SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the when-does-investigating-become-snooping dept.
Police officers are worried they lack the right powers and resources to properly investigate whether a mobile phone was being used by a driver at the time of a crash, a new study has found.
Four out of five collision investigators surveyed for the research indicated mobile phone involvement in non-fatal accidents was under-reported, with half agreeing the role of phones was even overlooked in fatal crashes.
Three quarters of British officers participating in the online poll undertaken by the University of the West of England (UWE Bristol) were unable to report the full proportion of road accidents in their force area linked with mobile phone use each year. A similar percentage of officers indicated that better mechanisms to quickly analyse and investigate phone usage would be most likely to improve data collection.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by janrinok on Saturday November 26 2016, @07:30PM
But that is what they are arguing this case for - they are not allowed to have the evidence that the phone was being used to prove or disprove their statements. So, if they see someone with a phone in their hand they have to assume that it is switched on and being used.
If the police had the information but the records show that the phone was not in use, then his solicitor could have the same records, and that would also help the poor driver who is accused of being distracted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 26 2016, @07:36PM
Then the police can go through the courts, which can be difficult for a reason. Sometimes they won't always get what they want and sometimes bad guys will get away, but that's fine. I'm tired of them trying to manipulate idiots into surrendering all of our rights.
(Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Saturday November 26 2016, @10:42PM
Where things stand right now:
a) Cops say "Cel phone users are responsible for car crashes! DANGER! DANGER!"
b) I say "How do you know this?"
c) Cops say "We don't have any evidence to prove this, but WE JUST KNOW IT!"
Around here any serious car crash ties up the highway for at least a two hours while police collect "evidence."
They also question the drivers involved, and in some case lay charges related to the crash based on what the evidence tells them.
If there was a significant evidence to suggest that cel phones were the cause of the accident they would have used that to get a warrant, and charges would have been laid against the offender.
I can't recall even one reported case where a driver involved in an accident was charged for using a mobile device at the time it happened.
Right now the only "evidence" that police have is "We found a cel phone in the car."
Since literally 98% of cars contain at least one mobile device, that proves nothing. Correlation is not causation, and cops having unfettered access to our computing devices is purely a fishing expedition.
Beyond that, it all of these millions of mobile devices really were such a significant hazard we should have seen a measurable spike in automobile accidents, or at least a measurable change to the severity or specific attributes of traffic accidents.
In the absence of a) police collected evidence that leads to charges on a regualr basis b) a demonstrable, measurable change in accident statistics that can be directly, scientifically, attributed to cel phones, or c) an even half-assed plausible argument that warrantless search of my computing devices will directly lower accident rates, I prefer that the police stay away form my phone.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday November 27 2016, @05:16AM
If there was a significant evidence to suggest that cel phones were the cause of the accident they would have used that to get a warrant, and charges would have been laid against the offender.
In the US, in most states, if an accident investigator SEES a phone they assume it was in use at the time of the accident. Especially laying on the floor of the car. They will just list it as a contributing factor and use that later to get a warrant (or ignore getting a warrant) to get the phone records. They will seize your text message contents as well as call logs. Even for incoming messages.
This story sounds suspiciously like a play for blanket approval for the right to demand phone records.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Sunday November 27 2016, @05:28PM
c) Cops say "We don't have any evidence to prove this, but WE JUST KNOW IT!"
Bovine excrement! [nsc.org] Are you deliberately lying or simply ignorant? It took me five seconds to disprove your ignorant, illogical, and irrational claim.
You should have said "I haven't looked to see if it's been studied, I JUST KNOW IT!"
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Sunday November 27 2016, @08:03PM
Almost nothing linked from that page could be considered more than opinion. The one actual "study" isn't about actual accident statistics, it's phone survey asking drivers about accidents.
So, of the 6% of drivers who self-report being in an accident, a subset of 6% report using a phone at the time.
This report mostly just reinforces that young inexperienced drivers are more accident prone, not that there's specific causal link between cel phones in cars and increased accidents.
"Cel phones could distract someone and lead to an accident" is NOT the same as "cel phones in a car cause accidents," or, more specific to the cop claims, "If we find a cel phone in a car, we can claim that it caused the accident."
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday November 26 2016, @11:36PM
But they ARE allowed to have the evidence. It's just that due to "time and cost", they don't bother unless there is a fatality or life changing injury.