back to article Would you let cops give your phone a textalyzer scan after a road crash?

Drivers in New York may have their phones and gadgets scanned after crashes to see what they were doing moments before a prang. Law bill SB S6325A, if passed, will allow police to check a driver's smartphone for activity when an accident occurs. Investigators could then determine whether or not a motorist was illegally using …

Voted no, but the selectable reason for my no wasn't listed.

I voted no because I have no faith in a police officer's ability to determine an exact time of crash and therefore be able to say, without a doubt, that a device was actually in use by the driver in the moments leading up to the event.

I mean, how much leeway are they going to give? 1 minute? 10? And what if you received a call/text/email/whatever but didn't respond? Is that still potential jail time? Not everyone knows how to look at a phone and determine which side of the conversation the owner of the device was on. Seems silly, but is absolutely true.

What if siri was somehow activated (easily done) and started to respond to your voice thinking that you wanted to text the misses or call the office?

Heck, what if it's *your* phone but someone else in the car was using it? I know I often have my kids text/call my wife or look things up using my phone in the car. I doubt an officer is going to make that distinction.

So, no. Not only no, but hell no.

62
0
Silver badge

Poll's broken

Voted no, but the selectable reason for my no wasn't listed.

Same here. But according to the poll:

I have another reason (see comments): 0

So something's broken.

My reason? It's an unnecessary intrusion which will lead to bad statistics.

They don't need to know your specific distraction to be able to determine the cause in most crashes, and damaged caused is the only logical measure of liability.

Given the way these types of data collection need to be marketed, press releases will focus on the number (not percentage) of crashes deemed "caused" by texting while driving. Little to no context will be given, leading to an inaccurate picture of the actual prevalence.

16
1

Same reason as this - would having navigation on the phone consist "usage", what about streaming radio? Far too ambiguous to trust that any police officer could accurately say "this is the cause of it", you want my data then subpoena the network and see if there are any corresponding outgoing calls / SMS, if you want to look at the rest of it then get a warrant.

22
0
Silver badge

Voted yes for exact same reason

First, while the ECU does not have a precise RTC, it has one in order to timestamp logs. It would record the crash and you can interrogate it. All you need is to compare its time to the phone time and you will get the crash time exactly down to fractions of a second. In addition to that, depending on what apps you are running the crash may also be recorded on the phone accelerometer. So the argument about "inexact time of the crash" is illiterate, at best.

Second, from a legal perspective, this should not need any new law. Existing law in most jurisdictions allows the police full and unfettered access to the car, inhabitants and cargo to investigate a crash.

Third, there is a long standing precedent basis which curtails the right not to self-incriminate yourself in such circumstances. For example, you are automatically guilty if you refuse to submit yourself to an alcohol or drug test in the aftermath of a crash. Same for speed cameras and "identifying driver", etc. The moment you get in a vehicle you wave half of your rights not to self-incriminate in pretty much any legislation worldwide.

So on the balance of things, it is better if:

1. The police does it systematically

2. The evidence obtainable through this is strictly limited by a law so the police cannot use it for fishing expeditions looking for other stuff.

If these are not in place they will do it anyway, but without any controls to limit what can they obtain and what can they use the info for.

12
5
Anonymous Coward

Don't talk to police ever

It's not about identifying the cause of an accident, the police officers role is to prosecute someone for it. Even if its just an accident, an unavoidable set of mis-choices between two people that clashed. If you make yourself an easier target for prosecution then you will be the one prosecuted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

But realize that the police have retained all data, every time, no matter whether the courts have ruled bulk DNA cannot be kept, or number plates or anything else. So regardless of law, the contents of your phone will be kept for every purpose.

9
7
Silver badge

Indeed, it's likely that the second thing you do after a crash is to whip out your phone and call for help. This law would make people reluctant to use their mobile phones right after a crash, which would inevitably cost lives.

10
5

Re: Voted yes for exact same reason

The evidence obtainable through this is strictly limited by a law so the police cannot use it for fishing expeditions looking for other stuff.

This was stated in the article and is the reason I did not object. The legislation needs the most stringent safeguards so that the police do not go fishing - preferably jail time for any cop who abuses his authority in this circumstance. Also, the phone owner should be allowed to surrender his phone to the police (still locked) and have the right to refuse to unlock it until it can be arranged for his lawyer and a neutral technical expert to be present to ensure fair play and no unauthorised data access. Few would bother, but there *might* be data of enormous commercial value on the phone, or data that could make the owner vulnerable to blackmail, quite apart from any possibility of self-incrimination.

10
2
Silver badge

I've got headphones in my car, I stick the phone on the dashboard, plug in the charger and listen to pod casts and the like.. what then?

I also use google now (well attempt to use) to call people using the mic button on the headphones.. Would those instances that are not illegal count?

What if you've got bluetooth control of your phone so you can play music through your car's radio, does that still count?

There are many different ways a phone can be used and yet still considered perfectly legal so each case will have to be looked into further by someone who understands what programs where running and how they where being used.

If this tool only gave a binary, arbitrary decision then it's too heavy handed for use.

4
4
Silver badge

I thought that police have used carrier meta data for years, in order to find out if the driver had sent / received a text at "around" the time of the accident?

With the advent of Whatsapp, Telegram, Threema and Co. it is not as easy to use carrier metadata. As long as the search is restricted to looking to see if messages were sent/received at the approximate time of the crash, then I'm OK with that. If it is a cart blanche to actually read those messages, then no...

Having been rear-ended by somebody too busy texting to see that the traffiic lights were red and we had stopped, I'm not totally against such a rule.

4
0
Silver badge

According to the article "driving is illegal in New York". It's got tougher since the time Woody Allen shot a moose.

Just don't fool around with your other devices while in your car. Just don't.

By next year the phone will be driving, anyway, not you.

5
0

Indeed, it's likely that the second thing you do after a crash is to whip out your phone and call for help. This law would make people reluctant to use their mobile phones right after a crash, which would inevitably cost lives.

Oh for heaven's sake! What policeman, prosecutor or juror would believe that someone was on the phone to the emergency services immediately *before* a crash, without any good cause? On top of which the emergency services record all communications, so the entire exchange would be available to dispel any remaining doubt. Indeed, the most likely use of such a call would be to establish a more precise time-line.

9
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Don't talk to police ever

Not true, the Police's role is to investigate and gather all of the relevant evidence.

It is the prosecuting authority (the CPS in the UK) of the relevant state so it would be the DA here to decide whether or not to prosecute based on the evidence gathered.

That certain categories of crime such as DUI automatically go to prosecution is neither here nor there, the prosecution is still done by the authority not the rozzers

10
0
Anonymous Coward

My "no" was simply because there are already enough legal structures in place for this. If there is a reasonable AND JUSTIFIED suspicion that the driver had been texting they should normally not have any problem getting a warrant signed by a judge asking for the relevant meta data. No new techniques needed that can be abused for other purposes.

In addition, I support the notion that a responding policeman is unlikely to be able to do this correctly, even trained. I've seen in the UK what so-called "trained" policemen are capable of and I'm sorry, but as far as I can tell the training was a pointless exercise, also because they don't seem to have the faintest clue how to interpret the data they so gather which makes MISinterpretation not just possible, but likely and it's a sure bet that is never going to be in your favour.

After all, they don't need innocents. Their statistics need convictions.

11
1

Isn't using headphones, and therefore being unable to hear outside events clearly an offence also?

6
0

That one's easy to filter

It's likely that what you'll do after a crash is to whip out your phone and dial the emergency number (999 / 112 / 911 / whatever) which is a distinct and well-known number that cops should be capable of recognizing.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

I don't see the benefit of creating a log of smartphone communications when that information is not necessarily related to the time of the accident.Some vehicles are equipped with logging devices (similar to a black box) for recording speed, direction, etc. at the time of collision but even the value of that information can be questioned.

1
1

Isn't using headphones, and therefore being unable to hear outside events clearly an offence also

Not explicitly. Deaf people are allowed to drive (unlike blind people, or people who are visually impaired and who are not wearing the spectacles or contacts that make them legal).

It might be supporting evidence for a charge of "driving without due care and attention".

3
0

The warrant might well work for SMS/call data... but what about What's App, or Facebook Messenger, or the myriad of other internet based communication apps. The fact the app was communicating with Facebook/What's App at the time proves nothing. You'd need the device itself to see if a message was actively being sent, or, a very expensive and lengthy multinational investigation to get the raw data/logs from Facebook/What's App themselves.

The Police don't interpret data: they collect it. A court would ultimately provide the interpretation and decide whether or not a party is guilty and this might well include testimony from experts in the field, rather than trained officers, if required.

Their statistics need convictions? Really? Take the tin foil hat off for just a moment and consider the possibility that maybe individual officers aren't incentivised by conviction rate and that even if they were, there's also an awful lot more to their job than car crashes and idiots behind a wheel. The vast majority of jobs an officer attends in any given day involve basic conflict resolution/protection of vulnerable people and prosecution plays either no part, or forms the final piece and last resort in a complex resolution.

5
0

Re: Voted yes for exact same reason

In the United States of America, we have something called the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution that very specifically limits the rights of a policeman to search a vehicle, and, you may be surprised to know, routine traffic incidents are currently, in my district (the Supreme Court of the United States has not addressed the issue but my circuit court has), not 'probable cause' so searching a car would either require obvious evidence of criminal behavior or some other admissable probable cause. If the traffic accident will obviously result in a likely criminal prosecution, then a search may be warranted, but, in that case, they can retain the phone for later inspection. In all other incidents, this would not be legal. Traffic incidents are not criminal because that would violate the sixth amendment guarantee to right to trial by jury for criminal cases. Since having a jury trial for each and every traffic ticket would be prohibitively expensive, the several states all make traffic stops not criminal. This means that there is no right to search.

Anyway, this law is unlikely to succeed in my opinion, and I am not a lawyer, so this is not legal advice, but the United States Supreme Court has long recognized a 'right to travel' as a fundamental right, and this law would needlessly impede that right. The state would be required to show, in court, that a) there would be a compelling public benefit (doubtful; you anti-phone use people have failed to make a substantial case), and b) that there is no other less intrusive way to do it (true; they can just subpoena the phone records from the provider). This is because the right to travel is strictly interpreted.

What it does, however, is provide me with one more reason to never go near the state of New York, not that I really needed another one...

2
1

Re: Voted yes for exact same reason

I don't know much about ECUs, but mine cannot possibly have the correct time. Last time the battery was changed, I did it myself and did not reset any clock. The log timestamp is at best an elapsed time since power up.

2
0

Re: reluctant to use their mobile phones right after a crash

Why would they be reluctant? Their call will be recorded and logged by the emergency call centre, so unless people are in the habit of calling to say they’ve been in an accident before it happens ...

1
0

Re: they don't seem to have the faintest clue

That's fine, because as soon as there's a whiff of prosecution they'll be calling in legal and technical experts on both sides to sort out what happened and what matters.

1
0

Re: Isn't using headphones .... an offence?

How about turning up the ICE in a double-glazed car?

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Their statistics need convictions? Really? Take the tin foil hat off for just a moment and consider the possibility that maybe individual officers aren't incentivised by conviction rate and that even if they were, there's also an awful lot more to their job than car crashes and idiots behind a wheel.

About 3 years ago I would have concurred with you, but I since had to review a case in its early stages and, as a consequence, I kept an eye on it as it worked its way through the system. Someone's life was destroyed on the basis of evidence that anyone with even the most basic IT talent would have found laughable, but as the officers were "certified" (IMHO "certifiable" would have been more accurate), their "evidence" was allowed to stand in court. It didn't help that the guy didn't have a lawyer with any IT expertise, but this was so farcical that it destroyed my trust in the system.

So no, I no longer believe that police and even judges are neutral.

2
0

motion detect

Well if they also accessed the gps, motion detect processor they might get exact time of impact, whether you picked up the phone, texting or phoning, fiddling with music, playing stupid games, taking a photo or video.

BUT, they shouldn't have access to any data not directly connected with the time of the accident.

1
0
Silver badge

The telcos wouldn't know if you were writing a text message or email but hadn't yet sent it. Or if you were reading a message you'd received earlier. Or if you were taking a picture, or... basically, anything that doesn't generate instant traffic. Proper analysis of the phone could determine that.

Honestly, I don't know what the objection is. If you're in a crash, that's already probable cause right there for investigation. And if someone else was using your phone, then that's what legal experts call an "explanation". Unless that someone has mysteriously absconded right after the prang, they'll support your story and there's no problem.

7
12
Silver badge

>Proper analysis of the phone could determine that.

>Honestly, I don't know what the objection is.

The answer is in the first poster's comment. The police are unlikely to be able to determine the exact time of the accident, and therefore the likelihood of the data helping is low. Well, I say "help." Given that using a phone while driving is illegal in many places, it might help secure a conviction, but may have little to do with whether the phone use had any impact on the events leading to the accident.

Any distraction is a problem while driving. Having an important conversation on a hands-free or with a passenger is a problem, more so than feeling for the volume button on the radio or phone. Strictly policed speed limits I also find dangerous as it is easy to engender road-rage for travelling below the speed limit and blocking those behind who may have cruise control, but also constantly looking at your dashboard to ensure you aren't 3km/h (yes, that is half walking speed) over the limit on a motorway.

9
4

Yes, the first poster seemed to be right on target.

What if you took a drive out in the forrest, parked and snapped a picture. Then, while driving home your phone regained access to the internet and started synchronizing... That is a hefty amount of data traffic right there. How would one seperate the wheat from the chaff when looking at the traffic logs?

I.e. you'd have to put the data traffic in context. Which is even more problematic. Even the phone's owner would not necessarily know what was being transferred. Looking at the data usage graph of my own phone I see a steadily increasing use of wifi starting on March 16th with a long list of apps underneath. I have no idea what went on an hour ago.

Maybe there are logs kept by Android that would shed some light on that?

I suspect you'd have to recover a IM exchange ala "home in 15 minutes, omg is that a deer on the pweorj" in order to determine where the driver's attention was at the time.

6
0

> Strictly policed speed limits I also find dangerous as it is easy to engender road-rage for travelling below the speed limit and blocking those behind who may have cruise control...

Laziness is no excuse. Remember it is a speed LIMIT not a speed TARGET. Drive at 3kmh below the LIMIT then you have that bit of flexibility, everyone is a winner ay. Although it may take you an extra minute (heavens forbid) to arrive at your destination.

Further more if you have cruise control on and notice you are approaching the car in front drop down the cruise control a couple of KPH, you will hardly notice the difference (3km/h is half of walking speed after all).

11
8

"The telcos wouldn't know if you were writing a text message or email but hadn't yet sent it. Or if you were reading a message you'd received earlier."

I'm not sure that a road-side analysis of the phone would reveal that either. I'm not even sure a lab-analysis of the phone would reveal that - I'd be surprised if it logs when a text was read for the first time, let alone a subsequent time. Or when a text/email started to be composed.

Either way, in my view it's an illegal search/seizure and would be protected by the constitution (in the US anyway).

6
0

Much of London is now 20mph - You think I should drive everywhere at 17mph in 2nd gear? think again.

The other poster is correct -- if speed rules are enforced too heavily they becomne a distraction to drivers

6
6
IT Angle

Quite. I want to be focusing on my surroundings, not if my speedo needle is a whisker above the number on the sign post 500 yards earlier.

Drive to the conditions and surroundings. 3mph lower doesn't mean you're 'safe' or even doing a suitable speed. I'm perfectly happy doing 30mph less than the limit, but also going 20mph above it.

One of those is a very foggy winters evening, and the other is a patch of road I know well, in the dry, during daylight with sod all traffic around me. (And both extremes are with a well maintained vehicle)

Thinking that whatever the law states is always the "right" or "appropriate" thing just means we legislate to the people that don't think - the stupid minority that spoils it for the rest of us.

5
2
Anonymous Coward

"Quite. I want to be focusing on my surroundings, not if my speedo needle is a whisker above the number on the sign post 500 yards earlier . . . . I'm perfectly happy doing 30mph less than the limit, but also going 20mph above it."

So you know when you're going 30mph less than the limit, and 20mph over it, but somehow going *at* the speed limit is distracting you from your surroundings?

Claims of being glued to the speedo is reductio ad absurdum that appears in the comments on pretty much every story about driving. Glancing every 10 seconds or so, recognising if you're going downhill, are all it takes to keep yourself right - you're not going to suddenly rocket up 10% + 2 in the interim. Your speed is relevant to your surroundings, and the speed limit is also part of your surroundings.

I've been done speeding twice. Not once have I had to check if I was caught or not - I knew I was speeding, and by how much.

2
0

They don't actually need this

In the end, it comes down to control of the vehicle.

If you are texting while driving, you are in control of the vehicle... you are liable.

If you are talking to anyone, you are in control of the vehicle.... you are liable.

If you are eating while driving, you are in control of the vehicle.... you are liable.

If you skid off the road because of road conditions, you are still in control of the vehicle.... you are liable.

Bottom line: your backside is in the driver's seat. You are controlling the vehicle (if cruise control is on, you turned it on. You have made the decision to give control, but you are still responsible for what happens to it). Whatever happens, you are responsible. if you kill someone while driving, you should be cited for vehicular homicide, as you caused the car to hit the person (if the person 'just jumped out in front of you, you were driving recklessly, too fast for the conditions... its still your fault). If you skid off the road, your fault too (for the same reasons). LEO needs to simply apply the existing laws. Having a drivers license is a certification that you are responsible to drive... and if you are not, then you are committing a crime.... and it should simply be treated as such.

17
9
Silver badge

Re: They don't actually need this

"you are liable"

If you allow yourself to be distracted enough cause a crash what you chose to distract yourself with is irrelevant.

I have said more than once that a dickhead with a phone in is hand is still a dickhead when you take the phone away.

Law which make particular distractions illegal are stupid as is this proposed one seeking to detect the former.

20
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: They don't actually need this

@"If you are texting while driving, you are in control of the vehicle... you are liable."

What if BOTH vehicles are texting, one of you hands your phone over, the other doesn't. You are prosecuted because the evidence shows you were texting.

What if BOTH vehicles are using the GPS, your phone shows you on the location search screen as if you were typing in a destination. The other does not. You swear you were not searching for a location and anyway would have used hands-free, but you are the easier prosecution.

BOTH vehicles have smartphones, your "recent apps" shows video player, candy crush, messaging, text screen the lot. You claim you weren't using any of them, but all those recent apps would be distracting. You've made yourself easier to prosecute, you've made it easier for your insurance to walk away from the policy.

Your phone shows a conversation with your insurer about the validity of your insurance. Officer can claim you are uninsured and seize your car for sale.

Your phone shows you have a "Julian Assange" telephone number. Your Line account to a man named 'Ismaell' who lives in a rag-head country. Not wise, UK police have been pumped full of prejudice and propaganda, such that the security services break the laws and none of those officers will kick down the doors at the Donut, but *will* raid Parliament for whistleblower documents.

Your phone shows a Line conversation with your uninsured son, he drove the car without your permission, Officer can interpret that as theft. If you claim he had permission, you let him drive without insurance, seize car/sell car.

Look there are millions of ways, big and small that handing over private data can be used rightly or wrongly against you. YOU do not know all the possible ways, because they're inventing new ones every day.

Encrypt your phone, never decrypt your phone, recognize the antagonistic nature of the process, don't make yourself the easy target.

5
3

Re: They don't actually need this

What if BOTH vehicles are texting, one of you hands your phone over, the other doesn't. You are prosecuted because the evidence shows you were texting.

Well, the law should make it clear that the police are obliged to treat all phones in cars involved in the accident equally. I'd go so far as to say that the law should invalidate all phone evidence in this circumstance, since it suggests police prejudice. Your objection applies to volunteering your phone, when the other driver can legally refuse to. It goes away if there is a legal obligation for both drivers to provide phone evidence and for the police to obtain it from both/all parties.

1
0

Re: They don't actually need this

"if you kill someone while driving, you should be cited for vehicular homicide, as you caused the car to hit the person (if the person 'just jumped out in front of you, you were driving recklessly, too fast for the conditions... its still your fault). If you skid off the road, your fault too (for the same reasons)."

Don't follow your argument that "if the person jumped out in front of you... it's still your fault". Sorry, but no. There have, I believe, been a number of cases where people have chosen going for a walk on the motorway as a peculiar form of extreme sport (or method of suicide). Are you seriously telling me that you would advocate that the poor sod who hit these idiots be done under vehicular homicide? So how does that apply to train drivers when someone chooses to kill themselves via that route?

Fully agree that some speeding asshat who mows someone down because they are being reckless and stupid should be done, but someone who is obeying the law, driving with all due care and attention and someone else fucks up their day, deliberately or through application of epic stupidity, sorry, but no.

As for the article, really not sure. Half of me says "yeah, what's the problem, let them run a check", and then the other half slaps that half and reminds it that by and large the terms "unprincipled untrustworthy lunatics" and "thin end of the wedge" tend to apply to Law Enforcement. Once they have an in on gaining data, and being able to use threats of fines and imprisonment if you don't "willing" give them everything they demand, then there is no limit to how much the general populace is going to have to bend over.

12
0

Re: They don't actually need this

" . . . Whatever happens, you are responsible. if you kill someone while driving, you should be cited for vehicular homicide, as you caused the car to hit the person (if the person 'just jumped out in front of you, you were driving recklessly, too fast for the conditions... its still your fault). . ."

How the hell has this utter nonsense earned 8 upvotes ?!

5
1

Re: They don't actually need this

Yeah I am not sure I get this logic. There is a law in place to stop people using phones while driving because it causes more accidents. Just like there is a law in place that says you cannot be under the influence of alcohol or drugs while driving because it too causes more accidents.

They have a blood/breath test to see if you were breaking the drink/drug law. Now they are proposing a phone test to see if you were breaking the phone law. Simple.

2
5
Silver badge

2 words: black box

This is an obvious violation of the 4th Amendment. Not that it matters anymore as the 4th Amendment has been pretty much rendered dead letter decades ago. War on Drugs and all that.

What is even more insidious is that there is already a tracking device for determining what happened: your car's black box.

Most U.S. cars have had black boxes installed since the turn of the century. Most people do not know this. But that's Americans for ya.

And allow me to take this opportunity, and others like, as often as possible, to bash the lovely police state of New York. Home of the trillion dollar Wall St fraud and world economy wreckers. Funny how economic fraud and police state seem to always be found together in history.

16
0
Holmes

Re: 2 words: black box

Unneccesary. In the end, whoever is behind the wheel is responsible. Does it really matter why they did it?

Yes, I have seen black ice conditions where one car rear-ended another, who rear-ended the one in front of them, and on down the line.... Everyone in the line is responsible.... the question is who pays... and the answer is: whoever rear ends the car in front of them pays.... well, the driver does... cars don't usually drive themselves. additional charges of reckless driving should also follow.

3
7
Silver badge

Re: 2 words: black box

This responsibility thing is not as clear cut as you are trying to assert.

In fact if a driver is travelling around a corner and loses control of the vehicle because the road surface is slippery where the driver could reasonably expect the surface to be good then there is a reason for the slippery surface.

If the slippery surface is caused by a recent spillage of diesel which is not easy to detect, then the responsibility shifts to the creator of the hazard (because you could not reasonably expect the Highways maintainers to clear or post a warning to every spill before the next vehicle passes it).

There are many such similar circumstances where we have to consider the reasonable expectations of what a driver can do and these have all been validated as such in inquest court rooms, otherwise cars should never turn a wheel.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: 2 words: black box

"one car rear-ended another, who rear-ended the one in front of them, and on down the line.... Everyone in the line is responsible.... the question is who pays... and the answer is: whoever rear ends the car in front of them pays"

Eh? Surely it is the driver of the vehicle who caused the initial collision which forced the cars in front into each other. You can't be hit from behind and propelled into the car in front and be at fault for that.

3
0

Re: 2 words: black box

You can't be hit from behind and propelled into the car in front and be at fault for that.

If you have stopped at (say) a red light for what is likely to be more than a second or two, and have not engaged your handbrake, then you are at least partly to blame if the handbrake would have held your car short of impacting the one in front. (The footbrake is ineffective because the jolt of the impact from behind is likely to knopck your foot off the brake).

Note for US readers: I'm assuming manual transmission "stick shift" in neutral and UK standard controls.

2
6
Anonymous Coward

Re: 2 words: black box

You can be responsible in the U.S., even if you are hit from behind, if you don't leave enough space between you and the car in front of you. You can also be hit from behind and be responsible if you do as a friend did and state, 'I only lost control for a moment' when asked what happened.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: 2 words: black box

It's always been my understanding that (in the UK at least) yes, you can. Driving instructors tend to advocate leaving plenty of space in front for that reason I think.

3
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: 2 words: black box

Definitely not true in the UK. Regardless of handbrake or not, if the collision was caused by the driver of the initial impact.

What will happen though is the car at the front (Car#1) will claim off the insurance of the car who hit it but car#2's insurance will claim for both off car#3's insurance.

The only issue is if there is an uninsured car which was the index case (quite likely as these tend to not have MOT or be in a great state of roadworthyness), then Car#2's insurance will be liable for all costs unless you can personally sue the driver of car#3 (good luck with that).

2
0
Silver badge

Simple

Mandatory dash cam pointed at the driver. You wouldn't allow that. Same as using phone for telemetry.

9
0

Re: Simple

Since finding dash cam russia, for educational reasons as well as a good laugh, ive had a dash cam running when ever im driving. 2 reasons,

1. to cover my ass if someone does something stupid and causes an accident,

2' it also more importantly makes me drive with more care as it also records any mistakes I make.

Definately advise everyone to fit on in their own interests. Lidl do them for 45 gbp.

Also with regard to using a mp when im driving, its in my pocket so cant get it out to answer. Always find somewhere to pull in and stop. By then every caller has rung off!!

Ted.

12
0

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018