.

I don't think it's asking to much for you to put down your idouche box 3000X, or your news paper, slutty romantic novel, Big Mac, laptop, or bong, and drive your goddamn car like there were actually other people on the fucking road.

JC

First, a reference to a more well-known grocery chain (not Piggly Wiggly :scratch:) might have helped make your point better redflip

Second, well I guess you got me there

[Papa_Complex]

I am calling bs to that one, but whatever.

I'd be willing to bet that most people only have 1 hand on the wheel the majority of the time. Therefore, holding a cellphone isn't all that bad except for the conversation/distraction bit. And you would be just as distracted by a handsfree call as you would be a handheld call.

First, a reference to a more well-known grocery chain (not Piggly Wiggly :scratch:) might have helped make your point better redflip

Second, well I guess you got me there

Check the citations. I've read several of the referenced studies.

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/drivingissues/20060830105036.html

Try venturing east of the Mississippi and south of the Mason/Dixon sometime. You might even find that you like pork rinds and Hardee's.

[askmrjesus]

I am calling bs to that one, but whatever.

I'd be willing to bet that most people only have 1 hand on the wheel the majority of the time. Therefore, holding a cellphone isn't all that bad except for the conversation/distraction bit. And you would be just as distracted by a handsfree call as you would be a handheld call.

I don't care if people drive with one hand. I'm more concerned about what the non-driving hand is blocking. Most of the people I see yakking on cell phones, have the phone up to their left ear. In that position, your peripheral vision is compromised, and you don't have the same range of motion on that side.

Try putting your left hand up to your ear, and turning your head to the left, all you're going to see is your elbow.

I don't ride an elbow, so that's no fucking help to me at all.

First, a reference to a more well-known grocery chain (not Piggly Wiggly :scratch:) might have helped make your point better redflip

Piggly Wiggly rocks, just for the name alone.

Second, well I guess you got me there

No shit. :lol:

JC

[Papa_Complex]

I don't care if people drive with one hand. I'm more concerned about what the non-driving hand is blocking. Most of the people I see yakking on cell phones, have the phone up to their left ear. In that position, your peripheral vision is compromised, and you don't have the same range of motion on that side.

...., and you never even try to touch the turn signal.

[askmrjesus]

...., and you never even try to touch the turn signal.

That's a given.

If you see a car with it's signals on around here, they bought it that way.

JC

[azoomm]

While in Detroit on a BMW demo, there was a woman that blocked our demo route going 20mph in a 45. She was simply talking on the phone.

I pulled up next to her, threw on the lights on the RTP and yelled at her to hang up. She pulled over, and probably peed a little.

The cops on site told me they will try that in the future :lol:

[Rangerscott]

Instead of prison I would have had him pay "family support" for X amount of years.

[fasternyou929]

While in Detroit on a BMW demo, there was a woman that blocked our demo route going 20mph in a 45. She was simply talking on the phone.

I pulled up next to her, threw on the lights on the RTP and yelled at her to hang up. She pulled over, and probably peed a little.

The cops on site told me they will try that in the future :lol:

What is this RTP that lets you shine lights at cars beside you?

[azoomm]

What is this RTP that lets you shine lights at cars beside you?

BMW r1200rt-p. P meaning police model. It has all the lights and sirens. Fancy.

[Gas Man]

While in Detroit on a BMW demo, there was a woman that blocked our demo route going 20mph in a 45. She was simply talking on the phone.

I pulled up next to her, threw on the lights on the RTP and yelled at her to hang up. She pulled over, and probably peed a little.

The cops on site told me they will try that in the future :lol:
Awesome!

On the thread topic... I think if you can talk and/or text and/or do your taxes while driving then so be it. I hate MORE laws.

However, if you are caught by a cop having such actions affect your driving or if you cause an accident by doing such, you should be held accountable to the degree of what you did, neglagence at the least. If you were texting and killed a person you should be held up for manslaughter or maybe murder 2 or 3.

My opinion is based on my hatred for more laws restricting us as free adults. Further, as a driver that gets numerous annual training at work for driving alone. I could probably do my taxes on my cell phone and still drive better than the average out here on the roads.

However, I know there is no happy medium for all of us... and realize that the masses will probably win here and they'll start making some stupid laws with cell phones and driving.

['73 H1 Triple]

Awesome!

On the thread topic... I think if you can talk and/or text and/or do your taxes while driving then so be it. I hate MORE laws.

However, if you are caught by a cop having such actions affect your driving or if you cause an accident by doing such, you should be held accountable to the degree of what you did, neglagence at the least. If you were texting and killed a person you should be held up for manslaughter or maybe murder 2 or 3.

My opinion is based on my hatred for more laws restricting us as free adults. Further, as a driver that gets numerous annual training at work for driving alone. I could probably do my taxes on my cell phone and still drive better than the average out here on the roads.

However, I know there is no happy medium for all of us... and realize that the masses will probably win here and they'll start making some stupid laws with cell phones and driving.

It comes down to lack of personal accountibility. Nobody ( hardly anyone ) takes responsibility for their own actions.

Stupid enough to put a cup of hot coffee in your lap? Sue McDonalds because you're an idiot.

Stupid enough to stand on the top of a ladder and pull on something too hard and fall? Sue the ladder company because they didn't put a warning label on it to protect yourself from you.

We're surrounded by assholes and not only do they work and live among us, they reproduce.